HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-24-2013 - 5a 1
1 DRAFT Attachment 1
2
3 MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 October 16, 2012
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 16,
10 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, NC.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
13 Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee and Steve
14 Yuhasz
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers
18 Gwen Harvey, Clarence Grier, and Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All
19 other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
20
21 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
22 Chair Pelissier went through the items at the County Commissioners' places.
23 - Pink sheet- Additional Information for item 7c- Pretrial Services for Chatham and
24 Orange Counties, Inc. Request for Additional Funding for FY2012-13
25 - White sheet- PowerPoint for Item 7-d - North Carolina State Clearinghouse Request
26 for Intergovernmental Review of Proposed Private Crossing Closures with the North
27 Carolina Railroad (NCRR)/Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway
28
29 Orange County Library Director Lucinda Munger announced to the public that the
30 Orange County Library is conducting a community needs assessment for their strategic plan.
31 The Orange County Public Library (OCPL) is holding public forums, offering an online survey,
32 and mailing out survey postcards during the month of October. These activities are the first
33 steps toward developing a strategic plan for the library's future, and the library is actively
34 seeking input from County residents. It is called "Deep Roots- New Growth: Creating a
35 Customer Focused Library". The planning process will assess the community's needs on
36 library services and form the basis of a three-year plan for Orange County libraries.
37 All County residents are encouraged to respond to the online survey either from home
38 or at the library. Participation is voluntary and all responses are confidential. The survey will be
39 posted on the library's Web site at www.orangecountync.gov/library.
40 The next forum is taking place on Thursday, October 18 at the Century Center in
41 Carrboro and the Maple View Education Center on Dairyland Road. Community forums are
42 open to all ages and everyone is encouraged to attend to share their thoughts and visions for
43 libraries in Orange County.
44 Complete information is on the library's website and all Orange County Library locations.
45
46
47 PUBLIC CHARGE
48
49 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
50
2
1 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour)
2 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
3 Don O'Leary said that he started an observation that took place on September
4 18th at the last meeting. He said that the way in which the County Commissioners
5 conduct meetings is appalling. He said that the County Commissioners waste time
6 constantly repeating themselves. He said that many people wanted to speak about their
7 property and not enough time was given for them to speak but plenty of time was given to
8 the presentation. He spoke about the County's involvement in ICLEI and stated that it
9 was evil.
10 Ann Charles read a prepared statement:
11 "I'm Ann Charles. I own the property adjacent to Cane Creek Reservoir and
12 OWASA property at the top of Mt. Mitchell Road. Cane Creek community is disappointed
13 with our neighbor, OWASA, who failed to notify us of flagging their property lines in the
14 interest of working with MST staff in placing trails. We had NO IDEA.
15 I personally knew the creator of the Mountains to Sea Trail (MTST), Dr. Allen
16 DeHart. An amazing naturalist, Allen DeHart surely wanted this state to be seen for all its
17 beauty. However, it would not be his intention for any part of the MTST to be inflicted on
18 anyone nor on their community.
19 Having been raised in the Quaker tradition, I try to see things from a broad
20 perspective. I can fairly state: I have two minds about this issue:
21 1) First, I would like to see the MTST totally eliminated from every passing
22 through the Cane Creek Watershed and its surrounding rural neighborhoods.
23
24 Why, because we purchased our property in this location for the quiet and
25 remoteness it affords. We pay our property taxes and feel no obligation to
26 provide those who do not live here with the very thing which hastened us to
27 choose this location and lifestyle.
28
29 But then my other mind says....
30
31 2) I believe in a win-win solution being found for the MTST as I too think the trail
32 is `good' in the proper location. I suggest the County work with Bingham
33 Township to create a rural park to allow for an outdoor/rural experience versus
34 putting trails through a PRIVATE COMMUNITY with its own covenants for
35 care.
36
37 My deepest concern is for safety and privacy. There'll be increased threats and
38 increased insurance fees from fire with no `real' way to manage fire out on the trail when
39 hikers decide to start a little fire for fun/ambiance or goodness knows maybe smoking a
40 cigarette. There'll be increased threats from break-ins to homes and vehicles because of
41 its easy access from the trail. Cane Creek, Thunder Mountain homeowners won't know
42 who has just wandered off the trail or who's scoping their place out to hit now or later.
43 Homeowners' schedules can be determined more easily. Having the trail near homes
44 presents a problem or folks' privacy due to `peeping' into homes through uncovered
45 windows because we have no reason to block them. Goodness knows, I wouldn't let my
46 grandson play in the yard unsupervised with a trail there. Problems arise for hikers when
47 injury, robbery, personal assault and/or rape occur on the trail...who's responsible? This
48 is a secluded area that takes time for police, fire, or rescue officials to reach much less
49 do something about it when they respond to a call. How can they police a trail? How can
3
1 they get fire trucks in a 3-foot path or injured out? This area needs protection from folks
2 just drifting in and out on foot.
3 Since August 1, 2012, I've found six articles alone regarding trail safety in
4 Durham, NC. I have copies for the Board, but will quote just a couple here from the
5 News and Observer.
6 8/4/2012 — Man attached on American Tobacco Trail: a female jogger reported
7 that a man jumped from behind a bush and grabbed her. Man was charged with
8 misdemeanor sexual battery. "Police have suggested that people visit the trail in groups,
9 stay in well-lit areas, and avoid strangers, among other precautions."
10 8/19/2012— Residents to Rally for Trail Safety in Durham:
11 1) "Since January 2011, the Durham Police Department has recorded 23
12 incidents on the trail, including robberies, assaults, and indecent exposures."
13 2) "Residents in the neighborhoods the trail passes are asking the city to help
14 secure the path."
15 3) "Sadly, I no longer use the ATT," Chris McLaughlin wrote, "Last December
16 was one of four people mugged over two weeks, all in the middle of bright,
17 sunny days."
18 4) "Police records show four attacks —two robberies and two simple assaults —
19 occurred over 12 days in May."
20 5) "A similar pattern —five attacks in eight days —took place in December."
21
22 8/23/2012—Another Assault on Tobacco Trail:
23 1) "Police announce sixth crime reported on the trail since May 14."
24 2) "Residents in the neighborhoods the trail passes are asking the city to help
25 secure the path."
26 3) "Some neighbors believe recent break-ins of some neighborhood homes that
27 border the ATT may have been result of easy criminal access from the ATT,
28 Cotton wrote."
29 4) "When it's starting to get dark, it's not a time to be on any trail in the United
30 States," per Police Chief Jose L. Lopez.
31
32 8/30/2012— Chapel Hill Area Crime Report from Sergeant Butch Clark (included
33 in articles presented)
34
35 So you see, I choose to urge you to postpone any further planning for the MTST—
36 Bingham section (including all exploratory trail routing) until all options are explored with
37 the input from the community residents targeted.
38 I want to thank each Commissioner for devoting thoughtful time to this item. The
39 Cane Creek community see themselves as caretakers of not only the watershed but each
40 other. It's a small piece of the planet, but what happens here is the model for others to
41 follow."
42
43 Chris Silva was representing Jeff Stephens and read a prepared statement:
44
45 "Dear Commissioners,
46
47 In 2001 I purchased 10 acres of land bordering a portion of Cane Creek and in in 2003
48 built my house and have lived here ever since. This will be the last place I ever plan to live.
49
4
1 I was attracted to this land for several reasons: Its beauty, the privacy it afforded, and
2 the existing environmental easement which was already in place at the time of purchase.
3 Because of this easement which protects my land in perpetuity, I cannot develop, clear, or
4 despoil in any way almost half of my 10 acres and I would not have it any other way. When I
5 walk on this protected area of my land I do so with much respect. I tread very lightly and use
6 the utmost care not to harm either flora or fauna--not breaking branches or trampling on the
7 forest understory of plants; not harming or harassing spiders, snakes, or other living creatures;
8 not compromising the banks of the creek by careless walking or other activity.
9 Could I trust total strangers to take the same care? Would they value my land the same
10 way I do? We all know the answer to this is "No". I do not want to see even one plastic bottle,
11 even one stray piece of paper, or one of anything else discarded or even inadvertently dropped
12 into this pristine environment. That would inevitably happen if other people, even well
13 intentioned ones, were granted free access to my land and that is unacceptable to me.
14 I am highly opposed to having my property become a part of this trail system and will
15 fight hard against that happening. Please do not put me and many others in the position of
16 having to do so. Find another path."
17
18 Respectfully,
19
20 Jeff Stephens
21 4515 Mystic Lane
22 Hillsborough NC 27278
23 uiams @mindsprinq.com
24
25 Geoff Hegedes said that the Mountains to Sea Trail should not be placed where it
26 is currently proposed. He has a lot of experience hiking all over the U. S. in very remote
27 places. He said that trails that have easy access points to the public tend to attract an
28 undesirable crowd. One example is the Tobacco Trail, which has had 30 incidences this
29 year, which were near access points. He said that the Mountains to Sea Trail does have
30 easy access points and this is worrisome. Secondly, he is concerned about the fire
31 hazard because of no fire roads being built into the area.
32 Jim O'Connor read a prepared statement:
33 "I'm puzzled. Aren't you the same people, along with the OWASA members and
34 various citizens, who worked as a team to do an excellent job of protecting Cane Creek
35 Reservoir for its original purpose till now?
36 And here we are now talking about uncontrolled access, uncontrolled hours for
37 who knows who traipsing at will for 365 days a year for who knows what besides simply
38 hiking.
39 This land wasn't set aside as multi-purpose land. What happened to our regard
40 for the initial purpose of the reservoir and adjacent property owners?
41 Why spoil this now?
42 - Till now, all access has been limited to one Gated Controlled Entry
43 - Sections most likely to be breached have 8 ft chain link fence
44 - Teer Road has been gated to stop the proliferation of accumulated trash and
45 uncontrolled parties.
46 - "No Trespassing" signs virtually surround the entire perimeter
47 - Furthermore, hunters and a rowers' club who wanted access 365 days a year
48 were denied their requests.
49
50 So why would we now even consider opening a "door" for all to follow?
5
1 Are we thinking that those who have been denied other such freedoms of access
2 will not be feeling unfairly treated?
3 If we go ahead with this MTS trail through Cane Creek, shouldn't we expect
4 others already denied to vigorously renew their efforts?
5 Shouldn't we expect yet others to insist on who-can-tell what encroachments and
6 cry foul if they don't get them?
7 Moreover, the MTS already has an existing trail elsewhere that has been already
8 satisfactorily traversed from one end to the other.
9 In any case, is MTS now to be given liberties others were denied? Please, let's
10 deny them, one and all!
11 If you are unwilling to do so, can we at a minimum count on:
12 1. Strict Controlled Access —as with Eno State Park's five controlled access
13 points
14 2. Daylight hours only
15 3. NO camping and no fires whatsoever
16 4. Regular surveillance and strict enforcement
17 Are we absolutely committed to these and other constraints?
18
19 Why? Four reasons:
20 1. We're protecting a primo drinking water source reservoir.
21 2. It has 19 miles of shore line surrounded by mostly forested roadless land
22 which has been drought stricken more than once lately, and there are no fire
23 roads!
24 3. We're talking about many long range hikers not necessarily adverse to
25 overnight camping or smoking en route, (and not just cigarettes).
26 4. With uncontrolled access, just far enough out of sight and sound, we can
27 expect those with intentions other than a great hike from the mountains to the
28 sea to find their way to ideal nooks, crannies, and coves — and once there to
29 have some uncontrolled parties.
30
31 And we're talking about a contiguous habitat for rare and skittish species found
32 few other places in the Piedmont, if any. The exceptionally rare eagles, bobcats, snowy
33 egrets, coyotes and such will have to head elsewhere, some no doubt ending up as
34 roadkill.
35 And we're talking about what our children will think of our not being mindful that
36 the Creator surely wanted us to care for every living thing and part of the creation, that is,
37 for every kind of being to have a place to live and procreate under the sun!
38 In conclusion, let's say YES to a MTS trail as originally planned — or elsewhere;
39 but, let's decidedly say NO to an invasion of the reservoir.
40 In other words, I'm for us not letting this MTS trail through OWASA's Cane Creek
41 Reservoir.
42 Speaking in defense of rare and disappearing wildlife and their precious habitat,
43 the: Jewel of the Piedmont."
44 John Silva read a prepared statement:
45
46
47
48
49
50
6
1
2 STATEMENT TO BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
3 OCTOBER 16, 2012
4 Good evening, my name is John Silva, a resident of Cane Creek in Bingham Township.
5 I would like to thank the Orange County Board of County Commissioners (OC BOCC)
6 for the opportunity to address ongoing concerns regarding the proposed segment of the
7 Mountain to Sea Trail (MST) in the Cane Creek (CC) watershed and the surrounding CC
8 community.
9 I would like to have the written statement I am about to read recorded in tonight's
10 minutes.
11 Cane Creek residents have communicated with the OC BOCC, OWASA, Orange
12 County Land Management, OC Administrators, the NC State Trails Manager, and
13 representatives of the Friends of the Mountain to Sea Trail regarding the fatal flaws in the CC
14 segment of the MST.
15 It is important to reinforce that the CC segment of the MST runs within yards of rural
16 residences, presents unacceptable and unnecessary risks to Cane Creek residents,
17 compromises the security of the Cane Creek Reservoir, and threatens to compromise the water
18 quality of a main water supply for Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
19 The Orange Grove Fire Chief has provided a written memo of concern to OWASA,
20 Orange County, and FMST. He has publically stated that bulldozers would be needed to fight a
21 fire in the CC segment of the proposed trail. What would that do to the water quality of the
22 Cane Creek Reservoir?
23 The Orange County Sheriff has publically stated that special vehicles would be needed
24 to access the trail in an emergency. There will be slow response time to any incident on this
25 remote section of trail with no access points.
26 The CC segment is an unnecessary embellishment of the MST project given that the
27 MST already spans the entire state as noted in public statements by FMST and as noted in
28 Raleigh-Durham TV news coverage this spring (2012) of a woman who ran the entire MST.
29 OWASA has protected the CC watershed since the planning stages of the reservoir.
30 It is concerning that OWASA would consider opening up the Cane Creek reservoir for
31 unrestricted access. Once maps of this trail segment are publicized in the social media
32 unrestricted access will come from vehicles using our rural roads which are only a couple of
33 minutes off the proposed trail.
34 OWASA can save the county taxpayers money and the county commissioner's valuable
35 time by withdrawing the use a small remote segment of their land for the MST.
36 The convenience of a public trail only yards from one's home has to be weighed against
37 greater community concerns related to security, loss of privacy, increased traffic on private rural
38 roads, the concern with fire and the breach of water quality in the reservoir.
7
1 Delaying the identification of an alternate trial route that will replace the proposed CC
2 segment will simply prolong this matter, wasting more taxpayer money and county government
3 resources.
4 CC residents have been told several times by Rich Shaw of OCLM that he was pursuing
5 the "path of least resistance" in establishing the MST. To many CC residents this statement
6 now lacks credibility given that CC residents have opposed the CC segment for well over a
7 year.
8 We respectfully ask that the OC BOCC request that Rich Shaw and OCLM to use
9 the fall season to explore viable alternatives for a recreational trail that does not pass
10 through the OWASA/Cane Creek communities as presently proposed in the MST plan.
11 We are united in our resolve to remove the proposed MST trail from the Cane Creek
12 community and have the resources and community support to pursue other actions if
13 necessary.
14 Thank you. John M. Silva imscms67@qmail.com
15 Chris Weaver read a prepared statement:
16 "I have no issue with trails especially when they already exist. But these additional trails
17 force many questions that need to definitively answered rather than be allowed to proceed
18 by the "appearance" of cohesion by a portion of the community.
19 The Open House Information format for the MTST was not a proper Hearing which the
20 county deserves.
21 The Questions that were written down and submitted by the public were lost and I have
22 not heard if they were recovered, and I have not heard any follow up on the proposed
23 "survey" from Mr. Shaw in my email correspondence with him.
24 We have two possibilities on the MTS Trail. It is either a benign Public Access idea that
25 the Non Jurisdictional, Non-Profit, Promotional MTS group wishes to expand into
26 people's back yards with the blessing of the State and our local planners. Or it is a
27 mechanism to aid the County to achieve benchmarks and goals to control property and
28 water set forth in 2000 Final Shaping Orange Plan and the precursor 1999 Measuring
29 Sustainability Index.
30
31 Either way the trail presents some clear problems.
32 1. The use is unregulated as far as operating times.
33 2. The liability issues are huge and as yet there is no offer for indemnity to the
34 landowners by the State or MTST
35 3. Emergency services have great concerns about limited access to narrow trails for
36 rescue and fire response.
37 4. Citizens along the route are concerned with their privacy and property
38 5. What will happen to hikes during hunting season?
39 6. At what point will Eminent Domain be considered?
40 I would much rather see the energy and effort being applied to this new future alternate
41 routes but put into the existing trail as it stands now and I would support a motion to
42 eliminate the entire southern proposed route along the Cane Creek water shed."
43
44
45
46
8
1 Kathy Andrews read a prepared statement:
2
3 "Fellow Citizens and Commissioners,
4
5 "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are
6 endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,
7 and the Pursuit of Happiness —" The Pursuit of Happiness —the word, happiness, in the 1700's
8 came from the word `happenstance' which simply meant the traits or abilities, or `gifts', if you
9 will, each of us are born with. So the Pursuit of Happiness translates more accurately to the
10 use of your talents to make your way in life.
11 Knowing this, all people have talents to offer that make our country the unique and
12 prosperous identity it is. We are not oppressed by dictators or rulers, czars or shahs, who force
13 their will upon us. We stand to occasions and find answers. Unfortunately, we have public
14 servants here in Orange County that see this view differently.
15 Seemingly, everyone has heard of UN Agenda 21, Sustainable Development. It is
16 presented to us as a good and wholesome idea for our future. In fact, that is quite the opposite.
17 Agenda 21 seeks to remove the right to own property as well as to control every aspect of our
18 lives. It is happening under our own watchful eyes by calling it something else. Something
19 beautiful. Conjuring idyllic dreams. A mask, if you will. Right here, in Orange County and
20 many other North Carolina cities the program is well underway.
21 The Mountains to Sea Trail is the portion of Agenda 21 to control the water. When
22 water and food production are controlled, we become slaves to the controller. Are you aware
23 that when the county takes control of the water on private property you are banned from using
24 it? It is most often fenced off from you and all that might want to purchase it in the future. Are
25 you aware brokers have approached private citizens to purchase their streams in Northern
26 Orange County? Why that area for the trail? Are you aware farmers have been presented
27 options to purchase the right to the water on their land, which then allows the county to control
28 all uses of the land? The first step in this water control is happening right before us in the
29 name of `Sustainable Development'.
30 The reality is loss of personal property. Property owners are forced to care for that land,
31 as dictated by the commissioners, with fines being imposed for non-compliance. Imagine,
32 fining you for not doing work on the land they now control. These fines typically end in default
33 and acquisition of the rest of the property as the owner sells a portion because of monetary
34 need. Within a matter of years the county will own the land. Property rights are gone. The
35 Mountain to Sea Trail is a green mask, the `wolf in sheep's clothing'. The wolf does not remove
36 the costume until he captures the sheep.
37 Though I am not directly affected by a waterway on my property, I am affected, as is
38 every citizen of Orange County by the water restrictions to be imposed in the future and the
39 goals this project sets for our future way of life. Please wake up.
40
41 Kathleen Andrews, resident of Orange County"
42
43 Mary Carter is a resident of Hillsborough. She said that the citizens are dealing
44 with a lack of transparency. She said that this is charging forward regardless of the cost
45 or inconvenience to the citizens. She said that there are many unanswered concerns
46 about the trail, and she listed them:
47 - What exists for private landowners who have trail users enter on private
48 property?
9
1 - Are the entities allowed a rebate on property taxes by the County for the land
2 granted for easement, or does the County still wish to secure revenue for the
3 grantor?
4 - What proposals are in place to assure security on the trail?
5 She said that it seems that the County Commissioners seem to promote what
6 they like over the rule of the people in general. She said that there are more concerns,
7 but the County Commissioners need to figure out a way to collaboratively share the
8 information with the population.
9
10 Bill Charles read a prepared statement:
11 "My name is Bill Charles and I wish to speak on the behalf of a group that has not
12 yet been here, all the Orange County property owners and citizens that may be directly
13 affected by the proposed Mountain to Sea Trail (MST).
14 The MST organization has proposed the trail to be somewhere in a mile wide
15 swath or corridor passing from the Haw River, North along Cane Creek, through the
16 OWASA lands, then North-East to the Eno River. (Primarily in Bingham Township). The
17 possibly affected parties are not just the property owners inside the corridor, but also
18 citizens with property boundaries contiguous to its East and West borders. The final
19 route may not be centered in the corridor, but may pass close to its fringes and affect
20 these outside properties. The total affected parties may well number in the hundreds.
21 We have heard many questions and seen much opposition to the MST from the
22 citizens opposed to the OWASA trail routing. What part of this opposition was caused by
23 lack of communication by OWASA, and the citizens who only became aware of the trail
24 plans by flags being placed along their properties? This lack of involvement has fueled
25 some rancor.
26 I ask that the same lack of communication not be applied to the much greater
27 sections of the trail proposed North and South of the reservoir. All of these Orange
28 County property owners deserve to be informed about the MST planning in their areas.
29 We believe that the board can take a leadership role and inform and involve citizens as
30 partners in the decisions that will possibly affect them.
31 So, in the interest of transparency and public interest, we, once again, ask that
32 the Mountains to Sea Trail be placed on an upcoming regular agenda for public
33 discussion. Given the problems with prior meetings, we ask that the topic be placed first
34 on the agenda. We hope to cover the following topics:
35 - First— how to create a process to directly and formally notify all property
36 holders who could potentially host the trail. These are property holders in the
37 one mile swath and the contiguous properties. These property holders must
38 be informed on issues such as: parking, trail development and maintenance,
39 liability risks to property owners, safety, security and fire response. Also, what
40 are the standard terms of permanent easements that might be placed on their
41 property.
42 - Second, where might the access points be located and how will they be
43 secured and managed? Every known park or trail access point in Orange
44 County is a secured public location that is actively managed. Bingham has no
45 managed access points. Even the few homes in the Thunder Mountain
46 community that support the trail have insisted that there be no access points
47 in their community.
48 - Third, what are the rules and expectations between the County and OWASA,
49 given OWASA's recent comments that the Bingham routes be set before a
50 trail is routed on land near the reservoir.
10
1
2 We believe that once your board is updated, you will agree that work in Bingham
3 and OWASA is premature and should be discontinued until the county has engaged
4 impacted property holders. The trail should be invited into our neighborhood, not
5 mandated upon our neighborhood because it fits the larger goal of an organization that
6 does not even reside in Orange County.
7 This issue is important to us —and without a real dialog, attitudes will degrade and
8 community leaders will begin to solidify opposition to what should otherwise be a positive
9 project.
10 Please start a meaningful public discussion on the Mountains to Sea trail, and
11 place the topic at the start of your agenda.
12 Thank you."
13
14 Chair Pelissier said that this item was put on an earlier agenda as a report even
15 though there was a petition to put it on an agenda. The response has been that it is a
16 report item and that it will not come up until the staff has come up with more definitive
17 information. She said that this is not a project of the County per se, but it is a project of
18 the Mountains to Sea Trail.
19
20 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
21 (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda
22 below.)
23
24 3. Petitions by Board Members
25 Commissioner McKee said that he would like a status report on the request to have
26 more meetings on the MTST and Chair Pelissier said that Kate Dixon at the state MTST would
27 be organizing a meeting in the near future.
28 Commissioner Gordon petitioned the board to send a letter to Chancellor Thorp to thank
29 him and the University of North Carolina for adding 107.6 acres of environmentally sensitive
30 land to the Mason Farm Biological Reserve. This is a part of the Parker Property, a 126.5 acre
31 tract conveyed to UNC at Chapel Hill by William and Athena Parker in 1976. She made
32 reference to her handout. She said that the Parker family gave this land to the University with
33 the hope that it would be preserved. The 107.6 acres will be administered and managed by the
34 N.C. Botanical Garden as part of the Mason Farm Biological Reserve. The remaining 18.9
35 acres of the Parker property will be left undeveloped for the next 25 years.
36
37 Commissioner Jacobs petitioned the Board to do more formal recognitions of community
38 residents such as Chapel Hill Creamery that just won an award for its cheese, the anonymous
39 Boy Scout that raised money for Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
40 (DEAPR), etc. He said that the County should honor these residents that are achieving in their
41 realms.
42
43 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
44
45 a. Resolution of Recognition for Volunteer Fire Departments in Orange
46 County for Reducing Homeowners' Fire Insurance Costs
47 The Board considered adopting a resolution to recognize the Volunteer Fire
48 Departments in Orange County for their diligent efforts in reducing homeowners' fire insurance
49 costs.
50
11
1 Commissioner McKee read the resolution:
2
3
4 Res. 2012-88
5
6
7
8 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
9 RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION FOR VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS IN ORANGE
10 COUNTY FOR
11 REDUCING HOMEOWNERS' FIRE INSURANCE COSTS
12
13 WHEREAS, fire insurance for homeowners and businesses is impacted by the capabilities of
14 the local fire department covering the structures, including the distance from the
15 fire station; and
16
17 WHEREAS, in recent years, insurance companies have used new mapping technology to
18 determine a more exact distance from a fire station to an insured structure
19 causing a rise in premiums for some homeowners; and
20
21 WHEREAS, insurance premiums for both residential and commercial structures can be
22 impacted by multiple variables, including the ISO (Insurance Services Office)
23 rating of the primary fire department covering a home or business; and
24
25 WHEREAS, many fire departments in Orange County have aggressively worked to reduce fire
26 insurance costs for home and property owners by improving ISO ratings and/or
27 building new stations to cover structures that were previously beyond six (6) miles
28 from a station; and
29
30 WHEREAS, the ISO inspection, conducted by officials with the North Carolina Department of
31 Insurance, Office of State Fire Marshal, looks for proper documentation and/or
32 demonstration for staffing levels, sufficient firefighting equipment, proper
33 maintenance of equipment, 9-1-1 communications capabilities and availability of
34 water sources; and
35
36 WHEREAS, fire departments, through mutual aid agreements, assist each other, including
37 working together to demonstrate water haul capabilities during ISO evaluation;
38 and
39
40 WHEREAS, Orange County is covered by 12 fire departments — Efland, Eno, New Hope,
41 Orange Grove, Cedar Grove, Caldwell, and White Cross fire departments cover
42 rural districts; Orange Rural (Hillsborough), Chapel Hill and Carrboro fire
43 departments cover municipal and rural areas; and Mebane and North Chatham
44 fire departments are located outside of Orange County, but cover areas within
45 Orange County;
46
47 NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners does
48 hereby acknowledge the support Orange County fire departments have displayed
49 in reducing insurance expenses for property owners in Orange County.
12
1
2 This the 16th day of October 2012.
3
4 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
5 Orange County Board of Commissioners
6
7
8 Caldwell Fire Chief Brad Allison accepted the resolution on behalf of the Fire Chiefs
9 Council and all of the volunteer fire departments in Orange County.
10
11 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
12 approve the resolution to recognize the Volunteer Fire Departments in Orange County for their
13 diligent efforts in reducing homeowners' fire insurance costs.
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 5. Consent Agenda
17 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
18 5-f— FY 2012-2013 Purchase of Vehicles through Vehicle Replacement Internal Service
19 Fund
20 5-g — Legal Advertisement for Quarterly Public Hearing — November 19, 2012
21
22 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
25 Hemminger to approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
27
28 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
29
30 f. FY 2012-2013 Purchase of Vehicles through Vehicle Replacement Internal
31 Service Fund
32 The Board considered approving the final list of County vehicles to be purchased
33 through the Vehicle Replacement Internal Service Fund established with the FY2012-13 Budget
34 and authorize staff to purchase.
35 Commissioner McKee said that in almost all of the categories they have funds to re-
36 purpose vehicles but in two departments — Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and
37 Recreation and Social Services - are getting replacement vehicles. He asked if the vehicles
38 were being replaced specific to the requests or if they were just replacing vehicles. His concern
39 is that Parks would need specific types of vehicles, etc. He would like to buy the specific
40 vehicle to match the department.
41 Jeff Thompson said that staff meets with departments to talk about the needs.
42 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
43 approve the final list of County vehicles to be purchased through the Vehicle Replacement
44 Internal Service Fund established with the FY2012-13 Budget and authorize staff to purchase.
45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
46
47 g Legal Advertisement for Quarterly Public Hearing — November 19, 2012
48 The Board considered the legal advertisement for items to be presented at the joint
49 Board of County Commissioners/Planning Board Quarterly Public Hearing scheduled for
50 November 19, 2012.
13
1 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 5, #4 and said that she sent a question
2 to the Planning Department and there was a revised notice #4 (lavender sheet), which is shown
3 below:
4 4. Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance Amendments: Amendments to Chapter
5 30, Article 2 of the Orange County Code of Ordinances have been proposed by Orange County.
6 This section of the code is commonly referred to as the "Educational Facilities Impact Fee
7 Ordinance." Section 30-34 Public school impact fee exceptions is proposed to be amended in
8 order to exempt from the required impact fee the relocation of an existing stick built,
9 modular, or mobile home used for residential purposes onto a previously undeveloped
10 parcel in certain circumstances.
11 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
12 to approve the revised legal advertisement for items to be presented at the joint Board of
13 County Commissioners/Planning Board Quarterly Public Hearing scheduled for November 19,
14 2012.
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 a. Minutes
18 The Board approved the minutes from August 17, 30 and September 11, 2012 as
19 submitted by the Clerk to the Board.
20 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds
21 The Board adopted a release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related
22 to 24 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with
23 NCGS.
24 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
25 The Board adopted a release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related
26 to thirty-six (36) requests for property tax release and/or refund in accordance with North
27 Carolina General Statute 105-381.
28 d. Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budget Amendment#3
29 The Board approved budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal
30 year 2012-13 for Library Services; Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and
31 Recreation; County Capital Project Ordinances; Department on Aging; Board of Elections;
32 School Capital Project Ordinance; Health Department; and Efland Volunteer Fire
33 Company, Inc.
34 e. Application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Chapel Hill —
35 Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) and Contingent Approval of Budget Amendment
36 #3-A Related to CHCCS Capital Project Ordinances
37 The Board approved an application to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
38 (NCDPI) to release funds from the NC Education Lottery account related to FY 2012-13
39 debt service payments for Chapel Hill —Carrboro City Schools, and to approve Budget
40 Amendment #3-A (amended School Capital Project Ordinances), contingent on the State's
41 approval of the Application and authorize the Chair to sign.
42 f. FY 2012-2013 Purchase of Vehicles through Vehicle Replacement Internal Service
43 Fund
44 This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
45 consideration.
46 g Legal Advertisement for Quarterly Public Hearing — November 19, 2012
47 This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
48 consideration.
49 h. Interlocal Agreement between Town of Hillsborough and Orange County for
50 Erosion Control Services
14
1 The Board approved an updated Interlocal Agreement to continue implementation of the
2 erosion control program for the Town of Hillsborough by Planning & Inspections' Erosion
3 Control Division.
4 i. Retiree Health Insurance Eligibility for County Commissioners
5 The Board approved the resolution, which is incorporated by reference, (Attachment 3)
6 reflecting the Board's decision to make Commissioner eligibility for retiree health insurance
7 commensurate with the eligibility requirements for Orange County employees effective
8 October 2, 2012.
9 L Electronic Medical Record/Practice Management System Replacement
10 The Board approved the replacement of the Health Department's Electronic Medical
11 Record/Practice Management System with the purchase of the Patagonia Health Electronic
12 Medical Record/Practice Management System with existing Medicaid Cost Settlement
13 funds.
14 k. Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2012
15 The Board amended its regular meeting calendar for 2012 by:
16
17 Changing the location of the BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing meeting scheduled for
18 Monday, November 19, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. FROM the DSS Offices, 113 Mayo Street, TO
19 the Central Orange Senior Center (Adjoining Triangle Sportsplex), 103 Meadowlands
20 Drive, Hillsborough, N. C. (Dinner meeting with the Planning Board at 5:30 p.m. will remain
21 at Link Government Services Center).
22
23 6. Public Hearings-NONE
24
25 7. Regular Agenda
26
27 a. Southern Orange County Government Services Campus Master Plan
28 Adoption
29 The Board received and considered adopting a Master Plan for the Southern Orange
30 County Government Services Campus; authorizing the Manager to submit the necessary
31 application and fees to the Town of Chapel Hill for the Special Use Permit ("SUP") Modification
32 process for this project; authorizing the Chair to execute an amendment to the Clarion
33 Associates Agreement dated May 15, 2012 in the amount not to exceed $37,500 for potential
34 additional services related to the SUP process; and considered authorizing the Chair to contact
35 the Town of Chapel Hill regarding adjusting the SUP modification process and related fees for
36 this project.
37 Engineer in Asset Management Services Jeff Thompson said that in August this year,
38 the Board of County Commissioners authorized the staff to move forward with a concept plan
39 and staff has been available for walking tours of the property. Staff is preparing to submit a
40 special use permit to the Town of Chapel Hill. The intention of this meeting is to formally adopt
41 the Master Plan and associated guidelines.
42 Roger Waldon from Clarion and Associates made a PowerPoint presentation.
43
44
45 Southern Orange County
46 Government Services Campus Master Plan
47 October 16, 2012
48 Orange County Board of County Commissioners
49
50 Presentation Objectives
15
1 - Activity Since Last Status Report
2 - Design Guidelines
3 - Adjustments to Master Plan
4 - Draft Plan
5 - Update on Approval Process/ Fees
6
7 Activity Since Last Status Report
8 - Presentation to BOCC on August 21,
9 - Public Information Meetings on September 4
10 - Meetings with Stakeholders and Town Staff
11 - Revisions to Map Based on Additional Information
12 - Development of Design Guidelines
13 Design Guidelines
14 - Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan
15 - Chapel Hill 2020 Plan
16 - Chapel Hill Design Guidelines
17 - TJCOG High Performance Guidelines for Triangle Region Public Facilities
18 - Planning Best Practices
19 - Site Planning
20 - Infrastructure
21 - Undisturbed Areas
22 - Sustainability
23 - Buildings
24
25 Adjustments to Master Plan
26 - Based on Concept "B"from August 21 Meeting
27 - Added Connection to Carolina North Greenway/ Bikeway
28 - Added Homestead Road Improvements
29 - Clarified Language Regarding Expansion of Existing Buildings
30 - Clarified Buffer and Setback Lines
31
32 Update on Approval Process/Fees
33 - Process
34 o 12 month timeframe
35 o Two steps: Concept Plan, Special Use Permit
36 o Up to 17 meetings
37 o Recommended adjustment to project budget
38
39 - Application Fees
40 o Concept Plan & Special Use Permit Modification estimate $1,10,000
41
42 Next Steps
43 - BOCC Approval of Master Plan
44 - Submission of Concept Plan Application to Town of Chapel Hill
45 - Submission of Special Use Permit Modification to Town of Chapel Hill
46
47 Roger Weldon said that they are ready to submit to Chapel Hill the concept plan and
48 they can do it tomorrow since it is one of Chapel Hill's deadline dates for concept plans.
16
1 Frank Clifton said that the last bullet has the Chair talking with the Mayor about the fees
2 for this process. Also, this topic will be one of the items to discuss at the joint meeting with the
3 Town of Chapel Hill in 2013.
4 Commissioner Gordon asked what was included in the Master Plan that will be given to
5 the Town. Roger Waldon said that the concept plan application to the Town has the application
6 form and the map of the plan and existing conditions. The plan is to take the text in the
7 abstract and the design guidelines with a cover letter.
8 Commissioner Gordon suggested that this be sent to the Board of County
9 Commissioners as well and Roger Waldon said that he would.
10 Commissioner Jacobs asked Roger Waldon about the greenway next to the property
11 and the experience with crime on greenways in Chapel Hill.
12 Roger Waldon said that the experience in Chapel Hill has been favorable and crime has
13 not been occurring.
14 Chair Pelissier said that this would be a good to present at the Assembly of
15 Governments meeting.
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
17 Hemminger to adopt a Master Plan for the Southern Orange County Government Services
18 Campus; authorize the Manager to submit the necessary application and fees to the Town of
19 Chapel Hill for the Special Use Permit ("SUP") Modification process for this project; authorize
20 the Chair to execute an amendment to the Clarion Associates Agreement dated May 15, 2012
21 in the amount not to exceed $37,500 for potential additional services related to the SUP
22 process; and authorize the Chair to contact the Town of Chapel Hill regarding adjusting the
23 SUP modification process and related fees for this project.
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 b. Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Community Center and Budget
27 Amendment #3-B
28 The Board considered establishing a County Capital Project for the construction of a
29 Rogers Road Neighborhood Community Center and approving Budget Amendment #3-B and
30 authorizing the Manager to draft an Interlocal Agreement.
31 Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert said that the most recent discussion on this
32 issue was on September 6t" and the Board of County Commissioners approved moving
33 forward, as follows:
34
35 - move forward with a new "green" community center;
36 - to ask the Manager to find $380,000 more to move into the fund already
37 established with $120,000;
38 - to work with RENA and Habitat for Humanity on the design and implementation
39 of this community center;
40 - to ask the towns to contribute computers, supplies, permitting costs, connection
41 costs and the first 12 months of utilities towards this project;
42 - to ask the towns to expedite the permitting process; and
43 - to be able to start immediately to bring this project back to the BOCC October
44 meeting to finalize going forward.
45
46
47 On September 18, 2012 the Carrboro Board of Aldermen reviewed the Interim Report
48 from the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force and approved the following motion:
49
50 MOTION WAS MADE BY ALDERMAN SLADE AND SECONDED BY ALDERMAN
17
1 LAVELLE THAT THE TOWN OF CARRBORO HAS THE INTENTION OF CONTRIBUTING
2 NOT MORE THAN $900,000 FOR THE TOWN'S PORTION OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER
3 AND COST OF THE SEWER PROJECT. THE TOWN MANAGER SHALL RESEARCH
4 FUNDING SOURCES. TOWN STAFF SHALL ALSO INVESTIGATE HOW THE TOWN CAN
5 RECOUP THE SEWER LINE INVESTMENT COSTS FROM DEVELOPERS. THE BOARD
6 EXPRESSES ITS APPRECIATION TO THE COUNTY FOR THEIR COMMITMENT TO THE
7 PROJECT AND REQUESTS THAT THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL CONSIDER THEIR SHARE
8 OF THE CONTRIBUTION. VOTE: AFFIRMATIVE SIX, ABSENT ONE (COLEMAN)
9
10 On September 28, 2012 the County and Town Managers met and developed the
11 attached recommendations:
12
13 Recommendation 1.c. is to investigate a contractual agreement with Habitat for
14 Humanity to construct a Rogers Road Neighborhood Community Center that would
15 serve the residents of the Rogers Road Neighborhood. The center would be owned by
16 Habitat and leased to Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) for $1 per
17 year.
18
19 A contract between the County and Habitat would be approved by the Board before any
20 funds would be available for the construction of a Rogers Road Neighborhood Community
21 Center.
22
23 On October 3, 2012 the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force met and
24 discussed the attached recommendations from the County and Town Managers. Based on the
25 draft Meeting Summary the Task Force reinforced support for both the Community Center and
26 Sewer in the Historic Rogers Road Community, by the recommending the following:
27
28 1. That the Managers meet and report back to the Task Force at the October 24, 2012
29 meeting, specifically to study how the local governments can cost-share sewer
30 improvements and a community center.
31 2. That the Managers consider the attached "Carrboro" cost sharing option.
32 3. That the Task Force move forward with the Community Center and continue discussions
33 as to how sewer is implemented.
34
35 Michael Talbert said that the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force is
36 scheduled to present its final report to the Assembly of Governments on December 6, 2012.
37 The County's intention is to make a one-time capital contribution ($500,000) toward the
38 construction of a Community Center and negotiate a master lease agreement with Habitat that
39 will authorize the use of the Community Center for public purposes. A sublease could be
40 negotiated with RENA to use this facility for their programs. Many details still have to be worked
41 out before a Community Center could be constructed.
42 Michael Talbert said that the financial impact for this project would be for the Community
43 Center costs which are estimated to be $500,000. The Board agrees to establish a Capital
44 Project for the construction of a Community Center and advance the funding for a Community
45 Center of up to $500,000. The establishment of an Interlocal Agreement, with the Towns to
46 repay the County beginning in Fiscal Year 2013/14 for their share of the Community Center at
47 the same costs sharing percentages outlined in the 1972 Landfill Agreement (43% Orange
48 County, 43% Town of Chapel Hill and 14% Town of Carrboro), is necessary for the County to
49 receive reimbursement from the Towns. The Towns have not yet approved funding a Rogers
50 Road Neighborhood Community Center.
18
1 Michael Talbert said that Budget Amendment #3-B approves funding of $380,000 that
2 will be appropriated from the General Fund's Fund Balance, combined with the Fiscal Year
3 2012/13 approved reserve budget of $120,000 for a Community Center. Budget Amendment
4 #3-B transfers $500,000 from the General Fund to the County Capital Fund for this project. The
5 project is contingent on both an Interlocal Agreement with the Towns of Chapel Hill & Carrboro
6 and the approval of a contract with Habitat for Humanity for the construction and operation of a
7 Rogers Road Neighborhood.
8
9 The Manager's recommendation is to approve the creation of a County Capital Project
10 of $500,000 for a Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Community Center, authorize the
11 Manager to draft an Interlocal Agreement with the Towns and habitat to share the costs of a
12 Community Center, and approve Budget Amendment #3-B.
13 Frank Clifton said that he and the managers met about this today and there is an
14 understanding that the Towns support the cost-sharing and the Community Center.
15 Commissioner Hemminger said that she is excited that they can make this work and
16 there are details to be worked out. She is proud of the County and she is pleased that the
17 Towns want to be part of the cost-sharing.
18 Commissioner Foushee thanked the Board for its commitment to this project. She said
19 that she is grateful to her colleagues for righting an injustice to a neighborhood for 40 years.
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
21 Foushee to establish a County Capital Project for $500,000 for the construction of a Rogers
22 Road Neighborhood Community Center, authorize the Manager to draft an Interlocal
23 Agreement with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and Habitat for Humanity to share the
24 cost of the community center, and approve Budget Amendment #3-B..
25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
26
27 c. Pretrial Services for Chatham and Orange Counties, Inc. Request for
28 Additional Funding for FY2012-13
29 The Board considered a request from Pretrial Services for Chatham and Orange
30 Counties, Inc. to increase its original FY2012-13 funding allocation by $40,000.
31 Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey said that the off-site agency application
32 process was held during the budget cycle in the spring. The Board of County Commissioners
33 made an appropriation of $70,000 to Pretrial Services. There was an additional request to have
34 a grand total of $110,000 to support the operations through the rest of the fiscal year. She
35 recognized Joyce Kuhn, Pretrial Administrator. She said that this is a very valuable function for
36 Orange County.
37 Joyce Kuhn spoke about the services that Pretrial provides to Orange County.
38 Frank Clifton said that one point of clarification is that the legislature has helped fund
39 this service in the past but no longer wants to do that, which is why this is coming forth now. He
40 said that he and Judge Buckner talked about the possibility about some sort of fee structure for
41 this service for the future but for now they are asking the County to fund this service. He would
42 also like to talk to Chatham County about increasing its cost-sharing.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said that he had petitioned that the County look at alternatives in
44 a holistic context. He urged the Board that the timeline for dealing with the people programs
45 occurs no later than the planning of the structure so that there can be a fair and effective
46 criminal justice system.
47 Commissioner Gordon made reference to #3 in the recommendation, "Direct staff to
48 review and strengthen subsequent performance agreements to ensure Orange County
49 investment is strictly applied to Orange County outcomes and consider alternative options to
50 current operations to help offset local costs associated with these services." She asked about
19
1 the information in Attachment 1 from the Budget and Management Analyst. She read from the
2 last paragraph, "Therefore, at the current funding level, Orange County is essentially
3 subsidizing the Chatham County cases, albeit indirectly." She said that it sounds like this
4 program is administered for the two counties and asked how this would happen if Chatham
5 County does not provide enough funds.
6 Joyce Kuhn said that program activity is how they form their request for funding - 30%
7 for Chatham and 70% for Orange County.
8 Frank Clifton suggested having an MOU with Orange County and Chatham County.
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
10 to approve an increased funding to Pretrial Services in the amount of $40,000 for FY2012-13;
11 direct staff to bring back a budget amendment to appropriate the increased allocation; and
12 direct staff to review and strengthen subsequent performance agreements to ensure Orange
13 County investment is strictly applied to Orange County outcomes and consider alternative
14 options to current operations to help offset local costs associated with these services.
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 Commissioner Jacobs asked about the improvements in the Battle Courtroom.
18 District Attorney Jim Woodall said that they are in the process of working on this and
19 they are at the point of looking at audiovisual equipment for the courtroom.
20 Michael Talbert said that the main thing for the courtroom is to update it electronically.
21 This will cost about $90,000.
22 Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the status of wi-fi at the courthouse and Assistant
23 County Manager Clarence Grier said that the County just signed a contract to provide wi-fi to
24 the courthouse two weeks ago.
25
26 d. North Carolina State Clearinghouse Request for Intergovernmental Review
27 of Proposed Private Crossing Closures with the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR)/Norfolk
28 Southern (NS) Railway
29 The Board received information on the North Carolina Department of Transportation
30 (NCDOT) proposal to close private North Carolina Railroad (NCRR)/Norfolk Southern (NS)
31 Railway crossings at Gordon Thomas Drive, Greenbriar Drive and Byrdsville Road in Orange
32 County, and considered a letter submitting scoping comments related to the project.
33 Transportation Land Use Planner Abigail Pittman introduced this item. She said that the
34 Planning Department has received a solicitation for comments from NCDOT with regard to
35 three proposed private crossing closures at Gordon Thomas Drive, Greenbriar Drive, and
36 Byrdsville Road. This is part of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor. These are safety
37 improvements to close private crossings where feasible. The projects are to be performed
38 during the State's FY 2012-FY2016 Work Program and funded with Stimulus High Speed rail
39 Funds.
40
41 Proposed Gordon Thomas Drive Crossing Closure:
42 - 5-6 lots currently accessing crossing
43 - Paschall Dr. a 30' wide graveled private easement
44 - Two ends of Paschall Dr. not connected
45 - New road down Paschall Dr. would have to be built to the public NCDOT public road
46 standards
47 - Non-conformities may be created
48 - Staff encourages a reevaluation of the cost-benefit analysis and other alternatives
49 for this closure as there are so few properties receiving access from the crossing vs.
50 the significant impact to this private community
20
1
2 Proposed Greenbriar Road Crossing Closure:
3 - 8 lots currently accessing crossing north of the RR track
4 - Rename one end of the Greenbriar Dr.
5 - NCDOT option crosses from Whispering Pines Subdivision over to Greenbriar Dr.
6 - Greenbriar Dr. not to NCDOT public road standards
7 - NCDOT option could have nonresidential traffic accessing residential areas
8 - Potential crossings of Rhodes Creek
9 - Location within County Eno EDD
10 - Location south of 1-85 interchange
11 - Adopted Eno EDD Small Area Plan supports an enhanced service road and access
12 system in the area
13 - Explore alternatives that consider larger context of area's access issues,
14 environmental constraints, and Eno EDD development efforts and Small Area Plan
15
16 Proposed Byrdsville Road Crossing Closure:
17 - Approximately 70 homes currently accessing crossing
18 - Approximately 95 homes directly impacted by NCDOT option
19 - None of the existing roads are to NCDOT standards
20 - Route utilizes private access drive on Piedmont Electric's property
21 - Route crosses over Duke Forest property along rear of home sites
22 - Access `block' to east may be unnecessary due to existing alternate access to west
23 - Access to NC 86 at an unsafe angle
24 - Traffic concerns created along 86 that will require a traffic study
25 - Access to Jasper Lane barricaded
26 - Potential significant impacts to large number of residents in this area
27 - Recommend NCDOT explore additional access alternatives
28
29 General Comments:
30 - Staff had insufficient time to coordinate its review with other County departments
31 and the Town of Hillsborough.
32 - Police, Fire, and EMS departments have not been consulted by Planning staff.
33 - Majority of existing roads and easements in study areas have substandard widths,
34 many are graveled, storm drainage pipes are rare and in poor condition, and there
35 are few if any side drainage ditches.
36 - Many utility poles throughout study areas would require relocation.
37 - County UDO limits the number of lots allowed from private access.
38 - County UDO would require new roads to be NCDOT public streets.
39 - Additional right-of-way would be acquired by fee simple purchase or condemnation.
40
41 Staff Recommended Revision to Comment Letter:
42 After the agenda packet was prepared, staff identified the following recommended revision to
43 Comment #5 regarding the Greenbriar Drive proposed private road crossing closure. The
44 comment is being revised to specifically reference the adopted Eno EDD Small Area Plan:
45
46 5. Planning staff requests that more viable alternatives other than the current proposal
47 be explored. This location is part of a County designated and zoned Eno Economic
48 Development District, and is also immediately south of an interchange with 1-85
49 which is planned for improvements. The adopted Eno EDD Small Area Plan
50 supports an enhanced service road and access system in the area, and includes an
21
1 approved Transportation Access Management Concept Plan (copy enclosed for
2 reference).
3
4
5 The Manager recommends that the Board:
6
7 1) Receive the information on the NCDOT proposal to close private NCRR/NS Railway
8 crossings at Gordon Thomas Drive, Greenbriar Drive, and Byrdsville Road in Orange County;
9 and
10
11 2) Provide any additional comments that Board may have to be added to the letter (Attachment
12 2) submitting scoping comments for the Environmental Assessment (EA) to NCDOT.
13
14 Commissioner Gordon made reference to the public input process and asked what
15 provisions will be made by NCDOT to notify property owners.
16 Abigail Pittman said that she does not know the procedure but she would find out. She
17 has called the representative from NCDOT two times, but he has not returned her call.
18 Commissioner Gordon encouraged staff to follow up.
19 Commissioner Jacobs asked if DOT has just picked a few crossings because he knows
20 of more. Abigail Pittman said that these three are on the TIP program.
21 John Roberts said that he could provide the Board with a list of criteria for candidates for
22 closures.
23 Commissioner Jacobs said that staff did a great job but the County should not rely on
24 DOT to be the conduit for the concerns. He suggested being proactive and putting this on the
25 County's website and telling DOT what the Board wants.
26 Chair Pelissier asked Clerk to the Board Donna Baker to schedule another quarterly
27 meeting with DOT.
28 Craig Benedict said that the County can add comments between now and November 7th
29 Chair Pelissier pointed out other comments that the Board wants to direct staff to make
30 modifications that DOT should build access roads on their own easements, and make sure
31 there is a robust public information and comment process.
32 The Board agreed.
33
34 8. Reports
35 a. Environmental Responsibility in Orange County Goals Update with
36 Performance Report
37 The Board received a report regarding "Environmental Responsibility in County
38 Government Goals" progress, and performance "scorecard" results for recent fiscal years
39 Jeff Thompson introduced this annual report and made a PowerPoint presentation.
40
41
42 Environmental Responsibility in Orange County Government
43 Annual Update
44 Board of County Commissioners
45 October 16, 2012
46
47 Purpose
48 iiiiiiiii Establish Annual Report on "Environmental Responsibility Goal" accomplishments
49 iiiiiiiii Report on performance
22
1 iiiiiiiii Current and future year initiatives
2 iiiiiiiii Response to Commissioner requests from June 2011 Utility and Fuel report
3
4 Background
5 iiiiiiiii November 2004— Environmental Responsibility Goals brainstorming session.
6 iiiiiiiii December 2005 - Board adopted goals and policies:
7 Environmental Responsibility in County Government Goal
8 Energy Policy
9 Water Policy
10 Fuel Policy
11 iiiiiiiii February 2006— Environmental Stewardship Action Committee (ESAC) established
12 iiiiiiiii November 2009/May 2010 — Environmental Responsibility Goal (ERG) status report
13 iiiiiiiii June 2011 — Inaugural Utility and Fuel Conservation Report
14
15 Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) Director Dave Stancil
16 continued with the presentation at this point.
17
18 Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) - Objectives
19 iiiiiiiii No Net Loss of Woodlands / Roadside Habitat
20 iiiiiiiii Orange WellNet/ Groundwater Guardian
21 iiiiiiiii Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Options at Parks, Rec Centers (new)
22 iiiiiiiii Action Committee / ERG Working Team?
23
24 DEAPR —Current Initiatives
25 ESAC Initiatives
26 Best Workplaces for Commuters
27 ERG Action Strategies — Prioritization
28 iiiiiiiii Determine Viability of Qualitative Scorecard
29 iiiiiiiii DELTA Intern - GHG Inventory and Forecast Next Steps
30 iiiiiiiii Environmental Education Efforts
31
32 DEAPR — Results
th
33 iiiiiiiii Groundwater Guardian Program — 10 Year
34 GWG Green Sites — 2 Parks
35 iiiiiiiii Roadside Habitat Proposal Presented
36 iiiiiiiii Implemented:
37 Forest Management Policy (No Net Loss of Woodlands +)
38 Forest Management Plans /Wildlife Enhancement Project
39 iiiiiiiii Added 4 wells to Orange WeIINet (lost 1)
40 iiiiiiiii Properly-abandoned Old Wells - Future Parks
41 iiiiiiiii Stream corridor protection at future Northeast Park (state grant)
42 Stormwater and Water Reuse —Stanford Middle School (saving $100,000/year)
43
23
1 DEAPR - New Initiatives
2 iiiiiiiii New Water Reuse and Conservation Projects
3 iiiiiiiii Renewable Energy Options for Parks report
4 iiiiiiiii Create New Forest Management Plans
5 n The "10% Campaign" (with EDC, CES)
6 iiiiiiiii New Environmental Education Efforts
7 iiiiiiiii Expand Paperless Agendas (CFE, PRC)
8
9 DEAPR - Horizon
10 iiiiiiiii State of the Environment 2013 (Jan 2014)
11 Environment or Sustainability Report Card?
12 iiiiiiiii Pursue Groundwater Guardian Green Sites for Additional Parks / "Green Map"
13 iiiiiiiii Continue to Grow Orange WelINet
14 iiiiiiiii New S&W Water Reuse Project with School?
15 iiiiiiiii Determine GHG Next Steps (outreach)
16
17 Blair Pollock from Solid Waste continued with the presentation.
18
19 Solid Waste Objectives
20 iiiiiiiii Reduce Waste Landfilled by 61% per capita
21 iiiiiiiii Maximize recycling and waste reduction opportunities in Orange County
22 iiiiiiiii Continued exploration of alternatives to landfilling of waste
23
24 Solid Waste Goal & Results
25 FY 2010/11 State Orange County
26 Reduction Goal 40% 61%
27 Reduction achieved (1991-92 baseline) -8% 56%
28 Curbside recyclables /hh (Ibs) 249 416
29 Recycling per capita (Ibs) 80 268
30
31
32 Solid Waste Current Initiatives
33 iiiiiiiii Conversion to single stream recycling
34 iiiiiiiii Cart based recycling - 1/3 of rural customers - 2012-13
35 iiiiiiiii Walnut Grove Ch. Rd. solid waste convenience center - 2012-13
36 iiiiiiiii Concept plan for second convenience center - 2013
37 iiiiiiiii Closure of lined landfill - June 30, 2013
38 iiiiiiiii Municipal solid waste to Durham Transfer Station for 2013-14
39 iiiiiiiii Establish additional internal goals for waste reduction/recycling for 2013
40
41 Solid Waste Future Initiatives
42 iiiiiiiii Urban curbside to roll carts in 2013-14
43 iiiiiiiii Next - 1/3 of rural curbside recycling to carts 2014
44 iiiiiiiii Continue modernization of Solid Waste Convenience Centers
24
1 in Consider alternatives to Durham City Transfer Station
2 in Evaluate commercial recycling expansion 2013-14
3 in Develop `buy recycled' policy; paper use reduction goal for County government
4 iiiiiiiii Achieve 61% waste reduction goal and set new higher goal.
5 Sustainability Manager of Asset Management Services Wayne Fenton continued the
6 presentation.
7
8 Objectives
9 Presentation
10 iiiiiiiii Revisiting Department Objectives
11 iiiiiiiii Response to Commissioner requests
12 in Utility and Fuel Scorecard FY 11 and FY 12
13 iiiiiiiii Current and Future Initiatives
14 Department
15 iiiiiiiii Monitoring utility use
16 in Continuously managing efficiency
17 iiiiiiiii Communicating results
18 iiiiiiiii FY 12-13 Initiatives; 5 year horizon
19
20 Energy Scorecard(table)
21
22 Water Scorecard(table)
23
24 Fuel Scorecard(table)
25
26 Current Year Initiatives
27 in Continued growth in geo-thermal —downtown Hillsborough
28 in Building control improvements
29 in Continued lighting improvements
30 in Sale/retirement of older facilities
31 iiiiiiiii Asset improvements (roofs, doors, windows, solar film, vehicles)
32 in Employee education and outreach
33
34 For More Information:
35 Orange County Utility and Fuel Use and Conservation Initiatives -Inaugural Report
36 located at:
37 http://orangecountync.gov/AssetMgmt/documents/AttachmentA-
38 Conservation Report-final.pdf
39
40
41 Commissioner Gordon suggested doing a press release that highlights important things in
42 each of these areas for solid waste, especially the solid waste reduction achieved by Orange
43 County.
25
1 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 33 and the new forest management plans.
2 He asked Dave Stancil about this.
3 Dave Stancil said that there is a land management team that drives how to handle forest
4 management.
5 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to asset improvement and addressing handicapped
6 accessibility. He said that the Link Center is not handicapped accessible and he does not know
7 how much more will be done to improve this building. He asked if there was an aggressive
8 plan.
9 Frank Clifton said that there was going to be a meeting space in the Link Center but now
10 there is not. In each capital project, there are different priorities.
11 Commissioner Jacobs said that the Link Center is a priority.
12 Commissioner Jacobs said that it would be good to share the solid waste goals and results
13 at the Assembly of Governments meeting.
14 Commissioner Hemminger made reference to asset management and asked if the County
15 could put in low flow toilets in all facilities.
16 Jeff Thompson said that when they renovate buildings, they will be putting in low flow
17 toilets.
18 Chair Pelissier asked about a sustainability report and suggested putting it online and an
19 abbreviated version to the media.
20
21 b. Tax Collector's Monthly Report
22 The Board received a monthly report showing the amount collected on each year's taxes
23 charged during settlement, remaining uncollected, and steps being taken to collect the
24 uncollected amount.
25 Tax Administrator Dwane Brinson said that this is the first time they have given this
26 report. He said that this is an internal report. He walked the Board of County Commissioners
27 through the report. For subsequent meetings, this item will be under Information Items.
28 Commissioner Hemminger suggested on the second part of the report to have the title
29 and the year.
30 Chair Pelissier said that it would be helpful to include how many wage garnishments
31 there were in years before compared to this year.
32
33 9. County Manager's Report
34 Frank Clifton made reference to the railroad crossing closures and said that a lot of
35 them were identified nine years ago and then it was updated in 2009. The copy of the report is
36 online.
37 He said that DOT has notified that it will be doing some work on the bridge on Churton
38 Street in Hillsborough.
39
40 10. County Attorney's Report
41 NONE
42
43 11. Appointments
44
45 a. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee —Appointment
46 The Board considered making an appointment to the Adult Care Home Community
47 Advisory Committee.
48 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon
49 to appoint Dr. Anthony John Voight to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee
50 in an At— Large position with a term ending 10/30/13.
26
1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3 b. Affordable Housing Advisory Board —Appointments
4 The Board considered making appointments to the Affordable Housing Advisory Board.
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
6 to appoint Teri Driscoll (with a term ending 9/30/13), and Andrew Shannon, Jr., Dee Jackola,
7 and Christopher Wehrman to the Affordable Housing Advisory Board with terms ending
8 6/30/15.
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11 c. Hillsborough Planning Board —Appointment
12 The Board considered making an appointment to the Hillsborough Planning Board.
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon
14 to appoint John Bemis to a second term to the Hillsborough Planning Board, with a term ending
15 10/31/2015.
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 Commissioner Jacobs said that he has brought this up before but he would like to have
19 some sort of annual written report/comments from our appointee to this board and to other
20 governmental boards like this one so that the County Commissioners can know what the
21 appointee is doing and what the important issues are.
22
23 d. Orange County Parks and Recreation Council —Appointment
24 The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Parks and
25 Recreation Council.
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
27 to appoint Ms. Betty Kahn to the Cedar Grove Township position to the Orange County Parks
28 and Recreation Council with a term ending 3/31/2015.
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 e. Upper Neuse River Basin Association
32 The Board considered making an appointment to the Upper Neuse River Basin
33 Association.
34 Commissioner Hemminger stated that, if another Commissioner wished to be appointed
35 to the Association at a later date, she would step down from the position.
36 Commissioner Hemminger recused herself from voting on this item.
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
38 appoint Commissioner Hemminger to the Upper Neuse River Basin Association for a three-year
39 term.
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 12. Board Comments
43 Commissioner Gordon said that the Orange County Implementation Agreement and Bus
44 and Rail Investment (BRI) Plan were discussed at the October 10 MPO Transportation Advisory
45 Committee (TAC) meeting. She said that she brought the Implementation Agreement and the
46 BRI Plan forward for approval and both were approved unanimously. The Triangle Transit
47 Board of Trustees is the only remaining board that still needs to approve the plan. She
48 explained what the Bus and Rail Investment Plan included.
27
1 Commissioner Gordon said that the Draft 2014-2020 Transportation Improvement
2 Program was also discussed at the TAC meeting. The TAC has released this for comment.
3 The scheduled public hearing is at the November TAC meeting.
4 Commissioner Gordon said that the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group met and
5 discussed the Mountains to Sea Trail. Four people from the public came to comment on this.
6 Commissioner Yuhasz said that the Board of Health is considering a "Smoke Free
7 Public Places" rule. There will be a meeting tomorrow at 8:30 and a public hearing at the main
8 library office at 7:00 p.m. next Wednesday.
9 Commissioner Foushee said that she was invited along with Pam McCall, Director of
10 Nursing at the Health Department and three officials from UNC Hospitals to the Latino Health
11 Initiative. They spent some time in Mexico and visited several medical facilities. She said that
12 the goal is to improve health services to Latino citizens.
13 Commissioner Hemminger said that the St. Paul's Church project is going to save the
14 Hogan historic house and move it to another location on the property. They are receiving
15 private donations to have the house restored.
16 Commissioner McKee said that the New of Orange is doing an insert on the volunteer
17 fire departments. He said that there is a report in the information items regarding the EMS
18 station on the UNC campus. This station has helped reduce response times in that area. It has
19 been located there as a collaborative effort between the County and UNC for approximately one
20 year.
21 Chair Pelissier said that she participated in Project Connect last week and she saw
22 more mothers with babies this year. She said that she attended the NCACC Environmental
23 Steering Committee meeting and most of the goals were submitted by Orange County. She
24 said that she will be serving on the Legislative Goals Committee next year.
25
26 13. Information Items
27
28 • October 2, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
29 • Buckhorn Mebane Utilities Phase 2 Preliminary Bid Information Memo
30 • Orange County Emergency Services - UNC Campus Station Report 2012
31 • Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan — Update
32 • Memorandum Regarding Ban the Box for Employment Applications
33
34 14. Closed Session
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
36 to go into closed session at 10:35 p.m. for the purposes of:
37
38 `To discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on
39 the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," NCGS §
40 143-318.11(a)(5).
41
42 Approval of Closed Session Minutes
43
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
47
48 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
49 Gordon to go back into regular session at 11:20 p.m.
50 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
1
2 15. Adjournment
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon
4 to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m.
5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6
7 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
8
9 Donna S. Baker, CMC
10 Clerk to the Board
1
1 DRAFT Attachment 2
2 MINUTES
3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 WORK SESSION
5 October 25, 2012
6 7:00pm
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Thursday, October
9 25, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
10
11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
12 Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Pam Hemminger
14 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
15 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager
16 Clarence Grier and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be
17 identified appropriately below)
18
19 1. Northern Human Services Center Protect Update
20 Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation Dave Stancil said that
21 staff wanted to share with the Board the results of a year-long process about the future of the
22 Northern Human Services Center. The goal has been to engage the community in the process.
23 He made reference to the memo in the packet. He said that in the previous CIPs there was
24 $250,000 funding for deconstruction, etc. of the existing facility with the expectation that there
25 would be something built in its place. The new CIP has $2 million for 2014-15 for the
26 construction of a new facility or renovation of the existing facility. On March 19th, there was a
27 discussion about this. Some of the thoughts are to have a community room that could be used
28 for things like family reunions, meetings, classes, a stage, etc. There was a subsequent
29 community meeting in September and staff met to review these findings.
30 Staff came up with two options for uses at the Northern Human Services Center. Jeff
31 Thompson made a PowerPoint presentation.
32
33 Northern Human Services Center
34 iiiiiiiii Project Update
35 iiiiiiiii October 25, 2012
36
37 Background
38 CIP Allocations
39 Public Process to Date
40 iiiiiiiii Option 1
41 10,000 square foot community center
42 iiiiiiiii New construction, after de-constructing existing facility
43 iiiiiiiii Pre-engineered, metal building with masonry accents
44 iiiiiiiii Standard Upfit
45 iiiiiiiii Option 1-Example
46
47
48
2
1 iiiiiiiii Option 1
2 Estimated Cost:
3 iiiiiiiii $182 - $210 per square foot
4 Advantages:
5 iiiiiiiii More building for the money
6 n Maximum Design Flexibility
7 iiiiiiiii Maximum Programming/Use Flexibility
8 iiiiiiiii New Construction
9 iiiiiiiii Fewer Unknowns
10 iiiiiiiii Option 1
11 Estimated Cost:
12 iiiiiiiii $182 - $210 per square foot
13 Disadvantages:
14 iiiiiiiii No presence of existing facility
15 iiiiiiiii Loss of Historically and Culturally Significant Facility
16 iiiiiiiii Option 2
17 10,000 square foot community center
18 iiiiiiiii Adaptive re-use of existing central portion of facility
19 iiiiiiiii De-construct classroom wings
20 iiiiiiiii New Roof
21 iiiiiiiii New Building Systems (Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical)
22 iiiiiiiii Standard Upfit
23 Estimated Cost:
24 iiiiiiiii $185 - $217 per square foot
25 Advantages:
26 iiiiiiiii Preservation of Cultural and Historical Significance
27 iiiiiiiii Embodied Energy in Existing Facility re-use
28 iiiiiiiii Reasonable Cost
29 iiiiiiiii Elements of Existing Building to Remain
30 iiiiiiiii Option 2
31 Estimated Cost:
32 iiiiiiiii $185 - $217 per square foot
33 Disadvantages:
34 iiiiiiiii Significant Unknowns
35 iiiiiiiii Restricted Design Flexibility
36 iiiiiiiii Restricted Use and Programming Flexibility
37 iiiiiiiii Next Steps
38 Discussion
39 Preferences
40 Timeline
41 Design Professional Engagement (RFQ)
42 Informal Resident Advisory Group
43
44
3
1 Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the septic system that would be required for this
2 structure and if the funding reflects the septic system required.
3 Frank Clifton said that the septic field determined what size facility they could build. It
4 was a limitation.
5 Commissioner Yuhasz asked if the same people showed up at both meetings.
6 Dave Stancil said that about 75% were repeat attenders and also staff brought visual
7 presentations to the second meeting, which was important to the community.
8 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this was going to be a green building. There was a
9 discussion in the past about using solar panels. He asked if the figures included some kinds of
10 green aspects or alternative construction.
11 Jeff Thompson said that this would definitely be a part of the construction.
12 Frank Clifton said that there are no plans to use geothermal wells.
13 Commissioner Jacobs asked about the process after tonight and Dave Stancil said that
14 it would come back to the Board of County Commissioners as early as November 8t"
15 Commissioner Jacobs suggested inviting all community residents to these meetings
16 where this is being discussed. He said that some of the money the County got from
17 Congressman David Price years ago was supposed to be used for the septic site at Northern
18 Human Services Center, and money was borrowed from this fund to fund other things in the
19 past.
20 Chair Pelissier said that the community was amenable to have an EMS station there.
21 She asked how this would affect the septic system. Jeff Thompson said that an EMS use
22 would not affect the overall system.
23 Commissioner Gordon said that she likes the option of adapting the current building.
24 She feels uncomfortable doing this outside of the budget process.
25 Frank Clifton said that the design work still has to be done, which will take 9-12 months.
26 After that, the County Commissioners can then decide whether or not to build the facility itself.
27 Dave Stancil said that one of the biggest concerns at the meeting was that the
28 community feared the deconstruction would take place and then nothing would happen after
29 that.
30 Commissioner Foushee said that she prefers the adaptive reuse option. She said that
31 the community also prefers this option.
32 Commissioner McKee said that he does not want to make promises and not follow
33 through like with the Rogers Road area.
34 Commissioner Yuhasz suggested moving forward at least with the design for option 2 at
35 a minimum.
36 Commissioner Jacobs agreed that option 2 is the preferred option, but he would like the
37 public to have an opportunity to voice their opinion before the Board acts.
38 Commissioner Jacobs asked about the process about naming this building.
39 Dave Stancil said that this question will be addressed as this is moved forward.
40 Commissioner Jacobs suggested that if there is an advisory board then it needs to be
41 given a copy of the naming policy to refer to.
42 Chair Pelissier said that she preferred option 2. She wants to honor the County's
43 commitment to the community. As for naming the facility, she would like to ask the advisory
44 group for suggestions for names.
45 Commissioner Gordon said that this is part of the naming policy.
46
47 2. Potential License Agreement — Hillsborough Youth Athletic Association
48 Chair Pelissier made reference to the correspondence from HYAA (yellow sheet).
49 Dave Stancil said that the Board asked staff during the budget work sessions to
50 reengage HYAA. There have been conversations in the past about the use of ball fields, etc.
4
1 since 2010. One of the stumbling blocks was the usage fees for the fields and to look at the
2 cost and benefits. Staff did reengage with HYAA and created a draft agreement, which is
3 based on the farmer's market agreement.
4 The basics of the agreement include a lease of three fields at Northern Human Services
5 Center, limited use of the one field at Fairview Park, and usage time and dates. He said that
6 there is some opt out verbiage. The discussion did not include field lighting, which would be
7 billed per usage. There is a memo from HYAA about this. Regarding concessions, it would
8 cost the County more to operate concessions than the revenue made, so a third party vendor is
9 being considered. The proposed agreement is for $3,000 a year. The HYAA proposal was for
10 $1,000. The agreement is for one year to start and the renewal process could begin in the
11 summer.
12 Dave Stancil continued to review provisions within the agreement.
13 Dave Stancil said that there is a staff memo in the packet after the agreement to review
14 the pros and cons of an agreement with HYAA. The fields need to be used and this provides a
15 public good. He said that this would not compete with any existing County programs.
16 Dave Stancil said that they would like to develop an evaluation template for this
17 agreement and for future agreements.
18 Commissioner McKee said that this organization serves many kids (around 900) and
19 that provides a service that the County no longer provides. He thanked Dave Stancil for
20 working toward an agreement with HYAA.
21 Commissioner Jacobs suggested giving the HYAA representatives a chance to address
22 the points. Chair Pelissier said that she would allow it.
23
24 Jessica Adams, President of HYAA, said that from their perspective they have had an
25 organization since the 1970's and every year they are turning kids away. They do not pay
26 anything for the town's fields or the exchange club or Schley fields. They now need more fields
27 because of the number of kids that want to play ball and they do not want to turn anyone away
28 for being unable to pay. HYAA gives over $3,000 in scholarships a year. No child is ever told
29 that they cannot play ball. She said that this would be a great collaboration.
30 Jessica Adams reiterated that HYAA is a non-profit organization.
31 Frank Clifton said that there is a scholarship fund through DSS for kids that may not be
32 able to pay.
33 Jessica Adams said that it is their understanding that the process is too lengthy for
34 these funds and thus it is easier for the kids to come to HYAA for a scholarship.
35 Frank Clifton said that he would follow up on this.
36 Commissioner Jacobs asked Frank Clifton or Dave Stancil to arrange a meeting with
37 DSS and HYAA officials to address the scholarship issue.
38 Commissioner Gordon asked why the fields are not being used now.
39 Dave Stancil said that the County stopped running little league two years ago because
40 of the low numbers to support the programs. He said that when the County in 2005 jumped in
41 and started doing baseball, that was competition with HYAA.
42 Commissioner Gordon asked if people could use the fields for pickup games and Dave
43 Stancil said yes.
44 Commissioner Gordon asked about the equity issue with other non-profits that want to
45 use the County's facilities. She said that this is basically subsidizing HYAA for $10,000.
46 Commissioner McKee said that they should remember that these fields were built with
47 taxpayer funds and the fields should be available for anyone regardless. He supports the fee
48 schedule, but one reason the fields in Cedar Grove Park are not used that much is because of
49 the County's fee schedule.
5
1 Commissioner Yuhasz said that these are baseball fields that only are used for baseball,
2 so it puts them in a different situation than some of the other facilities that the County has. It
3 may not be precedent setting in this respect.
4 Commissioner Jacobs said that staff has said that it would review any inequities, and the
5 agreement is only for one year. Everyone is on notice to see if this works. He said that there is
6 not a competitor to use these fields. He said that this is kind of like the Triangle Sportplex, and
7 he is ok with this.
8 Chair Pelissier said that the County Commissioners should look at this as giving to a
9 non-profit and not as eliminating a fee charge.
10 Commissioner McKee encouraged HYAA and staff to continue to work out the details of
11 this agreement and to work with a third party for concessions or let HYAA run it.
12 Chair Pelissier said that it is very important to have concessions in some form.
13
14 3. Specific Policies for Board of County Commissioner Advisory Boards
15 Chair Pelissier made reference to the handouts —a memo from the Human Relations
16 Commission and a copy of the general advisory board policy.
17
18 Advisory Board on Aging:
19 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 2 and said that the word "elderly" should
20 be changed to "older adults".
21 The representative from the board agreed to change the wording to "older adults."
22 Commissioner Gordon asked about the 12 voting members and that seven were to be
23 over "60". Staff currently has these positions as At-Large positions and always has. She asked
24 that this be noted on the template for "special representation."
25 Clerk to the Board Donna Baker said that it has always been an at-large designation.
26 Commissioner Gordon made reference to Section V, Orientation, and said that there
27 needs to be a committees section.
28 Chair Pelissier made reference to the membership and said that there are positions for
29 people from all three towns but not from the rural areas. She asked to add this to the policy.
30 Commissioner Yuhasz suggested designating two people from the unincorporated parts
31 of the County.
32 John Roberts asked to move the Human Relations Commission and the Affordable
33 Housing Advisory Board to the end because Tara Fikes was running late.
34
35 Arts Commission:
36 Chair Pelissier made reference to Goals and Objectives to suggested indicating
37 something about the relationship to economic development.
38 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 6 and accepting gifts or donations. She
39 asked if this was any way related to the community foundation.
40 Martha Shannon said that this is a combination of the recent resolution and the by-laws.
41 She said that she took the parts of these two and fitted them in this new template and it is the
42 same wording it has been in the past.
43 Commissioner Gordon suggested leaving it and flagging it for future discussion. If the
44 County ever decides to come up with the foundation, it could be considered.
45 County Attorney John Roberts said that this is fine.
46 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 7, section 3, membership, and where
47 the files shall be lodged.
48 Martha Shannon said that this came from the original resolution.
49 Commissioner Yuhasz said to end the sentence after "County Manager."
50
6
1 Historic Preservation Commission:
2 Chair Pelissier said to submit any typos or grammatical errors to John Roberts.
3
4 Human Relations Commission:
5 Chair Pelissier said that the memo at their places says that the HRC did comply with the
6 BOCC request to reduce the number of positions on this board, and the HRC did this by
7 eliminating six positions. The membership has been reduced to 18 from 24 and to also add a
8 member from the immigrant population.
9 Commissioner Gordon said that membership does not mention any kind of diversity.
10 She said that there should be some diversity since it is the Human Relations Commission.
11 John Roberts said that the general advisory board policy addresses this.
12 Chair Pelissier said that she would like to make sure the immigrant population is
13 represented because of the nature of the work of this board.
14 Commissioner Gordon questioned this.
15 Commissioner Yuhasz said that usually groups are identified as geographical areas and
16 not ethnicity. He said that the Board of County Commissioners will always keep this in mind.
17 The Board agreed to leave the membership as is, except for the 18 members.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said that they could try and recruit immigrant volunteers.
19 Commissioner Jacobs said that it is difficult to get two representatives from the
20 municipalities and suggested having only one position from each municipality and the rest at-
21 large.
22 The Board agreed to have one representative from each of the Towns and the rest of
23 the positions at-large.
24
25 Affordable Housing Advisory Board:
26 No comments.
27
28 Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee:
29 Commissioner Hemminger asked to change "elderly" to "older adults" throughout this
30 policy.
31 Chair Pelissier made reference to reimbursement for expenses on page 17 and asked
32 what this was. It was answered that it is probably only mileage, though it is not currently in use.
33 John Roberts said that the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee was not
34 included in the packets. It is similar to this committee. He asked if this could be submitted at
35 the same time as the others tonight, since it is so similar. The Board agreed.
36
37 Parks and Recreation Council:
38 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 21, item b, which deals with the Authority to
39 establish the Council, and suggested combining #2 and #4 in the same bullet.
40
41 Personnel Hearing Board:
42 This board meets as needed.
43 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 25, item b, #2. She suggested deleting
44 "members shall include."
45 Commissioner McKee said that this may not need to be a standing committee since it
46 has only met once in 20 years.
47 Chair Pelissier said that there was a discussion in the past and the Board of
48 Commissioners wanted to keep it.
49 Commissioner Yuhasz suggested appointing as needed.
7
1 John Roberts said that in other counties there are three senior personnel that come in
2 that do not report to the Manager and there is not a standing advisory board. He said that this
3 is a possibility and the County Commissioners can think about this and let him know.
4 Commissioner Jacobs said for John Roberts to come back with an alternative structure.
5 He would stipulate that the individuals not report to the Manager.
6 John Roberts said that since this board has no members and is not needed now, he
7 could bring back an amendment to the ordinance and take this off the advisory board listing.
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
10 adjourn the meeting at 9:12 PM.
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
13 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
14
15 Donna S. Baker, CMC
16 Clerk to the Board
1
1 DRAFT Attachment 3
2
3 MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
6 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
7 November 19, 2012
8 7:00 P.M.
9
10
11 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
12 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, November 19, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Central
13 Orange Senior Center, Hillsborough, N.C.
14
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners Alice
16 Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Valerie Foushee, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz
17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Pam Hemminger
18 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Sahana Ayer
19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the Board
20 David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
21 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Larry Wright, and Planning Board members
22 Pete Hallenbeck, Andrea Rohrbacher, Maxecine Mitchell, Tony Blake, Rachel Phelps Hawkins,
23 Alan Campbell, Johnny Randall, H.T. "Buddy" Hartley, Lisa Stuckey and Herman Staats
24 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Dawn Brezina
25
26 Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 6:59PM.
27
28 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
29
30 Planning Board Chair Larry Wright said that the agenda items 1-3 will be joint items of the
31 Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. Following item 3, the County
32 Commissioners will be discussing educational facilities and ordinance amendments and the
33 Planning Board will not be part of that discussion.
34
35 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
36 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
37
38
39 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
40
41 1. 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
42 Amendments and Zoning Atlas Amendments - To review government-initiated
43 amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and UDO and to the Zoning Atlas in
44 order to establish two new zoning overlay districts in the Efland area.
45
46 Planner Perdita Holtz introduced this item and made a PowerPoint presentation.
47 Comprehensive Plan Text, Unified Development Ordinance Text, and Zoning Atlas
48 Amendments for Two New Zoning Overlay Districts in the Efland Area
49 Quarterly Public Hearing
2
1 November 19, 2012
2 Item C.1
3
4 Basic Charge
5 - Implement recommendations in the adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan to
6 establish design and site planning standards for this area of the county served by public
7 (or quasi-public) water and sewer systems.
8 - Amend plans and regulations as necessary in order to establish two new zoning overlay
9 districts in the Efland area.
10
11 What is a zoning overlay district?
12 - Regulatory tools that create a special zoning district, placed over the existing base
13 zones, which identifies special provisions in addition to, or in lieu of, those in the
14 underlying base zone.
15 - Purpose is to guide development within the specified area.
16 - Overlay district regulations can be more restrictive or less restrictive than the regulations
17 that apply to the underlying base zones.
18
19 Zoning Atlas Amendment— map
20
21 Future Land Use Map — map
22
23 Relationship to Existing Efland-Cheeks Overlay District— map
24
25 UDO Text Amendments
26 - Amendments to several sections necessary to implement the new zoning overlay
27 districts
28 - Intent of the new districts:
29 o Allow for a more urban style of development in the Efland Interstate Overlay
30 District
31 o Allow for an urban village style of development in the Efland Village Overlay
32 District
33
34 Why Necessary?
35 - Different development regulations necessary in order to reflect the reality of smaller
36 sized lots (both existing and anticipated) served by water and sewer.
37 - Encourage high quality growth in an area of the county proposed for additional growth
38 while protecting existing development and community character.
39 - Ensure good planning practices related to site design, transportation, and architecture
40 are achieved.
41
42 General Information
43 - Many of the proposed changes in the amendment packet contain footnotes explaining
44 the reason/rationale for the proposed change.
45 - Website contains more information
46 o Questions and Answers
47 o Synopsis of Proposed New Regulations and/or Differences from Existing
48 Regulations
49 o (Orange County, Planning Department, "Current Interest Projects")
50
51 Exceptions and Existing Uses
3
1 - Single-family detached residences (both existing and new) are not subject to the
2 requirements of the overlay districts.
3 - Other existing land uses are not required to come into conformance with the new
4 regulations so long as the property continues to be used as it is currently being used.
5 - The requirements of the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District are not
6 being altered.
7
8 Synopsis of Changes
9 (Applicable to Both Districts)
10 - Side and rear setback can be less
11 o Intent is to allow required buffer and minimum setback to be the same
12 - Smaller (less wide) buffer between lots
13 o In keeping with those required in the existing Efland Cheeks Overlay District
14 along highway 70
15 - No more than 1 entrance/exit point, unless justified
16 - Must provide intra-site accessibility
17 - Requirements for driveways and shared access
18 o Shared access only applicable if fronting on Mount Willing Road or Highway 70
19
20 Synopsis of Changes
21 (Efland Interstate Overlay District only)
22 - Site Planning must take into account need for connecting roadways shown on the
23 adopted Access Management Plan for the area
24 - Large projects must provide an internal pedestrian circulation system
25 - Requires that national prototype architectural styles of chain businesses be altered as
26 necessary to complement the surrounding area
27
28 Synopsis of Changes
29 (Efland Village Overlay District only)
30 - Changes in front yard setback requirements
31 o Minimum of 30-feet along Highway 70
32 o If not along Highway 70: front setback in keeping with adjoining uses
33 - No fences in front yards unless a demonstrated need can be shown
34 - No chain link or similar fencing
35 - No outside storage of materials
36 - Allows up to 15% of parking to be located in the front yard (setback area)
37 - Encourages shared parking and puts a cap on parking
38 - Limits signage to monument style signs that do not exceed 6-feet in height and prohibits
39 pole signs
40 - Does not permit modern corporate franchise building design
41 - Principal building must face fronting street and have a functional doorway
42 - Requires that buildings be designed to contribute to a "human scale"
43 - Prohibits drive-throughs and mirrored glass
44
45 Public Notification
46 • Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
47 — Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks
48 — Mailed notices to affected property owners
4
1 — Mailed notices to property owners within 500-feet of affected properties
2 — Posted 25 signs in strategic areas of the affected area
3 Public Information Meeting
4 - Held on November 14 at the Efland-Cheeks Community Center.
5
6 Advisory Board Involvement
7 - EMSAP Implementation Focus Group met on August 29 to review the proposal.
8 - (Other meetings had taken place in early 2010)
9
10 Recommendation
11 • Receive the proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development
12 Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas.
13 • Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
14 the proposed amendment.
15 • Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
16 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the February 5, 2013 BOCC
17 regular meeting.
18 • Adjourn the public hearing until February 5, 2013 in order to receive and accept the
19 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
20 Commissioner Jacobs asked about the Efland Cheeks Overlay District and the overall effort
21 and who participated. This is on the eastern portion of a larger effort, and some people may not
22 be aware of this.
23 Perdita Holtz said that the overlay district is an effort to allow for the conversion of single-
24 family homes along the highway to low-impact uses such as professional offices or
25 beauty/barber shops. This is the green area. In the pink area, there is pre-designated
26 commercial area, which is at the corner of Frazier Road and US 70 and westward. This allows
27 for a bit more commercial use than what is being contemplated along US 70. The Efland-
28 Mebane Small Area Plan Implementation Focus Group was involved in this effort.
29 Tony Blake arrived at 7:20 PM.
30 Perdita Holtz said that the group was made up of community members who were appointed
31 by the Board of County Commissioners. There is also a representative from the Planning
32 Board, Pete Hallenbeck.
33 Commissioner Yuhasz asked if the Economic Development Director reviewed the
34 architectural design standards in this overlay.
35 Perdita Holtz said that the EDC department was included in the peer review effort.
36 Chair Pelissier asked what it means that businesses "have to be altered to fit in with
37 surrounding areas."
38 Perdita Holtz said that it would be on a case by case basis through the site review process
39 that if a national chain were to come in, that it would have to stay in keeping with the area.
40 Andrea Rohrbacher left at 7:26 PM.
5
1 Commissioner Gordon made reference to the "zoning district and the land use classification
2 matrix." She wants to make sure that the 20-year transition means that it would not be
3 urbanized for 20 years.
4 Perdita Holtz said that the 20-year transition area has been in existence since 1981. The
5 land use categories were not changed when the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2008.
6 Commissioner McKee said that he has some reservations on several aspects of this, such
7 as the prohibition on drive-throughs.
8 Commissioner Jacobs said that there was a discussion on sidewalks and he wants to make
9 it clear that this is a place where there could be higher density residential. He does not want to
10 have higher density residential without sidewalks.
11 Pete Hallenbeck said that the focus group was in total agreement that north of the railroad
12 tracks they did not want fast food restaurants. There was agreement that south of the railroad
13 tracks could have some things like that, with some limitations on the architecture. He said that
14 when this comes to the Planning Board, he will address these concerns by the Board of County
15 Commissioners.
16 Johnny Randall made reference to the synopsis of changes and bullet number 5. He read,
17 "allows up to 15% of parking to be located in the front yard." He asked if this means in a
18 designated parking space or parking in the grass of the front yard of an establishment.
19 Perdita Holtz said that it means in the required parking area, which is not grass. It would
20 have to be a parking lot.
21 Public Comment:
22 Rita Needham asked if anything was going to happen north of McGowan Creek.
23 Perdita Holtz said that nothing is being proposed north of McGowan Creek as part of this
24 action. The Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan does contemplate more development in the
25 planning area, which is all the way up to Lebanon Road. At this time, there is nothing
26 happening in this area.
27
28 Commissioner McKee said that his concern is that this action will cause buildings that are
29 currently conforming uses to become non-conforming.
30 Perdita Holtz said that this could potentially happen.
31 There was more public comment.
32 Ben Lloyd said that he lives in Efland on US 70. He said that there was the opening of the
33 Efland-Cheeks Community Center and ten people showed up. He said that the people of Efland
34 do not understand how this proposal will benefit the people of that area. He said that if there
35 was more information and if some of the planners came to the Ruritan Club, people will come
36 out to hear and ask questions. He said that he has some reservations about a lot of this
37 proposal. He does not think it is in the best interest of the people of Efland.
38 Warren Shankle lives in Efland along the interstate. He has 2 1/2 acres there. He said that
39 he has water and sewer and there are no problems with it. He asked why it would benefit to put
40 sewer here when there are no problems right now.
41 Patricia Gattis lives in Efland on Greg Street off of Richmond Road, and her daughter has a
42 shop near the fire station. She asked if this plan would affect that area.
6
1 Perdita Holtz said that it does not appear that this property is in the overlay area. She is not
2 sure which lot this is. She will look it up.
3 Commissioner Jacobs asked that after the meeting that Perdita Holtz give Ms. Gattis a
4 definitive answer.
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to refer
6 the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board
7 of County Commissioners in time for the February 5, 2013 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn
8 the public hearing until February 5, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's
9 recommendation and any submitted written comments.
10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11
12 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - To review government-
13 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO in order to modify and clarify existing
14 regulations and definitions associated with the erection and use of outdoor lighting
15 facilities.
16
17 Michael Harvey presented this item and made a PowerPoint presentation.
18 NOVEMBER 19, 2012
19 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
20 AGENDA ITEM:C2
21 UDO TEXT AMENDMENT-OUTDOOR LIGHTING
22 BACKGROUND:
23 • During the initial development of UDO, several suggested modifications were received
24 on changes to existing outdoor lighting regulations.
25 • These suggestions were tabled for future consideration. Staff believes we have reached
26 a point where these amendments can be incorporated into the UDO.
27 • This amendment also seeks to address concern over height limitations on athletic field
28 lights. Some believe existing height limits are too restrictive and create additional light
29 pollution on adjoining properties rather than eliminate it.
30 WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES:
31 • Clarify existing regulations, including:
32 - Modify Section 6.11.1 Purpose and Intent to include language referencing the
33 County's interest is promoting nighttime visibility and curtailing light pollution.
34 - Modify Section 6.11.1 (E) to include language identifying the County's intent to
35 regulate outdoor lighting in an effort to `restore natural light cycles'.
36 - Incorporate new formatting changes to ensure the regulations are consistent with
37 the organizational rules of the UDO.
7
1 - Eliminate references to `watts' of a light fixture and ensure proper use of
2 terminology through the Section.
3 WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES:
4 • Add new definitions of light trespass, mercury vapor luminaire, light pollution, etc. to
5 Article 10 as recommended during Phase 1 of the UDO.
6 • Eliminate multiple definitions of the same term within Article 10 of the UDO. For
7 example we currently have `lamp' defined twice within the UDO. There is no need for
8 this duplication.
9 • Address concerns expressed by Orange County Department of Environment Agriculture
10 Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) over height restrictions for athletic field lights.
11 ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHT ISSUE:
12 • 2 poles aimed at same aiming point but note difference in impact of spill and glare on
13 adjacent properties. Restricting mounting height aggravate, not improve, the impact of
14 spill and glare light
15 ORC COMMENTS:
16 • Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) meets to review this item on September 5, 2012.
17 • Made several recommendations with respect to modifying draft amendment package.
18 • Modifications were incorporated into draft text amendment by staff.
19 • ORC expressed concern over increasing outdoor athletic field light height limit but
20 understood the problem. Asked BOCC and staff for guidance.
21 STAFF COMMENTS:
22 • Proposed amendments make existing regulations easier to follow.
23 • Proposal addresses those items identified during initial development of the UDO.
24 • Staff sees compromise with respect to increasing height limits of athletic field lights
25 RECOMMENDATION:
26 1. Receive the proposed amendments.
27 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
28 the proposed amendments.
29 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
30 returned to the BOCC in time for the January 24, 2013 BOCC regular meeting.
8
1 4. Adjourn the public hearing until January 24, 2013 in order to receive and accept the
2 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
3
4 Michael Harvey said that there was in-depth discussion when added height limits were
5 considered originally. There was an understanding that there might be some non-conformities
6 created that were legal at the time because there was not a height limit until two years ago. He
7 thinks that the height limit should be reexamined and increased.
8 Andrea Rohrbacher returned at 8:04 PM.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said that he respects the Department of Environment, Agriculture,
10 Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) staff analysis of the heights, but a simple way to eliminate the
11 subject would be to consult several neighboring jurisdictions about lighting standards. He
12 suggested looking at Durham and Chapel Hill's lighting standards to see if there is some
13 consistency. He suggested that if and when the Board approves whatever it is going to
14 approve, that staff communicate to the power companies that when bare bulb security lights are
15 replaced that the County ordinances will encourage shielded fixtures.
16 Commissioner Gordon made reference to pages 59-60. She said that she would be hesitant
17 to increase the pole height. She is concerned about the effect of the light rural areas. She
18 would like to see more empirical evidence presented in the information supporting the
19 recommendations.
20 Lisa Stuckey made reference to page 69 and the initial lumen. She asked why the light level
21 after it is warmed up would not be used.
22 Michael Harvey said that the initial lumen is an industry standard.
23 There was no public comment.
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to refer
25 the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
26 BOCC in time for the January 24, 2013 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn the public hearing
27 until January 24, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and
28 any submitted written comments.
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment(s) - To review government-
32 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO in order to make minor changes that have
33 been suggested by the County's code vendor (MuniCode) as a result of MuniCode's
34 legal review.
35
36
37 Perdita Holtz introduced this item and made a PowerPoint presentation.
38
39 Commissioner Foushee left at 8:14 PM.
40
41 Maxicene Mitchel left at 8:14 PM.
42
43 Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments
44 Resulting from MuniCode's Legal Review
9
1 Quarterly Public Hearing
2 November 19, 2012
3 Item C.3
4
5 Purpose
6 - Incorporate changes to references to State Statutes/Rules as a result of MuniCode's
7 legal review
8 - Ensure requirements of the UDO are consistent with State Statutes
9
10 Proposed Amendments
11 - Numerous sections in Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10.
12 - Packet includes the proposed amendments in "track changes" format with explanatory
13 footnotes as needed.
14 - In Section 6.16.4 (Environmental Impact Statements), language will clarify that the
15 County may require an applicant to produce a copy of the EIS submitted to a Federal or
16 State agency.
17
18 Public Notification
19 - Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
20 • Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks
21 Recommendation
22 • Receive the proposal to amend the Unified Development Ordinance.
23 • Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
24 the proposed amendment.
25 • Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
26 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the January 24, 2013 BOCC
27 regular meeting.
28 • Adjourn the public hearing until January 24, 2013 in order to receive and accept the
29 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
30 Commissioner Yuhasz said that when the County Attorney first told the Board about these
31 proposed changes, he said that he was not in complete agreement with Muni-code. He asked if
32 this represented all of the changes that had been suggested or if there were still negotiations.
33 Perdita Holtz said that Planning and Legal staff met and only the changes agreed upon are
34 being included, which is not all of the Muni-code changes.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said that the Inventory of Natural Areas and the Orange County
36 Environmental Impact Statement were both generated by the Planning Board in the 1980's and
37 not by the staff.
38 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to refer
39 the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
40 BOCC in time for the January 24, 2013 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn the public hearing
41 until January 24, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and
42 any submitted written comments.
43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
44
45 At this time, the Planning Board members left the meeting.
10
1
2
3
4
5 4. Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance Amendments - To review government-
6 initiated amendments to the Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance in order to
7 exempt from the required impact fee the relocation of an existing stick built, modular, or
8 mobile home used for residential purposes onto a previously undeveloped parcel in
9 certain circumstances.
10
11
12 Staff Attorney Sahana Ayer introduced this item. In 2011 the BOCC directed the Attorney's
13 office to investigate the feasibility of modifying the existing school impact fee ordinance to
14 provide an exemption for residences relocated onto previously undeveloped property from
15 having to pay an impact fee. After completing a review of existing language, and based on
16 direction from the BOCC, the Attorney's office recommends adding language to the impact fee
17 ordinance allowing for the waiving of school impact fees for a relocated residential structure in
18 instances where:
19 - The property where the structure is moved from is either:
20 o Rezoned to a non-residential zoning designation where the development of a
21 residential land use is prohibited or
22 o The property is made voluntarily undevelopable for any use by other means
23 including, but not limited to: recordation of a conservation easement, dedication
24 of the property as permanent open space, etc.
25 - The properties where the structure is moved from and to are located within the same
26 school district
27 - Movement of the structure is in compliance with the standards of the Orange County
28 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
29
30 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he is troubled with this. He thought that the purpose was to
31 provide that if someone moves a house from one lot to another lot that the impact fee would
32 NOT be imposed. This says that the impact fee would not be imposed if the lot which is vacated
33 is rendered unbuildable. He does not think that this was the intent. He does not think that this
34 meets the County Commissioners' request.
35 Discussion ensued on the impact fee from a relocated house.
36 Michael Harvey said that the impact fee is a land use, land based ordinance. The ordinance
37 is based on the notion of land use activity and it is not based on a structure.
38 Planning Director Craig Benedict said that the impact stays with the existing lot. The
39 request from the County Commissioners is to say that the impact goes with the house. The
40 question is what happens with the vacated lot. He thinks that the solution is that the new house
41 that comes onto the vacated lot would have to pay an impact fee.
42 Chair Pelissier said that she thinks this was the intent when this came forward the first time.
43 Commissioner Gordon said that the Board needs to understand the intricacies of this
44 ordinance.
45 Commissioner McKee said that this forces a previously developed piece of property to be
46 undevelopable. He has a problem with this.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said that this was initiated by someone who wanted to deconstruct a
48 house and move it somewhere else on the road. He appreciates that the Attorney's office is
49 trying to fix this issue within the laws. He thinks that logically it does not compute that he cannot
50 move a building from one place to another and have to pay another impact fee and distinguish
51 the development rights.
11
1 Commissioner Jacobs suggested just cleaning up some of the language and he sent an
2 email to this effect.
3 Commissioner Gordon said that she would might send in something too.
4
5 This item was deferred.
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to close
8 the public hearing.
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11 D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
14 adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
18 David Hunt
19 Deputy Clerk to the Board