Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-20-1985 APPROVED MAY 7. 1985 OFFICIAV COVi MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONTINUATION OF 3/19/85 MEETING MARCH 20, 1985 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in continued session on March 20, 1985 at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room at Lincoln Center in Chapel Hill for the purpose of selecting a Community Development Block Grant Target area for 1985. COMMISMONERS PRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey and Ben Lloyd. gulamIssioNER ABSENT: Commissioner Norman Walker. STAFF PRESENT county Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Assistant County Manag- ers Albert Rittrell and William T. Laws, Environmental Health Supervisor Tony Laws, Community Development Director Wilbert McAdoo, Program Administrator Glenn Davis and Clerk and Administrative Assistant to the Board Beverly A. Blythe. In answer to the questions raised at the March 19, 1985 meeting with regard to: (1) the condition of each house in both the Rencher Street and the Cheeks/Miles area, (2) designation of ownership of each dwelling, and (3) the number of outdoor bathroom facilities in each area, Kenneth Thompson presented a tax map showing the two communities and the condition of each dwelling with an ownership list and additional information to substantiate the accuracy of the number of outdoor bathroom facilities. Wilbert McAdoo explained the two maps in detail. The map showed those houses that were standard, substandard (deteriorated), dilapidated and rental units. The study done in 1982 was reevaluated and the figures found to be correct. The Cheeks/Miles area has three (3) rental and 40 owner-occupied homes. The Rencher Street area has nine (9) rental and 33 owner-occupied homes. The points for both areas for the outdoor facilities were equal. Commissioner Lloyd pointed out that the dilapidated and deteriorated units in Cheeks/Miles totaled 35 and in the Rencher Street area totaled 32. Wilbert McAdoo stressed the Rencher Street area has a greater need because of the lack of bathroom facilities. This condition directly affects the people living in those households and under the guidelines of the CDBG the needs must be addressed that would uphold the health and safety of the residents. He explained that after the application is completed a • 2 determination is made on the type of assistance that will be awarded to the rental units and the type of contraints placed on the landlord. These properties would be eligible for Section 8 designation providing the monies whereby the properties could be kept up to standard. Chair Wilihoit reiterated that since both projects have been revaluated and both have an equal amount of points, that other factors such as roads and the ability to eliminate outdoor bathroom facilities must be considered to determine the success of the project. Wilbert McAdoo explained that in the Cheeks/Miles area, because of cost, only one road could be paved (Washington Street), and other private drives may be upgraded. Also, the soil is suitable for septic tanks. In the Rencher Street area, Rencher Street would be paved. The soil in the Rancher Street area is not suitable for septic tanks. Commissioner Carey noted that both project areas are equally dilapidated in terms of the housing with each having serious problems with bathroom facilities and questioned if additional criteria needs to be established to decide which area to select and desiginate as the project area. He contended that if the landlord of the rental property upgrades the facilities the rent will ultimately increase. The County does not have a mechanism to stimulate these landlords to install indoor facilities and this CDDG is an opportunity, regardless of whom owns the property, to upgrade these facilities. Commissioner Lloyd asked if septic tanks are allowed to be installed as part of the renovation for the area and McAdoo indicated that septic tanks are installed as necessary in the renovation process. Chair Willboit noted that one of the reasons Hillsborough was unsuccessful in receiving a grant for Rancher Street was the percentage of substandard homes in their jurisdiction. The Tbwn is restricted to count only those homes within its immediate vicinity while the County counts the number of substandard homes in the entire County area. The County has a much better opportunity of receiving a grant for the Rancher Street area. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to accept the staff recommendation and select Rancher Street as the target area for the Community Development project. VCTE: AYES, 3; NOES, 1(Commissioner Lloyd). ADOVENMENT Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m. The next regular meet- ing will be held on April 1, 1985 at 730 in the Commissioners' room of the Orange County Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina. , fr 3 Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk • 1 • ORANGE coma 3 Cs BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEMS ABSTRACT - Item No. I Meeting Date: MARCH 19, 1985 SUBJECT: SMALL CITIES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT TARGET AREA DEPARTMENT: HOUSING/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): Report on Small INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilbert McAdoo • Cities Community Development Block x 427 Grant Application Guidelines. TFTYPHONE NUMBERS: Orange County Housing/Community Hillsborough - 732-8181 Development Study. Chapel Hill - 968-4501 • Resolution Authorizing the Execution Mebane - 227-2031 of FY 1985 Community Development Durham - 688-7331 Block Grant PURPOSE: To consider submitting a Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application for 1985 and selecting a CDBG Target Area for 1985. NEED: The Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD) in February 1985 announced the 1985 application guide- lines and the acceptance of applications for Small Cities CDBG funds. NRCD requires local governments to conduct two public hearings before the application is submitted. County staff has surveyed every township in the County. All potential community development target areas were ranked based on observable community development needs (housing conditions; water and sewer services; road improvements; spot clearance and lack of indoor bathroom facilites). County staff will be present at the meeting to answer questions regarding the target area selection process. IMPACT: The State Small Cities CDBG application must be submitted by April 18, 1985. The Board must decide on the submission of an application and selection of a target area if this deadline is to be met. In addition, two public hearings must be conducted before the aforementioned deadline. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the submission of a Small Cities CDBG application and approve the Rencher Street Community as the 1985 Community Development. 1 _ • 0 3 -I Report On The Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Application Guidelines ' • The primary purpose of the North Carolina Small Cities Community Development • Block Grant Program is to provide grants to local, governments to develop viable ' communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for pekraons. of low and moderate income. The program reflects the 1983 amendments to the Housing'and Community • Development Act of 1974. The North Carolina Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program is designed to, insure that at least 51 percent of the CDBG Funds will, be used to benefit low and moderate income persons. Applicants may seek funds under four different grant categories: Community Revitalization , Economic Development, Development Planning and Urgent Needs. North Carolina expects to distribute to local governments approximately $42.2 million during' this year. Approximate allocations between each grant category and maximum grant amounts under each category areas follows: Grant Category 'Funds Available Maximum Grant Amount Community Revitalization no less than 31,230,000 $750,000 Economic Development up to 8,440,000 $750,000 Development Planning up to 420,000 $10,000 Urgent Needs/Contingency up to 2,110,000 $750,000 The Community Revitalization Category includes activities in which a majority of funds are directed toward improving, preserving or developing residential areas. The Economic Development Category includes activities in which a majority of funds are directed towards promoting the creation or retention of jobs, enhancing income levels or providing local ownership opportunities. Development Planning grants are directed to local, governments to help them develop projects that can be considered for CMG funding in the future. Urgent needs grants will be awarded to applicants with projects which address existing community 0 3E development needs that pose an immediate threat to the health or welfare of the • community due to conditions which have arisen within the last 18 months. NRCD will award grants on 'a competitive basis. Each project will be • evaluated against others competing in the same grant category. The selection . • system that has been developed for the Community Revitalization and Development Planning grant categories is as follows: • • Maximum Scores Community Development Selection Criteria Revitalization Planning • Community Needs 200 - • Project Design 400 400 Benefit to Low and Moderate • Income Persons • 200 • Other Public and Private Funds 100 . Consistency with State Policies/ • - Programs 100 • Total 1000 400 • Economic Development • Community Needs 100 Project Design • 500 Benefit to Low and Moderate Income Persons 200 Other Public and Private Funds. 100 Consistency with State Policies • Programs 100 1000 • Urgent Need Application will be 1) local commitment evaluated and rated based 2) development feasibility on the project design. Three 3) degree to which the-project measures will be considered in treats severe community evaluating project design, development needs that for a maximum score of 400. have not been previously . addressed. • • . • .._ . . _ . OdS • • 1 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZI 'G THE FILING OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION. • IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED: THAT, the Orange County Board of Commissioners authorize the fil .ng of Orange County's Fiscal Year 1985 Community Development Block Grant Appl .cation/ including all understandings and assurances contained within the application. • • • THAT, an application will be submitted to the North Carolina Deirtment of Natural Resources and Community Development on or before April 13, 1985. The amount requested is $750,000. • • . . I hereby certify that the above resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution adopted at a meeting of the Orange County Board cf Colludssioners on the day of 19 • • . .. 1 . • - 041 , :. -. . . SYNOPSIS . The purpose of the study is to cite several community development needs ih Orange County and to provide a priority listing of potential target areas for .. '';• a Community Development Program. J.,. . The study involved an updating of a "Housing and Community Development Study" conducted by the Orange County Community Development Department in September _ 1982. It included a detailed windshield survey of potential target areas in '. the townships. Additionally, 1980 Census of Population and Housing data were used to obtain information on the County and the townships. The Townships in Orange County were observed as a result of the survey. These , . townships are as follows: 1) Bingham • . 2) Cedar Grove . . 3) Chapel Hill 4) Cheeks .• . 5) Eno 6) Hillsborough 7) Little River' ! . A detailed windshield study was done on each target area and a priority listing of target areas was made according to the magnitude of the community development needs. These target areas are listed as follows: • I 1) Rencher Street Area 4 • 2) Cheeks/Miles • 3) Rogers Road 4) Efland B •. • 5) Efland C • 6) Efland A • 7) Colonial Hills • 1 0 • 8) Byrdsville I , . t ? Rencher Street Area which is located in Hillsborough Township is first on the list because of the magnitude of its community development needs (i .e. trash i - dumping, inadequate bathroom facilities, poor road and housing conditions) . ..mosimantaasurar • 0 4 1 • L. The condition of housing in the area ranges from slight to substantial rehabilitation. Trash dumping and outdoor bathroom facilities are not only problems that create a blighting condition, but both problems could affect the health and safety of residents in the neighborhood. • • • 7 Cheeks/Miles and Rogers Road. which are located in Cheeks and Chapel Hill townships. respectively are second and third on the list because of the next highest magnitude of CD needs. The problems in Cheeks/Miles. and Rogers Road are similar to those problems in the Rencher Street Area but to a lesser degree and magnitude. • - The three Efland areas, which are located in the Cheeks Township, are ranked fourth, fifth and sixth on the list because their major problems are housing deterioration, no sewer facilities and poor streets. The condition of . housing in these areas are not as deteriorated as the other areas discussed earlier. Also, their other CD needs do not impose an immediate hazard on the health of the residents. • - T. • - ( • - Colonial Hills and Byrdsville, which are located in Eno and Hillsborough townships are rated seventh and eighth because their major problem is - housing deterioration. These two areas are consisted mostly of permanent • sited trailers that are deteriorating but not at a higher degree as the houses in other areas listed. .... , • • All in all , the majority of the dwelling units in Orange County is either standard or in need of slight to moderate rehabilitation. Many substandard I units are dispersed throughout the County (except for the target areas that were listed earlier). These target areas are concentrated communities that • 1 are in need of community development activities. • • • 0 4 fr; INTRODUCTION Orange County is a rapidly growing area in North Carolina. Certain sections of the County have begun to exhibit characteristics of a metropolitan area. Within the County, three corporate areas exist which are Chapel Hill , Carrboro, and Hillsborough. The annual growth rate has increased significantly. since 1950. The population in 1950 was 34,435, in 1960 it was 42,970 and in .1970 it was 57,567.1 According to the 1980 Census data, Orange County has a population of 77,055 persons who reside in 27,044 dwelling units. Of these 27,044 occupied housing units, 12,313 occupied units are under the County's jurisdiction and outside any corporate limit. A total of 9.82% of these occupied units is substandard.2 Also, 75% of the occupied housing units was owner-occupied and . 25% was renter-octupied. The vacancy rate is 7.3%, but because of this area's high market value and high rental cost, the low- and moderate-income persons can not afford housing accomodation through conventional means. Therefore, housing assistance is essential . A "Housing and Community Development Study" conducted in September 1982 by the Orange County Community Development Department revealed that many substandard . units are scattered throughout the County; however, nine concentrated areas were indentified as needing community development assistance. Countywide housing needs include additional development of new low- and moderate-income housing conservation of low-, and moderate-income neighborhoods, rehabilitation of deteriorating neighborhoods, and the elimination of blight. In 1982, Councilville which is located in Chapel Hill Township just west of • Carrboro was rated as the most blighted area within the County's jurisdiction. . This community was cited as having dire housing and road conditions along with .„ . 4 2 needing water and septic improvements and refuse-clearance, . Presently, Councilville is being served by a Small Cities Community Development Block Grant to improve their unsafe and hazardous conditions. Also, the survey • identified other -concentrated areas located in Cheeks, Hillsborough, Eno and Chapel Hill Townships that need community development treatment and assistance. These residential areas are troubled with failing septic systems, poor housing and road conditions, and unsafe and unsanitary environments. A remedy for these areas would require comprehensive rehabilitation, spot clearance, and public facilities improvements such as water, sewer, and roads. Why This Study Was Undertaken i The purpose of this report is to update the "Housing and Community Development Study" which was conducted in September 1982 by the Orange County Community Development Department. This report is designed to give some insights on the structural conditions of the dwelling units in Orange County and to give . 1 a priority list of potential target areas for the Community Development Block Grant Activities. In addition to the structural condition information, the k study was concerned with other community development needs of the target areas such as paved roads, water and sewer services, recreation facilities, and a clean and sanitary environment. How Data Was Collected The information for this report was collected by using the 1980 Census of Population and Housing data and a windshield survey that was conducted during February 1985. The Census data were used to obtain the number of housing units and the number of substandard units in the County and Townships. By using this data, the substandard units were determined by the number of units that were 1. • 044 3 overcrowded and lacking plumbing facilities. Overcrowdness is defined as a -dwelling with more than one person per room, and lacking plumbingfacilitiesare defined as a dwelling that does not have safe running water, a private, flush toilet and a bathroom with tub or shower with hot and cold running water, all located within the dwelling unit. The windshield survey was accomplished by driving into the target areas which was identified in the 1982-study. The conditions of each target area were observed and tabulated. The housing condition was determined by observing the. structural appearance of the dwelling. This survey consisted of ranking all housing units as either (1) standard; (2) deteriorating; or (.3) dilapidated, Standard housing is a dwelling unit that Ca) is in compliance with the Orange County Community Development Department Property Rehabilitation Standards and is in good sound structural condition. Deteriorated, housing is a dwelling that is substandard but can be repaired, altered, or improved to comply with all of the minimum standards established by County Property Rehabilitation Standards. ' Dilapidated housing is a dwelling that is unfit for human habitation and cannot be repaired, altered or ' improved to comply with all of the minimum standards established by County Property 4 k. Rehabilitation Standards. Dwelling units ranked as dilapidated should be demolished, Substandard housing are those units which were ranked either deteriorated and 1 I dilapidated. Also, other community development problems were observed such as malfunctioning septic systems, refuse dumping, privies, unpaved roads, and unsafe and unsanitary environments. ISURVEY RESULTS The following is a breakdown of the Census data and the windshield survey results on a Township - by - Township basis (See Figure 1 and 2). I . . . . 4-L 4 • Bingham • Bingham Township (See Map B) has approximately 1656 total housing units of which 1509 units are occupied.3 Of the occupied dwelling units, 172 or 11% are substandard.4 These substandard units do not have adequate plumbing facilities and adequate room space for household size. Also, the units are dispersed throughout the entire Township which makes it difficult to concentrate on a single target area for a community development program. The Township primarily consists of agricultural land used for farming Cedar Grove • Cedar Grove Township (See Map C) contains approximately 1137 total dwelling units ! of which 1008 units are occupied.5 Almost 26% or 262 of the occupied housing units are substandard.6 These substandard units are overcrowded and lacking plumbing facilities. Like Bingham Township, Cedar Grove has a large dispersion of substandard housing units which makes it hard to use a community development program. Also, the township largely consists of agricultural land used mostly for growing tobacco and corn. Chapel Hill Chapel Hill Township (excluding the corporate limits of Carrboro and Chapel Hill ) 7 contains approximately 4366 total housing units of which 4103 units are occupied. Of the occupied units, 192 or 4.6% of the units are substandard.8 These substandard units are dispersed throughout the Township except for two areas. The first area is referred to as Councilville. Currently, this community is being served by a Small Cities Community Development Block Grant. 7 The second potential target area is Rogers Road. Rogers Road is located just north of Chapel Hill off Eubanks Road (SR 1727) near of the communities of Eubanks and Calvander. This potential target area contains approximately 74 dwelling units. Of the ..„ total units, 60 units are suitable for housing rehabilitation, 5 units should be demolished, and 9 units are standard.9 Four dilapidated units are occupied and relocatio A - • - ' 04E 5 of the residents to standard units is needed.. The deteriorated units range from slight to substantial rehabilitation with the majority of the units ranging from slight to moderate rehabilitation. Nearly 88% of the units need 4i some type of housing assistance." The condition of the roads in this area is good- except for two roads that could be paved. These roads are Rusch Road and an entrance road; both roads lead off Rogers Road. The improvements of these roads could provide easier and safer access for residents and emergency vehicles, and could eliminate excessive ' dust. The unpaved roads are approximately .5 mile long. Also, there are no water and sewer services in the area. The residents are using wells and septic tanks as a mean for water and sewer services. There are no visible signs of septic tanks and well hazards that could be harmful to residents. Cheeks Cheeks Township has approximately 1697 total housing units of which 1596 units are occupied.11 Of these occupied units, 246 or 15.4% of the units do not have adequate plumbing facilities and adequate room space for the household size.12 Although some of the substandard housing is dispersed throughout the Township, they are concentrated areas in Efland and the Cheeks/Miles communities that need a community development program. The Efland community is located just west of Hillsborough on U.S. 70. It consists of three "pockets" of problem areas including: Efland A) An area south of U.S. 70 starting at 1327 (Lloyd's Dairy Road) and extending to SR 1316 (Gaines Chapel Road) (See Map E). This area has approximately 55 units.13 Of the total of 55 structures within the area, 23 units are standard, 30 units are deteriorated and 2 units are dilapidated 14 Over half (58%) of the units need some kind of housing assistance. The housing assistance needed in 41 '4, • H . - Ott 6 this area is slight rehabilitation. The two dilapidated units are abandoned, and relocation of families is not 'necessary. Other problems in the area are the lack of sewer service and road paving. Sewer lines have not been extended into the Efland area. Also, SR 1322 (Forrest Avenue) needs to be extended to Gaines Chapel Road. This road needs to be paved with curb and gutter to prevent erosion and to enhance proper.drainage. About .3 mile needs to be paved. Efland B) An area south of U.S. 70 starting on the west side of SR 1316 and ending at SR 1399 (Redman Crossing) (See Map E). This area contains approximately 43 housing units, of which 25 are deteriorated and need rehabilitating, 1 Isdilapidated and-should be demolished, and 17 are standard.15 Most of the dwelling units (60%) need some type of housing assistance. The condition of the units in this area ranges from slight to moderate rehabilitation. Also, the area needs sewer service and street improvements. Like all • areas in Efland, sewer service is not being provided. Street improvements are badly needed to provide easier and safer access for residents and emergency vehicles. Roads such as Sanders Road and Loop Road can be improved by paving with curb and gutter. The unpaved roads are approximately .9 mile long. This area contains a community center which needs to be rehabilitated. This center is currently being used by the Joint Orange Chatham Community Action Agency (JOCCA) and the Efland community for such activities as Senior Citizen Nutrition programs, youth programs, and community programs 7 04E • activities, and meetings. The community center is an important function for providing information and activities to the citizens of Efland. It would be a great loss to the community if this building was left to deteriorate further on its foundation. This building could Serve as a meeting place for citizens and a gathering place for community activities. Efland C) An area north of U.S. 70 starting at Tinnin Road and ending at Redman Crossing ( See Map E). In this area there are approximately 63 dwelling units of which 32 are deteriorated, 2 are dilapidated and 29 are standard.16 Almost 54% of the units need housing assistance. Most units are in sound • condition only slight to moderate rehabilitation is needed. The severe problem is roads. The unpaved roads cause excessive dust problems and poor road conditions. These unpaved roads are Tinnin Road, Fuller Road, and School House Road. The unpaved roads are approximately .9 miles. Also, Efland Estate is adjacent to this area which is located on Richmond Road and Gregg Street (except for 4 units on U.S. 70). It consists of 26 units which are in sound condition.17 This subdivision only has minor deterioration visible on its exterior structure, and it may well be a community development target area several years in the future. It also • has one unpaved road (Richmond Road), and they are experiencing severe septic tank problems. Their septic tanks are not percolating properly. Even though the problem exists, the County is obtaining funds to alleviate the problem. The second area that has potential for a community development program in the township is the Cheeks/Miles community. It is located on. SR 1114 (Buckhorn Road) beginning on the south side of Southern Railway extending to Interstate 85 (See Map E). - - - - -. • _ _ . . , . . . 0 tiE . 8 Several units are located on SR 1303 (Washington Street). This area contains approximately 43 units, of which 29 are deteriorated, 6 are dilapidated, and 8 are standard. Most of the units (81%) need some type of housing assistance.18 At the end of East Washington Street trash has been dumped that could be a health problem for hearby residents. Signs have been posted to warn about dumping, but trash and unburied refuse materials still remain at the site. Recreational facilities are not provided in the area except for a field that -„„ the children use for baseball , basketball , and volleyball . The playground needs more recreational facilities, and the existing facilities need improving and repairing. Recreation facilities are needed to accomodate all age groups. Eno Eno Township has approximately 1764 total housing units of which 1664 units are occupied.19 Of the occupied housing units, 94 or 5.6% of the units do not have adequate plumbing facilities or adequate room space for the household size .20 • The substandard housing in Eno ranges from slight to high level of despersion. There are two subdivisions of mostly permanent sited trailers located in this Township. These subdivisions aft Byrdsville and Colonial Hills. Byrdsville is a trailer park located on Old N.C. 10 (See Map r and G). It consists of approximately 78 units of which 38 are deteriorated and 40 are in - standard conditions.21 Over half of the trailers are in standard condition, but 35 of the standard units need underpinning.22 Also, the deteriorated units only require slight rehabilitation. Water but not sewer services are provided in this area. Also, Byrdsville consist. of private paved roads that have serious problems with potholes, cracks and breakages Road improvements are needed. There are no playgrounds or recreational facilities within walking distance of any part of the neighborhood. Recreational facilities should be provided to • 9 05C • accomodate all age groups. Also, Colonial Hills Subdivision is an area located off U.S. 70 Business on SR 1709 ( Lawrence Road). It consists of the streets (Kennedy Circle, Washington Drive and Adams Plain) on the west side of Lawrence Road and the streets (Lennie Drive and Jay Circle, Hayes Drive, and Piney Grove Church Road) on the east side of Lawrence Road (See Map F& G). This area contains a total of 221 housing Units, of which 64 units are deteriorated and suitable for rehabilitation, 4 units are dilapidated and should be demolished, and 153 units are in standard condition.23 • A majority of the trailers was in standard condition, but 27 of the standard units • need underpinning 24 Water service is provided in the area, but sewer service is not. Also, there are no recreational facilities within the area. All roads are in excellent condition. The roads are paved and no improvements are needed. *Note: Parts of Byrdsville and Colonial Hill are located in Hillsborough Township, but for this written report they were listed in Eno Township. Hillsborough Hillsborough Township (excluding the corporate limits of Hillsborough) consists of approximately 2010 total housing units of which 1911 units are occupied.25 Approximately 163 or 8.5% of the occupied units are substandard-26 Most of the substandard housing is concentrated in two areas: The Northern Fairview community and the Rencher Street Area .1 The Northern Fairview community is located on U.S. 70 just north of Hillsborough. Presently, a major portion of this area is near completion of a multi-year Small Cities Community Development Block Grant. Rencher Street Area is a community located just north of the corporate limits of the Town of Hillsborough on U.S. 86 and east of the Northern Fairview Community Development target area (See Map G). Approximately 42 units are located on the east 0'61 10 side of U.S. 86 on SR 1557 (Rencher Street) and SR 1558 (School Bus Garage Road),. Of the total 42 housing units, 31 units are deteriorated and suitable for slight toi substantial housing rehabilitation, 1 unit is dilapidated and should be demolished; and 10 units are in standard condition.28 Of the total deteriorated units, 8 units do not have indoor bathroom facilities. These units, still have outdoor bathroom facilities. Also, the dilapidated unit is occupied and relocation is needed. The unit should be demolished to prevent health and safety hazards. Most of the units ' (76%) need some type of assistance. Rencher Street needs paving of about .3 miles of roadway. Also, the area is lacking sewer service and recreation facilities. Sewer lines need to be extended into the area, and there are no recreational facilities inside the area or within walking distance. Trash dumping is visible in the area Little River Little River Township (See Map H) has approximately 576 total housing units of which 522 are -occupied 29. Of the occupied units, 80 or 15% of the units are substandard.30 These substandard units do not have adequate plumbing facilities or adequate room space for the household size. Little River (like Cedar Grove and Bingham) is primarily a farming area with very dispersed substandard units. 1F PRIORITY LISTING OF POTENTIAL TARGET AREAS On the whole, Orange County (excluding Hillsborough, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill corporate limits) has approximately 13, 206 total housing units in its 4 jurisdiction.31 Of the total housing units, only 1209 or 9% of the units are substandard.32 Many substandard units are widely dispersed throughout the County. However, the County does contain some potential target areas with visible housing E. deterioration and community development needs. From the information gathered from the windshield survey, here is a priority 054' 11' listing of potential target areas (See .Figure 2): 1) Rencher Street Area 2) Cheeks/Miles .3) Rogers Road 4) Efland B 5) Efland C 6) Efland A 7) Colonial Hills 8) Byrdsville These potential target areas are listed by the amount of community development needs and the degree of deterioration of the units. The degree of deterioration was determined by the amount of rehabilitation cost. Slight to moderate rehabili- tation ranges from $1,000. to $5,000. Substantial rehabilitation ranges from $6,000. to $10,000.+. Rencher Street Area is the leading candidate for a potential community development target area since it contains a higher magnitude of community development needs than the other seven areas. This area contains problems that could be a hazard to the health and safety of the residents. Rencher Street Area has eight units in which privies are still being used The use r of these primitive bathroom facilities could endanger the health of nearby residents. Privies along with other blighting conditions have given Rencher Street top ranking for a potential target area Priority should be given to Rencher Street Area because of the extent of the community development problems that exist in the area These CD problems not only affect the appearances and upgrading of the community, but they affect the health and safety of the residents. As a result of these findings, Rencher Street Area should have precedence over the other seven areas as a target area for a community development program. r * Obi 1: 12 CONCLUSION The overall housing conditions in Orange County are in fairly sound conditiOn. - Most of the deteriorated units are dispersed throughout the County except for the potential target areas discussed in this report. These target areas are in need of some assistance either by Community Development Block Grant or any other funds the County can provide. More intense study and planning should be done on these target areas • (especially Rencher Street Area) in an attempt to coordinate various activities • needed to upgrade these communities. If Community Development Block Grant is the main source of funding for these areas then studies should be done to obtain the adequate information needed to apply for a Community Development Block Grant. 1. Oz L. • 12 CONCLUSION The overall housing conditions in Orange County are in fairly sound condition. - Most of the deteriorated units are dispersed throughout the County except for the potential target areas discussed in this report. These • target areas are in need of some assistance either by Community Development Block Grant or any other funds the County can provide. More intense study and planning should be done on these target areas (especially Rencher Street Area) in an attempt to coordinate various activities needed to upgrade these communities. If Community Development Block Grant is the main source of funding for these areas then studies should be done to obtain the adequate information needed to apply for a Community Development Block Grant. / I I I 13• • 0o4. Figure 1 - . County and Township Housing Survey • Total ' Occupied No. of Vacant Boarded Up Housing Units Housing Units Substandard Units Units Housing Units . Bingham Township .1656 1509 172 147 5 - Cedar Grove TWP 1137 1008 262 129 5 Chapel Hill TWP 18587 17703 579 884 7 Cheeks TWP 1697 1596 246 101 9 ... Eno TWP 1764 1664 94 100 10 ... Hillsborough TWP 3229 3042 275 187 3 sf Little River TWP 576 522 80 54 4 Carrboro Town 3748 3581 70 167 1 Chapel Hill Town 10473 10019 317 454 1 J. . Hillsborough Town 1219 1131 112 88 2 Fairview COP 355 338 76 17 1 ' Orange County 28646 27044 1708 1602 43 a , County Jurisdiction 13206 12313 1209 893 39 _ 1 r ' Corporate Limits 15440 14731 499 709 4 1 1:" 1 *Footnote: 1980 Census of Population and Housing . 1 . , 11 1 1 • 1 i I 14 FIGURE 2 Housing Conditions by Target Areas , . Target Total . -*Standard Substandard Deteriorated Dilapidated # of Family . Areas Units Units Units Units Units Relocated Byrdsville 78 40 . 38 38 0 - 0 Cheeks/Miles 43 8 35 29 6 3 Colonial Hills 221 153 68 64 4 4 Efland A 55 23 32 30 2 0 Efland B 17 26 25 1 0 43 Efland C 29 34 32 2 0 63 Rencher Street 42 10 32 31 1 1 1 Rogers Road ' 9 65 60 5 4 74 - ' *Footnote: Windshield Survey. February 1985. = i 1* ' - I 1 , AL : I I _ _ _ FIGURE 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS 1 : 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it Percentage of Units Needs of 1 of 4J # of Miles # of 'amilies utdoor •H Housing Water ewer 1 Target Areas Assistance Service ervice Needs Spot Iiilapidatedieeds to be athroom 041 Paving Clearance Units elocated Facilities 1.6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Byrdsville 54 YES NO 0 NO 0 0 0 2.6 8 2.4 0 1 .5 2 .6 .7 .9 Cheeks/Miles 81 YES NO .5 TRASH 6 7 3 8.1 2 .93 0 1 0 0 .4 .4 0 4 Colonial Hills 31 YES NO 0 NO ' 4 4 0 2.7 7 5 Efland A 58 1'7 YES 0 NO 1 .3 '3 NO 0 2 .2 0 0 0 0 3.2 6 6 Efland B 60 1' YES 0 NO 1 ,9 '9 NO 0 1 '1 0 0 0 0 3.8 4 1 0 1 .9 0 .2 4 0 7 Efland C 54 YES NO .9 NO 2 0 0 3.7 5 2. 0 1 .3 2 3 Rencher St. Area 76 YES NO .3 TRASH 1 1. 8 8.4 1 1 1 .S 0 .4 0 } Rogers Road. 88 NO NO .5 NO 5 4 0 6.0 3 } Magnitude Scale 3 i 1 1 2 1 1 .3 SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS CHART PURPOSE The community development needs chart was constructed in order to rank the potential target areas according to the magnitude of their community development needs and the degree of deteriorated dwelling units. This chart is used to quantify factors which may be highly subjective or qualitative in nature. It has three primary- functions: 1) to rank the target areas by using the set of factors. . 2) to classify and categorize the set of factors which affects the target areas. 3) to indicate the degree one factor exceeds another on a specified basis of comparison. METHODS OF USE The general procedure for constructing this chart is as follows: .• 1) Determine the attributes or factors to be rated. ' 2) Determine the best scale for rating the factors. 3) Place data on chart. 4) Rate the attributes or factors. 5) Verify the consistency of the ratings. The first step in constructing this chart was to identify the dependent and independent variables. In this chart, the dependent variables are the target areas listed in column 1 from Byrdsville to Rogers Road, and the independent variables are the factors listed in row 1 from percentage of units needing housing assistance to the number of outdoor bathroom facilities. In the second step, a scale from 1 to 3 was determined as the best means of rating (listed in row 11). This scale rated the factors on three different levels • of magnitude: 1 as low, 2 as medium, and 3 as high. Afterward, each factor was given a rating. The, rationale behind the rating is - - factors with a.3 rating have direct impact to the health and safety of the community; factors with a 2 rating have a possibility of affecting the health and safety of the community; and factors L with 1 rating do not have a major impact to the community because of alternative methods currently being used such as wells, septic tanks and unpaved roads. Also, a majority of the dilapidated units are vacant, and the dilapidated units that are occupied by residents must be relocated. This process gives the occupied dilapidated units a higher rating because of the overlapping effect. The third step was to place the information on the chart. All information on the target areas were collected by a windshield survey. In the fourth step, the information was given a quantitative value. If the information is not in numerical form it must be changed to quantitative value. Once this process was done, the magnitude scale rating in the column of the factor being rated was multiplied by the quantitative value of that same factor. For example, • no number in this chart needed to be changed but in order to simplify the procedure all numbers were changed into percentages. This procedure reduced the size of the „.• 0 6 E • • number in the rating. A good example is Byrdsville which has a magnitude scale of 3 in column 2 and in the same column 54% of the units needs housing assistance, so the calculation will be 3 X 54% 1.6 rating. A different procedure was used for „ the "Yes” and "No" answers. This information was given a quantitative value. For example, in the Cheeks/Miles Area there is water service, but no sewer service. For water service a quantitative value of 0% was given, and for sewer service a quantitative value of 100% was given. Since each factor has a magnitude rating of 1, the magnitude rating was multiplied by either 0% or 100% which gave a product • - of 0 or 1. After each factor in each target area was- rated, each factor rating • was added together for every target area (shown in column 11). Column 11 gives an overall rating of the target areas. The areas were ranked by giving the highest • rating a 1 ranking, the next highest rating a 2 ranking, and so on (shown- in column 12). The fifth step was checking the chart for consistency making sure each column utilized the same calculation procedures and making sure that each number has an equal amount of value when it was changed to a percentage. • • • t • I . _ . . • • . ., ... . : I I . . • „ 4 . I ' . eLt. . t - . . . . : . . . .. . .(7 I\I 1.".43.11g •il 16....4.2.1 tA...a, .: 3 . _ C7 e.ceite...1 ..c.4.4;tis :. 49 ( 13! ) . . _ i -.3)_144.4.4.301-e. et. LA,,,, ks vci.cc4i.k : 3 . . .... . . 2;1 . .. .... . ... . .. . • ____OD___M4_1_-_.2,..*.. K.-1. -D...4:14.f.....A4Aj. pf....as_:_.‘, . . . ._. . . ..__ ._ . . . g) MA...Jai-, 1 TD:,..4_,Q444...ao,r04.__u.e),40.-4-___; 3 ________ s__ -.. .10/0-1-vi,....c,---: 2. _. 1 • I, 1 • • JO) PI4... 4...ogree,114. ._01A441_._444.:4&___wia .4,4t1 &m....,:.,...1r i . - 1 .. .._ . . : . , . : ! .: I . ! . i --, . ----1444 itfl ir 4-1 I ! 1 . . . ! . - . . E . , . ■ ,. ■ . . . . . . . . • ! . . . ! - ! i . ' - - ?42.4,,�c1+.�.+► S-r t AYP..49�,. . ... _. . _._.. . . . _ . ..i) AS _ . r -_ (AZ* ; . 9 _. fay .74).-- - - ---- -- • ... . . ) _N ter.-.--l. e .t_-6 0 33 C.-- - - ._. 3)_ 1.4(44,A6r . ...et .U,M. s. . va,„...ot• ---- - . . - ..- . __. . . .4fr.. ).___N. Wiekktflee___/:......441POWIRMIBA4 ....(.44AA-T* 5 e Vt. ... ..._. _______ • • 5) 140,4,...,,i?.4.- 4_ __..51.:ixv_viwi _k4,4.1:4s..4. 10, ___.._______ . .... .... ____ I M A _1)_a_144.41friptui„,- _tmAIL ukat.-___AAtititera.- • I- 1 . • 1 q0-- ;' _______ Its)c4..cw. , ..° i I , ,