HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-09-2013 - 5a ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 9, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No. 5-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, 245-2130
Draft Minutes
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below:
Attachment 1 February 5, 2013 BOCC Regular Meeting
Attachment 2 February 21, 2013 BOCC Joint Meeting with Hillsborough
Attachment 3 February 25, 2103 Quarterly Public Hearing
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
1 DRAFT Attachment 1
2 MINUTES
3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 REGULAR MEETING
5 February 5, 2013
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
9 February 5, 2103 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS offices, in Hillsborough, N.C.
10
11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
12 Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
14 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
15 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers
16 Michael Talbert, Clarence Grier and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members
17 will be identified appropriately below)
18 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
19 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
20
21
22 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
23 Chair Jacobs went through the items at the County Commissioners' places
24 - PowerPoint for Item 6-b regarding the Comprehensive Plan and Unified
25 Development Ordinance Text Amendments and Zoning Atlas Amendments to
26 Establish Two New Zoning Overlay Districts in the Efland Area
27 - PowerPoint for Item 7-a regarding the Comprehensive Land Use Element Map and
28 Zoning Atlas Amendments- Orange Alamance Line
29
30 PUBLIC CHARGE
31
32 The Board of Commissioners pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect. The
33 Board asks its residents to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both
34 with the Board and with fellow residents. At any time should any member of the Board or
35 any resident fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to
36 leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be
37 restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to
38 this public charge is observed. All electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and
39 computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate.
40
41 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour)
42
43 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
44
45 Don O'Leary said that the social engineers of our time are using the same tactics as the
46 social engineers leading Nazi German, the Soviet Union and China. He said that the
47 environment, sustainable development, collectivism, and division are being used as tools to
48 achieve tyranny. He stated his belief that the county is promoting the enemy, ICLEI, the UN
49 and Agenda 21 through overregulation, unelected appointees, over taxation, land grabbing and
50 wasteful spending. He said that this will contribute to the buildup of an overload to the system
2
1 that could destroy the United States. He said that this is happening due to a lack of knowledge
2 with regard to history.
3
4 Valee Taylor introduced himself as the minority owner of Taylor Fish Farm. He asked
5 the Board of County Commissioners to help incubate them at the Piedmont Food and
6 Agricultural Processing Center (PFAP). He said the business can bring in 15 workers and when
7 completed can employ up to 45 people. He said they are a local, home grown business in
8 Cedar Grove and they need local jobs in their community. Economic downturn has hurt a lot of
9 their businesses in their area. They are a sustainable business; they comply with the Clean
10 Water Act; they are a value added commodity and they need some help. He said they are a
11 part of the community and have been operating for four generations on the same land. He said
12 that they want to be able to open up jobs to others through their tilapia business.
13
14 Renee Stewart introduced herself as part owner in Taylor Fish Farm. She asked if their
15 business follows all the procedures for PFAP, then can they use the facility as an incubator.
16
17 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
18 (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda
19 below.)
20
21 3. Petitions by Board Members (Three Minute Limit per Commissioner)
22 Commissioner McKee petitioned the Board for staff to explore the possibilities of the
23 Taylor's being able to work with PFAP and this was seconded by Commissioner Price.
24 Commissioner Price noted that the Board heard about a solar project from the
25 Commission for the Environment last week and the Commission for the Environment would like
26 to know when the Board would be reviewing their request.
27 Chair Jacobs referred this to agenda review.
28
29 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
30
31 a. Orange County Arts Grant Recipients
32
33 The Board presented checks to local artists and arts organizations receiving Fall 2012
34 Orange County Arts Grants.
35 Martha Shannon said that 38 grant requests had been received. She said the Arts
36 Commission awarded a total of over $26,749 in county funds for art projects proposed by 10
37 non-profits, 8 schools, and 2 individual artists. She gave an overview and some facts about the
38 grants. She said that Orange County Arts Commission was created on February 4, 1985 as the
39 local distributing agent in Orange County and to award state grassroots arts programming
40 funding. She said that there is a request on the consent agenda to allow the Arts Commission
41 to apply to the state for the 29th consecutive year as designated county partner in Orange
42 County. She said that grants are awarded every six months, awarding state funds in spring and
43 county funds in the fall. She said grants are awarded for high quality arts programming based
44 on artistic merit and benefits to the citizens of Orange County. She noted that all applicants are
45 funded at no more than 50% of their budget and that individual artists are paid only with county
46 funds, not state. She said that 85-95% of grant funds are given to outside non-profits and the
47 remaining funds are used to supplement the Arts Commission's own programs. She thanked
48 the Commissioners for their continued support.
49 Chair Jacobs announced the recipients and Commissioner McKee awarded the grant
50 funds.
3
1
2 February 5, 2013
3 List of the recipients:
4
5 Grant Recipient: Attendees:
6
7 Arts Center - Julie Tomkovick
8 Botanical Garden Foundation, Inc./North Carolina Botanical Garden- Elisha Taylor
9 Cedar Ridge High School - Janice Wereszczak
10 Chapel Hill High School/Carrboro High School/Phoenix Academy Coalition- Michael Irwin
11 Estes Hills Elementary School PTA- Meredith Lassiter
12 Extraordinary Ventures - Cyndi Whisnant
13 Franklin Street Arts Collective dba FRANK Gallery - Barbara Tyroler
14 Friends of the Carrboro Branch Library - Nerys Levy
15 Hillsborough Arts Council - Gail Cooley
16 Michael Roy Layne dba Legacyworks - Michael Roy Layne
17 McDougle Elementary School PTA- Michelle Nickerson
18 McDougle Middle School PTA- Michelle Nickerson
19 One Song Productions - Nell Ovitt & Taylor
20 Norris
21 Phillips Middle School PTSA- Lyn Billings
22 SECU Family House at UNC Hospitals - Kirsten Beattie
23 St. Joseph's Historic Foundation (fiscal agent for Sacrificial Poets) - Will McInerney,
24 Kane Smego &
25 CJ Suitt
26 Mary Carter Taub - NOT AVAILABLE
27 TONIGHT
28 Town of Carrboro Arts Committee - Julie Tomkovick
29
30 b. OWASA Annual Update Presentation
31
32 The Board received a presentation and information from the Orange Water and Sewer
33 Authority (OWASA) on recent activities.
34 OWASA Chair Alan Rimer made this presentation. He introduced Ed Kerwin, the
35 Executive Director of OWASA and the Orange County representatives to OWASA, Terri
36 Buckner and Michael Hughes.
4
1 Alan Rimer noted that the annual report is included in the Commissioner's packet and
2 he thanked Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Price and Commissioner Dorosin for attending
3 a recent orientation.
4 He said, in regard to Jordan Lake, as a utility, OWASA has made a tremendous effort at
5 conserving water more than any other entity in N.C. He said there is a 50 year supply of water
6 but until 2035 date passes, when the quarry supply can be tapped, there is still potential for
7 vulnerability. As a result, a request has been made to move to a level one allocation for Jordan
8 Lake, which would give access to the water. He said that Cary and Durham specified that,
9 under condition of drought, access to that water might not be available without the level one,
10 which gives OWASA a piece of that pie.
11 He said the Drought Response Operating Protocol (DROP) was recently passed, which
12 provides an opportunity for OWASA, at stage one, to make a decision whether or not they will
13 need Jordan Lake when reservoirs are dropping and demand reaches certain levels. He
14 referenced a note from Michael Hughes stating that Wichita is in a Stage 3 shortage.
15 Alan Rimer said, in reference to the Rogers Road area, OWASA has acted as a
16 resource for this project and has provided answers as needed. He said this cooperation will
17 continue.
18 Commissioner Gordon referenced the DROP, page 10 under#4, and she asked about
19 page 3, which stated that Orange County and Hillsborough did approve it but Chapel Hill and
20 Carrboro did not. She questioned whether the DROP wording addresses concerns for both
21 jurisdictions.
22 She said her other question is on the top of page 7, regarding Level One allocation.
23 She said this passage seems to say that if Level One is obtained there must be withdrawal
24 within 5 years, but on the other hand there is only withdrawal when triggered.
25 Alan Rimer said when they activated DROP there were many considerations and
26 Carrboro did not buy into DROP as a principle, but believed OWASA should just conserve
27 more and wait for a more serious drought situation before going to alternative sources. He said
28 the problem with that is when a drought is occurring, sometimes the drought drains lake quickly
29 and other times slowly and they don't know at any one time about the speed of the drought.
30 Carrboro thought there should be a longer wait and Chapel Hill accepted as a whole the
31 OWASA principles, but their board felt that it would serve the community as it is now.
32 He said the OWASA board believes that if a level one drought is reached, it is not an
33 immediate trigger to go to an alternative source, rather this begins a process of gathering data
34 and examining it before a decision is made by the board. He said it is more of a deliberation
35 point.
36 He said that the way their withdrawal policy reads, a withdrawal has to be done in 5
37 years, but DNR has reassured the board that this does not really apply. He said that OWASA
38 has decided based on conversations with DNR that asking for Level One provides opportunities
39 needed and the five year limit is not a concern at this time. He said that if the five year is
40 reached and there has not been a need for action, there will be a check in with DNR.
41 With respect to the WASMBA, he said there is no plan to change the water and sewer
42 master plan at this time.
43 Commissioner Price questioned, with regard to the Mountains to Sea Trail (MTST),
44 whether agreement had been reached with some of the citizens adjacent to OWASA property.
45 Alan Rimer said the feeling is that this lies in the hands of the county and county staff.
46 He said if staff continues to endorse this and if the Board of County Commissioners endorses it,
47 then OWASA would support whatever decisions the Board of County Commissioners make.
48 Commissioner Price questioned whether OWASA has had any further conversations
49 with citizens since their open houses last fall.
5
1 Michael Hughes said there has not been any contact with the neighbors and he said
2 OWASA's position is that they will work with county staff on whatever is proposed and whatever
3 the Board proposes.
4 Chair Jacobs said there is a technical group with TJCOG to look the Jordan Lake rules
5 and he said there is no representative that represents the rural area. He said the Board of
6 County Commissioners wrote a letter several years ago expressing concern that, starting at
7 current levels, reducing nitrogen loading on farms in the rural buffer, it would be impossible to
8 have agriculture in that area. He wondered if OWASA was plugged into that study or aware of
9 the letter.
10 Ed Kerwin said they do not know.
11 Alan Rimer said this topic has been around for a long time and Orange County does a
12 great job with management of over-fertilization. He said the Soil Conservation Service works
13 closely with the farmers and there are more conservation easements along strings of water
14 bodies in Orange County than any other county in the state. He said this speaks to why the
15 rural voice of Orange County needs to be heard.
16 Chair Jacobs referred to page 3 of their agenda item, the forestry management issue
17 that caused interest previously. He urged OWASA to get as much constructive public
18 participation as they can when this comes back.
19 Alan Rimer said this issue has been shelved with no sense of urgency at this point but
20 they did learn some lessons.
21 Commissioner Pelissier questioned whether the DROP has to be revised with population
22 growth.
23 Alan Rimer said this document was modified up to the point it was adopted by their
24 board and it gets refined on a regular basis.
25 Commissioner Dorosin asked about the Rogers Road issue. He said his concern is that
26 the longer they delay in providing water and sewer there, the higher the costs will be and he
27 noted that the cost estimate has risen from 4 million to 5.8 million in the last few years. He
28 said, costs can be prohibitive, by other options. He asked if OWASA is against alternatives like
29 gravity sewer and if that is their policy, he wondered how that might be changed.
30 Alan Rimer said these are not policy matters, but are matters related to system
31 operation. He said OWASA does have sewer pumping stations and they are not opposed to
32 them, however it is problematic to put a pump in a house. He said it requires maintenance and
33 most people, just like with septic systems, do not maintain them. Part of this maintenance is
34 the need for a duplex system in the event of a failure. He said an alternative solution would be
35 a vacuum sewer, but this is not the answer in an area like Rogers Road. He said that doesn't
36 mean that alternatives can't be looked at; however the number of lots and the location need to
37 be considered. He said several of the lots are problematic and analysis has shown that the
38 cost will be about $180,000 per lot. He said that once the final configuration is agreed to and
39 there is an understanding of the area to be served, OWASA will then go back and look at it to
40 bring forward the costs for different systems. He said the decision then lies with the Board of
41 County Commissioners and what they are willing to pay. He said that OWASA's job is to
42 present the options and the County will need to make a decision that best serves the people
43 and makes economic sense for the taxpayers.
44
45 5. Consent Agenda
46 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
47 approve the consent agenda as stated below:
48
49 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
50
6
1 a. Minutes
2 The Board approved the minutes from November 8 and December 6, 2012 as submitted by the
3 Clerk to the Board.
4 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
5 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
6 property tax values for thirteen (13) taxpayer requests that will result in a reduction of revenue,
7 in accordance with NCGS.
8 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
9 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
10 values for seven (7) taxpayer requests that will result in a reduction of revenue, in accordance
11 with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
12 d. Advertisement of Tax Liens on Real Property
13 The Board received a report on the amount of unpaid taxes for the current year that are liens on
14 real property as required by North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 105-369 and approved the
15 Order setting March 13, 2013 as the date set by the Board for the tax lien advertisement.
16 e. Notice of Public Hearing on Orange County's 2013 Legislative Agenda
17 The Board approved the notice of the Board of County Commissioners' plans to hold a public
18 hearing on February 19, 2013 on potential items for inclusion in Orange County's legislative
19 agenda package for the 2013 North Carolina General Assembly Session.
20 f. Orange County Arts Commission Annual DCP Renewal with NC Arts Council
21 The Board authorized the Orange County Arts Commission and staff to apply by the March1,
22 2013 deadline for annual Designated County Partner (DCP) renewal with the NC Arts Council in
23 order to receive state Grassroots Arts Program funds for Orange County.
24 g Request for Three Time-Limited Staff Positions at DSS
25 The Board approved Social Services (DSS) creating three new time-limited positions to be used
26 during the transition of the current legacy automation systems to the new NCFAST program.
27 h. Legal Advertisement for Quarterly Public Hearing — February 25, 2013
28 The Board approved the legal advertisement for items to be presented at the joint Board of
29 County Commissioners/Planning Board Quarterly Public Hearing scheduled for February 25,
30 2013.
31 i. Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2013
32 The Board approved one change in the County Commissioners' regular meeting calendar for
33 2013 by changing the March 12, 2013 BOCC Dinner Meeting at 5:30pm FROM Link
34 Government Services Center TO Southern Human Services Center, 2501 Homestead Road,
35 Chapel Hill, prior to the 7:00pm work session (the change in location for the dinner meeting
36 inadvertently got left off of the change that was made for the 7pm work session at the 1/24/13
37 meeting).
38 L Boards and Commissions-Commissioner Assignments
39 The Board approved the list of boards and commissions on which members of the Board of
40 County Commissioners have chosen to serve, which is incorporated by reference.
41
42 6. Public Hearings
43
44 a. Orange County Consolidated Housing Plan Update
45
46 The Board received comments from the public regarding the housing and non-housing
47 needs to be included in the Annual Update of the 2010-2015 Consolidated Housing Plan for
48 Housing and Community Development Programs in Orange County and proposed uses of
49 2013-2014 HOME funds.
7
1 Housing and Community Development Director, Tara Fikes said their last plan was
2 completed in May of 2010 and they did identify three goals in Orange County. One of those
3 goals was to provide decent and affordable housing for lower income households through the
4 following efforts: 1) Assisting low income home owners living in sub-standard housing, 2)
5 providing rental units for low income residents, 3) assisting people who lack indoor plumbing, 4)
6 helping low income renters become home owners, and 5) help extremely low income renters
7 find affordable housing.
8 She said that the second goal was to assist the homeless in finding housing as well as
9 services to maintain housing, and the third goal was to assist in provision housing and services
10 for the special needs population. She asked for any additional comments regarding needs in
11 the community.
12 Tara Fikes said that the second purpose of this meeting was to hear comments about
13 the proposed usage of the HOME investment partnership dollars. She said this program allows
14 activities such as property acquisition, new construction, housing rehabilitation and rental
15 assistance. She said they are unsure about final fund allocations for this year, but they are
16 proceeding with the plan under the assumption that they will receive at least the same funds as
17 last year, which equaled $383,485. She said there has also been program investment and
18 some projects that no longer require funding, leaving another $180,000 available as well.
19 Chair Jacobs said affordable housing was a topic of conversation at the Board retreat
20 last week and there will be a joint dinner meeting with Affordable Housing Advisory Board on
21 March 12.
22 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there was there anything in this plan substantively
23 different from last year's plan and he asked for clarification of how much of last years' money
24 was allocated to the low income rental units.
25 Tara Fikes said that the plan is the same as it was last year and it is a five year plan that
26 remains in place until 2015. With regard to the rental units, she said, $50,000 was provided for
27 rental assistance in support of the homeless outreach program. She said they also allocated
28 $37,000 for housing rehabilitation funding for complexes in Chapel Hill (Elliot Woods and Chase
29 Park), and $90,000 to EMPOWERMENT for purchase of rental apartments to rent to low
30 income people.
31 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the latest copy of the CDBG, showing impediments to
32 fair housing, could be provided, and Tara Fikes said yes.
33
34 PUBLIC COMMENT:
35 Susan Levy, Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity, gave a brief overview of 2012.
36 She said there were twelve creative partnerships formed to build twelve new homes this past
37 year. She said that eleven of those homes were in the Phoenix Place subdivision in Historic
38 Rogers Road and one of those homes was in the Fairview Community. She noted that families
39 who purchase from Habitat are local people who work and provide services within the
40 community. She said that most of the families served, lived in overcrowded apartments, paid
41 over 30% of their income for rent, and had high utility cost and lack of repair service. She noted
42 that once the people move into Habitat homes, mortgage cost is often less than prior rental
43 costs and utility cost is lower, which leaves more income to be spent in the local economy and
44 to meet basic needs.
45 Susan Levy said that low and very low income households were also served through a
46 new exterior repair program called Brush of Kindness, and she stressed the pressing need for
47 these types of repair projects and the goal of increasing this service. She said Habitat had
48 nearly 2000 volunteers, who logged more than 1700 volunteer hours. She noted that Habitat
49 home owners paid a total of$304,455 in property taxes. She said that HOME funds have been
50 a critical factor in building efforts. She said that 225 homes have been built. Four homes are
8
1 currently under construction and the demand for homes by qualified families has consistently
2 exceeded demand. She noted that there are only seven lots left in Phoenix Place and Habitat
3 will soon be moving on to a 28 home subdivision in Efland Cheeks Township. She recognized
4 several home owners present who will be moving into Habitat Homes in the near future. She
5 concluded by saying that Habitat will be requesting 2013 home funds for second mortgages for
6 15 new homes.
7 Deborah Burton said she is building her home here in Hillsborough in partnership with
8 Habitat for Humanity and Orange County Schools. She thanked the Board for making this
9 possible and asked them to continue funding this year to make this possible for other families.
10 Robert Dowling, Executive Director of Community Home Trust (CHT), said CHT
11 implements inclusionary housing in Orange County and currently has 200 homes in its
12 inventory. He said the expectation is to sell an additional 25 homes in the next 6 months; many
13 of these homes will require public subsidies totaling more than $300,000, which is available
14 from HOME funds and other sources. He said there is a lot of turnover with townhomes and
15 condominiums, not single family homes. When these properties turn over, subsidies are lost.
16 He noted that median income has become flat but the costs of the homes increase, which
17 increases the need for subsidies. He said they will be coming to the Board of County
18 Commissioners to ask for HOME funds in the amount of$60,000. He noted that $40,000 will
19 be used to keep homes affordable and $20,000 will be for operating support. He said they could
20 never have done this with the support of local governments. He said that this is the most
21 difficult housing market he has seen.
22 Commissioner Dorosin said he is appreciative of all the work that has been done and he
23 echoed the comments from the retreat. He said this plan should likely be re-visited sooner than
24 2015 in light of changes mentioned. He said this is an opportune time to be thinking more
25 creatively. He said he has been haunted by the recent purchase of Abbey Court, which has 252
26 units and sold for $7 million. He said these were the most affordable units in Orange County
27 and now it looks as if the rent is going to be raised along with assessments. He said there is a
28 need to talk about different ways of doing things, including manufactured housing and he would
29 value advice from the professionals and the Affordable Housing Advisory Board.
30 Chair Jacobs noted that 1.3, page 32 talks about people not having indoor plumbing.
31 He questioned how much this count has been reduced and Tara Fikes said she would get him
32 that information.
33 Chair Jacobs said the Board heard on Friday that the Community Home Trust was
34 recruiting people from Durham County to move into unoccupied Orange County housing.
35 Robert Dowling said he is not aware of this. He said he wrote a memo to the Board of
36 County Commissioners asking for relief from some of the requirements if a home has not sold
37 after a certain number of days. He said there are so many properties on the market and it is
38 difficult to sell them, which puts a burden on CHT and makes the homeowners unhappy and
39 frustrated. He said the memo requests relief from hurdles to allow interested buyers, who don't
40 live or work here, to purchase the homes.
41 Chair Jacobs clarified that theoretically people outside of the county will be purchasing
42 the homes if the Board waives those hurdles and Robert Dowling said yes, after 90 days.
43 Commissioner McKee asked if there was any thought to transfer these homes to rental
44 properties, considering the number of homes on the market
45 Robert Dowling said there are several hurdles and CHT needs to stay focused on home
46 ownership not rentals. He said another issue is that special use permits that are approved by
47 local governments refer to home ownership, not rentals. He said if HOME funds are involved
48 then Orange County does have a say in some of the hurdles.
49 Commissioner McKee said they may have to start thinking out of the box.
9
1 Commissioner Rich said the same letter came to the Town Council several months ago
2 and it stated there are certain steps before Durham residents are looked at, thus giving Orange
3 County residents preference. She said that it may be time to view that memo again.
4 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the CHT receives any discount on the HOA dues of
5 condos in the high end markets.
6 Robert Dowling said this is by project. He said that for East 54 there is no discount but
7 there is a transfer fee whereby private sector owners pay a 1% fee that is used to supplement
8 dues. He said that Greenbridge also has transfer fees and at 140 West there is no transfer fee
9 but there is an agreement with the Town of Chapel Hill. He said that it basically varies by
10 project but that special assessments don't get built in and dues can rise, making transfer fees
11 inadequate.
12 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the subsidies mentioned are upfront or if they are
13 additional with homeowner dues.
14 Robert Dowling said that subsidies are put in at the initial sale, but because median
15 income has declined and everything else goes up, creating the need to re-subsidize when it is
16 transferred.
17 Chair Jacobs said he gave Tara Fikes some suggested topics from the retreat to share
18 with the joint meeting on March 12.
19 Tara Fikes said their advisory board is reviewing the letter now.
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich seconded by Commissioner McKee to close
22 the public hearing.
23
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 b. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments and
27 Zoning Atlas Amendments to Establish Two New Zoning Overlay Districts in the
28 Efland Area - Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional Comments
29 Accepted)
30
31 The Board will receive the Planning Board's recommendation, close the public hearing,
32 and make a decision on Planning Director initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan,
33 Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas in order to establish two new zoning overlay
34 districts in the Efland area. The primary purpose of the overlay districts is to provide for a more
35 village and urban style of development in an area of the county served, or intended to be
36 served, by public water and sewer systems.
37
38
39
40 Perdita Holtz said, because of the presence of new Board members and because the
41 staff and Planning Board recommendations differ, she would do a review of the plan text using
42 PowerPoint. The slides are included in the abstract notes for Item 6B and are as follows:
43
44 Comprehensive Plan Text, Unified Development Ordinance Text, and Zoning Atlas
45 Amendments to Establish Two New Zoning Overlay Districts in the Efland Area
46 February 5, 2013
47 Item 6.b
48
49 Zoning Atlas Amendment (Map- see abstract)
10
1
2 • Heard at November 19, 2012 quarterly public hearing and referred to Planning Board for a
3 recommendation.
4 • Staff asked Planning Board to specifically weigh in on:
5 a. Whether to retain the staff-proposed "tick" for a Special Zoning Overlay
6 District in the 20-Year Transition land use classification.
7 b. Whether an "internal pedestrian circulation system" should be required in the
8 Efland Village Overlay District on a large project.
9
10 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (Chart-see abstract)
11
12 Planning Board Recommendation
13 • Keep the "tick" in the 20-Year Transition row.
14 • Include language to require privately-owned, connecting walkways throughout the
15 Efland Village Overlay District.
16 c. Believes that provision of a pedestrian system (and other modes of
17 transportation) is very important
18 • Unanimously voted to recommend approval if pedestrian system language added.
19
20 Staff Recommendation
21 • Partially based on October 2011 work session regarding sidewalks and NC counties'
22 challenges in providing and maintaining sidewalks.
23 d. BOCC sentiment that getting into "the sidewalk business" is not feasible at
24 this time.
25 • Also based on issues identified in abstract regarding requiring private provision of an
26 interconnecting public walkway system.
27
28 • Require that "large" projects in Efland Village Overlay District provide an "internal
29 pedestrian circulation system"
30 e. "Large" defined (for this overlay district) as:
31 i. Located on 2 or more acres or
32 ii. > 15,000 square feet of building area
33 iii. Large parking area: > 50 parking spaces
34 • Also continue to acknowledge the importance of providing sidewalks and facilities for
35 other modes of transportation.
36 • Pursue opportunities to advance these ideas and ways counties can implement them at
37 the State level.
38
39 Manager's Recommendation
40 • Receive the Planning Board's recommendation of approval with changes (require
41 interconnecting walkways)
42 • Close the public hearing
43 • Deliberate as necessary and decide accordingly
11
1 •Manager recommends adoption of the staff-recommended ordinance in Attachment 2
2 and the Resolution of Consistency in Attachment 4
3
4 Chair Jacobs clarified that if the Board follows staff recommendation, attachments 2 and
5 4 will be adopted and if the Board follows the Planning Board's recommendation, attachments 3
6 and 4 will be adopted.
7 Perdita Holtz said this is correct.
8 Commissioner McKee questioned why approval of either recommendation would not put
9 the area in the sidewalk business.
10 Perdita Holtz said the internal pedestrian system would be private for use of
11 development residents only, but it would not be open to the public or interconnected to adjacent
12 parcels. She said that the sidewalks would be owned and maintained by the property owners.
13 Frank Clifton said with the alternative of a small office or shopping complex which would
14 provide walkways to get to and from the complex from the parking area and again, would be
15 maintained by the property owners. He said that there were just so many hurdles with
16 sidewalks when the county does not have a public works department. He said that it is an issue
17 to be looked at further; the state has given the county permission to get into the sidewalk
18 business, but no revenue to do so.
19 Commissioner Price said, with regards to the sidewalks in a small development, she
20 wondered if this would be a requirement for every development.
21 Perdita Holtz said it would be a sidewalk in the public right of way and would be provided
22 by the developer.
23 Commissioner Price questioned if it would it be a requirement for builders
24 Perdita Holtz said it would not be frontage and the language does give the Planning
25 Board Director some leeway in the site review process.
26 Commissioner Price questioned if the sidewalk has to be concrete or could just be extra
27 shoulder width.
28 Perdita Holtz said the Unified Development Ordinance does not specify a material, but
29 the sidewalk would just have to be designated in some way.
30 Commissioner Price said when the planning board was discussing this, did they have
31 any specific ideas about sidewalk versus extra right-of-way areas on the road.
32 Perdita Holtz said that it had started out as a right-of-way discussion but this did not
33 mesh with DOT standards for sidewalks. She said the discussion then turned to how to have
34 sidewalk on private property for public use, but specific materials were not discussed. This was
35 left open so as to be site specific and determined during the site plan review process.
36
37 Commissioner Rich said she is a big fan of connectivity and wondered if there is a way
38 to make sure that there is connectivity. She questioned if the area is being looked at as a
39 whole or each parcel individually. She said she believes it should be a goal to have parcels
40 connected.
41 Perdita Holtz said staff is a proponent of connectivity, but their hands are tied by the
42 state. She said that the NCDOT has not been receptive to allowing sidewalks in the right-of-
43 way or of taking on any maintenance responsibility. She said things are done on a site by site
44 basis and there are requirements for open space connectivity.
45 Commissioner Rich said this is a concern and as overlay districts happen throughout the
46 County, the developments should not isolated. She said that the full picture is not being
47 considered if connectivity is not allowed.
48 Commissioner Price said the Board is getting caught up with the word sidewalk when it
49 could be called a walk way and should just be about getting to point A and point B without being
50 in the middle of the street. She said that NCDOT should allow use of right-of-ways for bicycles.
12
1 Perdita Holtz said the staff's recommendation is to continue to bring this issue to the
2 forefront at the state level.
3 Frank Clifton said as staff looked at this, the reality of this village concept in a rural area
4 is that they don't have a connectivity plan. The hesitancy of DOT to accept more responsibility
5 for these right-of-ways and with the Board of County Commissioners not wanting to be involved
6 in the maintaining of those right-of-ways, creates the awkward position of asking property
7 owners to put the walkway in and accept the maintenance and liability. He said there is need
8 for more study and a decision about how far the County wants to get into the urbanization
9 business. He said that the state is expanding ability but not revenue sources for this. He said
10 that if the desire is to encourage development then before rules burdening property owners are
11 established, the issues need to be studied further.
12 Commissioner Gordon said she supported connectivity, but wondered if there is a
13 collector street plan for this area, because they are trying to make this more urban but they
14 have no mechanism for connectivity. She said the whole point was to allow more non-
15 residential development but there needs to be a path to that. She said that collector street
16 plans are more in the paradigm and at least have the developer build the street.
17 Perdita Holtz said they could look at this issue. She noted that in Efland, many of the
18 lots go to the center line of the roads and DOT maintains them but does not own any right of
19 ways. She said that the suggestion is to adopt the overlay districts at this time and put some
20 design standards in place before any more large scale development takes place, while
21 continuing to work on the topic of sidewalks.
22 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that what the staff recommends is approval of the
23 internal walkway plan for the five acre interstate district with no walkway plan for the village
24 district.
25 Perdita Holtz said that for the Village District there would be an internal pedestrian
26 system required for projects on 2 acres or greater than 15,000 square feet of building area.
27 She said that there is leeway in this during the site plan process.
28 Commissioner Dorosin questioned how the Planning Board's recommendation differs.
29 Perdita Holtz said that the Planning Board recommends a privately owned and
30 maintained walkway system throughout the area, on private property.
31 Commissioner Dorosin questions how this differs from the requirement for 2 acres or
32 more.
33 Perdita Holtz said the 2 acre requirement is only for internal use, larger businesses
34 would only have walkways between buildings; however the Planning Board's recommended
35 walkways would be a private sidewalk system that anyone could use.
36 Commissioner Dorosin said his question is with regard to the approval process and he
37 wonders if they could incentivize the developers to provide a publicly accessible sidewalk.
38 Perdita Holtz said there would need to be a sidewalk plan for the area to avoid issues
39 with encouraging trespass on adjoining properties if a sidewalk ends at the edge of one
40 property and is not continued on the next.
41 Commissioner Pelissier said most lots in this overlay district either face Hwy 70 or
42 Efland Cheeks Road and these are highly traveled roads. She said that requiring sidewalks is
43 not going to encourage connectivity in this area.
44 Perdita Holtz said the internal pedestrian system is an amenity for that property.
45 Commissioner McKee said that this issue brings up questions that center on the cost of
46 housing and the cost of building in Orange County. He said that he does not believe the
47 planning is not far enough along to really consider and he feels the discussion is premature. He
48 said there should be a closer look at connectivity and whether this will continue the escalation in
49 property cost on housing and businesses. He thinks the high housing cost in Orange County is
50 partially due to these regulations.
13
1 Chair Jacobs asked Craig Benedict how this fits into the Planning Department's work
2 plan to pursue a connectivity plan.
3 Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said there is an Efland/Mebane area
4 implementation focus group that could be re-convened to discuss this issue along with other
5 topics that come with making this a village area. He said that the struggle is that there are
6 designated urban transition areas, yet there are characteristics that fit more with a rural county.
7 He said that if growth is to be promoted, the connectivity characteristic is needed. He said
8 there will be a work plan note put together and sent to the Commissioners on what the Planning
9 Board is trying to achieve and how progress will be made. He said there is potential to bring
10 this up on the work plan for this year.
11 Chair Jacobs agreed with the connectivity issue being a priority and said this issue has
12 been discussed in the Efland area for about 8 years. He said it has not been satisfactorily
13 addressed. He said either recommendation will require more work for planning staff. He said
14 that an incentive plan is worth looking at and a connectivity plan is essential. He said that if
15 intensity is going to be encouraged then comprehensive connectivity must be dealt with. He
16 said that it is the job of the Board, if planning for urban style growth, to plan for urban style
17 transit and he would hope for concrete recommendations this year.
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
20 close the public hearing.
21
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Rich to adopt
25 item 3-c which states the Board will not adopt any changes, and that the Board will adopt
26 Attachments 5 and 6, which consist of an ordinance denying the amendments and
27 the Statement of Inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan; and that staff and the Planning
28 Board will address and answer the issues on page 3, Items 1-7 listed below:
29
30 1. The imposition of`requiring' public use of private property including the cost
31 (potentially upwards of$100 per linear foot, depending on site conditions), liability and
32 maintenance. Do issues of partial taking arise?
33 2. Would this pedestrian system have to be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
34 compatible (i.e. paved)?
35 3. The legal authority to enforce lack of maintenance.
36 4. The increase in impervious square footage due to the walkway causes a restriction in
37 the potential building size.
38 5. Would the `piece-meal' implementation cause "sidewalks to nowhere" and/or affect
39 the development design of adjacent parcels?
40 6. Associated liabilities to third parties by individual property owners.
41 7. Lack of an overall master plan for walkability.
42
43 Commissioner Dorosin said he sees the seven issues as narrower than what Chair
44 Jacobs said about connectivity plans and urbanization of the area.
45 Commissioner McKee said his intent is that this be moved back to the Planning Board
46 and staff for discussion and not that any comments or ideas discussed be eliminated or not
47 considered. He said the idea of putting the plan in place and then addressing the issues is
48 counterproductive and said that he is supportive of the village and the zoning.
49 Chair Jacobs said #7 on page 3 is just a comment, not a direction and he questioned
50 Commissioner McKee's intention in requesting an answer to this open ended statement.
14
1 Commissioner McKee said the intention is to address the lack of overall plan or to ask
2 what the plan is.
3 Chair Jacobs said he wanted to clarify if the Board is directing staff to proactively
4 address a walkability plan or just saying that there is no overall plan.
5 Commissioner McKee said the issue of need for, or lack of need for, a master plan
6 should be part of the Planning Board and staff's discussion. He said that his concern continues
7 to be the 700 pages of the Economic Development Ordinance and its impact on the affordability
8 of housing and the attractiveness of locating businesses in Orange County.
9 Commissioner Rich said it feels like this is not ready to be voted on.
10 Commissioner Gordon suggested that the Motion 3-c should include the additional
11 statement to "Accept the planning director's recommendation", followed by the recommendation
12 wording below Issue 7 on page 3, which states as follows:
13 ...Planning Director recommends that additional study occur to create more logical,
14 legal and cost effective regulation in regards to pedestrian systems. The development of a
15 village pedestrian master plan with associated private maintenance authorities (should)
16 potentially be explored
17 Commissioner McKee accepted the friendly amendment
18 Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification about Commissioner McKee's original
19 statement of the issues.
20 Chair Jacobs said that he read 3-c and then asked for answers and clarification to
21 issues 1-7.
22 Commissioner Gordon said she would say address the issues and then add the second
23 point she read previously, changing the word could to should.
24 Commissioner Rich accepted the friendly amendment.
25 Commissioner Price said that liability is mentioned with regard to pedestrian walkways
26 but she is concerned about safety and this is not mentioned.
27 Commissioner Dorosin asked Craig Benedict about the recommendation of adoption of
28 Attachment 2, in the interim.
29 Craig Benedict said that, aside from the pedestrian walkway issue, there are 15-20 good
30 aspects that are not being questioned and make sense. He said that going with 3-c throws
31 these good things out. He said that going with Attachment 2 accepts these good things and
32 holds off the pedestrian circulation issues.
33 Chair Jacobs said that if you read 3-c it states that everything comes to a halt.
34
35 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Rich Commissioner McKee Commissioner Gordon
36 Commissioner Price); Nays, 3 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Pelissier and Commissioner
37 Dorosin)
38
39 Motion passed
40
41 Commissioner Pelissier questioned if there would be a need for a new public hearing.
42 Perdita Holtz said yes and noted that the buffer requirements are still in effect.
43 Chair Jacobs asked for clarification regarding all of the discussion on buffering. He
44 referred to page 59 —c, and said the statements about vegetative buffering do not clarify if
45 existing vegetation can be used.
46 Perdita Holtz said that existing vegetations is acceptable and referred to this statement
47 in section 6.8.
48
49 7. Regular Agenda
50
15
1 a. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Atlas Amendment Outline and Schedule for
2 Upcoming Item —Orange-Alamance County Line Adjustment
3 The Board considered processes components and schedule for a Planning Director
4 initiated item for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning
5 Atlas related to the finalization of the Orange-Alamance County Line, currently scheduled for
6 the May 28, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing.
7
8 For the purpose of informing the new Board members, Craig Benedict presented a PowerPoint
9 Presentation on the background information. He referred to the slides that follow:
10
11 February 5, 2013
12 AGENDA ITEM
13 Comprehensive Land Use Element Map and Zoning Atlas Amendments —Orange
14 Alamance Line
15
16 ORANGE-ALAMANCE COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE REPORT(Graphic)
17
18 BACKGROUND:
19 • Boundary line had become `uncertain' over the years creating contradictory maps.
20 • Both the Orange and Alamance County Board of Commissioners requested the North
21 Carolina Geodetic Survey (NCGS) prepare preliminary surveys linking description to
22 field monuments
23
24 BACKGROUND:
25 • Both Counties initiated process
26 • Adoption of Session Law 2010-61 petition criteria to `adjust the line'
27 • Project involved numerous Orange County departments including, but not limited to:
28 Manager's office, Planning, Land Records, Tax Administration, GIS, Attorney's office,
29 Health Department, etc.
30
31 BACKGROUND:
32 • 91% Line' was resolved with the passing of Session Law 2011-88 on May 25, 2011
33 • The remaining 9% was addressed with the passage of Session Law 2012-108.
34
35 Alamance-Orange Boundary Implementation Flowchart (Chart)
36
37 (Michael Harvey takes over the PowerPoint presentation at this point.)
38
39 NECESSARY ACTIONS:
40 • Orange County has to extend zoning and land use categories on properties located
41 within our planning jurisdiction as the result of the boundary line agreement.
42 • In November of 2011 the BOCC held a public hearing to extend zoning and land use
43 onto 65 properties (approximately 221 acres involved) as part of the `91%' boundary
44 line project.
45 • The BOCC approved the zoning atlas and future land use map amendments on
46 December 13, 2011.
47 • Now we have to do the same thing with the properties associated with the `9%'
48 portion of the line.
49
50 ADOPTED COUNTY LINE —91%: (Map)
16
1
2 9% Line Project:
3 • Project impacts 11 properties in northern Orange County along Eliza Lane.
4 • Properties currently have zoning/land use classifications assigned. Staff will be
5 extending these existing classifications on those portions of property now located in
6 our jurisdiction.
7
8 IMPACTED AREA - 9% LINE: (Map)
9
10 RECOMMENDATION:
11 • The Manager recommends the Board approve the attached Amendment Outline
12 Form and direct staff to proceed accordingly.
13
14 When presenting slide 5, Craig Benedict noted that there are two communities where
15 work still needs to be done, with Mill Creek and Morrow Mill and this will not be forgotten.
16 Michael Harvey noted that there will be an open house in April for impacted property
17 owners and notification requirements will be followed.
18 Commissioner Rich asked if the zoning would be consistent with the property that is
19 already there.
20 Michael Harvey said yes, they are just extending existing zoning and land use
21 categories.
22 Commissioner Rich asked if there were any foreseeable problems with this.
23 Michael Harvey said no.
24 Chair Jacobs and Frank Clifton reviewed more historical information for the newer board
25 members.
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier seconded by Commissioner Rich to:
27 Approve the processes' components and schedule for a Planning Director initiated item for
28 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas related to the
29 finalization of the Orange-Alamance County Line, currently scheduled for the May 28, 2013
30 Quarterly Public Hearing.
31
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33
34 b. Follow-up Discussion on the Continuation of the Historic Rogers Road
35 Neighborhood Task Force
36
37 The Board considered follow-up on Board discussions at the January 24, 2013 regular
38 meeting and the January 29, 2013 work session regarding the continuation of the Historic
39 Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force with consideration of the following: requesting that the
40 Towns appoint their respective representatives; confirming the appointment of Commissioners
41 Penny Rich and Renee Price to serve on the Task Force; consider appointing David Caldwell
42 and Robert Campbell from the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) to serve on
43 the Task Force; and confirming the Charge and a Timeline for the continued activities of the
44 Task Force.
45 Frank Clifton said the board requested this to come back for review. He said the Board
46 took action tonight on the consent agenda for appointments on this task force. He said that the
47 two citizens need to be reappointed and the towns need to appoint as well. He said that
48 clarification was asked for on the motions from January 24th
49 Chair Jacobs asked for clarification of the task force timeline included in the motion,
50 which is 6 months from adoption, and he noted 6 months from adoption would be July 24th
17
1 Frank Clifton said the issue for the Board of County Commissioners is that there is
2 summer break and he asked if the board would want this task force to come back with a report
3 in September.
4 Commissioner Rich said; regarding bullet point one, could the towns also be asked to
5 approve, along with their appointments, the continuation of the task force. She said there is an
6 assumption that the towns want the task force continue but this should be confirmed.
7 Chair Jacobs said, assuming the towns approve this, it could be six months from the last
8 town endorsement and approval.
9 Commissioner Rich said Orange County should put a deadline date on it and not wait for
10 the towns.
11 Chair Jacobs pointed out that the board reconvenes on September 5th
12 Commissioner Price said she believes that the task force wanted this to end by
13 June. She said that since none of this is new, the Board should move forward and attempt to
14 have something done by June.
15 Chair Jacobs said June is full with budget items even though no one disputes her point.
16 Commissioner Price said the point was to have things done no later than June.
17 Commissioner Dorosin said that June puts it down to four months and he believes the
18 start should be when the task force meets again. He said that this needs to be meaningful and
19 four months will lead to ramming through recommendations without really engaging the
20 community. He said that the target should be 6 months from when the task force meets again.
21 Commissioner McKee expressed his agreement with Commissioner Dorosin and said
22 that the other boards will take some time to make appointments and then there will be a lag
23 before the group meets. He said that because this will not be addressed until at least
24 September 5th, he does not have a problem with asking for a report back by the second meeting
25 in September. He also suggested a 6 month timeframe from the date of either the last
26 appointment by the towns or the first meeting by the task force.
27 Frank Clifton said he did not want to create confusion and that he sees no reason to
28 have a report due July 1st if none of the bodies meet until September. He feels a September
29 deadline is good.
30 Commissioner Dorosin said that since the community center has been bifurcated from
31 the task force, that will proceed at pace. He said he is less concerned that giving a 6 month
32 time frame will keep things from proceeding.
33 Commissioner Price said she is fine as long as they do have a certain deadline date.
34 Chair Jacobs pointed out that the motion that was ratified was to continue the task force
35 for 6 months, but it has no definition of this timeline. He suggested that they clarify the timeline
36 by setting the expectation of a report at their September 17t meeting.
37 Michael Talbert said all of his points have been covered and it is unlikely the task force
38 will meet before mid-March and a September date is feasible. He said that it will take at least 4-
39 6 weeks to pull together a final report for approval from the task force, prior to the town and
40 county seeing it.
41 Chair Jacobs said that Commissioner Dorosin had made an observation about the
42 charge from January 24th meeting related to items 3-4 on the motion.
43 Commissioner Dorosin said that when he made the motion to consider options to
44 address gentrification, he intended on including Chapel Hill Small Area Plan (SAP) as all one
45 bullet item, considering future development in the area.
46 Chair Jacobs said he was not sure there was any substantive difference.
47 Commissioner Gordon said it should be left as is. She said she listened carefully to the
48 video of the meeting. When Chair Jacobs read the motion he used a lot of"ands", which
49 resulted in the clerk writing it as it stands, and Commissioner Gordon accepted what the clerk
50 wrote.
18
1 Commissioner Rich said it is important to bring the Small Area Plan (SAP) back when
2 they talk about this in the task force; but that it is also a good idea to go back and look at all the
3 recommendations dating back to 1997 to bring those past opinions back to the table.
4 Chair Jacobs reviewed what he had noted from the discussion:
5 -Request that towns appoint task force members and confirm the continuation of the
6 task force.
7 - Make a separate recommendation that the six month period conclude with a report to
8 come back to the County Commissioners no later than the September 17, 2013
9 meeting.
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon seconded by Commissioner Price to
11 request that the towns confirm that the task force should continue and that they appoint task
12 force members; confirm the appointment of Commissioners Rich and Price as the County's
13 members on the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force; appoint David Caldwell and
14 Robert Campbell from the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association to the Historic Rogers
15 Road Neighborhood Task Force; confirm the Charge and Timeline of the task force as
16 specified in the second motion at the top of page 3 from the previous meeting, and specify that
17 the report be due no later than the September 17th Board of Commissioner's meeting.
18
19 Chair Jacobs asked for additional comments.
20
21 Commissioner Dorosin said that the Rogers Eubank Neighborhood Association (RENA)
22 should appoint its own two citizens to the Historic Rogers Road Task Force and offered this as
23 a friendly amendment.
24 Commissioner Rich said the neighborhood should be asked the same questions as the
25 towns, thus they should be asked to appoint two members and they should be asked if they
26 wish to continue the task force.
27 Commissioner Gordon requested that RENA confirm that the task force continues and
28 appoint two task force members.
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Alice Gordon and seconded by Commissioner
30 Renee Price to:
31
32 1. Request that the towns confirm the continuation of the Historic
33 Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force and appoint members to the Task force;
34
35 2. Confirm the appointment of Commissioners Rich and Price as the
36 county's members on the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force;
37
38 3. Request that the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association confirm
39 the continuation of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force and appoint two
40 members to the Task Force;
41
42 4. Confirm the charge and a timeline for the Task force as specified by the motion
43 approved at the January 24 meeting:
44
45 - To continue the Task Force for six (6) months;
46 - To have the Task Force consider the final costs, provision and installation of water
47 and sewer utility extensions preferably at no cost for members of the Historic Rogers
48 Road community;
49 - Consider options to address gentrification;
50 - Consider Chapel Hill's most recent Small Area Plan;
19
1 - Consider funding options, including the Greene Tract.
2
3 5. Specify that the Task Force provide a report to the Board of County Commissioners
4 no later than the Board's September 17th meeting.
5
6 Prior to voting, Commissioner Dorosin raised an item from the 1/29 work session,
7 stating that he feels that the voting procedure at the work session was not appropriate. He said
8 when multiple people are being appointed, Board members should be required to vote for the
9 two people at one time. He noted that some people voted three times for two seats and this is
10 problematic.
11 Commissioner Dorosin also said there was some concern from board members that he
12 had a conflict of interest and should not have been appointed. He said that the County Attorney
13 addressed this issue in a memo. He said that all Board members have association interests
14 with organizations and groups across the county and the idea that participation in those groups
15 disqualifies members from participating is nonsensical. He said he wants to be mindful of that
16 and that there was no conflict of interest pursuant to the law. He asked the County Attorney to
17 clarify this on the record.
18 John Roberts said the term conflict of interest is not defined in the county statutes and a
19 county commissioner is required to vote on all issues that come forth unless that member will
20 receive a direct financial impact from that vote or the vote involves an item regarding the
21 Commissioners official conduct. He clarified that he did not find any actual legal conflict with
22 Commissioner Dorosin's potential task force involvement.
23
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 8. Reports
27
28 a. Changes in Taxation for Motor Vehicles
29 The Board will receive an overview of the upcoming changes to the taxation of
30 registered motor vehicles as stipulated in House Bill 1779, and information on the current status
31 of the project.
32
33 Dwane Brinson, Orange County Tax Administrator, presented a PowerPoint presentation and
34 discussed the slides included below:
35
36 North Carolina
37 "Tag and tax"
38
39 Background:
40 • General Assembly passed HB 1779 in 2005
41 • Bill was delayed a couple of times, but now is moving forward towards implementation
42 • Will take effect with vehicle registration renewals due July, 2013
43
44 Current System: "Billing in Arrears"
45 • Taxpayer renews vehicle registration through NCDMV, either online, mail or in person
46 • Tax office receives monthly file of all new registrants from the preceding month
47 • Vehicle property tax bill mailed out by tax office approximately 3 months after
48 registration renewal
49 • Vehicle property tax bill due the 4th month after registration renewal
50
20
1 Current System: "Billing in Arrears"
2 • On average, 66% of Registered Motor Vehicle (RMV) bills are paid on time
3 • In a full fiscal year, vehicle tax collections across are significantly less than annual bills
4 • Figure 1- Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011 Collections (Table)
5
6 New System
7 • "Tag and Tax" project
8 • Combines vehicle property tax notice and payment with the vehicle registration process
9 • Invitation to renew
10 - Registration fee and vehicle tax notice sent in advance
11 • Taxpayers must pay vehicle property tax at same time as vehicle registration fee
12 - Must be paid in full
13
14 New System
15 • Assessor determines value, situs, and taxable status of the vehicle in advance— not in
16 arrears
17 • File is "delivered" to DMV to prepare the invitations to renew the registration
18 • Taxes must be paid in order to obtain the registration — no partial payments will be
19 allowed
20
21 Configuration
22 • Vehicle Tax System (VTS) will be a separate system housed by the NC Department of
23 Revenue
24 • NCDMV responsible for titles and registrations
25 • NCDOR responsible for tax administration of vehicles
26
27 Project Goals
28 • To improve the citizen's experience
29 - Reduce the number of government interactions
30 - Eliminate the need for delinquent vehicle collections
31 • Reduce/share costs
32 - Duplicate mailings (postage, materials, handling, etc.)
33 • Increase efficiency of an existing tax
34 - Improve collections and revenues
35 - Improved compliance
36 -
37 Implementation
38 • Counties work first files in the new VTS April, 2013
39 - Combined notices in mailboxes by June 1, 2013
40 • Old and new system will overlap for four months
41 - Change in due date
42 • Counties to work files in two systems for five months
43
44 Renewals
45 • Assessor will situs and assess vehicles in VTS
46 • VTS will send amount of taxes due to STARS system
47 • DMV will mail and collect
48 • Due date will be 15th of the month
49 • Valuation appeal must be made within 30 days of due date
21
1 • Real time
2
3 How Project Was Paid For
4 • Project costs were paid through the Special Fund administered by the State Treasurer
5 - 3% additional interest on delinquent bills
6 • All taxing jurisdictions on the combined notice would bear their share of costs based
7 upon each unit's contribution to the total amount of the notice
8 • An effective cost comparison should prorate costs among jurisdictions
9
10 Public Outreach
11 - Provided tri-fold insert with annual listing forms
12 - Notices being mailed with each RMV monthly mailing
13 - Information announcement on county digital monitors
14 - Press release through Public Information Office
15 - Educational video with PIO available 24/7 on website and YouTube
16 - Presentation to BOCC
17 - Twitter @OCNCTAX
18
19 Dwane Brinson said this is a massive undertaking of combining two large systems and
20 has been in the works for quite some time. He said that under the current system, many
21 taxpayers set bills aside and forget them, creating a need for enforced collection. He stated
22 that even with a higher than average collection rate, the county has over 39,000 delinquent
23 bills. He said this situation should improve with the requirement to pay both tax and registration
24 fee in order to renew registration. He noted that the current system puts a block on vehicles if
25 taxes are not paid within 4 months. This enforced collection often results in payments not
26 arriving in the correct fiscal year for which they were budgeted. This new system aims to reduce
27 or eliminate the need for these enforced collections.
28 Dwane Brinson, referring to slide 11, said under the current plan the county will receive
29 a monthly distribution of revenues from vehicle taxes, but noted that this could change to bi-
30 weekly or weekly.
31 Commissioner Gordon asked him to clarify how often the state will remit to them and
32 asked if there is any danger that these funds could be sequestered
33 Dwane Brinson said the current plan is for the state to remit to the finance office monthly
34 and as for the state taking over that money, that is a legal question and he does not know, but
35 counties have to comply with this system.
36 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the DMV or DOR will take an administrative fee.
37 Dwane Brinson said it depends on method of payment and he has this in a memo that
38 he will forward to the Board of County Commissioners.
39 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the 1.5% cut will still be in effect from the towns or if it
40 would be eliminated.
41 Dwane Brinson said it will no longer be a statutory requirement.
42 Frank Clifton said there were agreements with the town collection process and varies
43 from county to county. He said he does not know why there would be a 1.5% if the state will be
44 doing collection and distribution. He said the goal with the fees is to cover administrative cost,
45 so there will be a look at whether there are any costs involved.
46 Commissioner Dorosin if it was possible that taxpayers would get two bills in one year
47 during this transition period.
48 Dwane Brinson said there is an effort ongoing to send notices to delinquent taxpayers to
49 encourage them to pay now in order to avoid having to pay delinquent and current taxes with
22
1 the new billing cycle. He said that some people, who paid on time, may get two bills in 8 or 9
2 months but it could be sooner if they have a delinquent bill.
3 Commissioner Dorosin said they may want to consider including this information in the
4 public information materials. He suggested reaching out to the Orange County Arts
5 Commission to enlist local talent in making the outreach video.
6 Commissioner Pelissier asked for information on what happens when someone is
7 delinquent in Orange County and then moves to another county.
8 Dwane Brinson said there are options through the tax office for collecting those moneys
9 for the county.
10 Commissioner McKee encouraged use of newspapers to engage the public with a news
11 article. He said this new system will be much more cost effective and efficient.
12 Frank Clifton said there should not be two overlapping bills unless someone has been
13 delinquent.
14 Commissioner Price asked if someone does not have the money to pay both bills, could
15 they pay them at separate times.
16 Dwane Brinson, said people could make multiple trips to the DMV to pay but will be
17 unable to renew tags until payments are all made in full.
18 Chair Jacobs asked that the tax be referred to as vehicle tax, not a property tax, in
19 public outreach materials.
20
21 9. County Manager's Report-none
22
23 10. County Attorney's Report -none
24
25 11. Appointments-none
26
27 12. Board Comments (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner)
28 Commissioner Pelissier said she was the Orange County representative on the Chapel
29 Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) career and technical education task force. She said that
30 the group wants to make sure partnerships are developed that ensure people get training for
31 both local and international jobs that are available. She also said Triangle Transit's annual
32 report showed that ridership is up 22.6%. She referenced a work session presentation
33 regarding the process TTA is developing an accounting process for the new monies coming in
34 from sales tax and vehicle registration. She requested that reports be sent to the board and the
35 public to give clarity about plans for how the money will be spent.
36 Commissioner Rich asked if the board has ever divided complex motions, and if not,
37 could this practice be considered.
38 Commissioner McKee said he was invited to bring greetings from the Board of County
39 Commissioners to the Human Relations Commission event, which focused on the Emancipation
40 Proclamation and its impact and implications in both the past and futures. He said more
41 programs will be forthcoming.
42 Commissioner Gordon followed up on Commissioner Rich's comment and referred to
43 past practices of having motions typed up onto a visible screen. She said it might be a good
44 idea to re-consider this practice.
45 Commissioner Dorosin thanked everyone for their work on their retreat
46 Commissioner Price said there will be community read on the Emancipation
47 Proclamation in March. She said she went to the Mental Health Legislative breakfast and found
48 it very inspiring. She encouraged support of this.
49 Chair Jacobs said Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner McKee were part of the
50 planning committee for the retreat and get equal thanks. He said there was someone in
23
1 northern Orange County with a concern about 24 hour lighting at the Walnut Grove Community
2 Center and it was clarified that those lights were only to be continuously on for the first 48
3 hours.
4 He also noted that the Agricultural Summit will be held on Monday 2/15.
5 Chair Jacobs said that he will work with the clerk and follow the recommendations of the
6 board to find ways to better communicate and convey motions before voting occurs.
7 Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker said that there was an attempt made to write out
8 motions on a projector, but it was very difficult to hand-write them. She said she likes the idea
9 of breaking up complex motions as it is often difficult to hear the motions clearly on the
10 recordings and she has to go back and listen to her direct recordings. This means she is often
11 clarifying motions the next day and then sends them out to all of the Commissioners.
12 Chair Jacobs said that there will need to be an effort on the part of the Commissioners
13 to stay with the sub-sets of the motions and work through them one at a time.
14
15 13. Information Items
16
17 • January 24, 2013 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
18 • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
19
20 14. Closed Session -NONE
21
22 15. Adjournment
23 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
24 adjourn the meeting at 10:33pm
25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
26
27 Barry Jacobs, Chair
28
29 Donna S. Baker, CMC
30 Clerk to the Board
31
1
1 DRAFT Attachment 2
2
3
4 MINUTES
5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
6 HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
7 JOINT MEETING
8 February 21, 2013
9 7:00 p.m.
10
11 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Joint Meeting with the Town of
12 Hillsborough Commissioners on Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Link
13 Government Services Center, in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
14
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Alice
16 Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mark Dorosin
18 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Annette Moore
19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers
20 Michael Talbert and Clarence Grier, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff
21 members will be identified appropriately below)
22 HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens and Commissioners
23 Eric Hallman, Brian Lowen, Frances Dancy, Evelyn Lloyd, and Michael Gering
24 HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
25 HILLSBOROUGH STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Eric Peterson
26
27 Welcome and Opening Remarks (Mayor Tom Stevens and Chair Barry Jacobs)
28 Chair Jacobs said Commissioner Dorosin was out of town and was unable to attend and
29 Commissioner McKee would be attending but would be late.
30
31 Mayor Stevens said that Evelyn Lloyd will be a little late.
32
33 1. Coordinated Planning Efforts
34
35 a. Update on Town of Hillsborough Future Land Use Plan
36
37 Town of Hillsborough Planning Director Margaret Hauth referred to a map (attachment
38 1 B) that had been seen previously by Board members. She said that the established boundary
39 on the map is the first step the town needed to take to move along the coordinated planning
40 agreement. She said that the boundary is in the coordinated planning agreement for annexation
41 and utility extension area for the town. This exceeds current city limits and ETJ (Extra-territorial
42 Jurisdiction) and establishes future land use for all of the areas. She said the town incorporated
43 most of the comments from the Board of County Commissioners on land use and the Town's
44 planning board approved all of it last night with the exception of one minor change. She said
45 the town is ready to proceed with this, which will also allow the coordinated planning agreement
46 to move forward.
47 Chair Jacobs asked if they had talked about the changes in annexation laws as it relates
48 to this plan.
49 Mayor Stevens said they have not had much discussion about the legislative decisions
50 on annexation. He said where there are properties with a single owner wanting to develop
2
1 property, this is allowed; but where there are neighborhoods with numerous land owners, it can
2 be problematic.
3 Margaret Hauth said most of their annexations have been voluntary.
4 Commissioner Rich asked for an explanation of what it means to amend boundaries.
5 Margaret Hauth said they will be moving some residents into their ETJ and some out of
6 the ETJ and back into the county, which involves re-zoning for each of those property owners.
7 She said that those property owners have to be notified and there is a process of working
8 through that change with them. She said that as properties are moved from one jurisdiction to
9 another, it has to be moved from one zoning category to another.
10 Commissioner Rich asked how many people would be affected.
11 Margaret Hauth said it is more than a few but not an extraordinary number. She used a
12 map to point out areas that will be subject to change. She said there will be 624 acres to be
13 added and 489 acres to go out.
14 Margaret Hauth said their Town Board has to formally approve and adopt the plan and
15 then it will come back to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration, along with the
16 request to amend ETJs in late March or early April.
17 Chair Jacobs asked about public hearings and Margaret Hauth said they will be
18 forthcoming.
19 Town Commissioner Hallman asked if this included the mutual courtesy review process.
20 Margaret Hauth said yes, the courtesy review is already in place and the coordinated
21 planning will go beyond that.
22
23 b. Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan
24
25 Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor for Orange County, said the initial step
26 is for the Town to adopt this future land use plan for not only town use areas and ETJ, but also
27 for the areas designated as urbanizing per the interlocal agreement. He referred to orange and
28 blue areas on the map (attachment 1 B). Once this is done the county has the opportunity to
29 adopt the land uses as prescribed by the town, adding land uses for the broader area shown in
30 white on the map being displayed. He said this will then become the joint land use plan for both
31 boards to consider. He said the purpose of the coordinated land use plan is to differentiate and
32 designate those areas that are to remain rural from those that are to have urban services.
33 Tom Altieri presented a draft outline and time table for their review. He referred to the
34 following items on the timeline: 1) March — Town Board will consider its land use plan, and 2)
35 April — County Commissioners will receive this plan as well as the formal outline and timetable
36 for consideration and approval.
37 He said the time period will allow for any negotiations necessary between the town and
38 county. He said they have provided comments from the county on one occasion and the town
39 was very responsive. He said he expects some discussion about the land use in the white
40 areas on the map. There will probably be county outreach at two different times during the
41 process. He said the county and town will need to adopt a plan that both entities can adopt. He
42 said that once this is adopted, the town and county would need to work independently to
43 incorporate the map and land uses into its land use ordinances. He said this is a two step
44 process. The first step is to adopt the land use plan, map, designations and descriptions of the
45 areas. The second step would include subsequent public hearings to implement that plan into
46 the town and county ordinances and ETJs swapped, as mentioned earlier.
47 Commissioner Pelissier asked if there are requirements for this process to notify
48 property owners of the public hearing.
49 Tom Altieri said there would be some requirements and the county has its own
50 requirements outlined in the unified development ordinance. He said that land use plan public
51 hearing notices are advertised in newspapers, sent out via emails to owners on the distribution
3
1 list. There is no first class mail for these. He said this would be the case for the first hearing to
2 adopt the map and designations. He said that for the second step to formally amend the 2030
3 comprehensive plan and incorporate those uses onto the county future land use map, there are
4 state and county requirements to notify by first class mail.
5 Commissioner Pelissier asked if it wasn't a little late by the second hearing, when people
6 are actually notified by mail, to make any changes. She said she has some concerns about
7 this.
8 Town Commissioner Lloyd arrived at 7:18 PM.
9 Tom Altieri said that step one, which is being worked on now, has included some
10 notification and some community meetings and input. This first step is more germane to the
11 town. The second piece relates to the broader white area. He said the attempt to break it up
12 makes it more manageable and prevents an unnecessarily large scale mailing.
13 Frank Clifton asked how much the white boundary would be changing.
14 Margaret Hauth said it is a new boundary that has not existed before, but it is the same
15 as it was when the agreement was adopted to start down this road five years ago.
16 Frank Clifton asked about the specific impact on the people living in the white area as far
17 as reviews, and approvals.
18 Tom Altieri said it would be primarily the county and the town has no role in the white
19 area.
20 Frank Clifton asked about the notifications to the people in the white area and Tom
21 Altieri said, in step two, there would be notifications in the white area with regard to any changes
22 in land use or zoning.
23 Frank Clifton noted that most of this area is rural and questioned how they would be
24 notified.
25 Tom Altieri said this process in general is outlined in the inter-local agreement between
26 both boards.
27 Craig Benedict said that the general understanding is that if this area does not remain
28 rural around Hillsborough the impact of sprawl in that area would impact Hillsborough. He said
29 that, if Orange County were to ever consider higher or lower density, the impact of the rural area
30 is of common interest to Hillsborough, though not necessarily regulated by Hillsborough.
31 Chair Jacobs said the white area on the map was at one point a fifty-year water and
32 service area envisioned by Hillsborough and then recognized as not feasible. Margaret Hauth
33 said not all of it, but a good portion of it.
34 Chair Jacobs said this is vestige of older maps and older plans adjusted with a rural
35 buffer to the south, watershed to the west and a differentiation between Durham and
36 Hillsborough and the Eno River State Park to the east. This only left the north as an option for
37 movement up.
38 Frank Clifton said he wanted to make the point that many of these residents are quite a
39 distance from Hillsborough proper.
40 Commissioner Gordon said the key question is regarding what happens in the white
41 area. She said the first step is to notify the people in the blue and orange areas, then it is stated
42 that the people in the white area are to be notified if the zoning and land use are to be changed.
43 She asked for clarification of what would change in the white area to necessitate notification.
44 Tom Altieri gave an example, using the rural buffer, which has a zoning district that
45 applies to it - "rural buffer". This enables the county to have a different residential zoning
46 density in that area. He said the white area does not currently show up in the town's zoning,
47 and if the county were to suggest that the density be different in the white areas, some zoning
48 district would need to be created. This would be a re-zoning that would require property owners
49 to be notified.
4
1 Commissioner Gordon noted that this implies that the property owners might be affected
2 in some way, which raises the question of whether they should be involved earlier in the
3 process.
4 Craig Benedict said that before any changes are made in the white area they will notify
5 residents of any proposed changes. He noted similar debates during the late 80's in the
6 planning process of determining some of the rural zoning density. This was eventually voted on
7 as one unit per two acres. The thought was that if it stayed at the previous number of one unit
8 per one acre, it would not be a low enough zone to protect the rural lifestyle and to differentiate
9 it from the urban environment. Similarly, there is still one unit per one acre in other areas and if
10 the soil will accommodate the well and septic needs of this number, it could add up to quite a
11 few units. He noted that this will add traffic to what is already a traffic concern area. He said
12 that will be a decision through the public hearing process of notifying the public and working with
13 the County Commissioners to make a determination about the white area.
14 Commissioner Gordon questioned whether the plan and map are really formally adopted
15 in step one, or step two.
16 Tom Altieri said this would be a process similar to the small area plans, (i.e. Efland,
17 Mebane) where the County Commissioners adopt a plan in one public hearing and then in a
18 second public hearing goes through the first class mail process before formally making
19 changes.
20 Commissioner Gordon clarified that this means it is not formally done until step two and
21 Tom Altieri said that is correct.
22 Commissioner Price she does not know if there is any need to worry about the white
23 area. The critical part is the ETJ and the blue and orange area.
24 Chair Jacobs said what he is hearing is that the white area will not change unless the
25 county proposes a change. He noted that at this point there are no zoning change proposals in
26 the white area other than those that are already part of the agreement, the gray and the blue.
27 Margaret Hauth said the light blue are outside their urban service boundary, where there
28 are already water lines in the ground. She said there is no impact to the light blue areas under
29 the agreements.
30
31 c. Safe Routes to Schools (STST) Action Plan Update
32
33 Abigaile Pittman, Transportation Planner for Orange County, reviewed the history of the
34 Safe Routes to School action plan, as outlined on pages two and three of the meeting abstract.
35 She gave details regarding the revisions to federal and state funding sources, specifically the
36 federal funding, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Bill (MAP 21), in which Safe
37 Routes to School direct allocation funds were removed. She said that NC Department of
38 Transportation staff has told the planning staff that safety loop funds will continue to be available
39 to the program with the nine competitive rolling grant cycles. She said this program is a
40 reimbursement program that does not require local management and is 100 percent federally
41 funded. She said that when applying for federal reimbursement grants, the county and town
42 should budget funds and set up accounts to expend those funds until DOT has reimbursed the
43 project costs. After identification of projects, the county would apply through the DOT Division 7
44 office and funding is based on project priority with as much local support as possible from PTA
45 groups, etc.
46 Town Commissioner Lowen asked for clarification on CW Stanford Middle School as a
47 choice and asked what determined why these schools were chosen and not the schools next to
48 them.
49 Commissioner McKee arrived at 7:36 PM
50 Craig Benedict gave some history on the project and said that the advisory board had
51 several representatives and advocates were affiliated with the schools in Orange County. They
5
1 determined that accomplishments could be made with the schools stated here. He said, with
2 Stanford, there is some expandability to cover up to the high school.
3 Town Commissioner Lowen said that many of these sidewalks will benefit all schools
4 because of proximity to one another.
5 Craig Benedict said there are some implementation actions that the Board can identify.
6 Abigaile Pittman said she heard from DOT that the projects given priority are the projects
7 that serve multiple sites.
8 Craig Benedict said that Orange High and CW Stanford have that proximity and should
9 move up the priority list.
10 Commissioner Price said that there was also more concern with younger children, many
11 of whom walk, getting to school, whereas most high school students were driving.
12 Chair Jacobs said it would be an enhancement to incorporate the mention of the high
13 schools into discussion of the routes.
14 Commissioner Gordon said the staff needs to find out from DOT why this project is
15 handled in this way.
16 Abigaile Pittman said that the locations chosen all had some common deficiencies such
17 as high speed traffic, no sidewalk connectivity to neighborhoods, incidents of bicycle crashes
18 and pedestrian accidents in the area, and extensive planned residential growth.
19 Chair Jacobs asked for feedback on their request.
20
21 d. North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Rail Crossincis Plans in
22 and near Hillsboroucih
23
24 Abigaile Pittman, citing primarily from page three of the meeting abstract, said
25 in September 2012 the Planning Department received a solicitation for comments from the
26 NCDOT Rail Division with regard to proposed private crossing closures with the North Carolina
27 Railroad (NCRR)/Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway crossings at Gordon Thomas Drive, Greenbriar
28 Drive, and Byrdsville Road in Orange County. This railroad track is part of the SE High Speed
29 Rail corridor, which when complete, will provide high speed passenger rail service between
30 Washington, D.C. and Charlotte, NC. NCDOT requested that the County provide scoping
31 comments to be used in the preparation of a proposed Environmental Assessment (EA).
32 Initial comments were sent to the NCDOT Rail Division in November 2012, and a
33 response letter was received in December 2012. Citizens Informational Workshops were held
34 by the NCDOT Rail Division in January for all three proposed private railroad crossing closures,
35 and a summary of public comments is available. The BOCC discussed and added comments at
36 its meeting on February 19th and a second comment letter was approved and sent to NCDOT.
37 Abigail Pittman said the primary comments expressed a need for greater clarity regarding, 1.
38 Which alternate access roads will be improved and/or constructed roads accepted into the state
39 system, 2. More specific details regarding proposed right of way and pavement widths, 3. Storm
40 drain details and pavement standards and 4. The anticipated schedule for required right of way
41 or easement apposition for relocation of property structures.
42 Margaret Hauth said the Town of Hillsborough has been engaged with the State to co-
43 sponsor a traffic separation study of crossing closures in west Hillsborough. She said there has
44 been one meeting, at which the town and North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) has requested
45 scoping changes that have delayed this project. She said the town has committed to fund the
46 data items it requested on traffic counts and actual numbers, and NCRR has not yet committed
47 to fund the study items it was interested in, so the project is at an indefinite standstill until
48 funding is in place.
49 Commissioner McKee asked if any crossing closings were planned in the areas inside
50 the town proper and if so, how many.
51 Margaret Hauth designated the two in West Hillsborough.
6
1 Commissioner McKee said at the public information meetings held for the residents,
2 DOT was giving out erroneous and contradictory information regarding possible roads to be
3 used for alternative access.
4 Margaret Hauth said she heard similar feedback from attendees at the first meeting and
5 this was the reason for a request for specific data counts to assess true impact on the citizens.
6 Abigaile Pittman said she had seen this same issue at a previous closing and a traffic
7 study was requested.
8 Chair Jacobs questioned how traffic would detour if both crossings were closed in West
9 Hillsborough.
10 Margaret Hauth said the agreement was that if either of the crossings were closed or
11 modified, then mitigation funds could be brought forward for real improvements to the trestle. If
12 agreement cannot be reached on an action plan then those funds would not be triggered. She
13 said she has not seen, even a rendering yet of what those funds might produce.
14 Craig Benedict said another joint planning effort between Orange County and
15 Hillsborough is the Orange Grove Road master plan and the crossing that goes into the mobile
16 home park there has been mentioned. He said planning has gone on between Hillsborough and
17 Orange County and now if DOT plans to close a crossing, there will also need to be assistance
18 with re-routing. He said this re-routing may include an Orange Grove Road extension. He said
19 that the discussion in the meetings stressed that the residents affected are both Orange County
20 and Hillsborough residents and the big picture needs to be considered. He also said that, on the
21 west side of Hillsborough, the Eno Mountain Bridge needs to be used. He said that if you use a
22 western bypass, you can't go to the north side of the Eno and not take it anywhere. He said
23 there needs to be a furtherance of the Eno Crossing.
24 Chair Jacobs said there had been discussion of connecting Mayo Street to Eno
25 Mountain Road to allow a bypass of Hillsborough to reduce downtown traffic. He noted that if
26 the crossings were closed, this option would be eliminated.
27 Margaret Hauth said the bridge over the Eno is not angled to allow a convenient
28 connection to West Hill Ave and would have to be connected somewhere else, thus putting the
29 trestle in play.
30 Abigaile Pittman said that the larger picture is at play in the discussions of several of the
31 crossing closings, especially Greenbrier and the connectivity with other plans in the area. She
32 said that the response that is heard consistently says DOT needs to work with the larger picture.
33 Town Commissioner Lloyd said if they were to close the West Hill Avenue or Bellevue, it
34 would be impossible to get through those routes and she said that the fire department and EMS
35 would object.
36 Chair Jacobs said Congressman Coble, who is on the House Transportation Committee,
37 represents Eno Township, where the entry change is located for 1-85, and most of the widening
38 east of Hillsborough is in his Congressional District. Chair Jacobs said that perhaps he would
39 be a source of help for some of these issues in the future.
40
41 2. Transit
42
43 al Update on Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP) Implementation
44
45 Craig Benedict said Orange County invested in this bus and rail investment plan last
46 year through the approval of the half cent sales tax and that plan was part of a document
47 approved by the MPO. He said this set forth that the money would be spent for a light rail
48 system from the hospital, out 54, up 1-40 and 15-501 into Duke University and around to North
49 Carolina Central. He said a bus service with 40,000 hours was also included, with 34,000 hours
50 in the first five years. He noted that 34,000 hours of service equates to 10 or 11 new buses with
51 2,000 to 3,000 hours per bus route.
7
1 He said it is time for the implementation of the master plan and Orange County has a tri-
2 party agreement with the Durham/Chapel Hill/ Carrboro MPO and Triangle Transit on how to
3 implement this. He said there are criteria set forth about how much revenue is expected and
4 cost and expenditures. He said that Orange County staff has begun meetings with Triangle
5 Transit knowing that money for the half cent tax will be assessed beginning April 1. He said
6 there is a lot of work to be done before you initialize a new route. He said that one of the most
7 important routes is the proposed east/west route between Mebane, Efland, Hillsborough and
8 Duke Hospital. He said he is not sure if a full cross county route can be implemented or if it will
9 start in Hillsborough and go to Durham. He said Triangle Transit has suggested that they are
10 able to do the route but studies are ongoing to see if it can be done more economically by
11 Orange Public Transportation. He said that the route between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill, the
12 420 route, was started by OPT, then taken over by Triangle Transit, who hired Chapel Hill
13 Transit to run the lines. There are ongoing talks with the Hillsborough community to figure the
14 best way to potentially intersect the new east/west route mentioned earlier with the 420 route
15 and the circulator route to create a bus hub in Hillsborough to service multiple purposes.
16 He said they are also looking at the addition of other rural services, and possible funding
17 of an Amtrak Rail Station in Hillsborough. He said that the rail system is still in the planning and
18 funding stages to see if Federal Transit Administration will approve the application of 1.4 billion
19 dollars in funds to be shared between Orange and Durham County. He noted that this project
20 is still 3-4 years from a next step.
21 Chair Jacobs asked if the Board could expect periodic updates on this project.
22 Craig Benedict said yes. He said that Triangle Transit is required to put forth yearly
23 updates on revenues, expenditures and costs. He noted another part of the investment plan is
24 the Martin Luther King Boulevard area, which is suggested for a Bus Rapid Transit route. He
25 said the funding data for this has to be reported on an annual basis and this discussion is had in
26 November of each year. He said that this year is a formative year and there is ongoing
27 development of new routes, expanded hours, and weekend service. He noted the increased
28 demand and need for the east/west cross county public transit.
29 Commissioner Pelissier asked who the lead would be in making the Hillsborough Rail
30 Station happen and what Orange County's role would be in this project.
31 Craig Benedict said there should be resolution from all local governments as they move
32 forward and Triangle Transit, as the implementer, should be involved. He said that it will be
33 important to make assessments and establish good ridership numbers and route descriptions in
34 the formative stages of finding the strongest route. He said the train station is at 80% funding.
35 Margaret Hauth said there are a number of different grants under different programs as
36 they work on funding.
37 Commissioner McKee said during most of the Board of County Commissioners'
38 discussion the Mebane to Durham route was presented as a unified route. He said the
39 Hillsborough Rail Station was a late entrant into the plan and he hoped that it would not be an
40 early exit out of the plan. He said that whether federal and state money comes through or not,
41 there will be an amount of money generated by the half cent sales tax and there will be intense
42 competition for that money due to a high number of public transportation needs throughout the
43 county. He said that for the five priorities listed in the plan, it is important to look out for all of the
44 county, but especially the areas that do not have other funding sources. He said that town has
45 its own transportation needs and the connection between the 420 route and a Mebane/Durham
46 route would create an ideal interconnectivity. He said that it will be important to stay on top of
47 things and not let the train station have an early exit, and to insist that the Mebane to Durham
48 route not become a Hillsborough to Durham route. He said that the rural parts of the county are
49 a priority in terms of receiving these promised services earlier, rather than later.
50 Town Commissioner Lowen asked if the Mebane to Durham route would run along
51 Highway 70.
8
1 Craig Benedict said that is the current thought. He said they have thought about the
2 Tanger Parking lot as a park and ride, as well as the Mebane Walmart if that does not work out.
3 He said the route along 70 to Efland will likely use the North Hillsborough shopping center along
4 70, and Triangle Transit thinks the route should go down 85 into Durham. He said there is
5 debate that staying on 70 would be just as fast, and this will be tested.
6 Town Commissioner Lowen said he would love to see improvements along Hwy 70 and
7 he said that, thinking about folks north of town coming to Hillsborough, a park and ride would
8 alleviate a lot of traffic from coming through town. He said that the area being used for parking
9 now is not an ideal location and the proposed new park and ride brings opportunities for growth
10 and development along that corridor.
11 Craig Benedict said that is an important hub.
12 Commissioner Gordon underscored that it is going to be very important for the
13 representatives from the various Orange County jurisdictions to work together because there is
14 a competition for the funds outside of the rail funds. She said that 70-75% of the funding is
15 designated for light rail, which leaves the remaining balances to cover all of the bus service.
16 She said this makes it very important that the 25% is put toward bus service and that something
17 doesn't get delayed. She said that Triangle Transit has a ten member board and Chapel Hill
18 and Orange County comprise only two of that number. She said the representation from
19 Orange County on the MPO is four out of nine members. She said that this makes it very
20 important that a common message from Orange County representatives be presented to both of
21 those boards rather than competing messages and efforts.
22 Town Commissioner Hallman asked if there was any discussion about Mebane and
23 Alamance providing some funds.
24 Craig Benedict said there are two agencies in Mebane and Alamance County, Piedmont
25 Area Rapid Transit (PART) has a route dropping off people in Graham and going down 54. He
26 said there are conversations ongoing with PART about providing funding as that route will likely
27 not be needed if an east/west route is established. He also mentioned Alamance County
28 Transit Authority (ACTA) and Mebane provide funding to them, so it is possible to gain some
29 funding from Mebane.
30 Chair Jacobs said he has the same concerns that other Commissioners have about
31 getting regular updates from Triangle Transit and it seems that the board's concerns and input
32 are not being received. He said that the county and the towns have gone out on a limb to make
33 this possible and the sooner that staff can give the elected officials a heads up about items that
34 may not be part of what they voted on from Triangle Transit, the better for everyone. He gave
35 the example of the push for the route to follow 85, thus increasing traffic coming through town to
36 access the bus. He asked the staff to keep the elected officials apprised and to notify them if
37 there is need to write a joint letter.
38 Commissioner Pelissier said she is the Orange County representative on the Triangle
39 Transit Authority and Triangle Transit has met with auditors to work up a report on how much
40 money has come in and how much has been distributed. She said there are efforts to keep the
41 funding separate between Orange County and Durham County and that shared route costs are
42 shared 50/50. She said she has asked that the draft reports are provided to Orange County so
43 that they can make comments. She said the train plan cannot be taken off the whole plan
44 unless all three entities sign off on it. She said that if federal and state funding does not come
45 through, the funding for that project will remain until matching funds are acquired. She said she
46 met with Triangle Transit staff earlier this week about the implementation of the plan about the
47 bus routes, and her understanding is that the rural bus routes are ones that should come before
48 the Board for approval.
49 Craig Benedict said that the east-west route has already been approved and it is up to
50 Triangle Transit to let staff know information on the plan and they will inform the
51 Commissioners. He said the only time there would be a decision process necessary would be if
9
1 there is a significant change in proposed routes or services. He said there are thresholds set for
2 these types of changes that would require it to come back to the elected officials.
3 Town Manager Eric Peterson said, with regard to the matching funds for the rail station,
4 he would like to know the restriction on how the money is used.
5 Craig Benedict said that the money is earmarked for whatever package is determined.
6 Eric Peterson said there is always a need for a plan B and it may be 5 years down the
7 line and there still may not be any movement on the rail station. He said they want to continue
8 to do their planning and doing a public/private partnership is one possibility for a plan B. He
9 said that using the 20 acres of land and the match funds and putting out a request for proposals,
10 may bring in private money to help build the station and put retail in there to bring in tax money.
11 He said he just wants to make sure that money allocated isn't just for federal match in case
12 federal match does not happen.
13 Commissioner Gordon said Triangle Transit has to follow the plan. She said that the
14 implementation agreement includes a review of the plan every four years. After eight years, they
15 will specifically look at how the grants are coming from the federal and state government. She
16 said that if private money were to come in, she is not sure that the money in the plan could be
17 released before the four year review or even the eight year review.
18 Frank Clifton said that agreement between all three parties involved is required to modify
19 the plan, so if proposals are put forth, there will be a discussion and approval process that has
20 to happen.
21
22 Update Information on Circulator Route: Cost per Hour, Trips per Hour, CMAQ
23 Funding and Beyond
24
25 Al Terry, Orange County Transportation Administrator. presented some background
26 information on the Circulator Route.
27 The in-town Hillsborough Circulator route began June 6, 2011 with a three year
28 grant from the North Carolina Department of Transportation's Congestion Mitigation and Air
29 Quality (CMAQ) Program. For the first year, NCDOT waived the local match requirement of 20
30 percent. The Town of Hillsborough is providing the local match of about $22,000 for the
31 remaining years, while the County will operate the service at no additional cost to the Town. The
32 CMAQ grant will continue until June 30, 2014. Funding from July 1, 2014 forward will need to
33 be identified.
34 The route serves various residential areas around Hillsborough as well as the
35 Library; Orange County Courthouse; Social Services Center at Hillsborough
36 Commons Shopping Center; the Shops at Daniel Boone; UNC Family Practice;
37 Durham Technical Community College satellite campus; Hampton Pointe and
38 Meadowlands Business Park. High volume pick-up points include: the Fairview
39 Community, Coachwood Apartments, and Gateway Apartments. Favorite stops
40 along the route include: the Library, Social Services, Durham Tech Campus and
41 Walmart.
42 The Hillsborough Circulator route was redesigned in October 2011 based on input
43 from users. An additional stop was added at South Nash and Calvin Streets.
44 Staff will provide a route map and operational statistics, along with any other information at the
45 meeting, and the Boards can discuss issues related to this item.
46 Al Terry said he will now review the highlights of the route and the operational statistics,
47 and current and future funding of the circulator route.
48 He said that from July 1st to December 31st of 2012, the total number of trips was 7,368;
49 this number indicates the number of passengers. He said the cost per trip is $5.39 and this is
50 lower than the total cost per boarding for Orange Public Transportation. He said the cost per
51 hour for operation is $35.28 and does not include indirect costs; if indirect costs were included,
10
1 the total cost is $43.09 per hour. He said the trips/passengers per hour is 6.5 and it started out
2 as 3.8/hour. He noted that this is a very high number for a public route. The high volume pick
3 up areas are: 2 - the police station annex, 3 - Hester Whitted, 4 -Whitted Forest off highway 70,
4 10 - Coachwood, and 11- Gateway. He said the high volume drop-off areas are: The Library,
5 because of its central location; Department of Social Services; Durham Tech, because of its
6 connection to the 420; Food Lion; the courthouse; and Walmart.
7 Al Terry said it takes about 2250 hours to run this route. He noted that once June 30,
8 2014 comes and the current funds disappear and the agreement with the Town of Hillsborough
9 has disappeared, the funding has to come from somewhere. He said there will be a $96,000
10 per year operational cost. He said the remainder of this year and all of the 2014 fiscal year, the
11 funding will remain 80% CMAQ funds and 20% Town of Hillsborough. He said this is a highly
12 successful route with about 15,000 riders per year, which hopefully takes a lot of vehicles off the
13 road. It takes about an hour to make the entire route and there are some proposed changes
14 under consideration, however, the plan at this point is to maintain the current schedule. He said
15 the circulator route it is the most successful route that OPT operates.
16 Craig Benedict said there is partial funding in the Orange County Bus and Rail
17 Development plan after the CMAQ funds run out. He said, this includes the 2,250 hour and
18 local matching funds would be necessary at about 25%. He said they are still researching with
19 Triangle Transit, what the assumption was for local funding and for federal and state funding.
20 He said that if federal and state funding does not come forth for the additional 75% then local
21 match will go up. There is a funding source to take this into the future with the half cent sales
22 tax and the question is when it comes online, and what local match is being followed.
23 Al Terry said that the half cent sales tax could support the route in some fashion, but the
24 service hours, would use half cent sales dollars and would reduce other services that Orange
25 Public Transportation could provide, because there are a limited number of service hours within
26 the plan.
27 Al Terry also referred back to the discussion of the east/west corridor route and said that
28 there will be test runs being done to see how cost effective the route could be run and that
29 Orange Public transport could start that route if Triangle Transit chooses to give those service
30 hours.
31 Commissioner Gordon questioned how it came about that Triangle Transit decided to
32 run the route from Hillsborough to Durham instead of Mebane to Durham.
33 Craig Benedict said the master plan states Mebane to Durham, but there was some
34 consideration of starting a partial route and expanding over time because of the way the money
35 has come. He said there is a need to look at models of how best to allocate funds as they
36 come in.
37 Al Terry said that when it is a commuter service, consideration has to be taken of who
38 provides emergency transportation back to the vehicle and this is the reason for two mid-day
39 runs.
40 Commissioner Gordon said it is important to follow up on these issues because it is a
41 deviation from the plan. She said there should be a request for ridership numbers from Mebane
42 to Durham and from Hillsborough to Durham to see if the numbers work out. She noted that
43 Triangle Transit reevaluates routes every spring to see if they need to be redone.
44 Al Terry said even though they have a semi-hub now in North Hillsborough it needs to be
45 a temporary hub, not a permanent HUB, because it is not ADA compliant. He said they have
46 looked at several other areas and need to continue to look for other options that would
47 accommodate a park and ride.
48
49 3. Implementation of Downtown Hillsborough Access Study Improvements
50 (Crosswalks, Parking, Sidewalk Work)
51
11
1 Margaret Hauth said they have taken the plan to the next step to fund the design work
2 and move toward engineer's estimates. She said they have had great support from Orange
3 County and DOT and the hope is that a lot of the improvements will take place this year. She
4 said that DOT has advised that Churton is approved to be re-paved, so the sidewalk needs to
5 be done first. She said the details are included in the Agenda Item (page 5) and the map
6 (pages 10, 11 and 12). She said that the proposed closing of a lane on East Margaret Lane is
7 no longer being pursued.
8 Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification about the section on map page 11,
9 regarding addition of an access to River Park.
10 Margaret Hauth said the plan being considered would extend the sidewalk beside the
11 courthouse down to River Park so that a crosswalk could be put in at Nash and Kolack to
12 facilitate access.
13 Commissioner Gordon clarified where the sidewalk would extend and where the
14 crosswalk would be.
15 Margaret Hauth said there is a gravel walkway coming out the back of the courthouse
16 that comes up to Churton Street.
17 Frank Clifton said this is on the plans with DOT for a crossing at the light in front of
18 Weaver Street, but there is a grade issue there that will have to be accounted for. He said
19 some trees may have to be removed to give enough space and allow handicap access.
20 Commissioner Gordon verified that this is just to cross the street and access the
21 sidewalk, and she asked about what might be done to access River Park.
22 Frank Clifton said this will be decided after a design on the crosswalk has been decided.
23 He said it might just be a pathway.
24
25 4. Update on Waterstone
26
27 Eric Peterson said they do not have any new updates from UNC Hospital about opening
28 dates. He said the administration should open sometime in 2013 and the hospital has an
29 estimated opening in 2015. He said there was to be a closing schedule to sell all of the housing
30 pods in 2012 but it did not go through due to problems with the escrow agreement. The Town
31 Board chose not to proceed with the special assessment district. Stratford Development came
32 back to the town board in January to address concerns and reduced the amount of proposed
33 bonds financed in the special assessment district. He said the town board has requested
34 reduction on the payback from 20 years to 10 years to save 2 million dollars in interest
35 payments. He said the town board will meet on Monday and set a public hearing date regarding
36 next steps and proposed assessment roles. After this, the Town Board will approve an
37 application to the local government commission. If things go according to schedule, bonds will
38 be sold in June and the proceeds used to construct the parkway to manage traffic along 86 and
39 within the development.
40 Chair Jacobs requested that the Board be sent a copy of the plan and what is happening
41 at the UNC site.
42 Margaret Hauth said it is on their website and she can send them the direct link.
43
44 5. Update on Hillsborough Vision 2030
45
46 Margaret Hauth said they kicked off the Town's Vision 2030 process. She said this was
47 done to get fresh input, which is being used to create a draft plan. She said this draft will be
48 released in March to get public input throughout the summer and have a document ready for
49 formal adoption in early fall.
50
12
1 6. Interlocal Acireement to Protect Archaeolociical Resources on Town and County
2 Properties
3
4 Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager, said about a year ago there was a mutually
5 agreed location for a wayfaring sign. He said it was discovered that this was a place where they
6 had found archeological items. In response, the town and Orange County decided to work
7 jointly to try and prepare a map of known archeological sites. He said they will have a map and
8 interlocal agreement to share in about 6 months.
9 Town Commissioner Hallman questioned how this knowledge would be used on
10 privately owned properties.
11 Rich Shaw this is only for publicly owned properties and more information will be added
12 to the database as it is discovered.
13 Margaret Hauth said that these maps are not published due to fear that the sites would
14 be plundered, however in-house maps are important so that water/sewer and public works folks
15 are aware when improvements are being made.
16 Rich Shaw said that one of the cultural resource specialists found out that the state had
17 been keeping hand maps and now are using GIS and this will now be incorporated into the town
18 and county database.
19 Chair Jacobs asked if there would be outreach to DOT to let them know where these
20 resources are.
21 Margaret Hauth said that inquiry can be made.
22
23 7. Future Use of Whitted Human Services Center
24
25 Frank Clifton said Orange County raised the possible use of this center about a year ago
26 and the county has done some preliminary visions of the center. He said one use is just for
27 governmental usage and the other is to share with county and arts community. He said that the
28 Board of County Commissioners has not made any specific direction but has been working
29 closely with town staff on parking, noise impacts, etc.
30 AMS Director, Jeff Thompson provided a review of the proposed following floor plans:
31 Plan 1 — Board of County Commissioners' Meeting Space with Government Office Space, Plan
32 2- Board and Arts Council Co-tenancy, and Plan 3 Board of County Commissioners' Meeting
33 Space Only. These plans are found on pages 17, 18, 19 of the meeting abstract.
34 Jeff Thompson said that, with regard to the combined use with the cultural center, he
35 and Margaret Hauth have worked closely on this, especially with regard to parking. He said that
36 if the board is interested in pursuing this, there would need to be an operational agreement with
37 the cultural center to drive the zoning and permitting process. He said the pieces of this will
38 include the activity type, intensity and frequency. He said that with a 300 seat arrangement, 192
39 parking spaces will be needed and that there are 219 on-site, including on street parking. He
40 noted that if on street parking were removed, some spaces would have to be created. He
41 presented a map of the parking site plan, which shows, paving in area 6 and area 1, as well as
42 the addition of 25 spaces in the grassy area southeast of the main entrance.
43 Frank Clifton clarified that addition spaces would be in the area where mobile units had
44 been previously and there would be landscaping and paving done in each of the areas. He said
45 the ramps on the back of the building would be one of the more expensive parts of the process.
46 Frank Clifton said there is no plan to use area 5.
47 Margaret Hauth said that the actual use agreement will dictate whether this is a staff
48 level approval or gets in front of a board. She said that right now, all of the plans meet the
49 ordinance requiring all parking to be off street. She said she feels this will likely move forward
50 with staff level approval but she said it would be worthwhile to have all parties involved,
13
1 including the neighborhood in one room to communicate information and discuss it before
2 commitments are made.
3 Chair Jacobs said the Board of County Commissioners agreed at their work session to
4 hold a public meeting with the Town, the Arts Community, and the residents around this area,
5 and ideally this could be done in concert with developing the CIP He said maybe something
6 could be scheduled in March/April 2013.
7 Frank Clifton said they have had design money set aside and it could be financed short
8 term. He said the meeting could potentially be held in the Whitted Building to give opportunity to
9 see the facility.
10 Mayor Stevens encouraged them all to move forward with this public meeting and said
11 the town is eager for the arts community to have a performing arts facility as well as publicly
12 accessible meeting space.
13 Town Commissioner Lowen concurred with Mayor Stevens. He questioned how
14 meeting space would be prioritized if the plan were to move forward with the cultural center.
15 Chair Jacobs said the County would have first choice on the meeting space. He said
16 that the entities can work out the schedules since the town and county set their meeting
17 schedules a year in advance and alternate meeting space.
18 Commissioner Gordon referred to page 8 and the parking lot pavement and creation of
19 25 additional spaces. She asked for clarification of where these would be located.
20 Jeff Thompson said that the grassy space in area 1 would be converted to asphalt
21 parking.
22 Commissioner Gordon said that there had been discussion about finding out the meeting
23 space needs of the different government entities. She noted that it may end up that only
24 weekend space was available, and that might not be good enough for the cultural center. She
25 said there was question about what the cultural center might need to do during the week and if it
26 would create noise. She said that the other big issues are parking, impact to the neighborhood,
27 and schedule conflicts. She said that not everyone, including herself, is confident that
28 scheduling problems won't arise. She said that a gentleman from the Orange County Cultural
29 Center said that even with only cultural groups in a facility, there can be scheduling conflicts.
30 Commissioner Gordon asked for additional explanation of the third plan.
31 Jeff Thompson said, referring to the third plan, that there would still be a permanent
32 meeting facility with 150 seats as well as a flexible meeting space. He noted that the interior
33 walls on this plan are different than the other plans and divide the space for office use.
34 Commissioner Gordon asked if Hillsborough was interested in partnering on this project
35 or being responsible for the lease as originally contemplated.
36 Town Commissioner Dancy said that the public and joint meetings on the use of this
37 facility still need to be discussed, as mentioned by Commissioner Gordon. She said the cultural
38 center would be responsible for setting its own schedule. She said that she believes the Town
39 of Hillsborough was interested in partnering but that the cultural center was the entity that
40 proposed the leasing agreement with the county.
41 Frank Clifton said that when the Board of Commissioners first started looking at plans to
42 modify the current meeting space the costs were fairly substantial and alternative sites were
43 looked at. The Whitted Building was considered because if the large open space that is easy to
44 remodel. He said it would not be everything the cultural group wanted but would offer a
45 location for them to gain a foundation and following that might lead to another facility in the
46 future. He said that concerts, lectures series, etc., could be done there when governmental
47 meetings were not going on, during the day, weekends, and summer. He said it will still be
48 more than the cultural group has now. If this does not work as a joint arrangement there are
49 other options. He said they have looked at expenses needed to make the building suitable as a
50 public facility for governmental function and any additional needs the cultural center has, they
51 will have to fund on their own.
14
1 Commissioner McKee said he would like to keep the Orange County Schools informed
2 as they move forward with the public meeting since they have expressed an interest in the
3 sharing this meeting space.
4 Frank Clifton said there were elements of the original proposed plan for the cultural
5 center that did not work and were not financially feasible. He said that it would work as a facility
6 for special events, but would not work for a revenue generating space. He said that the cultural
7 center has said that they would appreciate what is available in the current plans.
8 Margaret Hauth said the operational agreement will be the key element for everyone and
9 this will need to be a fluid process. She said that, considering the goal of growing a base, there
10 will need to be a clear understanding up front, of what threshold will be set for the cultural center
11 finding a new home. She suggested for the public meeting, instead of full board participation,
12 they just have quorums of the boards or a sub-committee.
13 Chair Jacobs suggested for the staffs to propose some dates for this public meeting and
14 to remember that no one had made any decisions at all at this point. He said there will be a
15 public meeting of all parties and the School Board should be kept in the loop as well. He
16 encouraged cultural board members present that if there are updated plans for the cultural
17 center, it would be good to present those to the county and the town at the upcoming meeting.
18
19
20 8. INFORMATION ITEMS (Not for Specific Discussion)
21 a) Memorandum on Conservation and Watershed Protection Efforts
22 b) Memorandum with Update on Extending Orange County Local Landmark Program into
23 Hillsborough's ETJ
24 With no further items to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:39 PM.
25
26
27
28 Barry Jacobs, Chair
29
30 Donna S. Baker, CMC
31 Clerk to the Board
1
1 DRAFT Attachment 3
2
3
4 MINUTES
5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
6 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
7 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
8 February 25, 2013
9 7:00 P.M.
10
11
12 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
13 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, February 25, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the
14 Department of Social Services, 113 Mayo Street, Hillsborough, N.C.
15
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark
17 Dorosin, Alice Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
18 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
19 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
20 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the Board
21 David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
22 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck, and Planning Board
23 members Tony Blake, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Alan Campbell, Maxecine Mitchell,
24 Johnny Randall, H.T. "Buddy" Hartley, and Herman Staats
25 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Dawn Brezina, Larry Wright, Andrea Rohrbacher
26 and Lisa Stuckey
27
28 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:06 PM. He made reference to the items at
29 everyone's places. There was a copy of a PowerPoint and a copy of a Senate bill. He also
30 asked for the Board to add an informational item on mental health regarding Cardinal
31 Innovations.
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
33 add an item on mental health at the end of the Quarterly Public Hearing.
34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
35
36 Chair Jacobs then asked for a motion to remove item C-2 regarding the Schools
37 Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
38
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
40 remove item C-2 regarding the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance from the public
41 hearing agenda and to refer it to the County Attorney and the attorneys for the schools and the
42 municipalities. The attorneys are to return with a coordinated approach to refining the ordinance
43 for future consideration by the respective boards.
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46
47 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRS
48
49 Chair Jacobs welcomed everyone.
50
51 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
52 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
53
2
1 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2
31. 1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment—To review government-
4 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to modify existing language to provide additional
5 reference to land disturbance thresholds related to stormwater management standards. The
6 purpose of this amendment is to avoid requiring project applicants to submit multiple,
7 professionally prepared plans for a single development project.
8
9 Staff presented a Powerpoint below:
10
11 AGENDA ITEM:C-1
12 UDO TEXT AMENDMENT— SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS
13 BACKGROUND:
14 • On April 17, 2012 the BOCC approved mandated State stormwater management and
15 nutrient reduction rules/strategies.
16 • Need clearer standards in our site plan review/approval procedures section.
17 • Correct inconsistencies regarding when formal, professionally prepared, site plan is
18 required versus a plot plan prepared by applicant.
19 WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES:
20 1. Eliminate existing conflicts.
21 2. Require professionally prepared site plans for projects exceeding established
22 stormwater land disturbance thresholds.
23 3. Incorporate appropriate references to these land disturbance thresholds.
24 4. Add language requiring stormwater management plans for minor and major
25 subdivisions.
26 WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES:
27 • Changes to Section 2.4.1:
28 — UDO requires a `professionally prepared site plan' in the University Lake
29 Watershed Overlay District.
30 — As proposed all watersheds with a 6% impervious surface limit have same
31 standard (i.e. Upper Eno Critical, Cane Creek Protected and Critical, Little River
32 Protected).
33 — If approved, projects in these watershed overlay districts will require professional
34 site plan
35 SITE PLAN VERSUS PLOT PLAN:
36 What is the difference between a professionally prepared site plan and a plot plan?
3
1 Site Plan
2 • Completed by a surveyor (i.e. professional)
3 • Based on actual legal description of property (plat, deed, etc.)
4 • More detailed information provided (i.e. structure location, impervious surface, etc.)
5 Plot Plan
6 • Scaled drawing done by property owner/contractor
7 • Typically based on Orange County GIS Map data
8 • Relies on applicant/contractor to provide detail on proposal
9 IMPACTS:
10 Pros
11 • More accurate depiction of property including environmental features (i.e. streams for
12 stream buffers).
13 • More accurate drawing of property and proposed development.
14 Cons
15 • Added cost.
16 • Added time for permit submittal.
17 ORC COMMENTS:
18 • Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) met to review this item on January 9, 2013.
19 • Made several recommendations to address identified concerns.
20 • Modifications incorporated by staff.
21 • ORC expressed need for guidance from BOCC on proposed modifications to Section
22 2.4.1.
23 OPTIONS —Section 2.4.1:
24 — Option A: Leave as is— no change. (i.e. Only properties in the University Lake
25 Watershed impacted).
26 — Option B: Amend section as suggested requiring all watershed overlay districts
27 with a 6% impervious surface limit be treated the same (i.e. professional site
28 plan).
29 — Option C: Eliminate requirement all together and require professionally prepared
30 site plans only when stormwater thresholds are exceeded.
31 STAFF COMMENTS:
4
1 • Proposed amendments make existing regulations easier to follow/understand what is
2 required.
3 • Proposal provides appropriate references to stormwater standards.
4 • Contradictions are eliminated.
5 RECOMMENDATION:
6 1. Receive the proposed amendments.
7 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
8 the proposed amendments.
9 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
10 returned to the BOCC in time for the May 7, 2013 BOCC regular meeting.
11 4. Adjourn the public hearing until May 7, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning
12 Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
13
14 Commissioner McKee asked about a possible scenario. He said that if a four-lot
15 subdivision was approved this past year and two of the lots were built upon and did not have to
16 meet this requirement, then next year the other two lots were built upon, he asked if the other
17 two lots would have to absorb the entire disturbed area or just for their lots and Michael Harvey
18 said that it would be just for their lot. This is handled on a lot-by-lot basis.
19 Commissioner Rich asked about the additional cost for surveying and Michael Harvey
20 said $500-1,000.
21 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 12 and Section 2.4.1 and said that she
22 would not consider option `c' because she would not wish to change the protection for University
23 Lake Watershed.
24 Michael Harvey indicated the proposed amendment would not impact existing
25 development regulations enforced in the University Lake Watershed Overlay district. The
26 proposal would only potentially eliminate the requirement for the submittal of a professionally
27 prepared site plan based solely on a parcels location within the district and link its submittal to
28 existing stormwater management thresholds instead. Michal Harvey asked if there was any
29 preference for option `a' or `b'.
30 Chair Jacobs said that he was deferring his opinion until he heard the questions from the
31 Planning Board.
32 Maxine Mitchell said that she would reserve her comments until this came back to the
33 Planning Board.
34 Commissioner McKee said that his preference would be option `a'. He is concerned
35 about people that would be trying to build homes for family members, etc. He also does not
36 want to increase costs to landowners.
37 Chair Jacobs made reference to the Haw River watershed and said that this has been
38 identified as something that the County needs to address. He said that he would like for the
39 Planning Board to consider options `a' and `c'. He would also like to solicit options from
40 OWASA, Hillsborough, and Mebane.
41 Commissioner Pelissier said that she prefers option `c'.
5
1 Commissioner Gordon said that she would not want to change the University Lake
2 Watershed Overlay District.
3 Commissioner Dorosin said that it seems that this proposal is about creating consistency
4 within the ordinance.
5 Commissioner Rich asked that the Planning Board get feedback from OWASA. She is
6 leaning toward option `c'.
7 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to close
8 the public hearing.
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer
11 the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
12 BOCC in time for the May 7, 2013 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn the public hearing until
13 May 7, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any
14 submitted written comments.
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17
12. 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment—To review government-
19 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to modify or remove regulations related to the
20 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO). The purpose of this amendment is to
21 ensure regulations are consistent with recent case law made by the N.C. Supreme Court.
23. This item was removed from the agenda at the beginning of the meeting.
23
24. 3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government-
25 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to make changes to the section regarding the
26 Planning Board's Rules of Procedure. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the
27 regulations are consistent with County policies and processes.
28
29 Perdita Holtz introduced this item. This amendment is related to the Planning Board's
30 Rules of Procedure, since this section needs to be updated in order to be consistent with current
31 County processes and procedures.
32 The recommendation is to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a
33 recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the April 9, 2013 BOCC regular meeting
34 and adjourn the public hearing until April 9, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning
35 Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
36 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to close
37 the public hearing.
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to
41 refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
42 BOCC in time for the April 9, 2013 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn the public hearing until
43 April 9, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any
44 submitted written comments.
45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
46
47 D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
48
6
1 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Price to
2 adjourn the public hearing.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 E. Additional item - CARDINAL INNOVATIONS
7
8 Chair Jacobs made reference to the item that was added at the beginning of the
9 meeting. He asked the County Attorney to summarize the relationship between Orange County,
10 OPC, and Cardinal Innovations.
11 John Roberts said that in March or April last year, Orange County was one of 15
12 counties that approved a joint resolution creating Cardinal Innovations, which is a successor
13 entity to Piedmont Behavioral Health. Later last year Orange County entered into an interlocal
14 agreement with other counties and approved the current setup, which is the governing board of
15 Cardinal Innovations has representatives from local governments, behavioral health entities,
16 and local community oversight boards. Orange County's oversight board consists of Orange
17 County, Person County, and Chatham County. Orange County has no direct say in how mental
18 health services are provided in the County.
19 Chair Jacobs said that OPC was a mental health entity and it was adequate, but the
20 state mandated that there had to be a larger entity, which moved it beyond the County's
21 purview.
22 Commissioner Dorosin said that he was appointed to the local oversight board. The
23 board had its first meeting in late summer and there have been several issues of concern of the
24 local board. He said that initially every member of the local oversight board was asked to sign a
25 conflict of interest and confidentiality agreement. There are also concerns about the bylaws.
26 He said that the joint resolution contains very clear language in his opinion that the local
27 oversight board can write its own bylaws. Since that time, there has been a policy change
28 based on the concerns. He said that the governing board is treated more like a private
29 corporate board. He said that he was told that he could not serve on the board due to a conflict
30 of interest regarding some litigation work from his day job. At this time, the local oversight board
31 does not have a representative on the governing board. He plans on attending the governing
32 board meeting because it is a public meeting. He hopes to raise the issue of being able to
33 participate without signing these documents.
34 Commissioner Dorosin said that more recently, Judy Truitt has resigned as local director
35 and the interim director is serving as the regional director and the local executive director.
36 However, the joint resolution states that the local board would participate in the selection of the
37 director. This has not happened and the new person has been hired already without input from
38 the board. He said that this issue has been a distraction for this board.
39 Discussion ensued on the composition of the governing board.
40 Commissioner Gordon asked what could be done about this.
41 John Roberts said that Alamance and Caswell Counties are currently involved in
42 litigation with Cardinal over service issues. He said that a county can withdraw from Cardinal as
43 long as there is continuation of services.
44 Chair Jacobs asked about the joint approach. John Roberts said that the other attorneys
45 would meet with Orange County. A quick meeting will not be hard to set up. He said that he
46 could send a letter to Health and Human Services.
47 John Roberts said that this is a case of declaratory judgment.
48 Commissioner McKee said that he supports having the Attorney pursue these options.
49 Chair Jacobs said that there should probably be some type of public statement related to
50 the concerns. He suggested bringing this to the legislative breakfast as a concern.
51 Commissioner Price suggested speaking with Representative Verla lnsko as soon as
52 possible about this because she has been involved in mental health for years.
53 Chair Jacobs suggested having Commissioner Dorosin and the attorney write the cover
54 letter.
7
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to
2 adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
3 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
4
5 Barry Jacobs, Chair
6
7 Donna S. Baker, CMC
8 Clerk to the Board
9