The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 04-01-1985 7 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 1, 1985 COMM/SSIONERS ROOM EtLISHOROUGH, N.C. 7:30 P.M. A. IMP COS B. ADDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda 2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda C. MINUTES D. AMOINTMENCE E. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Community Development Application PAGE # F. ITEmg_FpR paxpluR 004 1. Health Vote Proclamation 006 2. JIPA—Plan Modification 016 3. Sewer Treatment Agreement Amendments Requested by Hillsborough 024 4. Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination Agreements FmH4 Form 400-1, 400-4 029 5. Just Compensation for Right-of-Way Acquisition-- Councilville 032 6. Housing Rehabilitation Contract 036 7. Counci1ville Street Improvement Awards and Program Amendment to Transfer Funds 040 8. School Merger Study Commission 044 9. Budget and Project Ordinance Amendments 047 10. Computer Software Sale 049 11. Loretta R. Smith—Preliminary 054 12. Price's Creek—Preliminary 060 13, Proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment for Clarence Wayne Dbby 066 14. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment--Artiole 4--Motor Vehicle Sales/Rentals in CC-3 Zoning District 073 _ 15. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment--Articles 8 and 4--Special Use Permits for Mixed Use of Historic Structures 087 - 16. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment—Article 4-- Extractive Uses 091 17. Zoning Ordinance Text Amemdmnt--Article 8— Extractive Uses 100 18. Zoning Ordinance Text Auendnent—Article 2--Appeal eh of Decision of Zoning Officer (Time Limitation) 104 19. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment--Article 3— Official Zoning Atlas Replacement 109 20. Subdivision Regulations Text Anendment-Definitions- Subdivision 116 21, Zoning Ordinance Text Anendment--Article 8--Site Plans G. mumirouggging - Property Matter H. bnalQUENMEHr , 001-- ORANGE COUNTY - BOARD OF CONNISSIONERS Action. 2kr.,e.rula Item No. C. ACTICN AGENak ABSTRACT MEET.= DATE April 1, 1985 • Subject: Immo Deparbrent: BWIRD OF COMISSIONERS Public Hearing: yes X • Attachment(s) : information Contact: 1 UNDER SEPARATE COVER BEVERLY .A. BLYTHE nom Number: =TENSION 505 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: March 6, 1985 - Regular Meeting March 12, 1985 - Joint Public Hearing NEED: Approval so the minutes may be entered into the official minute book in the Clerk's office. RECONNESDATION: As the Board decides. • 7 • 002• • 002 CRANE COUNTY • BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. 40_ACTIDNAGaIDA 111N1 ABSTRACT MEETBIG DATE April 1, 1985 • Subject: . APPOIETVANTS 1 Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 1Public Hearing: yes X • Attachment(s): Information Contact: • • UNDER SEPARATE COVER • BEVERLY A. BLITHE Phone Number: yornaisioN 505 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners'. appointed Boards. ; NEED: The following vacancies are announced for the first time for information only. , C-6 - HILLSBORO= PLANNING BOARD - 1 vacancy (expiration of term for Hilda Brody. 1 The following vacancies are announced together with the indication of the status of securing candidates for possible appointment consideration. All vacancies have been duly advertised. - C( NlISSION FOR WOMEN - 3 vacancies. Resumes have been received. A-6 - immummamopmair REVENUE BOND AUTHORITY - 4 vacancies, no resumes have been received. A-13 - RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL 3 vacancies. No resumes are on .- • . • file. A-14 - SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT! ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 vacancy. No resumes have been received. 1 B-11 - SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE - no new resumes have been received. IMPACT: To maintain 100% membership on Commissioners' appointed Boards and Commissions.. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. • , - a , 003 ORANGE COUNTY . • BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. )e. ) ... MEETING DATE April 1 , lgR5 SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Proposed CDBG Application - - 1 -0-EPARTMENT: Housing/Community Development PUBLIC HEARING: x YES NO • ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilbert McAdoo PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-6181 --- NO HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 _ _ ...., - --- PURPOSE; To receive comments from the public concerning the proposed FY 1985 • Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Application. - • • NEED: Compliance with N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community . Development regulation which requiresa public hearing during the initial stage of the CDBG application planning process. Staff will provide a brief presentation at the start of the hearing to outline proposed activities and target area boundaries. • IMPACT: Citizen input should be reviewed to determine whether comments are consistent or inconsistent with available community development needs data. . . RECOMMENDATION(S): . . - 004 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. F/ Meeting Date April 111983 Subject: HEALTH VOTE DAY IN ORANGE COMM Department: County Commissioners Public Hearing: Yes Attachment(s): Yes Information Contact: Commissioner Moses Carey Phone Number: 732-8181 PURPOSE: To declare April 15 Health Vote Day and to encourage the public to participate in the campaign. ROCMFATION: As the Board decides. PROCLAMATION TO DRILARE APRIL 15 HEALTH VOTE DAY IN ORANGE COONEY WHEREAS, the North Carolina Foundation for Alternative Health Programs Incorporated initiated the 1985 Health Vote 85 Campaign on March 1, 1985, and WHEREAS, the Health Vote 85 Campaign will provide the citizens of Orange County with a chance to hear and discuss issues affecting the cost of health services they will receive, and WHEREAS, by the year 1990 the average family could be paying more than $8,000 each year for health care, and WHEREAS, the national expenditures for health have risen 82.5% since 1974 and continues to consune 10.8% of our gross national product, and WHEREAS, in 1984 national expenditures for health care averaged $1,500 per person compared with less than $130 per person in 1960, and WHEREAS, Health Vote 85 is a community based public information campaign to help consuners make informed choices about health care, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Counissioners declare April 15, L985 as Health Vote Day in Orange County and urge all citizens to participate in the campaign. -Illetia CHAIR Attest: 00€4.,,e.„ARK g/444 • 047 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No A./29 . Meeting Date: APRIL 1, 1985 SUBJECT: SALE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE DEPARSEENT: DATA PROCESSING PUBLIC HEARING: __yes X No ATTACBMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: KEITH BROOKS X 477 TELEPHONE NUMBER: NO Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Orange County has been contacted by several counties regarding our computer systems developed for the Sheriff, Inspections and Health departments. In the past the County has made in-house developed computer software available to other counties at no cost. NEED: The County needs to adopt a policy guideline for dealing with software requests. The software can continue to be provided to other counties at no cost, or in trade for software which others may develop, or be sold. Apart from how the County deals with governmental request there should also be a guideline to cover sales to the private sector. IMPACT: Four to five sales are possible in the short range. Another five sales could follow depending on the pricing established per sale and by type software package. Finance has estimated the County cost could be recovered by a $1,000 to $2,500 charge per sale ($2,500 if few sales are involved, $1,000 if it's 10 or more sales). A problem involved is that the County is not equipped to do marketing. There is a cost associated in answer- ing inquiries and mounting any type of support to adapt and install the packages in another jurisdiction. Another problem in dealing with government is that software is now exchanged freely. If shift is made to a sales approach the cooperation on information sharing could diminish. Hence it is the Data Processing department's view that while sales and sales revenue is possible it would be in the County's interest to not depart from the practice of sharing the software with other governments upon request. This will, avoid having to pay for software which 048 other counties have developed and it would avoid incurring any responsibility to render follow up support. A different approach is thought necessary with private vendors. A larger return is possible from sales through these organiza- tions with no continuing cost to the County. ALTERNATIVES: Option 1: Direct that a policy, pricing schedule and software purchase agreement be developed for sales to public agencies and private vendors. Option 2: Direct that a policy, pricing schedule and software purchase agreement be developed for sales to private vendors only. RECCMMENDATION: 1. Approve continuation of the approach of the County sharing data processing software with other public bodies at no charge but with the County retaining ownership rights of what it has developed, and 1 2. Authorizing pricing and sales agreements to be drawn for vendor organizations wishing to purchase the software for re- sell. 1 • 049 • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS • ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date April lc 1985 Action ,.,genda Item # P" // SUBJECT: LORETTA R SMITH - PRELIMINARY DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No I Attachment (s) : Checklist Information Contact: EDDIE KIRK Tax Map - Plan • Draft P/B 3/18/85 Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Loretta R. Smith subdivision. NEED: The property in question is located in Cheeks Township on East Lebanon Road (SR 1306) . It is known as part of lot 7, Tax Map 14. There is one 7 acre lot proposed. The property is zoned A-R and is designated Agricultural-Residential and Water Supply Watershead in the Land Use Plan. The lot has state road front- age and is located in the Efland Fire District. IMPACT: The addition of one 7 acre lot will have minimal impact. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval. MAJOR SUBDIVISION CHECILLIST • 73Z•-2C FACNIZ OF SE;};DIVISION torctfia R. Smi tb OWNER OR DEVELOPER Loretta Smith or Timothy Horner ADDRESS NC Sec. Road No. 1306 AkA Lebanon Rd East Rt, 4r Box 1015, Riverside Drive, Hlllsborouch , NC TOWNSHIP Cheeks TAX mp 14 BLOCK LOT 7 CD NAM OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER Robert A: Jones A Total number of lots 1 To be developed in 1 phase(s) : Total number of acres_ 7 Typical dwelling units at present or proposed_ WATER SUPPLY: Public (Name) Orange-Alamance Commnuity Individual SEWAGE TREAT! ,NT: Public Community Individual Septic tank X SCHOOL DISTRICT nrannrn FIRE DISTRICT__ Ffl anti Access onto State Road Tp(z Road Standard: Pablic__X_ or Private Class A , B r C Existing critical areas such as streams { ), flood prone areas { }, Watershed ( Xj , Historic Sites ( ) , Other ( ) Explain: UPPER ENO Lard uses in the general area private Residents - SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 2-21-8; Approved ( X) Recommended Changes ( } PRELIiSINAP,Y PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 3_A_8 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Preliminary Review by Health Department 3-8='65 Erosion Control Officer ?,;tR 2-P1_'S Board of Education 3-7-85 Department of Transportation OWASA (if possible) Other Mlebane (if possible) -Hillsborough (if possible) -Orange/Alamence (if possible) Preliminary• Action. by the Planning Board Recommended 3-.18-85 Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners F!NAL PL7d RECEIVED (Date) ( } All lots were approved by the Health Department ( } Lots failing Health Departments approval are combaned •or listed properly on the plat ( ) Road maintenance Agreement submitted (whe-rd applicable) : Approved ( } Improvements have' been provided for, completed, bond, letter of credit, cash. Date ( ) Final OmuA approval (where applicable) on-all plans & specifications, Date ( ) Final DOT approval on plat ( ) final action by the Planning Board . ; • f-/�,� r ;' •3067 g 7 /� �� orr '/3.85 AC. =935o ,%%%% , / 5.77 AC. / a .. .. ////'� r� nom' 94 t t5 / M 8 AC. r ii/ 50. .0057 Oisir 734 i // 3.73 Ac. �, 60 Ac r / 09.296 5 { . . . 0 1 39.95 5 11 .. // !• /71786 �t i3A, /r 4 AC[ • ` 209 !f - �Y -•-•- . -__�- '- ,- .`.`�......` i etta R. Smith - ' a - - AKA 3, ,� ./6157 a 1,'r .�0�'�� . .,a, . .4-�-- Applicant: TIMOTHY HORNER Ac.t�/ 1.92 1, 94.09 . 0.. ;-6894 ///' Zoning : .A- R .•Aik, /t LUP Designation : Agricultural Residential Water Su I Watershed / PP Y .i6 AC: i/ Scaler 1" = 400' - 0 644' -- _ _ -- .-__..,,a- AC. -- - • -- - 2 AC. - . . • . 104 113 ; : 1.04AcI'' • • \. • - ,5793 . 14.9 AC. _ - th ,:i' 33:4;"-man, .. . 4236 15 . ` • .. ' ``- ` 6.47 aC. 3D3 AC. MAJOR SUBDIVISION. CHECKLIST ' 732-204 MME OF SUBDIVISION Loretta R. Smitii' OWNER OR DEVELOPER Loretta Smith or Timothy Horner kDORESS Rt.' 4 Box 1015 Riverside belVei HiiIsborou h; NC r0WNSHiP Cheeks TAX MAP BLOCK LOT .: !LAME OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER Robert-A. Jones rotal number of lots 1 To be developed in 1' phase(s). Total number of acres 5 typical dwelling units at present Non, or proposed RATER SUPPLY Public (iMO- Orantle-Atamake Commnuity Individual SEWAGE•TREATMEkT! Public 'Community • Individual Septic tank u SCHOOL DISTRICT Orrauae FIRE DIS'T'RICT_ Ff1ant+ Access onto- Stata Road #-j-AOfilRoad Standards Public g or Private Class A , EL. , C kxistitig critical areas such asistreams ( } Flood prone areas ( ); Watershed ( -X), Historic Sites { • ), Other ( ) Explains Gand uses in .the general area. PrIyatg Rpsiddents T 13FMCK PLAN RECEIVED (Date} 1-2t.=Rq Approved ( x) Recommended Changes { } PPMaKINARY PLAN RECEIVED {Date) - REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) prgliminaty "view'by.'Heal i Department - Erosion Control Officer MKR 2-21 8S Board of Education 3-7-85 . Department of Transportation OWASA (if possible) Other Mebane* (if possible) -Hillsborough (if possible) , -orange/Alamance (if possible) OkdlminaryAction by the Planning Board Vreliminairy,Action by the County Commissioners PINAL PLAT RECEIVED (Date) t: - )-All lots were approved by the Health Department .Lots failing Health Departments approval are combined or listed properly on the plat Road Maintenance. Agreement submitted (where applidable) :. 'Approved y. Improvements hava been provided fors completed1 bond, letter of credit, cash. Date :( ) Fina3. OWASA approval (t9heta applicable) on-all plans a specifications, Date ( .. :j• Final DOT approval on plat ( . 1 inai action by the Planhing Board ' . • . • ' -171-44.'4 14 1 M t2e7/2-lar m 04 u-rm. 1:71 . 052 . DRAFT . . The purpose of this agenda item is • to consider approval of the Final Plat for Warren S. Summey, Sr. The Planning Board recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan 2-18-85, and the County Commission- ers approved the Preliminary Plan 3-6-85. . - The property in question is located in the Eno Township on Miller Road (SR 1554) . It is known as Lots 32B and 32E, Tax Map 8. There are two lots proposed, one lot being 1.7982 acres while the other lot is 2.8331 acres . Both lots will have state road frontage. The property is zoned A-R and is designated Agricultural Residential in the Land Use Plan. It is located • in the Orange Rural Fire District which is served by the Orange Fire • • Department. • The addition of two lots in this area would have minimal impact. . . The Planning Staff recommends • approval. . MOTION: Pilkey moved approval. Seconded by ' • Pearson. VOTE: Unanimous. d. Loretta R. Smith - Preliminary . . t • . Staff presentation was made by Eddie • Kirk. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Prelimi- nary Plan for Loretta R. Smith Subdivision. • • The property in question -is located . . in Cheeks Township on East .Lebanon Road (SR 1306) . It is known as part of lot 7 , Tax Map 14. There is one • 7 acre lot proposed. The property 053 • DRAFT 6 is zoned A-R and is designated Agricultural-Residential and Water • Supply Watershed in the Land Use Plan. The lot has State road front- age and is located in the Efland Rural Fire District. The impervious ratio requirement is shown on the plan. The addition of one 7 acre lot will have minimal impact. The Planning Staff recommends approval. Shanklin inquired of the possibility of this 7-acre tract being • subdivided later. Kizer noted that it would have to come back for approval. Gordon inquired of staff if there was a possibility of a recommenda- tion concerning the solution of this problem. • Collins stated the only way would be • to prepare a subdivision design for the entire property now. Gordon noted the Board did not have that • authority. • Kizer •stated you could only take what was presented and approve or disapprove. There is no way to • regulate the lots that are • developed. P •lkey inquired how far this • property was from the Eno River and Walters responded one mile . MOTION: Shanklin moved approval, Seconded by Walters. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #7 a. Amend Orange County Private Road • Standards To Eliminate Require For • Road Sign On Roads Less Than 500 Feet. • • 054 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date ApLi.Lar_19115_,_ Action Agenda • Item SUBJECT: Price' s Creek - Preliminary DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) : Checklist Information Contact:Eddie Kirk ' Tax Map Erosion Control letter • Plan Telephone Numbers Draft P/B 3/18/85 Minutes Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 963-4501 PURPOSC: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Price's Creek. • • NEED: The property in question is located in Chapel Hill Township off Poythress- Road (SR1939) . It is known as lot 7, Tax Map 120. There are 7 lots proposed out of approximately 4 acres. Each Jot is larger than 5 acres. The property is zoned R-1 and is designated Rural Residential and Water Supply Watershed in the Land Use Plan. A stormwater management report has been • received and impervious surface limitations are shown on the plan . The developer is proposing a Class A private road to serve the 7 lots proposed . A Class B private road is required to serve 7 lots. The property is served by Damascus Fire District. IMPACT: The addition of 7 :lots of this size will have minimal impact on this area. The developer will need to work closely with the Erosion Control Officer in crossing Price' s Creek. The addition of 7 lots to this area could add approximately 47 trips ner day to Poythress Road. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends appioval subject to the Erosion Control Officer' s requirement that states: before final approval of the subdivision is given, details of the detention pond must be provided I,ased on more detailed. survey of the detention pond site MAJOR SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST NALNE OF SUBDIVISION PRICE'S CREEK OTINER OR DEVELOPER Cam W 1 1 1 ADDRESS Damascus Church Road CA TOWNSHIP Ch ape I H i I I TAX MAP 120 BLOCK' LOT 7 01 NAME OF SURVEYOR OR.ENGINEER Freehold Land Surveyors Total number of lots 7 To be developed in _1phase(s) . Total number of acres - 44-q5 Typical dwelling units at present or proposed 7 Single Family WATER SUPPLY. Public (Name) Commnuity Individual WeI15 SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public Community— Individual Septic tank SCHOOL DISTRICT Chafe I R i I I FIRE DISTRICT Damascus Access onto State Road # IJ-3J Road Standard: Public or Private Class A x B C Existing critical areas such as streams (X ) , Flood'prone areas { Watershed (X ) , Historic Sites Other Explain: ExisHnq Prirelq ('rppk 1P Watershe4- fp- U. 6ake Land uses in the general area SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 12/21/84 Approved Recommended Changes ( X) PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date)- 2/4/85 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 2/11/8; Preliminary Review by Health Department 10/8/84 Erosion Control Officer _MKg_2/1 jZgS Board of Education 2/11/85 Department of Transportation OWASA (if possible) Other -Mebane (if possible) -Hillsborough (if possible) -orange/Alamance (if•possible) Preliminary Action by the Planning Board Rdcommended Aporoyal 1-18-81; Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners FINAL PLAT RECEIVED (Date) All lots were approved by the Health Department Lots failing Health Departments approval are combined or listed properly on the plat Road maintenance Agreement submitted (where applicable) . Approved Improvements have been provided for; completed; bond, letter of credit, cash. Date Final OWASA approval (Where applicable) on all plans & 'specifications, Date Final DOT approval on plat Final action by the Planning Board . . • . - • : .ri<1-0.?.... .L.--,____JI-N.: . . . • - -. ' •, • . • . . . • ___ • - PRICE'S CREEK 056- . . . cp Applicant: C. Cameron Hill .9 087 • . -----_. ,--- • (Th. Zoning : R- 1 . - - .?...) - _____-----1 . • . LUP Designation: Rural .Residential:Water . CI) • •, Scale: 1".:: 400' t Supply Watershed. - 3.5.4 AC- 7 . 6433 ' - N 7 65 AC ce) . -L.‘. • . . . . , 2 .. / • . . ,&-9 /' 0182 i 0 3.71 AC. 7F . . 0 . • / - / IS • / ------ S. \ • 6016 2 AC.CI 0 Li. • el " ‘, 02 3196 • N---frZY 75 .e.4.,../ (.73 5.02 AC. •-- ''\ 3.9 AC. • I AC. . ‘ 2 . - • . .. .26.76 Al. " 0 • ■ • . - . • - ‘ - • • • ... ./,',.4 \ . \ - • • • - • 19/0 • •6 6 41 . .4635, , . --/ 22 : . • .;%; • 2 (0.6 4AC. ./ \ • , . • • --— \ • • -\4.0 ,..AC. : '— - . • • C)0563 • • -4.-.... 352 0 . • . .29 4c. • • • • \JPio AV 9 - \\>I 17.41 . • • ..-- -. ... • . . „ .. . • ..1 . ........,. , -....... . i-,-, . .-- I.:1 1 . ' . . • . . .. /,e• /7 • 6•7 ./. . •• M • J.1,0. • ---..... __-:--__--___ _- ---------------..... ft ' • II . . -...- .---...„ -...... -...,,, • • . . -.....:‘ ,■__,,,;,;:::-\11\\ • A Ail . . 0 • 298,2 II - 120 AC I I . I I • 1 I I 1 • - • 1 -: TWP a :ASS .ESSED . • II-1Am CO. • • • . ---. --..... ---,. ---, ' I . ••■,, ,,,, 1 'N... ... • PL1 i4 t NA 6 r.bobAtket, Mi i. cy-r . 057 DRAFT 2 MOTION: Pilkey moved approval of the minutes as corrected. Laszlo seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous March 5, 1985 Special Meeting Gordon requested changes referenced in the attached Planning Board Minutes for March 5, 1985 Corrections Suggested by Alice Gordon. MOTION: Greenberg moved for approval of March 5, 1985 minutes with corrections. Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #5a Long Range Planning Meeting Schedule The schedule is as follows: April 29, 1985 July 9, 1985 October 8, 1985 ITEM #5b Invitation for Planning Board "Get- Together" was presented by Gordon. Collins announced that the continuation of the Public Hearing on Oakwood Estates scheduled for March 19, 1985 was to be continued until a later date at the request of the applicant. AGENDA ITEM #6 Subdivision Applications a. At Price's Creek - Preliminary Staff presentation by Eddie Kirk. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Price's Creek. The property in question is located in Chapel Hill Township off Poyth- ress Road (SR 1939) . It is known as Lot 7, Tax Map 120. There are 7 DRAFT 058 3 lots proposed out of approximately 44 acres. Each lot is larger than 5 acres. The property is zoned R-1 and is designated Rural Residential and Water Supply Watershed in the Land Use Plan. A stormwater manage- ment report has been received and impervious surface limitations are shown on the plan. The developer is proposing a Class A private road to serve the 7 lots proposed. A Class B private road is required to serve 7 lots. The property is served by Damascus Fire District. The addition of 7 lots of this size will have minimal impact on this area. The developer will need to work closely with the Erosion Control Officer in crossing Price's Creek. The addition of 7 lots to this area could add approximately 47 trips per day to Poythress Road. Kirk noted that the Stormwater Management report was included in the agenda packets. The Planning Staff recommends approval. Greenberg inquired about the engineering plan. Kirk responded that the engineering plan would come in with the final plat. MOTION: Greenberg moved for approval with the Erosion Control Officer's recommendation as follows: Details of the detention pond must be provided based on more detailed survey of the detention pond site. Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: Unanimous. b. Richard C. & Bonita Roemmich -Final Staff Presentation by Jane Atwater. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Final 0g9 OINIANG-E CO _trNTY PLANNING- DEPARTMENT BILLSEOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA • 27278 660011 jib e - 13"1: 17,4 01 W." to° MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Planning Board Members LOP • FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Officer SUBJECT: Stormwater Management Plan for Price's Creek Subdivision, DATE: February 11, 1985 The proposal for this subdivision involves the impoundment of the runoff from the Private Road (Price's Creek Road) and the drainageway it crosses into a small detention pond on Lot #I. The runoff released from this pond will be at a rate no greater than the rate for a ten -year storm prior to development of the property. The proposal meets the requirements of the Erosion Control Ordinance. Before final approval for the subdivision is given, details of the detention pond must be provided based on more detailed survey of the detention pond site. cc: Phil Post & Associates C. Cameron Hill • • 060 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date ApriJ 1 , 1985 • Action Agenda , Item SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT FOR CLARENCE WAYNE DOBY DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment (s) : Information Contact: EDDIE KIRK See February 25, 1985 Public Hearing agenda packet. 3/12/85 Public Hearing Minutes. Draft 3-18-85 Planning Board Minutes.. Tax Map Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 • Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 • PURPOSE: To consider a Zoning Atlas Amendment for Cheeks Township sub- mitted to public hearing on February 25, 1985 and March 12, 1985 for approval from the Board of Commissioners. NEED: The proposed Zoning Atlas amendment addresses property located. • in Cheeks Township that was not included in the list of non- residential uses which was submitted to public hearing in • November 1983 and approved in October 1984. This amendment for Clarence Wayne Doby refers to a greenhouse that came into existence following the November 1983 public hearing and was, therefore, not included on the list of non- residential uses submitted to public hearing. Under the cur- rent Residential-1 zoning retail sales associated with a green- house are not permitted. An Existing Commercial-V zoning will permit this use. • IIAPACT: Consideration of this use for non-residential designation in • the Zoning Atlas for Cheeks would address the concern regarding the current nonconforming status of this use. Approval of the requested amendment would allow retail green- house sales. 061 RECOMMEDDATION: The Planning Board recommends that the Zoning Atlas for Cheeks Township be amended as follows: Clarence Wayne Doby (Greenhouse) — Existing Commercial V for portion of lot dimensioned 200 ' x 200' including structure measured from the southwestern corner along the southern and western property lines. • • ia Ti3,40 MD : , ' ' . . 063 be permitted i he Land Use Plan as amended in the West Orange Area Study, and secondly, he was not prepared to speak to this item tonight. AGENDA ITEM #4 Proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment for Clarence Wayne Doby Presentation by Smith. The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on a Zoning Atlas amendment for Cheeks Township. The proposed Zoning Atlas amendment addresses property located in Cheeks Township that was not included in the list of non-residential uses which was submitted to public hearing in November 1983 and approved in October 1984. This amendment for Clarence Wayne Doby refers to a greenhouse that came into existence following the November 1983 public hearing and was, therefore, not included on the list of non-residential use submitted to public hearing. Under the current Residential-1 zoning retail, sales associated with a • greenhouse are not permitted. An Existing Commercial-NT zoning will permit this use. Consideration for this use for non-residential designation in the Zoning Atlas for Cheeks Township would address the concern regarding the current nonconforming status of this use. Approval of the requested amendment would allow retail greenhouse sales. The recommendation from staff is that , the Zoning Atlas for Cheeks .Township be amended as follows: Clarence Wayne Doby (Greenhouse) -. Existing Commercial .V for portion of lot dimensioned 200'x200' including structure measured from the o . . 064 ..,.. southwestern corner along th " / southern western property lines. 0) ' Commissioner Lloyd stated that the applicant gave him the dimension 2001x3001 instead of the 200'x200' indicated on the abstract. 'V h, . 1 smith responded that the applicant .., i , had requested 260'.x300' but that N. ' staff's opinion was that a 200 'x200' ti lot was sufficient to accomodate the --, use and, therefore, staff recommended only a 200'x2001 iot for this use. ‘ . Planning Board member Wilson stated that he thought the greenhouse was an agricultural use and was permitted. ,.. _ . Smith responded that a greenhouse, without ....a.,pg B.Etvlise sales, was permieitd'fbritatffat this greenhouse would have on-premise sales. . . , I Commissioner Lloyd requested that 1 i Smith explain again the reason for 1 i Planning Staff's recommendation of , 0 200'x200' instead of the 200'x300' 1 ' 1 ,.. _ . requested by applicant. .._, 1 1 _ . ' Smith responded that in staff's 1 opinion, 200'x200' would accomodate 1 , the existing structure and any parking associated with that 1 structure. It was also staff's opinion that 200'x300' would be - _ excessive .- 1 . • - - - _ Planning Board member Shanklin asked , Smith to check to be sure BC-5 would 1 be the correct distr given that it was not in existence as a business 1 _ • 1 prior to the Zoning Ordinance taking i effect. , 1 1 Smith responded that the structure 1 was in existence and the applicant had indicated that the purpose for • i the' structure was to have a 1 . commercial operation There was no public comment. , • . - 1 - _ 065 f • i(21# DRAT The intent statement for the CC-3 district indicates, however, that the district is for limited automobile - uses . Amendment of the ordinance would allow motor vehicle sales/rentals in the two most intensive commercial districts. The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board recommend that the • Orange County Zoning Ordinance be amended to provide for motor vehicle • sales/rentals as permitted use in the CC-3 district. Collins also noted that the Ordinance Review Committee recommended against this amendment. However, staff felt that this amendment was consistent with the intent of the ordinance and also consistent with the fact that the CC-3 district and GC-4 district are two of • the most intensive commercial zoning districts that we have in our ordinance. Kizer inquired of Collins the areas in which CC-3 's had been placed. Collins responded by reviewing the criteia for CC-3 zoning district. MOTION: Shanklin moved that Planning Board recommend denial of this Zoning Ordinance text amendment. Seconded by Laszlo. VOTE: Unanimous. 9a. Proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment for Clarence Wayne Doby. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval for the recommendation for the Zoning Atlas. Amendment of Lot 200.' x 200' . Seconded by Pilkey. • VOTE: Unanimous. 9b.1 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Article 3. MOTION: Kizer moved approval of the change in the text amendment concerning replace- -- ORANGE COUNTY 042 • BOARD'CE COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA 1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM- ABSTRACT ITEM NO. cif 4 MEETING DATE FEBRUARY 25. 1985 • • SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT FOR CLARENCE WAYNE DOBY DEPARTMENT: PLANNING 1 PUBLIC HEARING: X YES NO ATTACHMENTO) : ATLAS AMENDMENT INFORMATION CONTACT: EDDIE KIRK . APPLICATION &. VICINITY MAP PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 • DURHAM •- 688-7131 PUR "POW t one Zoning Atlas amendment for Cheeks Township. NEED lent addresses property located in Cheeks Township t of non-residential uses which was submitted to and approved in October 1984. e Doby refers to a. greenhouse that came into • 1983 public hearing and was, therefore,' not • Oential uses submitted to public hearing. . zoning retail sales associated with a .411-Existing Commercial-V zontng will permit this use. IMPACT: Consideration of this use for non-residential designation in the Zoning Atlas • for Cheeks Township would aadress the concern regarding the current non- conforming status of this use. Approval of the requested amendment would allow retail greenhouse sales. RECOMMENDATION: That the Zoning Atlas for Cheeks Township be amended as follows: Clarence Wayne Doby (Greenhouse) - Existing Commercial V for portion of lot dimensioned 200'X 200' including structure measured from the southwestern corner along the southern and western property lines. • • • 066 • •A ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS • ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date April 1, 1985 Action rezenda Item # SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT-ARTICLE 4-MOTOR VEHICLE SALES/RENTALS IN CC-3 ZONING DISTRICT. • DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment (s) Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH Proposed Text Amendment 5/16/84 Request Letter 11/26/84 Public Hearing Minutes Telephone Numbers Draft 3/18/85 Planning Board Hillsborough -732-8181 Minutes Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow motor vehicle sales/rentals in the Community Commecial-3 zoning district as a use by right. NEED: Under the current zoning ordinance, motor vehicle sales/rentals are permitted only in the GC-4 district. The intent statement • for the CC-3 district indicates, however, that the district is for limited automobile uses. IMPACT: . V Amendment of the ordinance would allow motor vehicle sales/- rentals in the two most intensive commercial districts. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends denial of the request that the Orange County Zoning Ordinance be amended to provide for motor vehicle sales/rentals as permitted use in the CC-3 district. . ; — - • . • " • • . • . : - - • . . . • • • - , . . . . , ' . I • . 067 . - . ..,_.. - 1 • ...•.0 • . - • , ARIRLIR2A3.51.3412.5I3813131:;.=:=21=3:cc.4.=-EIOZ:=1:3-Irz:r3IASI MI n-JI. . . • , --7 f 1 I I I P. • • * ' • I • , • • * I • • ; • 1 I • SU rallsingart, I/1 arT ill If f ; ; 1 : : I 1 ; : ; , : t . , 1 ; • ..._.........___._...... ...._r_...r._.;__._:=__._:______r_:.._...._....r...h.c,e,uttz;, services. ; : 1 j ' • ' *5 .5 ., •; •5 • • ! , 522 2Lbr3ries IIIIIi ; .; .i . . oi : : ; • . ' - .. . . - • 523 r lVi I : ••••, .. $ I .-. 1,, , .. • 1 . , . • I . • • , : • 1 524-Ascot 7463,4=1.*Mintenanc.e ' it i • • : - • . • , " 4._._........._ .2........_..................._..............L.,. • .. , • . . .. 1 ,.....-,......... 1 , • ' .325 motor Venial/1r Sales. ' = I : ' i i - • : 30; r... . - • , . •• Rental. (New i Gsed) , : : . .., .. • I ---...• , . -4 i i : : s - i ; t ' . • • I sZE :actor :Tekicia.-Services. ; - 1 ; 1 . 1 • . - I I - . : ; ; ; . : • . [ if I ! [ , !. I • ' : • • I .; .i .•;' • frt ; I , i r , I : : • ii : • ; • . . . ; I - ' S27 Rionrclubs, Bars. Pans ' ' : ! : ' ; i 61 ! .1 ., • „,,,,,-..................................... amml111.11■001., I • • i 1 : ; ; ” ' ' 1 i , . . 323 Of:Li:est & Personal. . e ! = i I I I '• : : i ; e .! ' •. : : . . I ; • 1 • i : I Sern..**3. aitt At=aett -= ; I : 1 = • : : : i ' ' ' i• : : ' i '• • , = 1 • • ; : ! I . Few Cu.sracters Cr CLiertzs , • ; : - : : • .• ; • • • ' . , . , : • • ;. , ; i , ; , , : • . ., / , • : ;. . • ; ; Ga Pressi-sies Other • . . . ; . i , :, : ; , ; I :., • : ! i • : • t ; - - • ' I . - Mtployees. Generate Low. • . ; , . , :. , , . •, ; I ! I : . . . . • 11 . • : I I ; . , I : . Tratac VOluseS, gave sa • ! . i ! 1 1 : 1 ` • ; • = • • ! Adverse-Tropez= Beyond I ; 1 . ; : • , ; : ,., . ; : '• I I ' : : • "Ma Spaort Cc:opted 3y - • I 1 .! : , : I I • : ; i I • I I 1 i - ! • I I : ! • - 1 ; : i • • Tfte Brillaino 7 I I t g i . i ,,,1 fr I rr: o:; i• al • a ei et el 0 - . . . . ' -1 1 ' II i 1 i ' : : i ; • : ! : i : . : I ' 1 : il * ; 1 ! ; ii i • ; . f : ! ; -: t, . 329 Offices 6, Sersonal. i 1 . . . 'i : ! : ; . ; - • ! i ; Services Mat t , i ••• • I 1 , ' ; : • ; ; 7; - Generate .3edisas 1 IIIIII : ! : I • - r : f i 1 • ; . ; •; I I , ; . '; t' • .' . . , ; : I Traffic: Zane-No Adrans,•-•$.* ; I ' i I i c••= f : t• i 1 : i . : . , . t : , : 4 . : - • - • : : ' te,sa Beyond '=e • : ! I f r,274 Boundaries ; I . O IP et :- . • ' i • i • • - . . I ; : ! ; 7 ; • . i '• I . . • • ' • - i . . • •• c I 520 0;tiOes 6 Personal ' I . ; ' i 1 • ' : 1 ' • i . - - . Services ttete. • I , • r • • ! ! : ' - . . VOUggle$ il Eave• ,Its li :, : i : : • I i : : i • • . : Adverse :crazes I : II - I : • i : I • • '. • ; . . i I ; I , : . • , : : . • • • - 1 Diserice Sounds:7 1 ' ! ' 1 : : ' ' 1 *11 * : • : • !. • ; 532. . , Setrate i Zist=ibution - - . . . .; •. .- .• I , • ' : 532 Postal 1 Peroal i 1 • ; • : • - = • . . ,• • • : : : - ... Delivery Services •• " ---- I i I 1., i „ • ,,, • 533 2rinzine 4 Lir2:cersphy ! . 1 i : • • : 1.i * It- . . e• •• .111 • . ; . ARJ a.t;221 ES I B4 I RE i aa:Ri..2:-,-.:1.:Ncz:c.= cc;.=-5 ict;?I'.zz..•:T...:3i;al 1.".4 2 T.'":, • I I • I I • 4-1.6 • I . . 0 . • • . - • I - I . • • , • . ' • • I • !- • , I .... . 189 • ti�l i E�:"i.d """';° 't r . Jr*";°1 rr:r-e' ;f4 �..., t. .:,•,.�,.: :a �c s ,..J, .�I:..Lt • • Wes: Franklin 068 Gt C:^. A.. w •• • • May 16' :98A.. • • • • *fir. Mar v= Co*11,*s, Director ' V • Orange Cersuty Ple**^,"Is Depa r=e:t . • 'S{r-.�. sborough, NC • Dear' *,M'. Co;l 4. s: • • • I understand the Orange County Flee+:1+*+g Depa.*~tment. s ns .dering a pro- ' posed amendment which would permit car lots and car sales w.Jain certain coamxereiai zoning districts. Please include in your =sidecar-taus allow- - . tug such uses within the C . districts. • Our company's owner, William D. Rogers, bought a sectiam of land on.April 17, 1984 on the west side of Smith Level Road where it meets U.S. 13-501, di- rectly am the Chathaxa County line. This property is also refereed to as Lot 19 on page 120 of the Orange County tax maps. • Our company, V e Imports, has y been r � prim��zit mean .,n the business of ire- porter luxury cars from Europe and converting them for au.stome;s to U.S. specifications. Our efforts are coorrill ed through the. United States Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Department of Trans- portaion. . • I lecently we have decided to enter into the automobile sales business. We • are concentrating primarily on. establishing a wholesale business where we would be selling cars to other dealers around the state. We also want to be able -to offer for rerri1 sale a fear cats in this area. Our total business operation will not be visible to the public from D.S. 15-501, Smith Level Road or Booth Road. We do not want or plan to use any of these road frontages for exposure. Our total operation will be -• conducted at the back corner of this lot away from all public eye. • I also want to add that our business Is a totally first-class and low- keyed operation that would not distract from our Orange County and Chapel Rill Carrboro scenic area. We feel our business would only add to the area's economic well-bpire by offering additional employment and benefi- coral. tax revenue for the county residents. Mr. Collins, I want to r' elk you and your staff and the County P?a„D4i • • the public hearing be continued to January 7, 1984 to receive the Planning Board's recommendation. f. 0 9 vcyr : tiAtalc,loos. . • • 8. _0` ,41 N l Nt. Y21:1. 1.- vN. T fir ' c F P Tr... : . % Ps F HIS�'ORIC S.PRUCPOPES The staff presentation was made by Susan Smith. There was no convent on the item. - I 9. Z�ONTU 9RPIN 1 CE TEXT A END-etEgr-�: aT.O?Z VEHICLE_ SALES/ EN-01MB IN CC--3 ZONING DISTRICT • Y . . i • knaiiD /I/267m Pooue ffe:Aemic tillfit • 1 ; • • 1 • 1 1. . 1 1 1 . , 1 1 i I . I i • • I 1 • 1 • sr . . 22 070 The staff presentation was made by Susan Smith. Commissioner Marshall questioned the staff on the justification used to • support this amendment. • Smith responded that the district is one of the two most intensive zoning districts in the ordinance and that uses of similar impact are permitted in this district. Chair Wilihoit inquired about the use of property zoned CC-3 specifically • for car sales, citing the property located at Watts/Star POint. Smith - responded that the property could be used for any use permitted in the CC-3 district according to the CC-3 district requirements. Assignment of a CC-3 • zoning district classification would require satisfaction of the application criteria for the district. • NOTE: COMMISSIONERMLKER LWE AT 10:15. • Commissioner Marshall asked if there were any other criteria to be applied to this use in a CC-3 district. Smith responded no additional criteria was proposed. Commissioner Marshall asked staff to review the characteristics of the CC- 3 district. Smith reviewed the definition of the district, its intent statem- , gent, the application criteria and the types of uses permitted in the district. She noted that this use is appropriate in this district, citing the range of uses permitted currently. Commissioner Marshall inquired about materials staff review to come to a decision on these natters. Smith cited Planning Advisory Service Reports and other planning research and support data, as well as other jurisdictions' ordinances. • 10. 7alar7ORDZS'ocsmr11 AMENDMEM-TEmPQRARY MOBILE HOMES The staff presentation was made by Susan Smith. • Cormissioner Marshall asked if a time limit should be set on the construc- tion period and presence of the temporary home. Chair Willhoit concurred. Yuhasz expressed concern that given the nature and use of temporary mobile homes, a time limit was inappropriate. Commissioner Marshall expressed concern about safety factors. Pearson indicated that excep't for the thirty day removal period there would not be two livable structures on the same site. He added that the perma rent or replacement structure would not be Occupiable until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued and that both the permanent and the temporary structure. must meet the requirements for issuance of the building permits. Smith verified that both structures must comely with applicable requirements. • 0 /2 0 viziatt"-- FiRc • ;RAFT LOTION: Main motion now reads: A Class A Special Use Permit will be valid for period of 10 years at which time it will be subject to review by the Special Use Permit process. • Yuhasz stated he felt that everything after 10 years would be deleted. Kizer accepted this amendment. VOTE: 10 in favor. 1 opposed. • Yuhasz questioned direct access as in standard (f) . Pearson inquired what constituted direct access and Collins responded • "frontage". • MOTION: Shanklin moved to delete (f) from the standards. Seconded by Yuhasz. VOTE: ' 4 in favor. 7 opposed. Motion failed. MOTION: Kizer moved approval of the 3.0 text amendment with amendments that were made. Seconded by Greenberg. VOTE: Unanimous. 6c. Proposed . Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Motor Vehicle Sales/Rentals in CC-3 Zoning District. Presentation by Collins. To • consider a proposed amendment to • the Zoning Ordinance to allow motor vehicle sales/rentals in the Community Commercial-3 zoning district as a use by right for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners-. This item was presented to public • hearing on November 26, 1984. - Under the current zoning ordinance, • motor vehicle sales/rentals are permitted only in the GC-4 district. • 072 •)RAFT12 The intent statement for the CC-3 district indicates, however, that the district is for limited automobile • uses. Amendment of the ordinance would allow motor vehicle sales/rentals in the two most intensive commercial districts. • The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board recommend - that the • Orange County Zoning Ordinance be • amended to provide for motor vehicle sales/rentals as permitted use in the CC-3 district. Collins also noted that the Ordinance Review Committee recommended against this amendment. However, staff felt that this amendment was consistent with the intent of the ordinance and also consistent with the fact that the CC-3 district and GC-4 district are two of the most intensive commercial zoning • districts that we have in our ordinance. • Kizer inquired of Collins the areas in which CC-3 's had been placed. Collins responded by reviewing the criteia for CC-3 zoning district. MOTION: Shanklin moved that Planning Board recommend denial of this Zoning Ordinance text amendment. Seconded by Laszlo. VOTE: Unanimous. 9a. Proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment for Clarence Wayne Doby. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval ' for the recommendation for the Zoning Atlas' Amendment of Lot 200' x 200' . Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: Unanimous. .9b.1 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ' - Article 3. MOTION: Kizer moved approval of the change in the teL amendment concerning replace- . j 6 073 ORANGE COUNTY • BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date April 1, 1985 Action A ' nda Item SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT-ARTICLES 8 and 4-SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR MIXED USE OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING. PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) : Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH Proposed Text Amendment 4/30/84 Request Letter Historic Structures in Orange County (Sites) 11/26/84 Public Hearing Minutes Draft 3/18/85 Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for non-residential and mixed use of historic structures listed on the National Registry of Historic Places or recognized by the State of North Carolina as places of Historic interest through the Special Use Permit process for approval. This item was presented to public hearing on November 26, 1984. NEED: In order to qualify for rehabilitation tax credits and incentives for historic structures, projects must meet the "substantial rehabilitation testa and must be income-producing. Tax credits are determined on the basis of the percentage of the property producing income. . - Under the current zoning ordinance, limited provisions are made to allow for non-residential, income-producing use of property located outside of designated activity .nodes. Historic structures are generally not located in areas designated as activity nodes. • • 074 IMPACT: Amendment of the ordinance would allow the non-residential and mixed use of recognized historic structures. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow for the non-residential and mixed use of historic structures. The Planning Board also recommends that 8.8.24.2 Standards of Evaluation be revised as indicated by underlining; also, to delete the word "Exterior in item (c) . . . . . " 3.8_24. i zit!Els.a..* .r-u a t u r la s-Non-Residential Reuse/Mixed Use (Class A Soecial ..1.. _ - • 7 8-53.2(,1* Additional Information - 075. • . . . _ fnradditiom to the infortmtion required in-Subsections 8.2 and 8.8, the fallowina shall be supplied as part of the application: . . . . • • : a) The- site plan, prepared by a North Carolina registered land surveyor or engineer, shall also contain the Following: . _ . • . - 1) location, width, and type of vehicular and . . . pedestrian circulation . . . • . . . . . . 2) location and din' tensions of all on-site signage • - . . . . . . . • . 3) boundaries' of the siteImmi distance to nearest- , . residential structures*- . . . . • - - . . . . . . . •. I . . . . '.' . b) Description: of the proposed use(suse(s)' of the site and the' buildings . thereon, including the- Following:- •. . • - 1) Amount of area allocated to each use . . • _ . - 2) Number of full and part-time employees _ . - . _ 3) Number of clients and/or occupants. expected to use the facility -. . . . . . ...,_ - .i -- • -• - :-.:- 0 • - C .,-- • • • . 4) roposed hours of operation for non-residential uses of - the- site and within buildincs thereon. - • • • • - - - , c) Building plans Tor- all existing•-or proposed structures to include .. _ . floor- plans, elevations,, and sections showing resotration/rehabilL. • . .: 4. • - itations proposed. Description of how the- historical Style•• . • . and character of the building is to -be• enhanced. • \ - . . d) Landscape plan, at the same scale as the sits plan,. showing . .•.••••• a. •• • •• • . . • existing or proposed trees, shrubs, ground cover any. other . , • — landscapematerials. - - -• • •. . ' • - . e) Statement from the- appropriate public service agencies con- ..- - cerning the method and adequacy. of water supply and wastewater - treatment for the proposed uses.. . • f) Statement from the appropriate public service agencies con- concerning the provision of fire, police and rescue protection to the site and structures. • . . g) Evidence that the property is listed on the National Historic Register or recognized by the State of North Carolina as places Aml'A of historic interest. 4 QV . . 0 - h) the proposed development schedule for the sit... • 076 • • 8.8.24.2 STANDARDS OF EVALUATION The following specific standards shall be used in deciding on an application for this use: • a) - The site plan submitted meets all requirements • specified in sub-sections 8.8 a) and 8.8.24.1 • a) . b) Proposed uses and facilities are complementary • and compatible Eith.. .,t1ietgU-KfiaMicligArgar and appropriate in the location proposed given • character of surrounding development. The of sucha nature so as. to preserve the historic character of the site and the building. Development of the site as proposed would have • no adverse impact beyond the building except for appropriate parking facilities. c) Exterior structural alterations of historic . structures shall be of such a nature as to preserve the historic character of the building(s) . d) Fire, police and rescue services and water supply and wastewater treatment' methods are adequate to serve the proposed uses and facilities. - - e) Recreational .areas, service areas, parking and screening are adequate for the proposed use (s) . f) The site is served by direct access to a state- maintained road. • g) Internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation is adequate for the proposed uses(s) . h) Al]. applicable requirements of Articles 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 12 have been satisfied. This use is to be a Class A Special Use Permit in the following districts: AR - Agricultural Residential R1 - Residential 1 The Class A Snecial Use Permit, it_approvedr shall • be val.id for six (51._yaaLa„ • 1 • 077- • (1)* Riti=0....!.1., Lily L tJ stCiatet Ncrzt-i* Garr:h.N. 27408 • Mr. Marvin Collins I•Director-Planning Department County of Orange. Hilisborougn, N.2. 2727S Re: Bingham Township . I Tax Map 17 Lot 19 . Orange County, N.C. . Dear Mr. Collins, • • I respectfully request an amendment to zoning ordinance to allow for mixed-use Residential and non-Residential . • My request is to comply with certajn criteria as serforth by the U.S. Department of Interior, - • as the structures on the above property are entered I in the Rational Registry .af Historic Places as • 'Bingham School " . Your consideration in this matter shall be • greatly appreciated. Very Truly Yours , 6-)1.4:01.42 Robert PI_ Kelly - RitIK/41h 4/5*/84 • • • . ___ •• - • --------• ----.- . ................................1.* 4•••••••■••■■••■■•■...wt.;- • ' I I • i. iiik I 1: Alai . 1 ! 1 . . . • A 1 , 6 \ ! • I I . .. . 000"- I . I 411. riplillpplp, i I . . 11 4.4°. .11, - .I ' I • . I • \f* 1- III 141411111611110■11.. . . I"IC) .114„ .... 41 - • I ■ 2D • .......\...,..,„ . i 0 . lc • W1., „..:.:".....!....:.:....c.t.::::: -07 i• . 0. .::: -4 iiiii , mspri 'e. 4 44. 11 Vallir 4111444's ) i 1 1 -• . . . 1 . - • •I No Aiiiimah._401061, • i .4.0ffea.".........11111111111111MMIllibk.... . I I INV 1111:4Wilirm-Oplir. 0 -.• I . 1 4941 1 - , -I A L.,-- - i i • - -..., 11 i i • _ . - ; . ...: . . 4.,.... ....-.:4 • k. • • i.......:7, . • v . - \..„I , „...<1.2....:.:.:..::..........:::.:.....:.,.: . • • ........... ................. . ......... . . :::...,.....:..............:::::: .4:.::::::::...... r - . w . - :::N...,::::---7:::::::Pggais:'Elig.:14 c.1.1°Pet 1 11 *Ilk 1 I ..:.:.• :.:.....*::::::.:.:.: ..- --". ' :: .7.7.-....:::.... .............,.."... ! . 1 : :.4.;,. :.,:..::::::::;:: . .• k . . ...., -1,,..,:.:..,,, ---- 0 .... . @ 1\ 0 _ • , .) . •••■•••■••■•.1 411••••• 1 . /...* I..' . _I 1 ... , ---__.. . ..............__ .......... • HI STORI C S I TES 1 N ORANGE COUNTY • 1 • • • • 079 • • Orange County. 18! R. P. Poythress House. S. side SR 1939, 0.2 mi. E. of jct. with SR 1940, Chapel Pill vic. Late nineteenth century-. Awell-kapt, two-story frame house. First story has clipped corners forming a . three-window bay on the east and with applied sawnwork and peadants on the overhang. One-story hip roof porch shelters the three bays on the front elevation. Private. - 41) 19. Rice Log House. Off SR 1346, 1.3 mi. N. of jct. with SR 1306, Mebane ' vim. Late elzhteenth century. One-story with attic, bp11---dovetall • - log house with early addition, hall-and-parlor plan with enclosed stair. Original interiors including flush sheathing and mantel. . Private.. ST.. . 410 20. St. Mary's .Chapel. N. side SR 1002 just E. of jct. with SE. 1348, • • Hillcboraugh vice Parish established 1759, with several elshteenth . century graves in yard; present church 1859. Private. _SM. - 21. Southern Railroad. Depot. NW. corner Main and Weaver streets; Carrboro. Late nineteenth century-early twentieth century. P1 p1 frame rail- road depot with shaped brackets supporting wide eaves of hip roof. • • Now used as a restaurentwith kitchen'in adjoiTtiTig .railroad car. - Private: • 420 ]) 22. Strayhorn House. W. side NC 86, 2.55 mi. S. of jct. with SR 1710, • Hillsborough vic. Early to mitt-nineteenth century. One-story frame house with huge fieldstone rhiTtmays. House overbuilt and - • drastically altered inside and out. Reported. to have been an inn on. the old post road that once hosted the ori#nal Siamese twins. . Private. 4g) 23. Pickney Strom! Farm. E. side SR 1954;0.8 mi. S. of jct. with SR 1005, - Chapel Bill vic. Mid-nineteenth century. A good example of a prosperous dairy farm. Two-story frame farmhouse with Greek Revival details, symmetrically molded frames, corner blocks and molded sills, flush sheathing under porch. Common bond (4,4111T,P7 at east amd west gable. Private. •41) 24. •"Stenryside" (lobe Berry Summer Rouse). NW. corner SR 1002 and SR. 1554, • • Hillsborough vic. Ca. 1846. Simple farmhouse remodeled by builder John Berry to include fine chinneys and. Pelledian window. Brick smokehouse. Childhood home of Harriet M. Berry, known in the early twentieth century as "The Mother of Good Roads." Private. V.O. 25. Sam Thompsoe House. E. side SR 1956, 0.7 mi. S. of jct. with SR 1958, Chapel Rill vic. Mid-nineteenth century. .Two-story gable roof frame house built 20 feet west of original log house on this old fanily homeplace. Extensive outbuildings, including V-north log • . dairy. Private. • Oe 26. Tyaquin (Gov. ThomPs Burke's gravesitel. E. side NC 37, approx. 1.0 • N. of jct. with SR 1556, Hillsborongh vic. Estate of colorful Revolutionary War governor; house gone, grave enclosed by stone wall and •marker. Private. • 080 Orange County 9. " Alexander Dickson House. SW. corner NC 86 and 1-95 Cloverleaf, F411e- borough vic. Late eighteeneh century. A very simple two-story frame Georgiam farmhouse with an English bond cb-fmeey to. the south - gable end and a one-story rear addition. Said to have been built • - in 1759 by Col. Thomas Hart, this house was used by Gen. Johnston as his headquarters for a week in 1865. The owner, Alexander Dickson, gave Johnston his only white qTri-rt. as a flag of truce for the surrender = the Durham road. - Private. 10. . 7aucett's V 1. Eaucette's 1$.1.11 Road at Eno River, Hillsborough vic. Mi11 site since 178, built by Quaker Isaac Lou; present be41Aieg probably later. Private. - - - • 410 11. Green N.M . Jct. of Lawrence Road and US 70 East, Fillsborough via. Ca. 1787. Three-room house considerably enlarged over the years and moved in 1968 to avoid demolition. Private. 12. Fmtilin House. SE. corner of jct. NC 57 and NC 157, Caldwell. Mid- nineteenth. century. Plie two-story frame house with stone and brick chimneys cantered on the gable ends. Flash sheathing on first story suggests an earlier porch that would have sheltered - • the three-bay facade. Door flanked by two-pane- sidelights above (2) panels. Private. • 4g) 13. Dr. Arch Jordan Rouse. S. side of NC 57, 0.1 mi. SW. of NC 157, Cald- well. Late nineteenth century. Two-story frame Victorian house. • Central projecting gable roof bay. Bracketed cornice. Arched head windows in segmented arched suteemmds. One-story porch. Private. -- 14. Dr. Arch Jordan- and Dr. Thomas Jordan. Buildiegs. N. side NC 57, 0.1 mi. SW. of 3C 157y Caldwell. Mid-nineteenth century. One-story T- . • • plan board and batten house, gable roof with interior chimmey, and a one-story board and batten hip roof pharmacy. Window and.. door =rounds on both are sile posts and, pedimented- lintels• Erected by brothers Arch and Thomas Jordan, doctors in Caldwell srai. in the 1850s. Private. Ark qg 15. "Little Ayr Mount." SR. 1336, E. side of Eno, Elfland vie. Simple brick house with central block and flanking wings. History ue- certain. Private. • 4E) 16. Maple Fill. N. side SR 1002, 0.3 mi. E. of jct. with SR 1561, Eille- boroagh vic. Ca. 1820. Meciculouily restored two-scory frame farmhouse with later additions. Oldest part is one-room plan wite good three-part reeved mantel. Beautiful site. Private. te„ 17. Mnorefialds. N. side SR. 1135, tit. of jct. with SR 1134, Hillsborough vic. . Ca. 1785. Unesual three-part frame house with excellent interiers • including Chinese Chippendale stair. Home of Superior Court Justqce Alfred Moore. Pri4aze. N . . • . ORANGE COUNTY 081 (g) 1. Alberta Mill Complex. NE. corner Weaver Pnd Greensboro streets, Cartboro. Built of brick, the ITIP47" p411 is a two-story, low gable roof birrl ding with an office and warehouse attached. The large arched head windows are sat in segmented. arches with brick labels. Built in 1898 by a local merchant, Thomas F. Lloyd, - Alberta Mill was run as a local operation drawing labor from nearby farms, In.'1910 Lloyd sold the mill to Julian, S. Carr who rPnemPd it Durham Rosiery Mill #4. It stayed in business until 1930 except for a. brief period in the early 1920s. Alter World War II, it was - . reopened and operated by Pacific NIlls of Boston, Mass., until 1957. Since that time it has remained empty. P1 "s and renovations in - progress to rmlep it into a shopping mall. Private. NIL _ 41) 2. Bingham School. NE. corner NC 54 and SR 1007, Oaks. Building was part of respected nineteenth century school. Private. 3 3. Blackwood Rouse.. N. side SR 1723, 1.0 mi. W. of jct. with NC 86, u471% • borough vie. Mid-nineteenth century one-end-a-half-story frame house distinguished by its large stone ch"zaey. Three-bay shed . dormer on front facade and later additions. Private. 4. Chambers Log Rouse. W. side SR 1531; 0.1 mi. S. of Person County line. • - Caldwell via. Unpretentious log cabin, one-and-a-hall stories tel and three bays wide. The heavy, hand-hewn beams are joined with a ' housetop" IT-notch. Private, 41) 5. Chatwood. Faucette's Nil Road, Pllicborough vie. Two ca. 1790 houses joined. East section believed to be Faucatte Tavern. Fine tra- ditional finish.preserved. Private. • IA 6. Commmndant's House. W. of Hillsborough on Barracks Road, Rillsborough- Ca. 1860, Dwelling of C. C. Taw, headmaster of Yillsborough Military Academy (razed). School later berPire. Horner & Graves School. Crenellated, towered brick structure of Gothic Revival design. . Private. NR- 41) 7. Gilbert Craig Rouse. End of SR 1711, Hillsborough vie. Eccentric house built over several years with vernacular classical elements. Private. t7: 8. Damascus Congregational Church. E. siie SR 1940, 0.5 mi. S. of jct. with SR 1942, Chapel Hill vic. Mid-oil-zeta...each century. One-story frame church with gable end entrance. Gothic arch windows, louvered ventilator and two-pane traosom over double-door aatrance. Interesting weatherboard t •under gable eaves. Congregation founded in 1792. Private. • . .6) SITES OF HISTORIC INTEREST IN ORANGE COUNTY (TJCOG) • tgitt- NATIONAL REG/STER OF HISTORIC SITES , - ge roblic hearing be continued to January 7, 1984 to receive the Planning .0 st .. d's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. . 8. •Itork , :54, r hi T Ak, 3' '' . —CPI- AT. T SP • . !I I PM. 1-,li,„ I c*: F 44. HISTORIC STRUCTURES The staff presentation was made by Susan Smith. There was no comment en the item. 9. s. 141,-. WIT:1W ,•'T 4,,T4 gt, -11:74 1-4, At? IN CT R S r...2q ,EwrArs IN CC-3 zatqlp DisTRICT • . . . . >Wve) /,&/B4 Polk.leigtato lailVg3 • • . • • - . • . .. • • , • - ' i, 1 1 1 1 ■ , / ,■ rig 083 0 121/7711116 :=W DRAFT ill , k I) 7 Collins requested that this item be postponed until the next meeting. He felt he had not had sufficient time to discuss this item with , staff. MOTION: - Pilkey moved for postponement to the next regular meeting. Seconded by Greenberg. ' . VOTE: V V 10 in favor. 1 opposed (Yuhasz) -- • • AGENDA ITEM #8 V V VV MATTERS HEARD AT NOVEMBER 26, 1985 PUBLIC HEARING (FOR BOARD DECISION) ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS a. Appeal of Decision of Zoning Officer V Presentation by Collins. . V V V V V The purpose of this agenda item is . - V V to consider an amendment to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance which would amend Section 2.3.7.2 to extend the time period within which an appeal for an interpretation of a determination by the _zoning officer - may be filed from fourteen (14) to - thirty (30) days for recommendation • ' to the Board of Commissioners. This amendment would bring the appeal - V V V V period in line with Board of Adjust- - V V ment appeal, as well as with Chapel Hill and Carrboro ordinances. This also brings it in line with the 30 • V V V day appeal time when an appeal is filed with the Building Code • - - , . Council. This change would give - citizens the opportunity to file, an . appeal and also' be consistent with . surrounding jurisdictions. . MOTION: Greenberg moved V for recommendation . of approval of this amendment. Seconded by Laszlo. . • ' VOTE:. Unanimous. b. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Special Use Permits V for - V V Mixed Use of Historic Structures. -Presented by Collins. . • . i 084 DRAF18 The purpose of this agenda item is to consider a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for non- residential and mixed use of • historic structures. Only those historic structures listed on the National Registry of historic Places or recognized by the State of North • Carolina as places of historic interest would be considered for such use. Through the special use permit process for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. In order to qualify for rehabilita- tion tax credits and incentives for historic structures, projects must meet the "substantial rehabilitation test" and must be income-producing. Tax credits are determined on the basis of the percentage of the property producing income. Under the current zoning ordinance, limited provisions are made to allow for non-residential, income- • producing use of property located outside of designated activity nodes. Historic structures are generally not located in areas designated as activity nodes. Amendment of the ordinance would • allow the non-residential and mixed • use of recognized historic structures. - - The concept behind this amendment change is to allow people to use ' historic structures for non- residential and mixed uses in order • to promote the continuance of the historic structure. Staff is recommending that the use of these structures be on a Class A Special Use Permit basis. Gordon stated that she would like to • have a thorough discussion of the standards of evaluation. • • • • 0 85 . • . • . rk 01. _ . , • . - ' - - Kizer noted that he was concerned ' . . with the Special Use Permit being . • granted indefinitely; he would like some method for re-evaluation of the . . • • . historic use. He also expressed the •. . thought that when ownership changed, . . . . the new owner would have to apply • . for a new Special Use Permit. He • . . . - • •. . • felt the standards of evaluation . . - - . • • _ .• - ,' • should be very tight and ' he would . • • . - - like a time limit set on the Special • - . • . . .. Use Permit. . . •. . . _ . - • . • .•. . . ' . . • . . _ . . . . . . •. • . Walters inquired what the individual' . . . . •. owner would gain from this . . . .- - - • . . : designation. Kizer responded . that . •. the owner of these historical . . . - • '. . structures could get grants at . reasonable interest rates from the • • . • 'historical societies and from other • . • .• - - . . • places for restoration purposes. • . • - . There are also tax credits available • • . for the owners of these structures. , . • Walters also felt there should be a . • • review period. .. . . . • • . • . . .Wilson felt that the real point of • . • . . . - the historic structures . was being • • .. . • • . • missed. The basic reason is for the . . • • • • . . ..• . . preservation of heritage. . . . . . . • -:- .- - . - , . . _ Kizer responded that, . the ' review • . . - ' . . period would ensure that . the use • • . • . .. .. , would continue ' 'to maintain and • • • . • preserve the historic value of the . structure- • . . . . •• . . • - . . • .. -.' . . . . . • • - - •• There Was much* discussion about what • . . . . . •`..h- ''''. . • • constituted a structural change as•. . • • . - • •. well as possible change of uses when .•: . • - . . • there was a change of ownership. • • . • . . • Gordon inquired of the Board if they • • • • ' . . felt a need for a.: . list of the . historical guidelin6s. Collins . • • responded that staff could obtain a • copy of the federal guidelines. . . • - i)i0TION: Laszlo moved, seconded by Greenberg, . . to amend the standards of evaluation (b) to read as follows: - •. . . Proposed uses and facilities . . . . • , 086 DRAFJ • are complementary and compatible with the surrounding area and appro- priate in the location proposed given the character of surrounding development. The proposed use of the • historic structure shall be of such a nature as to preserve the historic character of the site and building. Develop- ment of the site as proposed would have, no impact beyond the building except for appropriate parking facilities. Also, on (c) under standards, delete the word exterior. VOTE: 10 in favor. 1 opposed - Wilson. MOTION: Yuhasz moved to add the word • "adverse" before impact in standard (b) . Seconded by Shanklin. Discussion followed noting the differe nces in • no impact and no adverse impact. VOTE: 9 in favor. 2 opposed. MOTIO : Kizer moved that a Class A Special Use Permit will be valid for a period of six years at which time a renewal is required subject to the Special Use Permit process. Seconded by Greenberg. . _ MOTION: _ Wilson moved to change time period to 25 years. Seconded by Shanklin. VOTE: 3 in favor. 8 opposed. • MOTION: Laszlo moved to change time period to 10 years. • Seconded by Greenberg. VOTE. 9 in favor. 2 opposed - Best and Pearson. • 087 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date April 1, ,1985 Action Agenda Item 4 SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT-ARTICE 4-EXTRACTIVE USES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No - Attachment(s) : Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH See February 25, 1985 Public Hearing Agenda packet. Draft 3/12/85 Public Hearing Minutes Draft 3/18/85 Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed text amendment for Article 4 permitted Use Table, of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance submitted to public hearing on February 25, 1985 and March 12, 1985 for approval. NEED: The current Zoning Ordinance allows the location of extractive • uses upon issuance of a Special Use Permit in the following • zoning districts: - Residential District (AR through R-13) • General Commercial-IV Industrial District (I-1 through 1-3) Agricultural-Services Economic Development It is desirable to limit the location of extractive uses to the two base residential district (Agricultural-Residential and Residential-1) and to the Industrial districts (Industrial- 1,2,3) and to prohibit these uses in the remaining residential and commercial districts. • 088 IMPACT: This amendment, if approved, would prohibit extractive uses as permitted uses requiring a Class A Special Use Permit in the following zoning districts: Residential-2 through 13, Local Commercial-1, Neighborhood Commercial-2, Community Commercial-3 and General Commercial-4, Existing Commercial-V, Office Insti- tutional, Existing Industrial, Agricultural Services, Economic Development, Public Interest District, Protected Watershed-II, Protected Watershed-Industrial, and Water Quality Critical Area. This amendment would limit the zoning districts in which extractive uses are permitted with a Class A Special Use Permit to Industrial-1, 2 and 3, Agricultural-Residential and Residential 1. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance. • • _ 089 ''-Dizifif T 10 6 Aithol-- -c 3//FM' DRAFT ment of Zoning Atlas. Seconded by Wilson. ' - VOTE: Unanimous. -,*9b.2 , Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Article 4. _ This amendment, if approved, would prohibit extractive uses as permitted uses requiring a Class A Special Use Permit in the following . zoning•districts: Residential-2 through 13, Local Commercial-1, Neighbothood Commercial-2, Community Commercial-3 and General Commercial-4, Existing Commercial-VI, Office and Institutional, - Existing Industrial, Agricultural - ' Services, Economic Development, Public Interest District, Protected Watershed- II, Protected Watershed-Industrial, and Water Quality Critical Area. This amendment would limit the zoning ,- districts in which extractive uses are permitted with a Class A Special Use Permit to Industrial-1, 2 and 3, Agricultural-Residential and . . Residential-1. MOTION: . Laszlo moved approval of this Zoning Ordinance text amendment. Seconded by Pilkey. . . VOTE: 8 in favor. 3 opposed. 9b.3 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment V - V Article 8. - , The current Zoning Ordinance . establishes standards of evaluation for extractive uses. V The attached - amendment proposal reflects a desire to tighten current provisions of the . Zoning Ordinance by specifically _ requiring the applicant to submit . materials addressing relationships with and impacts on adjacent properties and facilities; impacts on and methods td . minimize impacts on surface and ground water; Vcomoliance with the provisions 1 : of the Special Use Permit during the . _ . . , • 090 f i DRAFT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES MARCH 12, 1985 . '4* AGENDA ITEM #C6 ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - • ARTICLE 4 (EXTRACTIVE USES) The staff presentation was made by Smith. • j • Planning Board member Kizer inquired about the reason for the change. Staff member Smith responded the purpose was to lighten the provisions of the ordinance. Planning Board Cair • Gordon inquired about the recommended deleting this use from commercial zones. Smith responded that this type of use did not reflect Land Use Plan policies and would have substantial impact on desireable commercial areas. There were no -further- comments. ..... AGENDA ITEM #C7 ZONING _ ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT • - ARTICLE 8 (EXTRACTIVE USES) The staff presentation was made by Smith. _ • There were no further comments. AGENDA ITEM #C8 - SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT - DEFINITION OF- SUBDIVISION • 091 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date April 1, 1985 Action Agenda Item / SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT-ARTICLE 8-EXTRACTIVE USES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes ..JL No Attachment(s) Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH See February 25, 1985 Public Hearing Agenda packet. Draft 3/12/85 Public Hearing Minutes Draft 3/18/85 Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 • Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed text amendment for Article 8 Special Else Permits of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance submitted to • public hearing on February 25, 1985 and March 12, 1985 for approval. NEED: The current Zoning Ordinance established standards of evalua- tion for extractive uses. The attached amendment proposal • reflects a desire to tighten current providions of the Zoning • Ordinance by specifically requiring the applicant to submit • materials addressing relationships with and impacts on adjacent properties and facilities; impacts on and methods to minimize • impacts on surface and ground water; compliance with the provisions of the Special Use Permit during the interim of the operation; rehabilitation reclamation plans, and local need. IMPACT: This amendment, if approved, would tighten the provision of Article 8 regarding the issuance of ' Special Use Permits for extractive uses. RECOMMENDATION: - The Planning Board recommends approval of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. • The Planning Board also recommends that 8.8.1.2i) be 'revised to provide for a 250'-foot setback. • • 092 1 • • • DRAFT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES MARCH 12, 1985 • AGENDA ITEM #C6 ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT •AMENDMENT - - ARTICLE 4 (EXTRACTIVE USES) The staff presentation was made by Smith. • Planning Board member Kizer inquired about the reason for the change. Staff member Smith responded the • purpose was to lighten the • provisions , of the ordinance. • Planning Board Cair "Gordon inquired • about the recommended deleting this ' use from commercial zones. Smith responded that this type of use did not reflect Land Use Plan policies • and would have substantial impact on • desireable commercial areas. - There were no further, comments. • ' AGENDA ITEM #C7 • ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - ARTICLE 8 (EXTRACTIVE USES) . The staff presentation was made • by Smith. • There were no further.-comments. • •AGENDA ITEM #C8 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION • ,... / 3//Y/fl DRAFT093 Au 11--- Pe 13 ment of Zoning Atlas. Seconded by Wilson. VOTE: - Unanimous. . , • 9b.2 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Article 4... . This amendment, if approved, would prohibit extractive uses as permitted used requiring a. Class A Special Use Permit . in the following . zoning • districts: Residential-2 through 13, - ' Local Commercial-1, - Neighborhood • •• • Commercial-2, Community Commercial-3 . • - and General Commercial-4, Existing Commercial-V, Office and Institutional, • Existing Industrial, Agricultural Services, Economic Development, Public Interest District, Protected Watershed- • II, Protected Watershed-Industrial, and • . Water Quality Critical Area. This amendment would limit the zoning districts in which extractive uses are permitted with a Class A Special Use Permit to Industrial-1, 2 and 3, • Agricultural-Residential and Residential-1. • . . MOTION: Laszlo moved approval of this Zoning Ordinance text amendment. Seconded by•Pilkey. • VOTE: 8 in favor. . 3 opposed. . • • *9b.3 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - - • . Article 8. , . • • . . • The current Zoning Ordinance . establishes standards of evaluation for extractive uses. The • attached amendment proposal reflects a desire to tighten current provisions of the . • • Zoning Ordinance by specifically requiring the applicant to submit materials addressing relationships with . and impacts on adjacent properties and facilities; impacts on and methods to minimize impacts on surface and ground •• water; compliance with the provisions . of the Special Use Permit during the . . • • . . O&4 DRAFT 14 interim of operation; rehabilitation • reclamation plans, and local need. MOTION: Greenberg moved approval. Seconded by Pilkey. There was' much discussion about the . 100' setback. MOTION: Kizer moved that the 100 ' setback be changed 250' .- Seconded by Laszlo. VOTE: 8 in favor. 2 opposed. MAIN MOTION RESTATED: . Approval recommended with the 100' setback changed to 250' . VOTE: 9 in favor.' 1 opposed. 9b.4 Zoning ordinance Text Amendment - Article 8. • The purpose of this agenda item is to consider a proposed amendment to - Article 8 Specia1 Use Permi..ts of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance submitted to public hearing on February 25, 1985 and March 12, 1985 for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. Section 8.8 Regulations Governing indiaibliuSRecia 1 Uses requires applicants for special use ' permits to submit seven (7) copies of a Class A Special Use Permit site plan and twenty - (20) copies of a Class B Special Use . Permit site plan. The number of copies •M1.4C required for these submittals is insufficient to provide ' for adequate project review. Submittals are reviewed for comment, recommendation' and approval by ,- the Planning Department, Planning Board, Board of • Commissioners, Board of Adjustment, emergency services agencies, school districts, the towns of Chapel Hill, • Carrboro and Hillsborough, the Orange County Recreation Advisory Board and the Department of Transportation. .• _ ..._ . __ _______. ... .. -. .... . ..... . . .. . , • -_, .._ - • • - • . : • - -•. * . • . .. 095 . . • • . -t• . • ' - . 'I• . . • . V . PROPOSED AkENDMENTS . SECTION 8.8.1 - EXTRACTION OF EARTH PRODUCTS (CLASS A SPECIAL USE) . . ; . • V . . - Proposed amendments or additions are highlighted in italics. ' • V - 8.8.1 - Extraction of Earth-Ptoducts (Class A special Use) • - . . .. 8.8.11 Additioral Information - - v . - • • % . . - . _• - In addition to the information required by Subsection 8.2, the -. . ' following shall be submitted as part of the application. • . , - • - -.. •. • . '• .'*:. - - - --- .-'a) Seven copies of the site plan, prepared by a North Carolina • : i. , • . :. .. . -,,, . .. .- registered land surveyor or engineer, shall contain. the ; -* - - • -.' •• :. . , . '. : ' following: : • - , . • 1) EXtent of area to be excavated or mined . ' - _ . • _ . • . - - 2) Aerial photograph of site and all areas within 1,000 . . . V • . feet of the perimeter of the property flown within two •- • - ' v . •• . (2) months of the application for. a Special Use Permit. • . . . 3) Existing" topography at a contour interval of tWo. (2) . • • . . • - feet based on mean sea level datum. . .. . V . V V V V • V . - - 4) Land use, road system, natural features and topographical - . V (10 foot contour.intervals) details for the area within ' - V V V V 1,000 feet of the perimeter of the property. : . . , . .- . - 5) Typical cross-sections showing extent of overburden, ' ! extent of sand and gravel deposits, and water table. - 3 . . , . • 6) Proposed handling and storage areas for overburden, by- products and excavated materials. ' • • . . - .7) Location and results of groundwater'borings shooing depth . of groundwater. . . . 8) Any areas proposed for Ponding. ..• . ' - • I,- 9) Wind pattern details and on-site windbreaks. ' .,. - • 10) Soils details and statement addressing agricultural productivity and reclamation. . -' - v • - . . • • - . ' .. - ' ' • 12) Traffic impact analysis addressing the capacity of the .: C -_. I- -. .: . - , " . '.'1• - •.-- — ' •. . roads to serve the site. . .. , -• ,._ ,,.. . , . • 12).AcceisrOads to the site, as well as on-site roads, with . •‘• ;- ' --* :..r.: * • • --:- -- ..' .: ' '-' .• v-' indication of surface treatment to limit dust. Sight • ..- - . • distances on all roads used for access to the site . V VV V - ' 13) Required setback areas, including screening/buffering V • . •,- existing and/or proposed. If plant materials are to be ..- - • installed, the number, location, size and type of plants are to be identified. - • . . • - - . . - V b) An Operations Plan which shall include: • . 1) The date proposed to commence operations and their . V expected duration. . V . 14 •...a7 -- ... - - . • - 7. . • • . . - • - - . - • . . • . • . - -• - - _ _ _ _ • • • • 096 2) Proposed hours and days of operations. ) 3) Estimated type and volume of extraction. 4) Description of method of operation, including the disposition of topsoil, overburden and by-products. 5) Methods to control and respond to spillage of extracted materials, overburden or by-products and vehicular mud on off-site roads. 6) Description of equipment to be used in the extraction process. • . 7) Methods to prevent pollution of surface and ground water. 8) Operational test wells and schedule of results and analysis and response. • 9) Compliance with provisions of Sediment and ' Erosion • Control Ordinance. 10) Depth of extractive operations. 11) Any phasing of the operation and the, relationship among the various phases. • 12) Operating practices will be followed to comply with the performance standards applicable to the operation (See•' Subsection 8.2) . • _ • c) A Rehabilitation Plan which shall include: . 1) A statement of planned rehabilitation of the excavated • land, including detailed methods of accomplishment and planned future use of the rehabilitated land. - 2) 'A-map showing the final topography, aftei rehabilitation, - to the same scale as the Site Plan, depifting any water areas and methods of preventing stagnation and pollution thereof, landscaping and ground cover- proposed to be. • installed, and the amount and type of back fill to be • employed, if. any. • 3). Typical cross-sections, showing planned rehabilitation. 4)- A phasing and timing plan, related to the phasing and timing portion of the Operations Plan, showing the progression of the rehabilitation and the date when it will be complete. ,) 5) The method of disposing of all equipment, structures, -dikes and spoil piles associated with the operations. 6) A written legal description or survey. of the property, , . . . u . - . . . , . . - prepared by a North Carolina registered land surveyor 1.) • or engineer: - - 8.8.1.2 Standards of Evaluation - - The following standards shall be used in evaluating an application for a permit to conduct extraction of earth products:. . a) The applicant demonstrates that the extractive use • - operation fulfills primarily a local need as opposed . . to a regional need in terms of supplying sand and/or grave/ for building and construction purposes. b) All operations associated with extraction shall conform , to the following performance standards: 1) Direct illumination resulting from the operation shall not fall upon any land not covered by the application. - . 2) Equivalent sound levels at the boundaries of the extraction site shall not exceed the following . . standards: - ' - Between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 68dBA -- . ' 3 - Between 7: 00- p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 58dBA .- - 3) Vibration levels at the boundaries of the extraction : . site shall not exceed the following standards: 2 - Maximum Peak particle Velocity - Steady state 1.0 inches/second - Impact 2.0 inches/Second . . --- , - . Vote: The maximum particle velocity shall be the . 4.- -. - . - ' - product of two (2) times the frequency in ' cycles per second times the sum of three (3) mutually perpendicular displacement components recorded simultaneously. For purposes of this ordinance, steady state vibrations are vibrations -f _ which are continuous, or vibrations in discrete impulses more frequent than 60 per minute. - . - Discrete impulses which do not exceed 60 per - minute shall be considered impact vibrations. Maximum air blast vibration, measured at the lot lines of the zoning lot containing the extractive use, shall be 125 decibels on the -44. linear scale. • jo, : c) The Rehabilitation Plan shall be referred to the Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District for review . . 098 • and recommendation, which shall not be binding upon the Board of. Commissioners, in particular regarding the landscape maEerial specified, the planting and maintenance, proposed to insure continuous growth and development, and the acceptability of the proposals for the handling of lakes, ponds, etc. • d) The permanent roads, defined as those to be used in excess of one . (1) year, within the excavation site shall be surfaced with a dust free material such as soil cement, bituminous concrete or Portland Cement . ••• concrete from the nearest public road to the yard area- . Also, all permanent roads located within 300 feet of residentially zoned land shall be-treated the same. e) Roads other than permanent roads' shall be treated with dust inhibitors, to be specified in the Operations Plan, • • which will reduce to a minimum the generation of dust • • from the road surfaces as a result of wind or vehicular action.. Properly operated water wagons shall be an acceptaJ method of dust inhibition. f) Where the proposed extractiOn- shallS take place within 300 feet of a dwelling, school,, church, hospital, commercial or industrial building, public building, or public land, a security fence at least six (6) feet in height 'shall be installed. ' g) Spoil piles and other accumulations'of by-products shall not be created to a height more than forty (40) feet above the original contour and shall be so graded that the vertical slope shall not exceed the material's natural angle of repose. h) The Operations Plan and the Rehabilitation Plan shall be. coordinated so that the amount of disturbed land is kept to the absolute minimum consonant with good practices and so that rehabilitation proceeds in concert with extraction. 1) No land disturbance.shall take place within one hundred (100 feet of the zoning lot line or the property line where the zoning line and the property line are one- and the same. Within the 100-foot setback area, existing vegetation shall be retained for the purpose of providing a visual screen and noise buffer. No disturbance or removal of vegetation shall be permitted except for access roads leading from the excavation area to public roads. Where vegetation within the 100-foot setback does not exist, the applicant shall be required to provide a dense, evergreen buffer consistent with the purpose cited above. The buffer shall be in place prior to the initiation of any excavatior • activities. _ - -- • , • - . . 099 . - . 0 , j) The applicant shall submit operational reports, prepared on an annual basis, detailing the amounts of materials --ii • extracted, extent of extractive area, depth of extractive, area, and results of groundwater test borings. k) Annual inspections of the operation - shall be conducted • by the Zoning Officer following submittal of the annual operations reports to determine compliance with the provisions of- the Special Use Permit. . 1) In cases of abandonment or termination of operations for) .... • a period of twelve (12) consecutive months, application - . for a new Special Use Permit is required. . - - _ • 110 - The Board of Commissioners shall require for all - - , .. • .extractive uses a. performance guarantee to insure that - - - the provisions of the Rehabilitation Plan are met. Such performance guarantee shall be in a form approved by the County Attorney. The amount of such guarantee shall cover the cost of rehabilitation on a per acre basis, if the cost does not exceed the amount posted • with the State- If the tehabilitation cost exceeds the amounts required -by the State then the difference•- shall be made up in a bond to Orange County. - - . - . . • . . . . . - ' . .. . .-.7, -- ' `• '- • . . . . , . . . . - - • . 100 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date April 1. 1985 Action Agenda Item # J-JJ SUBJECT: ' ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT-ARTICLE 2-APPEAL OF DECISION OF ZONING OFFICER (TIME LIMITATION) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) : Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH 11/26/84 Public Hearing Minutes Draft 3/18/85 Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers' Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider an amendment to the Orange County Zoning . Ordinance which would amend Section 2.3.7.2 to extend the time period within which an appeal for an interpretation of a determination by the Zoning Officer may be filed from fourteen (14) to thirty (30) days for approval. This item was ptesented to public hearing on November 26, 1984. NEED: Recently, an appeal was filed with the Board of Adjustment regarding the issuance of a building and zoning compliance permit to allow the expansion of a greenhouse.' The appeal pointed to the fact that the 14-day period within which an appeal must be filed was too short, given that little or no construction activity may occur within such a limited time frame. The N. C. State Building Code allows a 10-day appeal period to the Commissioner of Insurance or Department of Labor, or a 30- day appeal time if the appeal is to the Wading Code Council. IMPACT: The present Zoning Ordinance permits a 30-day appeal period (to the courts to appeal a decision by the Board of Adjudtment. Similar provisions are contained in both the Chapel Hill and Carrboro districts. Furthermore, both Chapel Hill and Carrboro ordinances allow a 30-day period to appeal the decision of the Zoning Officer. 101 Amending the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to extend the appeal period from 14 to 30 days would provide more time for potentially affected property owners to be aware of nearby _ construction and file the necessary documents. The amendment would also provide consistency between appeals from the • decision of the Zoning Officer and those of the Board of Adjustment. Consistency would also be provided between jurisdictions, particularly since joint Planning is to be - implemented. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends that there is a need for the Zoning Ordinance to be amended to extend the appeal period from 14 to 30 days. • • • II 2D tM 2 D.rzh WC5 -1 1 7Ya/v9v-- mrtALorgotoive Orr"1Ch. 'i5lo 4 No co:nent on the ar nant was received. The public hearing was adjourned. ADJOURNMENT The Joint Public Hearing was adjourned. • • • Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk, 0 • • • . j . • A P I e I V ED / /04 P C. (te/ JUIs • I • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • ) loa P 06 // DRAFT Collins requested that this item be postponed until the next meeting. He felt he had not had sufficient time to discuss this item with staff. MOTION: Pilkey moved for postponement to the next regular meeting. Seconded by Greenberg. • VOTE: 10 in favor. 1 opposed (Yuhasz) AGENDA ITEM 08 MATTERS HEARD AT NOVEMBER 26, 1985 PUBLIC HEARING (FOR BOARD DECISION) ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS a. Appeal of Decision of Zoning Officer Presentation by Collins. • The purpose of this agenda item is to consider an amendment to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance which • would amend Section 2.3.7.2 to extend the time period within which an appeal for an interpretation of a determination by the :zoning officer may be filed from fourteen (14) to thirty (30) days for recommendation • to the Board of Commissioners. This amendment would bring the appeal period in line -with Board of Adjust- ment appeal, as well as with Chapel Hill and Carrboro ordinances. This also brings it in line with the 30 day appeal time when an appeal is filed with the Building Code Council. This change would give citizens the opportunity to file an appeal and also be consistent with surrounding jurisdictions. MOTION: Greenberg moved for recommendation of approval of this amendment. • Seconded by Laszlo. VOTE: Unanimous. b. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text • - Amendment - Special Use Permits for Mixed Use of Historic Structures. Presented ,by Collins. • 104 • ORANGE COUNTY - BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date April 1, 1985• Action A genda Item SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - ARTICLE 3 - OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS REPLACEMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH See February 25, 1985 Public Hearing Agenda packet. Draft 3/12/85 Public Hearing Minutes Draft 3/18/85 Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers . Hillsborough -732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed text amendment for Article 3 Astablish- ment of Zoning Districts and Atlas, of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance submitted to public hearing on February 25, 1985 and March 12, 1985 for approval. NEED: Section 3.9 Official Zoning Atlas Replacement requires that replacement of damaged, lost or destroyed portions of the Zoning Atlas be replaced by authorization by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, The Board of Commissioners directed staff to amend the ordinance to allow for replacement of the Zonimg Atlas by administrative action during a recent decision on a resolution authorizing replacement of the portion of the Zoning Atlas for Hillsborough Township. • The amendment would allow for replacement of the Zoning Atlas • as needed without a time-consuming approval process. IMPACT: The proposed amendment would allow for administrative replace- ment of the Zoning Atlas. The proposed amendment -is as follows: I 1.05- • When all or part of the Official Zoning Atlas becomes damaged, lost, destroyed, worn or hard to interpret by reason of its age, condition, number of changes or otherwise, replacepent may be made by the Zoning Officer. This new edition of the Zoning Atlas may not change the zonimg status of any , property. Such replacement shall be authenticated by the Clerk of the Board of County Commiss5oners. nd shall bear the date ofrLeplacement. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of the text amendment. • " 1 106 am- CIO • ' The staff presentation was 'made by Smith. MOTION: - Commissioner Carey moved that these items be referenced to the Planning Board for recommendation Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous. • • • I J . _ I • I *miss, 00. #1 mgm,, • • • DRAFT1 , 1 12 The intent statement for the CC-3 district indicates, however, that 'the district • is for limited automobile uses. Amendment of the ordinance would allow motor vehicle sales/rentals in the two most intensive commercial -districts. • The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board recommend that the Orange County Zoning Ordinance be amended to provide for motor vehicle • sales/rentals as permitted use in the CC-3 district. . Collins also noted that the Ordinance Review Committee recommended . against this amendment. However, staff felt that this amendment was consistent with the intent of the ordinance and also consistent with the fact that the CC-3 district and GC-4 district are two , of the most intensive commercial zoning districts that we have in our ordinance. Kizer inquired of Collins the areas in which CC-3's had been placed. Collins - - responded by reviewing the criteia for CC-3 zoning district. MOTION: Shanklin moved that Planning Board recommend denial of this Zoning . . Ordinance text amendment. Seconded by• Laszlo. VOTE: Unanimous. , 0 0 - • 9a. Proposed Zoning •Atlas Amendment for Clarence Wayne Doby.0' MOTION: Shanklin moved approval for the recommendation for the Zoning Atlas Amendment of Lot 200' x 200' . Seconded by Pilkey. O VOTE: Unanimous. • 9b.1 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ' - Article 3. MOTION: Kizer moved approval of the change in - the text ar:endment concerning replace- . DRAFT UM 13 ment of Zoning Atlas. Seconded by Wilson. VOTE: Unanimous. 9b.2 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Article 4. This amendment, if approved, would prohibit extractive uses as permitted uses requiring a Class A Special Use . . Permit in the following zoning • • districts: Residential-2 through 13, Local Commercial-1, Neighborhood • Commercial-2, Community Commercial-3 • and General Commercial-4, Existing • Commercial-V, Office and Institutional, Existing Industrial, Agricultural Services, Economic Development, Public . Interest District, Protected Watershed- II, Protected Watershed-Industrial, and Water Quality Critical Area. • This amendment would limit the zoning districts in which extractive uses are permitted with a Class A Special Use Permit to Industrial-1, 2 and 3, Agricultural-Residential and Residential-1. • . . MOTION: Laszlo moved approval of this Zoning - Ordinance text amendment. Seconded by Pilkey. • • VOTE: 8 in favor. 3 opposed. - _ 9b.3 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Article 8. - . _ The current Zoning Ordinance ,.... establishes standards of. evaluation for • extractive uses. The attached - amendment proposal reflects a desire to tighten current provisions of the Zoning Ordinance by specifically requiring the applicant to submit • materials addressing relationships with and impacts on adjacent properties and- facilities; impacts on and methods td • minimize impacts on surface and ground water; compliance with the provisions • of the Special Use Permit during the _ . . - • . - . • . . 66€ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD C cammissIcaERs Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: APRIL 1, 1985 SUBJECT: JTPA JOB TRAINING PLAN MODIFICATIONS DEPARTMENT: MANAGER'S OFFICE PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X .No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE ;501 YES TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill -968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: TO consider modifying the existing Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) existing two year Job Training Plan. • NEED: The existing two year Job Training Plan was approved by the Board of Commissioners in June 1984. Since that date the Program Planning Committee, a subccumittee of the Private Industry Council (PIC), has reviewed labor market information, JTPA requirements and funding availability. The review and subsequent discussions resulted in five recommended changes/modifications in the Job Training Plan. The recommendations were approved by the PIC on March 19, 1985. The modifications will be submitted to the State Division of Employment and Training (DET) after the consortium (Orange County, Durham County and City of Durham) approves the modifications. Modifications are attached and copies of the original plan are available. IMPACT: The modifications must be submitted to DET before April 12, 1985. RECCMMEMATION• Approve five modifications to the JTPA two year Job Training Plan as recommended by the PIC and Manager. 007 aa444 t>Z40-widlo. CITY OF DURHAM ci`ty NORTH CAROLINA 21 08 89g g; CS CENTRAL PIEDMONT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING OFFICE 4.0 CAOP4 VU I° 211 RIGSBEE AVENUE CITY OF MEDICINE POST OFFICE BOX 667 DURHAM,NC 27702 PHONE 919/683-4121 March 22, 1985 Mr. Kenneth Thompson County Manager County of Orange 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Mr. Thompson: Please find attached the recommendations of the PIC's Program Planning Committee that were approved by the Private Industry Council on March 19, 1985. As indicated in the memorandum, this action is to modify the existing two (2) year Plan on file with the Division of Employment and Training. The deadline for submission of our modification to DET is April 12, 1985, therefore I am request- ing, if possible, that this matter be included on your Board of Commissioner's agenda for April 1, 1985. I will be avail- able to answer any questions they may have regarding the modification. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, /144r? Robert L. Ferguson Director vks attachment AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 008 c,a4/3.0,0 CITY OF DURHAM of 9.4 g NORTH CAROLINA .c3 S tut ss: a : 6ok..41). CENTRAL PIEDMONT • qi akovire EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING OFFICE! 211 RIGSBEE AVENUE CITY OP MEDICINE March 19, 1985 POST OFFICE BOX 667 DURHAM,NC 27702 PHONE 919/683-4121 TO : Central Piedmont Private Industry Council ,00Foiral FROM: Rhett Chamberlain, Chairman • Program Planning Committee SUBJ: Program Plan Modification for Program Year 1985 During the period of December 11, 1984 and March 12, 1985 the Program Planning Committee has met on five (5) occasions to review and discuss the most recent labor market information, present program information, legis- lative requirements of JTPA and the funds available for our Job Training Plan for Program Year 1985. Based upon these discussions, the committee is recommending for your approval, the attached list of program activities to modify our existing 2 year plan on file with the Division of Employment and Training. The following represents our best decisions, based upon the budgetary restraints imposed upon us at this time 1. ) That the PY 84 Clerk/Typist Program be modified to include the IBM Word Processing equipment. That the New and Expanding Industries Program, also contained in our PY 84 Plan, be deleted and replaced with the Electronic Assembly Program. We also recommend that the Council authorize the administrative entity to negotiate an agreement, consistent with the guidelines of IBM and JTPA regulations, to share the cost of these two projects with the Title III Dislocated Worker's Program. 2. ) That the existing Retail Sales Program be alternated with Claims Clerk training to address labor market demands in the SDA. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 1 009 Memorandum to: Central Piedmont Private Industry Council March 19, 1985 Page 2 -3.) That the Dropout Prevention/Job Placement Centers be reduced by one (1) due to a low level of participation at the Northern High School Center. 4. ) That the On-the-Job training, Individual referral, ABE/GED, Older Worker's On-the-Job training, and Services Only Programs, presently operated, be continued at the proposed levels. 5. ) That the Title II-B, Summer Youth Employment Program continue as a basic work experience program during 1985 and be expanded to the extent feasible, if additional funds are received. RC:h 4 H 010 1 JTPA PROGRAM BUDGET SUMMARY July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 Estimated New Resource Cary-over Funding Available II-A $ 96 ,356 $464,404 $560,760 II-B 173,816 70,108 243,924 Older Individuals 37,200 -0- 37,200 3% Cost Pool 40,254 94,326 134,580 $347,626 $628,838 $976,464 1.. . _ Oil JTPA II-A TRAINING PROGRAM SUMMARY 1985-86 • # Served Activity Type Budget Title II-A Institutional Skill Training 60 Claims Clerk & Retail Sales Staff Cost $ 6,103 Staff Travel 188 Rent Expense 240 Other Related Trng. 2,350 Tuition Fees 333 Books 1,400 $10,614 X 4 Classes $42,456 Transportation 60 X 11 wks. X 6.25 4,125 30 Electronic Assembly Staff 5,080 Travel 63 Rent 740 Other Trng. 1,300 Tuition Fees 333 7,516 X 4 Classes X 50% 15,032 Transportation 60 X 6 wks. X 6.25 X 50% 1,125 30 Clerk Typist & Word Processing Staff 21,790 Travel 300 Rent Exp. 2,880 Other Related Trng. 4,600 Tuition Fees 763 Books 2,000 Lease Equipment 2,750 35,083 X 2 Classes X 50% 35,083 Transportation 60 X 24 wks. X 6.25 X 50% 4,500 012 # Served Activity Type Budget 20 Individual Referral 20 for 3 qtrs. X $191 11,460 Transportation 60 X 11 wks. X 6.25 4,125 Institutional Skill Training 30 ABE(Adult Basic Education 30 students X $50 each. 1,500 Transportation 30 X 11 wks. X 6.25 2,063 DTI Coordination Staff 19,990 Travel 1,227 Office Expense 500 Equip. Repairs 350 Telephone 1,740 Alarm System 650 24,457 24,457 Exemplary Youth Programs 120 Dropout Prevention - 3 schools @ #31,401 each 94,203 On-the-Job Training 30 @ approximately $2,340 per participant 70,186 Services Only Programs: 52 ESC Offenders Program @ $404 per participant 21,000 100 Durham Chamber of Commerce $485 per placement 48,500 Day Care Reserve 5,000 Total Served 472 Total Program Cost $384,815 Training Staff Salary g Fringe 142,445 Operational Cost 33,500 Total II-A Program Budget $560,760 013 JTPA-II-B 1985-Summer Youth Employment Training Program (SYETP) SERVED ACTIVITY TYPE BUDGET AMOUNT Work Experience 200 Durham County Wage & Fringe Benefits $145 ,600 85 Orange County Wage & Fringe Benefits 61,880 Basis: 30 hrs. x 3. 35 = $100. 50 Fringe Benefits 8.9% 8. 94 $109.44 $109.44 x 7 wks. $727. 78 or ($728) (less 5% anticipated absenteeism) Training Staff Salary & Fringe Benefits 27,909 (4 counselors, 1 driver, 5 eligibility/ counselors, 1 assessment/regional aide) Operational Cost 5,535 Services to Participants Van Rental 1,500 Bus Passes 1,500 243,924 i•-■••:"7 TatarMaggataSaiii;WiZIgialfabgigatftttU'liFtkgFrialifIrblajailiii-Ai • • • 014 . JTPA Older Individuals - 3% Funds # Served 'AotiVity.Type Budget 31 -lhe-Job Training $37,200 Private and Public Sector Contracts - Average $1,200 1 • I . 1 015 JTPA COST POOL 1985 - 1986 Administrative Salaries & Fringe $ 90,694 Indirect Cost 17,886 Operational Cost 26,000 Total Administrative Cost $134,580 109 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date April 1. 1985 Action Agenda • Item # P' :41-49 SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT-DEFINITIONS-SUBDIVISION - DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No Attachment(s) Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH See February 25, 1985 Public Hearing Agenda packet. Draft 3/12/85 Public Hearing Minutes Draft 3/18/85 Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations which would replace the current definition of a "Subdiv'sion" defined, which was submitted to public hearing on February 25, 1985 and March 12, 1985 for approval. NEED: The wording of the definition of "subdivision" currently contained in the Orange County Subdivision Regulations differs slightly from thelording for "subdivision" in the enabling legislation. The most substantial difference in wording is in the first exemption to regulation. The Orange County Subdivision Regulations refers to "the combination or recombination of portions of previously platted lots" whereas the General ' - Statutes refers to "the recombination or combination of previusly subdivided and recorded lots". The latter provides for subdivision by a recorded deed or plat while the former provides only subdivision by plat. IMPACT: Amendment of the Ordinance would assure that administration of • the Subdivision Ordinance is consistent with the State general enabling legislation. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends that the proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations be approved. _._ . 110 - . - ' - SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS • . ' _---7-. . . . , Amend the Defini ns tio of the Orange ,County Subdivision Regulations - • ' .by revising the definition of "subdivision.1 to track the • definition provided- in G.S. .153A-335 as follows: -. - • .. . . . . : "Subdivision' means a11 divisions:.of a tract or .... - - - - - pardel of land into two or more lots-, building - - .,. -• . ". sites, or other divisions - for the purpose of sale • ' - • .or building development(whether immediate or future)' . . . . - - • - • ' and includes all division of land. involving the dedir-•••• ,- . . - • . .- - . .- • 7:--'.....-‘ - .--,-. ...---• cation of a new' street or a change it existing, streets;,.. . . ... . ....- ,-..- however, the following. is not included within' the;-:,_,- ....... ,, . - .. -- •-. • • --- . - definition and is not subject- to any-regulations:?..!..-.:- - •....-:-. . - . - _ . .. . .-- • -,: pursuant to this...part..., ...... .,_. ‘,.. ........„......- ,-.- .. - - ,'. ......,. • . , comb on of viously - inati pre• - - - • (1) The reaombirtation or 9 •• - - - • • subdivided and recorded lots if the total number . •.... • • . . . of -lots is not increased and the: resultant lots . . are equal to or exceed the standards of the county .. . -. . - • as shown in its subdivision regulations; - - - - . . . (2) The division of land into parcels greater than - .. • 10 acres if no street right-of-way dedication . .. _ _ is involved; -- ------__ . _ : - . . . . . . .- , - • • .... . • (3) The public acquisition by purchase of .., . . , . . . - .... . . - , . . • strips of land for widening or oimning-; • • , - • • . _ streets; and '. ' . -. • , -, .: . ,. • • - (4) The division of a tract in Single ownership • the entire area ,of which is no greater than • . , - • -• ' .- • - - . . ' two acres ' into not more than three lots; • -. - •... : - -- .•,;.- • - if no street right.--of-way dedication is .- • • • • -• - • • ' - • involved and if the resultant lots -are equal . .., _• , _ .. . . . . - ---- .- - :- • .- - . to or exceed the standards of the county as . . ..-.: • - .. .- .-: .. . -. '. •• shown by its subdivision..regula.tians4 . .. . - The definition currently differs from that ;contained in the • , . - enabling statutes. • . - . ..:- - --- -. ,-,.--_ -_ .... . ? - . -- - -.- .- ::.':;•,....-7... • • . . . , . - ' '. -• . • .. - - • . . . - • . . - - • - , • . . - - . . . ' • . - . . . ' . 111 • 1 DRAFT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES MARCH 12, 1985' • AGENDA ITEM #C6 ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT -- ARTICLE 4 (EXTRACTIVE USES) The staff presentation was made by Smith. - Planning Board member Kizer inquired about the reason for the change. Staff member Smith responded the purpose was to lighten the provisions of the ordinance. Planning Board Cair Gordon inquired about the recommended deleting this • use from commercial zones. Smith responded that this type of use did not reflect Land Use Plan policies• and would have substantial impact on desireable commercial areas. • - There were no further comments. AGENDA ITEM #C7 ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ARTICLE 8 (EXTRACTIVE USES) - - - The staff presentation was made by Smith. There were no further comments. jlig; AGENDA ITEM #C8 SUBDIVISION .REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT - DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION • • 1. • • • • 112 2 The staff presentation was made by Smith Planning Board Chair Gordon asked staff to further elaborate on the differences in wording. Attorney Gledhill reviewed the general - enabling legislation and Orange . County Subdivision Regulations indicating that the former no longer required plats, but did require subdivisions to occur either by second deed or recorded plat. Gordon asked what "plat" referred - to. Gledhill responded a surveyed drawing. Gledhill noted that the change in enabling legislation both broadened and narrowed the definition of subdivision. He indicated that prior to the change, lots could be created only by plat, but the change, though not requiring a plat, required the instrument creating the lot (eighter plat or deed) to be recorded. Before Subdivision Regulaations, property was subdivide as one wished. . Subdivision Regulations require an approved, recorded plat. Commissioner Corey asked what impact this change would have. Gledhill responded it both narrows and broadens the definition of subdivision for purposes of combinations and recombinations. Gordon noted that as of approval of this amendment unrecorded subdivision plats would then not meet the requirements for recordation without further review and approval. Gledhill clarified that this approach is not new, in that it was enforceable upon amendment of the general enabling, legislation. He further clarified • that Orange County is simply conforming its Subdivision • • 113 • • 3 Regulations to the change in the state enabling legislation. Gordon asked Gledhill to clarify what is meant by. "deed" and • "recorded". Gledhill responded a deed was a document and recorded meant the process of registering an instrument with the Register of Deeds. • Gordon questioned invalidity of the Orange County provisions. Gledhill responded the Court would amend our • regulations to conform with State law. Yuhasz inquired what "previously", • refers to. Gledhill responded previous to Change in law. Yuhasz • further questiond if it was previous to recombination attempt or previous . to the ordinance citing the example • of recombination of an illegal • subdivision. Gledhill responded that previous refers not to the recombination attempt, but to the change in the law. Kizer suggested it would be clearer to put the date in. Gledhill responded he did not recommend changing the definition to read other, that what the General • Statutes provides as Orange County cannot affect the definition of a subdivision, Yuhasz asked what the General Statutes state. Gledhill responded this was a verbatim transcript. • Yuhasz inquired about interpretation of it. Gledhill responded it would mean previous to the adoption of - Subdivision Regulations. He noted • there was no simple answer, and decisions would be made on a case by case basis. Commissioner Lloyd asked if a plat, • unless recorded, is invalid. Gledhill responded the subdivision would not entitle the property owner • 114 .1On' p gs ?it mu( - 4 to a building permit wihthout going through the planning process. Lloyd asked if the owner could go ahead if it was a recorded plat. Gledhill • responded affirmatively. Commissioner Carey asked if the owner could under old definition. Lloyd clarified if it was recorded or unrecorded. Gledhill responded • affirmatively. He cited unrecordable subdivisions and noted • that a . primary purpose of • Subdivision Regulations is to straigten out land records. AGENDA ITEM 0C9 ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - • ARTICLE 8 (SITE PLAN SUBMITTALS) The staff presentation was made by Smith. • Commissioner Lloyd asked why 20 • copies were needed. Smith responded the amendment provided for 26 copies which were required to meet Boards' and agencies review needs. Commissioner Lloyd indicated this was a - burden on the applicant. • Smith indicated that it was • preferable to burdening the general public with this cost. Commissioner Wilihoit asked Lloyd how the latter would be fair. Carl Walters, Planing Board member, supported the applicant bearing this cost. Dr. Steve • Kizer, Plahning Board member, indicated this represented a minimal portion of the application costs. Commissioner Lloyd responded this • made development expensive. AGENDA ITEM 4C10 ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - k.7 • ARTICLE 3 (ZONING ATLAS REPLACEMENT) • / F 0147/(14 > 115 15 The proposed text amendment would require that the applicant submit twenty-six (25) copies of a Class A Special Use Permit site plan and ten (10) copies of a Class B Special Use Permit site plan to meet the submittal requirements. IncreaSing the number of copies required for the submittal would satisfy project review needs. MOTION: Kizer moved approval. Seconded by • Pearson. • VOTE: Unanimous. 9c (1) Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments Definitions. The wording of the definition of "subdivision" currently contained in • the Orange County Subdivision Regulations differs slightly from the • wording for "subdivision" in the enabling legislation. 'The most substantial: difference in wording is in the first exemption to regulation. The . Orange . County Subdivision Regulations refers to "the combination of recombination of portions of previously platted lots" where as the General Statutes refers to "the recombination -or combination of previously subdivided and recorded - lots". The latter • provides for subdivision, by a recorded deed or plat _ while the former provides only subdivision by plat. Amendment of the Ordinance would assure that administration of the Subdivision. Ordinance is consistent with the State general enabling legislation. MOTION: Kizer moved approval. Seconded by • Pearson. • VOTE: Unanimous. AGEPDA ITEM 410 a. Annual Land Use Plan Report 116 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date April 1. 1985 Action Agenda Item # Fot/ SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT-ARTICLE 8-SITE PLANS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH Draft 3/12/85 Public Hearing Minutes Draft 3/18/85 Planning Board Minutes. • Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to Article 8 $pecial Usq Permits of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance submitted to • public hearing on February 25, 1985 and March 12, 1985 for - approval. • NEED: Section 8.8 Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses • requires applicants for special use permits to submit seven (7) copies of a Class A Special Use Permit site plan and twenty (20) copies of a Class B Special Use Permit site plan. The • number of copies required for these submittals is insufficient to provide for adequate project review. Submittals are • reviewed for comment, recommendation and approval by the Planning Department, Planning Board, Board of Commissioners • Board of Adjustment, emergency services agencies, school • districts the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough, the Orange County Recreation Advisory Board and the Department of Transportation. IMPACT: The proposed text amendment would require that the applicant submit twenty-six (26) copies of a Class A Special Use Permit site plan and ten (10) copies of a Class B Special Use Permit site plan to meet the submittal requirements. Increasing the number of copies required for the submittal would satisfy project review needs.•RECOMMENDATION: .• The Planning Board recommends approval of the text amendment. - - 311 miguras 117 • to a building permit without going • through the planning process. Lloyd - asked if the owner could go ahead if it was a recorded plat. Gledhill • . responded affirmatively. Commissioner Carey asked • if the* owner could under old definition. Lloyd clarified if it was recorded : • or unrecorded. Gledhill responded affirmatively. He cited unrecordable subdivisions and noted • that •a primary purpose of Subdivision S Regulations is to straigten out land records. 4(i0 AGENDA ITEM #C9 ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - ARTICLE 8 (SITE PLAN SUBMITTALS) V The staff presentation was made by Smith. Commissioner Lloyd asked . why 20 copies were needed. Smith responded the amendment providep for 26 copies which were required to meet Boards' and agencies review needs. Commissioner Lloyd indicated this was a burden on the applicant. Smith indicated that -' it was preferable to burdening the general public with this cost.. Commissioner Willhoit asked Lloyd • how the latter would be fair. Carl Walters, Planing Board member, supported the applicant bearing this cost. Dr. Steve Kizer, Planning Board member, indicated this represented a minimal portion of the application costs. Commissioner Lloyd responded this made development expensive. * AGENDA ITEM #C10 ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - ARTICLE 3 (ZONING ATLAS REPLACEMENT) 6 118 DR/IF) 14 interim of operation; rehabilitation reclamation plans, and local need. MOTION: Greenberg moved approval. Seconded by • Pilkey. There was much discussion about the • - 100' setback. _ MOTION: ' Kizer moved that the 100 ' setback be changed 250' . Seconded by Laszlo. VOTE: - 8 in favo-r. 2 opposed. - MAIN MOTION RESTATED: Approval recommended with the 100' setback changed to 250' . VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed. • 9b.4 Zoning ordinance Text Amendment - Article 8. The purpose Of this agenda item is to consider a proposed amendment to • Article 8 ,apecial Use Permits, of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance submitted to public hearing on February 25, 1985 and March 12, 1985 for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.. • Section 8.8 Eeoulations Governing Individual Special Use requires applicants for special use permits to • submit seven (7) copies of a Class A • Special Use Permit site plan and twenty - • (20) copies of a Class B Special Use • Permit site plan. The number of copies - • required for these submittals is - • insufficient to provide for adequate project review. Submittals are reviewed for comment, recommendation and approval by the Planning Department, Planning Board, Board of Commissioners, Board of Adjustment, emergency services • agencies, school districtsr the towns of Chapel Hill: Carrboro and Hillsborough, the Orange County Recreation Advisory Board and • the Department of Transportation. • - - - . 119 DRAFT 15 The proposed text amendment would require that the applicant submit twenty-six (26) copies of a Class A Special Use Permit site plan and ten (10) copies of a Class B Special Use • Permit site plan to meet the submittal requirements. . Increasing the number of copies• required for the submittal would satisfy project review needs. MOTION: Kizer moved approval. Seconded by Pearson. • - VOTE: Unanimous. 9c(1) Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments Definitions. The wording of the definition of "subdivision" currently contained in the Orange County Subdivision . Regulations differs slightly from the wording for "subdivision" in the enabling legislation. The most substantial: difference in wording is in the first exemption to regulation. • The Orange County Subdivision Regulations refers to "the combination of recombination of portions of previously platted lots" where as the General Statutes refers to "the recombination or combination of previously subdivided and recorded lots". The latter provides for subdivision by a recorded deed or plat - while the former .provides only subdivision by plat. , Amendment of the Ordinance would assure. that administration of the Subdivision Ordinance is consistent with the State general enabling legislation. MOTION: Kizer moved approval. Seconded by . Pearson. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM 010 a. Annual Land Use Plan Report 016 ORANGE COUNTY • BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item NO. Meeting Date: APRIL 1, 1985 SUBJECT: WASTEMTER COLLECTICO AND TREATMENT AGREEMENT DEPARTMENT: MANWER'S OFFICE PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _IL...No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE x 501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: YES Hillsborough -732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider requested amendments to the Agreement. NEED: The 'Awn of Hillsborough approved the agreement February 18 followed by Board of Coimmissioners approval February 19. Attached letter dated March 14, 1985 reflects a Mown Board request to amend the agreement by the addition of two modifica- tions. Under Item 9: The wastewater collection system shall be the property of Orange County until the County recoups its initial capital investment or thirty (30) years from the date of coot- pletion. After such time, the system shall be the sole property of the Town of Hillsborough. Under It 5' Except for the above referenced 212 customers, both the Town of Hillsborough and the County reserve the right to change their respective tap-on fee as necessary. Modification to item 5 was discussed earlier but was inadver- tently left out of the revised draft which both Boards approved. Modification to item 9 was discussed earlier but was not agreed to by the County. IMPACT: The advantages and disadvantages associated with agreeing to an ownership change are as follows: Advantages } 017 1. Hillsborough's interest is to own collection systems connected to its treatment plant as a further means to govern what is allowed to enter the plant. 2. Were no other considerations involved and so long as there were guarantees for service continuation the question, of ownership would have no bearing on the delivery of sewer service to the customers. Pisaadvantages to the County 1. The County would be transferring an asset to the Town at no cost which would have a remaining useful life and which would have been paid for by: (a) the customers, (b) County citizens at-large through the pledge of the County's full faith and credit as collateral to repay the loan, and (c) by the County government's appropriation toward construction (this latter cost could go higher depending on the outcome of the bidding process). 2. Revenue bonds, which is the chief means governments use for water and sewer extension financing, would not be available to the County for extending the system further. Such bonds require the borrowing party to have both a prospectus that shows ownership of assets and utility income sufficient to defray debt service. 3. Public support for the County to finance further extensions into the unincorporated area might be lessened if the terms of such action were understood to include a transfer of assets following construction and loan repayment. 4. The trend is for counties and towns to work as partners versus one being the customer of the other. Counties take on the burden of financing the extensions whereas the towns which have treatment plants typically agree to treat the sewage on a bulk rate basis. 5. Were the line turned over it is to be questioned whether the Town would or should have the same sense of responsi- bility as the County to serve citizens in phases II thru VI of the Cheeks Zbwnship Sewer Plan. 6. Phase I of the planned sewer system is to be a complete system with the exception of facilities for waste removal. While use of the Hillsborough Plant is proposed to be used for this purpose the economics of scale may necessitate a shift now or in the future to an alternative treatment plant. Accordingly, the system should not be viewed as an appendage of the Hillsborough plant. Rb do so could tie the County's hands in making changes out of cost-benefit consideration. 7. Farmers Home rules specify that sewer purchase contracts "will not contain provisions for: (1) construction of facilities which will be owned by the supplier, and (2) options for the future sale or transfer of the system" (FinHA Loan Instruction 1942-A, Section 1942.18(f). 018 RECCVDIENIIMCV: 1. Approve modification to item 5 of the agreement to add the sentence "Except for the above referenced 212 customers, both the Tbwn of Hillsborough and the County reserve the right to change their respective tap on fee as necessary"; and 2. Decline to approve the requested modification to item 9. • 019 �C�D MAR 1 . wit 01 Ttt u itu 4 1985 Mayor Town Clerk Frank H. Sheffield, Jr. Agatha Johnson HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Commissioners Supt. Water Works Lynwood J. Brown James Pendergraph Horace H. Johnson Street Supt. it,Allen A. Lloyd ty L. D. Wagoner Remus J. Smith �.1 . �lir Chief of Police 1'rl Rachel H. Stevens [�' Arnold W. Hamlett a. rn� Fire Chief �v!∎ r /rk, John Forrest March 14, 1985 Mr. Ken Thompson, County Manager Orange County Courthouse 106 B._Margaret Lane ._ . . ... _ . - Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Mr. Thompson: In official session on Monday, March 11, 1985, the Hillsborough Town Board voted to include in the Wastewater Collection and Purchase Contract between the Town and Orange County the following items: Under Item 9: The wastewater collection system shall be the property of Orange County until the County recoups its initial capital investment or thirty (30) years from the date of completion. After such time, the system shall be the sole property of the Town of Hillsborough. Under Item 5: Except for the above referenced 212 customers, both the Town of Hillsborough and the County reserve the right to change their respective tap-on fee as necessary. Motion was made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Stevens to include these items in the contract. The Board agreed that discussion of ownership of the system was talked about and agreed upon during early negoti- ations. _ If I can assist you further, please contact this office. Sincerely, if, i Or, 0 Ag., - Johns , Town Clerk (V) W}?gi'EWA'lER COU t'PIoN AND PD CEEASE coNr r This Contract for the Sale and Purchase of Wastewater Collection and Treatment Services is entered into as of the day of 19 J between the TORN OF HiLLS3CRODGI, NORTH CAROUNA hereinafter referred to as the "TON" and ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY"; WHEREAS, it is the intent of the County to construct a wastewater collection system to serve an area of Cheeks Township, Orange County, North Carolina to address health problems related to the failure of septic tanks and other individual and package subsurface sewage treatment systems; and WHEREAS, the County neither owns nor � operates a wastewater treatment facility; and WHEREAS, the Town operates a wastewater collection system and wastewater treatment facility with the ty capacity to receive and treat wastewater generated by the wastewater collection system proposed to serve an area of Cheeks Township; and WHEREAS, the Town is willing to make its wastewater collection system and wastewater treatment facility available to receive and treat wastewater generated by the County's wastewater collection system, but onl y upon the conditions and subject to the limits hereinafter set forth; NOW, =BEFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements hereinafter set forth, it is agreed as follows: 1. The Town agrees to allow the County, g ty, at County expense, to tie its 1 wastewater collection system to the Town's wastewater collection system at a point to be determined by the Town and County at the tine of approval by the T wn and County of the plans and specifications of the County system to be prepared by Orange County. Such connection may only be made in strict accordance with said plans and specifications and only after said plans and specifications have been approved in advance in writing by the Town Engineer 021 and Town Superintendent of Utilities in order to insure its compatibility with the Town's wastewater collection and treatment facilities and policies. 2. The County agrees to pay the Town $15,000.00 as a blanket connection IP (tap) fee for the privilege of connecting the Efland-Cheeks Elementary School wastewater facility and the County's initial 212 customers to the Town's system. The customer list and map will be provided to the Town not later than the 1st day of July, 1985. Five thousand dollars of the $15,000 is for the cost of tap-on of the Efland Cheeks Elementary School. The above $15,000 connection fee shall be paid before any wastewater is permitted to flow through the meter. 3. The Town agrees to treat, at the rates herein prescribed, up to 55,000 gallons of the County system's wastewater per day, which is the equivalent of the wastewater generated by said school and the initial 212 customers of the County's wastewater collection system, and to treat up to an additional 325,000 gallons per day for additional customers in the future. 4. No customer-shall be allowed to connect to the County system unless and until such customer's proposed discharge has been found acceptable by both the Town Water Superintendent and County. Approval shall be predicated on (1) the quality of the effluent of the potential user being compatible with the Tiawn's NPDES discharge permit, (2) compliance with the Ton's ordinance, rules, and regulations concerning pretreatment of industrial wastewater, and (3) all County (subdivision, zoning, erosion, building, etc.) and State (DOT, etc.) permits having been properly granted. Under no circumstances will the County permit the discharge of septic sewage into its system. 5. After the first 212 customers above specified, each additional approved customer shall pay a $400 Town tap on fee. Customers other than those initially connected from among those initially applying for connection shall pay a $600 County tap-on fee. Both fees shall be collected by the County with the Town portion remitted to the Town as collected. 6. The County shall install, a peter at the point where the County's system is connected to the Hillsborough Suer System for the purpose of measuring the flow of wastewater from the County's system into the T wn's system. 7. The County agrees to pay the Town each month the sum of $1.11 per thousand gallons of wastewater passing through said meter. 8. The Town reserves the right to adjust the rate per 1,000 gallons charged to the County whenever the Town adjusts its rates charged to its other customers. 9. The wastewater collection .system constructed by the County shall be the property of the County. The Tbwn shall not allow any connection to the Town's system which shall have the effect of circumventing or competing with this agreement. It shall be the responsibility of the County to maintain its wastewater collection and transport system and perform all customer billing and collections. This does not preclude the County from contracting maintenance and/or billing functions. 10. Any failure of the Town's wastewater collection system or wastewater treatment facility which impedes the flow of wastewater from the County's wastewater collection system shall be remedied by the Ton with all possible dispatch. in the event of an extended period of malfunction of the ¶LtMn's wastewater collection system, the County's customers shad], be required to reduce their discharge only in the same ratio or proporation as that required of the Town's other customers. 11. The construction of the wastewater collection and treatment system by the County is being financed by a loan made, or insured by, and grant from the United States Department of Agriculture. No provision set forth in this Contract shall be binding upon either party unless and until all terms and provisions hereof have been approved in writing by the N.C. State Director of the Farmers Hoare Administration U.S.D.A. 023 IN WITNESS WEER', the parties hereto, acting under authority of their respective governing bodies, have caused this contract to be duly executed in duplicate originals, a copy of which is retained by each party. ATTEST: CLERK, ORANGE ccular BOARD OF DON WIIZHOIT, CHAIRMAN CCNNISSIONERS ORANGE C OUNTT BOARD OF CCMMISSIC IE.'RS ATTEST: CLERK, TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH PRANK E n, MAYOR TOWN CP BUISBOSCUGH This contract is approved on behalf of the Farmer's Hoene Administration this the day of , 19 . BT Y:• --}yam T/ LE: DIRECTOR 024 (MANGE COUNTY '• BOARD OF CC MISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AIWA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. A* Meeting Date: APRIL 1, 1985 SUBJECT: FmMA Nondiscrimination Agreement and Ag Equal Opportunity Agreement DEPARTMENT: MANAGER'S PUBLIC HEARING: Yes ,..161LNo ATTACHMENT(S): INFORIIATION CONTACT: TELEPHONE NUMBER: YES Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968.4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: TO review Equal Opportunity and Nondiscrimination Agreements for approval by Board Chair. NEED: These two agreements are required by Farmers Home Administration in order to receive requested funds for the . Efland Sewer Project. In each case the agreements are in accord with the County's existing plans and policies. ; , IMPACT: These agreements are two items on the Farmers Hoene Administra- tion processing checklist. In order for progress to continue on completion of the processing checklist, action on these items is now necessary. RECCMMENDATICM Authorize agreements and authorize Chair to sign. _ i 1 ,t c ( - 11 • • Form FHA 400-4 . 'Position 3 . . (12-29-64) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ' - ' I i FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION li . 1. ; • 17 NONDISCRIMINATION AGREEMENT I I - I • - •- (Under Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964) . . - • ` - .. - . - - - ;• - . . Date: .....-- . . _. ; - - . . • . :. – - ----- • - ----------- --: . - ', • - . . . , . . . . . ; Address:-------•.:-------- --- (herein called "Recipient") in accordance with regulations (herein called "the regulations") of the Farmers Home Admin- : istration and the United States Department of Agriculture (herein called "the Department") issued pursuant to Title VI of' - II . Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in consideration of a loan or advance made or to be made by the United States of America acting through the Farmers Home Administration (herein'called "the Government"), hereby covenants and agrees as follows- . .. - . • 1. Recipient shall comply with all provisions of the regulations and shall notion the ground of rice,color,or national origin— . . . - ' . . . -• .. . • (a) Deny, or cause to be denied, ta any person, directly or indirectly, wholly or partially, any service,use, occupancy, financial aid, or other benefit-(herein called "benefits") of the whole or any portion of any property, facility, structure, project, service,. or activity which, directly or indirectly, wholly or partially, is provided with the aid - - .of the loan or advance(herein called "aided facility or activity");or ' • . . . • . . (b) treat any person, or cause any person to be treated, differently from any other person with respect to any right or opportunity to participate'in the benefits of any aided facility or activity;or . ' . . . ; . . ; - (c) subject any person, or cause any person to be subjected, to discrimination in any other manner in connection with - any aided facility or activity or the benefits thereof. . r . . It is understood that employment is not within the scope of this agreement. - . . . . 2. Any transfer of any aided facility or activity, other than personal property, by sale, lease, or other conveyance or contract, shall be, and shall be made expressly, subject to,the obligations of this agreement and transferee's • assumption thereof. • - . ... . . . 3. Recipient shall–– . . . . . . .. (a) Keep such records and submit to the Government -such timely, complete, and accurate compliance reports at such • • times and in such form and'containing such information as the Government may determine to be necessary to ascertain • . Recipient's compliance with this agreement and the regulations; and - • . . .. . .__.. . . . . . . . (b) permit access by authorized employees of the Farmers Home Administration or the Department during normal business • hours to such of Recipient's books, records, accounts, and other sources of information and its facilities as may he pertinent to ascertaining such compliance; and . . , . . . . • (c) make available to users, participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons such information regarding the • provisions of this agreement and the regulations, and in such manner, as the Farmers Home Administration or the Department finds necessary to inform such persons of the protection assured them against discrimination. - - • • 4. The obligations of this agreement shall continue–– - •- •• -•• - (a) As to any real property, including any structure, provided with.the aid of the loan or advance, so long as such' real property is used for a purpose for which the loan or advance is made or which affords similar services or benefits. • • (b) As to any personal property provided with the aid of the loan or advance, sd long as Recipient retains ownership or possession of the property. - (c) As to any other aided facility or activity, until the last adv:ince of funds uncier the loan or advance has been made. . FHA 400-41226 • • • . . . - .111 • . . • • ._ • 5. Upon any breach or violation of this agreement the Government may, at its option–– • . ' . . . . (a) Terminate or refuse to render or continue financial assistance to Recipient or for the aid of the property, facility, 'project, service,or activity. - . ' (b) In case of a loan, accelerate the maturity of the indebtedness. . . , • . - • - . (c) Appoint a receiver, or have a receiver appointed, to take possession of and administer the aided facility or activity • in order to secure compliance with this agreement and the regulations. For this purpose Recipient hereby appoints the Government its agent and attorney-in-fact with power, in event of such breach or violation, so to take possession of and administer or to appoint such receiver. This appointment is coupled with an interest and shall be irrevocable ' while the obligations of this agreement continue. , • . . • . • • . . . . . -• (d) Enforce this agreement by suit for specific performance or by any other available remedy under the laws of the--„:„. United States or the State in which the breach or violation occurs. -. . • . . . . . .... .. . ._ • . .• • - ,. .. Rights and remedies provided for under this shall be cumulative. . ' .. - ,.. .... ,.. •-•... . . . , : - .. - . .. . — . - • - - In witness whereof Recipient, on this; the date first above written, has caused this agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officers and its seal affixed hereto, or,if a natural person,has hereunto set Recipient's hand and seal. • - • . . • . . . . • • • - - . . • . - . • - . . . • • , • . • • • ' - •.. . - - . • . - - . . . ' .. •• - • . - .- • . • ., . • - • • • .. ‘ - _ 1-1 ■ , I \ 0.4X 1• (S E A L) AN -- . 1 • . R ecipient - -.. . i i e ,, Attest: At' , __ _ ,411!°." 441 , 4 ..... By Chair, Orange County Board- of. Commissioners (Title) (Title) • . .. . . . – --.-- . _ R ecipient . . ... . _ . • ' . . .. . - ' . . . . ' - -• . R ecipient .•• - : _. . . _. . . . - • • _ . . - • • . . •_ . . - 1 • ' • • . . I I CP 0 815-746 .:• * • .( • - - A ' UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE _ II •. Form FHA 400-1 (Rev. 6-26-72) FARMERS.•ROME ADMINISTRATION ' EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AGREEMENT • This agreement, dated.._ _. ._.... between. (herein called "Recipient" whether one or more) and the Farmers Home Administration,- United States Department of Agriculture, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Labor (herein called the `Secretary')issued under the F authority of Executive Order 11246,as amended, witnesseth: • - : • ' In consideration of financial assistance (whether by a lobe, grant, loan guaranty, or other form of financial assistance) ' made or to be made by the Farmers Home Administration to Recipient, Recipient hereby agrees, if the,cash cost of construction • - work performed by Recipient or a construction contract financed with such financial assistance exceeds$10,000--unless . exempted by rules, regulations or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued persuant to Section 204•of Executive Order 11246 of • ., September 24, 1965. ,- . 1. To incorporate or cause to be incorporated into any contract for construction work, or modification thereof, subject '• --. to the relevant rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary or of any prior authority that remain in effect, which is paid -. ' - , .• for in whole or in part with the aid of such financial assistance,the following "Equal Opportunity Clause".- . . - ::. .• During the performance of this contract,the contractor agrees as follows: i • . (a) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, • religion, sex or national origin.- The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, • : . • ' and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national • -'*origin.. Such action-shall include,but not be limited,to the following: -employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; :- recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates-of pay or other forms of compensation; and -_-: • • - . selection for training, including apprenticeship.- The contractor agrees to post in'conspicuous places, available • • to employees'and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the Farmers Home Administration setting' - • :, -forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. -: _ • (b) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, - - • state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, ' sex or national origin.. • • - f ' - (c)-The contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining • .agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice, to be provided by the Farmers Home Administration • advising the said labor union or workers' representative of the contractor's commitments under this agreement as ._required pursuant to section 202(3)•--of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and shall post copies of the • notice in conspicuous places'available to employees and applicants for employment. - • • • (d) The contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and of all rules, •' • 'regulations and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor and of any prior authority which remain in effect. • • (e) The contractor will furnish•all information and reports:regwred by•Executive Order 11246.of September 24, 1965, - . .'rules, regulations, and orders,or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his books, records,and accounts by the - Farmers Home Administration, Office of Equal Opportunity, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and,the Secretary of. • • • Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules,regulations,and orders. - -.. (0 In the event ofthe contractor's'noncompliance with the Equal Opportunity(Federally Assisted Construction)clause •. • or with any of the said'rules, regulations, or orders, this contract may be cancelled, terminated,or suspended in ..whale or in part and the contractor may.bedeclared ineligible for further Government Contracts or Federally Assisted Y .• • -''construction contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, ' - - and such other sanctions' may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in Executive Order No. 11246 of ' September 24, 1965,of by rule,regulation or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as provided by Law. (g) The contractor will include the provisions of this-Equal Opportunity'(Federally Assisted Construction) clause in . - every subcontract or purchase order, unless exempted by the rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204.of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will • be binding upon each such subcontractor or vendor. The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the Farmers Haile Administration may direct as a means of enforcing such j- provisions,' including sanctions for noncompliance: Provided, however, that in the event the contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor;or vendor as a result of such direction by the Farmers Home Administration, the contractor may request the United States to enter into such Iitigation to protect the interest of the United States. • � I Positions FHA 400-1(Rev. 6--2642) j ! - . • - I • 2. To Se bound by the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Clause in construction work performed by Recipient and paid i - for in whole or in part with the aid or such financial assistance. • 3. To notify all prospective contractors to file the required `Compliance Statement',Form FHA 40G-6, with their bids 4. Form AD-425,Instructions to Contractors,will accompany the notice of award of the contract. • Bid conditions'for all nonexempt Federal and Federally assisted construction contracts require inclusion of the appropriate ..` "Hometown" or"Imposed"plea affirmative action and equal employment opportunity requirements. All bidders must comply. . • with the bid conditions contained in the invitation to be considered responsible bidders and hence eligible for the award, S. To assist and cooperate actively with the Farmers Home Administration and the Secretary in obtaining the compliance . of contractors'and subcontractors with the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Clause and the said rules, regulations,and • orders, to obtain and furnish to the Farmers Home Administration and the Secretary, Form AD-•-560, Certification of Nrinsegregated Facilities, to submit the Monthly Manpower Utilization Report, Optional Form 66, as required and such other - -information as they may'require for the supervision'of such compliance, and to otherwise assist the Farmrers Home . Administration in the discharge of its prim ary responsibility for securing compliance. - . .• . - , • 6. To tefrain firm entering into any contract, dr:extension or other modification of a contract; subject to suet Executive . Order with a contractor debarred from Government;contracts or federally assisted construction contracts pursuant to Part Ij • • • .Subpart D; of such Executive Order or to prior aut onty;_and to'carry out such sanctions and penalties for violation of the ••- , . provisions of the Equal Opportunity Clause'as may be imposed upon contractors and subcontractors by the'Farmers Home Administration or the Secretary pursuant to such Subpart D. ' • - 7. That if Recipient faits or refuses-to comply with these undertaking , the Farmers s nners Home Administration may take any or all of the following actions:'• (a) cancel;'terminate; or suspend said financial assistance in whole or in part;(b)refrain . • from extending any,further assistance under the program involved until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been • •received from Recipient;:and (c) refer the case to the Office of Equal Opportunnity,•U. S.Department of Agriculture for. appropriate action. Witness the due execution hereof by Recipient on this,•the date first above written. • , • • - • ' Chair, Orange County Board .of. Ciamm�'Moners Recipient (CORPORATE SEAL) • • ' ' Name of Corporate Recipient Attests , % z . By 'l ; • , . . -• . • • President . . Secretary _ . • • • ' - a U.S.COVEEKkE,IT RVNTING OFFICE:1.730-f.:65-113/-3139 • . • • • ORANGE COUNFY 029 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA • ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. F5 April 1, 1985 mEETIN6 DATE SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Just Compensation for Acquisition . - --- DEPARTMENT:Housing/Community Development PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO • ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Davis_ Resolution PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 Recommended Values HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 • CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider establishing just compensation for the acquisition of rightswof--way for road improvements and six dilapidated dwellings in the Councilville Community Development Area. t. All rights of way for road improvements have been surveyed by the John McAdams OLEO: Company. All parcels have been appraised by Kathy Buck. The dilapidated dwellings are infeasible for housing rehabilitation. The appraised value of the units is lower than the estimated cost of rehabilitation. Under federal regulations, the County must acquire the unit and assist the families in relocating into standard dwellings. The units were appraised by Kathk.Buck. Review appraisals were conducted by Nathaniel Holloway, County Tax Appraiser. The County will not acquire the land. • • Certificatidn of just compensation will facilitate the timely implementation IMPACT: of the street improvements and the relocation process. • • ' RE COMME N DAT I ON(s): Approve recommended values for rights-of-way acquisitions totaling $14,769.00 and.thQ acquisition of six dilapidated dwellings totaling $1.3,045.00. - - . - • ' • • • c 030 i RIGHT-OF-WAY SQUARE FOOTAGE AND RECOMMENDED VALUES Parcel No. Square Feet of Area First Recommended to be acquired Appraisal Value 1 2609 $686.00 $686.00 2 2004 $920.00 $920.00 3 1603 $330.00 $330.00 4 1120 $258.00 $258.00 5 4264 $647.00 $647.00 6 2375 $428.00 $428.00 7 4366 $577.00 $577.00 8 5673 $852.00 $852.00 9 1344 $296.00 $296.00 10 475 $90.00 $90.00 11 4798 $473.00 $473.00 12 5677 $380.00 $380.00 13 5802 $400.00 $400.00 15A 6572 $588.00 $587.00 15 1560 $143.00 $143.00 16 3443 $310.00 $310.00 17 3071 $330.00 $330.00 • 18 3323 $300.00 $300.00 20 5155 $290.00 $290.00 21 10,355 $622.00 $622.00 22 7606 $1,445.00 $1,445.00 23 2353 $565.00 $565.00 24 1682 $285.00 $285.00 25 2680 $268.00 $268.00 • 26 1019 $153.00 $153.00 27 2129 $319.00: $319.00 28 1048 $147.00 $147.00 29 996 $205.00 $205.00 30 1900 $266.00 $266.00 31 1751 $280.00 $280.00 32 1537 $169.00 $169.00 34 3578 $250.00 $250.00 35 9625 $675.00 $675.00 36A 6436 ' $231.00 $231.00 36 8122 $591.00 $591.00 • Total: 128,051 $14,769.00 $14,769.00 • • 031 SQUARE FEET OF DILAPIDATED DWELLINGS AND RECOMMENDED VALUES Dwelling Unit No. Square Footage First Appraisal Second Appraisal and Recommended Value 2 (Homeowner) 1344 $7,200.00 -- $7,200.00 * 4 (Rental) 1300 $409.00 $409.00 7 (Rental) 300 $90.00 $90.00 8 (Rental) 600 $450.00 $450.00 10 (Rental) 480 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 * * 14 (Rental) 624 $2,496.00 $2,496.00 Total: 4648 $13,045.00 $13,045.00 *Review Appraisals have been conducted for parcels to be acquired with values over $2,000. For these parcels recommended value is the amount established by the Review Appraiser. AGLNDA ) IL ; ITEM N0 MLETIUG DATE Apr i: 1 , 1985 032- SUBJEC1 : Housing Rehabilitation Contract Awards 1DEPARIMENT: [ PUBLIC HEARING: YES x NO Housing/Community Development A1TACHMENT(S) : INFOR!IATION CONTACT: Glenn Davis . Results of Bid Opening PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 [BANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 6884331 . _ PURPOSE: To consider awarding three housing- rehabilitation contracts for the Councilville Community Development Area. NEED: Low bidders from sealed bids received and opened on March 25, 1985 are as follows: Dwelling Unit # Contractor Bid Amount 22 Morrow Construction Company $23,069.00 23 Samuel English Contractor $ 5,275.00 24 Gates Construction Company $ 6,440.00 IMPACT: Award of Contracts to the lowest bidders would be consistent with present housing rehabilitation bid procedures. The Housing/Community Development Department has awarded fourteen housing rehabilitation contracts with five units remaining to be ' awarded in the Councilville Community Development Area. J RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve award of contracts to the low bidders. 033 • Katie Farrington AT?".,ICATICN .....23 CCST E5T1:1.47E:_ __14 5_5_5,QQ ' I 13.65;_ Samuel English Coptractor „ _Mot.tow Construction Company _ ates Construction Company __ Robert Wilson • . . 300p.m. '1:: March 25, 1985 Dorothy Benallal . . _ ___ • ... N/A Samuel English Contractor _ - Route 1, Box 18, Efland, N.C. 27243. . . . 563-1292 :• 3-26- VS- . . •.• . . • 034 • Joseph Ingram ��• - D.U. #22 Councilville - _ C;'Si E is?:.T G: $22,289.00 : ... ri'.ER 3.382 c:•:... Samuel Engl ish Contractor 29,922..00 II Morrow Construction Company 23,069.80 Gates Construction Company 25,540.00 • ' Robert Wilson :._..- = 3:00 p.m. • - March 25, 1985 _ Dorothy Benallal • JIC,..s ,F a.y Si:,: , .F+>F—FFi •. t.; : ,- .r1i,t•:iki,A4,%Fiir .wi N/A = " ' Morrow Construction Company Route 2, Box 394, Mebane, N.C. 27302 563-3023 Community Development contribution towards this dwelling unit is $15,000. .. . . _ • • :. ._. . :5 _ =c • • • 035 Emerson Atwater A?FLICAT:C% NUMBER 24 1D2R;SS: D.V. #24 Councilville COST PSTIMATE: $5,704.00 =E:CE%T,IGE OF SIO ESTIMATE 3 ,SID *.E3:7:;TED pie ANIJNT iam.p.t. English Contractor $8,205.00 • -Garea-Conarrytatinn_Comany_ $6,440.00 3. Morrow Construction Company $8,147.00 4. • ty: Rohartyilson _ 7'-s 72id r.:::nina: 300p.m. , ..._. ... d: Eid March25,. 1985 _ reLsed by: Dorothy Banal's' :4,144,Ak**hti*A*********A*kik•4;* ;••., • •• .****.k****1,4**.********* ..7;.est Acceptable Bid: $6,440-0.0.— =-Tunt: . . Gates Construction Company Route 1, Box 8, Snow Camp, N.C. 27349 tY: ty: 7' Order: 1Z;“,'H Nc.T. • 036 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGE40A ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. F57 MEETING DATE April lj 19E35 __ SUBJECT: Program Amendment To Transfer Funds To The Street ImprovementsBudget/ Street Improvements Contract Award. - • —1 D.-EPARTMENT: Housing/Community Developmen PUBLIC HEARING: YES x NO ' J ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilbert McAdoo Bid Tabulation . PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 Street Improvements Cost. HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 Program Amendment. CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Approve program amendment for transfer of funds to the street improvements Budget. Award street improvementicontract for the Councilville Community Development Project Area. NEED: On Thursday, March 21, 1985 a bid opening was conducted by the John R. McAdams Company (Consulting Engineers) and the Housing and Community Development Staff. Three bona fide bids were received. The John R. McAdams Company has tabulated all bids. Mr. McAdams will present the bid results to the Board. The lowest bid received put the street improvemenis cost $98,125 over the budgeted amount (budgeted amount was derived from estimate given by the John R. McAdams Company) . After review of the Housing and Community Development Departmental budget,staff proposes that $40,000 be transferred from Property Acquistion; $25,000 from Housing Rehabilitation and $33,125 from Section 8 Surplus in order to have funds sufficient to award contract. • IMPACT: The approval of program amendment and award of the street improvements • contract will facilitate the timely implementation of this community development program activity. RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve program amendment to transfer $98,125 to the street improvements budget :001aigard the street improvements contract . to lowest responsible bidder, Mellott Construction Company, Inc. carrboro, • N.C. • . • • 037 111! • .t—aza .1 THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 200 HAYES BUILDING,GLEN LENNOX CENTER,CHAPEL HILL P.O.BOX 2396.CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROUNA 27515 (919)967-7079 March 25, 1985 • Mr. Wilbert McAdoo, Director Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development 300 West Tryon Street • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Councilville Community Development Project OCO 8301 Dear Mr. McAdoo: On Thursday, March 21, bids were received and opened for the construc- tion of street improvements in the Councilville Community Development area of Orange County. A complete tabulation of those bids is as follows: Mellott Contractors $ 199,495.00 Propst Construction Company $ 382,273.00 Nello L. Teer Company $ 270,476.00 The low bidder is Mellott Contractors, with a bid of $199,495.00. We recommend that the contract be awarded to the low bidder. The bids were higher than our estimate; and we attribute this to the strength of the economy and the work load of local contractors. We would not anticipate lower prices if the contract were re-bid. Sincerely, THE JOHN R. DAMS COMPANY, INC. John . Presi ent JEMc.11m 038 Street Improvements Cost Road Construction Cost $199,495 Engineering Cost $22,300 Utilities Relocation Cost .$20,705 5% Contingency $12,125 Total Cost $254,625 Budgeted Amount $156,500 Total Street Improvements Cost $254,625 Amount of street improvements cost over the budgeted amount, $98,125. 039 Program Amendment 1) Housing Rehabilitation - Staff has received bids on all houses to rehabilitated. Housing Rehabilitation Budget $230,698.00 Housing Rehabilitation Projected Cost $202,738.25 • Projected amount remaining in the Housing Rehabilitation Budget $27,959.75 Staff proposes to transfer $25,000.00 to street improvements budget. 2) PropertyAcquisition - All parcels to be acquired have been appraised. PropertyAcquisition Budget $88,600.00 Projected Acquisition Cost $42,688.00 Projected amount remaining inAcquisition Budget $45,912.00 Staff proposes to transfer $40,000.00 to the street improvements budget. 3) Section 8 Reserved Surplus - Operating Reserve. Staff proposes to transfer $33,125 to the street improvements budget. 040 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenen ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: APRIL 1, 1985 SUBJECT: SCHOOL MERGER IMPLICATIONS DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _L No ATTACHMENT(S) ; INFORMATION CONTACT: DON WILLHOIT X 505 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 YES Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - B88-7331 PURPOSE: To consider taking action to prepare for the establishment of a study commission. NEED: Board action was delayed February 4, 1985 to allow opportunity to meet formally with the two School Boards and the representative of the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools has since indicated a willingness to proceed whereas Orange County Schools has declined to support the merger study. Attached draft outline provides the scope of questions to be addressed by study commission. IMPACT: Develop information by which the implications for school system merger can be assessed. RECOMMENDATION: Proceed with advertising and recruitment of people interested in serving on the proposed study commission. 041 DRAFT 1 STUDY AREAS I. COMMUNITY GROWTH A. Neighborhoods, student housing patterns and school locations B. Distances children have to travel to attend school C. County growth patterns (residential, industrial, commercial and as projected after 1-40 completion) and the projection of student population change by geographical area. D. Findings • -... • • . - _ 1. . AlternativeattendanCe gione _91-X!en-PrOappt.ed:Zevelopmentz...: .--. - patterns 2. Travel times, distances and busing impacts E. Recommendations II. CURRICULUM/PROGRAM AS RELATES TO THE GOAL OF IMPROVED EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES COUNTYWIDE • A. Differences in grade patterns B. Differences in course offerings and how they might be made consistent C. Differences in the offering of cocurricular activities (cultural arts, clubs, athletics, etc.) D. Exceptional Children's Program in the two systems E. Findings 1. Opportunities for program sharing where demand is too small for either system alone (e.g. science lab., vocational ed., physics, Latin, etc.) 2. Potential savings due to sharing of programs ' 3. Implication for equalizing instructional programs and special population programs 4. Costs • F. Recommendations III. ORGANIZATION/STAFFING A. Organization 1. Analysis of organizational structures in terms of their relative merit for dealing with growth, educational equalization goals, and making the operation of the system more economical 2. Alternative organizational structures to be the focus of study: a) the existing two-district system b) the existing systems with some modification (geographic boundaries and cooperative agreements?) c) a Countywide, single district system 3. Central office organizational structure • • B. Salaries/Fringes 042 1. Number and type of personnel (teaching, administrative, support and resource) 2. Salaries 3. Supplements 4. Longevity and any other compensation 5. Personnel policies C. Staff Development D. Findings 1. 4ssessment-af: the adVantag4P/dikad-Vahtagps-of reorganization 2. Staffing alternatives- • -.-' • 3. Areas for potential reduction in administrative staff 4. Areas for functional consolidation and resource sharing (media services, audio visual equipment data processing, purchasing, recruitment and screening services, accounting, etc.) 5. Pay and other impacts E. Recommendations IV. FINANCE A. Facilities 1. Degree to which existing facilities are utilized in terms of capacity 2. Optimum school size (by grade configuration) 3. Degree to which facilities may be matched with optimum size for grade configurations. B. Operations 1. Type expenditure accounts in all other areas 2. Expenditure levels • C. Findings 1. Need and timing of construction of new school facilities 2. Mid and long range capital costs 3. Building operating costs 4. Other operating costs 5. Potential savings due to sharing of existing facilities 6. Potential savings from Countywide utilization of one new elementary school instead of the two that have been proposed by the School Systems D. Recommendations -2- 043 V. FUNDING A. Who funds what and at what level currently 1. Federal 2. State 3. County Appropriation 4. District Tax 5. Other B. Alternative funding responsibility referenced by the Education Policy Council as may be considered in the 1985 Session of the General Assembly C. Funding impact under the three alternative organizational structures D. Findings E. Recommendations VI.- GOVERNANCE A. School board organization, method of constituting and continuing the organization, the length of the members terms of office, the dates of induction into office, the procedure for filling vacancies, and the compensation paid members of the board for expenses incurred in the performance of theirduties B. Advisory boards and other means for effective community representation C. Findings D. Recommendations • • -3- AsnasslassRASESSIP .,: _._.. .-- ..: .- %tom.4 -.a. 't. -'`+�. �ir�'+ac�' '^ + i•i, am m_ �- ... � . �.l �- � • � 'U 4 �f : -- _ .... ...M. _psi \': 1 r "` 0rt.% CA 1.92 AC 2"$AC. ',4219.•Gt. �} 01 I6 a zr AC_ 17.5 AC. C>4092. 5 AC_ 6806 12 i CLARENCE WAYNE DOBY 13.76 AC. I (Greenhouse) ■ Applicant: Clarence. Wayne Roby 11 4 Zoning : .R-a1 Requested: EC- 5 X03 ac. WP Designation: Commercial! Industrial . Transition s l Scale: 1" : 400' 0270- I4 � �� . I 3.8 AC: N I 3A 3 t93?'--r 3.80 AC. ..__ _ .�—— --- - . — 28.85 AC. :6s ti y 3 1819 •s2-a � i J 3.83 W• to .fir" 1 7.1391" 194 AC EO .62 _C r ,� 41 270"..-.4 .. • 16 8AC. }' 3 AC. 2é31 45701 : ' 7A 1.58AC0- I! 1359 ....2,,' ( 17 ' ss4 y c' ' C L2 C r43 ?T , 16 loo 19.95 AC. 0 t ----...-:/j0 7:‘.... / . 1i 0 - I w I I FOR TAX PURPOSES ONLY PEAT Pte" . FRANCIS VAUGHN -tG ' - NOT TO SE USED FOR CONVEYANCE JESSIE L. MILLER 1 38-22 PREPARED 9Y I ■ • AMERICAN AIR SURVEYS, INC. I ' 4(17 CCw c u ni. I ORANGE'COUN 044 . . .. - - BOARD. OF COMMISSIONERS . ACTION AGENDA . . ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT - ITEM. 1.10..r. 9- . • MEETING DATE April 1, 1985 . . - - . . . . •-• - - • SUBJECT: Budget and Project Ordinance Amendment .. _ '• . . - - . .• DEPARTMENT: Finance. , -' - I : PUBLIC HEARING: _ • YES x HO .. . . . . . . - • . _ . ATTACHMENT(S) : Proposed Budget and Proje INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Clayton. d Orinance Amendments - - --: " PHONE NUMBERS.: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 . - • : HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 . . - . • - . CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 . . . . . . . • • . MEBANE - 227-2031 - . . • - ' DURHAM - 688-.7331 . . . . , • . . . . . . . • . -. . . . - . . PURPOSE: Consideration of proposed budget and project ordinance amendmentS. • . . . - , : . . . • . - . -. • ' . - . . .. . . . • . . • - . - - . . . . '' ' .- • - . . . . . - • ..• - . . . . . . . . • . . . - • . NEED: . . GENFAAL.FUND .. . To budget for grant from the NC Council on the Status- bfWomen to be received _ . by the Orange County Commission for women. . - . ' . . , HOUSING AUTHORITY . . • • - - - . To budget for the Section 8 - Existing and the Section -8 .- Moderate Rehabilitation Housing Assistance Programs for the calendar year for 1985. - . . . . . . . .- . . • • - • . . . - ' . _ , . . ' . . . -. . • . . . . . . • . . - . IMPACT: - - GENERAL FUND . • - This amendment will increase funds available to the Orange County Commission for - : Women for funding of a one day symposium.for Orange County residents that are interested in the "home based business concept." - HOUSING AUTHORITY • - . . . . _ This amendment will budget for Federal Housing Authority funds for rental and utility assistance for Orange County residents. nECO:.::::ErDATIM(S) : Approve i:,oLton Lo amend 1984-85 buOvt ordinance and project . ordinance by proposed budget-amendments. • - , 045 ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1984-85 BUDGET AMENDMENT Tho 1984-85 Budget Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on June 28, 1985, and suh:.e.quently amended,, is hereby amended as follows: Before After Amendment Amendment Amendment AtTropriation: Commission for Women 24,181 $500 24,681 SQurce: Commission for Women Grant 0 500 500 To budget for grant from the NC Council on the Status of Women to be received by the 01-ange County Commission for Women. Ap;roved this day of , 1985. • 046 • ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED HOUSING AUTHORITY • AMENDMENT • The 1980-81 Project Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on December 1, 1980, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows: Before After Amendment Amendment Amendment • Appropriation: Housing Authority - Existing - Rental and Utility Payments 0 $1,155,192 $1,155,192 Housing Authority - Mod Rehab - Rental and Utility Payments 0 350,016 350,016 Source: Housing Authority - Section 8 - Existing 144,514 1,155,192 1,299,706 Housing Authority - Section 8 - • Mod Rehab 38,092 .350,016 388,108 To budget for Federal Housing Authority Funds available to Orange County. Approved this day of , 1985 •