Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-03-1985 ORANGE COUNT 1 BOAM or CCnM tSSImm SAY, SaFnP 'I2 3, 1985 CCMISSICNERS ROQK HILTSBOROUGH, N.C. 7:30 P.M. A. BOW CCMNENTS B. AUDIENCE CUDOWS 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda 2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda C. M'II=W D. APPOINrMFNPS E. AWAITS I. Presentation—Certificate of Conformance in Financial Reporting 2. Recognition of Ron Hyatt as Outstanding Recreation Board Member of 1985 F. PRACLAMA'1ION AM REPC�7" I. Litter Clem -Up Week G. REE( M 1. Commission for Women Annual Report,1984-85 PAGE # H. FOR Dk7CISICN--cONSEATr A motion to approve various ordinances and nations (any item may be removed for separate consideration) 020 1. Efland Sewer Operating Budget 023 2. Purchase of Electronic Voting Machines' 030 3. State Grant for Child Protective Service Position 035 4. JCKICA Vehicle Lease Agreement Renewal 037 5. Solid Waste Container Bids 042 6. Indirect Cost Plan Contract Renewal 046 7. Data Processing Agreement with Carrboro I. I'Z'HKS Fa[t DHCISION---flTBER, 049 1. Property Of Alma C. Wagoner—Preliminary 054 2. Britton Woods II—Preliminary, 061 3. PrI]e tad) C. Bunn Pope, Jr.Preliminary (Hurdle (OVER) rr i nrr Y PAGE # 065 4. RoOP)tty of C. Bunn Pope, Jr.Preliminary (Rawkins 070 5. Appeal--iPedgewood a bdivision 091 6. Pineview Road/Pineview Drive PPP Assessment Roll 102 7. Proposed abdavfsion ftml.ations Amendments (Partial Width Rights-of-Way) 108 8. Corrections to Minutes Related to Zoning Ordinance Amendment 117 9. Zoning Ordinance Violation Policy 125 10. Infrastructure survey J. DIVE SESSION--PAL M&TTER K. ADJOQi2ArlF:U ORANGE cO= ooi EaARD OF. CcxA- xsslo, S Action Agenda ACTTIQ T AGE lI1k mm ASST12-A= Item ho.� MEE'MOG. QATE September 3, 1985 Subject: 1caWM Department: BQARD OF C0HNJ=0E= I'ub].i c Rearing: Yes R na Attactmtent(s): M4fbrmatiran. Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Mi'A$ATE Cov1$t pi-,cue Nre 732-8181, 968--4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: Tb correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: Nay 21, 1985 - Regular Meeting Nay 24, 1985 -- Special Meeting May 29, 1985 - Budget Meeting HST: �Pxaval so the mim tes s may be entered into the official minute book in the Clerk' cx=ce. M008: As the Board decides. CXW-Im couvzrf 002 BOAM C,-.-' CWUSSIOLNIERS Action Agenda AMCN Z Item ob C,&.\U 1.3 ='G DAM Sept 3, I985 Subject: APPOINTKWM IDeparbTent.- BOARD OF C ONUMOMS Attacbment(s): Information COntaCt: Beverly A. Blythe UZ= EZPARATH COVER Phone Number: 732-8M. 968-4501, 22T-O231 Th-maintain membership at effective levels an Cemmssioners' appointed Boards. The following vacancies are announced for the first time for information only: A-12 -FRIVATH IMXUM COUNCIL - 3 vacancies due to 2 expiration of terms (Dr. Dan Lunsford and Mildred Council) and 1 resignation (Michael Robb). NEED: A-13 - FILWMON AND PPMS ADVISORY COUSCIL - 2 vacancies due to expiration of terms TK-a-nilffurow and Doris Murrell-T.- 13-4 - COUNTY SENIOR CMZWS BOARD - 1 vacancy (resignation of Anders S. Lunde. ) 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. A-4 - COHNIMION FOR WOMM - .1 vacancy; no recommendation has been received. A-13 - FJKMFATION AND PARM ADVISORY CO I= - 2 vacancies; no resumes have been received. B-10 - RURSING BOW COHNUffM ADVISOU CONNITTW - one vacancy - must be a nomination from a Nursing Rome. B-11, - SQUID VASTE TASK FORCE - one additional resume has been received. B-15 - SCHOOL XWER STaDY CONKESSION - no additional resumes have been received. C-3 - CRAM EM BOW OF ADJUSTMENT - 1 vacancy for an alternate; no additional resumes have been received. Must live in the extraterritorial area. C--8 - ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - 1 vacancy. No new resumes have been received To maintain i00% membership an Commissioners' appointed Boards and Camptissions. REGOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. CHANGE COUNTY 003 BOW CF CaOff CKM Action Agenda C.`P ACTION AGSM rM AB HtA Item No. El Meeting Date: SMWIM 3, 1985 SU&7H(.fi: PRES ICATE OF CONFOSMAWE IN FINANCIAL RE'!'ING DBpA Nl': Obi MAHk=R F MPM G: Yes X No ATrLWA*Mff CS): INL CIKMC N CONZ WT: MANAMI S OFFICE, X501 PLAQUE (TO BE PRESE MED) CERTIFICATE MTJWEKZZ NUMER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 PURPOSE: To present to Orange County the Certificate of Conformance in Financial Reporting and the Award of Financial Reporting Achievement. The Certificate of Conformance Program is a program of education and recognition of excellence in govenmental financial report- ing. It was begun by the Municipal Finance Officers Association in 1945 to emphasize the importance of the need for every governmental unit to prepare and publish an easily readable and understandable Canprehensive Aruuml Financial Report. The Certificate of Conformance is generally acknowledged as the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental account- ing and financial reporting and its attairn=nt represents a significant accoanplishment by an entity and its manageAent. The benefits of obtaining the Certificate are: I. Comparability: Reports qualifying for Certificates employ standardized terminology and formatting conventions, and facilitate comparisons from one year to the next and among different entities. 2. 1 Completeness: The financial statements, supporting schedules, statistical tables, and narrative explanations required for a Certificate help to assure that all fiscal data are presented that are needed by the many persons and groups having interest in the financial affairs of Orange County. 3. Clarity: The report is to be free of ambiguities and misleading inferences. 4. Bond Marketing Aid: Reports qualifying for a Certificate Of Conformance provide a detailed vehicle by which market analysts, investors, potential investors and others may assess the relative attractiveness of a government's securities compared to alternative investment possibilities When a Certificate of Conformance is awarded to a government, an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement is also presented to the individual designated by the goverimwat as primarily respon- sible for its having earned the Certificate. This amrd is Presented to former Finance Director, Wallace Harding, and the Finance Department staff. ORANGE COUNTY BOAM OF COMMISSIONERS M 004 ACTI-ION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT. ITEM No. 9:**1 MEETING DATE September 3, 1985 SUBJECT: Recognition of Recreation & Parks Advisory Council Member Award Recipient, Dr. Ronald W. Hyatt j---VEPARn=-. Recreation & Parks PUBLIC HEARING: ---XES X- No ATTACHMM(S): yes INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Anne Black PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL- - 967•9251 MEBANE - 227• 2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 L PURPOSZ: For the Board to recognize Dr. Ronald Hyatt, Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council member, as the recipient of the 1985 OUTSTANDING INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN-BOARD MEMBER AWARD, presented by the Citizen-Board Member Division of the North Carolina Recreation and Park Society. NEED: IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION(S) QQ 5 ORANGE COUNTY RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT 1985 OUTSTANDING INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN BOARD MEMBER AWARD Dr. Ronald W. Hyatt, Recipient Dr. Ronald Hyatt was presented the 1985 Outstanding Individual Award for 1985 by the Citizen-Boa=d Member Division of the North Carolina Recreation and Park Society at its annual meeting in Greensboro, on.August 16, 1985. I Hyatt, a 9 year member of the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council was recognized for: "outstanding contribution, dedication, and leadership in the promotion of recreation and parks for the people in Orange County and the state of North Carolina". In receiving the award, Dr. Hyatt noted the accomplishments of the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council, the excellent support of the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, and the outstanding leadership of Mr. Wayne Weston, past, and Miss Mary Anne Black, present Director of the Orange County Recreation and Parks Department. Mr. Hyatt thanked the North Carolina Recreation and Park Society for their support and pledged to continue to serve the people of Orange County and North Carolina through the medium of recreation, leisure, and parks. 006 BMED OF T_ _ Action Agenda ACTION AGENM ITEM ABSTRAL•r item No. F-1 ._ Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 3, 1985 SLE O RCT: CLW UP 1a7rEtt TIER DEPA r: COUM MA,Nkm PtE UC Ate:- _ffes x No ATTI CHMENT(S): IN TIDr1 C3 ERM: MAID'S CFFICB, X501 PFZCLMVMCIN Hillsborough - 732-,8181 SCHFD= Chapel HM - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 6BB-7331 P RPM: 93i proclaim September 15-21, 1985 as Clean Up Litter Week in Change County and receive report on intended activities from Mary Anne Black, coordinator for the event. Ate: The Governor and the Department of Transportation have earmarked Sept: aber 15-21 to focus on cleaning state roads. As in previous years, the County will coordinate litter clean up efforts with the local DOT office. The Recreation and Parks Director will serve a project coordinator for the County. IMPACT: RHC'G9 �7ZC�i(S): P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS, THE North Carolina Department of Transportation has designated. September 15-21 "Clean Up Litter Week" on North Carolina highway; and WHEREAS, THE orange County Board of Commissioners recognizes the benefits derived to the County when the highways and streets in the County are litter free; and WHEREAS, THE Board of Commissioners recognizes the negative impact on visitors ar4 citizens when litter is permitted to accumulate; and WHEREAS, THE Board of Commissioners wishes to encourage and endorse the concept of "Clean Up Litter Week;" NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIM MT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOAM OF COMKISSIONERS DOES HMREBY DESIGNATE SEPTEMBER 15-21 CLEAN UP LITTER WEEK IN ORANGE COUNTY. BE IT FURTHER PROCIADW that the Board of Commissioners encourages all citizens of Orange County to parti- cipate in Clean Up Litter activities in their neighborhoods. TEES, the ............................. day of September, 1985. Don kilholt, Nair Orange County Board of Commissioners ORANGE COUNTY 008 CLEAN-UP LITTER CAMPAIGN SEPTEMBER 15-21, 1985 Campaign Proposal 1. Media Blitz to inform the general- public. .2. Letter/memo from the County Manager to local civic, church, youth, eta. organizations requesting their participation in the clean-up campaign. 3. Memo from County Manager to Department Heads encouraging employee participation in the clean-up campaign. 4. Encourage general public to concentrate efforts in front of their houses. Trash then to be deposited at nearest green box dumpster. (All dumpster locations specified). (Tentative) 5. Establish recycling centers for litter week at several county-wide locations — i.e. Efland, Cedar Grove, Hillsborough, Chapel Hill, Carrboro. 009 ORANGE COUNTY CLEAN-UP LITTER CAMPAIGN SEPTEMBER 15-21, 1985 Planning Schedule August 27 Clean-up Litter Campaign discussed with Dr. Dan Lunsford, Superintendent, Orange County Schools. August 30 Dr. Lunsford will discuss Clean-up Litter Campaign with school principals and encourage their participation. August 30 First news release sent to local newspapers. September 3 Letter/memo requesting citizen participation in clean-up campaign from County Manager to: civic clubs/organizations churches youth/scout groups Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce Hillsborough Tree Board Entranceway Beautification Task Force of Hillsborough Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council September 3 Memo from County Manager to Department Heads requesting/ encouraging employee participation in clean-up campaign. September 6 Clean-up Litter Campaign photo taken of County Manager, (Tentative date) DOT representative, and other County officials "kicking off" campaign. September 9 Follow-up news release sent to News of Orange. September 9 Trash bags picked up from DOT and deposited at distribution sites. September 9-13 Free trash bags available to general public Monday through Friday at the following locations: - DOT Maintenance Yard Office 8:00 am - 4:30 pm Central Recreation Center 8:00 am - 7:30 pm Northern Recreation Center 3:00 pm - 5:00 pm September 13 Free trash bags delivered by County Recreation and Parks Department to schools per requests. September 15 Designated litter clean-up day at the following parks maintained by the Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Department: Umstead Park Hargraves Park Community Center Park Cedar Falls Park 010 September 15 Designated litter clean-up day at the following parks maintained by the Carrboro Recreation and Parks Department: Wilson Park Carrboro Community Park Baldwin Park September 16-20 DOT collects trash at designated sites from participating schools. September 16 Public Works grounds crew to clean around all County offices. September 16 County employees encouraged to clean county ]building grounds. BOARD OF CORM ISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO.A MEETING DATE —September 3, 1985 Oil SUBJECT: Commission for Women Annual Report 1984-85 DEPARIVENT: Commission -for Women PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO ATTAcHmENr(s): INFORMATION CONTACT: Verla C. Insko Annual Report PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 6884331 PURPOSE: The Chair of the Commission will be present to answer questions on the 1984-85 Annual Report (atta6hed) and the Job Training Partnership Act Report iihi-ch'has been'sent to Board Members-under separate mailing. NEED: IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION(S).- 012 ORANGE COUNTY TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners FROM: Gail McClain Hayes, Chair Orange County Commission for Women SUBJECT: Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1984-85 DATE: June 30, 1985 The Orange County Commission for Women submits its annual report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1985. The Commission continues to affirm its role as an advocate for women through research, resolutions, and position statements to the Orange County Board of Commissioners and other governing boards. Information-referral activities are also a high priority as can be seen through expanded client contact and the coordinator's leadership role to produce a computer based information system for Orange County. The function of .the Commission as a coordinating agency for women is continually enhanced through (1) careful review of programs and resultant recommendations to the Board of Commissioners on budget support for outside - agencies serving the special needs of women, (2) expanded use of the Commission office by outside agencies, and '(3) growing use of the Commission as a resource center on women's issues. The Commission appreciates the longstanding support of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, and pledges renewed efforts to improve the status of women in Orange County. Respectfully submitted, Gail McClain Hayes, Chair Orange Co. Commission for Amen Orange County Commission for Women - 131 Court Street - Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough: 732-8181 • Chapel Hill: 967-9251 Mebane: 227-2031 * 'Durham: 688-7331 ORANGE 013 COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR WOMEN ANNUAL REPORT June 30, 1985 I. INTRODUCTION After nine years as an agency of Orange County government, the role of the Commission for Women as an advocate for women in need is firmly estab- lished. Improved employment for women remains as the motivating cause behind Commission projects. Major 1984-85 projects were (1) a comprehensive review of the Job Training Partnership Act and its impact on Orange County women, (2) com- pletion of data collection for the county-wide computer based information- referral system, (3) research and policy analysis of sexual harassment in the workplace, and (4) a survey of 80 public and private sector employers on employee fringe benefits. A review of Orange County's affirmative action plan was cancelled due to the relocation and resignation of the chair of this committee. Internal activities included (1) an in-depth half day orientation for new members, (2) expanded coordination with other agencies on a wide range of human.service projects, (3) increased client contact through office drop-in and phone referrals, (4) bi-monthly programs to increase members' knowledge on specific issues, (5) recruitment and training of an intern from the UNC Women's Studies Program, and (6) extensive contact with the legislature on bill affecting women. Once again, through the efforts of one Commission member, the Piedmont Technical Institute-sponsored GED class successfully continued. Finally, the Commission applied for and was awarded a mini-qra.-t to hold ,a Fall, 1985 half day workshop on how to start your own business. A planning retreat in January and recruitment of new members to implement the fall work- shop and other adopted goals rounded out a busy year. Orange County Commission for Women - 131 Court Street - Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough: 732-8181 - Chapel Hill: 967-9251 - Mebane: 227-2031 - Durham: 688-7331 014 COMMISSION FOR WOMEN ANNUAL REPORT, 1984-85 Page 2. II. OPERATIONS Office. Administrative Secretary Rita Berman left her Commission post in December 1984 to become Communications Specialists with the Federal-Credit Union in the Research Triangle Park. The vacancy was filled in February, 1985 by Carolyn Lupo of Cary. Ms. Lupo brings strong administrative and organi- zational skills to this position. More importantly, she is an ardent feminist with a clear vision of what the Commission should be doing as an advocate for women. Maldy Hodge has been with the Commission as Clerk/Receptionist since March, 1984 under the auspices of the National Caucus and Center on Black Aged program through the Orange County Department on Aging. This year she has assumed greater and greater responsibility for record keeping, purchasing, filing and mailings to Commission members. During the Spring semester, Laura Yost served as an intern with the Commission through the UNC Women's Studies Program. Ms. Yost provided technical assistance to collect and analyze data for review of the Job Training Partner- ship Act. Membership/Orientation. The Commission began the year with 15 members representing six of the seven Orange County townships. Only .Cheeks township was not represented. A half day orientation planned by Rita Berman and Dana Baldwin was held in September. New Commission members were briefed about the role of a Commission member and the power inherent in such an appointive position. During the year. relocation or work conflict resulted in the resignation of Judy McNeil (October, 1984), Edith Hubbard (December, 1984), Bettye Clark (April, 1985) and Elaine Parker (April, 1985). Alethea Burt resigned in March, 1985 due to serious health problems. Evelyn Poole-Kober of Hillsborough township resigned in November, 1984. During the 1983-84 reorganization, the Executive Committee was assigned to handle membership with second vice-Chair Dana Baldwin chairing the Committee. As a result the recruitment and interview process has been greatly improved. ' The membership has recommended filling vacancies and orienting new members immediately instead of filling vacancies and expiring terms at the same time. The Commission begins the 1985-86 year with 14 members representing five townships, with Cheeks and Cedar Grove townships unrepresented. Of the 14 new members, 5 are black and 9 are white; all are employed;-and they range in age from 35 to 62. Occupations upations and interest represented include family therapist; editor; peer counselor; employment counselor; accountant; psychotherapist; church, school, community volunteers; precinct chair; etc. 015 COMMISSION FOR WOMEN ANNUAL REPORT, 1984-85 Page 3 Programs. Judy McNeil served as 1st vice-Chair and Program Chair until October, 1984. Judy Eastman assumed these responsibilities in February 1985. An installation of new members and officers was held in July at Alexander's Restaurant in Durham. Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Commissioners, Performed the swearing-in ceremony. . , The October 1984 and January 1985 meetings included speakers from the central Piedmont Employment and Training Office and the Employment Security Commission. They discussed the Job Training Partnership Act. Florrie Glasser spoke at the March, 1985 meeting on flexible fringe benefits. This program informed members about the research of the Commission's Employment Task Force, chaired by Lani Cartier. Connie Renz and Fred Stang spoke on behalf of the Orange/Durham Coalition for Battered Women in April. The Commission adopted a resolution to the legislature endorsing expanded funds for domestic violence programs. In May, the JTPA Committee, co-chaired by Claudine Harris and Alice Holt, presented an interim report. Laura Yost reviewed population program data.and responded to questions from Commission members. Sylvia Price, Director of the Orange County Economic Development Commission, spoke in June. She discussed how increased business expansion can improve em- ployment opportunities for women and the role the Commission might play in supporting appropriate business development. III. ACTIVITIES i Em loyment Task Force. Commission member Evelyn Poole-Kober and private sector representative Audrey Evarts chaired this committee until N'Ovember, 1984 when Ms. Kober resigned from the Commission. Lani Cartier, who was appointed to take her place, provided able leadership as the Co-Chair representing the Commission. Judy Eastman.was appointed to the Committee in August. The Task Force produced and distributed a survey on fringe benefits to about 120 Orange County employers. More than 90 responses were received and entered in the County's computer for tabulation. The Employee Benefit Research Institute of Washington, 0. C., was contacted for nationwide research results and publications on fringe benefits. From the Women's Bureau of the U. S. Department of Labor, a commercial video tape was borrowed and, through the generosity of the Village Companies, reproduced for the Commission's library. Catawba County, identified as having a flexible fringe benefit package for all County government employees, sent a detailed description of• its plan. In addition, several identified private sector employers were contacted for information regarding flexible fringe benefits. 016 COMMISSION FOR WOMEN ANNUAL REPORT, 1984-85 Page 4 The Task Force ends the year having decided to send its recommenda- tions to government units urging them to be model employers by adopting a flexible benefit approach. Pursuant to this decision, a letter was sent to our legislative delegation endorsing Senator Lura Tally's bill to create a commission to study flexible benefits for state employees. The Task Force will draft its report in July and be ready to report to the Commission and the County Commissioners by September. Job Training Partnership. Claudine Harris and Alice Holt served as co-chairs of the study committee to review JTPA services to Orange County. Serving on the committee were Dana Baldwin, Ann McPherson, Elaine Parker and Bettye Clark. The Committee educated itself on JTPA through several means. -JTPA staff were invited to speak at two regular Commission meetings, documents such as the local consortium agreement and articles reviewing the law were studied, meetings of the Py"ivate Industry Council were attended, and training sites were visited. In addition, staff and PIC members were interviewed. Laura Yost, a UNC intern with the Women's Studies Program, collected and assisted to analyze census and program data. She presented an interim report to the Commission in May, 1985. Commission coordinator Verla Insko directed the project, supervised the data analysis, and drafted the final report which was adopted by the Commission at its June, 1985 meeting. The study showed women are being underserved in several ways. Women continue to be trained and placed in low paying traditional positions. Women were underrepresented in on-the-job training- and direct placement position courses. A formal presentation will be made to the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Pr'ivate Industry Council in August. (See files for copy of report.) Sexual Harassment Policy. In late fall, the Commission became aware of concerns shared by several women in the Chapel Hill Police Department about on the job sexual harassment. An ad hoc committee was formed to collect information on model personnel policies relating to sexual harass- ment. In January,; the Committee drafted a resolution to the Chapel, Hill Town Council requesting a review of the town's policy and of the practices in the police department. Verla Insko and Dana Baldwin met with Pat Crotts, Personnel Director for the town of Chapel Hill. They also conferred with town attorney Granger Barrett and Orange County attorney Geoff Gledhill. Several outcomes resulted from the project as follows: (1) Chapel Hill revised its policy on sexual harassment and included information supplied by the Commission; (2) Orange County's policy on sexual harassment .was reviewed and commented on; (3) letters were sent to other municipalities requesting information on their sexual harassment policies (the town of Hillsborough responded seeking assistance and information); and (4) a sexual harassment prevention workshop was included in the 1985-86 budget request. COMMISSION FOR WOMEN ANNUAL REPORT, 1984-85 Page 5 017 IV. INFORMATION/REFERRAL. Direct Service. Direct service the clients seeking assistance has increased to the maximum possible with existing staff and current office hours. As of June 30 the following client contacts were made during the fiscal year: Child Care . .......... ... .....77 Child Custody/Support....... .... ... 7 Divorce...... ... .. . .... . . .... .....20 Discrimination... . ...... ... . .. . .. .. I Domestic Violence. ...... . ...... . ...12 Economic/Employment.... ..... .. ... ..69 Education... . . ... .. .... ... .. ... .. ..32 Health........ .......... ......... . . 6 Housing. 3 Information. ... ..... . . ..94 Legal Rights/Legislative. . .. . ..... . 9 Other.. ...... ......... ... . . . . .. .. ..86 Total 416 Computer,Based I/F Directory. Significant progress was made on the computerized information collection system during the year. Based on plans made in 1983-84, the Commission designed and mailed infor- mation collection forms to more than 250 agencies. Carolyn Lupo and Maldy Hodge received and edited the forms. Ms. Hodge maintained records and coordinated with Inter Faith Council volunteers to contact agencies not responding. Ms. Lupo developed an extensive topical index in addition to editing entries. The I/R steering committee was expanded to include representatives from the University and both school systems. The HSAC I/R Committee reviewed the project and commented on possible changes. As of June 30, all received entries had been edited and sent to Orange County Library for data entry. The first complete card file and directory should be published in July or Aug. Coordinating with Other_a22ncies. The Commission regularly coordinates with all other Orange County human services department, six legal Private non-profit community agencies, the North Carolina Council on the Status of Women and other community organizations dealing with women. Rita Berman and Verla Insko attended meetings of the Association of Community Agencies. Ms. Insko attended meetings of the Human Services Advisory Commission and served as chair of its Information Referral Committee. She continues as a member of the Orange County Women's Center advisory board and served this year as chair of the Women's Center Nominating Committee. In January, Ms. Insko was named a Division Advisory Group (DAG) member for the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. In March the Commission nominated Verla Insko as Women of the Year for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Council of Women's Organizations. She was selected to receive the award at the annual April luncheon. 018 COMMMSION FOR WOMEN ANNUAL REPORT, 1984-85 Page 6 In February, the Commission nominated Betty Compton for a Distinguished Women of North Carolina Award. Ms. Compton is an Orange County nurse practitioner who has pioneered medical care improvement for rural N. C. communities through nurse practioner services. Rita Berman worked throughout the fall with the Orange Congregations in Mission-to to develop a financial counseling program for displaced Cone Mill workers. This staff ad hoc project is only one example of the Commission's response to community problems. * During the budget process, the Executive Committee reviewed budget request from Child Care Network, Rape Crisis, Women's Health Counseling Service, the Coalition for Battered Women, the Women's Center and Planned Parenthood of Orange County. Recommendations were made to the Orange County Board of Commissioners regarding the level of funding these agencies should receive from Orange County. The Commission's recommendations had an obvious impact on funding decisions. V. OTHER ACTIVITIES Legislation. Legislative Liaison for the Commission, Carolyn Lupo, re- searched spouse abuse and domestic violence legislation, and drafted appropriate resolutions and letters on behalf of the Commission. She also followed legislation to set up a study Commission for pay equity and flex- ible fringe benefits for state personnel. Letters were also sent to our legislative• delegation on these matters. In addition, Ms. Lupo attended a lobbying session sponsored by the Governor's Task Force on Domestic Violence and visited Orange County legislators. Copies of correspondence and resolutions were shared with other Councils across the state and with the North Carolina Council on the Status of Women. 1985-86 Mini Grant. The Commission applied for and was awarded a mini-grant in the amount of $500.00 to hold a half day workshop on how to start your own business. The workshop must be held in Hillsborough before December,1985. Preliminary planning is underway, a%tentative date of September 21 has been established. Harriet Berry Road Project. In May, 1985 the Commission was contacted by Region--al—Coordinator Kathy Harrelson with information on a Hillsborough native, Harriet Berry, who was a leader of the "good roads" movement in the 1920's. The North Carolina Council on the Status of Women through Ms. Harrelson, requested the Commission to pursue having an Orange County road named in honor of Ms. Berry. The Executive Committee endorsed the project to be completed in 1985-86. Budget Expansion Request. The Commission requested expansion of staff support for the 1985-U6—budget year. Commission members were active in this effort to obtain adequate support from the Board of Commissioners for the approved projects. COMMISSION FOR .WOMEN ANNUAL REPORT, 1984-85 Page 7 0 19 Final Note: As in previous years, Kathy Harrelson, Regional Coordinator for the North Carolina Council on the Status of Women, provided helpful and timely assistance to the Commission. Her support and wise counsel are greatly appreciated_ The 1985-86 annual report fo the Orange County Commission for Women was prepared by Coordinator Verla Insko and reviewed and approved by the mem- bership as follows: Dana Baldwin Lani Cartier Judy Eastman Claudine Harris Alice Holt Gail McClain Hayes Ann McPherson Ruth Royster Judith Wegner VCl/cel _ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CO,',,M ISS TONED S 020- ACTION AGENDA ACT I ON AGENDA ITEM ABSTRI:�.CT ITEM NO. 14EETJNG DATE —September 3, 1.985 SUBJFCT: Efland Sewer Operating Budget DEPARTMENT: County Manager APING: YES x 1-10 ATTACHNENT(S) : Operating Budget INI-ORMATIO.N CONTACT: Manager' s -office ext. 501 PHONE NUIMIKERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider adopting the proposed oVeratiug budget and authorize the Chairman -to sign. NEED: This budget and fund analysis, developed by Farmers Home in September, 1984, has been updated to reflect the- time tabld that will apply. Approval does not commit the county to the' eXact. figures cited as some of the factors within the projec-tion­(e. g.' treatment cost, billing) will be dependent on the final number of customers served and volume of sewer usage per Although the depreciation is listed as an operating expense the previously-. agreed upon rate structure does. not' cover the IMPACT: Adoption of the budget is required by Farmers Home at this time. RE CO1M,%U1--NDA`T ION(S) Adopt the Efland Sewer Operating Budget and authorize the chairman to sign Form 442-7. l.'S(7A.-F,nHA._ ...... ---,._ _`•-Posirco• 3 .. .._:---- -- . . .,.. .. ..._.-.,...�.._..._.__._._.-_. .... 0 ni FmHA 442-7 - , Schedule t Ftev.8-]2-70) 0 1 oPExA�zrrc: . t�DCirx -dins;" Address .-Orange County 106 East Margaret Lanes Hillsborough Applicant Fiscal Year County - State(Including ZIPCode) From Jul 1 To June 30 Orange North Carolina 27278 lij 8 6 ! 8z F'i st Full Ycir - )PERATING INCCME (1} (2) (3)' (4) (5} 1. Sewer Revenue 0 32,500 55,714 55714 3• 6. Less: Allowances sad L Deductions ( } ( _ 3(• } }( . ' - 7. Total Qpesatingg lacome _ (Add Lines I through•6) 0. 32,500 5 5,7 L4 55714 OPERATING EXPENSES $.Treatment--Contracted O 9856 16$90~ ".16890- . 9.Billine 'OAWS O. 371 636 636 ... 141airitenance-Reyair • 0 7000 . 12000 - -- -� •).?:000 ii.Audic . O 1000 •1000• 1060 12.Electricitz,,•_ b 3500 6000 6000 Vr - 13:Misc o " Z458 250o 2500 14.I•ntetest-BRN 0 10000 - 15. Interest(FmHA)' 7000 1 S 0 15500 16. Depreciation 14,581 25000 r - 17. 'Total Operating Expense 25000 X (Add Lines 8 t�irough 16) 0 54,766 7952 6 5 18• NET OPERATING G 17)OME 0 (22,266) (23,812) NONOPERATING INCOME 19. Transfer from 23-,812 Generai Funa 20. 21. Total Nonoperating Income (Add 19 and 20) 23,812 22. NET INCOME(LOSS) ` (Add Lines 18 and 21) (transfer to line A Schedule , O (2 2 2 6 6) (23.8.12) 1 —0- ?t Budget and Projected Cash Flow Approved by Governing Body Attest: - - - Sccreter�• Dale Appropriate Official Date PROJECTED CASH FLOW •schedule 1986 198-7 1988 First 8 19'..-_.,_.,. Full Yca 0 (22'266 (23,8121 _0_ A. Una 22(coin Schedule 1 Income(Iou) •----- IL hems in riots not Reguisin�Cash: ` 1 . .,�QRL6 Schad 1 •14,5 81 2 5000 - -- 2500 • p macaw {lies ) 2-'Outer:; .•...�..-.-._... -----r ^�. C� Cash Pro4ded From- 2.Proceeds from F:aIIA loan/grant - 798,300 �. 2. Proceeds frogs others BAN .r a: r. ' 2� �__.... - ....:,�._ 3. inerasa(Decrease)izi Accounts Payable.Accruals anti other Current Liabilities, 4.Decease(Increase)in A10;6 its Reoeimble,Itivenrorla ..- and Other C'urseni Assets C&S ude Cash. 5. Other:CUB Y 0000 � 0 0 . ---- .� 6. ' ° Count Contribution _ '.' 186000 486000 860 615 1188 25' 000 • D. ,Total al!A,Band C Items'� - '. _ ..�_ ..:._....__,,, E- Less: 'Cash Expended-fors - k.All Construction,Equipment and New Capital Items = (loan and Grant funds) 4... 7600 03 2.-Fteplaaenaent and Additions to Existing Property, Plant and Equipment - 3. Madpal Payment FmHA Loata ,,..-_.._.® ...._.,e..-.r .�....._..,, _,.. 96 . 4. Principal Payment Other Loans 5. Other: }IAN 200000 6.Total E 1 through 5 476000 86 6.300 � 96 Add F. Beginning Cash Balances' — 10000 4 ` G. Ending Cash Balances(Total of D Minus E 6 Plus F) s 10000. s -4315 g 5 5 Q 3 S $24 0 3 Item G Cx:!•i Balances Composed of: . Construction Account 1 20000 3 R L— S ' RevenueAccoun; ,,� _.� Debt Payment Account 4 315 _ 5.5 0 "' :'""�,0 3 O&M Account „ Reserve Account ,, Funded Mpreciadua Account Others: Total - Agrees with Item G 3 100bo 1.431-5 5 5 5 0 3 S 5 2 4,0 3 f 1 ORANGE COUNTY HILISBOROUGH Offk- NORTH CAROLINA csEavte�ied 77j2 September 4, 1983 Mr. Thurman Murphy, Jr. District Loan Specialist Farmers Home Administration 630-A South Garnett Street Henderson, North Carolina 27536 Dear Thurman: Enclosed is a copy of the Operating Budget (Form FmHA 442-7) for the Efland Sewer Project. This budget was approved by the Board of Commissioners at their meeting last night. Also enclosed is a -copy of the Projected Cash Flow schedule. Should you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Kenneth X. Thompson County Manager 'bran FMHA 442-7 RCV.8•I2-76) OPERATING: BUDGET J Address ` Orange County 106 Bast Margaret Lane, Hillsborough Applicant Fiscal Ycar County =. Scatt(lncludl-zrnCode) C-rom J'ul L To June 30 Orange North Carolina x7278 19 8 6 I9 8 19 R 19 First Pull Year 1P:RATING INCOME (1) (2) (3) (4) F' 1. Sewer Revenue 0 32,5011 55.714 - $5716 3. .. 5. Misctliatieoua •. _: _ -. •- ,. _,. . 6. Less: Allowances acid ( ) - Deductions 7. Total Operating,Income 0, 3 ,.500 55,71.4 (Add Lines I tF+rough,6) 55714 _ OPERATING EXPENSES $.Treatment—Contracted O' -985(f 16$90• -• d$90' 9.11illine OAWS 0.:.*--'.*' 371 636 ' 636 iQlairitenance�-Repair p 7000 •12000 17OOJ _.... _ II.Audit 0 1000 •1000 1000 12.Electricity p 3500 6000 • 6000 13.Misc 0 1458 2500 .... 2 SOOM.. 14.lnterest—BATS 0 10000 15. Interest(FmHA) 0.• 7000 15 15500 16. Depreciation 3-4,581 2 5000 , 2 5000 17. Total Operatin Expense 795_6 (Add Lines 8 though 16) O 5 4,7 6 6 18. NET OPERATING INCOME - 2 6 6 (23,812). .- (LOSS)(Lint 7 less 17) 0 (2 2 ) 2 NONOPERATING INCOME 19. Transfer from 23-,812 enera un 20. 21- Total Nono crating Income (Add 19 and 20) 23 812 22. NET INCOME(LOSS) (Add Lines 18 and 21 -transfer to line A Schedule 0 0 (2 2,2 6 6 —0—2� 23 812 Budget and Projected Cash Flow Approved by Governing Body Attest: 9--3 � Sccictcq• Daly Nit Approorkae Ojfual Dare ' PROJECTED CASH FLOW 'Schedule 2 1986 1987 �:888 i�, First ---—.. Fun Yea r A. Line 22 from Schedule 1 Income(loss) 0 (2 2,2 6 6 (2 3,812 _0— Add _ 8. items in Operations nri:Re uirine Cash: -14,5 81 9_50 00 1. Depreciation(line 16 Schedule 1) _... .,� S00 2.'Others: C. Cash Provided Frown': :' , ''.. 7 9 8, 3 0 0 1. Proceeds from FmHA loan/grant 2. Proceeds from others BAN j-`$:• 'r 2. L1 rte, ,•_. 3. Increase(Decrease)in Accounts Payable,Accruals =do ther Current Liabilities 4. Deetease(Increase)in Accounts Receivable.Inventories and Other Current Assets LExelude Cash) ' . 5. Ckher:CW]I - .: •- 100000 70000 ••�•�••�• County goietrfbution 186000 486000 860,.615 1188 =• 25;00 D. Total all A,B and C Items' ..�.�._. iw Less: "Cash Ex ended for: - 1. All Construction.Equipment and New Capital Items ' (loan and Grant funds) 476000 6 6 L 10 f� _y- 2..Replacement and Additions is Existing Property, r ' Plant and Equipment 3. Prncipal Payment FmHA Loan 4. Principal Payment Other Loans ` 5. Other:__BAN d 200000 6. Total 1 through 5 476000 86-6.300 _ 96 Add F. Beginning Cash Balances 0 10000 —..A315_ G. Ending Cash Balances(Total of D Minus E 6 PIus F) S 10000 �y 4 315+ Q 3 _ S S 2 4_,_p 3 Item_ G Cash Balances Comeosed of: , Construction AccounT a..._.1S 900 3 Revenue Account Debt Payment Account 4� 5 5 _ =0 3 O&M Account Restive Account _ Funded Depreciation Account Others: Total - Agrees a ith Item G $ 4315 s 5503 g S24,03 E i S E c e CPA" COUNPY 023 BMW CF CCHMISSIaMS Action Agenda ACTION AGENOA ITEM ABSTRAM Item No. HL Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 3, 1985 SUBdF]CT: PURCHASE CAE' ELECTRIONIC VWING MACMM DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATPACHKM(S): INFOR-JA ON C70NTAM KEN CHAVICJUS X497 and/or BMW SI.RICKLAW X472 X501 'BMW NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 BID RESULTS Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331_ Pt7WOSE: Zb consider authorizing the Director of Purchasing and Central Services to issue a purchase order to Governmental Data Systems for electronic voting machines. NEW: N. C. General Statutes 143-129 requires Hoard of Commissioner's approval of any purchase of equipment in excess of $10,000.00. This statue also requires that formal bidding procedures be followed. Bids were received and opened August 14, 1985. The low, and only bid received was $10,620 from Governmental Data Systems, Inc. of Rockford, Illinois. WACT: In the 1985-86 Budget, $12,015 was allocated for the purchase of three electronic voting machines. RECataNDATION(S): Authorize the Director of Purchasing and Central Services to issue a $10,620 purchase order to Governmental Data System, Inc. for three voting machines. 02.4 BID FORM ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES OPTION 1 Cost of three (3) voting machines as specified @ $3,475.00 ea. $ 10,425.00 Delivery/installatin charges (if not included in above) freight $ 195.00 OPTION 2 TOTAL BID $ 10,620.00 Cost of three (3) voting machines as specified but @ .$3,475.00ea.$ 10,425.00 excluding elections support (section 2, services and Warranty Delivery/installation charges (if not included in above)freight $ 195-00 ' TOTAL BID $ 1 -62Q.00 The following must be attached to this form. 1) As required by North Carolina Law, a certified check, bid bond or cash deposit in the amount of 5% of OPTION 2 price,. (excluding freight) 2) Copy of warranty. 3) COPY of full service maintenance agreement. 4) Descriptive literature of machine being proposed. In compliance with the above request for bids, and subject to all conditions thereof, Gs2ye nmentgl Data Systems, Inc. , the undersigned, offers and agrees if this Rd be accepted within thirty days of opening to furnish any or all items upon which prices are quoted at the prices set opposite each item and unless otherwise specified, as soon as possible after receipt of order but no later than Dec. 31, 1985, to deliver said items to 144 E. 'Margaret Lane, Hillsborough N. C. If there are any exceptions to the specifications they are noted herein. BIDDER-Governmen Cal Data SXstems, Inc&UTHORIZED SIGNATURE 3030 Forest View Road ADDRESSRockford IL 61125-0964 NAME & TITLE Ken Wolven Secretary/Treasurer TELEPRONE # 815/397-1278 -DATE— August 9, 1985 POSITIVELY NO BIDS CONSIDERED UNLESS SUBMITTED ON THIS FORM. 025 GOVERNMENTAL DATA SYSTEMS Park 77 Office Bldg..500 Archdale Dr..Suite 249,Charlotte. NC 28210 704/527-8290 4 SY 8S August 8, 1985 Orange County Purchasing & Central. Service 300 W. Tryon Street Hillsborough NC 27278 Gentlemen: Governmental Data Systems respectfully submits the following bid for your considerations. I. EQUIPMENT - Electronic Tabulating System Amount Description Price 3 M/210 "Marktronics" Vote Tabulators 0 $3,475.00 ea. $ 10,425.00 NOTE: Prices do not include freight or taxes, if applicable. TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS A. The M/210 "Marktronics" vote tabulating system: I . Is micro-processor based. 2. Has "self calibrating" optics. 3. Has alpha-numeric, two color print out. 4. Is able to read two-sided, one color ballot with no "corner out". 5. Has single computer board layout. 6. Has retractable power-cord. B. Voters- may vote with pencil or fiber-tipped pen upon the ballot. The ballot used with this system is paper and has the candidates names and issues printed thereon, C. The "Marktronics" M/210 system provides for the voter to deposit their own ballot or ballots into the tabulator. The system counts votes as the voters deposit their ballots during the day. At the close of the polls, the precinct officials turn one (1 ) key to get immediate alpha-numeric print', outs. D. The "Marktronics" M/210 has been approved for use in the state of North Carolina by the State Board of Elections. 026 Orange County Purchasing Dept. August 8, 1985 Page Two (2) III. SERVICE AND WARRANTIES A. Governmental Data Systems will provide qualified representatives to uncrate, inspect and make adjustments to the equipment (if necessary) to insure that the units are in proper operating condition. B. Should GDS by the successful bidder, we will provide service and support for one (1 ) election at-no,additional charg; to Orange County. Such service and support shall include the following: 1 . Ballot Layout 2. Poll Worker Training 3. Programming 4. Equipment Operation 5. Maintenance Training 6. Election Day Support C. . Governmental Data Systems- shall provide Orange County with a two (2) year warranty on the M/210 unit for parts and labor. D. At the end of the two year warranty period, GDS will provide Orange County with a full-service maintenance agreement. IV. TRAINING Governmental Data Systems will train employees designated by the County to set up service and maintain the voting equipment at no charge to Orange County. GDS will also furnish adequate, up-to-date manuals (operations-maintenance, precinct worker')':. V. DELIVERY 120 days from receipt of purchase order. Should you have questions concerning our bid, please contact my office at your convenience. Very Truly Yours, Ed O'Day National Sales Manager cc: Vaughn M. Duck - President Ken Wolven - Secretary/Treasurer Enclosures EOD/111 027 WARRANn PROVISIONS Marktronics products are guaranteed by GDS to be free from factory defects in workmanship or material under normal use for two •2) years from the date of shipment. During this period any part will be repaired free of charge if re- turned prepaid to GDS. The 'warranty excludes damages due to acts of God, misuse, abuse or accidents, repairs by persons not authorized by GDS and does not extend to owners of the product subsequent to the original purchaser. FULL SERVICE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Governmental Data Systems will provide Orange County with a "full service maintenance agreement" at the end of the two. (Z) year warranty period if Orange County elects to. do so at the established GDS book prices for these services at that time. 028 XA270A AZ SST ?'Y Ct�.N" . 2111 'N BID OR PROPOSAL BOND KNOW ALL MEN BY TBESE PRESENTS: That We, Governmental Data Systems, Rockford, IL (hereinafter called the principal), as principal, and NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION. a corporation organized and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois, and duly licensed for the purpose of making, guaranteeing or becoming sole surety upon bonds or undertakings required or authorized by the laws of the State of Illinois as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto Orange County North Carolina, 300 West Tryon S tree t(4ereinafter called the Obligee) Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 in the lust and full sutra of Five Hundred Twenty-One and 25/100 (Being for 5% of Bid) Douce (S 521- 25 ) lawful money of the United States of America, for the made, w gns, jointly and e hereby bind ourselves and our and each of our successors and asst Payment of which, well and truly to be severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, WHEREAS, the above bounden principal as aforesaid, is about to hand in and submit to the obligee a bid or proposal for the Electronic Voting Machines in accordance with the plans and specifications filed in the office of the obligee and under the notice inviting proposals therefor. NOW, THEREFORE,if the bid or proposal of said principal shall be accepted,and the contract for such work be awarded to the principal thereupon by the said obligee, and said principal shall enter into a contract,and bond for the completion of said work as required by law, then this obligation to be null and void, otherwise to be and remain in EuII torte and effect, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Principal and said Surety have caused these presents to be duly signed and sealed this 7th day of August lg 85 . G91Vt?RNMTrNTA7 T1ATA 4VSTEaSS By: / NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION By /. Attomey-in-Fact 360277-4NS}_. 73 GENERAL 4:� NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION 029 KNOW ALL MEN 15Y TTitBStE PRESENT'S:That NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION,a Corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois.and having its Home Offi nd ce in the City of Chicago.Illinois,has made,constituted and appointed.and does by these presents make. constitute and appoint JARED W. SPARKS, GORDON SPARKS, BERNESE FRY and STEVEN A. SPARKS ROCKFORD-, jointly or severally F�RD- its true and lawful 1 Attorney(s)-in-Fact.with full power and authority hereby conferred in its name.place and stead.to execute.seal,acknowledge and deliver any and all bonds.undertakings.recognizances or other written obligations in the nature thereof ---- ------------------- and to bind the Corporation thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such bonds were signed by the President.sealed with the corporate seal of the Corporation and duly attested by its Secretary. hereby ratifying and confirming all that the said Attorneyts/-in-Fact may do in the premises. - This power of attorney is granted pursuant to Article VIII.Section.'.9 and 30 of By-laws of NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION now in full force and effect. "Artick V UL Appointment and Authority Asskimt secretaries;and Attorney-in-Fact and Agents to accept Legal Process and Make Appearances. Siec#oin 29.Appointment.The Chairman of the Board of Directors,the President.any Vice-President or any other person authorized by the Board of Directors,the Chairman of the Board of Directors, the President or any Vice-President,may, from time to time, appoint Resident Assistant Secretaries and Attorneys-in-Fact to represent and act for and on behalf of the Corporation and Agents to accept legal process and make appearances for and on behalf of the Corporation. SecWn 30. Authority. The Authority of such Resident Assistant Secretaries, Attorneys-in-Fact, and Agents shall be as prescribed in the instrument evidencing their appointment, and any such appointment and all authority granted thereby may be revoked at any time by the Board of Directors or by any person empowered to make such appointment." This power of attorney is signed and sealed under and by the authority of the following Resolution adopted by the Board of Otrectors of NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION at a meeting duly called and held on the 7th day of September. 1972. and said Resolution has not been amended or repealed: "RESOLVED.that the signature of any Vice-President.Assistant Secretary.and Resident Assistant Secretary of this Corporation.and the seal of this Corporation may be affixed or printed on any power of attorney.on an% revocation of an} power of attorney.or on any certificate relating thereto.by facsimile.and any power of attorney.any revocation of any power of attorney.tr certificate hearing such facsimile signature or facsimile seal shall he valid and binding upon the Corporation." IN WITNESS WHEREOF. NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION has caused these presents to he signed by its Vice-President. and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed this 16th day of ___ JU t Y 19 84 NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION SEPT.g.-.a �`I�r4l►� ��t`�y� 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO On this 16th day of July 19 84 hefore me per%onally cane Richard W i l i i ams to me known, who, being be me duly sworn, did depose and.a}: that he i. Vice-Presedcm of NATIONAL SURLTY CORPORATION. the Corporation described in and which executed the abol•e instrument-, that he know, the peat of.aid Corporation. that the •eal affixed to the •aid instrument i� .uch corporate seal;that it was so of fixed b}order of the Board of Directors of.aid Corporation and that he.iened hr name thereto h}•like order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF.I have hereunto set m%hand and affixed m}official%eat.the des}and tiaar herein first above written. R OFFICIAL SEAL = , laSUSIE K. 61UM NOTARY PURK- s Oft( i CO" OF$IN FRANCISCO �,aan Pubhe My Commission Expires Nov. 17.1984 mti CERTIFICATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 1 . 1. the undersigned. Resident Assistant Secretary of NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION. an ILLINOIS Corporation. DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing and attached POWER OF ATTORNEY remain. in full force and ha+ not been revoked. and furthermore that Article till. Sx1ions 29 and 30 of the By-laws of the Corporation.and the Resolution of the Board of Director.,set forth in the Poner of Attorney,are now in force. Signed and sealed at the City and County of San Francisco.Dated the 7th day of Au ti8t 19 r�` TY a Rsadent A%,mant 4ccrr1ars �T11-NeS-S•bf ORANGE COUNTY 030 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS -ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT- ITEM NO.11-w MEETING DATE Sevtember 3, 1985 SUBJECT: State grant for Child Protective Service position DEPARTMENT: social Services PUBLIC HEARING: YES x NO ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas M. Ward DSS Administrative Letter #PFS-1:-86 PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 . PURPOSE: To obtain alloca'tion of part.-time.•Social Worker •II (20 hours per week) position to investigate reports of child abuse and neglect. The 'N.' C. General Ass'embly awarded $1,000,000 for this purpose statewide. NEED.: As kelated in our budget presentation the Divisio4-.czf.-Child-Prbiective'services is investigating an increased -number of reported:sexual- abuse and neglect incidents in: * day care programs. - The fiumber of s'exiial abuse •eases in- 1983--84.was-26 compared to the number in 1984-85 which was 'a0 't'e­ported'. The* number' of day care 'abuse and neglect cases in 1983-84 was 6 compared to the number in 184-85 which was 9. Additional staff is needed to complete these investigations in a timely and professional manner. IMPACT: orange County DSS has an- initial award of • 10,000 with some additional funds available upon reallocation from counties who do not establish -new positions by November 13 1985. This combined total will -be -available for two years. The County will re-evaluhte the need of the Social Tforker'II positibn at the end'of the two year period. RECOMMENDATION(S): Establish a new Social Worker Il position effective October 1, 1985. Position will initially be restricted to 20 hours per week with hours to -be increased as .funded -by .-ie-allocation monies. 031 DSS. A I N' IIVE L R . PFS-1-86 TO: County Directors of Social Services Allocation of $1 Million Appropriation for 50 Child Protective Services Workers August 14, 1985 The 1985 North Carolina General Assembly appropriated $1,000,000 in state funds each year of the biennium for 50 additional child protective services workers in county departments of social services.. The need for these funds has long been recognized within this Division and by county departments of social services. In response to this need, Governor Martin included, funds for addi- tional workers in his budget request. Through the concerted effort of county .directors and others, the General Assembly responded to the need and appropriated -funds for 50 additional workers (Senate Bill 182, Sec. 85, p. 16). p The 'funds will be *aloocated as follows: $10,000 will be allocated to each of the 100 county departments of social services to fund additional child protec- tive services workers. Counties that can use their allocation will be expected to set up *a new child protective services position or fund an existing CPS position established since funds for workers were included in the Governor's budget. These state funds can be used to match SSBG or local funds. County Directors must send the Controller's Office written notification by November 1, 1985, that a new position has been established and that they can use their allocation. The funds that cannot be used will be reallocated to those counties that have qualified to receive funds. The formula for realloca- tion will be based on the county's percent of total Child Abuse and Neglect reports logged into the Central Registry during FY 84-85. The county will receive a comparable percent of the total amount of funds available for redistribution. The reallocated funds must be used to defray the costs of the new positions. Those counties that receive and use an allocation in FY 1986 will receive the same allocation in FY 1987. The Association of County Directors of Social Services participated in developing the method for allocation. The Division is particularly apprecia- tive of the time and effort the Fiscal Committee of the Association put into looking with us at alternative plans and for presenting their recommendation to the Association. The allocation method approved by Secretary Kirk is essen- tially that recommended by the Association. Attached are criteria for use of the funds. These criteria have been established, with Secretary Kirk's approval, as being supportive of the legislative intent to strengthen the county departments' capacity to respond promptly to reports of abuse and neglect and to carry out thorough and appropriate investigations and assessments. DSS-3430 (3-82) 032' DSS Administrative Letter No. PFS-1-86 August 14, 1985 Page 2 The Division will be offering training for new staff beginning this pall. Consultation and technical assistance for you and your supervisory staff will be available upon request. We-look forward to working with you this year in the interest of' protection of our children. Also attached is your county's funding authorization for the initial allocation. Expenditure ireporting•instructions will be Issued by a separate DSS Administrative Letter within a week. Sincerely, Bonnie M. Cramer Assistant Director for. Program Administration Joy Hughes Con roller JR:kcg:721 . Attachments ' cc.: County Finance Officer i6 033- State Funds for County Departments of Social Services' Child Protective Services Staff. Criteria for Use of Funds The 1985 North Carolina General Assembly appropriatdd $1,000,000 In state funds each year of the bianntum for 50' additional child protective services workers in county departments of social services. Qbjective: To strengthen the capacity of local departments of social services to make a ptolmpt and thorough investigation of reports of child abuse and neglect.. Method: Fund additional child protective services workers In county dsswe to carry out the investigative component of CPS.(See back of page) Local Match Required: Counties may use these funds as match for SSBG or local funds. Allowable Costs: Child protective services staff costs only (salaries, fringes, and related staff costs such as travel, registrations, tuitions, etc.). Only time spent conducting CPS investigations or carrying on-going cases as. described below is reimbursable. Unallowable Costs: Any costs other than those cited above. Required 1. When reimbursement is claimed from•this source for worker. Criteria time spent on CPS investigations, the worker must have -a for Use of limited caseload. A funded worker's caseload will consist Allocation: of no more than 18 reports under investigation at any given time. A report means an allegation of abuse or neglect about one or more children in a given situation. Wheii the number of reports In a county do rot warrant a full time staff person assigned to investigation, the worker may also carry on--going child protective services cases that meet the definition of a Preventive Services Case provided no more than 12 such cases are assigned at any given time and provided the combined caseload of reports under investigation, and on-going services cases does not exceed 16. 2. Each CPS worker funded by these special funds must receive at- least one hour of individual supervision in each week. 3. The county will institute procedures to ensure that no one person is solely responsible for deciding whether a child is abused or neglected (ie: a team approach to decision making- will be used, the team to consist at least of the worker and a supervisor). 4. The county will assure that all staff funded with this allocation participate in training and staff development provided directly or arranged by the State Division of Social * Services. Recomended All social worker staff funded should meet education and Criteria: experience requirements for S.W. II classification. 034 For the purpose of use of these funds, the investigative component of child protective services begins with the receipt of a report of alleged child abuse or neglect and concludes when the agency makes a decision that abuse or neglect ekists or does not exist. . (ie: substantiation) Adtivities included in the investigative component are: .1.. receiving reports of suspected abuse and neglect; 2. ascertaining the facts of the.case, the extent of abuse or neglect and the risk of harm to the child; 3. seeing and, when appropriate, interviewing the child; '4. visiting the place where the child resides; 5: interviewing' the parents, other caretakers and other appropriate persons; . 6. obtaining necessary medical exams; 7. taking a juvenile into temporary custody (G.S. 7A-571); 8. initiating court action for nonsecure custody (G.S. 7A-574); 9. - written notice to the person making the report; 10. . making reports to .the district attorney on abuse cases; 11. completing the DSS 5104 (send to Central Registry); 12. informing the licensing body in out of home care cases; 13. determining whether the child can-safely remain at home; 14. making appropriate referral(s) for on going services; and, 15. arranging for or providing emergency services necessary to protect the child during the investigative period. UKAfift LUUM IT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGE A ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM N0. MEETING DATE" -September 34_ 1985 035 SUBJECT: .• -..,T0CCA'vExrcLE LEASE AMENDMENT RENEWAL DEPARTFIENT: Aging =.. . _ PUBLIC HEARING: YES r „NO ATtACHMENT(S) : - INFO&MATION,,CONTACT: ' Jerry M. Passmore Vehicle Lease Agreement PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL 967-9251 MEBANE .6 22.7-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 . PURPOSE: Request to renew lease ,agreement for 4. vehicles .from JOCCA, effective July 1, 1985 - .June 30, 1986 NEED-.-, Thu -four-vans are operated-by the Department on Aging With_ Title III"S Federal Transportation funds and driven by Title- . V Senior Workers. Operational funds are already budgeted by the Department on Aging. ' The vehicles -will be operated on behalf of Senior Citizens and are part of the Coordinated Agency Transpor- tation CC.A.T: j System, IMPACT! No increase to county. RECOMMENDATION(S) Department on Aging staff recommends approval. 036 AGREEMENT this agreement, entered into this day of and between joint Orange Chatham Community Action, hereinafter referred 1985 to by as lljocCAol and Orange County on behalf of the Dbpartment on Aging, herein- after referred to as the County. The' purpose of this agreement is to outline -the conditions under which JOCCA -and the County will cooperatively provide transportation to orange County Senior Citizens and hereby formally agree with each of the *following: -SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES OF JOCCA I.' To lease -two (2) vans and two (2) minibuses'in the County for daily senior citizen transportation for Southern Orange, Efland, Cedar Grove, ough areas. and Hillsbor- ough To lease the following identified vehicles: 1977 Chevrolet Mini-bus License No. MEC733 1983 Ford Maxi-Wagon MR. . No. 7 1,. (white)-,- L;kcenipe No,: 8215(1r Fl 1979 Dodge van with lift (blue) - License No. XZH-204 1984 International Mini-bus (CAT No. 1) - License 84501-P SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES or THE COUNTY 1. To reimburse JOCCA $1.00. per year for each leased vehicle'. 2. To provide all gas, maintenance, repairs and insurance. on each JOCCA leased van. (Collision and liability) 3. To allow JOCCA access to its leased vans, with approved driver, when not scheduled for use, for a rate of not more than 30� per mile. 4. To operate and schedule the use of the leased Vehicles on behalf of senior citizens and approved groups according to the Orange County Transportation Board Policy and procedures. 5­ To complete all required URTA vehicle operation reports and submit to the N.C. Department of Transportation. The tetm Of this 'contract shall be from July 1, 1985 through June 10, 1986 unless sooner terminated by either party giving 30 days prior written notice to the other party of intention to terminate. Orange County has the right to renew this contract on an annual basis. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, JOCCA and Orange County have executed-the of the date *first above written.of ORANGE COUNTY JOINT ORANGE CHATHAM COMMUNITY ACTION By: By: Chairman, Board of County comm. Position Executive Director Date: Date: ORANGE COUNTY COMEWSSIONERS 106 FAST 14ARGAREr LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 N= CAHEr BMr4VM September 4,1985 SHMM F-UAPZKMZ NPRUWWAMM JOCCA Gloria Williams, Director P.O. Box 27 Pittsboro, NC 27312 Dear Ms. William Attached hereto is a signed copy of the agreement between Orange County and JOCCA on behalf of the Department on Aging. This agreement received approval from the Board of Com- missionbrs on September 3, 1 jt5- If any additional information is needed, please don't hesitate to call . f�cerel Y,-- :4 "X -7 Cleik'j Z. /bab File cc: Jerry Passmore Attachment AGREEMENT This agreement, entered into this Je4 day of 1985. by and between joint Orange Chatham Community Action, hereinafter referred to as "JOCCA" and Orange County on behalf of the Department on Aging, herein- after referred to as the County. The purpose of this agreement is to outline the conditions under which JOCCA and the County will cooperatively provide transportation to Orange County Senior Citizens and hereby formally agree with each of the following: SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES OF JOCCA 1. To lease two (2) vans and two (2) minibuses in the County for daily senior citizen transportation for Southern Orange, Efland, Cedar Grove, and Hillsbor- ough areas. 2. To lease the following -identified vehicles: 1977 Chevrolet Mini-bus License No. MEC733 1983 Ford Maxi-Wagon CQ1�T N%)7T,. (yhfte)�,--IAdenp�e- No.' 82-1!!Qrp 1979 Dodge van with lift 4(blu - License No. XZH-204 1984 International Mini-bus (CAT No. 1) - License 84501-P SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES r 1. To reimburse JOCCA $1.00 per year for each leased vehicle. 2. To provide all gas, maintenance, repairs and insurance on each JOCCA leased van. (Collision and liability) . 3. To allow JOCCA access to its leased vans, with approved driver, when not scheduled for use, for a rate of not more than 304: per mile. 4. To operate and schedule the use of the leased vehicles on behalf of senior citizens and approved groups according to the Orange County Transportation Board Policy and procedures. 5. To complete all required UNTA vehicle operation reports and submit to the N.C. Department of Transportation. The term of this contract shall be from July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986 unless sooner terminated by either party giving 30 days prior written notice to the other party of intention to terminate. Orange County has the right to renew this contract on an annual basis. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, JOCCA and Orange County have executed the Agreement of the date first above written. ORANG COUNTY JOINT ORANGE CHATHAM COMMUNITY ACTION L By: By; Chairman, Board of County Comm. Position Executive Director Date:_ e? Date: z.9 y I lqlxo- CPJM CC1UNT!1 037 BOAM OF CCNKISSIOtERS Action Agenda ACTION AMM ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. H5_ Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 3, 1985 SOLID WASTE CONTAINER BIDS ?ARTHM: PM CHASING PUBLIC HEMUM: Yes _Z_No ATTACHMENT(S): INFOIMTICN 0ONTAM: KEN CMVICUS X497 TELEPHONE NUMBER: BID RESULTS Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider accepting a bid for the purchase of thirty 6 yard solid waste containers. Bids were requested for containers with and without lids. NEED: N. C. General Statutes require Board of Commissioner's approval for the purchase of "apparatus, supplies, materials or equip- ment" in excess Of $10,000.00. IMPACT: Three bids were received: Con,. in Amt. with Iids Age wit boot lids Kam. Inc. $13,050.00 512,150.00 Public Works Equipumt 14,010.00 12,660.00 and Supply, Inc. Sanoo, Inc. 13,950.00 12,630.00 Allwaste Equipment Carpany 12,750.00 11,250.00 RECCMKENOATICN(S): Accept the bid of Allwaste Equipment Cmqmy for purchase of containers with lids at the low bid amount of $12,750.00. 038 BID FORM WASTE CONTAINERS Unit Price Total ' { I. Cost of 30 6 yard waste containers with lids $ 435.00 r $13,050.00 +f Delivery charges to Hillsborough, N. C. $ 0 Qa (if not included above) Total bid $13,050.00 II. Cost of 30 6 yard waste containers without $405.00 $12,190.00 lids Delivery $ 0 The following must be attached to this form: 1) As required by North Carolina Law, a certified check, bid bond or cash deposit in the amount of 5% of the total bid. 2) Copy *of warranty for the waste containers. 3) Descriptive literature of items being bid. In compliance with the above request for bids, and subject to all conditions thereof, KABCO, Inc , the undersigned, offers and agrees, if this bid be accepted within thirty days of opening to furnish any or all items upon which prices are quoted; at the price set opposite each item and unless otherwise specified, ; within 30 days after receipt of order, to deliver said items to Orange County Public Works Dept. , HWY 86 N, , Hillsborough, N. C. If there are any exceptions to the specifications they are noted herein. BIDDER KABCO Inc or orated � P AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE �';;•s--' .� � . rig�., r--�,: ADDRESS P.O. Box 58455 Raleigh, NC 27658NpME b TITLE Howard J, Lupton, Vide President TELEPHONE# 919-876-3120 DATE August 23, 1985 POSITIVELY NO BIDS CONSIDERED UNLESS SUBMITTED ON THIS FORM. BID FORK 039 WASTE CONTAINERS Unit Price Total Cost of 30 6 yard waste containers with lids $ 445.00 $13,950.00 incluoW in Delivery charges to Hillsborough, N. C. $1-bove price (if not included above) Total bid $ Cost of 30 6 yard waste containers without $121.00 lids included in above Delivery $ price z following must be attached to this form: 1) As required by North Carolina Law, a certified check, bid bond or cash deposit in the amount of 5% of the total bid. 2) Copy of warranty for the waste containers. 3) Descriptive literature of items being bid. : compliance with the above request for bids, and subject to all conditions thereof, Sanco Corporation . the undersigned, offers and agrees, if this A be accepted within thirty days of opening to furnish any or all items upon which ices are quoted; at the price set opposite each item and unless otherwise specified, .thin 30 days after receipt of order, to deliver said items to Orange County Public ,rks Dept. , HWY 86 N., Hillsborough, X. G. there are any exceptions to the specifications they are noted herein. .DDER Sanco Corporation AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE )DRESS P.O. Box 208 NAME & TITLE Betty Fox, Sales Adhiinistrator .:LEpHONEY- (919) 720545 DATE August is, lgffi )SITIVELY NO BIDS CONSIDERED UNLESS SUBMITTED ON THIS FORM. !livery: The 6 yard standard Bremer container with 16 gauge lids are in stock and can be shipped immediately - subject to prior sale. The 6 yard Bremer container with 14 gauge lids can be shipped in one week to 10 days after receipt of order. 040 BID FORK WASTE CONTAINERS Unit Price Total I. cost of 30 6 yard waste containers with lids 467 . 00 $ 14 .010. 00 Delivery charges to Hillsborough, N. C. $ --0- (if not included above) Total bid $.1,4010 . 00 11. Cost of 30 6 yard waste containers without 422 .00, $ 12 U_0- 0 0 lids Delivery TOTAL $-1-2.4 6 60 ._0 0 2-3 weeks A':R.O- N.C. Sales Tax to be added. The following must be attached- to this form: 1) As required by North Carolina Law, a certified check, bid bond or cash deposit in the amount of 5% of the total bid. 2) Copy of warranty for the waste containers. (6 mos . against deffective parts and or workmanship) . 3) Descriptive literature of- items being bid. In compliance with the above request for bids, and subject to all conditions thereof, Public Works Eqlainmen:t and Su-o-DlvTr1&P_ undersigned, offers and agrees, if this bid be accepted within thirty dais—of opening to furnish any or all items upon which prices are quoted; at the price set opposite each item and unless otherwise specified, within 30 days after receipt of order, to deliver said items to Orange County Public Works Dept. , HWY 86 N. , Hillsborough, Y. C. If there are any exceptions to the specifications they are noted herein. We are bidding per your specifications. BIDDERPublic Works Equi]2ment and AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE, Supply, Inc. ADDRESS P.O. Box 716 ,Monroe, N.C. NAME & TITLE Larry J. David' PRESIDENT 28110 TELEPHONE#— 800-222-6803 DATE August 16 , 1985 POSITIVELY NO BIDS CONSIDERED UNLESS SUBMITTED ON THIS FORM. *These prices are for truck load quantities and our delivery truck is able to deliver 14 boxes per trip, therefore , if you purchase 30 boxes two extra boxes will have to be combined with another load coming into the same area and delivery may take a couple of weeks longer for the two. Same situation if you purchase 60. BID FORM Q 41 WASTE CONTAINERS Unit Price Total I. Cost of 30 6 yard waste containers with lids $ 425.00 $ 12,750.00- Delivery charges to Hillsborough, N. C. $ ' Included (if not included above) Total bid $ 1 -go .0-0 11. Cost of 30 6 yard waste containers without $ 37r, nn $ 11 -2r'n- 0 lids Delivery $ TnrJuded The following must be attached to this form: 1) As required by North Carolina Law, a certified check, bid bond or cash deposit . in the amount of 5% of the total bid. kit 2) Copy of warranty for the waste containers. 3) Descriptive literature of items being bid. In compliance with the above request for bids, and subject to all conditions thereof, Al-1-14ASTF FQIITPMENT COMPANY ' the undersigned, offers and agrees, if this bid be accepted within thirty days of opening to furnish any or all items upon which prices are quoted; at the price set opposite each item and unless otherwise specified, within 30 days after receipt of order, to deliver said items to Orange County Public Works Dept. , HWY 86 X. , Hillsborough, N. C. If there are any exceptions to the specifications they are noted he.. in. BIDDER Allwaste_ Equipment Company AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE ADDRESS 2401 Owl Circle, 14. Cola. SC NAME & TITLE Jerry MAucas, Proprietor 29159 TELEP11ONE#(803) 796-0103 DATE August 22, 1985 POSITIVELY NO BIDS CONSIDERED UNLESS SUBMITTED ON THIS FORM. NOTE: Does. not include applicable state or federal taxes if any! Manufacturer offers- 30. day warranty against defects tn matertal and/or workmanship, ORANGE COUNTY UOARD OF. C01',P.-IISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA AC*TI0N AGENDA ITEM Ms*rRACT ITEM 1-10.110 "W - MEETING DATE September 3, 1985 042 SUBJECT: Indirect Cost Plan Contract DEPARTHEN'T: Finance PUBLIC HEARING: YES x 110 ATTACIJ,i41ENT(S) contracts INFOR,14ATIO'N CONTACT: Gordon R. ' Baker PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-81 HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHA14 - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To continue contracting with David M. Griffith & Assoc. for - the preparation of Orange County's' indirect cost plan. - NEED: In order to receive reimbursement of county funds expended to administer federal programs, orange County is required by OMB circular A­87 to have an indirect cost plan prepared and annually updated. Reimbursements per our plan were in excess of $150,000. This return would not have been possible without the plan. IMPACT: Payment not to exceed $8,000 is appropriated in the current budget for this purpose. R E C 0 1-1 DAT I O,%J S Motion to approve entering a contract with David M. Griffith Associates for preparation of Orange County' s indirect cost plan. II FY 85 AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING SERVICES TO Orange County, North Carolina THIS AGREEMENT , entered into this Z_ day of .5,'e 198W and effective immediately by and between David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. (hereinafter called the "Consul- tant") and the County of Orange, State of North Carolina (hereinafter called the "County"),- WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the County has programs which it operates witli Federal funding, and WHEREAS , the County . supports these programs with support services paid from the County appropriated funds., and WHEREAS, the Federal government and the State will pay a fair share of these costs if supported by an approved cost allocation plan, and WHEREAS, the Consultant is staffed with personnel knowledgeable and experienced in the requirements of develo.ping and negotiating such governmental cost allocation plans, and WHEREAS, the County desires to engage the Consultant to assist in developing a plan which conforms to Federal requirements and will be approved by their representatives NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. EmDlovment of Consultant. The County agrees to engage the Consultant and the Consultant_ hereby agrees to perform the following services. 2* Scope_ of Services. The Consultant shall do, perform and carry out in a good and professional manner the following services: a. Development of a central services cost allocation plan which identified the various costs incurred by the County to. support and administer Federal programs. This plan will contain a determination of the allowable costs. of providing each supporting service such as pu'rehasing, legal counsel , disbursement processing, etc. b. Negotiation of the completed cost allocation plan with the representatives of the state or Federal government, whichever is applicable. C. Assistance in preparing the initial claims 'for recovery of funds due the County. d. Prepare indirect cost proposal for Social Services and CETA. Additionally, prepare indirect cost rates for EPA and HUD if necessary. 3. Time of Performance. The services to be performed hereunder by the Consultant shall be undertaken and completed in such sequence as to assure their expeditious completion and best carry out the purposes of the agreement. All services reguried hereunder shall be completed by Rec�Zee -41. /f RE The cost allocation plan will -be available by LPG.-A-e-e 3i,19195- for your review and our negotiation with Federal and State representatives. 4. COMDensati on. The County .agrees to pay the Consultant a sum not to exceed eight thousand dollars ($.8,000) for all services- required herein, which shall include reimbursement for expense incurred. Consultant agrees to complete the project and all services provided herein for said sum.. 5. Method of payment_. The Consultant shall be entitled to payment in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. The Consultant agrees to undertake this engagement with the following- advantages to the County. First, the Consultant will not require any compensation for services until a cost allocation plan has been prepared and is •acceptable as a basis for filing claims. Second, Consultant's fees are 'to be paid from recoveries paid b-- Federal programs to the County as well as recoveries from Enter- prise Funds. Recoveries due solely from the plan will be shared equally by the County and the Consultant until Consultant's fees are paid in full. Then all additional funds are paid to the County. Payment to Consultant will be made within four weeks of receipt by the county of funds realized from the plan. G. Changes. The County may, from time to. time, require changes in_th ;: scope of the services of the Consultant to be performed hereunder. Such changes , which are mutually agreed upon by and between the County and the Consultant, shall be incorporated in written amendment to this agreement. 7. Services and Materials to be Furnished by County. The County shall locally furnish the Consultant with all available necessary information, data, and material pertinent to the execution of this agreement. The County shall cooperate with the Consultant in carrying out the work herein and shall provide adequate staff for liaison witb . the Consultant and other agencies of County government. Termination of Agreement for Cause. if, through any cause, the. Consultant shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner his obligations under this agreement, the County shall the'reupon have the right to "terminate this agreement by giving written notice to the Consultant of such termination and Page 2 of 3 L Specifying the effective date thereof, at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. 9. Information and Reports. - The Consultant shall, at such time and in such—,form as the County may require$ furnish such periodic reports concerning the status of the project, such statements, certificates, approvals, and copi-es of proposed and executed plans and claims and other information relative to the project as may be requested by the County.. The Consultant shall furnish the' County, upon request, with copies of all documents and other materials prepared or developed in - relation with or as part of the project. Copies of working papers prepared in conjunction with the cost allocation plan may be turned over to -the County for safekeeping if requested. 10. Consultant 'Liability If Audited. The Consultant will - asstae all financial and statistical information Provided to thei Consultant by County employees or representatives is accurate and complete. Any subsequent disallowance of funds paid to the County under the plan is the sole responsibility, of the County. However , where a disallowance had ' an impact on the fee 0-omputation, the computation will be recalculated and any . unearned portion of the fee will be returned to* the client. Additionally, the Consultant will Provide asistance to the County should an audit * be undertaken of County indirect costs. 11 . Notices. Any notices, bills , invoices,, or reports required by this agreement shall be sufficient if sent by the parties in the United States mail, postage paid, to the address noted below: County of ntulk-,— David M. Griffith & Associates 1100 Logger Court, • Suite D-10u 0 7g� Raleigh , North Carolina 27609 7— -;�22 Rl IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the Consultant have executed this agreement as of the date first written above. County, Al. County,"I By, (County Official) ATTEST: David M. G ff* t s fates By:_ /David R.- Mazo Vice Preside .t beell preiami'tod i,, the Page 3 of 3 CPJM COUNTY 046 BOW OF CONUMONERS Action Agenda 11" ACTION AGENDA ITEK ABSnV= Item No. Meeting Date: SEPTEMM 3, 1985 SUBJECT: DATA PROCESSING AGREEMENT WITH CARRWORO DEPARTMENT: DATA PROCESSING PUBLIC FARING: Yes X ND A9TACEP1ENT(S) IN FOrMATION CON IALM AGREEMENT TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PCtF2PM: 1b consider an adderdum, to a contract with Town of Carrboro dated June 27, 1983 to provide Data Processing services to the town. NEED: The agreement will add an additional port (from 6 to 7) to Carrboro's network. This will be accomplished with a minimum of new equipment as the additional port will be connected to a CRT already in use. IMPACT: No increase in maintenance or equipment cost is necessary. on the other hand, revenue will increase $2000 per year (from $14,500 to $16,500 per year). RBCCKF0M1ON(S): Approve the agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. } ORANGE COUNTY COMMSSZONERS 106 EAST MARGAPMr Lem HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSM CAI= DEW,., M September 4. 1985 21CMLAN WALIUM nou WQ.S.M= Don Casper Town of Carrboro P.O. Box 337 Carrboro, NC 27510 Dear Mr. Casper: Attached is a signed copy of the agreement between Orange County and the Town of Carrboro for computer services. This agreement received approval from the Board of Commissioners on September 3, 1985. AN If any additional information is needed,, ease do not hesitate to call. •a:.•:J'' - - .' ...-:., t:.rro=.. '^��•.-a:T.Vii:' -•• �.i. =• -,. »':Xr Rv:.(-!�u,� ;•r�_•4��` :1 - .! F fm:ut ��•t .' �`'fi.:�;.':.:it::�,J,:. �.,� w ,.,..r.. ':•: �..si,,, r•a: :' -CAF:+�( _ '.v, .'�ri•�:'Sa"•.h:: .'r.�"'!.`'x�,*1��" .:t. 4i_�'%{,,:a:c_`... ': .;._�' �;:?:•`Ll,_ I�;Ys .?:t' `'r: .'��',:°,F�-'i call� ':tt...cy'_ [^ _-_.�. kr�' ..l :. S _ .. to^.•:':i:sj: �V'i?.. 3.•�r.���'�l•�•i• •.��'...:J.i.` n t••�_r'ta'1�Y� __Z�.•'•'. � _ '.��^••ri ,`,`tk:.t•�.� K'''i{:,A rj't.it _ .rr?: .j~�4�.Y`+� !.:''+.[•- ,•.t.:'•'1'. .`�i.'i3.3'_�""'f� .1;"�-�•;.•'= ,',i�c.;.Cr."J `�i�.G.ri.�•�•. 'm�:'ii�7.!:.!:...•,:.:. `•i� �,i /bab File cc: Keith Brooks Gordon Baker Attachment 447 , NORTH ORANGE CHDi;TITT AGREIEMENN 1-HIS AGREEMENT is 'en.'.eri2d inb,n thls1f� oau or 1985 air9e 111) and be tWeen thtd (owr, of a (VISA A i p E corporation ("The -Town" i and C'iluntl;j: -a body politic and corporate ("The. County") WHEREAS the Town and the Couo6y have entered into an agreement dated June 27 19b3: pursuant: to which the County will furnish certain computer services to the Town; and WMEREASt the Town wisiies to add .one additional central processing part: and WHEREAS.- the County is ryi► ling wa make one additional port available for the Town under the circvr:siar.cPs set forth` below: NOW TNE'REFDRE, . in consideration of the preen-i ses and mutua:. 'promises set fortis be!nwe the' parties agree as foliow�: I. The County ;hall provi6q--a =. :- TQ!4n the use of one additional "port" in addition t-. }:'rt::se called for in the agreement between the partie=s for cats p�:�r_essi-ig service; dated Jun=_ 2?, 19EI3.. 2. The 'Coisr:ytj shall p•f�r:.vioe i-Ae >an%— level anr: type; of services for this port. as dQ*ined ii: the pireviou' s agreement, 3. The cost 'of this addition part will .be $2, 000. 00 per .year payable an July first of each year_ 4• This agreement shall. begin on July 1, 193 and will end June 30, 1997. TIN tj p -zi TOWN OF f'ARRBORD 0 R A N G E CQ,U44 'wv4"' tv ' MO 2� /" - — -------------- - -,p------ -- - -- �r' . --- FRZOERT'MORGA TOWN MANAGER DON WILLHOIT, CHAIRMAN 04HANGE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS At tRvt: t: �a4 aAu iv NA- Sarah C. Williaim5on, Yowrii lerm A. Blythe, Clerk to -r-'Irioe Countq C011191ISS1C31'taaTTo Pro p d on paymorit hai� b., an pe-�, " PNIa ion duly etude cr . - my a thoilzed, pu an 8 Cal Gov- me a n F's ct w a�i Contr I ORANGE COUNTY 049 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date __September­2, 1985 Action _Aaenda Item SUBJECT: PROPERTY OF ALMA C. WAGONER PRELIMINARY DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _Yes X No Attachment (s) Information Contact: JANE ATWATER CHECKLIST VICINITY MAP PRELIMINARY PLAN DRAFT 8/19/85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers HiLLsborough — 732-8I8I Durham 686-7331 Mebane 227-2031 ChapeL HiLL — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for the property of Alma C . Wagoner . To receive the Planning Board recommendation . NEED: The property in question is Located on SR 1177 (DariyLand Road) in Bingham Township . The property is referenced as part of Lot 5 of Tax Map 19 . It is bordered by a mobile home park and residentiaL development . The tract is designated as AgricuLtu- raL—ResidentiaL and IVater Supply Watershed on the Land Use Plan . It is Located within the Cane Creek llatershed. There is one Lot proposed out of 11 .48 acres. The Lot size is 1 .0 acre , excluding the right—of—way. The property is zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) Protected Watershed 11 IPWII) overlay zoning district. Fire protection for the property in question is provided by the Orange Grove RuraL Fire District . Law enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff' s Department . It ivi L L be* patrolled an a 24 hour basis . IMPACT: . DeveLopment of this subdivision wouLd have m I n i m a L impact an the area . RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommended approval o.f this subdivision on August 19 , 1985. MANOR SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST NAME OF SUBDIVISION Pxoperty *of Alma C. Wagoner OWNER OR DEVELOPER Wagoner S. Susan Ramas ADDRESS Rt. 7, Box 48, Durham, N. C. 27707 TOWNSHIP Bingham TAX MAP 19 BLOCK LOT P/0 5 CA NAME OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER Alois Callemyn Total number of lots 1 To be developed in 1 Phase(s) , Total number of acres 1. 18 out of 11.48 Typical dwelling units at present X or proposed WATER SUPPLY: Public (Name) Commnnity Individual X SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public •Community• Individual Septic tank X SCHOOL DISTRICT Orange-Mounty FIRE DISTRICT Orange Grove Rural Access onto State Road# 1177 Road Standard! Public or Private Class A , g C Existing critical areas such as streams ( ), Flood prone areas ( j , Watershed (X } , Historic Sites { ) , Other { ) Explain: Cane Creek Water Supply Watershed Land uses in the general area Agricultural/Residential SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 7/30/85 Approved (X } Recommended Changes { ) PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Preliminary Review by Health Department Tom Konsler 8/9/85 Erosion .Control Officer Keith Rosemond Board of Education Ira Trollinger Department of Transportation OWASA (if possible) Other -Mebane (if possible) -Hillsborough (if possible) Preliminary Action by the Planning Board approved 8-19-85 range/Alamance (if possible) 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 ( j 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. ALMA C& WA604 051. Np7E: No. 6 ovirrEp `• . 9 - APPLI CAN7�: ALMA e• WAOIJ 5u5AM P-A �G ., - zDsr��G : 2-i AUAAL rr61 L ,f pUJ TL pro er n 5140 \` 1 8 n 16cP Dc��GNAr�py: AGE W44e 'u RF IDEMnA WATM i y+ w�r�5�r ► 5A �. w A 58` '- 2.13 1.03 -7741 s C 11.48AC. o 5 7A 7531• p92tC 6.39 AC_CAL. 41.9 AC. 2383 + 6349 1 8C . g AC 7110& 03A 68 9.65 AG. � 8.67 AC 8666• 78) 5.14 JAC.CAL. • i SEE MAP 19A 66 86 (OA✓R)'LAiVO ESTA TES ,.lAp 2) 20 --- -. . ID 052 DRAFT 8-19-85 PB MINUTES 7 the number of lots in the original subdivision . There were 6 Lots, not 9. Smith noted that the County standard for Class "B" roads was 12 feet in width and since a 12 foot road ties requested by Carrboro Fire Chi all" and to which . the applicant was agreeable, the staff was recommending that the road be designated Class "B" rather than Class "C" an the plat . Pearson cont• nued* noting that the class of road needed clarification . Yuhasz noted that criteria other than the number of Lots in the subdivision needed to be considered . Collins indicated that when the number of Lots is more than 9, then the question of pubLic or private road becomes the issue. For Less than 9 Lots Private Road Standards are the guideline . It is appropriate here to Look at the number of Lots served. VOTE: Unanimous . i . Alma Wagoner — Preliminary Presentation by At►vater . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the PreLimi,nary Plan for the property. of Alma C . Wagoner . The property in. question is located on SP 1777 (Dairytand Road) in Bingham Township . The property is referenced as part of Lot -5 of Tax Mhome trap 19 . It is bordered by a mobile park and residential development . The tract is designated as Agri cu Ltu ra*L—Residentia L and 11ater Supply Watershed in the Land Use Plan . It is Located within the Cone Creek I'latersh'ed . There is one Lot proposed out of 11 .46 acres . The Lot size is 1 .0 acre, excluding the right of--gray . The Property is zoned 11-1 (HuraL Residential] Protected Watershed II (PWII ) overlay zoning district . Fire protection For the Property in question is provided by the Prange Grove Rural Fire DRAFT B-19-85 PS MINUTES 053 District . Low enforcement is provided by the ' Orange County SherIff's Department . It will be patrolled on a 24—hour basis . Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area . The Planning Staff recommends approval of this, subdivision . MOTION: Shank Lin moved approval. Seconded by 'Pi Lkey . VOTE. Unanimous . j . C. B. Pope, Jr. PreLiminary Presentation by Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for C. Bunn Pope, Jr . The property ' in question is Located in Cedar Grove Township at the northeast corner of NC Highway 85 an SR 1506 UlurdLe Mills Road) . It is known as Lot- 3 •, Tax Nap 25 . There is one Lot Proposed which is 2.6351 acres and contains frontage on both state roads . The property is not zoned and is designated Water Supply Watershed and Agricultural Residential in the Land Use Plan . It, is Located in the Cedar Grove Fire District . The addition of this Lot will have minimal. impact.. The Planning Staff recommends approval . MOTION: Pearson moved approval . Seconded by Shank Lin . VOTE; Unanimous . k . C. B . Pope, Jr . — Preliminary Presentation by Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for C. Bunn Pope, Jr. The property in question is Located in Cedar Grove Township along SR 150B (Hawkins Road) . It is known as Lot 208 , Tax Map 19. There are 5 Lots proposed CE COUNTY 125 ORANGE BOARD CL? CalKISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item NO.XM Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 3, 1985 SUBJECT: INFRASTRUCTM SURVEY DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER, PUBLIC HMRIM: yes _2LND ATTWf1KEW(S) INFORQMON CONEACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 SMW MATERIAL HAS BEEN TELEPEONS NUMBER: INCrMflD IN AGENDA PACKETS E[illsborough -732-8181 Chapel Hill -968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Th consider if there are any changes and corrections the Board wishes to make to the survey portions related to Orange County Prior to the report being finalized. I NEED: The survey, CONPI-eted for Orange and Wake Counties, has been a major project, One Of the first of its kind in the country. Project Wmttee mmbers included Richard Stevens, Wake County Manager, Ken Thoqxon, Orange County Manager, Dempsey Benton, Raleigh Manager, David Taylor, Chapel Bill Manager, Brad Barker, TJCOG Director and Don Horton, Lebulon Manager, Robert Peck, former City Manager of Chapel Hill, was the principal investi- gator. Basic material was Provided by each participating jurisdiction under the categories of water, sewer, transportation, solid waste, community facilities, health facilities, and education facilities. In order to give each participating commity and County fun opportunity to verify and review the report the Executive Committee of the COG requests in requesting each governing board to review and provide any comment on the report by September 10, 1985. IMPACT: It is believed the report has aided in needs assessment and identification of opportunities for cooperative agreements. Follow up discussion will be given also to the possibility of regularly updating the survey results and holding work sessions on capital planning and budgeting. RECOMMENDATION(S): As the Board decides. RAF �Z r_ 11,11mg JIM RAWL • t, :.... ....i:` ............. •• .... ,fir •• •:::... »......:::......:::::::::;;;• ....... ............ .:.::...:............... ............. }�. :...... ...?::.::....:....::::::..:::' :::::.::......... ...................... ••.....•::•..:• ::::::�::..........................•• Ls .s •�:::=:•:.:.......... :•ia '�� tic:::::•.::;::::•;�::•i::.:..• _ '•r�r'�.. ..,..:.........::::::::: cc......... ��" '• ' . ::. •'�arF:iy�Lyr +Y ... • -��CC�{{..�,,��.•.y �Y� CC�(����I ,� h• X77 Cr3.' G'F :: F� � � ::' j ��• r x` � iyt�!��{�h� X41'•521` 0'I-"a-c&*a ge AT— u 1% �^ North Carona TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ' _'�•'rrhra iS�"!i' r SECTION I INTRODUCTION Infrastructure: The Link Between Growth and Local Governments (This. "study is in response to the rapid growth in the Triangle 3 Region, particularly in its more urban counties. Such growth is attributed to several factors: development of the Research Triangle Park, growth of the state government in Raleigh and commercial/industrial development beyond the Park area. In observing the growth of this area, a single correlation becomes apparent. There exists a proportional relationship between the development of communities and the development of local governments, that is, rapid community development produces -an increased demand for pub-tic facilities and services. Thus in order to project and anticipate the growth or decline of a -region it is essential that one analyze the availability capital facilities (infrastructure) of the local governments in terms of their adequacy. Bearing this in. mind, and with oversight by, the Regional Manager's Group Of the Council of Governments, the Triangle J. Council of Governments initiated a survey and analysis of existing capital facilities and. projected needs in Wake and Orange counties as well as their municipalities. The.report covers a seven-year study period from 1985-1992 and establishes several classifications of facilities in conjunction with population growth. These are: Water: Source, Treatment, Storage and Distribution sewage: Collection and Treatment Transportation,Streets, Highways and Bridges; offstreet Parking; Public Transit; Airports Public Communitv Facilities: office and Administration, including courts; -A Safety, Police and Fire; Recreation and Parks. Education Facilities: Health Facilities: Special Needs:* Wake County's flood' control program is listed as a one-of-a-kind need. Similarly, only Apex and Wake Forest operate an electrical distribution system. Although these are a self supporting utility, growth demands capital for expansion.) Accuracy- and the Limitations of Projections Few capital projections allow a precise determination of need. Exceptions are facilities such as water and sewer treatment plants. Capacities of these facilities are determined by hydraulic design and state-established standards for -treatment. Failure to provide plants, pumping capability or water- and sewer line capacity can limit development in an affected area. The ability of a water system to provide water sufficient for fire protection is much less precise. While not necessarily limiting growth, the inadequacy of a water system can affect the community's fire protection rating and consequently the fire insurance cost to consumers.. The subject of highway adequacy is even more subjective. Who can determine how long people will put up with how much congestion? Each year the NC Department of Transportation (NC DOT) solicits requests from local' officials of highway needs for consideration and possible inclusion in the State's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). However imprecise, these requests are used here as indicators of need under the heading "requests". It should also be noted that the NC DOT Transportation Improvement Program for 1985-1994' although subject to change, is the source of transportation cost figures listed in this report. Projections dealing with educational and recreational needs are subject to interpretation as well. School needs are subject to standards such as class size, but otherwise lack the exactitude of the standard for water treatment. Likewise' recreational facilities and parks have standards but they are not universal. In most cases the need is what the governing body says it is. This same definition is applicable in the case of other facilities such as a town hall, fire station or library. Financing Development Bonds: The financial situation of the local governments involved is critical to the issue. Local governments can increase their capital facilities in a variety of ways. In the financing of expensive improvements to meet the needs of the future, one option is bonds. Bond financing is attractive as it allows those users for whom the improvements are made (i.e., future taxpayers) to participate in the cost. General obligation bonds will attract more favorable rates than revenue bonds to provide for utilities. Conservation of a unit's credit rating is essential. A complete analysis of this issue is beyond the scope of this report but a brief look has been taken at the indebtedness of local governments. 1-2 Communities can fulfill. Some of their infrastructure Residential Development-. Commun ter and sewer lines. It needs by requiring developers to Pay for streets7,w2 lopers to provide such- appears to be customary in the study area to require deve improvements, Including paved streets with curb and gutter plus Utility lines to fit local standards. Sometimes a cash contribution is inc irludedg to be a arpplied to the community-serving portions of the- utility. These requements e fairly uniform in Wake County as a contract with Raleigh for water require minimum standards and fees as well as ll requiring s inspections, zoning (including flood plain zoning), erosion control and a. sewage pretreatment program. Cooperation: Finally, strong. intergovernmental cooperation Intergovernmental Coo economic savings an numerous Projects- Most of the could result in significant econo itten or unwritten, for emergency assistance. studied units have. agreements, wr d Rolesvilsource hWake County towns, except Holly Springs an for others it is a Raleigh water system. For some it is the only water supplementary source. Wake County has contracts or agreements with all the other units. Some agreements cross county lines but these are limited. The real test of cooperation will come in the development of Jordan Lake as a water source serving as many as four- counties. Bonds, residential development and intergovernmental cooperation lithe to finance the increases in capital facilities that are necessitated by the rapid growth in this region. This growth is illustrated in the following statistics which growth this area has experienced. please note that list the amount and type of grow and throughout the report are in millions of all cost figures in these. charts dollars. POPULAT1C TABLE 1•1 LW41T 1970 1980 1983' 1992 Wake County 229,006 301,429 324,959 402,842 Apex 2,234 2,847 31192 6,100 Cary 7,686 Z1,763 27,205 43,GW FuquayVarine 3,576' 3,110 3,549 4,500 Garner 4,923 10,073 10,988 25,000 Holly Springs ,697 ,688 ,697 1,100 Knightdale ,815 ,985 1,070 4,000 Morrisville ,209 ,251 ,522 6,000 Raleigh 122,830 150,255 167,464 210,000 Rolesvill& ,533 ,381 ,557 ,700 Wake Forest 3,148 3,780 4,091 11,000 Wendell 1,929 2,222 21366 3,000 Zabulon 11839 2,055 2,375- 5,000 Unincorporated 78,587' 103,019 100,877 83,422 Orange County 57,567 77,055 79,661 89,076 Carrboro 5,058 8,118 9,396 14,578 Chapel Hill 26,199 32,423 35,263 44,100 Hillsborough 1,444• 3,019 3,087 3,500 Unincorporated 24,866 33,495 31,913 26,898 TOTAL.. 286,573 379,266 404,498 494,387 Figure 1-1 �= no UNICORPORATED ; OTHER TOWNS r SCARY.., UNI CORPORATE,4- o .i ..:: •• ' +ri...:: c �}�r �4R��'�'�Y�,,� a LEIGH CHi1PEL MILL' _- CARRBORO a Toro vac wet n.; Oq70 ' ww^ :oa! oo= WAKE COUNTY GROWTH PROJECTION ORANGE COUNTY GROWTH PROJECTION Population Projections 1970 and 1980 figures from U)-S. Census 1983 figures are from the N.C. Office of Budget and Management calculations except for Chapel Hill where the OBM and Chapel Hill calculations show a significant difference and OBM appears to be demonstrably low. 1990 projection for Wake County is taken from the Triangle J Council of Governments Regional Data Report of October 1983 and a straight line extrapolation from 1990 to 1992 used. 1992 projections by the municipalities are used where availsbie. NOTE: Figures from special census by Carrboro used for 1980 and 1983. 1-4 GROWTH AND URBANIZATION e Counties is not only increasing, but is The population of Wake and (orange as Within the corporate limits. becoming increasingly urban, defining , Total Percent T Urban Rural Population Urban --�- population- population ---_---_�.__�__-- 286,573 w,w_..�.__...183,204 103,369 405,698 67% 1970 1349345 77% 1983 271,353 112,818 494,387 1992 381,578 FIGURE 1'2 RURAL RURAL RURAL URBAN URBAN RBAN 1970 1983 1992 I'5 SERVICE ADEQUACY' FIGURE: I-3 le i I -�j Wake County -- Apex C 0 Q Cary 4) C () .r Fuquey-Varina 0 C 0 Garner ® 0 Holly Springs Q (� Knightdale C 0 0 "' Morrisville 0 C 0 C Raleigh Q Ralesville C 0 0'1 0 0 0 Wake Forest 0 Wendell 0 0 0 0 Zebulan C C 0 orange County C C C C Carrboro i 0 0 Chapel Hill Hillsborough 0 0 0 0 0 Orange-Alemance 0 OWASA C LEGEND: 0 Adequate through 1492 without improvements Adequate through 1992 with planned improvements Generally adequate, some facilities inadequate Generally inadequate, some facilities adequate Inadequate } — Not applicable I . i I-� i Figure 1-4 SEWER WATER $ 83•d $55.7 17%- . SOLID WASTE PLANNED 1% $6.2 HEALTH LOCAL $38.6 8% EXPENDITURES 1985 - 1992 COMMUNITY $488.3 MILLION FACILITIES 583.02 LOCAL 17% TRANSPORTATION $87.9 18% EDUCA TION $133.4 2S°J. 1-7 pEBT SITUATION: A significant measure- of local o9 bondsenNorthorCaroli a law tslim needs s municipal capacity to do so. is its use supporting borrowing to eight percent vernment Commission u may limit u borrowing l to ap Lesser utilities.. The Local amount. As shown below, only Cary has a 1984 debt in excess of two percent of its taxable valuation and only Morrisville has proposed bonds exceeding two percent of its projected 1992 valuation. Figure I-5 Ratio in percent Ratio in Percent Proposed bondt»1992 valuation 1984 debt:valuation w.rsr couur Carr rl,yv.,.v.rw Gam raur Sarvp/ Klr.�ntoala Irotrin111r RVrpll Ra1M•IW wrw.ranr.t W�naHl 2WIto^ catru'o 0"Wl rau 2 3 . wll.00rwp+ 0 1s 3 0 l Percent Percent Table 1-3 Rat to Sonde 1984 Ratio debt Proposed to 1991. Taaeble votwtloq Sondad to 1984 va►uatton valuation goods petit .».._.. r0.?a^_-�• .--- 19ea 1992 ...._._..._. 19.0 0.15 »_ wage County 12.800. 10.200• 1.78 1.5 0.7 25q. 10.0 Apex 876. 1.300. 18.17 2.1 1.0 0.5 2.4 1.5 Cary 161.Spa. Sa5. 3.1 1.0 0.6 145 Garner 28. 40. 1.8 ... Molly Springy 65. 0.5 Z. 3.2 Knigntdafe 26. 0.77 0.7 0.5 1.5 39.5 Morrisville 2S 200. 86.1 --� Raleigh 5.640• 8,104. 0.1 1.0 0.7 10. 13_ 1.6 1.3 1.1 Rolesville 175. 1.4 a 9 ware Forest 85. 0.26 0.41 ...- wendefl 6Z 0.48 01 Zettulon 75. 150. 07.0 a)5 1.2 00.4 3.000. 1.0 l.5 0.7 orange County 2+�: 349. 7.76 0.35 8.65 GapelrHifl 832. 71. 1.1 a 12 0.18 --- ._.. Hillsborougn ill In millions All dollar figures are I.8 III Stfv(W1ttYs tNt31CAIE1) NEf:(7 VS. SCHEDUI_Ep11+d't2C3VfI�+tiNT (�Mtl..i_tC3N5) TABLE 1-2 i_tY:AL T12ANSPCIIiTAT10N t�} SOL10 WASTE ��} WATER {a} sEwrii {b} NDICATED S INDICATED SCt1EDULED I�l COST I�4CIVil�ST NEEpICOST 1WROV1CL) - -------1-------------------- tSti1tLLION ) NEED/OUST lm:liulV1Ct]ST NELI j --------------------- 50.04 50,40 5.4 5.4 -- 7.07 10.19 Id.19 - -- WAKE COUNTY 7.07 2.6 2.6 ---- ---- ---- 0.07 0.67 9.4 9.4 --- Apex 14.97 14.97 0.05 0.05 --- Cary 0.00 0.80 - Fuquey-Vorina ---- 9.49 9.49 0_58 ---- 2.24 2.24 1.04 1.64 • Garner O,d2 4.02 ___• ••-- Holly Springs x.12 1.12 - • - Knightdele -' 5,g 5.4 0.40 0.40 Morrisville 1.70 1.70 25.98 25.98 27.25 27_25 .... Raleigh 6.25 6_25 ---- ---- --- •-• Roiesvilte 2.25 2.25 1.01 1.41 ---- 2.30 2.38 0.05 0.20 0.20 __ Wake Forest 0.08 0.08 0.05 .00 -'-- ---- -'"-- Wendell 0.77 0.77 5'08 5 -------- ---------------------5----- 0 2ebulon ---••-- -------- 79.4 .8 S• - 74.62 74.62 79.09 COUNTY TOTAL "36.35 36.35 ---- 0.3b 0.36 _ 1.15 1.15 ---- ORANGE ODUNTY 12.b3 - -- ---• - 7.74 .57 6.69 -- i Cerrboro ---- - ---- ---- 7.44 0.04 ---- --•: 1 Chapel Hitt ••-- ---- ---- ---- f Hillsborough _- ---- -- Orange.Alamance 19.30 7.65 7.65 ----------------------- -- ----- '1, ONASA ----- ---------------------- . 9.25 0.36 0.36 0.8 TOTAL --- 31.93----1 9.3fl-----•--------------------------------------------------------------- -----8----------g- ------------------60.34--------------6.16 -6.16 TOTAL 68.28 55.65 63.42 03.42 i --------------------------- NOfi=S: (a) See Table 11-1 for details (p. (b) See Table 11-2, (p• (c) See Table 11-3, (p. tl-IS) (d) See Table I1-4. (p. 11-19) fable 1-2 continued an next pane...... Table I-2 continued ..... CO1vWN I TY FACILITIES (e) HEALTH (f) EIXJCAT ION (q} INDICATED SCHEDULED INDICATED SCHEDULE[) INDICATED SCHEDULED NEED/COST IMWit)vmisT NEED/COST lwljOV/COS( NEED/COST iwfii3V/CUST OF INDICATED COS fNEED SMA IDOS WAKE C[JIINTY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OF SCI w_ .68 55,68 38,59 38,59 125,8 125.8 Apex ____ -__ 292.73 242.73 Cary 1.25 1.25 _---_- ---- - 2.67 2.b7 25.62 Fuquey-Varina 1.00 1.00 ---- 25.62 Garner 0.50 0.58 ___. -��- '_"' 1,85 1.85 Hotly Springs 8.10 __-_ "'" 12.81 [2.81 Knightdsie 0.12 0.12 -��� -- ---- 1.46 1.86 Morrisville 6.02 0.02 ---- '"'- 1.24 Raleigh . ---- •--- 1.24 lO.I I0.1 __ 7.62 7.62 Roleaviila _ �- ---- 69.98 67.98 Wake Forest 0.43 0.43 __-_ --__ ---- "--- Wandell 0.63 0.63 --- ---- ---- ---- 6.8? 6.II7__1 Zebulon 1.12 0.12 __-- ::-' _ 1.76 1.76 ----------------------------- ------ '- �OUNTY TOTAL 70.95 69.85 ---------------•-------------------------------- --------------------- __ 9 5.84 )8.59 36.59 125.8 125.8 431.20 430.10 NANCE COUNTY 5.67 5.67 1.1 :arrboro 1.22 0. 30 ---' 7.6 7.6 28.71 14.78 'hope) Hi ii 6.14 6.14 ---- - ---- 8.46 2.82 Illisborough _--- ---- _ __ .... ---- ---- I3.24 12.36 )range-Alamance __ --_ __-- - 0.04 8.04 M+ASA 1.2 1.2 ---- - ---- ---- ---- T]UNTY TOTAL -------------1 3.3I----------------------------------------------------------------------------2 _15--- 28.15 -----1.3 ---- OTAL ----85.10---'83------------- --------------------------7-6--------6-----------------•---_79_10-- --- 58.15 39.89 30.59 133.4 133.4 510.30 _- 488.25 (e) Seu Table 11-5 for details (p. 11-21) ;1) See Page 11-24 g) Son Page 11-23 CONCLUSIONS se two counties is expected.to accelerate• The The. relatively rapid growth of the increase will not be evenly distributed. the Research that the Triangle- 3 Council of Poa��rnments Office in communities Assuming for development, six c Triangle Park is the center of growth and Chapel Hill lie within fifteen Apex7 Cary, Morrisville, Raleigh, Carrboro miles of that center- r A C6U" t. HILLSBOROUGH l I DURHAM, AML AIE • - 1p FOREST48 N CHAPEL ROIESV►LLE • WILL qP C. r 0 RO CARRO 1 ZESULON SI C IRO RALEIGH MORRISVILLE KNIGHTDALE CAR; YENCELL V APEX 0 // GARNER -'TL-L-YS5R I NGS FUQUAY-YARIINA Figure 1-6 Two Urban County Urban population Percentage Totals Population Percentage in the Two of Total in the Six Per Communities ....................... Communities Of-Total-------------------------40""- 404,620 ------ ----- 1621,454 ---------- ---------- 600'.." 1983 population 242,166 35% 491 ,909 70,609 1 �cted 650' g7 ,239 1992 1992 projE 321 ,300 population 8,155 Projected Growth 79.134 91" 191113-1992 Gamer, Knightdale, Wake Forest and Zebulont each beyond the fifteen mile radius, Project growth during the period of more than 10o%. ..This appears to be growth spillover from Raleigh, not direct growth from the Research Triangle Park development. Accepting the growth projections for each unit urban areas defined here as inside the corporate limits of a city or town, will Increase by 40%. The total population of the two counties will increase by 21% and the lead rurato l poa pulation will decrease by 17%. The increase in urban population will subsequent increase in expected municipal services. By making reasonable assumptions about service levels the services required for the additional 87,300 urban citizens can be estimated. Assumption Need Service ——---—------—---- 100 gallons per capita per day (gcd) 8.7 mgd. Water 80 gcd. 7.0 mgd. Sewer 2.6 persons per dwelling unit 33,576 units Housing 1 car per family unit - 33,576 cars Cars 6 trips per day-, 5 miles per trip 1.0 million Highway Use miles per day or 367.6 mil, miles per yr. 1.2 cu. yrds per capita.per yr. 104,760 cu.yrds. Solid Waste Disposal(l) piled 5 ft deep 13 acres/yr.. 22 parks Parks/Playgrounds (2) 1 park per 3,900 persons 1 recreation ctr per 5,000 persons 17 centers Schools (3) 1, school per 5,000 persons 17 schools (1) Wake County 1983 data (2) Raleigh 1963 data (3) Orange County data There is an adequate supply of water in Falls Lake and other local water sources to provide water for all of Wake County during then Aran 992 study period. With the temporary dam on Cane Creek, water supply i ge County is marginal. Completion of the Cane Creek project will provide adequate water for southern Orange County for the period and release of the Eno River watCounty through er now used by OWASA will provide an adequate supply for northern Orange 1992. However, development of one or more additional sources in northern Orange County should receive immediate consideration. It should be kept in mind that a lag time of ten years may be expected between the decision to develop a reservoir and the reservoir becoming operational. For the long term, these counties, and others, must look to Jnventoried ordan Lake as an additional supply. All potential water supply sources should be i and protected for future use. the planned increase by OWASA, will be- Treatment plant capacity, with will meet most 01 the adequate through 1992. Planned extension S Of exceptions er- line of the Wake County development. requirements with the possible- - portion of the Research Triangle Park. urban area is highly More extensive interconnections of- water systems within the le past. A _OWASA connection has been invaluable in th -Cary) desirable. The Durham m system to the Wake County (Raleigh large main connecting the Durha i0 es: a as that 2 protection for both s'ystem5- system- is desirable-if only used for emergenc 7 res is developed. would A Durham-Hillsborough connector along US- With proper intergovernmental agreements covering serve the same purpose- dmentss an be achieved in the timing of capital improv water use, savings c joint nning for the multi-county use of reservoir or treatment facilit ies. pla a step toward 9 more comprehensive regional water from Lake Jordan can be plan for use of water resources. meet the demand of growth, but to Sewage treatment is critical, not only to m Lake. With most of Wake County draining to protect the. Falls Lake and Jordan treat to the lakes is from Orange the Neuse River below the Falls dam, the tr Alamance, Durham and Guilford County and others beyond the study area - required if the Wa urbanized as zed are County Counties. Presently unscheduled sewers will be A portion of the Research Triangle Park is to be developed. s at planning in efforts ad delineation of service areas by expand, coordination Z re important. various sewer agencies become mO hi needs. The state Much is needed to meet the Projected, and existing, g gnized this by establishing a special task force to investigate ways and has recOl urban areas. This should enable local means to meet the transportation needs Ofe solutions to the bottlenecks which the Triangle to Pursu duction in Federal highway governments within rapid growth is causing. If there is a continued re way system must be sought. additional source of funds for the State high . funds an rch Triangle area should be emphasized. High priority needs of the-Research toward some joint municipal-state Within recent years there has been a nits have funding of state system projects inside the corporate limits- Some U f local interest through purchase of. right-of-way been able to advance projects 0 on cost. Should this trend increase it or committing to a share of the construct! towns willing to pledge local would work to the share of the cities and projects and to the disadvantage of completion of state system the competition. The trend funds. for the domP towns unable to meet y for those, usually the smaller tow established principal of, state -responsibilit could also threaten the long highways both inside and outside of corporate limits- The time may come when landfills, as the most cost effective means of disposal for solid waste, are no longer approriate - but not in the next ten years. The P must balance the economics Of large scale cost effectiveness of landfills hauling. An adventage .of a county owned operation and the cost of Iona distance h zoned by the county. Any most acceptable sites are in areas landfill is that a landfill in the zoning Jurisdiction of another governmental disposal of hazardous waste is effort to locate non-productive. Although the di capital jurisdiction can be issue, this study deals only with traditional C an increasingly important facilities- Hence the disposal of .hazardous waste is not addressed here 1-13 The adequacy of community facilities. varies across the study area. Major new facilties often must be funded by bonds. There is an understandable reluctance of officials to call a bond election without a strong indication of public demand.. The unpredictability of bond elections make long range planning of such facilities as- town halls, recreation centers or fire stations uncertain. No unit in the area is at, or near, its limit for bonding. Greater use of bonds can be expected, particularly in the most rapidly growing communities. In a small, very rapidly growing. town, such as Morrisville,_ timing of a bond program will be critical. li I i I-1� ORANGE C"TY LLSSOROUCH ' ' DURHAM ••. Grp c.` 1970 population 57,567 HAPEL HILL WAKE FOREST 1980 population 77,055 00 LLE O 1983 population (NCOBM) 79,661 ROLESVI p p +- -�•�� cARReoeo zESm oN� 1992 projected population 89,076 ==►=:0„ ' 7KpRRISV{LLE KnIGNTOALE Q O V �....... .....,. cARr RALEIGH WENDE�L�Lj AvEx „••..�•��.."•.,:• �.: Q � •. O OGARRER� ••:•:::'• ::::... HOLLY SPRINGS �FUQUAw0VAR{NA ��� �,L'r''• WATER: 984 - Lake Orange, owned by the County is a recreation and water storage reservoir on the Upper Eno River which supplements water supplies {' of Hillsborough, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority and Orange-Alamance Water Corporation in times of water shortage due to drought. Lake Orange has a rated capacity of 2.6 mgd. Water demand can ; be- as high as 4.4 mgd (.6 used by Orange Alamance, 2.1. by Hillsborough ,s= and the OWASA, and 1.7 in unmet need for instream flow). 1992 Besides the current deficit of 1.8 mgd projected growth will require an additional 1.62 mgd for Hillsborough and .54 by Orange Alamance (a F, total of 3.96 additional capacity not counting the OWASA need. The outcome of efforts to build Cane Creek to full size will determine what, if any, growth factor to plan for the OWASA). Projected need is a new reservoir to provide a 30 year safe yield of 5.T6 mgd or above. Preliminary study shows that it could be constructed on Seven Mile Creek, Corporation Lake or the Upper West Fork of the Eno. Estimated cost (in current dollar value) at the latter locations is $12.63 million. SEWER: Orange County's -only involvement in sewers is a recent contract with U.S. Farmers Home Administration to construct an outfall line to serve Efland School and the adjacent properties. The sewage will be treated at the Hillsborough plant. Estimated Cost - Phase 1 $1.15 million 1.54 Estimated Cost - Phase 11 HIGHWAYS: The State Highway system in Orange County consists of: 95.86 miles of primary roads 404.36 miles of"secondary roads 219.84 miles of unpaved roads 12-0.06 total miles NC DOT has scheduled, in its 1985-94 transportation improvement program,- improvement to 44.5 miles of highway at $95.4 million. This figure excludes the work scheduled in Carrboro ($3.6) and Chapel Hill ($6.3). However, 27.2 miles and $94.5 million are for construction of 1 40 and widening of 1 85. The Triangle J Conference an Roads* listed the following immediate needs, that are not programmed in the TIP: IMMEDIATE NEEDS: (Unprogrammed) Project Description Indicated Need/Cost ($millions) —----—--—------------ NC 86 Airport Rd (South New 1 40) Widen to 5 lanes $2.0 US 15/501 (Chapel Hill Bypass to Widen to median section 8.0 I Fearington) Durham-Chapel Hill Blvd Widen 6:8 lanes/upgrade 7.5 Total $17.5 Also listed were the unprogrammed but anticipated needs within the next 20 years: ANTICIPATED NEEDS: (Unprogrammed) Project Description Indicated Need/Cost ($millions) —----------------—-------------------------——------——----N+--~----——----------- NC 54 (Carrboro Bypass to Morgan Widen to 5 lanes $1.0 Creek) Chapel Hill Outer Loop New Location/widening 15.0 1_00 Total f Of the 154 bridges an the State system in Orange County, 46 are structurally deficient and 41 are functionally obsolete. Three are scheduled for replacement in 1985-86 at $0.77 million. s. *Refer to the April 30, 1985, Triangle J Council of Governments Conference on Roads. rE SOLID WASTE: The County operates a public container system. '. 1983 190 containers 1992 380 containers $0.36 est. cost j ($millions) Trash from Orange County is disposed of at the Orange County Regional landfill which is owned by Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill and operated by Chapel Hill. _ COMMUNITY FACILITIES: fi = Administration and courthouse - 14 11 adequate 3 inadequate r Public safety - 3 adequate Recreational buildings - 2 adequate Parks and Playground - 3 2 adequate 1 inadequate r Scheduled are: Administrative - Court buildings - (expansion) - 2 $1.27 million Recreation Facilities - 9 4.4 Total $5.67 million r "max EDUCATION: Orange County contains two school systems, the County system and the Chapel Hill.- Carrboro system. County System - 7 6 adequate 1 inadequate Chapel Hill Carrboro - 9 adequate Scheduled are: �. New school in County system $3.3 .:' Expanded unit in County system 2.0 Expanded unit, Chapel Hill/Carrboro 2.3 Total $7.6 million f h HEALTH: Public Health buildings - 1 owned adequate - 1 leased adequate y, Scheduled are: Public health building $1.3 million r ' ?' FINANCIAL POSITION: a Taxable valuation, 1984 $2,100. million :..'s 3,000. Projected taxable valuation, 1992 . Bonded debt 7.0 Ratio of debt to valuation 0.33`16 Proposed bonds 0.2 State shared taxes 4.8 Anticipated Federal grants 3.75 SERVICES: 1985 - 1992 Indicated Need/Cost 5chd. Unscheduled ($millions) ($millions) ($millions) Water $12.63 $1 2.63 Sewer 1.15 1.15 Solid Waste 0.36 0.36 ---- L Community facilities 5.67 5.67 0.82 , a Educational facilities 7.6 7.6 Health facilities 1.3 - 1.30 Total $2871 14.78 $14.75 i ADDITIONAL SERVICES: State Highways 95.4 95.4 ---- I JA F-7 ORANGE COUNTY . nu ' '� NORTH CAROLINA LM V .� � *•"°• _ !sJi iy itu �Jt crJ.,t JJlL JCi r1 isl r10W 7Jfl as � ' i , •r:: i J>1K �+ • _E?6wo. • '•Y3 t '�' 1>a. ida ' } wa •� me ••Ei.tom e>a v � • Zi•J,t � f' i 1>0 J.O. �• 1 as ' 116 !S '• —2h. 1 tt•a > rJ » a29! tJa : p. a Jpi1 !r7 +<— 'J u! an JAL a =t•� am v -:,�• _ i7et. Jts } "",-- �•+r T yn, Tat � atLL�., ptlL 11w Sbr� ,M ol Loft- ch6 t lib n y t., r,,.;�.G-i,•Y` Jan. Jis ug ^ • aim ff."•�—i•• T�,;7' ••.� ht •� •p JJUL M J .JlS - •' 317i ... •tom JY a. � \ y v+ ,� v LM 73 1JJJ a7 K` `QM` IAR ;dpd �,,.uli a/^• • IR! iEs na Ml rt.v •�','rr..Tl J.-. enWr• -� &1 \\ :1o'a'''fC � Jri�ia.•..,vt��•,v='�...,,.. 1m �]�y ! Ji•J� ++1». .d. = ut UK la U 37^.. Lq R PROPOSED CANE o,w. LPG JL1 r • s CREEK RESERVOIR *•"• ` '! —�� um •i iJ LW 1l2S ..y OrrV llet J'� A nJ • _ � .•t un im +4, i •�T, ,�, �y� I�•'=` 3 ��. �, sm .sue •�• I" •`;d +•'w.: - � ��'= a�;= + � sJrr .S •� tom. Yt q: m° d TTT_G7 7 i HILLSBORDUGH O DURHAM i '`•. �• CARRBORO O o CHAPEL HILL' WAKE FOREST 0 N' t Served by Highway NC 54 ROLESVILLE —1 no ISVILLE KNIGHTDALE EDULO �> Growth: 05$ 0CARY 0 0 O, 1970 population 5, RALEIGH W�ENDELI 1980 p population 8,118 APEX 0 0 OGARNE 1983 population (NCOBM) . 9,398 ! HOLLY SPRINGS .�- 1992 projected population 14,578 A (t O 1. FUQUAY-VARINA +t/ WATER and SEWER: Water and sewer service for Carrboro, Chapel Hill and the surrounding ri- areas is supplied by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority - OWASA. The water system provides adequate fire protection STREETS and HIGHWAYS: 21 miles Town system streets 10 miles State system streets .s Scheduled are: Miles Ind Need/Cost Schd Unscheduled ($millions) ($millions) ($millions) s -awn system needs--------- -- 1 -------------- .9 $7.1 ____-----------------_1.88 $5.22---- y State system needs 17.4 10.1 3.59 6.51 Note: Carrboro's share of State projects is $0.30 ii OFF STREET PARKING: Current 0 - lots 0 spaces Planned 1 • lot 200 spaces $0.637 ($millions) III- 3 TRANSIT: 84 Route miles, 1984 13 Number of buses 11,200 Average passengers per day Note: Carrboro contracts with Chapel Hill for transit service r SOLID WASTE: Solid Waste from Carrboro is disposed of at the Chapel Hill landfill COMMUNITY FACILITIES: Existing: Town Hall with Police/fire annex Public Works facility Three parks, all rated adequate Scheduled are: Ind Need/Cost Schd Unscheduled ($millions) ($millions) ($millions) _ ----—__—_—__- -----_ -------------- Administrative - 0.127 0,127 =Town Hall Improvements Public Safety - 0.215 0.215 Fire.Station, Calvander Recreation Facilities - $0.088 ---- $0.088 Community Center 0.634 0.30 0.334 Parks/Playgrounds Other - 0.145 ---- 0.145 Addition P.W. facility $1.209 0.30 0.909 Total I Note: Planned projects are from the Carrboro Capital Improvement Program which indicates needs but does not schedule them. II • ($millions) FINANCIAL SITUATION: $177.9 Taxable valuation, 1984 349.3 Taxable valuation, projected 1992 1.757 Bonded debt 1.0% Ratio, debt to valuation 1.5 Proposed bonds 0.818 State shared taxes SERVICES: 1985 - 1992 Indicated Need/Cost Schd Unscheduled ($millions) ($millions) ($millions) Transportation - Town Street System $7.10 $1.88 $5.22 Off Street Parking 0.64 .64 »-- Community facilities 1.21 0.30 0.91 Total $8.96 $2.82 $6.13 ADDITIONAL SERVICES: State Highway 10.1 3.59 6.51 I _ li i I ITT GC WEBB PARK .Y (PROPOSED) ZARRBORO•�� •� COMMUNITY'S :, �+% j ( ~ P ARK �w,,/•-•. _ rte-7 '` '7 �.r•--..,.,�`1 ,,,r•/ .. _ V 41 A US PARK / BALD PAR SCHO'. \,� lit, �,�,+,�' �• v.. ..•. .�. � �.:� � /1 -•'CS 'off' i c-'`—'— ,y�t� ��. •-...:1T•��' � 1 4• ..� G---- � � "'n `S N•� � lei- � r,r,. E,�. , ..• '-\ r,,,� .� rte .s'� �'l ` l ��� 'ct�, '"—'13-�� Pus41C ;WORK MORQAH CREEK rv ' ro, •� ' o.+, PARK (PROPOSED) LIKE• KE .a '; _. 0 /• `, 1 A .'WATER SUPPLY 00I J- (O.W.A.S.A.) {"'-• 1 v ti t >. c LEGEND ��'' 1 // / � �. ,/j i 1y— �,aye, W/�It a•M MAP •:s•' ?a •.rJC ` 1 TOWN OF CARRBORO � � 1 ROUGH 4 OURMAM CHAPEL, HILL CHAPEL HILL 0. 7 J WAX[ FORE0 ST 0 Served by US 15/501 and NC 54 O ROLESVILLE CARR81 0 -TH-ORRISVILLE ZEBULO."\ Growth: G0 KNIGWTOALE ARY 0 0 0.- 1970 population 26,199 / APEX 0 RALEIGH WIENDELL 1980 population 32,423 0 1083 population (town est) 35,263 HOLLY 0 SPRINGS 1992 projected population 44,100 FUQUAT VARINA 0 WATER and SEWER: Water and sewer service for Chapel Hill, Carrboro and the surrounding areas is provided by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority - OWASA. The water system is adequate for fire protection. STREETS and HIGHWAYS: Town system streets 98 miles State system streets 20 miles Scheduled are: Miles Ind Need/Cost Sched Unscheduled ($millions) ($millions) ($millions) ------------------- ------------——---—-------------------—---------------—------ Town system streets 0.6 $0.635 $0.635 State system Priority 1-3 17.9 12.22 4.82 7.4 Priority 4-5 9.8 7.4 2.3 5.1 Unrequested (bridges) 0.26 0.26 --- T Total 28.3 $20.515 $8.515 f12.5 BRIDGES: Number Inadequate Sch Replacement Ind Need/Schd Improv. ($millions) -—------------------—--------—--------------MM-------—-------—----------»------- Town system 11 4 2 $0.14 State system 6 1 1 -0.26 T T T-C7 OFF STREET PARKING: Existing 4 lots 305 spaces inadequate Planned 5 lots 685 spaces $4.73 %millions) TRANSIT: 1964 1992 Route miles 596,170 681,300 Average passengers per day 9,280 10,600 Number of buses 35 40 Scheduled are: Indicated Need Scheduled Unscheduled ($millions) ($mi.11ions) ($millions) ---—---------—-------—-------------——----------------- $1.59 $0.71 $0.88 SOLID WASTE: Landfills Number Acres Remaining capacity Indicated Need/Cost ($millions) ------------------------------------------ Existing ------------ --------------------------- 1 200 12 years Note: 170 acres for second landfill purchased in 1984, but as of yet undeveloped. Chapel Hill landfills shared with Orange County. COMMUNITY FACILITIES: Office Buildings - 4' 2 adequate 2 inadequate Public safety - 6 6 adequate Recreation and Parks - 4 4 adequate Library 1 inedequte Public Works Center - 4 4 adequate Transit facility - 1 1 adequate Post office - court (Town owned building) I adequate Scheduled are: Scheduled Facilities Ind Need 1985-86 1986-92 Unscheduled ($millions) ($millions) ($millions) Administrative Municipal Build $1.4 $1.4 Public Safety Fire Station/Equip . 0.55 -- 0.55 Recreation Facilities Parks/Open Space 2.09 0.10 1.99 Other - Library 2.1 2.1 Total $6.14 X0.10 $6004 FINANCIAL POSITION: ($millions) Taxable valuation, 1984 $832 Projected Taxable valuation, 1992 1,189 Banded. debt, 1984 7.92 Ratio, debt to valuation 0.95 % Proposed bonds 8.65 State shared taxes, 1984-85 2.79 Anticipated Federal grants 1.30 SERVICES: 1985 -1992 Ind Need/Cost Scheduled Unscheduled 3millions) 3millions) ($millions) ------------------- Local Transportation Town Street System Bridges $0.64 $0.64 $--- 0.14 0.14 ---- Off Street Parking 4.73 4.73 ---- Transit 1.59 0.71 0.88 Community facilities 6.14 6.14 Total s13.-24 $12.36 -,0,88 ADDITIONAL SERVICES: State Highways 19.88 7.38 12.5 State Bridges 0.26 0.26 .4 DA / I 5 I 1 4 i ool t Nomeslelad Rd. ._ o .^ *r �' o• I i 101! 4 U `Qb Intl •� Ch. Rd 1 ; tilee �.• Ephesus 1 , AM Ci 1 '• _ � g01,a l_J � 1 Put s. I 7T 1 1 ' CARROORO N ,��'°" C :so 1 UU, 54 8 X11 1 7 r e _a • 1 yon r C.N. °- CWbrelh Rd Gow I N 1 1 1 Cv�� to / CIO 4. Kjt i / MAP 4 — Public Buildings 1 L 1 �• 1. Municipal Building & Central Fire Station O� 00 2. Police Department 1 by cQc`,� 3. Public works, Bus Garage. Animal Shelter 1 t,� 4. District Court i Post Office S. Comeunity Recreation Center CO...,. •• 6 Memnrial Hospital �M�1M►M tD' Fire Station 02 Firy Station IF) racilitiee 9. Firy Station 04 and Traininq Tower 10. Harqraves Recreation Center F'lAPE1. HiLL ,N.C. 15. Landfills 11. change-Person-Chatham Mental Health Center SCwi.E V: 4000' 10. harace Williams Airport 12. Public Library 17. Parke 13. l.incoln Center. MILLSBOROUCH 0 1 DURHAM CHAPEL HILLSBOROUGH I HI'LL 0 04 WAKE FOREST 0 'N-1 0 ROLESVILLE Served by 185, US 70, and NC 86 CARRSORO .---T-m—aRJRiSVILLE ON 0 0 KH I CHTDAL E zEsuL Growth: APEX CRY RALEIGH WENDELL 0 1970 population 1,444 0 0 OGARHER 1980 Population . 3,019 HOLLY SPRINGS 1983 population (NCOBM) 3,087 0 1992 projected population 3,500 �FUQUAY-VARINA 46 0 WATER: Source: Eno River Lake Ben Johnson safe yield 0.44 mgd. Lake Orange safe yield 2.8 mgd. Plant capacity 3.0 mgd Average daily use, 1983 1.4 mgd Projected average daily use, 1992 2.0 mgd Storage, elevated 0.7 mg Storage, surface 0.3 mg The system provides adequate water for fire protection inside the town limits, but is weak outside. SEWER: Treatment plant capacity 2.0 mgd Average daily flow, 1983 0.9 mgd Projected average daily flow, 1992 1.6 mgd Scheduled are: Efland School line by County, 1985-86 STREETS and HIGHWAYS: Town system streets 18.25 miles State system streets 6.00 miles Scheduled are: Town system streets 0.75 miles $0.035 million TTr BRIDGES: Number Inadequate Scheduled Ind Need/Cost ($millions) — --------..------------------------------------------------------- Town system 2 1 ---- State system 3 1 ---- $0.03 OFF STREET PARKING: Existing 3 lots 325 spaces inadequate Scheduled 1 lot 35 spaces $0.006 million SOLID WASTE: Existing town owned landfill adequate for twenty years. i COMMUNITY FACILITIES: Town Hall adequate Police Station adequate Fire Station adequate Museum adequate . The County owns and operates a library in Hillsborough i FINANCIAL POSITION: Taxable valuation, 1983 $71.3 Projected taxable valuation, 1992 80 Bonded Debt 0.125 Ratio, debt to valuation 0.18 % Proposed bonds State shared taxes 0.41 i SERVICES: 1985 -1992 Ind Need/Cost Scheduled Unscheduled ($millions) ($millions) ($millions) —---------_._—---------- _. Water Sewer Trairiportation - Town Street System $0.035 0.035 Off Street Parking 0.006 0.006 ---- Community facilities Total $07041 T0.041 ---- ADDITIONAL SERVICES: State Highways 0:03 --•- i i II i I r� rr' IVA IN-A a H1115 borOL1 h i III-74 �L7;MIT•�/lRNyy� i 0 HrusOROUGN j ` ORANGE - At_AMANCE DuRNAN x WATER SYSTEM, INC. f 1 CHAPEL RILL' O p'1 This is a private water company serving an Of 1/AKE FOREST �,. area between Hillsborough and Mebane cARRepa �� ROLESQYILLE along US 70 and 185. it also serves an area in Alaman �MORRISVILLE 2EDULON ce County with sewer. The sytem Q KNIGHTDALE Q is connected with the Hillsborough water / CARY E cR Q Q�ENDEII Y APEX Q � system and the Mebane system. Through the / Q QGARNER Mebane system it can draw water from HOLLY SPRINGS �a,•� Graham. Q ' �FUQUAY-MARINA Q WATER: Source: Corporation Lake safe yield* 0.79 mgd** Plant capacity 1.0 mgd. Elevated storage 0.8 mg. Average daily use, 1984 0.5 mgd. Projected average daily use, 1992** 0.7 mgd. Notes: * Corporation Lake can be supplemented with water from Lake Orange owned and operated by Orange County. ** Safe Yield figure and use projection are from the Upper Neuse River Basin Study, NRCD, 1983 The system is considered adequate for the study period, 1985-92. The system could be used to transfer water from the Graham or Mebane water systems to Hillsborough and OWASA. I III-75 o���ic -aL AMAZE wit" 1 H Capacity : Imgd CIjMWd44: 100-000 gt%" t SSo.d 0.1% 54-rvice rumps: 2 L' 7bo 9 p m - ��� as r tans kNFj `-� OUT OF HILL it RV1GE GDr�Omy`lcJ1' la/tom �' IZ�t s t � } H2O � t Its~(0) WILLSgpQoUG61 WTP 09A Ala E - AL AMR ,vC E clao,rwdt = ;ao,b�yal. wly 1 �� -SYs rEi"1 -s /,A/e . 2.Ongd • �rvt�� Pumper..: e 0 OF�r c e 2 C IOSa g pm - ';3d TrrN t fo©T_ 5 ca/�: J"_ m•/e I C? Zloo IrM - 4,0'IV►4 ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY 0 (OWASA) OURNAM CHAPEL HILL 0 OWASA serves the southeastern part of WAKE rOREST Orange County, including 0 Carrboro and SVI L-1 ;I Hill, and small area in Durham and ROLE LLE Chap Chatham counties. hOARISVILLE MUM 0 0 KNIGHTOALE 0 CRY 0 0" APEX 0 RALEIGH VENCELL Growth: Water Sewer 0 OCARMEA Population served 1970 T3,9-9 0 HOLLY SPRIXGS K%- Population served 1980 46,100 �FUQUAY-VARINA 0 40700 'Pry Population served 1983 50,000 44,000 0 Projected 1992 64,500 WATER; *1 ��7 56,800 Source: University Lake Stone safe yield. Quarry Reservoir 3.5 mgd. safe yield Cane Creek Reservoir (temporary) 0.5 mgd. on line 7/1/5 Treated water from Hillsborough 2.3 mgd. Treatment plant capacity contract* 2.0 mgd. Storage (5.25 Mg. elevated) 10.0 mgd. Average daily use, 1983 6.75 mg. Projected average daily use, 1992 5.49 mgd. 11-63 mgd. * Full 2.0 mgd. may not always be available Scheduled are: Cane Creek Reservoir, safe yield 10 mgd. 1986-89 Raw Water line I July 85 $11.4 mil. Increase plant capacity to 15 mgd. 1985-88 1.3 Elevated storage tank, I mg 1.8 Additional Pumping capacity, 8 mg 1985 d. 1991-92 1.0 Sludge handling facilities at plant 0.2 Distribution system 1985`86 1.5 Total 1985-86 2.1 $1T-3 mil. SE-- WER: Treatment plant capacity Average daily use, 1983 8.0 m9d. Projected average daily use, 1992 5.55 mgd. Scheduled are: 7.16 mgd. Plant improvements Phosphorus removal 1986 Anaerobic digester, system 1988-89 $0.8 Mil. 1 mgd. 2.3 Outfalls 1988-89 0.75 Total 3.8 r7.-65 mil. COMMUNITY FACILITIES: (trailers) inadequate Administrative offices Warehouse Scheduled are: 1986-87 $1.2 million Administrative building FINANCIAL POSITION: 1984-85 $13.9 million Bonded debt 1985-86 8.4 Proposed bonds 1992 Revenue from fees 2.828 1983 4.861 Water 2.132 3.602 Sewer g960— . f8 Total .463 ($millions) Note: Use of the portion of the 1/2 cent sales tax earmarked for utilities is under discussion with Carrboro and Chapel Hill SERVICES: 1985-1992 indicated Need/Cost Scheduled Unscheduled ($millions) ($millions) ($millions)---------- ----------------------—-------------------------- -------------------------—- 19.3 19.3 Water 7.65 7.65 Sewer 1.2 1.2 ---- Facilities $28.15 — $28.15 Total .R WATZ& AND SMR ADTB LM: wATU SERPICS AUA FZATUUS ... • �ti �• Present Water Service Area ( »..... F Anticipated Area of Service (2000) f mrarplu - :r Major Water j' „� 1• Existing Ma j ter Lines •.�:.�: mom Projected Additional Major�r,f Water Lines (1992), _: •'2 FALS Musa � . ..•: ��• ti Y...... •s rest'`' :. :• 'W' :::: � :•':..: :•�•.•:•:,•....• ••... °O ��•:• ": : ••a'.•.•.•..•...Y• •y'•.•:: :.i t••. ................. tits � :;:;;�':�?;:;:; �. �::.: :�'.':�::::•, .r�?r:r.`:� % ::.••', _ '=`•• ••lam` :-� •l•. t , ;F: 'S•;:' R:a• :i ..•,F�[y, • .p_ .r,�r�•' ��.. ,•�,Y:� ��� ��.•°•+•rr 1. «„'{^�.�., �• •� - • I �. .••.?fir �'1�Yr.r Yr!r..Y..•• .R,,.•.y,•_•'`,�•wCy �.`��t•rsh., w� ; �y�_•«. �.-•.• ,t,r ....• •.. r19! � r Zc- t�.i- i, a f' t r �` :�"`•`r'•:'•♦♦. �:yr ;•;;�' WATER PLANT r.. - ,za �,;, •• :: •. JO r1 F c.. !;�' r �a�'i• � - �• J4 ..' •Vic. .���• : 5 � � .:..:' •• :+ �/'• F.v+ ;rho �• '�:r 4Y. :!c• �'•• %• v • '►.•..•.'a' . ;w"•-f 6 K tjG(17� •�-li� ' �'K -YF143•" ::i1... .�..::Z^• , '1 �;�'E �� �c�1iH-r.�`�F�.rv;:1-i .t � i. � �•. Out sr a..�--'1.::�•':1"" :::......::::...... .^' •F+''"•, •'.: •.� c• 1. . •.. ::::::::• ::::::. ....::.:• ............... ....... � .:�� :.. ......•......•....•- •t ::::.�:: :•3.i .: ................ r�......... ' ......... •• Rtty� t57s �',�•:•:•:'••1�• •••• rD Tab w"'-�-•-•••►'l"_.®.. - 1�♦. __ _x.4.1 :..._.-._ K .✓I` II/6. 17:9 A J, i e W=R AiD MWR AIlI80BI.I"Y:. SERBS SERVICE AREA FEATURES � /' •-° Present Sewer Service Area Dm ' '• 1't' • �:: Anticipated Area of Service- (2000) i Existing Major Sewer Lines ��®•• - Projected Additional Major Sewer Lines (1992) rx t 17 •� 7. .. • : • •. ♦ • ••.��•, �'�•):.!•1� •.1131 ti. •♦r;•;•Y;•; •••••••- :••i• ���•L_ ••1 �.:ll i'••;i•• :•;:.• •;.• :; •;:• :I;•;••:�,:� •C•AIM . ••.:••••:• i : :••:,Y.• 4•-.••••• `: �M•1 •Q .�; ; . :• ', ' :• :-�q':•;.�,�•�, + f'*�!t r;;•• �;;.�, .::.......... .� ,� ,••'. '. :.;•.• ,•',fir!• ;.a :�'.• : +,,N..T•,ti,••�. ',�� '+,w�t, :•..�s�''p;'•.... •:.�: •:• .J t��/.! ••; ':;i =•may,.t5 .• �` ,� •• �,�7•a""4 ttd�1/ •• •2'T.,-X�i .;.•;. _ may•• :��T:��' .��. ��`fir :.�� 1107'•`• `: �:t•;� '•rte•; �'.•,•;';:••:'•''•••'�: `.tiLh•',` �-k,,, :C=s'4R:�. *S . � ..� � - ���� . �� ,,��' 4` `�'."�:.� ';��- � ��` ;:::: ••;•�. set AS 1!47 a r?� +Z.._•�it• .a r l •t ' iL 'S r r` .... :� . +.l -'T 5 :•Llama• ::::: ! .V A - 5r• .'�I•. V•• ,•PJ'' ��t ,�,•J.,••. lam• ••• :.•:�• 'T.•:r` •• 'fI• '1944 �" � � •e-„�^ ��:�'' �••":ii:•" X�.rSS • • '%.'. ^rr"';:»t:»- '�»»tE t:'.:_=�1:;: •,�niC%` --�.• ,'�4, T •lam T�'�r••y':y;,,i�. . etn. ;,ir1��„�.��....: :::iC:��.M• ......• ' 1, r '..✓. "���,: i+ '-t;�al�4 � t1'; �r � "'t'q4.�'+•••::• ::::::::::: •` • 1942' •• .!" •',�• „Z`' +r ?,�.J•,�,,•,. •,w:i'+,t^',i^is s'• ��'• • '` i'• a �i�• ••/ • •• try ' • /� `!f'! 'l ' S•. ••:ai'�:•• •••• 142. .,.i-`• �•' 4��•�x ":c''v''••'.=`'d:r..� -•� t.. : •+,»:�� �i` ::::;��,+..^ :.."",!':. rqr . ', �••�..'�" , �•!'•••T'`•�c'•:b.. ,�� y •`•'•• �•t�li`:•'••. �'M: - ::�::�:{�, $::• • mow. 1.7Ti�:T.i••t r r,•✓c,•r• t• .: =iii'n,7i..iTi..iL.. MASON FAR,%l ::::=::•....- . ::.:.:..: WASTEWATER PLANT • ::.. 1941 �* •::::•:::•• ..:»'» T}-.�.;• �•::...:.......::. ... •;.::......:ziei#c='- •zir.i ...::::•: • �v ....••r•• .••...•..w•••.•r••.. •..•• .••.'.••::r.::• • • :•• ••.. ........••. • •..• •...... •..,•.•••• •..- .••• •:w:..•• •-• + •.• .,r.•rr.w•..•r.r.w.r.r.•r.r• •......... ••..•. =.,� • ••.. •.r. ••w..•••ww•.r.rwr ............•• ::-••� '.r. •...r.•rw.• •,:. • =..w..r,.•r• .w...w.w.r •••w,•w.1.r•.rwrw•rww••rw•r.••.• •••• �� •►,r •.•. •.•• • • •..::•• •...... •. •..•rp.wr•r.Y.w.- ♦•• w • •.••••• ::i: ::.••••r.a... : :::w:.•.. ........w•• ......ww...rr.uw•...rw•.w, r•' ••.. • ':::::::: •. ;...... .......... •::::• .. ..w................••...... E»:�. ... �' i : : :.::• • r• .:. :....:::::. • . •:. .••►..w.....•r.rr.w•. .......... »»»wr•wr.•.•.r•.. •.•........r...•..•• • .°••.r.•••. ::::••.••w. •::: .::::::• :.:i .•:r•••.r...w•.•ww••, •:•r.:.:,.• ::i:::: .n.�`}•�•........••. •• ar: • •••.....•.• t :♦.:••:.w..•..•...•. ..• PREFACE In February of 1984, a research team from the University of North Carolina made a presentation to the Regional Manager's Group on a statewide infrastructure -survey they had recently conducted. Following this meeting, Carl Johnson, former Wake County Manager, Richard Stevens, present Wake County Manager, David Taylor, Chapel Hill Town Manager and Bradley Barker, Executive Director of the Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) began to discuss their impressions, observations and criticisms of the infrastructure study. Together they decided. that if such a project could be focused on a limited region'' it would be beneficial to local government officials and managers. Gradually the idea took shape and became more specific. The purposes of the study would be: 1) To develop a consistent, reasonably complete inventory of key infrastructure elements of individual municipalities- and counties in the selected.area; 2) To improve coordination, planning, and timing of infrastructure improvements among these units of government; -nd 3) To effect economies for these jurisdictions through this improved timing of expenditures and coordination (eg. cooperative drainage basin arrangements*for sewer improvements) During the ensuring period the format of the report was formulated. The orginal* proposal was an infrastructure survey focused on Region J's three metropolition counties: Durham, Wake and Orange. Eventually the scope of the study was limited to Wake and Orange Counties and the project was funded by these two counties. Meanwhile, a Manager's Committee was established to address the issue. The Committee consisted of: Don Horton, Zebulon Town Manager Richard Stevens, Wake County Manager David Taylor, Chapel Hill Town Manager Ken Thompson, Orange County Manager Bradley S. Barkert Executive Director, Triangle J COG Finally an October 4, 1984 after receiving the approval of the TJCOG Board of Delegates and under the auspices of the Regional Managers Group, a work plan and outline were developed and TJCOG appointed Mr. Robert Peck, a former city manager, as the project director. This report is based on a survey of municipal and county managers in Orange and Wake Counties. The enclosed data was gathered from questionnaires delivered to the managers of each city and county, or garnered from the managers themselves. As with all surveys, the limitation of this study is the lack of uniformity in evaluating each municipality and its needs. There was no standard established to determine need or surplus. However, the objective of this report was not to evaluate or compare cities but rather to serve as a reflection of how each city and county evaluates itself. This information was collected from the managers with the expectation that each of them would view the needs of his or her jurisdiction in relation to the study area as a whole. It is hoped that by understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each jurisdiction, the area can work together to find common solutions. If this study can help to bring local governments.together to share problems and ideas, then an important goal will have been accomplished. The Regional Manager's Group of TJCOG views this report as the foundation for a future information system which would be periodically updated and made -accessible to local officials. Such a system would help to increase the accuracy of local capital budgeting and maximize the benefits of Capital Improvement Programs through inter-governmental cooperation. It is with this in mind, that the Regional Manager's Group is planning a workshop on capital budgeting and programming to-be scheduled this fall. The report is the culmination of months of planning and effort by Mr. Peck, the Committee members and various local officials. Chrysso Sarkos reviewed and edited charts and text for clarity and internal consistency. Our most sincere appreciation is extended to the numerous officials who helped in gathering the information, maps, and statistics presented here. It is our hope that this study will help to guide and coordinate the efforts of the various leaders and officials who read it. ICI WATER I. SUPPLYs Wake County is adequately supplied with water by interconnection with Falls Lake through the Raleigh water treatment plant at least for-the period 1985-92. Several towns have independent supplies and the option of further development of such supplies. Cary is considering Jordan Lake as its supply source. Holly Springs plans an additional well and Zebulon is studying an impoundment on Little Creek as a potential eight mgd. supply. The present Wake Forest reservoir is adequate for the period except for exceptionally dry years. In Orange County, completion of the Cane Creek reservoir will provide water for southern Orange County beyond the study period. When OWASA no longer needs water from Hillsborough, the Eno River, supplemented by Lake Orange which is owned by, the County, will provide adequate. water. Corporation Lake water rl supply for the Orange-Alamance Water Company, is also adequate for the study period. It can be supplemented, if needed, from Lake Orange, Orange County is studying an additional water supply reservoir. For the long term, Jordan Lake with a potential for a municipal water supply up to 100 mgd is a major resource. It should be considered by Durham and Chatham Counties as well as Wake and Orange Counties. Other more remote counties, pafticularly those below the dam, have a legitimate claim to water from this source. Joint development of intake and treatment works offer the most economical use of Jordan Lake for the counties above the dam. However, a considerable degree of cooperation among the potential users would be necessary for this to come about. TREATMENT: Only the OWASA system projects use in 1992 beyond the capacity of its treatment facilities. OWASA plans a 5 mgd. addition to its treatment plant by 1988. Zebulon projects a demand in 1992 equal to its plant capacity and plans to make operational changes to increase that capacity by 50%. Zebulon also has the option of using its water allocation from Raleigh to supplement its own supply. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM: Wake County is a major factor in expanding the water distribution system into unnerved areas. Some towns in Wake County require annexation in return for water and sewer service. The cost of water distribution to and within new developments is, in general, borne by the developers. In most of the towns the present water distribution system is adequate for fire protection. In the exceptions, improvements to the system to remedy the weaknesses are planned. 11-2 TABLE I I-1 WATER. INDICATED SCHEDULED IMPROVFJvENT MILLIONS) ............................... ------------•------------------ ------------------------------ ($MILLIONS) SUPPLY PLANT CAPACITY STORAGE ------•-----•--••-------------- ----------•-------------------- ------------------------------ INDICATED NEED SCHEDULED INDICATED NEED SCHEDULED INDICATED NEED SCHEDULED MGD. (SMIL) IMPROV NGD. (SMIL) ItvPROV NGD. (SMIL) INFROV ----------------------------------------------------------- . WAKE COUNTY ---- _-__ •--_ ..-• ---- ---- ---- ---- ..._ Apex 0.50 0.07 0.01 ---_ ---• --•- __-- __-„ Cary 6.00 6.70 6.70 6.00 5.50 550 2.00 2.00 2.00 Fuquay.Varina -•_• ---- ---- ---- --•- .... -•-- Garner ---- ---• ---- --•- ---- ---- 1.QQ 1.28 1.28 Holly Springs well 0.02 0.02 ..-- _._. .... .__. __.. _-_- Knightdale ---- ••.. ---- _••- ---- --•- ---• -•-- Morrisville ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -•-- -..• ---• Raleigh ._-- ---• _-__ __-. _--- •_-• 1.00 1.00 1.00 Roleaville ---- ---- ---- ---- -•=- ••-- •--• Wake Forest ---- ---- ---- .... ---- -•-- 1.00 Q.80 0.80 Wendell -.-- .... ...• 0.50 0.43 0.43 Zebulon ---. ..._ .•__ 0.50 0.01 0.01 0.50 0.51 0.51 �. _ ------ ---•• .... --------•------ .••-- ----- .............• ----- . '--•--------- COUNTY TOTAL 6.5 6.79 6.74 6.5 5.51 5.51 6.00 6.01 b.01 • ORANGE Ct3UNTY 5.6 12.63 ---- ---- -- .--. ---. ••.. .._. Carrboro -•-. .._. _••- Chapel Hill ---- ---- - ---- ---- ---- .__. ---- -... _ Hillaborough .--. ...• .- -_.. _--_ .... Orange-Alamance - ---- --_. _--_ ..•- •_-_ .�-• OWASA 10.00 12.70 12.70 5.00 3.50 3.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 --------- ---- --------•----- -_... .•--. -------------- ---- ---- -------- --•. COUNTY TOTAL 25.33 12.70 5.08 3.50 3.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 ---- ... ...- ------•-..__._ • .---- ....--•--._. .••• ..•... ........... TOTAL 22.I 32.12 14.44 11.5 4.01 9.01 7.00 7.01 T.01 TABLE 11-1 Continued nn next page . . . . . SEWER Collection and treatment of domestic and industrial sewage is more critical than water supply and treatment. Three factors are important: expansion of treatment facilities, improvement of the facilities to assure that the- plant will meet the higher required standards and expansion of the collection system into growth areas. Raleigh treats sewage for Apex, Cary and Garner. A contract with:Knightdale provides for treatment of sewage in the near future. Contracts provide for some pretreatment, establish limits to flow and, in Ahe case of Cary and Garner, require construction of local treatment facilities. Limits are set by allocation of plant capacity and allocation of outfall capacity, not necessarily the same. These can be changed by agreement and contribution to plant increases and new outfalls. The following are from Raleigh sewer agreements: Latest Contract or Town Amendment Terms ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------—--- Apex 1983 Limit 0.7 mgd. until Walnut Creek interceptor is increased in size, about 1988. Limit 1.3 mgd. afterward. Cary (1) 198; 19134-85: limit 2.2 mgd. 1985-88-. limit 2.4 mgd. 1988-89: limit 1.4 mgd. 1989-2003: limit 2.44 mgd. Allocation of plant capacity is 3.3 mgd. Garner (2) 1984 1984-85: limit 2.1 mgd. 1985-87; limit 0.6 mgd. Knightdale 1981 After completion of the Mungo Cr6ek outfall, Raleigh will acept 1.23 mgd, at the plant. (1) Cary must build a 1.5 mgd plant by 10/84-and increase plant capacity by 1988 (2) Garner must build a treatment plant for the south side by 1987. Cary, Garner, Holly Springs, Morrisville, Raleigh, Wake Forest and Zebulon are planning-new, or enlarged, treatment plants with a total capacity of Is mgd. at a cost of $43 million by 1992. Apex is considering either a treatment plant of I mgd capacity or construction of an outfall to Raleigh to supplement the existing outfall. Knightdale plans to build a connector to Raleigh and abandon its existing treatment plant. In Orange County, OWASA has adequate plant capacity but must upgrade the plant at an estimated cost of $3.6 million. Hillsborough's plant is adequate. Orange County has contracted to build a line to Efland for $1.15 million. TT SOLID WASTE: LANDFILLS: Wake county has two landfills and is developing a third. These serve the rural areas and several towns. Raleigh operates one landfill and plans to open one more during the study period. Cary, Wake Forest and Hillsborough each operate landfills. Wake Forest plans to shift to the new Wake County landfill on Durant Road as soon as it is ready. Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro jointly own the Joint Orange Regional Landfill as well as additional land for expansion. This joint county/municipal venture is operated by Chapel Hill and serves all of Orange County. Planned capital expenditures for new or expanded landfills are: Wake County 0.1 Raleigh 0.40 Total $3.5 million Note: Some use is made of private landfills. PUBLIC CONTAINERS: Wake and Orange counties as well as the Town of Cary operate a system of public containers. The statistics-are as follows: Number in Service Proposed 1992 Est. Cost ($milLions) -------------- ------------ ------ ---------------------------------------56 $2.3 --------------- Wake County 21 0.36 Orange County 190 380 Cary 2 5 Total 213 441 T2.66 COMMUNITY FACILITIES Within this classification are administration buildings, police, fire and public safety buildings, public works facilities, libraries, recreation buildings, parks and playgrounds. Many communities are making do with facilities that are marginally adequate. Some improvements are scheduled. Type Number Planned Facility 1985-1992 Est. Cost ($millions) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Administration 5 $ 8.9 Public Safety 8 30.4 Libraries 2 6.1 Recreation Buildings 3 3.0 Parks and Playgrounds 11 3.5 Other 4 6.4 Total 33 56.3 Wake County operates 17 libraries. In most cases these had been Town libraries for which the County assumed operational responsibility in the Town owned building. This is true in Apex, Cary, Fuquay-Varina, Garner, Knightdale, Raleigh (2), Wake Forest, Wendell, and Zebulon. In Raleigh space for three libraries is provided by the Housing Authority, space for three is rented and there is one joint school/library facility. The County rates 15 of these as adequate for the present only and two, in Raleigh, as inadequate, Apex, Garner and Zebulon rate their libraries as inadequate. Orange County makes contributions to three libraries which serve it: the Chapel Hill Municipal Library, the Mebane Library and the Occoneechee Regional Library which is located in the Hillsborough Human Services Building. Wake County plans a library headquarters as part of a joint use administration building ($2 million assigned here to the library) to be built in 1985 and has scheduled $2.0 million for library improvements in 1987-89. Chapel Hill plans an additional library at an estimated cost of $2.1 million. !1-20 TABLE I1-5 CC"AJN!TY FACILITIES: INOICAfLD NEFD VS. SCt'IEDULED IMPROVElVENT ' - -------------------------- --- ---- • (SMIJ_LIONS) ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES •'PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES RECREATION FACIU TIES(a) ---------•-------------------------- ..................INDICATED NEED SCHED INPROV INDICATED NEED SCHED IMPRDV INDICATED NEED SCHED Im2ROV ------------------------------------ -----------•----•------------------- NCN@ER NUvBER NtJN6ER EXISTING (SMIL) (SMIL) EXISTING (SMIL) (SMIL) EXISTING (=MIL) (SMIL) -.•-- WAKE COUNTY 3 5.8 5.8 2 20.2 28.2 8 5.69 5.69 Apex -- ---- •- Cary -- Fuquey-Varina 1 1.00 1.00 -! 0 25 0.25 3 1.00 1.00 Garner 1 0.50 0.50 -- •� ---- -- _ Holly Springs 1 0.10 -_- _ Knightdale 1 0.05 0.05 I 0.05 0.05 1 0.02 0.02 Morrisville -• ---. - ! 11.02 0.02 Raleigh ---- Rolesville __ -- - 2 1.5 1.5 11 8.6 8,6 Wake Forest 1 0.03 0.03 - ' "- ---- --•- ! 0.40 0.40 Wendell 1 0.03 0,03 ?1 0.60 0.60 F Zebulon - _- •... _•-_ 1 0.07 0.07 .25 .QS COUNTY TOTAL -------9 7 41---__7.5!. ---•----------------•--•-7 30.07 30.07 ---• •- -••------....--••-•. ............... _........ 28 16.58 16.38 ORANGE COUNTY 2 1.27 1.27 - ---- 9 4.4 4.4 Carrboro ! 0.13 ! 0.22 •.-- 2 0.72 0.30 Chapel Hill 1 1.4 1.4 ! 0.55 0.55 2.09 11.09 Hillaborough -- .--- .--• -- •-•- •-- Orange-Alemance -- -- ..._ ONASA 1 1.2 1.2 ...........................•••--•.........---•---_... .....---•••---••-••-_.....---•-••................•-•--- COUNTY TOTAL 5 4.00 3.87 •••••••---- • 2 0.77 fl.55 11 7.21 6.79 TOTAL 14 11.51 11.28 9 30.84 30.62 - 39 • 23.79 23.17 ........................... Other Facilities Include: Libraries. Social Service Buildings, Public Works Buildings (a) See Table II-5A, on the following page, t'aIJLt; t I ,)nl i nut-d tin nr-Xl Ilui*(. . . . . . . r TABIX II-5 continued . • . • . • OTHER FACILITIES* ------------------------------- INDICATED NEED SCHED IMPROV TOTAL INDICATED NEED NUV13EIA NLNBER OF SCHEDULED EXISTING ($MIL) (')MIL) FACILITIES ($MIL) INFR0VEINENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WAKE COUNTY 4 15.99 15.99 17 55.68 55.68 Apex Cary __ _-_- -_-- 4 1.25 1.25 Fuquay-Varina __ ____ ____ 1 1.00 1.00 Garner -. ____ ____ 1 0.50 0.50 Holly Springs __ ____ ____ 1 0.20 Knightdale __ .___ .___ 3 0.12 0.12 Morrisville _.-_ __._ 1 0.02 0.02 Raleigh __ ____ ____ 13 10.1- 10.1 Rolesville __ __-_ ____ .. -._. ..._ Wake Forest _- •___ _•_- 2 0.43 0.43 �-. Wendell _. _-_- 2 0.63 0.63 v Zebulon 1 0.80 ---- 4 1.12 0.12 rO •---------- -------------•----------------- 000NTY TOTAL 5 16.79 15.99 50 70.95 69.85 ORANGE COUNTY _. ____ __-_ 11 5.67 5.67 Carrboro t 0.15 2.10 5 1.22 0.30 Chapel Hill 1 2.1 •-•- 3 6.14 6.14 Hillsborough -_ ..__ -___ -- ---- ---- Orange-Alemenc ,_ --__ ____ -- ---- ---- ONASA ._ ____ _.__ 1 1.2 1.2 COUNTY TOTAL .._..---------2. .2.25-----2.10- ------------------20----14.23---.-._.•-_.-l3.31...... ................•--------------------....._..............._...-_...._-----------------_....... TOTAL 7 19.04 18.09 69 05.18 63.16 =rim TABLE fl -5A RECREATION, PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS ---------- --------- ($MILL'IONS) ----------RECREATION-BUILDINGS--- ----------------------------- -------------------------------- PARKS AND PLAyGROU[DS NLbIBER INDICATED SCHEDULED -----------------------;------------ EXISTING NEED PROJECTS NUMBER INDICATED SCHEDULED ----------*---------------------- --------------------- EXISTING NEED PROJECTS ----------------------------------- WAKE COUNTY Apex 5 5.69 Cary 1 ---- ---- Fuquay-Varina 11 1 .00 3 Garner2 ---- ---- Holly Springs 2 ---- ---- Knightdale 1 Rolesville 1 0.02 Raleigh 56 ---- ""-- 1 0.02 Morrisville -- ---- ---- 61 8.6 Wake Forest I -- ---- ---- Wendell 1 0.60 1 3 0.40 1 Zebulan -- 0.60 1 ------------------ 2 0.05 2 COUNTY TOTAL 60 0.60-------- ----------------------------------------------------- 90 16. 38 ORANGE COUNTY 2 3.00 2 ' 28 Carrboro 3 1.42 9 Chapel Hill 4 ---- ---- 3 . 0.30 2 Hillsborough ---- ---- 5. 2.1 2 COUNTY TOTAL 7 3.00--------2----- ----------- - ----------------------------------- 11 3.82 13 TOTAL -------67------3.6--------3-------------------------------------------------------- 101 20.20 41 NOTE- Plans for parks may include open space and greenways ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 054 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date September 3. 19'B5 Action ...&nda Item SUBJECT: BRITTON 1110ODS II — PRELIMINARY (Property of Ted and Leslie Jackson) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ' PUBLIC. HEARING —Yes X No A•ttachment(s) Information Contact: JANE ATWATER CHECKLIST VICINITY MAP PRELIMINARY PLAN DRAFT 6 .19.85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers HiLtsborough — 732-8181 Durhan, 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PU49PDSE: To -consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Britton Woods To receive the PLanning Board recommendation . NEED: The property i*in question is Looated an SR 1009 (Old NC B6) and a private road (Farnham Place) off of Britton Drive in Chapel Hill Township . The property is referenced as Lot 12 of Tax Vja*p 23, Block A . It is also referenced as Lot I of the Britton Woad Subdivision . The property is bordered by residential development . The tract is designated as Rural Buffer in the Land Use Plan . There are two Lots proposed out of 5.006 acres . The. Lot sizes are 1 .355 acres and 3.85 acres, excluding rights—of—way. The property is zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) . Access to Lot 1A is provided via a Class "C" private road which Leads to Britton Drive, a Class "B" private road in the Britton A-foods. Subdivision . Lot 1 has access from SR 1009 . This property is within the courtesy review area for the Town of Carrboro and is Located in the South Orange Fire District . The Carrboro Fire Department has reviewed the Preliminary Plan 055 BRITTON WOODS II SEPTEMBER 3, 1985 PAGE 2 and has imposed two conditions, for the purpose* of providing emergency services to the residents of Lot 1A, which the applicant has complied with . They are as follows: 11 The private road labeled "C" shall have a 12 'ft. wide driveable area based an the need for area to maneuver 81 wide fire service vehicles . 2) Private road 11C11 shall have a turn—around point at the end, either a cul—de—sac or a "T". Law enforcement is provided by the Orange COunty Sheriff's Department . It will be patrolled on a 24 hour basis. IMPACT: . Development of the subdivision wouLd. h-ave minimal impact on the area . RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Board recommended approval of the subdivision on August 19, 1985 with the following condition : to correspond with the Carrboro Fire Department re.-commendation to which the applicant has agreed, thD Class - "C" road should be labeled Class "B" . The traveLway width requirement for a CLass"B" private road is 12 feet . The base and right—of—way standards for Class "C'� and Class "B" private roads are the same. II MAJOR SUBDIVISI:.ON CHECKLIST. a NAME OF SUBDIVISION Britton Woods II OWNER OR DEVELOPER Ted & Leslie Jackson ADDRESS Rt. 8, Box 486 Al Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514 929-2231 or 967-5029 TOWNSHIP Chapel Hill TAX MAP 23 BLOCK A LOT 12 NAME OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER John Bradner Total number of lots 2 To be developed in 1 phase(s) . Total .number of acres5.006 Typical dwelling units at present None or proposed single-family WATER SUPPLY: Public (Name) Commnuity Individual X SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public Community Individual Septic tank X SCHOOL DISTRICT Chapel H3TI7 arr oro FIRE DISTRICT_ South Orange Access onto State Road it 1009 Road Standard: Public or Private Class A , B , C X Existing critical areas such as streams (X j, Flood prone areas ( ), Watershed ( }, His toric Sites {— ) , Other{ ) Explain: One wet weather stream Land us the general area residential .SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 5/8/85 Approved ( X ) Recommended Changes ( } PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 6/3/85 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 7/26/85 Preliminary Review by Health Department 6/4/85 Ron Holdway • Erosion Control Officer 7/26/85 Warren Faircloth Board of Education Mary Lynn Truelove 6/5/85 Department Of Transportation OWASA (if possible) Other -Mebane (if possible) -Hillsborough (if possible) -Orange/Alamance (if possible) Preliminary Action.by the Planning Board approved with a condition 8-19-85 Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners FINAL PLAT RECEIVED (Date) ( ) All lots were approved by the Health Department ( j Lots failing Health Departments approval are combined or Listed properly on the plat ( ) Road Maintenance Agreement submitted (where applicable) . Approved t ) 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. p 01 f--z +— SE Al rr MAP M DEER 7EU 4 L-66114 ,7ACX504 OVE �P'Duc,9NT�+ ftIAPJ t oF�121 .zomi ld : l�`l ttuaaL lEE6ID Nl7 t. NEI • RuR.A.I. l3uFfBR. � (9B , AAP Du�1&NATION' -, 5.4 AC 8096 8 t IF Off- ' It :5798 AC q 0 31C 2316 36.75 I � 5z 0 SRITTQ4 rnvE P7E 31B 4381 - - Ad G U +EAR 5 12G a 12F 12E 2 Q`c�'(t\C' 12C 11.2 AC. 0144 6.76lAC 7.323 AC. s 52455 035 913 P !i4 �i1t1iT�lk�7 DOdy.{t$J 191oN'1b85 F�¢E' 12B N 804 (A;--- 7 405 AC ' PN 903 �?R 207 AC - ,,..- .12A 9.299 A C `�`� t 6794 'p 2-23 AC. 4 4383 0 - - --- 24.42 AC. • y?9 27 t 05 f'f- 9145 4 13 z 14' / 14 -� t 14C 8955 2.126 2.' AC. 290 4985 7994 : 3.627 AC. 2.13�AC 1, Ihy$Opt�" :DEERRIDGE Do — ^ — 25rE_a ( Iq EASEMENT -- -i 15A i `5 204AC "12 1156 4.C9 AC, 18 -5 I . AC 058 DRAFT 8-19-05 PB MINUTES Pearson inquired what the next option was for the developer . Smith 'respo.nded the developer veLoper could appeal the Planning Board 's decision to the Board of Commissioners . Kizer pointed- out that there was nothing wrong with the final plot and the Planning Board has no basis to turn the project down as the Board of Commissioners had overruLed' the Board on the -PreLimiary Plan . -The only thing required of the Planning Board at this point is to see that the final plot is correct . The Law specifically states what the Board can and cannot do . Shank Lin sti L L felt that the developer wou Ld possibly re Look at their proposal and voluntarily make changes . h . Britton Woods — Preliminary Presentation by Atwater. Th6 purpose of this agenda item is to consider approvaL of the PreLiminary Plan for Britton Woods 11 The property in question is Located. on Sr 1009 [OLd NC BS) and a private . road (Farnham PLace) off of Britton Drive in ChapeL Hill - Township . The property is referenced as Lot 12 of Tax Flap 22, Block A . - It is also referenced as Lott I of the Britton Wood Subdivision . The property is bordered by residential development . The tract is designated as Rural, Buffer in the Land Use Plan . There are two Lots proposed out of 5.006 acres . The Lot sizes are 1 .356 and 8.65 acresi excluding rights—of—way. The property is zoned 11-1 Murat flesidentiaL) . Access to Lot 1A is provided via a CLass"C" private oad which Leads to Britton Drive, a Class I'D" private road in the B.ritton Vic a d s Subdivision . Lot I has access form SR 1000 . This property- is within the courtesy review area for the Town of Carrboro and is Located in the South Orange Fire District . The Carrboro Fire Department has reviewed the Pre Liminary Plan and has imposed two conditions, for the 059 - DRAFT 8-19—B5 PR MINUTES purpose of providing emergency services to the residents of Lot IA, which the app Licant has comp Lied with . They are as foLLows. - 11 The private road Cabe Led "C" shaLL have a 12 ft . wide driveable area based on the need for area to maneuver 81 wide fire service vehicLes. 2) Private road "C" shaLL have 'a turn—around point at the end, either a cuL—de—sac of a 'IT It . Law enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department . It will be patroLLed on a 24—hour basis. Development of the subdivision wouLd have minimaL impact on the area . . The Planning Staff recommends approvaL of the subdivision with the foLLowing condition : to correspond with the Carrbora Fire Department recommendation to which the applicant has agreed, the CLass "C" road should be Labeled CLass "E'l . The traveLway width requ i rement fa r a CLess "B" private. road is 12 feet . The base and right—of—way standards for CLass "C" and CLass "B" private roads are the same . Pearson inquired the number of Lots in the originaL subdivision and Atwater responded (9) . Best asked where the access was to Lot 2 and Sfitith responded Farnham P lace . Kizer asked about access to Lot I and Atwater responded NC B6 . MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval. Seconded by Pearson . Pearson noted there was inconsistency in the application of private road standards . He continued that the guide- Lines should either be the number of Lots served or tho -number of 'Lots in the subdivision . Atviatec corrected an earLier statement about 060 DRAFT 8-19-85 .PB MINUTES 7 the number of Lots in the originaL subdivision . There were 6 Lots, not 9 . Sm "',.h noted that the County standard for- CLass IISR roads was 12 feet in width and since a 12 -foot road was requested by Carrbaro Fire Chief and to which the appLicant was agree-abLe, the staff was recommending that the road be designated CLass 'IS" rather than CLass IICII• on the plat . Pearson continued noting that the cLass of road needed clarification . Yuhasz noted that criteria other than the number of Lots in the subdivision needed to be considered. CoLLins indicated that when the number of Lots is more than 9, then the question of pub Li a or private road becomes the issue . For Less than 9 Lots Private- Road Standards are the guide Line . It is appropriate here to Look at the number of lots served . VOTE: Unanimous . i . ALma Wagoner — Preliminary Presentation by Atwater . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approvaL of the Preliminary P Lan for t h a property of Alma C. Wagoner . The property in question - is located on SIR 1777 (DairyLand Road) in Bingham Township . The property is referenced as part of Lot -5 of Tax Map 19 . it is bordered by a mobile babe park and residential deveLopment . The tract is designated as Agri cu ttu ra L—Residenti a L and Water Supply Watershed in the Land Use PLan . It is Located within the Cane Creek Watershed . There is one Lot proposed out of 11 .48 acres . The Lot size is 1 .0 acre , excluding the right of—way . The property is zoned R• 1 (fluraL Residential) Protected llatershed II P wi I I over- Lay zoning district . Fire protection for the property in question is provided by the Orange Grove Ru ra L Fire ORANGE COUNTY 061 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date September 985_ Action Agenda I t a M A:r:'!K SUBJECT: PROPERTY OF C. BUNN POPE, JR. - PRELIMINARY - (I LOT PRELIMINARY -. NC 86 / HURDLE MILL ROAD ) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING —Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact: EDDIE KIRK CHECKLIST VICINITY MAP PRELIMINARY PLAN DRAFT 8/19/85 PLANNING BOARD 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 C. Bunn Pope, Jr.. To receive the recommendation of the Planning Board, The Planning Board considered this item August 19, 1985. NEED: The property in question is Located in Cedar Grove Township at the northeast corner of NC Highway 96 and SR 1506 (Hurdle Mills Road) . It is known as Lot 34, Tax Map 25. There is one Lot proposed which is 2.6351 acres and contains frontage on both state roads . The property is not zoned and is designated Water Supply Watershed and Agricultural Residential in the Land Use P Lan . It is Located in the Cedar Grove Fire District . IMPACT: The addition of this Lot will have minimal impact . REC014MENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval . 06 19 CI MATCH 31B 3.54AC4790 \` MA 5643 . t.iNB 31 1.21 �� IA AC- \5�� G. BUNN POPE JR. APPLICANT: C. BUNN POPE A. LUP Designation: Water Supply Watershed \\ 19 Z0 4 A Agricultural Residentia I \\?, IS 33I 'i" = 400` 22 341 2.89 AC. 3971 \\ i837 s • \\ r p62 \\ c 4.69A 10.06 AC. .8379 ( r 061 63 s 160 80 `\\ 3.62 AC. 101.27 AC. `\\ 15 79524' 7703 \ 3.62 AC. 89751 / \ 4.63 AC. 1489 28 \\ �� 4.39 AC_ 29 \\ 4.39 AC. 2265 \ 3.5AC.' 1 019 020115 12 0115 30T3 30 `\ 5.44 AC. a 3.53 AC. \\ 4.65 AC- a5i, G) 38.4 AC.CA►. 15.6 AC. _ \ -_ 1.91 AC 6251 1261 9B \\ _ `. 68 FU $8 ( co\ • gA s ;19 83.05 AC_ t i i•5 - - � �°A MAJOR SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST NAME OF SUBDIVISION` r., R pnn�� i� OWNER OR DEVELOPER C. B. Pope, Jr.. ADDRESS_ R t. 1_ Box 373_ Cedar Grove, NC TOWNSHIP Cedar Grove TAX MAP 25 BLOCK LOT 34 NAME OF SURVEYOR *OR ENGINEER Robert A. Jones Total number of lots i To be developed in 1 , phase(s) . Total number of acres 2.651 Typical dwelling units at present or proposed WATER SUPPLY: Public (Name) Commuuity Individual K SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public . Community Individual Septic tank SCHOOL DISTRICT_ Orange' Co0ty FIRE DISTRICT Cedar Grove Access onto State Road � 6-$�--Road Standard: Public- or Private Class A , }3 , C Existing critical areas such as streams ( ), Flood prone areas ( } , Watershed (—X ) , Historic Sites {� }, Other ) Explain: Upper Eno.,Watershed Land uses in th g neral are4 Farminn end Residential SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Approved { X) Recommended Changes { } PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date)_ 7-19-85_ REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Preliminary Review by Health Department 7-25-85 Erosion Control Officer 7-9-8. Board of Education 7-19-85 Department of Transportation OWASA (if ,possible) Other -Mebane (if possible) -Hillsborough (if possible) orange/Alamance (if possible) _ Preliminary Action by the Planning Board gpproved 8/19185 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 fort 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, C7 ' C4 Mid 064 DRAFT B-19-85 PD MINUTES District . Law enforcement is provided by the ' Orange County Sheriff's Department . It will be patrolled on a 24—hour basis. Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area . The Planning Staff recommends approval of this subdivision . MOTION: ShankLin moved approval . Seconded by 'Pi Lkey. VOTE: Unanimous . j . C. B. Pope, Jr. Preliminary Presentation by Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for .C. Bunn Pope, Jr . The property ' in question is Located in Cedar Grove Township at the northeast corner of NC Highway B6 an SR 1606 (Hurdle Mills Road) . It is known as Lot 34, Tax Map 25 . There is one Lot proposed which is 2.6351 acres and co.ntain.s frontage on both state roads . The property is' not zoned and is designated 'Water Supply Watershed and Agricultural Residential in the Land Use Plan . It is Located in the Cedar Grove Fire District . The addition of this tat will have minimal impact . The Planning Staff recommends approval . MOTION: Pearson moved approval . Seconded by ShankLin . VOTE: Unanimous . k. C.a B . Pope, Jr . — Preliminary Presentation by Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan 'for C . Bunn Pope , Jr. The property in question is located in Cedar Grove Township along SA 1508 (Hawkins Road) . It is known as Lot 205 , Tax Clap 19 . There are 5 Lots proposed 065 ORANGE COUNTY, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Data _September ?, 1985 Action Agenda Item SUBJECT: PROPERTY OF C. BUNN POPE, JR. – PRELIMINARY 5 LOT PRELIMINARY HAWKINS ROAD) aEPARTMENT: - PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING —Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact: EDDIE KIRK . CHECKLIST VICINITY MAP PRELIMINARY PLAN DRAFT 8/19/85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hi LLsborough – 732-8181 Durham – 688-7331 Mebane – 227-2031 Chapel Hi LL – 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for C. Bunn Pope, Jr . To receive the recommendation of the Planning Board. The Planning Board considered this item on August 19, 1985. NEED: The property in question is Located in Ceder Grove Township along SR 1508 (Hawkins Road) . It is known on Lot 2DB, Tax Map 19. There are 5 Lots proposed out of approximately 21 acres. The smallest lot is 1 ,3504 acres and the Largest Lot is 7.8866 acres . The property is not zoned and is designated AgrioutturaL–Residential and Water Supply Watershed in the Land Use Plan . It is Located in the Cedar Grove Fire District . IMPACT: The addition of 5 Lots could add approximately 34 trips per day to Hawkins Road. A stream running along the property Lines between Lots 3 and 4 will need a 30 foot drainage easement . RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval with a 30 foot drainage easement along the stream between Lots 3 and 4. 066 t C. BUNN POPE JR. i (19c 19D 1t AFTLICANT► C. BUNN POPE JR. 19c3 i�3457 E - IgA .s483 6.56 AC. 3.85 6372 6.4 AC. i AC 4.A7` LUP Designation: Water Supply Watershed 6.59AC. 6332 t Agricultural Residen.tia I I ` • 1 -- 400 NJ $4 I H •'~\ I I 20D 4526 2 3 312 ( 5 1� 6500` ,/ 6.6 7 AC. i 7412 71.92 `1 I . � I 5.16 AC.$740 .4770 20C i ii \ ,y 23.6504 AC. \\ f 7101 (('0 1 I 7yg(12AC. 7.3 2 A•r. \��.r s810 7.65 AC. ' 9051 N \\\20 I^bo 20 20 • 3844 \\ yrls�•.20t4 .57 q SEE 25-31C�p \\101 AC. �\ - 3.248AG P/0 25 2.19-205 M • o Co — to 1 _ MAJOR SUBDIVISION CiiEdQIST NAME OF SUBDIVISION B. Poe Jr. OWNER OR DEVELOPER C. B. Pope, Jr. ADDRESS Rt. 1 , Box 373, Cedar Grove, N. C. TOWNSHIP Cedar Grove TAX MAP_ IS BLOCK LOT 20B NAME OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER Robert A. Jones Total number of lots _ 5 To be developed in 1 phase(s) , Total number of acres 21 acres Typical dwelling units at present. 1 or proposed WATER SUPPLY: Public (Name) Commnuity Individual X SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public -Community Individual Septic tank X SCIiOOL DISTRICT FIRE DISTRICT Cedar Grove #2 Access onto State Road Road Standard: Public X or Private Class A , B C Existing critical areas such as streams ( X), Flood prone areas { }, Watershed (%), Historic Sites { } , Other { ) Explain:_ RPfw _Pn to c 3 and 4 Upper Eno Watershed Land uses in the general area Farming_ and Residential SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Or Approved ( x ) Recommended Changes { ) PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED {Date) 7-19- 5 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Preliminary Review by Health Department 7-25-65 Erosion Control Officer 7-22- 5 MKR Board of Education x_19_85 Department of Transportation OWASA (if possible) Other -Mebane (if possible) -Hillsborough (if possible) _ -Orange/Alamance (if possible) Preliminary Action by the Planning Board Approved 8/19/85 Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners FINAL PLAT RECEIVED (_}ate) { } 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 • ' O ( ) Final action by the Planning Board. ? 068 DRAFT 8-19-05 PS NINUTES District . Law' enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department . It iviLL be petroLLed an a 24—hour basis . DeveLopment of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area . The Planning Staff recommends approvat of this subdivision . POTION : Shank Lin moved approvaL. Seconded by Pi Lkey. VOTE: Unanimous . j . C. B. Pope, Jr. — PreLiminary Presentation by Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approvaL of the PreLiminary PLan for C. Bunn Pope, Jr . The property in question is Located in Cedar Grove Township at the northeast corner of NC Highway 86 an SP 1506 (Hurd Le MiLLs Road) . It is known as Lot 34, Tax Map *25. There is one Lot proposed which is 2.6351 acres and contains frontage on both state roads . The property is not zoned and is designated Water Supply Watershed and AgricuLturaL Residential in the Land Use PLan . It is Located in the Cedar Grove Fire -District . The addition of this Lot will have minimal impact . The Planning Staff recommends approval . MOTION . Pearson moved approval . Seconded by Shank Lin . VOTE: Unanimous . k . C . B . Pope, Jr . — PreLiminary Presentation by Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approvaL of the PreLiminary PLan for C. Bunn Pope, Jr . The property in question is Located in- Cedar Grave Tovnship along SA 1508 (Hawkins Road) . It is known as Lot 20B , Tax flap 19 . There are 5 Lots proposed 069 DRAFT B-19-85 PE MINUTES 9 out of approximately 21 acres . The smatLest Lot is 1 .3504 acres and the Largest Lot is 7.8866 acres . The property is not zoned and in designated AgricuLtureL—ResidentiaL and 11ater Supply Watershed in the Land Use Plan . It is Located in the Cedar Grove Fire District . The addition of 5 lots could add approximately 3-4 trips per day to Hawkins Road . A stream runni*ng along the property tines betvieen tots 3 and 4 vjiLL need a 30 foot drainage easement . The Planning Staff recommends approval with a 30 foot drainage easement along the stream *between Lots 3 and 4. Kizer inquired where the stream on the property drained . Walters responded Lake Orange. Kizer continued asking how far this property is from Lake Orange and Walters responded four to five miles. ShankLin asked if this were an intermittent stream and Smith responded no . MOTION: Shank Lin moved approval . Seconded by Pearson . VOTE:, Unanimous . AGENDA ITE14 #8 PUBLIC HEARING ITE14S a . Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments Partial Width RAI — Section IV—B-3 Presentation by Smith . This agenda item is to consider the proposed Subdivision Regulations text amendment's pertaining to partial width rights—of—way for' recommendation . This item vies submitted to public hearing on May 28 , 1985. The proposed text amendments would address deficiencos in the Subdivision Regulations . ' An issue statement precedes the proposed amendment and is an attachment to this abstract . The proposed text amendments, if approved, - would improve the Subdivision Regulations and provide cteaet, direction to the Planning Department in its administration and enForceritent as related to the provision of partial %vidth rights—cf—way . ORANGE COUNTY 070 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date SEPTEMBER 3-1985 Action Agenda Item AtT- SUBJECT: APPEAL-- WEDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact : SUSAN SMITH VICINITY MAP SITE PLAN (REDUCED)- DRAFT 6/17/85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT 7/15/85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES B-5-85 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES DRAFT 8-19-85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LETTER AUGUST 20, 1985 APPEAL LETTER Telephone Numbers Hi Llsborough -- 732--8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane -- 227-2031 Chapel HiLL - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider an appeal to the Planning Board's decision of disapproval of the Final Plat for Wedgewood Subdivision . NEED: On August 19, 1985 the Planning Board voted to disapprove the Final Plat for Wedgewood Subdivision . The Orange County Subdivision Regulations provide that if the final plat is disapproved the reasons for disapproval shell be stated upon the records of the Planning Board. The Planning Board's decision may be appealed by the Subdivider to the County Commissioners. The Planning Board recommended denial of the Preliminary Plot on July 15, 1985. The Board of Commissioners approved the Preliminary Plat on August 5, 1985 with conditions . The Planning Board disapproved the Final Plat on August 19, 1985 by a vote of 5-2 with one abstention. The basis for this decision was a concern with the safety of the intersection of Jasper Lane and West Lebanon Road ISR 1306) . Dissenting Planning Board members stated that the Board's role in 071- WEDGEWODD SUBDIVISION — APPEAL PAGE 2 SEPTEMBER 3, 1985 reviewing final plate is to assure that the plat is in proper order as specifically prescribed by the Subdivision Regulations eg . proper title; restricted development notations; - location and width of easements, etc. , not to consider the substantive issues decided at the preliminary plat stage ag . traffic conditions; services availability; critical area protection, etc. They concluded therefore, that there was no basis for disapproval of the final plat for Wedgewood Subdivision . IMPACT: The appeal procedures specified in the Subdivision Regulations provide for the Board of Commissioners to hear the appeal and act as the final decision—making body on the approval of the Final Plot. Approval of the Final Plat would allow the development of the subdivision as proposed. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the FinaL Plat for Wedgewood subdivision . II II 401.1- 6970 sq. Setbacks: Front- 40' Side,RWr-20' 072 4 _eq 4 _No -'qV , S '�V,4204,0 .00 VO rE racl A (0.07Aa) is to be merged with (v This adjoidog/of as A.Fvllor A771, F:Ifld, �.j 2.35 Ac. Cb yy 3/5.37 e9c.55 86,48-0 W 0 3.22 AC. 1.95 Ae. 3Z Ile A sevion One Z 67 Ac- yob 4 C7 —0 547 34 V 88.4;_ ........ 4:15.09 on this strip Pursuant to section IV-9-8 of the OWN-rl-"tY Subdivision'709U/OftAS.Ald,?gj, FINAL PLAT SECTION TWO WEDGEWOOD cHe'Efirs rwp. ORANGE' co, NORTH cAROLIvA MAY 31, 1985 SCALE/1-100' i00 2 "Co 200 ` 073 ` WEDG YO00 SECTION TWO Applicant : Apple Creek Zon-►n•g , R-1 t 7 ' LUP Designation: Rural Residential & Water Supply Wate,-..ied' Scale. 1 400 - 7-5 I � �---•� ---__ __ 1306 �0 95 t}G• 50 710 t855 I 320 3 228 /h 1 ! .92� �7ti 55 1.04AC Ir 44 00 DJ 5 I"9.98 A ^G. 4 6.7 AC r 0 2 AC. . w g r S90 k`n I 30.7 AC. ' j .92G6 ,..w• 729fi j a / m S / 16.86AC- a 2y8-g� -- � ,)04.60 Fy U Gr ~` I AC G6OG• 1G.97 AC. 35 i� i� a�! 1473.4 4-4 1.01 AC. 5.69 FC 2rJ3 g/t Z65 AC. �4 ° ' (..../ w 4127 w 2t 1 AC. � a ' 525 r I6-91 AC. -,gyp J C RAY r n5. A z.2a ((21 x- sa5 .. 111.5 AC �. •' 5457 iJ✓ 1! • m Ic t po she and design associates t- Aft ocrp lonners landsc ap e tects = • is ! ' - i - August 20, 1985 Don Or. Willhait, Chairman • Orange County Hoard of Commissioners . 1016 East Margaret Lane J � . ;}-:•Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 RE: Wedgewood Subdivision - Appeal of Planning Board Decision Dear Mr. Willhoit: The Orange County Planning Board, at their regularly scheduled meeting on August .19, 1985, voted to deny approval of the 'Wedgewood Subdivision Final Plat with recommendations for approval from both the Planning staff and the Board•of Comm- issioners. This letter is to officially request an appeal -of the Planning ; Board' s decision on this matter, and that the appeal be placed on the agenda for your next scheduled meeting an September 3, 1985. Respectfully, G. Gregory Shepard cc: Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director telephone (919) e M.r.04:,q • 424 wA roF_ vwvf- c 9990M, N09*4 C49OLIMA 27S10 MAJ0R SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST NAME OF SUBDIVISION Wedgewood Section 2 OWNER OR DEVELOPER Apple Creek N ADDRESS Frazier & Lebanon TOWNSHIP Cheeks TAX MAP 12 BLOCK LOT P/0 7D NAME OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER ENT Surveys - Steve Yuhasz CA Total number of lots 4 To be developed in 1 phase(s) , Total number of acres 10. 19 Typical dwelling units at present or proposed WATER SUPPLY: Public (Name) Commuuity Individual-x SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public • Community Individual Septic tank X SCHOOL DISTRICT Orange ounty FIRE DISTRICT Eland Access onto State Road #) 1306,1310Road Standard: Public X or Private Class A_ , B X C Existing critical areas such as streams ( X), Flood prone areas { }, Watershed ( X) , Historic Sites { ) , Other { ) Explain: Upper Eno Watershed Land uses in the general area Single Family SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 4-26-85 Approved { X) Recommended Changes ( ) PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 5-31-85 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Preliminary Review by Health Department 5-31-85 Erosion Control Officer 6-7- Keith Rosemond Board of Education 6-10-85 Department of Transportation 6-25-85 OWASA (if possible) Other -Mebane (if possible) -Hillsborough (if possible) -Orange/Alamance (if possible) Preliminary Action by the Planning Board Recommended denial 7-15-85 Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners Approved 8-5-85 FINAL PLAT RECEIVED (Date) 8-7-85 { X) 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 { X) Improvements* have been provided for; completed; bond, letter of credit, cash. Date 6-7-85- ( ) Final OWASA approval (where applicable) on all. plans & specifications, Date ( ) Final DOT approval on plat ( ) Final action by• tfie Planning Board. re STA 0. 076 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES G.MARTIN Greensboro, NC 27429-0278 GOVERNOR June 25, 1985 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E.HARRINGTON SECRETARY Mr. ]Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Kirk: This is in reference to sight distance at the intersection of West Lebanon Road (SR 1306) with Blue Jasper Lane (private road) in Alamance County. Sight distance looking west along SR 1306 is adequate. Sight distance looking east along SR 1306 is restricted to approximately 415, because of a hill. This sight distance is less-than desirable.. If we can be of any further help, please advise. Sincerely, J. W. �Watkins DIVISION ENGINEER JWW/HRJ/gm cc: Mr. D. B. Kelly An Equal Opporlun;ly I Affirmative Adion Employer 077 ep/rr/s r-'i.s ►K rs� a a,R� k1 Lf�(u-t 6 PiLkey inquired if Lots 1 , 2, 3, and 4 had any access at aLL to the private drive and Atwater responded that ELve Lane was constructed to access those Lots. Mr. Martin , applicant , stated that Lots # 1 and # 3 had access from MC Highway 54. He noted that Price Atwater Road runs along the other property Line . Martin noted that he had had Warren Faircloth, S & E Officer come out and look at the road and he told Martin that he would approve the road as a CLess A Road up to where the Class C road will be constructed. MOTION: Walters moved approveL with staff conditions. Seconded by Yuhasz. Staff condition # 5 was reworded as foLLows: — indicate the distance (in feet) from the southern right—of way Line of NC Highway 54 along ELva Road to the northern property Line of Kenny Martin property. VOTE: Unanimous. c . Wedgewood Section 2 — Preliminary Presentation by Kirk . The- property in question is Located in Cheeks Township off West Lebanon Road (SR 1306) with one Lot fronting on Frazier Road (SR 1310) . It is known as part of Lot 70, Tax Map 12. There are 4 Lots proposed out of approximately 10.19 acres. The Lot sizes are 2.35 acres, 3.22 acres, 1 .95 acres and 2.67 acres. The property is zoned R-1 and subject to PW—II overlay zoning district standards and is designated RuraL—ResidentiaL and Upper Eno Waster Supply Watershed in the Land Use Plan. It is Located in the EfLand Rural Fire District . The addition of 4 Lots could add approximately 27 trips per day to the roads in this area. There is no traffic count date evadable on Frazier Road. A 1981 traffic count indicates 500 trips per day on 078 7 West Lebanon Road. This subdivision would have minimal impact an the area . The Planning Staff recommended approval with a 30 foot wide drainage easement along the creek through Lots By 4, and 5. Walters expressed concern with traffic safety on Lebanon Road at Blue Jasper Lane. He would rather see a redesign with an entranceway on Frazier Road. ShankLin also expressed concern with the hazardous intersection and insufficient sight distance. Collins asked Walters to explain why he preferred an entranceway onto Frazier Road. Walters responded that the Location of Blue Jasper Lane was too close to the intersection . Pearson felt that this redesign would create more traffic problems . Shank Lin felt that the stop sign on Frazier Road would help the traffic problem. He noted you could not see BLus Jasper Lane until you were too close to it . Shenk Lin inquired about Lot numbers . Yuhasz responded that there had been some combination of Lots due to Lack of park sites. ShankLin expressed further concerns with possible driveways onto Lebanon Road. Greg Shepherd representing the applicant, spoke to some concerns . He noted that Blue Jasper Lane was an existing road and it was 640 feet from the . intersection . Only Lots 4 and 5 exit onto Blue Jasper Lane . Walters noted that it would have been deeireabLe to have seen the design in the initial minor subdivision phase. Shank tin felt this plan came in Piecemeal and had it come to the Planning Board properly, the problems could have been pointed out early . From a traffic standpoint, he felt a better entrance would have been an Frazier Road. 079 Collins noted that there is more than 600 feet between the intersections and this should be sufficient . Gordon referred to the issue of safety and asked the Board what action it wanted to take. Shepherd commented that good planning principles had been used and that whenever a large tract is developed, you want to Limit the number of roadway cuts onto the existing roads. He feLt this was a superior plan. Gordon inquired about the relative safety of the two roads. Shanklin noted there was a knoll prior to the intersection that interfered with the sight distance. Gordon asked if there was any way to specify guidelines for the safety factor. Collins responded we could ask NCDOT to provide information regarding traffic capacity. Gordon felt it would better to serve the developer and the County if this item were delayed for a recommendation from NCOOT. MOTION: Kramer moved to postpone the decision an the project until a recommendation from NCOOT could be received for comment. Seconded by Pilkay. Kramer noted that the applicant should not construe this postponement to be a negative response, but just a desire to addresse the issue of safety. VOTE: 5 in favor . 1 opposed (Pearson) L abstention (Yuhasz) d. James Hill Realty — Preliminary Plan The property in uestion is Located in Cheeks Township along MILL Creek Road (SR 1343) . It is known as Lot 11 , Tax Map 6. There are 6 Lots proposed out of approximately 31 .30 acres . The smallest lot proposed is 2.75 acres while the Largest lot is 6.99 acres. The property is zoned A—R and is designated Agricultural—Residential in 080 TO: Orange County Board of County Commissioners and orange County Planning Board FROM: Carl Waltars, Vice-Chair County Planning Board SUBJECT: , Piecemeal Plans SubmitteO. to the Orange County Plan- ning Board by Some Developers. DATE: July 15, 1985 When a subdivigion is before our board for review- and *we know the developer has plans for something bigger later for the bal- ance of the property we usually ask about his future plans before making a division on the request. This request for more infor-,-:a- tion has not come in a cooperative manner in some cases and has led to suspicions or doubts of the developers sincerity in qual- ity development. Anew approach to avoid planning board request for a redesign- or denial of subdivision request is to go to planning staff with a minor subdivision request, get approval in house and then come back with a major subdivision request and say roads and other designs of the previous minor subdivision impacts our decision of this later major subdivision request of the balance of the property. I believe this piecemeal approach to development of land owned by the same person or parties should be discouraged. The roads that were approved by the staff in the minor subdivision should not be allowed to be considered prexisting. The -staff knows when there is a larger portion of the same tract to be- developed later. An example today is Wedgewood and Blue Jasper Lane off Lebanon Church Road and bordering Praiser Road. This request by Apple Creek is a good example of- very poor planning with no regard for safety of traffic or children riding bikes from Blue Jasper Lane on to Lebanon Church Road. - I have watched the traffic and speed of vehicles on both Lebanon Church and Fraiser Road. With the expected growth in Orange County and the impact to our roads from this growth I believe we should be more aware of such projects. Maybe an ordinance review to clarify our minor subdivision standards would be helpful with recommended changes if necessary. 081 Aft6r more discussion Gordon noted that this process app Lied to subdivisions more than anything eLs-i . Kize:.- responded that perhaps it should be changed to say that it is neant to apply only to subdivisions and he feLt the Board shouLd study this proposaL and decide if they want to implement this procedure . Gordon changed i .-em one in the 'Mal-D to read' "Comp Late Subdivision proposaLs" and indicated this wouLd be discussed at a Later meeting . She then asked for comments on itera two in the memo "Agenda pa'cket distribution" and noted that item three "Final meeting agenda" wouLd be for discussion between the Chair and Planning Director . There was no discussion on these two items . Chair noted that the question of interpretation on item one of the merio would be put on a future agenda for discussion . .,,--AGENDA ITEM 5 e . Viedgeviood — Preliminary Presentation by Snith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consid=r approvaL of the Preliminary P L a n far Vle d r,-e w a o d Section Two . On June 17 , 1985 , the Planning Board requested that staff obtain HC DOT comment- on the sight distance for this subdivision , NC DOT ' s response is an attachratant to this item . The property in question is Located in Cheeks Township off West Lebanon Road [SR 13061 with one Lot' fronting on Frazier Road (SR 13101 . It is ltnov!n as part Lif Lot 7D , Tax Map 12. There are 4 Lots proposed out of approximateLy 10 .19 acres . The L*u t sizes are 2.35 acres , 3 .22 acres , 1 . 95 acres and 2.67 acres . This property is zoned R-1 and subject to P V11 I overlay zoning district standards and is designated Ru ra L—Res i dent i a L and Upper Eno W a Supp Ly Watershed i n the Land Use P tan . It is Loca-te.-I in the EfLand RuraL Fire District . ii ie" The addition of ?Lots couLd add app roxi mate L%r 27 trips per, day to the roads in this arei . There ) S Ila traffic count data avai Lab Le on Frazier Road A 1981 . 0 82 7** traffic ebunt indicates 500 . trips per day on Wes Lebanon road . This subdivision would have m inin,aL - impact on the -area . UC DOT has indicated that sight distance Looking Mast along SR 1306 is adequate; however, sight distance Looking east is Less than desirabLe . The road serving ' the subdivision was estabLished as part of -the minor subdivision . Addition of tivo Lots; wilt not substantiaLLy affect traffic safety in this area . Staff did not f-eeL that the addition of two Lots had sufficient impact to deny access to an established .road. The Planning Staff recommends approval. with a SO foot wide drainage easement along the- creek. through Lots 3 , 4, and 5 . Walters noted there were three rat-her, than just t �.n Lots with access to BuLue Jasper Lane and he stiLL had concerns with sight distance being " Less than desirabLe" . Greg Shepherd of Shepherd Design Associates stated that Lots 1 ,1 5 and 9 had been approved by staff as a' minor subdivision in Ap ri L- 1985 . Based . an this approval. , the developer bui Lt and' constructed -DLue Jasper Lane . Gordon asked if the road was r-om p L e-,-,e and Shepherd responded y e s , i t was comp* L-etted after final p l a t a pp ro v a L . Shepherd continued noting that road Location was optimal. given the existing road network . He retairiaad the Board that the Letter from NC DOT said the sight distance was Less than desirabLe , not dangerous . Kizer inquired what was a desirabLe standard for sight distance . Shepherd responded the desirabLU sight distance on a 55 mph road is 550 feet . Shepherd continued that there ware no standards fur minimum sight distance in the Orange County Subdivision Regulations'. Gordon responded that this must be a safe distance . Shepherd noted that he fa Lt utiLi.zing an existing road systaim is best . Gordan inquired w h a n CLuo Jasper Lane constructed . - Smith responded that it was done b,-. ror-- finaL plat approvaL . 083 El Walters irrqui red if the road was constructed before approval . Smith responded that staff had already reviewed the sketch and oka LI .yed the general Layout so the developer could pursue the construction of the road so as to have everything complete by the tine the final plat was signed off on and recoHad . Walters inquired why Frazier Road was not considered in the beginning . Shepherd responded citing reasons for submitting the subdivision as drawn, : Lot 3 .- has an approved septic tank Location in the . north corner; for the proposed Lots there would have be two crossings of the creek to get to Frazier Road; and three hundred feet from the southernmost point. from Lebanon Road is the only point for access to meet NC DOT sight distance, at which point the road would have to cross the creek at its most critical area . 11 DT 10 1-11 Pearson moved approval. with staff conditions noting that NC DOT did not say unsafe, but undesirable . Seconded by Kizer . Kizer noted that the ordinance requirement was far =~ the road to be built to private road standards These standards do not ;pacify sight distance . He felt this was a minor p rob Lan. ; he wo*uLd Like to have another hundred feet but there is no basis to turn this project do wn based on the Private . Pioad Standards . Gordon stated that the Subdivision Regulations could a PL,r a requirement for safety . Gordon continued b ir P I A reading Section IV—AI Mininum Design' Standards . Kizer noted that traffic is taken care oa I mo re specifically Later on in its own section 1.1h.2re it says the road shaLL meet certain dasign standards . PiLkey expressed concern that' this project is in a watershed and that traffic saf ety was also a concern as she knew of an .accident at this point *whara people were kiLLed . She continued that she fa Lt this project vies poorly designed and the developers were Gutting corners . Pearson inqu.i •ed if the road running with the stroDia would be better for- the watershed . Kizer stated that he felt the VeC-,Uir-ements o 'I' the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations hnd been 984 met* and th i s Shou Ld b a the construct of the Bbard decision . Gordon again referred to Section IV--A a:id IV—B-2 and noted she felt it was a judgment aaLL . Kizer responded that this was a goat not a criteria and that further on it gives minimum design standards by which that overaLL goaL is to be accompLished. He noted he could never recaLL using absolute minimum sight distance for private roads . Shepherd commented that the deveLoper had aLready been waiting a month and were hoping for a positive recommendation from the Board . He suggested that perhaps a sign couLd be requested stating' no Left turn off BLue Jasper Lane . Smith responded that enforcement was questionable in such cases . VOTE: In favor : Kramer , Pearson , Kizer Opposed : PiLkey , Best , Gordon , WaLiers Motion fai Led . f. Leonard Vii Lson — Preliminary Presentation by Smith . The purpose of this agenda itert is to consider approval of the PreLirainary Plan for Leonard V-1i Lson . The property in question is Located in Litt Le River Township aLong SchLey Rood (SR 1548) . It is knorin as Lot 3A , Tax ilap 25 . There are 9 Lot's proposed out of approximately 9 .73 acres . Each Lots is 1 .01 acres or Larger . The property is not zoned and is designated AgricuLturaL—R.esidentiaL in the Land Use Pten . It is Located in the Litt Le River Fire District . The addition a; 9 Lots could add approximiateLy GO trips per day to Sch Ley Road . These Lots would have mininaL impacts on this area . The PLanning Staff re commands app rova L subject to proposed HeaLth Department revis-w on Friday , JuLy lip-, 1965 and conbined driveways bet,.-jeen Lots I and 2, 3 and 4, 5 end 6 , and 7 and S . Gordon noted that this appLicatiDn vins incompLete a(, it did not have HeaLth Department approval . 085 D R A F T MINTMS ORMM COUNTY BDARD OF CCMISSIONERS AUGUST 5, 1985 PBGUIAR MEETING WIDG511W SB=ION 2 --PRELDIINRY pJ_ X Planner Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for Vlec--ggewood section 2. The property is located in Cheeks Township off West Lebanon Road (,SR 1306) with one lot fronting on Frazier Road (SR 1310). Four lots are proposed out of approximately 10.19 acres. NXMM- has indicated that sight distance looking west along SR 1306 is adequate; however, sight distance looking east is less than desirable. The road serving the subdivision was established as part of the minor subdivision. addition of two lots will not substantially affect traffic safety in this area. The Planning Board recommends denial based on a motion for approval that failed on a 3 to 4 vote. The reasons stated for denial were traffic safety and concerns about development in a water supply watershed. The Planning Department recommended approval with a 30-foot wide drainage easement along the creek through Lots 3, 4 and 5. Motion was made by Conadssioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the recommendation from the Planning Board for denial. Carl Walters, member of the Planning Board, indicated no consideration was given for an entrance on Frazier Poad which has twice as much frontage with a stop sign and a lesser speed limit. He felt the lack of adequate site distance created a dangerous condition. Consideration should have been made for putting an entrance onto Frazier Road because of the safety factor, the 55 mph speed limit and the anticipated growth in the area. Commissioner Marshall questioned the approach to ask for a minor subdi- vision and then come back later and use the pre-existing road for further developnent. If the entire project had been brought to the Planning Board at one tine, Frazier Road would have probably been recommended as the only entrance. Greg Sheperd, representing the applicant, made some comments with regard to site distance and cited Section 4E3C of the Subdivision Regulations which' states that public streets may be constructed to DOT Standards of which one of 086 2 their standards is sight distance. Section -IB3E states that Private Roads may .be constructed to Orange County standards which do not require a minimum sight distance. Sheperd pointed out on a map the areas that would be affected by the limited sight distance. The best solution would be to move the road further east which would enable a person approaching the intersection to see further down the bill. A cul-de-sac off of Frazier Road is not desirable because of the proposed layout of the lots ar.0 would create two lots with double frorzage which is not permissible in the Subdivision Ordinance and twoJots; would be useless because of their location. He expressed no problem in accepting the recommendation of the Planning Department. A notion to substitute a notion was made by Commissioner Walker,, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to approve the recommer0ation from the Planning Depart-' nent. VOTE ON THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE: AYES,. 4; NOES, 1 (Commissioner Carey). VOMI ON THE S MOTION: AYES, 4; NOES, 1 (Commissioner Carey). 081 -1-'"AFT 0-19-85 PB MINUTES AGENDA ITEM Iff,9 CHAIR COMMENITS Wolters informed the .Hoard of the •esignattiori of Valerie Greenberg . Kizer resigned from the Steeping Committee. * This committee is now composed of Gordon , Walters and Pi May . AGENDA ITEM 06 PRESENTATIONS 8 . Horace Johnson , HiLLsborough Town ComWissioner Water and Sewer Superintendent , was to' make a presentation on Hi LLsborough water/sewer policies . Due to a - conflict with an emergency Town fleeting he wiLL return at a later date . Collins cited map of HiLLsborough water system and presented comments Mr. Johnson made to him .as foLtaws: To the south and east there are no prbbLems with servicing new developments ; to the no rth there are possible pressure probLems . Smith cautioned the Board when Looking at the map that there were some questions " about Line si zes and pa ra L Le L Lines . Pi Lkey noted that some Lines were missing . Yuhasz inquired if these were a l l approved Lines and Smith responded that she assumed this map included ' those Lines the State had told the Tot-in to improve. Collins further noted that a map of the sever Lines should be avai Lab Le in the near fu to re b . Warren FaircLoth , Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer•, presented his memorandum on StDrnwater 1--janagement and Protection oT Walter Qu a L i t y (See copy on pages of these mirtutes) . AGENDA ITEM P7 SUBDIVISION APPLTCATIONS d . Vedgewood Final DRAFT 0-19-85 PR 141HUTES 0883 Presentation by Smith . The Purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the F i n a L Plat for Viedgewood Section Two . The Board of Commissioners considered the Planning Board's concerns; but, following the applicant 's presentation an alternative accessways, sight distance Limitations and- critical, stream areas , the Board recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan on August 5,_ 1985 with conditions as recommended by - the PLanning Staff. The property is Located in Cheeks Township off Viest Lebanon Road (SR 13061 with * one Lot fronting an Frazier Road (SR 131D) : It i8 known as part of Lot 7D , Tax Map 12. There are 4 Lots proposed out of approximately 10.19 acres. The Lot sizes are 2.35 acres, 3.22 acres , 1 .95 acres and 2.67 acres . The property is zoned PI-1 and subject to PWII overlay zoning district standards and is designated rural-- Residential and Upper Eno Water Supply Watershed in the Land Use PLan. It is Located in the EfLand RuraL Fire District . The addition of 4 Lots could add approximately 27 trips per doy to the roads in this area . There is no traffic Count data a-vai Lab Le on Frazier Road . A 1981 traffic count indicates, 500 trips per day on east Lebanon Road . This subdivisioin Mould have mi n in, a L impact on the area . NGDOT. has indicated that sight distance Looking west along SR 1306 is adequate; howeve*v, sight distance Looking east is Less than desirable . The road serving the subdivision V1 a a estah H shed as part of the minor subdivision . Addition of t v.!o Lots wi LL not SUbstanti;iLLy affect traffic safety in this area . Planning Departmont recomr.-iends approvaL wiLh a 30—fout vide drainage casement -aLong the creek through Lots 3, 4, and S . Pearson moved aPPPDvaL . Seconded by Kizer .. Yuhasz abstained due to confLict of interest , 089 DRAFT 8-19-85 PS MITNUTES 4 ShenkLin stated that he felt approval of this subdivision would be creating a place for. accidents to take place . He feLt it was only a matter of time until a serious accident would take place . He wished to impress on the Board of Commissioners that this should not be approved without the road (Blue Jasper Lane) being moved to a safer position . He expressed concern with school bus -traffic .. He felt that the Letter from NCDOT stating sight distance as being Less than desirable was sufficient reason to deny approval . . Pearson asked if the Board was approving the plat or the merits of the subdivision . Collins responded the plat . Pearson continued noting that since the Board of Commissioners had approved the Preliminary - Plan the Planning Board must approve the final plat unless there was Something wrong with the plat . ShankLin stated that he felt if the Planning Board denied approval again , the Commissioners would take another Look and reconsider their decision . He noted he was for good development , but he did not see this -plan as good development . Greg Shepherd, representing the applicant , revievied the map and noted again that the applicant felt this was a good plan and that it was not possible or feasible to construct a new cul—de—sac or move the entranceway . Shepherd also addressed water quality . He noted that moving the road would cause doubLe—frontage Lots and wou Ld result in a road which crosses or pare LLe ts the creek Via Lters inquired who owns Lot 6A and the response was that Lot SA is an existing Lot . VOTE: 2 in favor. (Kizer and Pearson) 5 oppo'sod . (Shank Lin , Kramer, Best , PiLkay, Kramer , 'Ila L t e rs) . 1 abstention . (Yuhasz) . Shank Lin noted that he felt this should go to the Corsimissinner again with the suggestion that -the developer admit he made an error in judgment and come back with a plan which can 090 DRAFT B-19-85 PB MINUTES 5 show access from Frazier* Road and a possible different breakdown an the ' Lots . Pearson inquired what the next option was for the deveLoper .. Smith responded the deveLoper could appeaL the Planning Board 's decision to the Board of Commissioners . Kizer pointed out that there was nothing wrong with the final plat and the Planning Board has no basis to turn the project dot-in as the Board of Commissioners had o.vepruLed the -PLanning Board an the PreLimiary Plan . The onLy thing required of the Planning Board at this point is to see that the final plat is correct . The Law specificaLLy states what the Board can and cannot do . Shank Lin stiLL felt that the deveLoper would reconsider their proposaL -and voLuntariLy make changes . h . Britton Vv'oods PreLiminary Presentation by Atwater . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Britton Woods II . The property in question is Located on 9r. 1009 (OLd NC 86) and a private road (Farnham Place) 'off o-f Britton Drive in Chapel HILL Township . The property is referenced as Lot 12 of Tax Hap 23 , Black A . It is also referenced as Lot 1 of the Britton Wood Subdivision . The property is bordered by residentiaL development . The tract is designated as nuraL Buffer in the Land Use P Lan . There are two Lots proposed out of 5.006 acres . The Lot sizes are 1 .355 and 3 .65 acres, excluding rights—of—way. The property is zoned R-1 (FluraL ResidentiaL) . Access to Lot IA is provided via a CLass"C" private cad which Leads to Britton Drive , a CLass "S" private road in the Britton woods Subdivision . Lot I has access farm SR 1000. This property is within the courtesy review area for the Town of Carr-boro and is Located in . GRANGE COUNTY 091 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date September 3, 1985 Action A ends Item 31: SUBJECT: PINEVIEW ROAD/PINEVIEW DRIVE PPP ASSESSMENT ROLL DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH LOCATION MAP COUNTY ATTORNEY LETTER OF 8/29/85 SOCIAL SERVICES MEMO OF 8/28/85 COST COMPARISON Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 888-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chape L Hi L l — 988--4501 PURPOSE: To reconsider confirmation of the Assessment RoLL for the Pineview Road/Pineview Drive PPP project. NEED: A public hearing on the Preliminary Assessment ROLL for the Pineview/Pineview Drive was held on August 5, 1985. Mrs. Mattie O'Neal, owner of Lot 5 Tax Map 115A expressed concerns about her inability to pay the assessment and about the paving of Sesame Road Listed as #3 on the 1985-87 Priority Paving List. The Board deferred decision and directed that this matter be addressed further. Following this action the Board received the staff recommendation to confirm the Assessment RoLL on August 20, 1985. IMPACT: Participatory Paving Program projects are considered by the Board in three phases . Phase I is the approveL of the Petition for participation in the program. General Statutes 153A-205 CI requires that prior to financing the improvements to a subdivision or residential street through an assessment program a petition for the improvements must be signed by 75% of the owners of property to be assessed who must also represent at Least 75% of the lineal feet of frontage to be improved. A petition submitted to the Board and accepted on June 3, 092 1985 was signed by 81Z of the property owners who accounted for 78Z of the Lineal frontage. Phase 2 is the public hearing on and approval of the Assessment Resolution . General Statutes 153A--190 requires that where the Board decided to finance a project, it shall adopt a Preliminary Assessment Resolution containing, among other things, a statement of intent to undertake the project and a statement as to the proposed basis for making assessments. The Assessment Resolution for this project was submitted to public hearing on June 18, 1985 and adopted by the Board on that same date. ALL affected property owners were notified of the public hearing . No comments on the Assessment Resolution were received at the public hearing . Following approval of this document of intent to finance, the Local share was forwarded to the N .C. Department of T ranspo rtat i on . Phase 3 is the public hearing on and confirmation of the Assessment Roll . General Statutes 153A-194 requires the preparation of and public hearing on an Assessment RoLL following determination of the cost of a project. The Assessment Roll is prepared upon information available from county tax records . Mrs. O'Neal's Lot is the first Lot off Sesame Road and cannot be excluded from assessment . Her drive accesses directly onto Pineview Drive. In response to Mrs. D'Neal 's request for assistance the community has indicated that there are other individuals in the community who are in a similar or more critical financial position. Concern was also expressed regarding a single individual, at this point in the proceedings, holding up a project that would benefit the entire community. Social Services has called Mrs. D'NsaL and wilt be meeting with her on either August 30 or September 3 to apprise her of the programs for which she is eligible and wi 11 -be signing her up for same. While she is eligible for these services , she is not destitute but falls in the borderline category of indigency. Revision of the assessment policy to extend the payback period beyond the current five (5) year period would result in other petitioners making similar requests, thus affecting the County's ability to finance projects in the future. Holding an assessment in abeyance would require that the assessment process begin again, increasing the cost of the project and to individual property owners through additional administrative costs. (see attached 093 y cost comparison) . The County Attorney has also indicated (by attached letter) that the age of a property owner or ability to pay are not among classifications for which assessments may be held in abeyance. RECOMMENDATION: Confirm the Assessment ROLL, accept the Certificate of Mailing, and direct the Tax CoLLector to collect the assessment . ` (� 8464 094 '/(�2 a B •� `1 / 2A9-3� r3 f + 6605 / MINA Acrre 20 Al, • P . 6379 17y- zzz.z7 270 r 4602 4394 5195 (D, t 295.45 > oh .5 13 Cf �. 139.19 67,2C 2535 22 c� 139-i3 83.9 ^�.,�,� ��/�t^- ••90 ,\ 4i i " / m 2255 m (10 ) 3010 rr� - s i } 20 S I W 230 -- 'g 0444 t� i zZ 9527 ° • 1 0188 leas 1 �• i 60' 1 ,SE-A E iIROO ti 1943 ff � COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, DicnRsox, BERN.uou, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE 095 ATTORNEYS AT LAw 110 CBURTON STREET HILLsBOROUuB,N.C.27278 919-732-2196 919-942-8000 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SurrE 20,FRANKLIN B=mG 237 E-FRA"LIN ET CHAPEL HILL,N.CSTRE.27514 August 29, 1985 919-929-7151 ALONZO B.COLEXANJR. STEVEN A,BERNHOLZ DONALD R.DICXPJtSOX ROGER B.BERNaOLZ GEOPFREY E_GLEDHILL DOUGLAS HARGR&VE MARTIN J.BERWHOL RICHARI)J.SKIDER,JR. Donald Willhoit, Chair JANE 0.do TISSOVOY G.NICHOLAS HFIRM" Moses Carey LYNN A.ANDREWS Ben Lloyd Of co, el Shirl Marshall BONNER D.SAWYER (M02-1972) Norman Walker Orange County Board of Commissioners 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Participating Paving Project Assessments Dear Board Members: During the August 20, 1985 meeting of the Board, questions arose concerning the length and breadth of the Board's authority with respect to road construction assessments in a participating paving project. The authority of the County to finance the local share of the cost of road improvements, made under the supervision of the Department of Transportation, to subdivision and residential streets that are a part of the state-maintained system is contained in North Carolina General Statute Section 153A-205. Before any such assessment project may be undertaken the County must receive a petition for the improvements signed by at least 75% of the owners of property to be.assessed, who must represent at least, 75% of all the lineal feet of frontage of the lands abutting on the street or the portion thereof to be improved. The petition must state that portion of the costs of the improvement to be assessed, which portion shall be the local share required by policies of the Secondary Roads Counsel. N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 153A-205 (c) . This point is made because the local share as that term is used in this statutory procedure includes all costs associated with the assessment process. That means that any time there is a change in the assessment basis, procedurally, the entire assessment process must begin anew because the change in the assessment basis will increase the local share of the project. 096 Board of Commissioners Page Two August 29, 1985 North Carolina General statute Section 153A-199 provides that each owner of assessed property shall pay his assessment in full within thirty days after the date that notice of confirmation of the assessment roll is published, unless the Board has provided that assessments may be paid in annual installments. If payment by installments is permitted, any portion of an assessment not paid within the thirty day period must be paid in annual installments. The Board, in the assessment resolution, determines whether payment may be made by annual installments and sets the number. This number may not be more than ten. North Carolina General Statute Section 153A-201 provides authority to "hold assessments in abeyance." That section does not specify all of the reasons for which assessments may be held in obeyance. However, it does state, for water or sewer assessments and for beach erosion control or flood and hurricane protection assessments, that they may be held in obeyance for not more than ten years from the date of confirmation of the assessment roll. The second paragraph of G.S. Section 153A-201 states as follows: If assessments are to be held in abeyance, the assessment resolution shall classify the property assessed according to general land use, location with respect to the water or sewer system (for water or sewer assessments) , or other relevant factors. The resolution shall also provide that the period of abeyance shall be the same for all assessed property in the same class. Age of the property owner or the ability of the property owner to pay the assessment are not among those classifications listed in that section. Each of the items of classification relates to the property itself or in some other manner defines a feature of the property and is totally unrelated to the property owner or the property owners' biography. It is therefore my opinion that the General Assembly has not authorized a county to hold assessments in abeyance for a class of persons. This is true even though that class of persons meets the qualifications for property tax relief under North Carolina General Statute Section 105-277.1. In that regard, the "classification" of the property contained in North Carolina General Statute Section 105-277.1 as not subject to property taxes is an exercise of the so-called "classification power" of Article V, Sec. 2(2) , of the North Carolina Constitution. I mention the constitutional authority for such a property tax classification because it raises a "constitutional doubt" in my mind about the 09 7 Board Of Commissioners Page Three August 29, 1985 authority of the General Assembly to authorize the holding in abeyance of street assessments for the class of persons who are eligible for the property tax relief in G.S. Section 105-277.1 since there is no constitutional authority to do so. However, should the General Assembly create such a class, the act of so doing would be presumptively constitutional and could be followed by the County until it were determined to be not constitutional. For your information I have provided copies of the relevant statutes. Ve •. truly yours, y Gledhill GEG/lsg Enclosures xc: Marvin Collins Susan Smith Ken Thompson REC'D A U G 2 8 1985 098 (Orange Tounttl Department of�Vdal otruices 300 W.TRYON STREET HILLSBOROUGH.NORTH CAROLINA 27278 BOARD: 7EWHONE; W Uram"OEM" MU-MOROUGH OMCE 86&1601,WaW C*"Nurrm MOM MAR HILLSBOROUGH OMCE M-M.704161 C"MoNam CHAPEL HILL OMCE Z54%* DOMW DAVE Daux1oft MOKU W WARD MEMORANDUM 08/28/85 TO: Ken Thompson, County Manager RE: Mrs. Mattie James O'Neal FROM: Thomas M. Ward Please see attached a recent letter to Mrs. O'Neal regarding county services available to her. Indigency Based on her income which was last verified two years ago Mrs. O'Neal would fall in the borderline category of indigency. HF-r monthly income would qualify her for a minimum Food Stamp benefit (She received $10.00 per mouth in 1983). Under Medicaid, she would be required to spend approximately $150.00 per month on medical care as a deductible before payments could be authorized on her behalf. She is eligible for. Surplus Food and Energy Assistance. our records show she has not applied for emergency assistance from General Assistance funds. Current guidelines for the program would not consider street improvements as a "necessity" covered by General Assistance. (Orange TountV Department of �jadal truires 099 300 W. TRYON STREET HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 BOARD. 410 CALDWELL STREET DR.THOMAS DENTON CHRIS NUTTER CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 TELEPHONE: SHIRLEY MARSHALL HILLSBOROUGH OFFICE%"$01.96742S] CYRUS GREENE HILLSBOROUGH OFFICE 732-9361.732-8181 BONNIE DAVIS CHAPEL HIN-1-OFFICE 2Z9.0W DIRECTOR: THOMAS M.WARD August 26., 1985 Mrs. Mattie James O'Neal Pine View Estates Route 4 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Dear Mrs. O'Neal: We have received a referral from the Orange County Manager's office stating you have indicated that you are in --financial need. We would like to let you know about the services this agency can offer. Food Stamps: You are familiar with this program according to our records. If you would like to evaluate your current eligibility call Mrs. Summey at 967-9251 extension 206. She will be able to evaluate your circumstances if you give her accurate information on your expensesoeach month and the source and amount- of money you receive each month. Medicaid: This program is designed to assist* low income citizens with medical pay- ments of all types. For persons under 65 years of age a physical exam is required with the physician stating that you are disabled (unable to be employed). This medical information is reviewed by Medical specialist in Raleigh who make the final decision. If you ,are 'declared medically eligible you also must be financially eligible. In your case you would be required to spend approximately $150.00 per month on medical care before the program would be of assistance. The program was designed as protection against large medical bills therefore -if you have a hospital- ization or other large -medical bill you may want to request a 'referral for Medicaid Assistance. Energy Assistance: our records indicate you are also aware of this program. Appli- cations will begin for 1985 on October 15th in our office at 410 Caldwell Street, Chapel Hill. If you have an emergency regarding payment of your heating bills you may also apply for Crisis Intervention payments. General Assistance: You may apply at any time you are undergoing a financial hard- ship in payment of bills for necessities such as medical care, housing, heating and electricity. We may be able to assist you one time during a six months period with partial Payment andlor ••referral to other agencies- for assistance. Surplus Commodities •.- surplus foods such as cheese, butter, rice, flour dry milk and honey available on a quarterly basis. The next distribution will be at Carrboro Elementary School on November 9, 1985 from 8:00 to 11:00-A.M.. JI- -100 Mrs. Mattie James O'Neal August 26, 1985 page 2 The Orange County Department on Aging has several programs for which you might have need. ;Telephone them at 968-4478 to inquire about their nutrition and other programs.' ' Please feel free to call on us regarding any of these matters. Sincerely, Z Sa//.tIr Vceor4l� Orange County Dept, of Social Services TMW/ds A • 101 PINEVIEVI ROAD/PINEVIEW DRIVE PRESENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT IF BEPROCESSED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $19,000.00 $19,000.00 LOCAL COST FINANCED BY ORANGE COUNTY: 6 ,280.00 8,280.00 *ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ASSESSED TO PROPERTY OWNERS: 732.05 1 ,464.05** TOTAL COST ASSESSED TO PROPERTY OWNERS: 7 ,012.05 7,744.05 ASSESSMENT CHARGE PER FOOT: $2.04 $2.253 TAX REFERENCE OWNER ASSESSMENT PROPOSED ASSESSMENT 115A . .5 MATTIE JAMES DINEAL $567.12 $626 .3"+ 115A . .6 LILLIAN PLUMMER 387.60 428 .07 115A. .8 LORENA JOHNSON 346.80 383.01 115A.'.9 TERESA & EDGANDO GARCIA 254.80 281 .40 115A. .10 PAUL & BETTY BALDWIN 864.82 955.23 115A. .11 BILLY RAY PLUMMER 560.99 641 .66 115A. .12 EDWARD WENNTRAUB 254.80 28I .40 115A. .13 CHRISTPHER & SHIRLEY COOK 316 .20 349 .22 115A. .14 CARLTON & NORMA DAVIS 367.20 405.54 115A. .15 EUGENE & LOUISE COLE 335.17 * 370.17 115A . .10 MICHAEL MOORE 787.67 859 .91 115A . .17 JOHN A BETTY Y011 405.90 448,28 115A . .18 GEORGE & SUSAN CARTOL 137.09 151 .42 115A . .19 MELVIN & DOROTHY EMORY 178.03 196 .62 115A. .20 JESSE WILLIAMS 509.06 562.22 115A. .21 ROBERT & SUPATRA CAMPBELL 350.88 287.52 115A. .22 CHARLES & BETTY JAMES 367.20 405.54 Includes legal services publication and mailing costs . Does not include County staff expenditures (Planning Department ; Tax office; Clerk to the Board) . Includes Assessment Resolution and Assessment Roll charges for original and second assessment process . 0.1a ASSESSMENT ROLL IN CONJUNCTION WITH If­-"::';' FINANCING AND ASSESSING BY- ORANGE COUNTY OF THE LOCAL SHARE OF THE COST OF PAV.: *,.G NORTH CAROLINA STATE ROAD(S) #2042 AND #2043, ALSO KNOWN AS PINEVIEW ROAD AND PINEVIEW DRIVE, IN CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The property described below, the names. of the owners Of said property, the assessment levied against each parcel of propert-.-.- the basis for the assessment levied against said parcel and the terms of payment of the assessment all set forth below, together with'tax maps .of the project, constitute the assessment roll for the- paving' of North Carolina State Road(s) #2042 and 92043, also known as Pineview Road and Pineview Drive, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, Worth CaLrolina. BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT The basis for assessment against the property described below is front--age abutting the road at an equal rate per foot of frontage which represents the total local share of. the cost of this project:. TERMS OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT A. Within thirty (30) days after notice of the confirmation of assessment roll is published each owner of assessed property may pay his or her assessment in full without interest. B. Any assessment not paid in *full as provided above shall be paid In five '(5) equal annual installments with the first such installment, with interest, due sixty . (60) days after the date- that the assessment roll is confirmed, and the remaining installments, with 020 interest, due on the same date in each 'successive year until the assessment is paid in full M ap, Property Owners Amount of Bin _& Mailing Address Assessment & Lot 1i$A..5 M attie-James O'Neal $ 56?.12 Pine View Estates Rt. 4 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 115A..6 Lillian Plummer $ 337.60 Rt. 4, Lot 20 Pineview Estates Chapel,Hill, NC 27514 115A..8 Lorena Williams Johnson $ 3!�5.°O 1$ Pineview Estates Route 4 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 115A..9 Teresa Tilley Garcia $ -254.80 Edgardo Garcia Rt. 4, Box 488 Sesame Rd. Chapel Bill, NC 27514 MA..12 Edward Weintraub $ 'S4 �o P.O. Box 1354 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 SOLD 4/26/85 TO Durham Lewis Rt. 12 Box 38 Chapel Hill , MC 27514 115A..13 Christopher E. Cook $ 316.20 Shirley Cook P.O. Box 1338 Lake Pina Soffkee, Florida 33538 115A...0 Carlton G. Davis $ 367.20 Norma M. Davis Rt: 4 Pineview Estates Chapel 11ill, NC 27514 115A••15 Eugene C. Cole $ 33;.17 Louise Cole 13 Pineview Estates Route ty -2- 0-2 1. VC : I>el Hill, NC 27514 115A..36 ' Michael Moore $ 787.67 Azt. 4 Pineview Estates Lot 12 Chapel HiU., NC 27514 IZA-17 Jahn Walter Yow $ 405.91 Betty Sue Yow Rt: 4, Box 478 Chapel Hill., NC 27514 115A..18 George E. Carter, Jr. $ 137.09 Sbsan C. Carter 1a Pineview Estates Chapel Hill, NC 27514 115A..19 Melvin J. Emory $ 178.03 Dorothy Emory P.O. Box 2671' Chapel. Hill, NC 27514 115A,..20 Jesse James Williams $ 509.05 Rt. 4, Lot-8 Pineview Estates Chapel Hill., NC 27514 115A..21 Robert S. Campbell $ 350.£^0 Supatra Campbell. 105 Lexington Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 115A..22 Charles H. James $ 357.20 Betty B. James Rt. 12, Box 31 Lexington, NC 27292 115A. .10 Paul Baldwin $ Betty Baldwin 19 Pineview Estate Chapel Hill , 14C 27514 115A. .11 Billy Ray Plummer $ 580.q—n Pineview Estates Lot 20 Rt. 4 Chapel FI i 1 1 , 14C 27514 -3- CERTIFICATE OF 14AILXNG -029 Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about ou, —class mail,, postage prepaid, a Notice 7 r 3985, 1 mailed, by first bo each property. owner of the Public Hearing to . be held on the Preliminary Assessment 7toll, for the financing by Orange County.of the local share of the cost of paving North Carolina State R6ad 01938#, also known as Clearwater Lake Road, kr--ated in Chap'"l Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina. The Notice mailed set the date and time of the- Public Hearing and also the amount of assessment on the property owned by the person to 'whom the Notice was sent according to the County tax records. WITNESS my, hand and official seal of the Board 'of Commissioners'of Orange County, -North Carolina, this the day of L085- e /S Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of t Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina The Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, met ii• regular session in the Orange County Courthouse, in HiUsborough, North Carolina, the regular place of meeting, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. on August 5, 1985 and thereafter on August 20, 1985 in the Courtroom of the Old Post Office, Chapel Bill, North Carolina and September 3, 3985 in the Orange County Courthouse, in Hillsborough, North Carolina. Present., Don Willhoit-, Chair; -Commissioner Moses Carey; - Commissioner Ben Lloyd; Commissioner- Shirl Marshall;- Commissioner Norman Walker Absent: None The Chair announced that August 5, 1985 was the day fixed by the Board of Commissioners for the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Assessment Poll filed with the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County pursuant to the direction of the Orange County Board of Commissioners and pursuant to the Board's decision to finance the local share of the cost of paving North Carolina State Road(s) #2042 and #2043, also known as Pineview Road and Pineview Drive, in Chapel Hill Tbwnship,, Orange County, North Carolina. The Chair also announced that the Board of Commissioners would immediately hear anyone who might wish to be heard on the Preliminary Assessment Roll. Various persons appeared and were recognized and heard on the said Preliminary Assessment Roll. Those recognized and the essence of their comments were reoorded by the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners in the minutes of the Board for August 5, August 20 and September 3, 3985. Thereupon on September 3, 1985, upon Motion of Commissioner Carey r seconded by Commissioner Marshall- and carried, the Preliminary Assessment Roll fnr the financing by Orange County of the kcal share of the cost of paving North Carolina State Road(s) #2042 and #2043, also known as Pineview Road and Pineview Drive, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, was confirmed in toto. The vote upon confirmation of the assessment made against each property owner was: Ayes: —Unanimous Noes: Upon motion of Commissioner Qrgy seconded by Commissioner - Marshall. and unanimously approved, the Clerk to the Board was directed to enter into the minutes of the Board the confirmation date, hour, and minutes. Thereupon, the Clerk to the Board entered the confirmation effective 9:35 o'clock r) -m-, the 3rd day of September, 1985. Upon motion of Commissioner Cargy -. , seconded by Commissioner Marshall and unanimously approved the Clerk to the Board was directed to deliver a copy of the confirmed Assessment Poll to the Orange County Tax Collector. Upon motion of Commissioner Carey seconded by Commissioner Marshall and unanimously approved, the Orange County Tax Collector was directed to publish once, a Notice, no earlier than 20 days from the date of confirmation as herein set forth, that the Assessment Rol-I for the financing by Orange County of the local. share of the cost of paving North Carolina State Road(s) #2042 and #2043, also known as Pineview Road and Pineview Drive, located in Chapel EM Township, Orange County, North Carolina, has been confirmed and that assessments may be paid without interest at any time before the expiration of 30 days from the day that the Notice is published and that if not paid within that time, all install ents thereof shaU bear interest in an amount equal to the interest on past due ad valorem taxes in Orange County. The Chair directed that said Notice shall be published in the Durham Morning Herald. Said Notice shall be in substantially the RxUowing form: NOTICE OF CONFIRMATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE FINANCING BY ORANGE COUNTY OF THE LOCAL SHARE OF THE CASTS OF PAVING NORTH CAROLINA STATE ROAD(S) #2042 AND #2043, ALSO KNOWN AS PINEVIEW ROAD AND PINEVIEW DRIVE, LOCATED IN CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP, ORANGE COUNTY,, NORTH CAROLINA Notice is hereby given that pursuant to Article 9 of Chapter 153A of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County has confirmed the Assessment Ptdl for the financing by Orange County of the local share of the cost of paving North Carolina State Road(s) #2042 and #2043, also known as Pineview Road and Pineview Drive, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, in Mato. The specifics of any adjustment made are in the minutes of the Orange County Board of Commissioners for its meeting on September 3, 1985. The confirmed Assessment P-611 reflects any adjustment. Pursuant thereto: L The Board of Commissioners of the County of Orange, North Carolina, met in regular session in the Orange County Courthouse, in Hillsborough, North Carolina, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. on August 5, 3985. 2. The Chair announced that this was the hour and day fixed by the Board Of Commissioners for the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Assessment Roll pursuant to the Board's decision to finance the local share of the cost of paving North Carolina State Road(s) #2042 and #2043, also known as Pineview, Road and Pineview Drive, located in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina. 3. All persons attending and wishing to be heard were recognized by the Chair and were heard. 4. On September 3, 1985 the Board confirmed the Assessment Roll and directed its delivery to the Orange County Tax Collector. 5. The assessments confirmed by the Board may be paid without interest at any time before the expiration of 30 days from the date of the publication of this Notice. If not paid within this time, all.installments thereof shall bear interest at the rate set for past due Orange County ad valorem taxes. John T. Horner, Tax Collector for Orange County, North Carolina 1, Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of the Board of Commissioners for said County at a meeting held on August 5, August 20 and September 3, 3985, as relates in any way to the confirmation of the Assessment Roll fhr the financing by Orange County of the local share of the cost of paving North Carolina State Road(s) #2042 and #2043, also known as Pineview Road and Pineview Drive,, located in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina. Beverly Blythe* Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina (SEAL) O R A N G E C O U N T Y 102 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date September 1985 Action-A genda SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATION AMENDMENTS Item (PARTIAL-WIDTH RIGHTS-OF-WAY) DEPARTMENT: PLANN5_(3_____ PUBLIC HEARING —Yes X No Attachments) Information Contact: NAR'VINCOLLINS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS DRAFT 5/28/85 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DRAFT 8/19/85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Nu­mb­e­ra . HiLLsborough - 732-8181 Durham w BBB-7331 Mebane 227-2031 Chapel Hi LL - 958-4501 PURPOSE: To consider the proposed Subdivision Regulations text amendments pertaining to partial width rights-of--hay approval. for To .receive the recommendation Of the Planning Board. ' This item was submitted to Public hearing on May 2B, 1985. The Planning Board considered this item - for recommendation on August 19, 1985. NEED: The Proposed text amendments would address deficiencies in the Subdivision Regulations . An issue statement precedes each proposed amendment and is an attachment to this abstract . IMPACT: The proposed text amendments, w if approved, would improve the Subdivision Regulation and Provide clearer di to Planning Department in its administration and enforection rcement the as related to the Provision of partial lyidth righ.ts-of-viay. RECO14MENDATION: The Planning Board recommends BPPrOvaL Of the attached amendment to section IV-B-3-C-2. 103 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENT ARTICLE VI REQUIRED MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS SECTION IV—B-3—C-2 PARTIAL WIDTHS ISSUE:- In - the administration . of the Subdivision RegmLations, staff has recently encountered difficuLt and possibly ' i rreso Lveab Le subdi vi'sion requests where the applicant cannot obtain even a partial width right—of—way of twenty—five (2511 feet. This problem particuLarLy arises in the case of Lots created improperly by deed subsequent to the enforcement of Subdivision Regulations to a given township and in the *case of further subdivision of Lots initiaLLy created by subdivision of tracts into 10+ acre Lots and, thereby, exempt from the requirements of the Subdivision ReguLations . Staff fee Ls a means to provide a solution to those situations is needed. EXISTING ORDINANCE: - IV—B-3—c-2 Partial Widths A partial width right- of—way, not Less than 25 feet in width , may be dedicated when it adjoins undeveloped property; provided that the width of a partial dedication permits the instalLation of such public faciLities necessary to serve the Lots abutting therein . Where said adjoining undeveloped property is subdivided, ' the remainder of the full required right—of—way width shaLL be dedicated. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENT* : REVISE IV—S-3—c-2 to read Partial Widths A partial width right—of—way may be allowed in a subdivision where; (a) In the judgement of the Planning Board and with the approval of the Board ' -of* County Commissioners, it is found that the nature and Location of the subdivision , including such considerations as topography , the surrounding area , the present and future road plans, and access by pub Lic safety ' vehicLes. are svuh that a partial width right-of—way is justified; and, (b) The access serving the subdivision is classified as either a Class B or Class C road according to the Orange County Private Road Standard; and, 104 (a) The right—of—way width provided is adequate to allow for the construction of a traveLway, ditches, shoulders and turn—around required for the class of road serving the subdivision ; and, (d) - The right—of—way width provided would allow access by the Largest emergency services vehicle serving the district in which the subdivision is Located; and, If one or more of the following conditions are met When the p art i a L width ri ght—o f—we y adjoins undeveloped property ' and is not Less than 25 feet in width, and when said adjoining . undeveloped property is subdivided and the remainder of the full required right—of—way can be dedicated . (2) When access to -the subdivision is across property owned by other than the applicant and the property owner is unwilling to grant , sell or othe'rwise convey the full required right—of—way width to the applicant . In such instances , the applicant must submit a notarized Letter from said property owner stating his/her unwillingness to convey the full required rig-ht—of—way and the reasons for his/her position . (3). When pre—existing conditions preclude the provision of full right—of—way due to the pattern of adjacent deveLopmen.t, historicaL common access an/or site specific physical constraints . 105 MAY 28, NCO)s PObUc. 14t&2jU(, tfj"L-)-rbE6 PRIVATE ROADS DRAFT Presentation by Collins. WaLters cited the problem encountered by his neighbor in subdividing his property. Alton Cummings described his concern and inability to subdivide his Land to give his sons homesites with a 301 right—of—way versus a 60, right—of—way. Commissioner WiLhoit asked if a variance could be granted . Smith responded there were no variances granted to Subdivision Regulations. Commissioner Carey questioned the 801 right—of—way. Smith responded 50, was required. Cummings noted the Land was to be used for family only. Commissioner Lloyd asked how staff could address this. Smith responded staff had proposed this amendment to address similar problems . Lloyd asked Cummings to contact staff to see if what is being proposed will allow him to subdivide his Land . Henry MCOon eLd noted he is presently unable to subdivide a Lot so as to receive a -buiLding permit on Land he purchased by deed as he is unable to secure additional access beyond a 121 right—of—way. Agenda Item # WATERSHED STANDARDS Presentation by Collins. Yuhasz questioned the difference between the Town proposal which applies the stream buffer standard from the stream versus the County, proposeL which applies it from the edge of the flood plain. Collins responded staff proposed that current County Standards dictate. Yuhasz expressed concern with utilizing USG maps for applying this standard as they are not intended for this purpose. Commissioner Lloyd noted that this could result in restricting use of many acres of Land in certain areas. Yuhasz expressed concern with unnessariLy restricting uses allowed under the current fLoodpLain ordinance from occuring and that these proposals are not wall thought out. 106 DRAFT a-is-as Ps MINUTES 9 Out of approximately 21 acres . The smallest Lot Is 1 .3504 acres and the Lai-Seat Lot is 7 .8856 acres. The property is not zoned and is designated AgricuLturat-ResidentiaL and hater Supply Watershed• in the Land Use Plan . It is Located in the Cedar Grove Fire District . The addition of 5 Lots could add approximately 34 trips per day to Hawkins Road. A stream running along the property Lines between Lots 3 and 4 will, need a 30 foot drainage easement. The Planning Staff recommends approval with a 30 foot drainage easement along the stream between Lots 3 and 4. Kizer inquired where the stream an the property drained . Walters responded Lake Orange. Kizer continued asking how far this property is from Lake Orange and Walters responded four to five miles . ShankLin asked if this were an intermittent* stream and Smith responded no . MOTION: ShankLin moved approval . Seconded by Pearson VOTE: Unanimous . AGENDA ITEM #8 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS a . Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments Partial Width R/W - Section IV-B-3 Presentation by Smith . This agenda item is to consider the proposed Subdivision Regulations text amendnentts pertaining to partial width rights-all -way for recommendation . This item was submitted to public hearing on. May- 28, 1985. The proposed text amendments would address deficiences in the Subdivision Regulations . An issue Statement precedes the proposed amendment and is an attachment to this abstract . The proposed text amendments , if approved, via u Ld improve the Subdivision He-91-11at-ions and provide cLeaer direction to the Planning Department in its administration and enforcement as related to the provision of partial width rights--of--way ; 107 DRAFT B-19-85 PB MINUTES 10 .140TIDN: Shanl( Lin moved recommendation of app rove L of proposed amendment . Seconded by Pearson . Best noted that under this proposal there seemed to be no point in trying to get access from neighbors since aLL that wouLd need to. be said is that the right of—way cou Ld not be obtained. Smith responded that Board 8PPrOvaL for partial width . right—of—way was stiLL requi red but the risk is that no one 'sALL attempt to get. the fuLL right—of way . VOTE: Unanimous . [Pearson out of the room during this vote) . ORANGE COUNTY 108 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date SEPTEMBER 3 1985 Action A�enda SUBJECT: CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES RELATED TO AMENDING THE ZONING Item DEPARTMENT: PLANNING/BOCC CLERK PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact : SUSAN SMITH MINUTES JUAN FLORES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham -- BBB-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chap e l H i l l — 988--4501 PURPOSE: To correct errors and omissions found in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners regarding amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinances . At their August 20, 1985 meeting the Board directed staff to prepare recommended changes for consideration . NEED: A review of the record of Board actions on the Orange County Zoning Ordinance revealed errors and minutes omissions in the Of October 4, 1982; July 5, 1983; April 171, 1984 and February 19, 1985. MINUTES Specifically, these errors and omissions are as follows : SUBJECT ERROR/OMISSIDN October 4, 1982 Amendments to 4.1 (8) and Vote missing 6.16 .12 Amendments to 6 .16 .6.1 [gj Article reference is and 6.16 .6.2 (g) incorrect July 5, 1983 Amendments to B.7; 8.7.1 ; Motion fo 8 .7.2; 8 .7.3; 8.8 r approval referenced only 8.7.3 April 17, 1984 Amendment to 11 .10 Article reference is incorrect February 19,1985 Amendment to 4.3; 6 .3.1 ; and Article 22 Motion for approval referenced only 8 .3 IMPACT: Board action will result in correction to the minutes and clarification of Board action on these matters. RECOMMENDATION:ME ND aTI o N. To correct the minutes as provided in the attachment to this item. 109 MINUTES OULU ERROR/OMISSION RECOMMENDED CORRECTION OCT. 4, 1982 Amendments Vote missing Add:The motion carried to 4.1 (8) and 6.16 .12 Amendments Article reference Revise: 8.16 -Ig and 6.18 .28 to 6 -16.6.1 is incorrect to read (o1 and (g) and 6 .16.8 .2fal - 6 .16 .6 .2 (g) July 5, 1983 Amendments Motion for Revise: Don WiLLhoit moved, to 8 .7; approval re— Shipley E. Marshall seconded 0.7.1 ; ferenced only the changes in 8.7: 8 . 8.7.2; 8 .7.3 8-7-2-- R_7.3_ 8.7.3 ; 8.8 and B.S. April 17, 1984 Amendment Article re— Revise: 11 -11 -10 to read to 11 .10 ference is incorrect Feb . 19, 1985 Amendment Motion for Duping consideration of the to 4.3; approval re— proposed amendments relating 6.3.1 ; ferenced only to the provision of and 6 .3 temporary mobile homes for Article 22 use during construction or installation of permanent residential units Commissioner Marshall, attempted to clarify the intent of proposed wording Specific to Sbation B .S. As a result, the other related proposed amendments were not specifically incorporated into the motion for approval Revise: Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall , seconded by Commissioner Lloyd that 4-3--q-nd Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance, be amended as recommended by the Planning Board and that Section 8-.3 .1 Regulation of Principal Uses, be amended . . . . Mmo= 110 Mr. Cannity said the iirs-t change was to Article 4.1.8 and since it was Alak linked with Article 6.16-12 he Would present them toqethar•s, they deal -,lith tale- W_ phone exchanges, subscriberloop huts, pressure regulator stations, water and sanitary sewer Pumping 5*tations- (Clerk's note; -For the specifics please see. either the attachments to these minutes or the Zoning Ordinance.)* ?ending further clarification of 6.16.12, Commissioner' Gustaveson moved to approves seconded by- %,IA Commissioner Mar-shall, the amendments to-Article 4.1.8 and th' NNI a corresponding Article 6.16.12. Commissioner Marshall asked that those special groups who..may be affected lby major changes proposed in the Zoning Ordinance-be notified of such Proposals oriOT4 'to the Board's decision. XOmM•ssioner'GUstavesoh -moved,*seconded'by*Comm,ssioner"UT1 7.ldit,-to epp�^;-' the amendment to Article 4.2.4.b.4.regarding additional applica-tio'n criteria far High Density Residential Distrifts. 'late: Ayes, 4(Comis*sioners Gustayson,"Wfl sho"It. Walker and 'Uhitted); noes, I (Coffmisiioner Marshall), Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner'ner GustaLveson, to approve the amendment to Arti'cl a 4.2.12 (a)(b) referring to Existing co i ing mmercial-V Districts.- subject to appropriate wording by the County Attorney. p)t-2: &y(tr, 5, Q. noes, Commissioner Marshall moved, second6_d by Caw isslonler Gustaveso I n, to apprr)vp,* the definition of Efficiency Apartments wits: the deletion of (1) and ranumbe.- (2) and (3) as (1) and (2). Vote: Ayes, 5; :Ions, C. Commissioner Wil 1hoit moved, seconded by Cornmissioner Marshall, to table ameni'_ Al mants to Article'5.15.1 g and 5.16.2.g until the it Com TM issionerS' meeting. 'vot-a: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Mr. Canni ty said that the suggested amendments*ta Article 8.4.8 and 8.4.cg were to place the same time limitation on Special. :)se Permit Requests as: -are pr,2- sently *on rezoning requests. COMIlissioner Gustav son -moved, seconded by C-1,ni-mlissioner Marshall, to approve I:he amendments to Article 8.4.8 and 3.4.9. During discussion, Commissioner Guszavescn amended his inotion to read approval with the 12 month _fte limition or reapp7Ica-t-*on._ on Special Use Per n-,1,3, if ;.,ithdrawn aft2r but thlt the vithdrawil df the application is not to be considered denfal of the petition' Commissioner Mars all'; rsecond stood. Vote• Ayes, 4: (Co-T-missioners Gustaveson, Narshal I w1al ker and I (Commissioner Willhoit)- 4L COMllissioner Gustavescn MoVed, seconded Commissioner 'e!hit 42W 'led, to approya' 714YAs E-2- chans7PC �_,,MMLMg Shirley E. Marshall seconded, Don '-filLholt mo the changes in r.3 of the ZOni-19 Ordinanc recommended by the Planning Board: Paragraph 2, line 7. Delete "If the Board- finds the . modification stantial in its impact, or wishes to have additional public input, it may' replace with VOTE. Ayes, 4 E-3 Marrhall 'moved and Don, Willhoit seconded the Proposed deletions to Subdivision Regulations recommended by the'Planning Board: . 222•C--3�— When access to a minor subdivision is proposed v preexisting, platted, private road-, and where the Private road Provides ac to lots in addition to the lot(s) created by the proposed minor subd;vis the Planning Board may recommend a variance, pursuant to subsections Vji--,A of thii ordinance, from the right-of-way "* and maintenance requirements subsection IV-B-3-e Of this ordinance. All variances shall be grants: accordance with Section VII of this .ordinance. TV-A-I-C-5, Offsets - Unless exception is granted as provide. Section.V11 herein, an offset in the alignment of a street across section shall not be permitted. an a- ptinn i S --. ..r . in Section VII herein, reserve strips controlling access to streets shall. • be approved. VOTE: Ayes, 4. E-4. Norman ;ja moved; Shirley E. Marshall seconded the approval of the 1983-84 Secondary Improvements Program. VOTE: Ayes; 4 mdac�el- Shirley E. Marshall, x-.o- Richard E. Whitted seconded the proposed changes to the Private 'cad Stan:la PRESENT PROPOSED 1-3 Class C 4-3 Class c 4-8 Class S 4-9 Class 3 9 or more Class A 10 Or More Ciass A The construction standards are also proposed to be changed. PRESENIT PROPOSED Class C-10' Travelway Class C-8' Travelway Class B-18' Travelway Class 5-12' Travelway Class A-201 Travelway Class A-13' Travelway With the clarification that all Class C roads must be posted; all C roads are required to be named. VOTE: Ayes; 4 E-6. Zo-rizlng F, Richard E. Wnitte.d moved; Don Seconded the award of two Housing Rehabilitation contracts; DUO STREET CONTRACTOR BID AMOU'..T 31 Torain St. SairnLal Eng'-is,,: 8155i.GO 83 Daye St. Frank Griffin & Assoc4---,tes VOTE: Ayes; 4 Board E-7. des;gnated Don Willhoit as the voting delegate to the &jjr,:,aj Carolina Association of County Comnissioners Conference in'-IuSUSL, '533. Don Wi 11 Oi t ov Sh4 Marshall seconded the executior E.I. e 27, 19a3. �ach - . Of the 1983-84 bud 3t o�-djnance aDorove- co. ,.1r, lssioner signed che docurent. E-9. Sch--o —Zuzd.�Zz - After some jis CO -ments by Dan Luns. cussior. �ord' Oranqe Count" Supecinten:!ant 0- achooi, Ec! CGRAN, sHotion•was made by Commissioner Whitted, saconded by Commiss, er Marshall to approve Paving (1) Brigddoon Drive from Linden Road v McDermott Drive, (2) NcDernott Drive from Brigadoon Drive to Renfrew Drive, and (3) Renfrew Drive from f-IcDermott Drive to the end of R* enfraw Drive under the Orange County participatory Paving Program, VOTING: UNANIMOUSLY. 1 (see Page _ in the Ordinance Book) Susan Smith, Planner presented this for consideration by t*he Board. She noted that the Only change recommended was last Paragraph of the proposed• textt amendment: the deletion of the "Should the size or configuration o° the lot Preclude compliance with one or more of the setback requirements, ' Compliance With Set!3a,.-.: rec,uireznents which cannot be met due to lot size or configuration shall not be required." Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall; seconded by Commis- sioner Whitted to approve the revised text amendment- to Article 11 Nonconfformi• ies as corrected with a notation at the bottom of section 11-11.10 to read "See Board of Adjustment section for appeal procedures". VOTING: UNANIMOUSLY. 12. MpDLF, ,ZT- Motion was mnade by Commissioner 'Ialker, seconded bv COIVIMissionqg Whitted to approve "he addition of Saddle Drive in (Dillow Ridge Subdi Sion to the state maintained secondary road system.. VOTIIZIG: U!1A11IJ;,OUS_�_11--- 13- Tbo.moson presented the bid results for the outdoor lighting at Cedar Grove Park and Orange irligh School: YZLIDM SDETBaLL__"rZLU NULS-MUZ-25Z Tommy Lawrence $16,000 '525,000 Electrical Contr. Holland Electrical Co.slq.364 528,333 $48,000 S & S Electrical $34,300 $50,946 Construction Co. & q, Inc. $20,320 $30,256 $50,576 • 1,11orion was made by Commissioner vyal,N-er, seconded by Co-_mi:;Z.'orec Lloyd to approve a con tact to 701-=Y Law-rence Electrical Contractors, Inc. Of Roxboro, ri.C, foc t.- fOr ..a PUZPOse Of cons"r,4cting ou,:20or Field lighting a Softball field at Cedar Grove Park and ZOr eight (a) tennis court-- at Orange High School at- a cost of $40,500 (515,500 for Softball field, and $25,000 for tenn•s =3u:ts. A-Yes, 2; INToes, 3 i and '•7h 3.4::ted) . j.; The Tennis co,_,ci-s aaj the So�tball Field at Oranac !iig,,1 5choo, and t"-iz inclusion in t'-e budget care discuszed. SiOner Marshall ;Rotlon was made by comr.;SsZonez :shitted, Seconded bv Comrai(! to .:•ard a cnn-eact to Tommy ical Con- tractors, Inc. 0- ce t field IiShti,g of the Pul-POse O� cOnstCucting outAooc Softball field 'l aUN AN T. 0 S t Cedar Grove ?_rk .1OT 1':G- - Section 6.24cl offstreet loading, reqUirements 7 the Plannina Board did not attach 'a condition for approval; sufficient area was available for the loading spaces. .Section 6.24 fly 2, 3 - Landscaping - Conditions 4, 7, a Section 6.24.4 - Screening - Conditions V, 8. Five additional conditions were recommended by the Planning r-c-ird. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, secorAed by Commissioner Carey that a preponderance of evidence indicates compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use, that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, that the Planning Board's recommndations as to findings are correct, and that we approve the special use permit with the eleven conditions as corrected by the Board. VMS: UNUMIOUS. 4- :a I) PLANNED Collins presented for consideration a Proposed Planned DeveiopmenVSpecial Use Permit application for 52.78 Ev.:-es of land located west of N.C. Highway 86 and east of the Interstate 40 corridor. The purpose of the request is to Petmit the construction of a 57 unit mobile home park. With reference to the negative finding in Section 7.14.3a7 Signs erected in accordance with Article 9. Collins indicated there was no to be t a condi- tion that addressed this negative finding. Chair Willhoit noted the letter provided by Hillsborough which indicates the availability of water service is being modified to indicate an approximate date for providing such service but does not necessarily mean action of the Town Board. He stated his concern available; it will be upon the ac it will be is that this project is a tremerOt- ous distance from Hillsborough and does not provide for the orderly growth around the Town of Hillsborough as- provided for in the land use plan. He feels it does not Promote good public health, safety and welfare. He suggested this itc:.- be tabled until such time that the Tcym can provide water to the develop-Treern L':. Board Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill pointed out that the Bo;-!z,-d must make a finding on the evidence presented for the method and adequancy of the provision for sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and water service and determine if this part of the ordinance has been satisfied and met by the developer. Commissioner Marshall noted the problen, is that this is not a transition area on the land use plan; that it is rural residential or rural buffer ordinance approves mobile homes. and our Commissioner Lloyd noted that this development has met the criteria awkward to reject this development. ordinance and it would seem aw) of t±le Commissioner Marshall noted that the only evidence against -1-his develop- ment was the concern of adjoining property m7ners about the devaluation of their property. Gledhill clarified that if the developer intends to lease spaces which are clearly defined on the ground then it is considered a subdivisioll. Collins recortmerded amending condition 414 to include that the final plajis must be approved within 6 months of the issuance of the special Else permit and prior to the start of construction. L Commissioner Marshall corrected #14 to read "prior to the issuance of the grading and building penrdL-..11 Collins added to -r*11 the definition for hard -surface and built to' state standards. Also to 020 that signage details mist be mabrflitt-ed JCO deterr.W,.e compliance with Article 9 signs prior to the issuance of signs. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Walker to approve the development in accordance with the finding of fact subject to the 20 conditions as corrected by the Board. XVOTE: AYES,' 4; Y.OES, I (Chair Willhoit) . 5- NR'P'1EL2T�TOTFE ZONINIQ ORDIRM E-m-1PORAa pjap LE LC _I HOCICS Collins explained this alrP-ndlrrent allows for the use of -;q 114 hone during the installation or construction of a separate P..--.-.,anent. home on that sane lot. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd M*theit Section 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance,. Regulation of Principal Uses, to be amended as stated under the needs portion of the agenda abstract to provide for the use of temporary mobile homes. In answer to Jerry Robinson's request to have this amendment approved by the Health Board,*Collins noted that before a building permit is issued for a temporary mobile home they do have to have the approval of the Health Departmeant, to either utilize the existing septic tank or to -put. in a new one. V UaMMOUS. 6. - POPLAR EP—M SPQN IV PREL1141&%RY PLAN"(descriptive narrative is in the permanent agenda file) Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the recommendation as made by the Planning Board. VOTE: UNUUMOUS. 8. MASMC-E PARLORS Sheriff Pendergrass asked expedience in the enactment of an ordinance in Orange County to regulate the Massage Parlors. Ree noted that nothing is known about the people who work in these places; they have been arrested for dtogs and control substance charges. There are two massage parlors in the counf-y. In answer to Commissioner Walker's concern about regulation, Peridergra&G indicated that by not passing-an ordinance in Orange County the County is accepting these parlors along with their illegal activities. . Pendergrass indicated complete cooperation in working with the County Attorney to draft an ordinance. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to authorize the preparation of a draft ordinance in conjunction with the Manager, Attorney and the Sheriff for the purpose of regulating massage par- lors as a mans to deter or prevent illegal activity within massage businesses, VUL7: UMN124OUS. YULE: CFALR WILISOIT MZ11OUNCED TBE DEP-ARILNE-117T REPORTS «ILL BE ?12SIW�M, UILvTIL IIA 9. _RE2IIAPPIYG BIDS FOR CHAPEL HILT, TUiNSHIP Motion was made by Commissioner Careyr seconded by* Commissioner Marshall to approve the bid from L. Robert Kimball and Associates for the .wlti-year project and authorize $28,064 in funding for phase one in the 1984-85 fiscal year and authorize the Manager and the Chairman of the Board to enter into a contract for the first and later -phases subject to the avail- ability of funds as annually determined in the budget process. 'V7CfJI, LZI41 Roscoe Peeve, Land Records Manager, introduced to the Board three members of L. Robert Kimball and Pssociates; Jim Morgan,, 'lice President; Tony Nastasia, head of the division for photographic and cadastral mapping' ; and Jerry Kubala, head of the North Carolina branch. 10. __02A_NGE CEIffl-W-1 CQUi• -LY BWNDI%_R_V SMI-VEY(see correspondence in perra- ORANGE COUyTY- 115 BOARD* OF COMMISSIONERS: AC.T I.ON. AGENDA ACT;ON• AGENDA iTElt• ABSTRACT ITEM' NO.; I�`s MEETI'NG.' DATE! FEBRUARY 15, 1985 SUBJECT': AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE - TEMPORARY MOBILE HOMES _ DEPARTMENT: PLANN I NG PUBLI.G HEARING: YES NO ATTACHMENT(S) :. INFORMATIOR CONTACT: SUSAN SMITH SEE 11/26/84 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA PACKET PHONE NUMBERS'-- H I LLSBOROUGH - 732-$i 8i ' HILLSBOROUGH -- 732;,-9361 . CHAPEL HILL - 967-5251 MEBANE 227~2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE. To consider an amendment to the Orange- County Zoning Ordinance which would provide in the Permitted Use Table for the use of a temporary residential mobile home during the installation of a replacement mobile home or the construction of a stick-built or modular residential unit on the same lot for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. This item was presented to public hearing on November 26, 1984. Th'e Planning Board recommended approval of this amendment on February 12, 1985. NEED: Article VI Application of DimensiooaA Requirements, Section 6.3 "Regulation of Principal Uses" permits only one single family residence per lot. The County Attorney has advised that the use of a• temporary mobile home and the issuance. of building permits during. the period when a replacement mobile home is being installed or a stick--built or modular residential unit is being constructed on. the same lot is not specifically permitted in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff feels that this residential arrangement* is a reasonable and common praetice in Orange County and should be permitted as a use by right. Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for- this arrangement is shown on the attached Permitted Use Table and is- distinguished from Class "B'! Special Use Pmrmits issued for the temporary use of mobile homes. for custodial care on the same lot. asaan existing permanent residential structure. Also, a proposed amendment to Article VI Application of Dimensional Requirements Section 6.3.1 specifically referencing this concurrent residential arrangement is .as follows: ' 6.3 Regulation of Principal Uses 6.3.1 It is the express intent of. this ordinance to regulate the number of principal structures constructed on each lot within Orange County. There shall be only one single family residence per lot, except for the use of temporary mobile homes for custodial are or auring tne insta ation 6'r_%,-,nstructlon of a second permanent unit on the same Article.,4 d in 11 ,13 `ein,ill!ted Use Table and Wr . 'e $,-h em Use of a Residential Mobile Home (Gies: A proposed definition of Temporary Residential Mobile Home to be included in Artict6 22 Definitions is as follows: - TeMDorary Residant-,=j Mobile Home. A mobile home, inLU-Pueg for residential use for a 1!hhtted period of time, for purposes of proViding for custodial care under a Class' B Special Use Permit or providing temp:- arary residential space during the installation of a replacement mobile home or construction of a stick- built o-r modular residential unit on the same lot, -and for 30 days after the- issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the permanent residential unit. The temporary mobile home is not attached to permanent or 'semi-perm6nent foundation. IMPACT: -Amendment of the Ordinance would allow *the use of a mobil.e home on a-:temporary basis during the installation of a permanent mobile home or the construction of a stick-built or modular residential unit on the same lot as a permitted use by right requiring only the issuance of two concurrent building permits. Both structures must also -comply with applicable zoning regulations in order for the building/ zoning permits to be issued. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Board recommends that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to provide for the use of a temporary residential mobile home. ORANGE COUNTY I 1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date September 3 1985 Action Agenda SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE VIOLATION POLICY Item cry DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachmentisl Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH B-15-85 LETTER FROM COUNTY ATTORNEY 8-22-00 LETTER FROM COUNTY ATTORNEY ZONING ORDINANCE VIOLATION POLICY ARTICLE 23 VIOLATIONS, PENALTIES, REMEDIES Telephone Numbers HiLLsborough — 732-8181 Durham -- 889-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel HiLL — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider the Zoning Ordinance Violation Policy currently in effect . NEED: On August 20, 1985 the Board directed that the Zoning Ordinance Violation Policy be brought before the Board for review. IMPACT: Article 23 VIOLATIONS PENLTIES AND REMEDIES of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance provides that "whenever . . . the performance of any act is prohibited or whenever any regulation , dimension or Limitation is imposed an the use of any Land, or on the erection or alteration or the use or change of use of a structure, or the uses within such structure, a failure to compL.y with such provisions of this ordinance shaLL constitute a separate vicLation and a separate offense." The Ordinance further provides for remedies exercised by the Zoning Officer to addresss the violations. The administrative procedures foLLowed in determining if a violation has occurred are as Listed in the attached Zoning Ordinance Violation Policy. The County Attorney has indicated that the current policy is satisfactory with ono exception . Reference on page 2 of the policy to a "cease—and—desist" Letter being sent should be deleted and the sentence reworded to read as fo L Lows: 118 SEPTEMBER 3, 1985 REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS PAGE 2 "In asses where a civil remedy is indicated, the matter wi EL be brought before the -Board of County Commissioners for authority to proceed in a civil action ." This change is requested as the County Attorney does not wish to proceed with a civic action without Board of Commissioners authorization . RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the wording change as recommended by the County Attorney. COLM E .N, B-E­R, HOLZ, DICKER.-.::v, BERNHOUt- GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE 119 ATToRxEys AT LAAv 110 CHURTON STREET H ILLS130ROUGH.*S.C. 27278 919-9.Q-8000 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE- NW SUITE 20.FRANKLIN BUILDING 137 E.FRAXXLtN STREET CHAPEL HILL,N.C.27514 August 15, 1985 919-929-i E51 ALONZO B.COLEMAX,JR. STEVEN A.SERNHOLZ DONALD R.DICKERSON ROGER B.BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL DOUGLAS HARGRAVE MARTIN J.BERNHOLZ RICIIARD J.SNIDER.JR Don Willhoit, Chair JANE G.de LISSOVOY G-NICHOLAS HERMAN Moses Carey LYNN A.ANDREWS Ben Lloyd Of rounsel Shirl Marshall HUNNER D.SAWYER Norman Walker Orange County Board Of Commissioners 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Zoning ordinance Violation Policy Dear Board Members: Two zoning ordinance violation enforcement matters are on the August 20, 1985 agenda for Board action. It is the view of the Planning staff, and I concur in that view, that criminal action is not warranted in these two cases. Rather, what is needed is corrective action. That is , action which brings the use of the property into compliance with the County's zoning - ordinance. To my knowledge the Board Of Commissioners has not been previously asked for authority to file a civil action to enforce the County's zoning ordinance. Enforcement has been accomplished in the past either voluntarily or by resort to the criminal courts. In the later, regard, as you know, a violation of the County's zoning ordinance is a crime and punishable as a misdemeanor under North Carolina General Statutes Section 14-4. Enclosed is correspondence leading to a policy adopted by the Board in August, 1980 which policy sets forth a procedure for enforcement of zoning violations. The need for Board of Commissioner action in each case where a civil remedy is sought brings this issue back to you for consideration. Specifically, the question for Board decision is: Does the Board wish to amend its Policy regarding zoning ordinance violation enforcement to include authorization to the staff to institute a civil action in the name of Orange County to enforce the County's zoning ordinance? If so, what are the perimeters of this authority? 120 Board Of Commissioners Page Two August 15, 1*985 The 'concern -.are is, as you can imagine, the need for quick action In some instances at a' time when there is an increase in development activity and an increase in the amount of enforcement activity necessary. Very truly yours, Frey Gledhill Enclosures xc: Marvin Collins Ken Thompson, COLEMAN. BERNHOLZ AND DICXERSON 121 ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHVRTON STREET AONYO R.COLEMAN,JA_ HILLsSOROVCII.NoxT7+CAROLINA 2:2711 STEVEN A.REANHOLZ 9iY:7�2.2i96 CIIAP3EL HILL OFFICE ROGER b,PIEANHOLZ 919 942-tw� SUITE 20.FRANKLIN BUILD DONALD P-DICKERSON 337 EAST FRANKLIN STAEFC GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL CHAPEL HILL.NORTH CAROLINA 27514 AOt1GLASHAkkCRAVE MARTIN f.4411,iHOLZ 17 t1�o August 22, 7 91f9:9-7351 ' PATA•tQA 5TAAP0RD HVNT p(CO"ftI - LEvAL CLINICS SONNER D.SAWYER _ ADMINISTRATIVE Otzro, (1902 1972) 116 EAST ROSEMARY STREET CHAPEL HILL.NORTH CAROLINA 27514 9L9929.OJ94 ' Mr. Jim Polatty Director Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Zoning Ordinance Violation Policy Dear Jim: Enclosed is a re-write of the policy concerning Zoning- ordinance violations amplifing paragraph 8 as I understood the Hoard of Commissioners' intention. Please advise if you have any comments. Very truly yours, COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, DICKERSON, BER:VHOLZ, GLEDHILL AND HARGRAVE �•. E. ;Yl Gledhill GEG/jac Enclosure ` ' (-3i/ 122 ZONING ORDINANCE VIOLATION POLICY qW In the event that there is probable cause to believe that the County's Planning Ordinances are being violated the following policy and prociedure shall apply: 1. The Planning Department shall log any complaint from a citizen, the Zoning Officer or the Building Inspector. 2. The Zoning Officer shall investigate the complaint to determine the history and any other particulars about the case. 3. The Zoning Officer shall attempt to make personal con- tact with the property. owner to discuss the violation and any action that is required to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The Zoning Officer shall send -a certified letter to the property owner outlining the violation of the ordinance and the steps needed to bring the property or use into compliance. S. The Zoning Officer shall reinspect the site after two weeks to determine, compliance. G. If the site is not then in compliance, the Zoning Officer shall hold a conference with the County Attorney to present the evidence of the case to him. The Attorney shall indicate the need for further investigation or information. 7. The Zoning Officer shall send a certified letter to the property owner restating the violation and subsequent events since the last letter. This letter shall state a new two-week deadline and inform the owner of the Potential legal consequences if the violation is not corrected. 12-3 S. in two weeks th-3 Zoning Officer shall reinspect the site and if the property or use is still in violation he shall consult with the County Attorney who will proceed with further action where warranted. In cases where criminal prosecution is indicated the District Attorney will be advised of the facts via aconference involving the District Attorney, Planning Department staff and the County Attorney. Subsequent to this conference but before a criminal warrant is "sworn-out" the County Attorney shall write a "cease and desist" letter giving the violator five days to come into compliance and explaining that failure to do so will result in criminal prosecution. in cases where a civil remedy is indicated a "cease And desist" letter shall be sent to the violator indicating that the violation must be corrected within five days, the failure of which will result in. civil action. T Thereafter the matter will be brought before the Board of County Commissioners for authority to proceed in a civil action. In- all cases of irreparable harm to other property owners or the County's Zoning regulations warranting immediate action, any or all of the above time periods may be shortened or suspended altogether upon the authorization of the Board of County Commissioners. -2- 124 ARTICLE 23- VIOLA-TioNs, PENALTIES AND REMEDIES AM 23-1 Violations Whenever$* by the Provisions of this ordinance, the performance Of any act is Prohibited, or whenever any regulation, dimension O= limitation is imposed on the use of any land, Or on the erection. or alterations or the use or change of use of a struc- tures, or the uses within such structure, a failure to comply with such provisions of this ordinance shall constitute a separate violation and a separate'offense- 23.2 Penalties AIT12—person adjudged in violation of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. -and shall be punished as provided in G.s. 14-4. 23.3 Remedies If a building or structure is erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, repaired, converted, moved or maintained, or any build- inSt structure of 1,4.nd is used in violation of this ordinance, the Zoning Officer, in addition to other remedies, may institute any appropriate action or Proceedings to prevent the unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, conversion, moving, maintenance or use, to restrain, correct or abate the violation, to Prevent occupancy of the building, structure or land, Or to Prevent any illegal act, conduct business or use in or about the premises. 23-1 n TvI unto Jhpurtwnt of ftcial eruueu 300 W. TRYON STREET HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 BOARD* 410 CALDWELL STREET D'L tS Mn'TER�NTON CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA 27514 TELEPHONE; SHIRLEY H NUTTER ' HILLSBOROUGH OFFICE 96&4501.967.951 SR MARSHALL CYRUS GREENS HILISBOROUGH OFFICE 732.9361,732.8181 BONNIE DAVIS CHAPEL HILL OFFICE 9290446 DIRECTOR: THOMAS M.WARD MEMORANDUM August 30, 1985 TO: Ken Thompson, County Manager RE: Mattie James O'Neal PROM:- Thomas M. Ward A-home visit with Mrs. O'Neal by staff member Barbara McPherson revealed she has no monthly expenditures for land or housing. She estimates expenses of $31.00 per month for medicine and $160.00 for food. She has no outstanding bills; her yard is mowed through Department on Aging. She is covered by State Employees E.D.S. medical insurance and receives $159.00 per month from her deceased husband's University. of North Carolina retirement, and•$369.00 from Social Security. . -CONFIDENTIAL : 1 0 0 0 fZlo 13 M I N U T E S ORXiGE COUMT BWM OF 00MMISS110I MS REGULAR MMING Swramm 3, 1985 The orange county Board of Commissioners met in regular session on September 3, 1985, 7-30 p.m. in the Ccumissioners' Rom of the Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborougb, North Carolina. -Cor -AMZSSLQXM PRESOU. Chair Don Willhoit, and Commissioner Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. LT—ICAM HOW; Geoffrey Gledhill. SMU PRESEW- County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Director of Finance Gordon Baker, Recreation Director Mary Anne Black, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Deputy Finance Officer Ken Chavious, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Coordinator of the Commission for W%�Ien Verla. Insko, Planner Susan Smith and Social Services Director Tom Ward. A. BOARD CCMEM Chair Willhoit indicated receipt of a letter from Larry Hauck, of Centel and requested that anyone with a complaint about the telephone service to contact the County Manager. E.--j=3ENCE None. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Camnigsioner Lloyd to approve the minutes for Fay 24,'1985 as circulated. VOTE: LUMDEUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the minutes for May 29# 1985 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. D. APRQIMN Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to appoint Mary Ann Minsley as an alternate on the Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment. Vam; UNAMOUS. Qffi= g='PLANN= MW- Commissioner Carey moved the appointment of Margaret Miller. Commissioner• Lloyd moved the appointment of Richard Roberts. Ccmdssioner Lloyd commented that, in his opinion, there is a need for more representation from the agricultural section of the County. He objected to being outvoted on most appointments to the Planning Board. Chair Willhoit requested an updated report on past appointments. He expressed his concern for underrepresentation in certain areas. Currently there are no blacks on the Planning Board. Commissioner Marshall noted she has worked for and encouraged a better geographical representation for all the Boards and Ccumissions. VOTE: Richard Roberts -Ccumissioners Lloyd and Walker. Margaret,miller-41mir Willhoit and Commissioners Marshall and Carey. 1. CEIUIF.Tc= OF RMANuE IN FnNICIAL REB2EMM Orange County was the recipient of the Certificate of Conformance in Financial Reporting and the Award of Financial Reporting Achievement. This program is a recognition of excellence in governmental financial reporting. 0002114 Gordon Baker accepted the award on behalf of Wallace Harding and the entire staff. 2. 1985 OUTSTANDING INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN-BOARD MEMBER ANARD (The full narrative of the award is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) Mary Anne Black presented to Dr. Ronald Hyatt, an Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council member, the 1985 Outstanding Individual Citizen-Board Member Award as presented by the Citizen-Board Member Division of the North Carolina Recreation and Park Society. Ron Hyatt accepted the award ' and thanked the Board for their continued support. F. PROCLAMATION AND RU%M ON CLEAN-UP Lr= WEEK Mary Anne Black presented for consideration of approval a proclamation as follows: WHEREAS, THE North Carolina Department of Transportation has designated September 15-21 "Clean-Up Litter Week" on North Carolina highways; and WTMW• , The orange County Board of Commissioners recognizes the benefits derived to the County when the highways and streets in the County are litter free; and WHEREAS, THE Board of Commissioners recognizes the negative impact on visitors and citizens when litter is permitted to accumulate; and WHEREAS, THE Board of Commissioners wishes to encourage and endorse the concept of "Clean Up Litter Week;" NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLUMED THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DOES HEREBY DESIGNATE SEPTEMBER 15-21 CLEAN UP LITTER WEEK IN ORANGE COUNTY. BE IT FURTHER, PROCLAIMED that the Board of Commissioners encourages all citizens of Orange County to participate in Clean Up Litter activities in their neighborhoods. She outlined for the Board the schedule of activities in support of this project. There is a big emphasis on individual clean up in ones' own yard. There will be a recycling effort for aluminum cans. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Proclamation as stated above. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. G. A REPORT COMPLETED BY THE C-CMISSMN FOR WOMEN (A complete copy of the report is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office). Commission member Alice Holt presented openings remarks on the methodology. The Charge to the Commission for Women is to improve the status of women in Orange County. In 1984 the Commission undertook a review of the JTPA program. Population and program data was collected and analyzed. A study committee of five Commission members was appointed to implement the study. Commission member Claudine Harris chaired the study committee and reiterated how the study committee became familiar with X?A-. Verla Insko noted the study had two goals for the Commission: (1) to educate Commission members about a service that is available to citizens, and (2) to improve employment opportunities for women. She presented transparencies which illustrated (1) population data, (2) participation rate 0 0 0$2,15 in JTPA, (3) educational background of the participants, (4) background statistics of the participants, (5) job placement of the participants and comparison of salaries for the first and second year AFDC participants, race and gender of the participants. The data presented was compared with Durham County. Insko expressed concern that not everyone who participate gets a job and that the AFDC recipients are not being adequately served by the program. Recommendations were outlined as stated in the report. She feels that Orange County should receive regular reports on the number of participants along with other statistics. An assessment needs to be made to determine if JTPA is actually reducing the number of people on AFDC. She suggested the PIC (Private Industrial Council) ask for more program and population data so they can do a more thorough job at evaluating the program and establishing goals for JTPA. PIC has the authority to ask for a waiver of the support program that have been deleted which would allow more money for child care and transportation. Also they could request more nontraditional training programs. Insko pointed out that this consortium is the only one in the nation that has a private sector liaison. The unique feature of the program is the involvement of the Chamber of Commerce in endorsing the program. She cited several barriers to effectiveness: (1) funding formula is not appropriate - it is based on unemployment while the charge is to serve welfare recipients. (2) improved coordination at the state level, (3) PIC at the State level is not representative of the female population, and (4) requirement of a high skill level by the employer. Commissioner Marshall asked about the outreach of the program and Bob Ferguson, Director of the Administrative Office for JTPA, indicated that every available resource is utilized. He indicated that there are inequities to those who are served because of the demands of the employers. Referrals of both male and females are made but the employer makes the final decision. He summarized the application process when the program was initiated and improvements that have been made since the beginning of the program. Goals and objections are being formulated and the concerns and issues listed in the Commission for Women report will be reviewed. The required percentage rate for AFDC participation within the consortium is 5.3%. There are certain state and federal requirements that must be met which cause some problems. Funds are not received in a timely fashion and the funding formula does not address the disadvantaged population. The funding level is not known from one year to the next. The coordination between TMA and other local agencies has been addressed by the State. Sophie Shiffman of the Employment Security Commission-, indicated that all AFDC recipients are screened and referred accordingly. Many are referred to TIPA and some have completed the training and are employed. Social Services Director Tom Ward indicated the biggest problem is transportation of the participants to and from training. Most AFDC recipients do not have transportation. Ferguson noted that following training, the on-the-job-training program pays part of the trainees' salary to the employer for a maximum of 44 weeks. The training programs are planned in accordance with the labor market. 0 0 0 Chair Willboit suggested those questions regarding coordination and transportation be referred to the Human Services Advisory Council; questions regarding. participation of AFDC recipients and clay care needs to the Department of Social Services, and those item related to the PIC be referred to the PIC. R, TTW9 FOR DECISION The County Manager recommended the following action by the Board: 1. 1 J A_ND SNOR-CREM Adopt the Mx4 Sewer operating Budget as required by Farmers .Home Administration and authorize the chair to sign Form 442-7. MACHIM Authorize the Director of Purchasing and Central Services to issue a $10,620 purchase order to Governmental Data System, Inc •for three voting machines. 3 Establish a new Social Worker 11 position.effective October 1, 1985. Position will initially be restricted to 20 hours per week with hours to be increased as funded by re-allocation monies. 4. JOW AVERICIE LME AMH1+9ENr RENEM Renew the lease agreement for four (4) vehicles from JOCCA, effective 7uly 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 to be operated on behalf of Senior Citizens and are part of the Coordinated Agency Transportation System. 5. SOLID WASM, MMDM- Accept the bid of Allwaste Equipment Company fbr the purchase of thirty 6-yard solid waste containers with lids at the low bid amount of $12,750. jMMEX:T CORM PLAN CMqMACT Approve entering into a contract with David M. Griffith Associates for preparation of Orange County's indirect cost plan at a cost not to exceed $8,000 which is appropriated in the current budget for this purpose. 7. DATA PROCESSING AGRMvfl=NLT�R � Approve an addendum to a contract with the Town of Carrboro dated June 27, 1983 to provide Data Processing services to the Town. The contract price will be increased by $2,000. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Ccnimissioner Carey that-the forgoing action be taken by the Board. V •E: m4NMUS. I- 1. MP-EM OF OLA C. WJMNERnEM TMINAR7 7 A Planner Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for the property of Alm C. Wagoner. The property is located on MZ 1177 OairyLmid Road) in Bingham Township. One lot is proposed out of 31.48 acres. The Planning Board recommended approval of the subdivision on August 19, 1985. motion was made by Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to approve the recommendation of the Planning Board. VME: MQN=S. 2. BRZMK%M[I9-2L::j=MWM (20 ii i L ie jWRg-OZI Planner Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for Britton Woods II. The property is located on SR 1009 (Old NC 86) and Farnham Place in Chapel Hill Township. Two lots are proposed out of 5.006 acres. The property is zoned R-I.* The Planning Board recommended approval of the subdivision on August 19, 1985 with the following condition: 0002 to correspond with the Carrboro Fire Department recommendation to which the applicant has agreed, the Class "CR road should be labeled Class "B". , The travelway width requirement for a Class "SO private road is 12 feet. The base and right-of-waY standards for Class "C" and Class "B" private roads are the Sam. Motion was made by Ctminissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner . Carey to approve the reccmTendation of the Planning Board. V0 rE: UNANMOUS. 3. -PROPMM Cp C M Planner Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary plan for C. Bum pope, Jr. The property is located in Cedar Grove Township at the northeast corner of NO 86 and SR 1506. One lot is proposed out of 2.6 acres. The Planning Board recommends approval. Motion was made by Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the recommendation of the Planning Board. VOTE; UNANIMOUS. 4. ly_CF C NN PME�JR Planner Swap. Smith presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for C. Bunn Pope, Jr. The property is located in Cedar Grove Township along SR 1508 (Eawkins Road). Five lots are proposed out of 21 acres. The Planning Board recce minds approval with a 30 foot drainage easement along the stream between lots 3 and 4. Motion was made by Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the reomendation of the Planning Board. lv=: UNANIMOUS. AI:Tyxr��� &MMSM Susan Smith presented for consideration an appeal to the Planning Board's decision of disapproval of the Final Plat for Wedgewood Subdivision. The Planning Board recommended denial of the Preliminary Plat on July 15, 1985. The Board of Cmimissioners approved the Preliminary Plat on August 5, the inal Augu t: 1985 with conditions. The Planning board disapproved F Plat On , s 19, 1985 by a vote of 5-2 with one abstention. T basis for this decision was a concern with the safety of the intersection of Jasper Lane and West Lebanon Road. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat for Wedgewood Subdivision. Motion was made by Ccmmissioner raoyd, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the re=uendation of the Planning Staff. IVM- UNANIMOUS. 6. PINVIE—H WMIM iTEW DRIVE PPP ASSEEIMMIML Susan Smith presented for consideration confirmation of the assessment roll for the Pineview PDad/pineview Drive PPP project. Motion was made by Camtissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to confirm the Assessment Roll, accept the Certificate of mailing and direct the Tax Collector to collect the assessment. Confirmation time was 9:35 P.M. VMS: UNTVW%MS. Director of Planning Marvin Collins outlined the proposed amendments regulating partial width rights-of-way.. U 0 0121 i 3 Motion was node by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Walker to approve the amerdment to Section IV-5-3-C-2 as stated below: Ppxtial Widths - A partial width right-of-way may be allowed in a subdivision where: la) in the judgement of the Planning Board and with the approval of the Board of County Commissioners, it is found that the nature and location of the subdivision, including such considerations as topography, the surrounding area, the present and future road plans, and' access by public safety vehicles, are such that a partial width right-of-way is justified, and, (b) The.access serving the subdivision is classified as either a Class B or Class C road according to the Orange County Private Road Standard; and, (c) The right-of-way width provided is adequate to allow for the construction of a travelway, ditches, shoulders and turn around reqaired for the class of road serving the subdivision; and, (d) The right-of-way width provided would allow access by the largest emergency services vehicle serving the district in which the subdivision is located; and, (e) If one or more of the following g conditions are met (1) when the partial width right-of-way adjoins undeveloped property and is greater than 25 feet in width, and when said adjoining undeveloped property is subdivided and the remainder of the full required right-of-way can be dedicated. (2) When access to the subdivision is across property owned by other than the applicant and the property owner is unwilling to grant, sell or otherwise convey the full required right-of-way width to the applicant. (3) When pre-existing conditions preclude the provision of full right-of-sway due to the pattern of adjacent development, historical common access an/or site specific physical constraints. VOTE: UtOMMOUS. !Lp RuAM TD A02V-IM M MEM 02nwCE Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to approve the corrections listed below found in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners regarding anxnaments to the orange County Zoning Ordinances: October 4, 1982 - Amendments to 4.1(8) and 6.16.12 - add; The motion carried. October 4, 1982 - Amendments to 6.16-6.1 (q) and 6.16.6.2 (g) - revise to read correctly. July 5, IM - Amendments to 8.7; 8.7.1, 8.7.2; 8.7.3; 8.8 - revise to read Don willhoit moved, Shirley Marshall seconded the changes in 8.7; 8.7.1, 8.7.2; 8.7.3 and 8.8. April 17, 1984 - Amendment to 11-10 - revise 11.11.10 to read 11.10. February 19, 1985 - Amendment to 4.3, 6.3.1; and Article 22 - revise to read motion was made by ammissioner Marshall, seoor4ed by Commissioner amended as Lloyd that. 4.3 and Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance be 0 00,14 fl,19 recommended by the Planning Board and that Section 6.3.1 regulation of principal uses be amer4ed. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Camdssioner Marshall, seconded by CmmissioPer Lloyd to approve the following change to the Zoning ordinance Violation Policy currently in effect; Reference on page 2 of the policy to a "cease and desist" letter being sent should be deleted and the sentence reworded to read as follows: "In cases where a civil remedy is indicated, the matter will be brought before the Board of county Commissioners for authority to proceed in a civil action." VOTE:' UNAN24W. ren Thompson stated that the survey has been empleted in draft form and the Executive Committee of the COG requests each governing board to review the survey in relation to any policy implications and provide any c0UrIeDt: On the report by September 10, 1985. After extensive discussion and oom=ts by the Board members, it was decided that a one month extention would be reepested to allow additional time for the Board to thoroughly review the report and respond. T P NNE� _Q=MMIM.. �� Motion was made by commissioner Carey, seconded by Camiissioner Marshall to adjourn the meeting into executive session to discuss a personnel matter. "UM: MUMOUS. Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting. The next meeting will be held on Septaber 17, 7:30 p.m. in the Courtrocm of the old Post Office, Chapel Hill, Forth Carolina. Don Willhoit, Chair, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk