Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-08-1994 - VIII-M 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date August 8 , 1994 Action Agenda Item SUBJECT: HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ARTICLE 4. (NEW) PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWING PROPOSED NOMINATIONS TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHNENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron CLG Agreement Extension 2580 Draft Amendment Revised 4/13/94 4/8/94 Comments from SHPO TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 5/23/94 Public Hearing Hillsborough - 732-8181 Minutes Durham - 688-7331 6/7/94 Draft HPC Minutes Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of a proposed amendment to the Historic Preservation Ordinance which would include procedures for reviewing proposed nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. BACKGROUND: In November 1993, when the County received the Maple Hill nomination to the National Register (HP-1-93) , the Planning Staff became aware that the process for reviewing National Register nominations is not contained in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. A new Article 4 is proposed to duplicate in the Ordinance the requirements of the Certified Local Government Agreement (see attachment) pertaining to the review of National Register nominations by Orange County and the Division of Archives and History. The notification and public hearing measures proposed are the same as those currently required for designating historic landmarks. The proposed amendment was presented at the May 23 public hearing. No citizen comments were received. The Board of Commissioners referred the item to the Historic Preservation Commission for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than August 8, 1994. On June 7, the Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment to 2 i the Historic Preservation Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. - 1 - 3 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 109 East Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Telephone 919/733-4763 , CERTIFICATION AGREEMENT FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS This agreement is entered into on this 12th of March 1993 by day month year the North Carolina Division of Archives and History, herein known as the' Division, and the County of Orange Name of Local Government herein known as the Local Government. The agreement is made pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 (P.L. 96-515) , herein known as the Act, and "Guidelines for North Carolina' s Certified Local Government Program," herein known as the Guidelines. �. I. GENERAL 1. The Local Government agrees to meet the five standards for a certified local government contained in the Act and defined and amplified in the guidelines, and to establish a Certified Local Government Commission for the purposes of this agreement, upon consultation with the Division and any existing local historic district or properties commissions. 2. The Local Government hereby designates a paid member of its staff, } Marvin Collin$, Planning Director or a person working Name and Position of Person under contract, Name and Firm/Agency of Person as the individual responsible for the operation of the Certified Local Government Commission (herein known as the Commission) and for meeting the requirements of this :agreement. The Commission shall notify the Division if the person responsible significantly changes the amount of available time spent on historic properties. y 3. The Division shall make available orientation materials and training / to the local government and the Commission. The orientation and training shall be designed to provide a working knowledge of the r.olos and operation of federal , state, local and private prr.servration programs. 2 4. The Local Government shall review all proposed nominations to the 4 National Register of Historic Places within its jurisdiction pursuant to the Act and according to the procedures in the Guidelines, which are incorporated by reference into this Agreement, and Part II of this Agreement. 5. For purposes of evaluation, the Local Government shall submit triennially to the Division a report on the activities of the Commission containing the items listed in the Guidelines and any others which the Division shall require. The Division shall inform the local government of the results of its review of the report in writing. The report shall be submitted by October 1 of the year in which it is required. 6. The Division shall perform annual monitoring of the Local Government to assure that it continues to meet the standards contained in the Guidelines and is satisfactorily performing its responsibilities. Monitoring may include periodic telephone conversations, requests for specific written materials, on-site visits and other materials which may be required to sufficiently evaluate the CLG' s yearly activities. 7. If. the Division' s yearly or triennial review indicates that terms of_ this Agreement and addenda are not being met., or that the Local Government no longer meets the standards contained in the Guidelines, or that its performance of the responsibilities outlined in the Guidelines and this Agreement is not satisfactory. the Division shall notify the Local Government in writing that it risks losing ��. certification. The Division shall document the assessment that the Local Government' s performance is inadequate and recommend steps to bring the Local Government' s performance up to a satisfactory level. 8. The Local Government shall have a period of not less than 30 nor more than 180 days to make improvements. If the Division determines that sufficient improvement has not occurred within the time prescribed by the Division, the Division may recommend decertification of the Local Government to the Secretary of the Interior, citing specific reasons for the recommendation. If the Secretary does not object to the Division' s recommendation within 30 working days of receipt, the decertification shall be considered approved by the Secretary This F Agreement, and certification of the cited Local Government, shall become void 30 days following notification in writing to said Local Government of the Division's recommendation to the Secretary, unless otherwise notified by the Secretary or the Division. 9. If the Local Government is decertified, it may immediately request recertification. However, the Local Government shall lose eligibility to apply for the matching funds set aside for certified local governments during the grant cycle following decertification, whether or not its recertification request is approved. 10. The Division may delegate, by mutual written agreement with the Local Government, further responsibilities to the Commission. The Local Government may petition for the Commission to assume greater \ responsibility for preparation of National Register nominations, environmental review, and review of Tax Act certification applications J providing the Commission has sufficient staff meeting the professional qualifications contained in the appendix to the Guidelines. Any delegation of further responsibilities to the Commission shall be made as an addendum to this Agreement. - 3 - 5 11 . if separate historic landmark and historic district comruissi.ons i:xist i in the Local Government ' s jurisdiction, the Local Government shill obtain a memorandum of understanding with the commissions, in consultation with the Division, which identifies the responsibilities of each commission under this Agreement. The memorandum of understanding shall be made an addendum to this Agreement. II. REVIEW OF NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATIONS BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1 . If a property to be nominated to the National Register lies within thy: jurisdiction of the Local Government, the Division shall transmit copies of the nomination to the Commission and the chief elected official of the Local Government within 30 days after the Division has determined that the nomination is complete and accurate and at least 60 days prior to consideration by the State Professional Review Committee. i 2. The chief elected official of the Local Government, acting on behalf of the local governing board, and the Commission shall separately notify the Division and the owner of the nominated property in writing of their opinions concerning the eligibility of the proposed nomination within sixty (60) days from the date they receive the nomination. Comments to the Division may be submitted on forms provided by Archives and History. If the Commission and the Local Government concur with the nomination, their responses may be as simple as affirmative statements that, in their opinion, the property is eligible for listing in the Register. If either or both the Local Government and the Commission do not believe that the property should be nominated to the Register, they shall state in their responses why it should not be nominated. 3. Upon submittal of comments to the Division on any proposed nomination, the CLG will verify that it has consulted with appropriate experts as stipulated in the cover form it shall receive with each nomination. 4. The Division and the Local Government agree that if the chief elected official and the Commission fail to notify the Division of their F opinions within sixty (60 ) days, such failure shall. constitute approval of the nomination. 5. During the review period, the Commission shall provide a reasonable opportunity for public comment. The following measures shall be taken (check one or more of the following). • Public notice published in local newspaper • Public hearing at meeting of the Commission • Mailing to interested local groups. and individuals soliciting comments Press release announcing proposed nomination and requesting public comments 4 6 Ocher measures agreed to by the Division and the Loc:il Government The Commission shall submit to the Division a record of the measures taken to notify the public and the comments received. 6. If both the chief elected official and the Commission concur with the nomination, or if only one of them objects to the nomination, the Division will place the nomination before the State Professional Review Committee for consideration a-t the earliest possible quarterly meeting. 7. If both the chief elected official, acting on behalf of the Local Government ' s governing board, and the Commission object to the nomination, they shall return the nomination materials to the Division which shall take no further action unless, within thirty days of the return of such nomination materials, a written appeal is filed with the Division by a third party. If such an appeal is filed, the Division shall place the nomination before the State Professional Review Committee at the earliest possible quarterly meeting. 8. After a nomination is recommended by the State Professional Review Committee, and signed by the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Division shall transmit it to the National Register with the comments and opinions of the chief elected official and the Commission, together with any appeal which may have been filed. III. TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1 . The Local Government is eligible to receive a portion of the Federal Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) monies set aside for certified local governments (CLGs) provided that it meets the financial management standards contained in the Guidelines. F 2. The Division shall make the CLG share of HPF monies available on a 50/50 matching basis for the eligible historic preservation activities and projects listed in the Guidelines. The Division shall award funds on a competitive basis, and shall select projects on the basis of their design, cost, community impact, and the priorities listed in the Guidelines. 3. To be considered for an award, the 'Local Government shall submit an application containing the information specified in the Guidelines. The Local Government understands that due to the large number of present and potential CLGs and the current low level of federal funding it is unlikely to receive an award every year. .i 4. Any project supported by monies set aside for CLGs shall be goviirnt:d by a separate project description and contract mutually agreed to by the Local Government and the Division. .I 7 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (DRAFT] REFERENCE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ARTICLE 4. (NEW) Procedures for Reviewing Proposed Nominations to the National Register of Historic Places ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 23, 1994 Purpose of Amendment: The amendments proposed are technical in nature and :include procedures for review of proposed nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. ImpactsJIss es: In March 1993, Orange County's application for Certified Local Government status was approved by the State Historic Preservation Office. Subsequently the County entered into a Certification Agreement with the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (See attachment) . The Agreement sets forth the responsibilities of each agency in the operation of Orange County as a Certified Local Government. Part II of the Agreement describes how the County and the State Historic Preservation Office review proposed nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. Much of the language of the proposed amendment follows that of Part II of the Certification Agreement. The current Historic Preservation Ordinance includes procedures for designating historic districts and landmarks. The requirements proposed for the notification and public hearing , on National Register nominations are the same as those adopted for districts and landmarks. The existing Articles 4 and 5 will be renumbered for consistency. EXISTING ORDINANCE TEXT: None. PROPOSED TEXT: Article 4. Procedures for Reviewing Proposed Nominations to the National Register of Historic Places Nominations to the National Register of Historic Places must be reviewed by the North Carolina National Register Advisory Committee with final approval by the National Park Service. The procedures contained in this Article must be followed by Orange D � U8 County before a proposed nomination may be forwarded to the State. Section 4.1 Study List Status Required Before a formal nomination to the National Register may be presented, the North Carolina National Register Advisory Committee must determine if a site or district is potentially eligible and place it on the Study List. Once a site is on the Study List, a nomination may be prepared in the form prescribed by the National Park Service under the supervision of the State Historic Preservation Office. Section 4.2 Review of Proposed National Register Nominations Once the nomination is determined to be complete and accurate by the State Historic Preservation Office, the County will be notified by the State within thirty (30) days of acceptance of the nomination and at least sixty (60) days prior to consideration of the nomination by the North Carolina National Register Advisory Committee. Within sixty (60) days of receipt of the notice and the nominations the Board of County Commissioners and the Historic Preservation Commission shall each notify the State Historic Preservation Office and the applicant of its opinion concerning the nomination. Failure to notify the State within sixty (60) days shall constitute an approval of the nomination. Section 4.3 Public Hearing and Notice Thereof During the 60-day review period, the Historic Preservation Commission shall implement the following measures to provide reasonable opportunity for public comment: 1. The Historic Preservation Commission shall hold a public hearing. 2 . Notice of the public hearing shall be published once a week for two successive calendar weeks. The notice shall give the date, time, and place of the public hearing. It shall be published the first time not less than 10 days nor more than 25 days before the date set for the hearing. In computing such period, the day of publication is not to be included; however, the day of the hearing shall be included. 3 . Written notice shall be sent by certified mail to the affected property owner(s) and all adjacent owners not less than 15 days before the hearing date. Adjacent property owners are those whose names and addresses are currently listed in the Orange County tax records and whose property is within 500 feet of the affected property(ies) . Y D � a 9 a � � 4 . Comments shall also be solicited from other interested local groups and individuals. Section 4.4 Commission Action Subsequent to Public Hearing Following the close of the public hearing on the proposed nomination, the Commission shall 1. Forward a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners concerning the nomination; 2 . Notify the applicant and the State Historic Preservation Office regarding its recommendation. If the Commission finds that the nominated resource does not meet the National Register criteria for listing, it must state in writing the reasons why the site or district should not be nominated; and 3 . Submit to the State Historic Preservation Office a record of the measures taken to notify the public and the comments received. Section 4.5 Board Action on the Nomination Within the 60-day deadline prescribed in Section 4 .2, the Board of Commissioners shall receive the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the nomination. The Board shall either: 1. Find that the nominated resource does meet the National Register Criteria for listing; 2 . Find -that the nominated site or district does not meet said criteria and state the reason(s) why the resource should not be nominated; or 3. Take no action, which constitutes an approval. The Board shall notify the applicant and the State Historic Preservation Office regarding its action on the nomination. Section 4.6 State Action on the Nomination If both the Board of County Commissioners and the Historic Preservation Commission agree that the property is eligible and should be nominated, or if only one makes a negative finding on the nomination,, the State Historic Preservation Officer will place the nomination before the North Carolina National Register Advisory Committee for consideration at the earliest possible quarterly meeting. If both the County Commissioners and the Historic Preservation Commission make negative findings on the nomination, the nomination materials shall be returned to the State. The State shall take no further action unless, within thirty (30) days of the return of the A Y D W 10 nomination, a written appeal is filed with the State Historic Preservation Office by any interested third party. If such an appeal is filed, the State Historic Preservation Officer shall place the nomination before the National Register Advisory Committee at the earliest possible quarterly meeting. After a nomination is recommended by the National Register Advisory Committee and signed by the State Historic Preservation Officer, the nomination shall be transmitted it to the National Register. The State shall include with its recommendation the comments and opinions of the Board of County Commissioners and the Historic Preservation Commission, together with any appeal which may have been filed. Article 4 S. Certificate of Appropriateness Article 3 6. Remedies and Legal Status Provisions HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION: 6/7/94 BOCC: North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt. Jr., Govemor Division of Archives and History Betty Ray McCain, Secretary April 8, 1994 William S. Price, Jr., Director Ms. Emily C. Cameron, ASLA Planner II Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Emily: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed amendment to the Orange County Historic Preservation Ordinance. The draft has been reviewed by Melinda Wall, preservation planner, Linda Harris Edmisten, National Register coordinator, and me. This letter reflects all our comments. The procedures for reviewing nominations to the National Register of Historic Places are not included in the ordinances for other Certified Local Governments (CLGs) because they are outlined in the 1992 Guidelines for North Carolina's Certified Local Government Program (pages 16-19) . However, we have no objection to including them as an amendment to your ordinance. In fact, they may become a model for others to follow! First of all, let me clarify that CLGs only comment on the eligibility of nominations to the National Register. Under provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-665) , properties and districts are nominated to be entered in the Register by the State Historic Preservation Officer. The title of your new article (and other references throughout) should be revised to reflect that reality. An appropriate title might be: "Procedures for Commenting on the Eligibility of Proposed Nominations to the National Register of Historic :Places. " You could substitute "review" or "review and comment" elsewhere in the text. Secondly, for consistency with the Guidelines, you may wish to change some of your references to the Division of Archives and History, -to "State Historic Preservation Officer" (SHPO) , or "State Historic Preservation Office" (HPO) . For example, in #4 on page 17 of the Guidelines, we say that the local commission shall notify "the SHPO and the applicant . . . " Your proposed wording is "the Board shall notify the property owner(s) and the 4 Division. . . " (Section 4. 5, #3) . r E (I t F IM Pno 1[xi--,t Stnr_t • RaleiQh_ North Carolina 27601-2807 Emily Cameron 12 Page 2 April 8, 1994 I see that you have correctly changed references in the Guidelines from "State Professional Review Committee" to "National Register Advisory Committee. " The name of the committee was changed in July 1992. Another suggestion for the proposed amendments concerns references to the opinions of the Commission on the eligibility or ineligibility of nominations. It is preferable to use the words "finds the nominated resource does (or does not) meet the National Register criteria for listing, " rather than "supports or does not support, " "opposes, " or "objects" (see section 4 .4 and 4 .5 of your draft for examples) . I hope these comments will be helpful to you. Please feel free to call me, Melinda or Linda, if you have any further questions. Since , Lloyd D. Childers, CLG Coordinator State Historic Preservation Office cc: Melinda Wall Linda Harris Edmisten JUN-02-1994 12:13 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO 3002 P.02 YIA­? 23,(994 pedFT PUDwC. HrAP_1AJ4 HIA1 1TES , Z generations. It seeks improved public health, an informed citizenry and aq 2 better quality of life for all of its residents while promoting efficiency, 3 conservation,, pollution prevention and developing local resources to 4 strengthen the local economy. In March of this year, Commissioner Willhoit 5 presented a report to the Board of Commissioners and asked that the Board 6 consider adopting a policy statement with emphasis on a *8ustainable � 7 Community" rather than just development. If adopted, the proposed policy : 8 statement would be incorporated into the Board of Commissioners, Policy Manual , 9 and applicable to all County departments and agencies. 10 11 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR 12 THE PLANNING BOARD. 13 14 CITIZEN COWU:RTS 15 Melva Okun spoke in support of sustainable communities. she stated that 16 there are different concerns in different parts of Orange County and it is 17 important that people work together toward a common goal. She noted that manyk 18 areas are coming together as a region to work toward a regional effort. She "' 19 thanked the Board for their interest in this issue which she feels will make ; 20 this a better county for everyone. Although she has no changes to suggest to 21 the policy, she encourages the County to solicit feedback from all the people { 22 because there is a need for as much communication as possible. 23 Christopher Cooke spoke in support of including this policy in the Board r 24 of County Commissioners' Policy Manual. He lives in Cheeks Township and works '. at the School of Public Health at ZINC at Chapel Hill. He said that it seems that the consideration of these principles have a lot to do with the future 27 of Orange County which is focused on development -- how much, where and at 28 what cost. He feels that approving these principles will provide guidance for 29 development and maintain the quality of life now enjoyed in Orange County. 30 31 S MUMS OP 'TOE BOARD 32 There was a consensus of the Board to put this item on the agenda for 33 June 6, 1994 for decision. Commissioner Willhoit suggested that, at that P. 34 time, it be referred to the Planning Board and other human service boards for 35 adoption. 36 37 3 8 U&MIC PREBSBVATI0X == T= ANEiDMLPTS 39 a. Article 4 (new) - Procedures for Reviewing Proposed Nominations' 40 to-the National Register of Historic Places ,. 41 42 Rmily Cameron presented for public comments a proposed 43 amendment to the Historic Preservation Ordinance which would include 44 procedures for reviewing proposed nominations to the National Register of _ 45 Historic Places. A new Article 4 is proposed to duplicate in the Ordinance 46 the requirements of the Certified Local Government Agreement pertaining to the 47 review of National Register nominations by orange County and the Division of 48 Archives and history. 49 ^ THERE WERE NO QDESTIONS OR COIGMTS. 5� ju--02-1994 12:15 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO 3002 P•03 3 1 :L 2 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by 3 Commissioner Inssko to refer the proposed text amendment to the Historic 4 Preservation Commission for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of 5 Commissioners no sooner than August 8, 1994. 6 VOTE: UNANMUS 7 8 9 3- 9 ]&M AT= TC ECON NIC D3 nWP1sE_NT_ D_I_SMUQT 10 a. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments ' 11 (1) Section 3.4 - Locational Criteria (Economic Development 12 Activity Nodes) 13 b. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 14 (2) Article 4.2.19 - District Statements of Intent and 15 Application Criteria 16 17 Marvin Collins presented for public comments additional 18 criteria by which to evaluate the location of Economic Development Activity 19 Nodes (Transition) . Page 31 of the agenda'list the proposal by Commissioner ' 20 Gordon and the recommendation of the Ordinance Review Committee. 21 22 QUESTIONS/COlQKENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR THE 23 PLANNING BOARD 24 Commissioner Gordon noted that she felt these economic development nodes should be located in areas which could be served with water and sewer and not in areas which are not provided these services. She would ', 27 like for the economic nodes to have the same criteria as industrial or ` 28 commercial nodes. 29 30 THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS. 31 32 MOTION 33 A motion was made by Commissioners Halkiotis, seconded by 34 Commissioner Insko to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for 35 a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than S 36 August 8, 1994. 37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 38 39 40 4. AKMMKIXTS BE7.M TO OPIM sPAQZ jQE=Q 0WT AREA PROPOSALS 41 a* Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments 42 (1) Section 4.1 - Overview of Implementation Strategies (Land 43 Use Element Categories/Zoning District Matrix (Open Space 44 Development Zoning District) ] 45 b. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 46 (2) Article 4.2.6 Open Space Development (OSD) District 47 (2) Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table (Open Space Development 48 District) 49 (3) Article 5.1.1 - Dimensional Requirements for Residential Development (open Space Development District) (4) Article 6.30 - Development Standards for Open Space ' 52 Development (OSD) Districts 6/7/94 APO- H(AJ U Tr-5 D M I � U( Cameron stated that, if the Commission is interested, a general recommendation can be 15 forwarded to the State or the Commission can wait to see more detailed plans of the proposal. She stated that she will draft a letter to be sent to David Brook expressing the concerns of the Commission. AGENDA ITEM #5: DECISION ITEMS a. Election of Vice Chair Anderson nominated Norma White to serve as Vice Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. Pat Dickinson seconded the nomination. The Commission voted unanimously to elect Norma White as Vice Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. b. Historic Preservation Ordinance Amendment The purpose of this item is consideration of a proposed amendment to the Historic Preservation Ordinance which would include procedures for reviewing proposed nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. In November 1993, when the County received the Maple Hill nomination to the National Register (HP-1-93), the Planning Staff became aware that the process for reviewing National Register nominations is not contained in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. A new Article 4 is proposed to duplicate in the Ordinance the requirements of the Certified Local Government Agreement pertaining to the review of National Register nominations by Orange County and the Division of Archives and History. The notification and public hearing measures proposed are the same as those currently required for designating historic landmarks. The proposed amendment was presented at the May 23 public hearing. No citizen comments were received. The Board of Commissioners referred the item to the Historic Preservation Commission for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than August 8, 1994. The Planning Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. MOTION: White moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Seconded by Allison. VOTE: Unanimous. Cameron noted that the proposed amendment will be on the August 8, 1994 Board of Commissioners agenda. C. Preservation Element - Draft Request for Proposals The purpose of this item is to consider a draft Request for Proposals and a list of prospective consultants for the preparation of the Orange County Preservation Plan. At its January 18, 1994 meeting, the Board of Commissioners authorized the County Manager to apply for up to $10,000 from the CLG Survey and Planning Grant Program