HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19851015 OOOti42
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 15, 1985
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on
Tuesday, October 15, 1985, 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the old Post Office
in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit, and Commissioners Shirley
Marshall, Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker.
ATTORNEY PRESENT: Alonzo B. Coleman, Jr.
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Assistant County
Manager Albert Kittrell, Emergency Medical Services Director Bcbby L. Baker,
Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin E. Collins, Tax
Supervisor Kermit M. Lloyd, Land Records Manager Roscoe E. Reeve, and Planner
Susan Smith.
A. BOARD COMMENTS
None
B. AUDIENCE CajKENTS
1. MMERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA
None
2. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA
Ken Thompson requested to add to the agenda (1) they Efland sewer
bond advertisement, and (2) discussion on the public hearing date for the
Joint Planning area land use plan. He also requested the postpor..ement of item
G9 regarding the County boundary between Orange and Chatham.
C. MINUTES
Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall
to approve the minutes for the July 1, 1985 meeting as corrected.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
Motion was delayed on the minutes for the July 3, 1985 meeting. These
minutes will be expanded as requested and presented Nov. 4 for further
consideration.
D. APPOINTMENTS
NURSING HOME C 21UNI'TY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall to appoint Lynn Bechard to this committee.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
SCHOOL MERGER STUDY COMMISSION
Motion was made by Chair Willhoit, seconded by Cou nissioner
Marshall to appoint Ronald Wiegerink to this study commission,
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
E. REPORT
AUDIT REPORT FOR YEAR ENDED JUNE 301, 1985
The Audit Report for year ended June 30, 1985 was presented by Mr.
Charles Kralick, Manager of the Durham Office, Touche Ross & Conpany, and Mr.
Mitch Mumma, Auditor. Mumma indicated that the County is in good financial
position. He suggested a work session to discuss the report in detail.
Commissioner Marshall asked about the management letter and Mumma
indicated the Board would receive it within a week to ten days.
It was decided to add a work session on the Audit Report to the
agenda for the Board meeting scheduler) November 4, 1985.
OOON43
F. ITEMS FOR DECISION
The County Manager recommended the following action by the Board:
4. TAX REFUNDS AND RELEASE REQUESTS
Approval of ten releases as follows:
(1) North Carolina National Bank, Acct. #34791, $175.67
(2) Summerfield Crossing Homeowners Assoc., Acct. #76134,
$53.15
(3) Summerfield Crossing Homeowners Assoc., Acct. #76137,
$15.09
(4) Summerfield Crossing Homeowners Assoc., Acct. #76129,
$1,257.05
(5) Sumnerfield Crossing Homeowners Assoc., Acct. #76136,
$144.50
(6) Triplett, William L., Acct. #38685, $22.96
(7) A. Southern Season, Inc., Acct. #33860, $328.34
(8) Associated Realty Investors/Eastowne, Acct. #81267,
$1,914.16
(9) Rodell Hicks, No Acct. #, $274.56
(10)Jack D. Mincey & Charlotte, No Acct. #, $104.82
5. AGENCY ACPWUW
Approval for the establishment of performance agreements and
quarterly reporting for non-departmental agencies.
6. BUDGET AMEM4ENT-STATE DISCREETIONARY FUND
Approval to amend the 1985-86 Budget and Capital Ordinances to
establish a Capital Project Ordinance for the Northern Fairview Revitalization
Fund as follows:
Appropriation-Recreation $ 81000
Source-State Discretionary Funds $ 8,000
Appropriation-Homestead Center Renovations $10,000
Source-State Discretionary Hinds $10,000
Appropriation-Northern Fairview Revitalization $20,000
Source-State Discretionary Funds $20,000
7. BUDGET AMENDMERr
Approval to amend the 1985-86 Budget and Project Ordinance as
follows:
Appropriation-Sheriff Vehicle Reserve $23,400
Source-ABC Board $23,400
Appropriation-transfer to Old Courthouse
Restoration Fund $ 7,345
Source-Fund Balance Appropriation $ 7,345
Appropriation-Renocations $ 7,345
Source-County Capital Projects Fund $ 7,345
Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Carey
that the foregoing action be taken by the Board.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
1. EFLAMD SEWER OPERATING RULFS AND REGULATIONS AMID LETTER TO
CITIZENS (Complete document is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's
office.)
Chair Willhoit asked that the County Attorney review the document.
He asked that a more positive tenor be used throughout the document and noted
corrections in section VI-C, VI-D, VI-E, VIII-A3, X-B, X-C, XII-A and XII-B.
00044
He asked that the document not reference the Orange Alamance Water Authority
but to be more general.
2. EXPANSION OF UOEbWE RA'G'ED DI RTCT-CANE. CREFR
Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Coamnissioner
Walker to approve the expansion of the Cane Creek insurance rated district
from four (4) road miles to five (5) road miles subject to review and approval
by the County Attorney.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
3. FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACT FOR THE WHITE CROSS COMMUNITY
Motion was made by Camissioner Lloyd, seconded by Coamnissioner
Walker to approve a contract with the White Cross Fire District Trustees for
the purpose of providing fire protection to the White Cross Fire District and
meet the requirements to be eligible to apply for Farmers Home Administration
funding. The approval is contingent upon the review and approval of the
contract by the County Attorney.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
8. PD-4-85 CHANDLER CO 4CRE'I'E COMPANY
Chair Willhoit noted for the record that the recommendation from
the Planning Board had been received at a previous meeting.
In response to the request by the Board at the September 30 meeting
that additional landscaping be required of the applicant, Planner Susan Smith
illustrated on drawings the applicants' proposal. On the original site plan,
the applicant proposed an eighteen-foot landscape strip across the front of
the property on the southeast side of the right-of-way, continuing on the
other side of the proposed driveway for a distance of 46 feet. It enters into
the south railroad right-of-way and goes beyond the southern boundary of the
proposed retention ponds. The plan also proposed to maintain the existing
vegetation adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. Smith then presented a
drawing which illustrated the application of the Planning Board's conditions
of approval. The applicant proposes an eighteen-foot strip with Deodora
Cedars and Japanese Hollys as the hedge material and a six-foot stockade fence
along the front right-of-way which continues along the side for forty six
feet. The Planning Board recommended that the landscape treatment be
continued to the center of the right-of-way of the southern most portion of
the property and along the southeastern edge of the property. That would
satisfy some conditions in the current Ordinance with regard to landscape
treatment. Smith reviewed requirements for an application of this type.
Article 12 speaks specifically to two things: (1) peripheral and frontage
landscaping, and (2) screening requirements.
Article 12.4.a states:
"A landscaping area of ten (10) feet in depth shall be located
between the abutting right-of-way and any off-street parking,
loading or other vehicular use area, except where permitted
driveway openings are to be provided."
Article 12.4.b states:
"The landscaping area shall be planted in accordance with the
following standards:
1. One (1) tree shall be planted for each forty (40) linear
feet of the landscaping area.
2. A hedge or other durable landscape material of at least
three (3) feet in height shall be planted or erected within
the landscaping area so as to provide a continuous landscape
barrier."
OOOti45
In addition to the requirements of Article 12.4, peripheral
landscaping is required along the property which does not adjoin an
industrial or commercially zoned area. The landscaping shall consist of one
(1) tree planted for each sixty (60) linear feet of landscaping area and a
hedge or other durable landscape material of at least three (3) feet in height
shall be planted adjacent to the common lot line so as to provide a continuous
landscape barrier. When screening is required between boundaries where a
proposed Industrially zoned tract adjoins residential property, the applicant
must provide a Class A screen - a six-foot high continuous vegetative mass
with intermittent visual obstructions to a height of twenty (20) feet. The
Planning Board recommended that such screening be continued along the eastern
property line and the southernmost part of the property adjacent to the
railroad.
Article 7 speaks to landscaping and setbacks required adjacent to a
residential districts. It also speaks to frontage requirements in that the
fifteen feet nearest the street right-of-sway is to be landscaped, and the
remaining fifteen feet may be used for parking. The applicant has proposed an
eighteen-foot strip, which satisfies the requirement in the Ordinance.
Article 7 also requires that a 35-foot building and structure setback be
provided along the boundaries where the property does not adjoin residential
zoned property or along the eastern and southern most portion of the Chandler
tract. The Article further requires a fifteen foot strip extended to the
depth of the adjoining districts' front yard setback. Since the adjacent
property is in an R-1 district and 40 feet is the depth of the required front
yard setback, the applicant must provide a fifteen foot landscape strip for
40 feet. He provides the strip for a distance of 46 feet and proposes a
landscape strip eighteen feet wide. Article 7 requires that all other
property lines or peripheral areas must be landscaped for a distance of ten
feet. Since a Class A screen is also required, under Article 12, the stricter
of the two requirements would apply and that is what was referenced in the
recommendation made by the Planning Board.
Susan Smith presented sketches which illustrated what the property
would look like with the proposed landscaping and screening in place. The
road is somewhat higher than the front of the property within the right-of
way; the property starts to rise and then dips back down toward the ponds.
The tops of the ponds are not seen from the road.
Commissioner Lloyd questioned the durability of a stockade fence
and Smith indicated that the Ordinance does not indicate the type of fence
that must be used.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd to approve the rezoning
request contingent on the fact if the fencing is to be changed other than
designated that it would have to be done with the approval of the planning
staff.
Commissioner Marshall indicated that a Special Use Permit could not
be approved with that kind of motion.
Chair Willhoit pointed out that a decision must first be made on
the findings of fact. The Planning Board made three negative findings of
fact. The Board must review these and make findings independent of the
Planning Board findings.
Commissioner Marshall proposed that Articles 7.17b, 7.17c, and
6.12a which deal with the minimal gross land area cannot be approved under the
Article 7.3 as the Planning Staff has suggested. Article 7.4.4 regulates
00046
reduction or increase in minimal gross lard area generally required, and
Article 7.4.4a regulates lesser areas than generally required. It states that
no such reduction shall amount to more than 10% of the area generally
required. In Article 7.3 the Board of Commissioners may make specific
modifications but the provision indicates that where floor area and similar
ratios as maximum permitted amounts of development and have been established
by these regulations, the Board of County Commissioners shall not act in a
particular case to modify such ratios or maximums. There is more than a 10%
modification under consideration for approval.
Planning Director Marvin Collins indicated agreement with the
interpretation of Article 7.4.4 but referred to 7.3 which states:
"Where actions, designs or solutions proposed by the applicant
are not literally in accord with applicable PD or general
regulations, but the Board of County Commissioners make a
finding, in the particular case, that public purposes are
satisfed, to an equivalent or greater degree, the Board of
County Commissioners may make specific modification of the
regulations in the particular case, provided that where floor
area and similar ratios, as maximum permitted amounts of
development have been established by these regulations, the
Board of County Commissioners shall not act in a particular
case to modify such ratios or maximums."
Article 5 contains dimensional requirements and land use intensity ratios for
the different zoning districts. The interpretation of Article 7.3 is that it
does not apply to all dimensional requirements but only those ratios that are
included as part of the Land Use Intensity System. Article 7.3 does give some
flexibility to modify the 10% reduction.
Susan Smith indicated that the reference to Article 7.3 has been
part of the record since the first public hearing and specifically addressed
by staff to any questions at that time.
Commissioner Marshall indicated that the interpretations make
the Ordinance less effective. The Ordinance does not serve the purpose for
which it is intended and that is to have every citizen, developer, and person
to be able to observe what is happening and know what to expect. It is
important to deal fairly with everyone. When the Ordinance is watered down
and changes are made which are hard to substantiate, it makes the Ordinance
less and less effective.
Chair Willhoit stated that Article 7.3 deals with the public
purpose, and it is a question of how best that purpose is met.
Commissioner Marshall questioned how far Article 7.3 could be taken
and stated that it had not been used in previous requests.
Marvin Collins commented that Article 7.3, second paragraph, stated
above gives the Board latitude to modify any PD regulation as long as it is
found that the public purpose has been satisfied.
Susan Smith indicated that the negative finding found for
landscaping was because the developer did not interpret the ordinance to
address the requirements in the railroad right-of-way. There are conditions
of approval attached that address the negative finding.
Commissioner Walker asked about the railroad right-of-way and Smith
indicated that an obstructions can be located within ten feet of the railroad.
Chair Willhoit noted that the negative finding cited in Article
12.4 has been satified by the conditions attached to the project.
000ti47
Chair Willhoit asked for clarification on Condition #4 and
requested that the item be more specific. Smith indicated the word "retained"
should replace "maintained." There is existing vegetation adjacent to the
railroad tract to which the condition makes reference.
He questioned the meaning of fencing in Condition #9 and Susan
Smith read the Planning Board minutes which indicated that "suitable fencing
be required to prevent access by children and animals."
Commissioner Walker asked if the Board could require a specific
pond be fenced without requiring that all ponds be fenced.
Susan Smith indicated the Ordinance permits in a Special Use Permit
process that conditions be attached to address those concerns raised and
identified with the development.
Smith noted that the vegetation on the back side along the railroad
will be six feet.
Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall that the Board of Commissioners findings of fact are in concurrence
with the Planning Board findings.
Chair Willhoit indicated a decision must be made on whether the
public purpose has been met by an equivalent or to a greater degree by the
applicant and as embellished by the special conditions attached.
VOTE ON THE FINDING OF FACT: UNANIMOUS.
Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall for denial on the basis of
7.17b, 7.17c and 6.12a.
Alonzo Coleman, Attorney, noted that in the event the Board made a
negative finding that has been addressed by the special conditions and the
Board desires to issue the Special Use Permit, it must state each negative
finding and the special condition that satisfies the Ordinance.
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Chair Willhoit requested comments from the Board on the special
conditions.
Susan Smith indicated that the vegetation referred to in Condition
#4 may be used to satisfy part of the requirement in Condition #5. She
indicated that at the top of the site plan the developer has indicated the
type of vegetation that will be used, how it is to be placed, and the width of
the landscape strip. Also proposed is a six foot high wooden stockade fence
to be used in conjunction with the vegetation. The applicant had proposed to
landscape the front of the property along NC10 and 46 feet along the eastern
side of the property. The Planning Board's recommendation to the Board of
Commissioners includes a condition to continue the landscaping in accordance
with Article 7 and Article 12 along the eastern side of the property for an
additional distance of eighteen feet and across the rear of the property.
Existing vegetation would satisfy the requirement in some situations, but
some sections would need to be supplemented with additional vegetation.
There was a consensus to change condition #4 to read as follows:
"Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum consistent
with maintenance of runoff control. In lieu of planted
landscaping, existing vegetation shall be retained along the
railroad right-of-way.
Commissioner Lloyd questioned the fencing around the ponds since
the ponds need to be periodically cleaned by a backhoe.
Commissioner Walker questioned the fairness of requiring fencing
around the ponds in this application without requiring it around other ponds.
000N4£
Chair Willhoit requested that condition #10 be added and read as
follows:
"The apron of the driveway entrances and exits shall be paved
from the edge of the road to the stockade fence."
There was a consensus of the Board to add #10 as stated above.
Chair Willhoit asked about the slope of the proposed driveway and
expressed concern for spillage. Smith indicated the proposed driveway slopes
back toward the plant.
Commissioner Lloyd asked if the Board could allow Chandler to have
a chain link fence if Chandler finds it more practical.
Susan Smith indicated that the Ordinance speaks to screening of
parking and vehicular areas. She indicated if what the developer proposes
does that effectively, it meets the requirements of the Ordinance.
Chair Willhoit moved approval of the Special Use Permit with the
ten special conditions (listed below) - nine that were recommended by the
Planning Board plus #10 which provides for the paving of the aprons to the
fence line, and with #4 and #9 modified to specify chain link fencing around
the ponds and on the basis that the conditions will meet the public purpose to
an equal or greater degree than provided in the Ordinance. Specifically,
negative findings stipulated in Article 12.4 are satisfied by conditions #4
and #5. The negative findings stipulated in Article 6.24.f are satisfied by
conditions #4 and #5. The negative findings stipulated in Article 7.17.b and
7.17.c are satisfied by those special conditions pertaining to landscaping and
screening. Commissioner Lloyd seconded the motion. The ten special
conditions are as follows:
1. The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange
County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or
letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all public
improvements plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the
basis of fully executed construction contracts or
certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee
of this Special Use Permit. As improvements are completed a
corresponding amount of money may be released from the
security instruments or the security instruments may be
renogotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the
improvements.
2. Security shall be provided for the grading, paving and
stabilization of all cleared areas, streets and other
vehicular travelways only, and landscaping.
3. Roads, parking areas and landscaping shall be maintained as
constructed. All such improvements and facilities shall
further be maintained and operated in a safe manner.
4. Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum consistent with
maintenance of runoff control. in lieu of planted
landscaping, existing vegetation shall be retained along the
railroad right-of-way.
5. That screening and landscaping requirements as provided in
Articles 7 and 12 be provided along the full length of the
eastern property line and along the rear property line.
6. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and
improvements shall be recorded by the developer.
7. The final site plan and narrative of the project,
incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the
000N�J
final approval of the project, are to be incorporated herein
and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use
Permit. Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to
remain on file with the Orange County Planning Department.
Grading and building permits, upon application, will be issued
after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit.
8. The development shall be built and operated according to the
site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and
in compliance with the above conditions.
9. That suitable fencing consisting of a six foot chain link
fence be installed around the holding ponds to prevent access
by animals and children.
10. The apron of the driveway entrances and exits shall be paved
from the edge of the road to the stockade fence.
Commissioner Marshall stated that Articles 7.17b, 7.17c and 6.12a
findings pertaining to the reduction on the amount of land area are not met in
any way by the landscaping conditions and that Article 7.4.4 would not allow
more than a 10% reduction.
Chair Willhoit indicated that it is difficult to put the entire
disposition of this process into ten specific conditions. He stated that a
review of all information provided would certainly demonstrate that the
public purpose is met by this process, that it will be a greater benefit to
the neighborhood to have the screening and landscaping installed than would be
the case if the ponds were built on the existing lot. It is a unique
opportunity to obtain some improvement to what has been an aesthetic eyesore
in the neighborhood, and he is pleased that Chandler Concrete has offered to
provide this improvement to the property. He hoped that Chandler Concrete
will take other steps to improve the appearance of the property, address
neighbors' concerns and maintain the property so that it will have a lesser
impact on the neighborhood.
Commissioner Marshall noted her opposition is that the Ordinance is
being stretched in ways the Ordinance was not intended.
Commissioner Lloyd noted that, in his discussion with people in the
neighborhood, Chandler Concrete has been a good corporate neighbor and
believes Chandler will continue to be so.
VOTE: AYES, 4; NOES, 1 (Commissioner Marshall) .
ADDED ITEMS
OMER AUTHORIZING $200,000 SANITARY SEVER BONDS (This order appears in
full on page&V :aA of these minutes)
Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner
Carey to approve the order authorizing $200,000 in sanitary sewer bonds.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
Motion was made by Chair Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd
to set November 4, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners' Meeting Room
located at 106 Margaret Lane in Hillsborough, North Carolina as the hour, day
and place for the public hearing on the order authorizing $200,000 in Sanitary
Sewer Bonds.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
NOTE: THE SWORN STATEMENT OF DEBT WAS FILM WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
CHANGE OF MEETING DATE FOR THE JOINT PLANNING AREA PUBLIC HEARING.
There was a consensus that the date for the Joint Planning Area
Public Hearing be changed from December 10 to January 14, 1986.
0000- 0
H. EXECUTIVE SESSION - (PMSONLM MA'ITF'R)
Chair Willhoit noted there is an indication from some of the
members of the Board to discuss the process for the Manager's evaluation which
is not appropriate for the executive session and that the executive session
for the discussion of a personnel matter will be rescheduled for the next
meeting.
Commissioner Walker objected to the evaluation process stating it
should be decided by the entire Board.
Commissioner Lloyd questioned doing an evaluation once a year and
Chair Willhoit indicated it was the consensus of the majority of the Board
members that it be done annually.
I. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting. The next meeting will be
held on November 4, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners' Ronan in the
Courthouse located in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Don Willhoit, Chair
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
N5i
The Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North
Carolina, met in regular session in the District Courtroom at the
Old Chapel Hill Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, the
regular place of meeting, at 7:30 P.M. , on October 15, 1985.
Present: Chairman Donald L. Willhoit, presiding, and
Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Jr., Ben Lloyd and
Norman Talker
Absent:
Also present: Gordon Baker, Finance Director, and Beverly
Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners.
Commissioner Marshall introduced the following order
authorizing bonds which was read:
ORDER AUTHORIZING $200, 000
SANITARY SEWER BONDS
BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Commissioners for the County
of Orange:
1. That, pursuant to The Local Government Bond Act, as
amended, the County of Orange, North Carolina, is hereby author-
ized to contract a debt, in addition to any and all other debt
which said County may now or hereafter have power or authority to
contract, and in evidence thereof to issue Sanitary Sewer Bonds
in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $200, 000 for the
purpose of providing funds, with any other available funds, for
constructing a portion of a sanitary sewer system for said
County, including the construction of sewage collector, inter-
ceptor and force mains and lines, sewage pumping facilities and
appurtenant facilities, the construction of a sewage main to
transport sewage to the sanitary sewer system of the Town of
Hillsborough for treatment and the acquisition of any necessary
land, rights of way and equipment therefor.
2. That taxes shall be levied in an amount sufficient to
pay the principal of and the interest on said bonds .
BROWN WOOD IVEY MITCHELL&PETTY. ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER,NEW YORK.N.Y.10,048
000-230 5
3. That a sworn statement of the debt of said County has
been filed with the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners and i5
open to public inspections
4 . That this order shall take effect 30 days after its
publication following adoption, unless it ispetitioned to a. vow
of the people as provided in G.S. §159-60- in which event it will
take effect when approved by the voters of the County at a ice er--
eAdum as provided in said Arta
The Board of Commissioners thereupon designated the Finance
Director as the officer whose duty it shall to make and file
with the Clerk to the Beard of Commissioners the sworn statement
of debt of the County which is required by The Local Government
Bond. Act, as amended, to be filed <�fter the bond order has been
introduced and before the public hearing thereon.
Thereupon the Finance Director :,Tiled with the Clerk to the
Board of Commissioners, in the presence of the Board of
Commissioners, the sworn statement. (A debt as so required.
v .
: �C.dB&.cctrp�rtt e.ai v: e.six W:i a.::ae.:.-_,,.�.�4,+.:;:,, i: ,..,.t -.♦..,.._«.i.t4.ic tW'.r.kiCL3' .'kl*'f. Y CY/:i.* -
SANITARY SEWER BONDS" was passed on _first reading.
On motion duly made, seconded and unanimously carried, the ?'
Board of Commissioners fixed 7: 30 P.M. , Novemeber_ 4, 19£ 5 in the
Commissioners ' Meeting Room located at 106 Margaret Lane in
Hillsborough, North Carolina as the hour, day and glace for the
public hearing upon the foregoing order and directed the Clerk to
the Board of Commissioners to publ_ s.h said order, together: with
the appended statement as required by The Local- Government Bond
Act, as amended, once in The Durham Morning Herald and The News
Of Orange not later than the sixth day before said date.
I
t
-2-
BROWN WOOD IVEY MITCHELL a PETTY. ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER,NEW YORK,N.Y,10048
E
• 000, 3
I, Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for
the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a regular meeting held on October 15, 1985 as relates in
any way to the introduction and passage on first reading of an
order authorizing bonds of said County and the call of a public
hearing upon said order and that said proceedings are recorded in
Minute Book No. 19 of the minutes of said Board, beginning at
page and ending at page
I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY that a schedule of regular
meetings of said Board of Commissioners, stating that regular
meetings of said Board are held on the first Monday of each month
in the Commissioners' Meeting Room at 106 Margaret Lane in Hills-
borough, North Carolina at 7: 30 P.M. and on the third Tuesday of
each month in the District Courtroom of the old Chapel Hill Post
Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina at 7:30 P.M. , has been on
file in my office pursuant to G.S. 142-318. 12.
WITNESS my hand and the corporate seal of said County, this
15th day of October 1985.
Clerk to the ScaiV6
of Commissioners
_3-
BROWN WOOD IVEY MITCHELL&PETTY.ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER.NEW YORK.N.Y. 10048