Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-02-1985 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1985 7:30 P.M. COMMISSIONERS ROOM HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Agenda 2. Matters not on the Agenda C. MINUTES D. BOARD ORGANIZATION E. APPOINTMENTS 1. Manager 2. Clerk to the Board 3. County Attorney 4. Other Appointments F. RESOLUTIONS 1. Resolution of Appreciation--Mrs. Mary Bacon 2. Resolution of Appreciation--Chris Hogan and Robert Hogan, Jr. 3, Home Care Week Proclamation G. REPORTS 1. Board of Education 2. Minimum Housing Code Report H. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA A motion to approve various ordinances and motions (any item may be removed for separate consideration) 1. Mutual Aid Agreement--Emergency Medical Service 2, CM, Inc. Agreement 3. Computer Bid 4. Budget Amendments 5. Examination of Official Bonds 6.. Contract Approval for Transportation Planning Grant 7. Contract Approval with Carter Goble Associates, Inc. 8. General Liability and Automobile Insurance Coverage PAGE # I. ITEMS FOR. Dwipoisi 075 1. Proposed Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance Amendments 086 2. Ed Joyner's Creek--Preliminary 091 3, Canberra Subdivision—Preliminary 097 4. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amerdhents 113 5. Public Hearing Continuation to Receive MASA Cbmment to Text Amendments 7(b) and 5 120 6. Old Courthouse Change Order 7. Special Public Hearing Request 139 8. Extended Area Telephone Service Between Chapel Hill Durham and Hillsborough 141 9. Falls - Jordan Steering Committee J. ADJOURNMENT '•,, . - ORANGE CaNTY - 001 BOARD CE' Ca.24rSSIONMS 2tiort Azjerxla, $ Iteutna..- Aacrom malmax nal paTancr C DEalm3 DATE December 2., 1985 . . Subject i IMIUTES . Eepertment: Board le Coun ' Conmdssioners Public HParing: yes y no ' . •. Attachment Cs) : • UNDER SEPARATE COVER - Itiforres#on Oantactz Beverly A. Blythe Phone Mater': 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 . PURPOSE: ' To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: - November 4, 1985 Special Meeting November 4, 1985 Regular Meeting -- - November 19, 1985 Regular Meeting •. • . . • . . NEED: Approval so the minutes maybe entered into the official minute book in the Clerk's office. , .. . ' I RECOMMENDATION: I As the Board decides. . . . . . , • • 002 OR4-11\ E COUNTY BOARD OF CKWAISSICUERS ActiOrt /send-a Item Vb. ACMON riGaltik IT4 TOSTRACr pumum DATE December 2, 1985 . . Subject:' APPOINTMENTS• • • Eeseriammat: Board of County Commissioners . Public Hearing: yes r 110 • . . ' Attachment(s): °I-mat-1°n C°rItact: Beverly A. Blythe UNDER SEPARATE COVER • • Mane Number: 732-8181, 968-4504 227-0231 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards. NEED: The following expiration of terms are announced for the first time for information and consideration of reappointment. . B-9 - MENTAL RE:ALTR BOARD - expiration of terms 12/31/85 for Frances Douglass, John Woodson and. Jan Pinney. IMPACT: To main In 100% membership on Commissioners' appointed Boards and Commissions. • RECOMMENDATION: As the BLard decides. • • ORANE CCIONTY . - 003 BOARD Cr CCMISSIONERS Action. Agenda Itetn Mori ACTION r124 mmoar Ilmzugo DATE December 3, 1985 Subjedt: Resolution of Appreciation I Deratimelt: Board.I of Commissioners j Public Hearng: yes x • Attachment Cs) InfoLwation Contact,: Yes-Resolution . Commissioner Shirley MarshalL Phone Numbex.: PURPOSE: To present a Resolution of Appreciation to Mrs. Mary Bacon for her contributions to the Community Watch Program. • 7,1 REsOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR MRS. MARY BACON WHEREAS each citizen of Orange County has a profound and continuing interest in naintaining the public safety and welfare at its highest level of accomplishment and response, and WHEREAS each citizen of Orange county is concerned personally for the safety and welfare of each family member and for the property possessed by each, and WHEREAS each citizen observes the increased growth in Orange County and wishes that that growth not be accompanied by increased damage to person and property, and MEREAS the Sheriff of Orange County has promoted the formation of unity watch programs in our communities, and WHEREAS the residents of the communities have joined in these program, keeping their eyes and ears open, observing suspicious vehicles and persons • and reporting all such suspicious observations to the Sheriff's Department, and WHEREAS M6. Mary Bacon assumed the presidency of the Community Watch Association and: has served two terms in that capacity, and WHEREAS during those two terms Mrs. Bacon by displaying outstanding leadership and organizational qualities has overseen the formation of a vigorous Community Watch Association composed of 120 active community watch programs, CWo, THEREFORE the Orange County Board of Coomdssioners commends Mrs. Bacon for her tireless efforts and firm example. We thank Mrs. Bacon for her continued support, cooperation and promotion of the welfare and safety of each County citizen. FINALLY, lire recognize and applaud the contribution the Community Watch Association under Mrs. Bacon's leadership, has made to the Sheriff's Department as it seeks both to provide efficient and effective patrol response coverage and to reduce the opportunity of crimihal attack against persons and property. .4‘‘' Chair Attest: 4 : C erki ORANGE COL7.1TY 005 BOARD CF Ca1.41SSIO6IERS Action Age.nda Item No. f ..." ACTION .AGE\IDA, ITEM ABS'fR.ACT DRIumr, DATE December 3, 1985 Subject: Resolutipn of Appreciation • Department: Board! of Commissioners j 'U11C Hearing: yes x, no Attachment(s): Information Contact: Yes-Resolution Commissioner Shirley Marshall • Phone 'Amber: PURPOSE: To present a Resolution of Appreciation to Chris Hogan and Robert Hogan, Jr. for their courage and concern for others. 00€ RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR CHRIS HOGAN AND ROBERT HOGAN, JR. WHEREAS Chris Hogan and Robert, Jr. were on October 1, 1985 busy about their normal workaday business of farming, and WHEREAS, their activities in the field were interrupted by the sound of an airplane in trouble and its subsequent crash, and SFAS, these two young men without hesitation raced to the crash scene to investigate and to give whatever aid was needed, and 1:ge , Chris Hogan and Robert Hogan, Jr. exhibited unusual courage and concern for the lives of others in pulling I from the burning plane the sole survivor while disregarding their own peril, and 1 WHEREAS, Chris Hogan and Robert Hogan, Jr. gave all NU possible help prior to the arrival of the rescue squad, , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board ofCommissioners that these two young men, Chris Hogan and Robert Hogan, Jr. (already recognized in their community for their fine character) be commended throughout Orange County for their extraordinary bravery, human compassion, and willingness to sacrifice their awn safety to help their fellow man. Chair Attest: Clerk SEAL 007 oRiziGE cower BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA vet ABBIRACT Item No. a Meeting Date: DECEMBER 2, 1985 SUBJECT: HOME cralp WEEK PROCLAMATION DF2PAR4ENT: COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING: _Yes Jilts ATTACHMENT(S): IMORMATION CONT./Cr: EON W'ILLHOIT X505 TELEPHONE UMBER: PROCIAMATION Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 • Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To proclaim December 1 through Decenber 7, 1985 as Orange County Bane Care Week. • 008 HOME CARE WEEK WHEREAS, in a time of greater. awareness of the cost of medical care, more attention is being place on home health care; and WHEREAS, with the provision of special follow-up care, earlier discharge from institutions is possible for many; and WHEREAS, through teaching in the home setting, the patient and family learn to attain maximum independence; and WHEREAS, patients are usually happier at home in a familiar place where the patient feels secure and contentment usually results in d better recovery; and WHEREAS, home health agencies provide skilled nursing care and other professional health services under a physician's supervision and may reduce the need for a more costly long term institutional care; now THEREFORE, I, Don Wilihoit, Chairman, Board of County Commissioner's, do hereby proclaim the week of December 1 through December 7, 1985 as, HOME CARE WEEK in Orange County, and encourage all citizens to recognize the importance olf home health care being provided to many elderly and disabled individuals in their homes, not only by professionals, but also by their families and loved ones. Don Wilihoit Chairman Board of County Commissioners 0091 ORANGE CCUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Q 1 Meeting Date: DECEMBER 2, 1985 SUBJECT: ORANGE HIGH SCHOOL PP ION/RE NATION DEPAR NT: COOTi T1.'Y MANAGER PUBLIC HEARIN3: __Yes Jb ATTA HMEN (S) : IIVOR4ATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: NONE Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To update the status of the project. ND: The Orange County Board of Education will provide a report the architectural plans and revised cost estimates for the con- struction. IMPACT: TWO million was budgeted for the expansion with up to $670,000 to be awarded in 1985-86 contracts and $1,330,000 in 1986-87. Newlestimates put the amount required at $2.8 million. RECOMEMATION(S) : •:•``, • ocs Orangt (flaunty $thoofs 200 EAST KING STREET HILLSBOROUGH.NORTH CAROLINA 27279 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT (919)732-8126 November 26, 1985 MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners Dan G. Lunsfordjrkintendent Orange County Schools REFERENCE: Project, Status - Orange High School Renovation/Expansion Approximately one year ago, on December 3, 1984, the Orange County Board of Education formally discussed with the Commissioners an updated facilities imroverent plan. As a result of that discussion and others in the spring of 1985, we have accomplished a great deal. The basis of that discussion was anima (dated 11/26/84) to the Board of Commissioners which outline(. the necessary steps to accomplish major improvements in the facilities of the Orange County Schools. At this meeting of the Commissioners on December 2, 1985, we wish to report to pu on our work and to express our sincere appreciation for the support o our efforts. At this ppint, the Orange High expansion/renovation is moving ahead in a timely manner as follows: 1) J. Hyatt Hammond Associates, Inc., of Greensboro, was hired as the architectural firm for the project. 2) Educational program specifications are fully completed. 3) Schematic design phase is fully completed. 4) Design development is 98 percent complete. The next phases necessary to net our timeline of summer, 1987, are as follows: 1) Canplete construction drawings and specifications in early 11986. 2) Advertise for bids and let contracts in March, 1986. t7, „v. Orange County Board of Commissioners -2- November 26, 1985 3) Begin construction soon after contracts are awarded. To accomplish this phase, the Orange County Board of Education will need a resolution of authorization from the Commissioners to let these contracts, which will extend through July - August, 1987. Based on the work we have done to date, the early estimate of cost is insufficient to accomplish the needed changes to prepare the Orange High facility for grades 9-12 and to improve the parts of the school which have not been upgraded to meet needs earlier identified. The current pro- jected cost is $2,800,000 plus 8 percent (5 percent for bid variance and 3 percent for project contingency) . We realize this cost exceeds the amount earlier discussed, but the payout period is also extended past July 1, 1987; whereas, the earlier financing plan called foir payout prior to June 30, 1987. This payout will allow revenues to be used from budget year 1987-88. It will so allow us to expand the media services area, renovate science laboratories, expand the cafeteria, and air condition the auditorium; as examples of a clmoprehensive improvement plan. Therefore we respectfully request the needed authorization to accomplish the outlined rk in a timely manner. We thank you on behalf of the Board of Education, students currently in our system and students of the future. DGL:ha cc: Orange County Board of Education Members Mr. Ken us on, County Manager • -..., .4. - 0 C S , .., Orange amity Schools i imi .8 200 EAST KING STREET HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTE DENT (919)732-8126 November 26, 1985 . . MEMORANDUM TO: Or e County Board of Commissioners VI— FROM: Dan G. Lunsford, Superintendent OrAnge County Schools REFERENCE.: Roof Replacement Program - Orange County Schools Approximately a year ago, we discussed the status of the roofing program for the Orange County School System, and as a result of that, during the summier and early fall of 1985 the Orange County School System completed the reroofing effort for the Cameron Park Elementary and Central Elementary Schools. The Board of Education and school admin- istration are very appreciative of this reroofing effort, and feel very good about' the accomplishments we have been able to achieve in the past three rears. According to the Law Engineering Report, the next funding cycle calls for a gret deal of work, specifically, to complete the upgrading of the school system roofs. According to our records, the Law Report calls for extensive work at C. W. Stanford Junior High School and A. L. Stanback Middle School, with some additional work at the high school • hoL gymnasium, shop and boiler space and minor refurbishment at G. A. Brown Elementary Sc 11. I In addition, we have reviewed our own maintenance records and L discussed the situation with the Board's consulting engineers for ...... roof work, Robert M. Stafford Inc. of Charlotte, and it is clearly our priority at this point that we proceed with the reroofing of Stanford Junior High, Buildings 100 and 300, and also proceed with the reroofing of Building 100 and the cafeteria at A. L. Stanback. If funds are a+lable, we would be most anxious to go ahead and complete the full reroofing as outlined in the second cycle, which we did dis- cuss last yearierwever, it is my intent to give clear priority to the projects cited above for the Stanford and Stanback facilities. ' Therefore, on behalf of the Board of Education, I wish to request authorization frima the County Commissioners, in the form of a resolution, that will allow us to prepare the necessary specifications, advertise • 1.. & Orange County ad of Commissioners -2- ro November 26, 1985 for bids and It contracts no later than early June of 1986 so that we can undertake these projects in the summer of 1986. According to our current estimate of cot, the high priority projects I have noted above will cost a total of approximately $400,000.00. If the full range of projects are accomplished as suggested by the Law Engineering Firm, of course, the amount would be in exess of $550,000.00. I would hhoe that the Commissioners would approve this request for.these high priority izojects, and that we can proceed with the necessary work to prepare for this work in the summer of 1986. DGL:ha cc: Mr. Ken Thompson, County Manager Orange County Board of Education Members • I ORANGE COUNTY 010 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACmiON AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. et Meeting Date: DECEMBER 2, 1985 St:EJECT: MINIMUM HOUSING CODE ENFORCEMENT STATUS REPORT DEPARTMENT: ccWI'Y MANACaER PUBLIC HEARING: ___Yes X..140 _ I ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MAN'S OFFICE, X501 TELEPHONE R: INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To review status of minimum housing code enforcement program. NEB: An ordinance establishing minim mu housing standards for rental units was adopted by the Board on February 21, 1984. The housing code became effective July 1, 1984. Since that date, the; County has received twelve minimum housing code complaints. m program is administered by the Housing and Community o went Department. IMPACT: RE7ATION(S): 1 As the Board decides. 011 ORANGE COUNTY IMIEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: County Manager FROM: Assistant County Manager SUBJECT: Status of Minimum Housing Code Enforcement • DATE: November 26, 1985 The minimum housing code program has been less than ideal since its inception JUly, 1984. Housing and Community Development, the department administering the program, has received twelve complaints. The complaints are: Nature of Complaint Action Taken 1. Structural Defects-three units Tenant withdrew cam- , plaint. 2. Rodents, structural defects Complaint received through Health Depart- ment, however, tenant has not responded to staff inquiries. 3. Structural defects Complaint received through Sheriff Depart- nent. Tenant has relocated. 4. Plumbing Investigation determined complainant owns mobile unit and rents lot. Complaint was landlord/ • tenant dispute. 5. Landlord/tenant dispute over • occupancy agreement. Referred to Legal Services, • 6. Structural defects Complainant withdrew petition. 7. Contaminated water Referred to Health • Department. 8. Structural/electrical problems Landlord repaired unit. 9. Electrical problems Unit is located in Carrboro. Referred to INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8511-805 012 Status of Minimum Housing Code Enforcement November 26, 1985 Page 2 Carrboro Inspection Department. 10. Electrical, plumbing, roofing and structural defects Pending. 11. Electrical, roofing and septic problems Pending. Notice of complaint and hearing was sent to property owner/tenant. Hearing scheduled for 12/4/85. 12. Electrical, roofing, septic, plUmbing and structural defects Pending. Hearing has been conducted. • Under provisions of the Minimum Housing Code, complaints must b6 triggered by a public officer, occupant or five petitioning County residents. Housing and Community Develop- ment has received very few referrals from other County departments/agencies (Health, Inspections, North State Legal Services). Obviously, the tenant must initiate the code enforceMent process. It appears most tenants residing in substandard dwellings are unaware of the code or improperly informed. Discussions with staff indicates that a formal tenant/landlord outreach program has been outlined to include pamphlets and workshops which should increase awareness. The outreach effort should enhance the complaint triggered nature of program. eit Kittrell AK/srs ORANGE COUNTY 013 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. a Meeting Date: DECEMBER 2, 1985 SUBJECT': MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTL—EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARIKENT: EMERGENCY SERVICES PUBLIC HEARING: __Yes .X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION COMACT: TELEPHONE NUMBER: AGREEMENT Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: For the Board to consider entering into a mutual aid agreement regarding Emergency Medical Services in the State of North Carolina. NEED: 1. To allow for response to calls which cannot be handled by a local provider. 2. To allow a provider to respond to calls where there are questions about geographical lines or boundaries. 3. TO allow for assistance during disasters in which widespread , injuries may occur and cannot be responded to by local 'providers. IMPACT: Impact would be minimal due to infrequent need for mutual aid clls. RECOMENDATIONISI: Board approve and sign agreement. AN AGREEMENT FOR MUTUAL AID REGARbING EMERGENCY MEDICAL -SERVICES IN THE STATE OF" NORTH 'CAROLINA The following shall constitute an agreement in principle among the 100 counties and the Cherokee Indian Reservation within the State of North Carolina regarding Emergency Medical Services. Provisions of the Agreement 1. In recog 'ition of our desires to best serve the needs of the sick and injured, we endorse the attached "Guidelines for Emergency Medical Service flutual Aid" and authorize response across political boundaries or other zones of responsibility when requested by another EMS provider, or spokesman for such, under the following circumstances and conditions: When a provider who is primarily responsible for EMS coverage in a particular service area deems the situtation requires more than it has resources to handle and that serious aggravation of an existing injury or possible loss of life may result without such assistance or where there is any doubt about the geopolitical location of an emergency call. 2. We agree to assist and cooperate with all other emergency transportation and rescue providers in the event of a disaster according to the yF provision of the regional disaster plans. `hJ The direction of services shall be handled by the primary provider who normally services the area. This responsibility shall be coordinated with the disaster personnel responsible for carrying out local and regional disaster plans upon their arrival . 3. Calls of a routine or non-emergency nature should be directed to an ... ambulanc� service to the county where the call originates. 4. Providers whose operations are North Carolina based shall respond to call for assistance with trained personnel , ambulances, or rescue vehicles (no personal vehicles). Out-of-state providers should respond in a similar or like manner. 5. Reimbursement or charges to which the provider would otherwise be n�. entitled shall not be affected by this agreement. 6. Existing mutual aid agreements among EMS providers within specific counties will not be affected by this agreement. ;rat AGREED UPON THIS cA0c4w6 DAY OF / p��' � , 19 15~ li by the Board of Commissioners of r.007 e„ County. I. lip I `� ' GUIDELINES FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE MUTUAL AID Page 2 Recommended Procedures 1. Each coun y EMS Director/Chief (or the county's designee) is authorized to request assistance when mutual aid is needed. 2. Each county EMS Director/Chief (or the county's designee) is authorized to dispatch vehicles and personnel in response to requests for mutual aid. Theiresponse may consist of dispatching assistance, or determining that the ambulance service cannot assist and suggesting alternative sources of assistance. The decision as to whether or not to dispatch assistance on a request for mutual aid may be based on many factors, including the responding county's own situation with regard to vehicle . and personnel availability. 3. When on a mutual aid response, the ambulance personnel will , upon entering the said county, contact the CMED directing response and follow their directions for movement. It is understood that radio communications, insofar as is feasible, will be on 155.280 MHz, designated as the state mutual aid frequency and in accord with the State Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council . . 4. When responding to a request for mutual aid, EMS personnel will operate within applicable rules, regulations, etc., and cooperate to the extent possible ith the provider initiating the request. 5. It is recognized that different counties have different rate schedules for ambulance service. As a general rule, the established rate schedule of the re ponding ambulance service may be charged for mutual aid calls. Each ambulance service should bear all responsibility for billing and collecting the charge for the patients it transports. 6. In a disaster situation, the county requesting mutual aid will make arrangements to provide fuel , meals, and lodging, when appropriate, for the assisting counties. Counties may elect to reimburse further expenses, Ito be judged on an individual basis. 1 OTHER 1. In order to facilitate mutual aid response, all ambulance services will maintain road maps of adjacent counties at the dispatch center, and may maintain maps in each vehicle. 2. It is desirable to conduct frequent and regular tests of communications equipment for use in mutual aid response. Emergency Medical Services in all counties are encouraged to establish a schedule for such tests so that all m.y be prepared for mutual aid response. - i r GUIDELINES FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE MUTUAL AID PURPOSE The purpose of these Guidelines is to outline basic procedures which will be followed in requesting or responding to calls for mutual aid. DEFINITION OF TERMS MUTUAL AID: the term "mutual aid" refers to a request for assistance from one ambulance service to another, either within one county or across county lines. The need for mutual aid may result from lengthy response times, vehicle breakdown, vehicle shortage, disaster or other circumstances. An emergency call from an individual located in a county outside that in which the responding ambulance service is based may also result in a mutual aid situation if there is doubt about the geopolitical location of the call; or if previously agreed to by both parties. CMED: Central Medical Emergency Dispatch PROVIDER: any organization, company, institution or governmental - department which is directly involved, either on a paid or voluntary basis, in emergency transportation and/or rescue of the sick and injured. EMS: Emergency Medical Services SINGLE INCIDENT: a specific response or call that cannot be handled effectively by an ambulance service without severely hampering its ability to carry out its other duties or a call where there is doubt about its geopolitical location. DISASTER: a natural or man-made calamity that is likely to cause widespread loss of life and cannot .be. successfully responded to.by the Emergency_Medical Services of the county where it is located without severely hampering its ability to respond to the other emergency calls in that county. EMS DIRECTOR/ CHIEF: the individual designated by a county as its primary link to the EMS system; usually a county employee. 017 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CONRISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. 1"113) Meeting Date: DECEMBER 2, 1985 SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURAL CONTRACT FOR CHR ASSOCINTES--CARR BUILD= RENOVATION DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARIM: __Yes _L_No ATTACHMENT(S): INODRMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: YES Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To approve contract with (= Associates for architectural ser- vices of the Carr Building. NEED: To approve contract in order for work to commence on space design and renovation drawings. IMPACT: Contract is to provide architectural services on an hourly basis with a price of total service not to exceed $15,460 (see item P.91 Orange County Board of Commissioners Agenda August 20, 1985). RECOMMENTION(S) : Approve contract with CHR Associates. THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS Ufr' t ra AMA Document 8141 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect • 1977 EDITION THIS DOCUMENT HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES;CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY IS ENCOURAGED WITH RESPECT TO ITS COMPLETION OR MODIFICATION AGREEMENT made as of the third day of September in the year of Nineteen Hundred and eighty-five g BETWEEN the Owne Orange County Board of Commissioners, Hillsborough, North �: Carolina. and the Architect: CHR Asrsociates, P.A., Chapel Hill, North Carolina 1 For the following Project: (Include detailed description of Project location and scope.) Carr Building Renoyation - Hillsborough, North Carolina An existing one story building which is to be renovated into Orange County governmental office space. CHRIAssociates, P.A. will, on an hourly basis, prepare as-built conditio, drawings of the existing structure as they pertain to the new renovations, prepare space plan layout drawings of the various offices which will occupy the renovated structure li and will prepare construction documents to facilitate the construction of the renovateo, . CHR will also, upon Owner approval, prepare exterior renovation drawings and parking/lard- seeping drawings after initial design work is complete. The Owner and the Architect agree as set forth below. Copyright 1917,1926,1948,1951,1953,1958,1961,1963,1966,1967,1970,1974,0 1977 by The American Institute of Architecls�1735 New York Avenue, N.W.,Washington, U.C. 20516. Reproduction of the material herein or substantial q oration of its provisions without permission of the MA violates the copyright laws of the United States and will be subit.cl to legal prosecution. MA DOCUMENT 8141•OWNER.ARCIIITECT AGREEMENT•THIREELNTlI EDITION• JULY 1977•MA*•01977 114L AMLRICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 8141.1977 1 1 fit TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ARCHITECT z,Y ra, ARTICLE 1 ments to previous Statements of Probable Construction ARCHITECT'S SERVICES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Cast indicated by changes in requirements or general market conditions. BASIC SERVICES 1.3.4 The Architect shall assist the Owner in connection with the Owner's responsibility for filing documents re- phases Architect's Basic Services consist of the five y g phases described in Paragraphs 11 through 1.5 and quired for the approval of governmental authorities hay- include normal structural, mechanical and electrical ing jurisdiction over the Project. engineering services aiid any other services included 1,4 BIDDING OR NEGOTIATION PHASE • , in Article 15 as part of Basic Services. i 1A.1 The Architect, following the Owner's approval of *: 11 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE the Construction Documents and of the latest Statement 111 The Architect shall review the program furnished of Probable Construction Cost, shall assist the Owner in ' by the Owner to ascertain the requirements of the Project obtaining bids or negotiated proposals, and assist in and shall review the undel•standing of such requirements awarding and preparing contracts for construction. with the Owner. 15 CONSTRUCTION PHASE—ADMINISTRATION 11.2 The Architect shall provide a preliminary evalua- OF THE CONSTRUCTION.CONTRACT tion of the program and the Project budget requirements, 1,5.1 The Construction Phase will commence with the each in terms of the other,subject to the limitations set award of the Contract for Construction and,together with forth in Subparagraph 3.2.1 the Architect's obligation to'provide Basic Services under 1.1.3 The Architect shall review with the Owner alterna- this Agreement,will terminate when final payment to the tie approaches to design and construction of the Project. Contractor is due, or in the absence of a final Certificate . 11.4 Based on the mututly agreed upon program and for Payment or of such due date,sixty days after the Date Project bud g et re q uiremerr ls the Architect shall p re p are, of Substantial Completion letion of the Work,whichever occurs for approval by the Owner Schematic Design Documents first. consisting of drawings and other documents illustrating 1.5.2 Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement and the scale and relationship of Project components. incorporated in the Contract Documents, the Architect t:µ 113 The Architect shalllsubmit to the Owner a State- shall provide'administration of the Contract for Construc- ment of Probable Construction Cost based on current lion as set forth below and in the edition of A{A Docu- area,volume or other unit costs. ment A201, General Conditions of the Contract for Con- struction,current as of the date of this Agreement. • 1,2 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT IPHASE 13.3 The Architect shall be a representative of the i 1.2.1 Based on the approved Schematic Design Docu- pp � Owner during the Construction Phase, and shall advise meets and any adjustments authorized by the Owner in and consult with the Owner. Instructions to the Contrac- tile program or Project budget, the Architect shall pre- for shall be forwarded through the Architect. The Archi- pare, for approval by thel Owner, Design Development tect shall have authority to act on behalf of the Owner .` Documents consisting of drawings and other documents only to the extent provided in the Contract Documents " unless otherwise modified by written instrument in ac- to fix and describe the size and character of the entire Project as to architectural,'structural,mechanical and elec- cordance with Subparagraph 13.16. ; tric.11 systems, materials arid such other elements as may 13.4 The Architect shall;visit the site at intervals ap- be appropriate. propriate to the stage of construction or as otherwise, 1.2.2 The Architect shall submit to the Owner a further agreed by the Architect in writing to become generally Statement of Probable Construction Cost. familiar with the progress and quality of the Work and to determine in general if the Work is proceeding in accord- 1,3 CONSTRUCTION DO MENTS PHASE p g ante with the Contract Documents. However, the Archi- 1.3.1 Based on the approi ed Design Development Doc- tect shall not be required to make exhaustive or con- . uments and any further adjustments in the scope or qual- tinuous on-site inspections to check the quality or quan- ay of the Project or in the Project budget authorized by lily of the Work. On the basis of such on-site observa- $„ the Owner, the Architect I shall prepare, for approval by Lions as an architect, the Architect shall keep the Owner the Owner,Construction Documents consisting of Draw- informed of the progress and quality of the Work, and ings and Specifications setrImg forth in detail the require- shall endeavor to guard the Owner against defects and Inenis for the construction of the Project. deficiencies in the Work•of the Contractor. 1.32 The Architect shall assist the Owner in the prepara- 13.5 The Architect shall not have control or charge of Lion of the necessary bidding information,bidding forms, and shall not be responsible for construction means, the Conditions of the ,Contract, and the form of Agree- methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for Y1 ment between the Owner and the Contractor, safety precautions and programs in connection with the 1.3,3 The Architect shall aI dvise the Owner of any adjust- Work, for the acts or omissions of the Contractor, Sub- AIA DOCUMENT 8141•OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT• THIRTEENTH COITION• JULY 1977•AIAT1•®1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1725 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.w., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20i106 0141.1977 3 .. . ' contractors or any other persons performing any of the necessary or advisable for the implementation of the intent Work, or for the failure of any of them to carry out the of the Contract Documents,the Architect will have author- Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. ity to require special inspection or testing of the Work in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Docu- 1.5.6 The Architect shall at all times have access to the moots,whether or not such Work be then fabricated, in- , Work wherever it is in preparation or progress. stalled or completed. 1.5.7 The Architect shall determine the amounts owing 1,5.13 The Architect shall review and approve or take : to the Contractor based on iibservations at the site and on other appropriate action upon the Contractor's submittals evaluations of the Contractors Applications for Payment, such as Shop Drawings, Product'Data and Samples, but Payment only for conformance with the design concept of the and shall issue Certificates r Pa moot in such amounts, as provided in the Contract Documents. Work and with the information given in the Contract 1.5.8 The issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall Documents. Such action shall be taken with reasonable constitute a representation by the Architect to the Owner, promptness so as to cause no delay. The Architect's ap- based on the Architect's observations at the site as pro- proval of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an vided in Subparagraph 1.5.4 and on the data comprising assembly of which the item is a component. the Contractor's Application for Payment, that the Work 1.5.14 The Architect shall prepare Change Orders for has progressed to the point'indicated; that, to the best of the Owner's approval and execution in accordance with the Architect's knowledge,information and belief,the qual- the Contract Documents,and shall have authority to order ity of they Work is in accordance with the Contract Docu- minor changes in the Work not involving an adjustment menu (subject to an evaluation of the Work for can- in the Contract Sum or an extension of the Contract Time kr formance with the Contract Documents upon Substantial which are not inconsistent with the intent of the Contract Completion, to the result of any subsequent tests re- Documents. _. quired by or performed under the Contract Documents, 1.5.15 The Architect shall conduct inspections to deter- retab a sort o cos pleb the Contract to Documents cca- mine the Dates of Substantial Completion and final corn- tions tared in the Corti ion,and to a m Payment);an that the Motion, shall receive and forward to the Owner for the bons stated in the Ccrtific.�te for Payment); and that Ale I Contractor is entitled to payment in the amount certified. Owner's review written warranties and related documents However, the issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall required by the Contract Documents and assembled by n not be a representation that the Architect has made any the Contractor,and shall issue a final Certificate for Pay- examination to ascertain hipw and for what purpose the moot. Contractor has used the moneys paid on account of the 1.5.16 The extent of the duties, responsibilities and Sim- Contract Sum. 1 itations of authority of the Architect as the Owner's rep- 1.5.9 during construction shall not be modified or quir The Architect shall I be the interpreter o j the re- extended without written consent of the Owner,the Con- the of the Contract Documents and the judge of tractor and the Architect. the performance thereunder by both the Owner and Contractor.The Architect shall render interpretations nee- 1.6 PRO)ECI'REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC SERVICES essary for the proper execution or progress of the Work 1.6.1 If the Owner and Architect agree that more ex- with reasonable promptness on written request of either the Owner or the Contracutr,and shall render written de- tensive representation at the site than is described in cisions, within a reasonah time, on all claims, disputes Paragraph 1.5 shall be provided, the Architect shall pro- + and other matters in question between the Owner and the vide one or more Project Representatives to assist the. Contractor relating to the execution or progress of the Architect in carrying out such responsibilities at the site. Work or the interpretationf of the Contract Documents. 1.6.2 Such Project Representatives shall be selected,em- 1.5.10 Interpretations and decisions of the Architect shall ployed and directed by the Architect, and the Architect be consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable shall be compensated therefor as mutually agreed be- from the Contract Documents and shall be in written or tween the Owner and the Architect as set forth in an ex- graphic form. In the capacity of interpreter and judge, hibit appended to this Agreement, which shall describe the Architect shall ender or to secure faithful perform- the duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority of ance by both the Owner and the Contractor, shall not such Project Representatives. . show partiality to either,pnd shall not be liable for the 1.6.3 Through the observations by such Project Repro- result of any interpretation or decision rendered in goad sentatives, the Architect shall endeavor to provide further faith in such capacity. I protection for the Owner against defects and deficiencies 1.5.11 The Architect's decisions in matters relating to in the Work,but the furnishing of such project representa- artistic effect shall be final if consistent with the intent of tion shall not modify the rights, responsibilities or obliga- the Contract Documentsa The Architect's decisions on Lions of the Architect as described in Paragraph 1.5. any other claims, disputes or other matters, including 1.7 ADDITIONAL SERVICES those in question between the Owner and the Contractor, The following Services are not included in Basic shall be subject to arbitrakion as provided in this Agree- , Services unless so identified in Article 15. They shall moot and in the Contract Documents. be provided if authorized or confirmed in writing by '= 1.5.12 The Architect shall have authority to reject Work the Owner,and they shall be paid for by the Owner which does not conform to the Contract Documents. as provided in this Agreement, in addition to the Whenever, in the Architect's reasonable opinion, it is compensation for Basic Services. AIA DOCUMENT 8141•OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT•THIRTEENTH EDITION•KILT 1477•MA'•@,14'7 4 8141-1977 DIE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 7775 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, U.C. «AM - r fit i ., , I ' . anal ses of the Owner's needs .1. . .. struction, and furnishing services as may be required in - - . connection with the replacement of such Work. 1.7.2 Providing financial feasibility or other special 1.7.16 Providing services made necessary by the default studies. of the Contractor, or by major defects or deficiencies in 1.7.3 Providing planning surveys,slle evaluations, envi- ronmental studies or comparative the Work of the Contractor,or by failure of performance of either the Owner or Contractor under the Contract for ive studies of prospective Construction. bites, and preparing special sujeys, studies and submis- mons required for approvals of governmental authorities 1.7.17 Preparing a set of reproducible record drawings or others having jurisdiction over the Project. • showing significant changes in the Work made during construction based on marked-up prints, drawings and 1.7.4 Providing services relatiive to future facilities, sys- other data furnished by the Contractor to the Architect. temp and equipment which are not intended to be con- 1.7.18 Providing extensive assistance in the utilization of strutted during the Construction Phase. any equipment or system such as initial start-up or testing, . 'roviding services to stigate existing condition; adjusting and balancing, preparation of operation and ' or facilities or .. measured draw' • , or t - maintenance manuals, training personnel for operation verify the accurac . - - information fur- and maintenance,and consultation during operation. - - I" e owner' 1.7,19 Providing services after issuance to the Owner of I 1.7.6 Preparing documents of alternate, separate or the final Certificate for Payment, or in the absence of a sequential bids or providing extra services in connection final Certificate for Payment, more than sixty days after with bidding, *negotiation or (construction prior to the the Date of Substantial Completion of the Work. completion of the Construction Documents Phase, when 1.7.20 Preparing to serve or serving as an expert witness requested by the Owner, in connection with any public hearing, arbitration pro- 1.7.7 Providing coordination of Work performed by reeding or legal proceeding. separate contractors or by the Owner's own forces. 1.7.21 Providing services of consultants for other than 1.7.11 Providing services in connection with the work of the normal architectural, structural; mechanical and elec- a construction manager or separate consultants retained trical engineering services for the Project. by the Owner. 1.7.22 Providing any other services not otherwise in- 1.7.9 Providing Detailed Estimates of Construction Cost, eluded in this Agreement or not customarily furnished in analyses of owning and operating costs,or detailed quan- accordance with generally accepted architectural practice. tidy .Limeys or inventories of material, equipment and 1,8 TIME labor. 1.8.1 The Architect shall perform Basic and Additional I Providing interior design and other similar / Services as expeditiously as is consistent with professional ∎ices require, .. '. connection se ectio:es skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work.Upon procurement or inst '- .` " . • iishings an' request of the Owner, the Architect shall submit for the el + ant. Owner's approval a schedule for the performance of the 1.7.11 Providing services for planning tenant or rental Architect's services which shall be adjusted as required as spares. the Project proceeds,and shall include allowances for pen- , ods of time required for the Owner's review and approval 1.7.12 Making revisions in Drawings, Specifications or of submissions and for approvals of authorities having other clot uments %viten such l revisions are inconsistent jurisdiction over the Project.This schedule,when approved with written approvals or instructions previously.given, by the Owner,shall not, except for reasonable cause, be are required by the enactment or revision of codes, laws exceeded by the Architect. . or regulations subsequent to the preparation of such doc- uments or are due to other causes not solely within the control of the Architect. I ARTICLE 2 1.7.13 Preparing Drawings,Specifications and supporting THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES data and providing other services in connection with • Change Orders to the extent that the adjustment in the 2.1 The Owner shall provide full information regarding Basic Compensation resulting from the adjusted Con- requirements for th'e Project including a program, which struction Cost is nut commensturate with the services re- shall set forth the Owner's design objectives, constraints quired of the Architect,provided such Change Orders are and criteria, including space requirements and relation- required by causes not solely within the control of the ships,flexibility and expandability,special equipment and Architect. systems and site requirements. g investigations, surveys, valuations, riven- 2.2 If the Owner provides a budget for the Project it 1.7.1 i Making shall include contingencies for bidding. changes in the dories or detailed appraisals of�xfsting facilities,and serv• Work during construction,and other costs which are the ices required in connection with construction performed responsibility of the Owner, including those described in • by the Owner. this Article 2 and in Subparagraph 3.1.2.The Owner shall, 1.7.15 Providing consultation concerning replacement of at the request of the Architect, provide a statement of any Work damaged by fire or other cause during con- funds available for the Project,and their source. AIA DOCUMENT B141•OWNER-ARCM MT AC KLLMENT•THIRruLN,II EDITION•JULY 1977•AIA6•9)1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE or ARCHITECTS, ins NEW YORK AVENUE, N.1V., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 8141-1977 5 , . .... .. . .. . . . 2.3• The Owner shall designate, when necessary, a rep- signed, specified, selected or specially provided for by resentative authorized to fact in the Owner's behalf with the Architect. respect to the Project. The Owner or such authorized 3,1,3 Construction Cost does not include the compen- representative shall examine the documents submitted by sation of the Architect and the Architect's consultants, the Architect and shall render decisions pertaining thereto the cost of the land, rights-of-way, or other costs which promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of are the responsibility of the Owner as provided in Arti- a` the Architect's services. 1 de 2. 2.4 The Owner shall furnish a legal description and a certified land survey of the site, giving, as applicable, 3,2 RESPONSIBIUTY FOR CONSTRUCTION COST grades and lines of street,alleys, pavements and adjoin- 3.2.1 Evaluations of the Owner's Project budget, State- ing property; rights-of-way, restrictions, easements, en- ments of Probable Construction Cost and Detailed croachments, zoning. deed restrictions, boundaries and Estimates of Construction Cost, if any, prepared by the contours of the site; locations, dimensions and complete Architect, represent the Architect's best judgment as a data pertaining to existing buildings, other improvements design professional familiar with the construction Indus- and trees;and full information concerning available serv- try. It is recognized, however, that neither the Architect ice and utility lines both public and private, above and nor the Owner has control over the cost of labor, mate- below grade,including inverts and depths. rials or equipment,over the Contractor's methods of de- 2.5 The Owner shall furnish the services of soil engi- termining bid prices,or over competitive bidding,market neers or other consultantslwhen such services are deemed or negotiating conditions. Accordingly, the Architect necessary by the Architect'.Such services shall include test cannot and does not warrant or represent that bids or borings,test pits,soil beating values,percolation tests,air negotiated prices will not vary from the Project budget and water pollution tests,'ground corrosion and resistivity proposed, established or approved by the Owner. if any, tests,including necessary operations for determining sub- or from any Statement of Probable Construction Cost or soil, air and water conditions,with reports and appropri- other cost estimate or evaluation prepared by the Archi- ate professional recommehdations. tea. 2.6 The Owner shall furnish structural, mechanical, 3.2.2 No fixed limit of Construction Cost shall be estab- chemical and other laboratory tests, inspections and re- fished as a condition of this Agreement by the furnishing, i'` ports as required by law or the Contract Documents. proposal or establishment of a Project budget under Sub- paragraph 1.1.2 or Paragraph 2.2 or otherwise,unless such 2.7 The Owner shall furnish all legal,accounting and in- fixed limit has been agreed upon in writing and signed by surance counseling services as may be,necessary at any the parties hereto. If such a fixed limit has been estab- time for the Project, including such auditing services as fished, the Architect shall be permitted to include con- the Owner may require toy verify the Contractors Applica- tingencies for design,bidding and price escalation, to de- lions for Payment or to ascertain how or for what our- termine what materials,'equipment, component systems poses the Contractor uses the moneys paid by or on be- and types of construction are to be included in the Con- half of the Owner. tract Documents, to make reasonable adjustments in the 2.8 The services, infor ation, surveys and reports re- scope of the Project and to include in the Contract Docu- quired by,Paragraphs 2.4 through 2.7 inclusive shall be ments alternate bids to adjust the Construction Cost to the furnished at the Owner's expense,and the Architect shall fixed limit. Any such fixed limit shall be increased in the be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness amount of any increase in the Contract Sum occurring thereof. after execution of the Contract for Construction. 2.9 if the Owner observes or otherwise becomes aware 3.2.3 If the Bidding or Negotiation Phase has not corn- _:' of any fault or defect in the Project or nonconformance menced within three months after the Architect submits with the Contract Documents, prompt written notice the Construction Documents to the Owner, any Project thereof shall be given bye the Owner to the Architect, budget or fixed limit of Construction Cost shall be ad- 2.10 The Owner shall f lrnish required information and justed to reflect any change in the general level of prices services and shall render1approvals and decisions as ex- in the construction industry between the date of submis- peditiously as necessary for the orderly progress of the sion of the Construction Documents to the Owner and Architect's services and o the Work, the date on which proposals are sought. 3.2.4 If a Project budget or fixed limit of Construction A 1CLE 3 Cost (adjusted as provided in Subparagraph 3.2.3) is ex- ceeded by the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated pro- CONSTRUCTION COST posal, the Owner shall (1) give written approval of an 3.1 DEFINITION increase in such fixed limit, (2) authorize rebidding or re- negotiating of the Project within a reasonable time, (3) if 3.1.1 The Construction Cost shall be the total cost or the Project is abandoned, terminate in accordance.with estimated cost to the Owner of all elements of the Project Paragraph 10.2, or (4) cooperate in revising the Project designed or specified by t)ie Architect. scope and quality as required to reduce the Construction 3.1.2 The Construction I Cost shall include at current Cost.In the case of(4),provided a fixed limit of Construc- market rates, including a reasonable allowance for over- tion Cost has been established as a condition of this Agree- head and profit, the cost of labor and materials furnished ment,the Architect,without additional charge,shall mod- ! 5, by the Owner and any equipment which has been de- ify the Drawings and Specifications as necessary to comply AlA DOCUMENT$141•OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT•THIRTEENTH 1DITION•JULY MT•MAN•Cr 19:7 6 8141.1977 ( THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE or AKculTECts, 1725 NEW YORK AVENUE. N.W., 1VAStIINGlON. MC. 2001.16 , _ • t a ' . with the fixed limit.The providing of such service shall be or extended through no fault of the Architect,compensa- the limit of the Architect's 'responsibility arising from the lion for any Basic Services required for such extended establishment of such fixed'limit,and having done so,the period of Administration of the Construction Contract Architect shall be entitled to compensation for all services" shall be computed as set forth in Paragraph 14.4 for Addi- performed, in accordance with this Agreement, whether tional Services. or not the Construction Phase is commenced. 61,4 When compensation is based on a percentage of (• "' Construction Cost, and any portions of the Project are • ARTICLE 4 deleted or otherwise not constructed, compensation for such portions of the Project shall be payable to the extent DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE services are performed on such portions, in accordance 4.1 Direct Personnel Expense is defined as the direct sal- with the schedule set forth in Subparagraph 14.2.2,based aries of all the Architect's pi rsonnel engaged on the Proj- on (1) the lowest bona fide hid or negotiated proposal or, ect, and the portion of the cost of their mandatory and (2) if no such bid or proposal is received,the most recent customary contributions and benefits related thereto,such Statement of Probable Construction Cost or Detailed Esti- as employment taxes and other statutory employee bene- mate of Construction Cost for such portions of the Project. fits, insurance, sick leave, holidays, vacations, pensions 6.2 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF and similar contributions and benefits. ADDITIONAL SERVICES ARTf?CLE 5 6.2.1 Payments on account of the Architect's Additional Services as defined in Paragraph 1.7 and for Reimbursable REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Expenses as defined in Article 5 shall be made monthly upon presentation of the Architect's statement of services 5.1 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to the Corn- rendered or expenses incurred. pensation for Basic and Additional Services and include 6.3 PAYMENTS WITHHELD actual expenditures made b the Architect and the Archi- tect's employees and consultants in the interest of the 6.3.1 No deductions shall be made from the Architect's Project for the expenses listed in the following Sub- compensation on account of penalty, liquidated damages q, paragraphs: I or other sums withheld from payments to contractors, or ( 5.1.1 Expense of transportation in connection with the on account of the cost of changes in the Work other than Project; living expenses in 4mnection with out-of-town those for which dhe Architect is held legally liable. travel; long distance commilnicationsr and fees paid for 6.4 PROJECT SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION s4 securing approval of author,ities having jurisdiction over sus 6.4.1 If the Project is suspended or abandoned in whole s the Project. 1 P or in part for more than three months,the Architect shall 5.1.2 Expense of reproductions,postage and handling of be compensated for all services performed prior to receipt Drawings, Specifications and other documents, excluding P of written notice from the Owner of such suspension or reproductions for the office use of the Architect and the reproductions abandonment, together with Reimbursable Expenses then Architect's consultants, due and all Termination Expenses as defined in Paragraph 5.1:3 Expense of data processing and photographic pro- 10.4. If the Project is resumed after being suspended for a` duction techniques when used in connection with Addi- more than three months, the Architect's compensation tional Services. shall be equitably adjusted. 5.1,4 If authorized in adva ce by the Owner,expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates. ARTICLE 7 ti 5.1.5 Expense of renderings, models and mock-ups re- ARCHITECT'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS quested by the Owner. 5.1.6 Expense of any addi I ional insurance coverage or 7.1 Records of Reimbursable Expenses and expenses per- 1 limits,including professional liability insurance,requested raining to Additional Services and services performed on the basis of a Multiple of Direct Personnel Expense shall by the Owner in excess of that normally carried by the Architect and the Architect's consultants. be kept on the basis of generally accepted accounting principles and shall be available to the Owner or the ARTICLE 6 Owner's authorized representative at mutually convenient times. PAYMENTS TO IiHE ARCHITECT ARTICLE 8 6.1 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF BASIC SERVICES OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS 6.1.1 An initial payment as Iset forth in Paragraph 14.1 is the minimum payment under this Agreement. 8.1 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of serv- 6.1.2 Subsequent 1 ice are and shall remain the property of the Architect • q payments for Basic Services shall be whether the Project for which they are made is executed made monthly and shall be in proportion to services per- or not.The Owner shall be permitted to retain copies,in- formed within each Phase tf services, on the basis set eluding reproducible copies, of Drawings and Specifica- forth in Article 14. • tions for information and reference in connection with the 6.1.3 If and to the extent drat the Contract Time initially Owner's use and occupancy of the Project.The Drawings established in the Contract lior Construction is exceeded and Specifications shall not be used by the Owner on ! MA DOCUMENT Pm•OWNER•ARCIIITECT AGREEMENT•1HIKTEENiH EDITION•JULY 1977•AIAe•01977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE 07 ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20006 8141.1977 7 • other projects,for additions to this Project,or for comple- 10.4 Termination Expenses include expenses directly at- tion of this Project by others provided the Architect is not tabulable to termination for which the Architect Is not in default under this Agreement, except by agreement in otherwise compensated, plus an amount computed as a writing and with appropriate compensation to the Archi- percentage of the total Basic and Additional Compensa- tion earned to the time of termination,as follows: 8.2 Submission or distribttion to,meet official regulatory .1 20 percent if termination occurs during the Sche- requirements or for other purposes in connection with the matic Design Phase;or Project is-not to be construed as publication in derogation .2 10 percent if termination occurs during the Design of the Architect's rights. Development Phase;or i .3 5 percent if termination occurs during any subse- ARTICLE 9 quent phase. ARBITRATION - ARTICLE 11 9.1 All claims, disputes a d other matters in question between the parties to this Agreement, arising out of or MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof, shall a may 11.1 Unless otherwise specified,this Agreement shalt be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construe- governed by the law of the principal place of business of un Industry Arbitration Rites of the American Arbitra- the Architect. lion Association then obtai}ring unless the parties mutu- 11.2. Terms in this Agreement shall have the same mean- ally agree otherwise. No arbitration, arising out of or re- ing as those in AIA Document A201, General Conditions lating to this Agreement, shall include, by consolidation, of the Contract for Construction, current as of the date joinder or in any other manner,any additional person not of this Agreement. a party to this Agreement except by written consent con- 11.3 As between the parties to this Agreement: as to all taining a specific reference to this Agreement and signed acts or failures to act by either party to this Agreement, by the Architect, the Owner)and any other person sought any applicable statute of limitations shall commence to to be joined. Any consent to arbitration involving an ad- ditional person or persons shall not constitute consent to run and any an any and al of action not latl t deemed � e. arbitration of any dispute not described therein or with vant Date of Substantial al Completion of the 1 orkh l and as any person not named or described therein. This Agree- to any acts or failures to act occurring after the relevant meet to arbitrate and any agreement to arbitrate with an Date of Substantial Completion,not later than the date of additional person or persons duly consented to by the issuance of the final Certificate for Payment. parties to this Agreement shall be specifically enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law. 11.4 The Owner and the Architect waive all rights 9.2 Notice of the demand far arbitration shall be filed in against each other and against the contractors, consult- 9.2 Notice the other demand to this t Aion shall and with ants,agents and employees of the other for damages cov- the American Arbitration Association. The demand shall ered by any property insurance during construction as set Con- be made within a reasonable'time after the claim,dispute forth s, the edition of AIA date of Document this Agreement.eenernt C he or other matter in question has arisen. In no event shall ditions, current as of the date of this Agreement. The the demand for arbitration bile made after the date when similar and the Architect each shall require Con appnts and institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on similar waivers from their contractors, consultants and such claim, dispute or other'natter in question would be agents. barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 9.3 The award rendered by the arbitrators shall be final, ARTICLE 12 and judgment may be enter° upon it in accordance with SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 12.1 The Owner and the Architect, respectively, bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns and legal ARTIC !: 10 representatives to the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, successors, assigns and legal representa- TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT tives of such other party with respect to all covenants of 10.1 This Agreement may be terminated AGREEMENT either party this Agreement.Neither the Owner nor the Architect shall upon seven days' written no'ice should the other party without sublet or n transfer consent t interest in this Agreement fail substantially to perform ip accordance with its terms without the written consent of the other. through no fault of the party initiating the termination. 10.2 This Agreement may be terminated by the Owner ARTICLE 13 upon at least seven days' written notice to the Architect EXTENT OF AGREEMENT in the event that the Project is permanently abandoned. 10.3 In the event of termination not the fault of the Ar- 13.1 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated chitect,the Architect shall in be ion not the fault all services the agreement between the Owner and the Architect and performed to termination date, together with Reimburs- supersedes all prior negotiations,representations or agree- able Expenses then due and ill Termination Expenses as meend dither written or Oran This Agreement may defined in Paragraph 10.4. p amended only by written instrument signed by both Owner and Architect. 8 8141-1977 AIA DOCUMENT 5141•OWNER•AI:CIIITECT AGREEMENT•THIRTEENTH EDITION•NW 1.07•MO•01977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Or ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, NAV., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 t � ARTICLE 14 • BASIS OF COMPENSATION The Owner shall compensate the Architect for the Scope of Services provided,in accordance with Article 6,Payments to the Architect,and the other Terms and Conditions of this Agreement,as follows: 14.1 AN INITIAL PAYMENT of zero dollars($0 shall be made upor; execution of this Agreement and credited to the Owner's account as follows: 14.2 BASIC COMPENSATION 14.2.1 FOR BASIC SERVICES,as described in Paragraphs 1.1 through 1.5,and any other services included in Article 15 as part of Basic Services, Basic Compensation shall be computed as follows: mop(mert ba>i<al cimrplation,including fixed amounts,multiples in percentages,and identify Phases to which particular methods of<e mpensa• bun apply.if necessary.)All work shall be performed on an hourly rate utilizing the following staff members and associated hourly rates. Senior Architelts, Space Planners, Engineers $55.00 Associate Architects, Space Planners, Engineers 45.00 Staff Architects, Space Planners, Engineers 35.00 Draftspersons 20.00 I Secretaries 20.00 Computer charges To be established for each assignment 14.2.2 Where compensation is based on a Stipulated Sum or Percentage of Construction Cost, payments for Basic Services shall be made as provided in Subparagraph 6.1.2, so that Basic Compensation for each Phase shall equal the following percentages of the total Basic Compensation payable: (Include any additional Phases ar appropriate., • Schematic Design Phase: percent %) Design Development Phase: percent( %) Construction Documents Phase: (NOT APPLICABLE) percent( oia) Bidding or Negotiation Phase: percent( °;,) Construction Phase: percent( %) • 14.3 FOR'PROJECT REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC SERVICES,as described in Paragraph 1.6,Compensation shall be computed separately in accordance with Subparagraph 1.6.2, AIA DOCUMENT BM THE AmER CAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,AGREEMENT 1.3 NE YORK AVENUE, N VN•WAS 1 WASHINGTON, u,c 20006 8141-1977 9 • . P. . 14.4 COMPENSATION FOr ADDITIONAL SERVICES 14.4.1 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF THE ARCHITECT, as described in Paragraph 1.7, and any other services in- cluded in Article 15 s part of Additional Services, but excluding Additional Services of consultants,Compen- sation shall be computed as follows: atm.insert basis of contpensalii,indwfing rates and/or multiples sit Dino Peraxmrt Expense Inc Principals and employee..and idrnt,h-Pm.qui. Jill/tlassdy employees.it required-Identify specific services to which panirufar method*rrl crunpencalirsn apply,if nerewry.l I ' All additional services shall be approved in writing by the Owner and shall be performed on an hourly basis as listed in Article 14.2.1 These services shall be items other than those listed in our proposal dated . July 25, 1985 and could include items such as exterior renovation drawings, - revised parking and landscaping design drawings. • • 14.4.2 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF CONSULTANTS, including additional structural, mechanical and electrical engineering services'and those provided under Subparagraph 1.7.21 or identified in Article 15 as part of Addi- tional Services,a multiple of a i times the amounts killed to the Architect for such services. lldentilr specific lyper nt Cons ditamc in Article 15.it required.) EXPENSES,as described in Article 5, and any other items included in Article 15 as Reim- bursable. FOR REIMBURSABLE , bursable Expenses,al multiple of one ( 1 ) times the amounts ex- pended by the Architect, the Architect's employees and consultants in the interest of the Project. 14.6 Payments due the Architect and unpaid under this Agreement shall bear interest from the date payment is due at the rate entered below,or in the absence thereof, at the legal rate prevailing at the principal place of business of the Arc'Itect. Here insert any rate of interest agreed upon./ U•wt Ow.and,equiremrntsl under the retkraf Truth in tending Act.similar .lJM and hsral consumer e,p ht lath and other regulanmtc at the Clone?.and Architect's principal places of liminess,doe location nt the Prujtrt and ehewhere may afhcl the validity of this pruw.um 'per tar legal advice duwtd he t.itninr•rl with tepee!to deletion,modification.or usher r,quirentrm..w II at wr,Iien disclosures or warren I 14.7 The Owner and the Architect agree in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement that: . 14.7.1 IF THE SCOPE of the Project or of the Architect's Services is changed materially,the amounts of compensation shall be equitably addjusted. 14.7.2 IF THE SERVICES col�vered by this Agreement have not been completed within eighteen (18 months of the;date hereof, through no fault of the Architect, the amounts of compensation, rates and multiples set forth herein shall be equitably adjusted. 10 0141-1977 j THEDAM RICAN 11141 STITUTE or ARCHITECTS, 5AeNEW YORK: AVENUE, N W.,a WASHINGTON. D.C.2106 • ) • • - • ARAM 15 OTHER CONDITIONS OR SERVICES Revise 1.7.1 'Providing analyses of the Owner's needs, and programming the requirements of the project." Revise 1.7.5 ' Providing services to investigate existing conditions or facilities or to make measured drawings thereof, or to verify tthe accuracy of drawings or other information furnished by he Owner." Revise 1.7.10 1Provide interior design and other similar services required for or in connection with the selection, procurement or Installation of furniture,- furnishings and related equipment. The above listJd services are to be provided for within the terms of this contract. Other conditions and services shall be as listed in our proposal dated July 25, 1985. AM DOCUMENT 1141•owNta.ARGNITEGT AGREEMENT•THIRTEENTH EDITION•DAY 1977•AIA0•It)1977 HIE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, NM., WASHINGTON, C. 20306 8141-1977 11 • • This•Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above. OWNER ARCHITECT Oranee County' Board of Commissioners CHR'dssociatP,g_ P,A. Hillsborough, NC P.O. Drawer 2678 A ij Chapel MAIM 7514 BY ' ( // BY �"�y' iro!'01, Donald G. Willhoit Arthur • •_swell, PAIA Chairman Preside. ` MA DOCUMENT 9141•OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT•THIRTEENTH EDITION•IULY 1977•AIA9•6Y1977 12 8141-1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Or ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 — .1::,,..,:,..-. i....,-• ::::.:. .-; :.--- ORANGE COUNIY '‘ ' 0111 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA IT NI ABSTRACT Item No. 4,7„.r.-4- Meeting Date: AUMIST 20, 1985 '' . -;.,;:•,;;.;,- -,::,-- SUBJECT: SPACE PLANNING AND APCHTMCTURAL SERVICE FOR CARR BUILDING :.' RENO DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC BEARING: Yes JLft) ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S ' CFFICE, X501 YES TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 ------___-- PURPOSE: To consider selecting an architectural firm to help plan and design specifications for renovation of the recently acquired Carr Building. NEED: A request for proposal was solicited from three local architec- . tural finis which were recognized to have space planning capabi- iity. [ See attached proposals with fee amounts as follows: Firm Fee Pocunt Gary Giles Could not take on the work at Chapel Hill this tine. $ Dail Dixon Associates Hourly rates not to exceed 10% Carrboro of final construction contract. CHR Associates Hourly rates not to exceed Chapel Hill $15,460. 1 IMPACT: While several alternative office layouts could be arranged the architectural service envisioned will ensure that the most effi- cient and economical use is made of the building. , . RECOMENDATION(S) : Award Carr Building Architectural Services contract to CHR Associates at an mmunt not to exceed $15,460. • • • THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS • • 019 • 1E7 4 MA Document 8141 • • Standard Form of Agreement Between • Owner and Architect • 1977 EDITION • THIS DOCUMENT HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES;CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY IS ENCOURAGED WITH RESPECT TO ITS COMPLETION OR MODIFICATION • AGREEMENT • • .made as cif the third day of September in the year of Nineteen Hundred and eighty-five • • BETWEEN the Owner: Orange County Board of Commissioners, -Hillsborough, North Carolina. • and the Architect; CHR Associates, P.A., Chapel Hill, North Carolina For the following Project: (Include detailed descriptipn at Project location and scope.) Carr Building Renovation - Hillsborough, North Carolina An existing one story building which is to be renovated into Orange County governmental office space. CHR Associates, P.A. will prepare as-built condition drawings of the existing structure as they pertain to the new renovations, prepare spat plan layout drawings of the various offices which will occupy the renovated structure and will prepare construction documents to facilitate the construction of the renovatio CHR will also, upon Owner approval, prepare exterior renovation drawings and parking/la seeping drawings after initial design work is complete. The Owner and the Architect agree as set forth below. Cnpyrilti 1917,1926.1948,1951,1953,1958,1961,1963, 1966,1967, 1970,1974,O 1977 by The American Institute of Architects,1735 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, O.C. 20004_ Reproduction of the r,tatrrial herein or substantial quotation of its provisions without permiasinn of the AIA violates Ilse copyright laws of the United D,atcs ah1 will be cubirrl to legal prosecution. AIA DOCUMENT 9141•OWNED.ARCHITLCT AGREEMENT•THIRFELNIII EDITION•JULY 1977•AIAS•p 1977 111E AMERICAN INS1ITUIE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK: AVENUE, N.W., WASIIINGTON, p.C. 20006 - 8141.1977 1 • • • 02C1 . TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ARCHITECT I . j . • ARTICLE 1 meats to previous Statements of Probable Construe ion ARCHITECT'S SERVICES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Cost indicated by changes in requirements or gen ral market conditions. BASIC SERVICES • I 1.3.4 The Architect shall assist'the Owner in connec ion The Architect's I Basic Services consist of the five with the Owner's responsibility for filing documents re- phases described in Paragraphs 1.1 through 1.5 and quired for the approval of governmental authorities ,av- include normal structural, mechanical and electrical Ing jurisdiction over the Project. • engineering services and any other services included 1.4 BIDDING OR NEGOTIATION PHASE in Article 15 as part of Basic Services. 1.4.1 The Architect, following the Owners approva of 1.1 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE the Construction Documents and of the latest State ent 1.1.1 The Architect shall review the program furnished of Probable Construction Cost,shall assist the Owne in by the Owner to ascertain the requirements of the Project obtaining bids or negotiated proposals, and assis in and shall review the understanding of such requirements awarding and preparing contracts for construction. I with the Owner. 1.5 CONSTRUCTION PHASE—ADMINISTRATION . 1.1.2 The Architect shall provide a preliminary evalua- OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Lion of the program and the Project budget requirements, 1.5.1 The Construction Phase will commence with the each in terms of the other, set subject to the limitations s j _ award of the Contract for Construction and,together% ith forth in Subparagraph 3. 2.1. the Architect's obligation to-provide Basic Services u der 1.1.3 The Architect shall review with the Owner alterna- this Agreement,will terminate when final payment to the live approaches to design and construction of the Project. Contractor is due,or in the absence of a final Certifi.ate • • 1.1.4 Based on the mutually agreed upon program and for Payment or of such due date,sixty days after die slate . Project budget requirements, the Architect shall prepare, of Substantial Completion of the Work,whichever or,urs for approval by the Owner,Schematic Design Documents first. consisting of drawings and other documents illustrating 1.5.2 Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement nd the scale and relationshi of Project components.p 1 p incorporated in the Contract Documents, the Archi ect• 1.1.5 The Architect Shan submit to the Owner a State- shall provide administration of the Contract for Const uc- mont of Probable Construction Cost based on current Hon as set forth below and in the edition of MA D. u- aret,volume or other unit costs. meat A201, General'Conditions of the Contract for C.n- struction,current as of die date of chi's Agreement. • 1.2 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE 1.5.3 The Architect shall be a representative of he 1.2.1 Based on the(approved Schematic Design Docu- Owner during the Construction Phase, and shall ad ise ments and any adjustments authorized by the Owner in and consult with the Owner. Instructions to the Cont ac- the program or Project budget, the Architect shall pre- for shall be forwarded through the Architect. The Ar.. hi- pare, for approval oval by Owner, Design Develo men! tect shall have authority to act on behalf of the On er Documents consisting of drawings and other documents only to the extent provided in the Contract Docum.nts to fix and describe the size and character of the entire unless otherwise modified by written instrument in c- Project as to architectural,structural,mechanical and etec- cordance with Subparagraph 15.16. . trical systems, materials and such other elements as may 1.5.4 The Architect shall visit the Site at intervals'•p- be appropriate. propriate to the stage of construction or as others ise 1.2.2 The Architect shall submit to the Owner a Further agreed by the Architect in writing to become gener.11y ' Statement of Probabl i Construction Cost. familiar with the progress and quality of the Work an to determine in general if the ark is proceeding 1.3 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE �N . gin arc•hi- 1.3.1 with the Contract Documents. However, the An hi- 1.3.1 Based on the approved Design Development Doc- tect shall not be required to make exhaustive or c hn- uments and any further adjustments in the scope or qual- tinuous on-site inspections to check the quality or q •1n- sty of the Project or in the Project,budget authorized by tity of the Work. On the basis of such on-site obse a- the Owner, the Architect shall prepare, for approval by lions as an architect, the Architect shall keep the On er the Owner, Construction Documents consisting of Draw- informed of the progress and quality of the Work, nd • ings and Specifications setting forth in detail the require- shall endeavor to guard the Owner against defects nd ments for the construction of the Project. deficiencies in the Work of the Contractor. 1.3.2 The Architect shall assist the Owner in the prepara- 1.5.5 The Architect shall not have control or charg. of Iron of the necessary(bidding information, bidding farms, and shall not be responsible for construction me ns, the Conditions of the Contract, and the form of Agree- methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for . meat between the Owner and the Contractor. safety precautions and programs in connection with he 1.3.3 The Architect strait advise the Owner of any adjust- Work, for the acts or omissions_of the Contractor, S b- AIA DOCUMENT Bill•Uh1'Nl.R•ARCIsITECr ACKttMr.Nr• 11111i1LTNlIt LOIJIUN• IULY 1917•M& •O1')7 111E AMERICAN INYTITUTB OT ARCHITECTS, l:l; NEW YORK AVENUE, KW.. WASiIINGTON, D.C. MOS 8141-197 3 • • l 021 contractors or any other persons performing any of the necessary or advisable for the imple station of the intent Work, or for the (aiiure of any of them to carry out the of the Contract Documents,the Arc. :t will have autle r- • Work in accordance with the Contract Documents, ity to require special inspection or ing of the Work in j 1.5.6 The Architect si'iall at all times have access to the accordance with the provisions c .e Contract Docu- t,'ork wherever it is in preparation or progress. ments,whether or not such Work-- then fabricated,in- stalled or completed. • 1.5.7 The Architect shall determine the amounts owing 7,5,13 The Architect shall review :d approve or take to the Contractor based on observations at the site and on pp evaluations of the Contractors Applications for Payment, other appropriate action upon the C Antractor's submittals and shall issue Certificates for Payment in such amounts. such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples, but , as provided in the Contract Documents. only for conformance with the design concept of the 1.5.8 The issuance qqlf a Certificate for Payment shall Work and with the information given in the Contract constitute a representation entation b the Architect to the Owner, Documents. Such action shall be taken with reasonable P by , promptness so as to cause no delay. The Architect's ap» .based on the Architect's observations at the site as pro- proval of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an vided in Subparagraph 1.5.4 and on the data comprising assembly of which the item is a component. . - the Contractor's Application for Payment, that the Work 15,14 The Architect shalt prepare Change Orders for has progressed to the point indicated; that, to the best of the Owner's approval and execution in accordance wilt • the Architect's knowledge,information and belief,the qual- the Contract Documents,and shall have authority to order ., ity of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Docu- minor changes in the Work not involving an adjustment ments (subject to an levaluation of the Work for con- in the Contract Sum or an extension of the Contract Time . formance with the Contract Documents upon Substantial which are not inconsistent with the intent of the Contract Completion, to the results of any subsequent tests re- Documents. quired by or performed under the Contract Documents, • to minor deviations from the Contract Documents cor- 1.5.15 The Architect shall conduct inspections.to deter- reelable prior to completion,and to any specific qualifica- mine the Dates of Substantial Completion and final com- lions stated in the Certificate for Payment); and that the ptetion, shall receive and forward to the Owner for the Contractor is entitled tb payment in the amount certified. Owner's review written warranties and related documents • However, the issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall required by the Contract Documents and assembled by not be a representation that the Architect has made any the Contractor,and shall issue a final Certificate for Pay- . examination to ascertain how and for what purpose the ment. Contractor has used the moneys paid on account of the 1.5.16 The extent of the duties, responsibilities and lim- Contract Sum. )cations of authority of the Architect as the Owner's rep- 1.5.9 The Architect droll be the interpreter of the re- resentative during construction shall not be modified or quirements of the Contract Documents and the judge of extended without written consent of the Owner,the Can- the performance thereunder by both the Owner and tractor and the Architect. • Contractor.The Architect shall render interpretations nec- 1.6 PROJECT REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC SERVICES essary for the proper execution or progress of the Work with reasonable promptness on written request of either 1.6.1 If the Owner and Architect agree that more tx- the Os.nor or the Canrractnr,and shall render written de- tensive representation at the site than is described in cisinns. within a reasonable time, on all claims, disputes Paragraph 1.5 shall be provided, the Architect shall pro- .Ind other matters in question between the Owner and the vide one or more Project Representatives to assist the Contractor relating tolthe execution or progress of the Architect in carrying out such responsibilities at the site. 1\urk or the interprets ion of the Contract Documents. 1.G,2 Such Project Representatives shall be selected,em- - 1.5.10 Interpretations and decisions of the Architect shall ployed and directed by the Architect, and the Architect be consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable shall be compensated therefor as mutually agreed be- from the Contract Documents and shall be in written or tween the Owner and the Architect as set forth in an ex- graphic form. In the Capacity of interpreter and judhe, , hibit appended to this Agreement, which shall describe the Architect shall endeavor to secure faithful perform- the duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority of j ante by both the Ow such Project Re ()miner and the Contractor, shall not Representatives. show partiality to either, and shall not be liable for the 1.6.3 Through the observations by such Project Repre- result of any interpretation or decision rendered in goad sentatives, the Architect shall endeavor to•provide further faith in such capacity protection for the Owner against defects and deficiencies 1.5.11 The Architect's decisions in matters relating to . In the Work,but the furnishing of such project representa- artistic effect shall be final if consistent with the intent of lion shall not modify the rights, responsibilities or ohtit;a- . the Contract Documents. The Architect's decisions on buns of the Architect as described in Paragraph 1.5. any other claims, disputes or other matters, including 1.7 ADDITIONAL SERVICES those in question between the Owner and the Contractor, 0)19 be subject to arbitration as provided in this Agree- The following Services are not included in Basic ment and in the Contract Documents. • Services unless so identified in Article 15.They shall be provided if authorized or confirmed in writing by 1.5.12 The Architect shall have authority to reject Work the Owner,and they shall be paid for by the Owner which dues not conform to the Contract Documents, as provided in this Agreement, in addition to the Whenever, in the Arrhitert's reasonable opinion, it is compensation for Basic Services. AtA DOCUMENT B141 •OWNYK•ARCIIItLCr AGKLtMENT• THIRTEENTH EDITION• IUt1'1•a'T• AIA• • LP,,q+7 4 B141-1977 . rut AmERICAN INSTIWUTC or ARCHITECTS, 171s NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON. U C. «Ww • 022 - . r •in, anal ses of the Owner's needs . . structinn, and furnishing services as may be required in . • connection with the replacement of such.Work. • t 1.7.2 Providing financial feasibility or .other special 1.7.16 Providing services made necessary by die default , .ladle;. of the Contractor, or by major defects or deficiencies in 1.7.3 Providing plannin SurvC s site evaluations, envi- the Work of the Contractor,or by failure of performance gl y ■,, of either the Owner or Contractor under the Contract for ronmental studies or comparative studies of prospective Construction, j site and preparing special surveys, studies and wino's- oars required for appcovals of governmental authorities 1.7.17 Preparing a set of reproducible record drawings or athlas having jurisdiction over the Project. showing significant changes in the Work made during ■ services relative to future facilities, sys- construction based on marked-up prints, drawings and 1.7.4 Providing other data furnished by the Contractor to the Architect. toms and equipment which are not intended to be con- 1,7.i6 Providing extensive assistance in the utilization of structed during the Construction Phase. - b any equipment ur system such as initial start-up or testing. . 'roviding services tip investigate existing conditions adjusting and balancing, preparation of operation and or facilities o - measured draw'.' • ,or to maintenance manuals, training personnel for operation verify the accurac . • - information fur- . and maintenance,and consultation during operation. -- / e a a•ner. ( 1.7.19 Providing services after issuance to the Owner of 1.74 Preparing documents of alternate, separate or the final Certificate for Payment, Or in the absence of a sequential bids or providing extra services in connection final Certificate for Payment, more than sixty days after with bidding. negotiation or construction prior to the the Date of Substantial Completion of the Work. completion of the Construction Documents Phase,when requested by the Owner.' 1.7.20 Preparing to serve or serving as an expert witness in connection with any public hearing, arbitration pro- 1.7.7 Providing coordination of Work performed by seeding or legal proceeding. separate contractors or by�the Owner's own forces. 1.7.21 Providing services of consultants for other than . 1.7.0 Providing services in connection with the work of the normal architectural,structural; mechanical and elec- a construction manager Or separate consultants retained trical engineering services for the Project. by the Owner. I 1.7.22 Providing any other services not otherwise in- - 1.7.9 Providing Detailed Estimates of Construction Cost, eluded in tills Agreement or not customarily furnished in analyses of owning and operating costs,or detailed quan- tity surveys or inventories of material, equipment and to TIME labor. 1.8.1 The Architect shalt-perform Basic and Additional J Providing interior, design and other similar s -;-, Services as expeditiously as'is consistent with professional . %ices require - '• connection se ection, skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work.Upon • 1 ' procurement or inst • . - u ' • • ishings and request of the Owner, the Architect shall submit for the - ret1 • - • ent. Owner's approval a schedule for the performance of the 1.7.11 Providing services for planning tenant or rental Architect's services which shall be adjusted as required as spares. the Project proceeds,and shall include allowances for pert- - 1.7.12 /staking,revisions in Drawings, Specifications or oils of time required for the Owner's review and approval k rather clue contents revisions when such revisions are inconsistent of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project.This schedule,when approved with written approvals or instructions previously given, by the Owner, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be are required by the enactment or revision of codes, laws or regulations subsequent Ito the preparation of such doc- exceeded by the Architect. ° unlents or are due to other causes not solely within the control of the Architect. ARTiCLE 2 1.7.13 Preparing Drawings,Specifications and supporting THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES data and providing other services in connection with • 'Change Orders to the extent that the adjustment in the 2.1 The Owner shall provide full information regarding Basic Cumpensation resulting from the adjusted Con- requirements for the Project including a program, which • structinn Cost is not commensurate with the services re- shall set forth the Owner's design objectives, constraints - quired of the Architect,provided such Change Orders are and criteria, including space requirements and relation- required by causes not solely within the control of the ships,flexibility and expandability,special equipment and Architect. I systems and site requirements. 1.7.14 Making investigations, surveys, valuations, invert- 2.2 If the Owner provides a budget for the Project it tories or detailed a uaisals of existing facilities, and serv- Khali include contingencies for bidding;, changes in the ices required in connection with construction performed Work during construction, and other coats which are the by the Owner, responsibility of the Owner, including those described in this Article 2 and in Subparagraph 3.1.2.The Owner shall. - 1.7.15 Providing consultation concerning replacement of at the request of the Architect, provide a statement of any Work damaged by f Ire or other cause during con- funds available for the Project,and their source. AIA DOCUMENT am •OWNLx•AKCl11IL.C1 ACx[LMLNI •IIUKILLNIII[)1111)51• JULY i777•AIM.•0197? Mk AMERICAN INSUiUiE of AKCNITECIS, MS NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 8141.1977 S . • • i 2.3- The Owner shah designate,when necessary, a rep- • signed, specified, selected or specially provided for by resentative authorized to act in the Owner's behalf with the Architect. . respect to the Project. The Owner or such authorized 3.1.3 Construction Cost does not include the compen- • - representative shall examine the documents submitted by sailon of the Architect and the Architect's consultants. I the Architect and shall render decisions pertaining thereto the cost of the land, rights-of-way, or other costs which promptly,to avoid uclreasonable delay in the progress of are the responsibility of the Owner as provided in AA- / the Architect's services. cle 2. I 2.4 The Owner shall furnish a legal description and a 3.2 RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION COST 'certified land surve)J of the site, giving, as applicable, • grades and lines of streets,alleys, pavements and adjoin- 3.2.1 Evaluations.of the Owner's Project budget. State• ing property; rights-ttf-svay, restrictions, easements, en- men1S of Probable Construction Cot and Detailed croachments, zoningL deed restrictions, boundaries and Estimates of Construction Cost, if any, prepared by the contours of the site; locations, dimensions and complete Architect, represent the Architect's best judgment as a data pertaining to existing buildings,other improvements design professional familiar with the construction Inc us. and trees;and full information concerning available serv- try. It is recognized, however, that neither the Archi ect ice and utility lines both public and private, above and ' nor the Owner has control over the cost of labor,mote- ' below grade,including inverts and depths. riats or equipment,over the Contractor's methods of de- 2.5 The Owner shall furnish the services of soil engi- termining bid prices,or over competitive bidding,market neers or other consultants when such services are deemed or negotiating conditions. Accordingly, the Architect necessary by the Architect.Such services shall include test cannot and does not warrant or represent that bids or borings,test pits,soil bearing values,percolation tests,air negotiated prices will not vary from the Project budget and water pollution tests,ground corrosion and resistivity proposed,established or approved by the Owner,if any, • tests,including necessary operations for determining sub- or from any Statement of Probable Construction Cost or soil,air and water conditions,with reports and appropri- other cost estimate or evaluation prepared by the Artie- ate professional reco'nmendations. - tea • 2.6 The Owner shall furnish structural, mechanical, 3.2.2 No fixed limit of Construction Cost shall be estab- • chemical and other laboratory tests, inspections and re- fished as a condition of this Agreement by the furnishing. ports as required by law or the Contract Documents. proposal or establishment of a Project budget under Sub- paragraph 1.1.2 or Paragraph 22 or otherwise,unless such 2.7 The Owner shall furnish all legal,accounting and in- fixed limit has been agreed upon in writing and signed by surance counseling services as may be,necessary at any the parties hereto. If such a fixed limit has been estab- time for the Project, including such auditing services as fished, the Architect shad be permitted to include con- the Owner may require to verify the Contractor's Applica- tingencies for design,bidding and price escalation,in de- lions for Payment or to ascertain how or for what pur- !ermine what materials;equipment, component sys'ems • poses the Contractor uses the moneys paid by or on be- and types of construction are to be included in the Con- half of the Owner. I tract Documents, to make-reasonable adjustments in the • 2.8 The services; 'nformation, surveys and reports re- scope of the l'roject and to include in the Contract Docu- quired by,Paragraphs 2.4 through 2.7 inclusive shall be merits alternate bids to adjust the Construction Cost tp the furnished at the Owner's expense, and the Architect shall fixed limit. Any such fixed limit shall be increased in the be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness amount of any increase in the Contract Sum occurring thereof. after execution of the Contract for Construction. - 2.9 If the Owner observes or otherwise becomes aware 3.2.3 If the Bidding or Negotiation Phase has not corn- of any fault or defect in the Project or nonconformance menced within three months after the Architect submits with the Contract I Documents, prompt written notice the Construction Documents to the Owner, any Project thereof shall be given by the Owner to the Architect, budget or fixed limit of Construction Cost shall be ad- 2.10 The Owner shall furnish required information and jested to reflect any change in the general level of prices •in. the construction industry between the date of submis- . services and shall render approvals and decisions as ex- lion of the Construction Documents to the Owner and peditiously as nece�sary for the orderly progress of the the date on which proposals are sought. Architect's services and of the Work. -3.2.4 If a Project budget or fixed limit of Construction ARTICLE 3 Cost (adjusted as provided in Subparagraph 3.2.3) is ex- ceeded by the.lowest bona fide bid or negotiated pro- CONSTRUCTION COST posal, the Owner shall (1) give written approval of an increase in such fixed limit, (2) authorize rebidding or re- 3.1 DEFINITION negotiating of the Project within a reasonable time, 13) if 3.1.1 The Construction Cost shall be the total cost or - the Project is abandoned, terminate in accordance with estimated cost to the Owner of all elements of the Project Paragraph 10.2, or (4) cooperate in revising the Project • designed or specified by the Architect. scope and quality as required to reduce the Construction 3.1.2 The Construction Cost shall include at current Cos!. In the case of(4),provided a fixed limit of Con,truc- market rates, including a reasonable allowance for over- tion Cost has been established as a condition of thisAgree- head and profit, the cost of labor and materials furnished ment,the Architect,without additional charge,shall mod- by the Owner and any equipment which has been de- ify the Drawings and Specifications as necessary to comply AIA DOCUMENT 11141 •owNLR-M cHITECT AGREEMENT•THIRTEENTH LOITION• I('LY PE:•AIA•• y 17:7 • 6 8141-1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Or ARCHIrECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.w., UrAsHINcluN, U.C. 2MWb • 024 ' . with the fixed limit.The providing of such service shall he or extended through no fault of the Architect,compensa- the limit of the Architect's responsibility arising from the lion for any Basic Services required for such extended • establishment of such fixed limit,and having done so,the period of Acfminislration 01 the Construv1ir>n Contract Architect shall he entitled to compensation for all services' shall be computed as set forth in Paragraph 14.4 fur Addi- performed, in accordance with this Agreement, whether tional Services. i or not the Construction Phase is commenced. ' 6.1.4 When compensation is based on a percentage of t Construction Cost, and any portions of the Project are • ARTICLE 4 deleted or otherwise not constructed; compensation for i , such portions of the Project shall be payable to the extent .DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE services are performed on such portions. in accordance 4.1 Direct Personnel Expense is defined as the direct sal- with the schedule set forth in Subparagraph 14.2.2.based arias of all the Architect's personnel engaged on the Proj- on(1) the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal or, ect, and the portion of the cost of their mandatory and (2) if no such bid or proposal is•received,the most recent customary contributions and benefits related thereto,such Statement of Probable Construction Cost or Detailed Esti- i as employment taxes and other statutory employee bane- • mate of Construction Cost for such portions of the Project. s " fits, insurance, sick leave, holidays, vacations, pensions 62 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF and similar contributions and benefits. ADDITIONAL SERVICES • ARTICLE 5 . • 6.2.1 Payments on account of the Architect's Additional Services as defined in Paragraph 1.7 and for Reimbursable 1• REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Expenses as defined in Article 5 shall be made monthly upon presentation of the Architect's statement of services 5.1. Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to the Corn- rendered or expenses incurred. pensation for Basic and Additional Services and include . actual expenditures made by the Architect and the Archi_ 6.3 PAYMENTS WITHHELD tect's employees and consultants in the interest of the 6.3.1 No'deductions shall be made from the Architect's Project for the expenses listed in the following Sub-. compensation on account of penalty,liquidated damages • paragraphs: ( or other sums withheld from payments to contractors,or 5.1.1 Expense of transphrtation in connection with the on account of the cost of changes in the Work other than Project; living expenses in connection with out-of-town those for which the Architect is held legally liable. travel; long distance comp munications; and fees paid for 6.4 PROJECT SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over 6.4.1 If the Project is suspended or abandoned in whole the Project. or in part for more than three months,the Architect shall . 5.1.2 Expense of reproductions,postage and handling of be compensated for all services performed prior to receipt - Drawings,Specifications and other documents, excluding of written notice from the Owner of such suspension or reproductions for the office use of the Architect and the abandonment, together with Reimbursable Expenses then Architect's consultants. I due and all Termination Expenses as defined in Paragraph 5.13 Expense of data processing and photographic pro- 10.4. If the Project is resumed after being suspended for duction'techniques when used in connection with Adeli- more than three months, the Architect's compensation tional Services. I shall be equitably adjusted. 5.1.4 if authorized in advance by the Owner,expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates. ARTICLE 7 5.1.5 Expense of renderings, models and mock-ups re- ARCHITECT'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS quested by the Owner. 5.1.G Expense of any additional insurance coverage or 7.1 Records of Reimbursable Expenses and expenses per- ' liability insurance,requested taininE to Additional Services and services performed on limits,including by the Owner in excess of that normally carried by the the basis of a the basis of Direct Personnel Expense shall Architect and the Architect's consultants. be kept on the basis of generally accepted accounting • principles and shall be available to the Owner or the Owner's authorized representative at mutually convenient • ARTICLE 6 times. PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT . ARTICLE I7 6.1 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF BASIC SERVICES OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS I 6.1.1 An initial payment as set forth in Paragraph 14.1 is 8.1 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of sem- the minimum payment u der this Agreement. ice are and shalt remain the property of the Architect 6.1.2, Subsequent payments for Basic Services shall be whether the Project for which they are made is executed made monthly and shall be in proportion to services per- or not.The Owner shall be permitted to retain copies, in- formed within each Phale of services, on the basis set chiding reproducible copies, of Drawings anti Specifica- forth in Article 14. - lions for information and reference in connection with the 6.13 Ii and to the exter!t that the Contract Time initially Owner's use and occupancy of the Project.The Drawings established in the Contract for Construction is exceeded and Specifications shall not be used by the Owner on A1A DOCUMENT 0141•OWNER A9C11TCCr ACME(MEN r• 1J11R1LLNn1 Mt • JULY•1)77•A10•©1977 1NE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OFI ARCtiiflC15, 17]S NEW YORK AVENUE. N.W.. 1VA$1,NGTON, D.C. 20006 •• 0141-1977 7 • • other projects,for additions to this Project,or for comple- 10.4 Termination Expenses include 0e • :ion of this Project by others provided the Architect is not trihutable to termination for which 1 expenses Architlectcisynot !: in default under this Agreement, except by agreement in otherwise compensated, plus an amount computed as a ung and with apprap�riate compensation to the Archi- tect. percentage of the total Basic and Additional te 8.2 Submission or distribution to aTeet official regulatory Compensa- tion earned to the time of termination,as follows: 1 requirements or for other purposes in connection with the .1 m percent cif termination occurs during the Sche- Pruject is not to be construed as publication in derogation made Design Phase;or of the Architect's rights. .2 10 percent if termination occurs during the Design • ii Development Phase;or ART 1 CLE 5 percent if termination occurs during any subse- q phase. I ARBITRATION • ARTICLE 9.1 All claims, dispute and other matters in question , •-- - between the parties to this Agreement, arising out of or MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof, shall be maY 11.1 Unless otherwise specified, this Agreement shall be !t decided by arbitration i 'accordance with the Construe• Bovemed by the law of the principal place of business of lion Industry Arbitration�Rules of the American Arbitra- the Architect. lion Association then obtaining unless the parties mutu- 11.2 Terms in this Agreement shall have the same mean• ally agree otherwise. No arbitration, arising out of or re- ing as those in AIA Document A201, General Conditions lating to this Agreement,Ishall include, by consolidation, of the Contract for Construction, current as of the date joinder or in any other manner,any additional person not of this Agreement. • a party to this Agreement except by written consent con- 11.3 As between the parties to this Agreement.as to all leaning a specific reference to this AgreertTent and signed by the Architect.the Owner,and any other person sought any or applicable failures t act oby f either party to this Agreement,mnc to to be joined. Any consent to arbitration involving an ad- • run applicable egedtc•us of action shalt deemed to tlitirtnal person or persons shall not constitute consent to run and any alleged cause of action not shall than deemed role- arbitration of any dispute, not described therein or with have Date of in any and all events not facer than the and as any perstrt not named ors described therein. This Agree- vent Date of Substantial Completion of the Work,and as men( to arbitrate and any agreement to arbitrate with an to any acts to failures to act occurring after the relevant of additional person or persons duly consented to by the vale c of the final Completion,not later than the date of parties to this Agreement shall be specifically enforceable issuance of the final Certificate for Payment. under the prevailing arbitration law. 11.4 The Owner and the Architect waive all rights 9.2 Notice of the demand for arbitration shall be filed in against each other and against the contractors, consult- 9.2 Notice the other demand for this Agreement and with ants,agents and employees of the other for damages cov- the American Arbitration.Association. The demand shall fold by any edition of insurance during 201,tru General a as Set n- he made within a reasonable time after the claim,dispute forth s, the edition of AIA date of Document this Agreement.Bemen Con- or other matter in question has arisen, In no event shall dittoes, current as of the date of Ibis Agreement. The the other matter in question be h made arisen.after In no event when Owner and the Architect each shall require appropriate institution of legal or a yitable similar waivers from their canlractars,Qtonsuan and such claim, dispute or other matter question based ou d'be agents' barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 9.3 The award rendered by the arbitrators shall be final, ARTIC---EE 12 and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 12.1 The Owner and the Architect, r_ themselves, their partners, successors, assigns and legal ety, bind ARTICLE 10 representatives to the other party to this Afire to the partners, successors, assigns and legalrep represent a- . - lives of such other party with respect to all covenants of TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT 10.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party this Agreement.Neither the Owner nor the Architect shall upon seven days' written notice should the other party without sublet or nansfs any interest in this Agreement fail substantially to perform in accordance with its terms +v,:hout the written consent of the other. through no fault of the party initiating the termination. 10.2 This Agreement may be terminated by the Owner ARTI CLE 13 upon at least seven days' written notice to the Architect in the event that the Project)is permanently abandoned. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT in t In the event of termtr1 is Pe not the fault of the Ar- 10.3 I the the Architect shall id compensated for all services a3 a This bet Agreement represents the entire and integrated and agreement all prior the Owner representations nd the Architect or a and moms, all prior necoti o al. This Arem or agree- performed to termination date, together with Reimburs-able Expenses then due and all Termination Expenses as meets, either written or oral. This Agreement may both defined in Paragraph 10.4, amended only by written instrument signed by both Owner and Architect. 8 8141-1977 111E AA ERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCH TECTS, 1735 •INEW tioge;TA ENUE, NW.,rwASNltir;tON��r , 1977 D.C. .0o4Y, AK MIX 14 • • 02F BASIS OF COMPENSATION �• The Owner shall compensate the Architect for the Scope of Services provided,in accordance with Article 6,Payments 1,;• to the Architect,and the other Terms and Conditions of this Agreement,as follows: 14.1 AN INITIAL PAYMENT of zero . dollars($ 0 ) • shall be made upon execution of this Agreement and credited to the Owner's account as follows: • Y1; 14.2 BASIC COMPENSATION 14.2.1 FOR BASIC SERVICES,as described in Paragraphs 1.1 through 1.5.and any other services included in Article 15 as part of Basic Services, Basic Compensation shall be computed as follows: rNrry rnw,t ha}is•nl cumpr:»Wion.including lied amrwnt•,multiples rn prar,•nlaxes,and idc•ntiry Phues to which panwntu pwlhnelr ut.snpcnta. apply,U necessary-; - All work shall be performed on an hourly rate utilizing the following staff • • members and associated hourly rates. • Senior Architects, Space Planners, Engineers $55.00 -• • Associate Architects, Space Planners, Engineers 45.00 • Staff Architects, Space Planners, Engineers • 35.00 . * Draftspersons 20.00 • Secretaries • 20.00 • • • Computer charges To be established for each assignment - Compensation to the Architect for all services to be performed by Architect as described in this section and as described in the proposal of Architect dated June 25, 1985 shall not exceed $15,460. - • • • 14.x.2 Where compensation is based on a Stipulated Sum or Percentage of Construction Cost, payments for basic Services shall be!made as provided in Subparagraph 6.1.2, so that Basic Compensation for each Phase shall equal the following percentages of the total Basic Compensation payable: • rinctdd.any additions!Phases as apprapdatc.t • • • • Schematic Design Phase: percent( °,o) Design Development Phase: percent( °h) Construction Ddcuments Phase: (NOT APPLICABLE) percent( PLO Bidding or Negotiation Phase: percent Construction Phase: • P ercent( • • 14.3 FOR PROJECT REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC SERVICES,as described in Paragraph 1.6,Compensation shall be computed separately in accordance with Subparagraph 1.6.2. Al',DOCUMENT 11141• iwr:ER•I RC111TECT Ac:Rrrti1ENT• TIIIRILENTII EDITION• tint 1,07 •AIA'••O 1977 111E A'tLRICAN INSTITUTE Or ARCNIIECTS, inS raw YORK AVENUE. NAV., WASIIINGION, U.C. 2GVir. B141-1977 9 • • • 14A COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES 02"tt 14.4.1 duud d in ArticleA 55as part Eof Additional Services,abut excluding Additional Services of con ut ntseCa Compen- sation sation shall be computed as follows: r t Ml t multiples t!enr � t� Nnnh Prr.goal. i / IJ f I ploy Y9.iiuitrd Wearily�ific sigter s fit irh pstiuda n•tfuwl. mprntai m yly.i c ry.1 All additional services shall be approved in writing by the Owner and shall be perfertaed on an hourly basis as listed in Article 14.2.1 • • These services shall be items other than those listed in our proposal dated - July 25, 1985 and could include items such as exterior renovation drawings, revised parking and landscaping design drawings. • • • • • • • • • 14.4.2 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF CONSULTANTS, including additional structural, mechanical and electrical. . engineering services and those provided under Subparagraph 1.7.21 or identified in Article 15 as part of Addi- tional Services,a multiple of I times the amount; billed to the Architect.four such services. (Identity specific types or consultants in Aside 15.if reyoircrl.I 14.5 . FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES,as described in Article 5, and any other items included in Article 15 as Reim- bursable Expenses,a multiple of one ( 1 ) limes the amounts ex- pended by the Architect, the Architect's employees and consultants in the interest of the Project. 14.6 Payments due the Architect and unpaid under this Agreement shall bear interest from the date payment is due at the rate entered below,or in the absence thereof,at the legal rate prevailing at the principal place of • business of the Architect. - -titre inert any rare of inteil st agreed upon.) taunt fJw.anti rr:quiremeiIs under the Itvtrtal Truth in tending Act.similar .rat• and ,rrcat rnmunw rewht tin: and attic, ,tt;ufarum+ of the (Mm-f.and AteldIect•s principal Marrs pl business,ttrr hotelier.el the 1'Aryrt(and rhewhete may shit Ihr valuS,ly of this prav,•wm ♦puv•tw feud ;throe dtuuht hr obtains with n•prci In dtlrtirrn.nunlificarirm,or sabre n•quirtmrn1c Stith a1 svrinrn,Ihclususrs ur wj.vrrt I • • 14.7 The Owner and t e Architect agree in accordance with the Terms.and Conditions of this Agreement that: 14.7.1 IF THE SCOPE of he Project or of the Architect's Services is changed materially,the amounts of compensation shall be equitably adjusted. 14.7.2 IF THE SERVICES'Covered by this Agreement have not been completed within eighteen (18 months of thi date hereof, through no fault of the Architect, the amounts of compensation, rates and multiples set forth herein shall be equitably adjusted. NA DOCUMENT 0141•OtvNLK•AKClIIILCf AGItaaMLNr• IIIIRTELNTII EDITION- lUt1'147:•AtAS• C 14:7 10 0141-1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE or ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, NAV., WASHINGTON, D.C. :000. • • • • • O28. . . • • • ARTICLE 15 - ; • .1` OTHER CONDITIONS OR SERVICES • • Revise 1.7.1 "Providing analyses of the Owner's needs, and programming the requirements of the project." :Revise 1.7.5 "Providing services to investigate existing conditions or facilities or to make measured drawings thereof,. or to verify the accuracy of drawings or other information furnished by the Owner." Revise 1.7.10 "Provide interior design and other similar services required for or in connection with the selection, proicurement or installation of furniture,- furnishings and related equipment. The above listed services are to be provided for within the terms of this contract and for purposes of compensation shall be considered basic services. . Other conditions and services shall be as listed in our proposal dated • July 25, 1905. 14.2.1 Contract is to provide architectural serVicesOnan hourly basis with price of total service not to exceed $15,460 (see item F.9 Orange County Board of Commissioners Agenda August 20, 1985) . • • ! • • • AM DOCUMENT IEEE•OWNER•ASIC I HITECT AGREEMENT•THIRTEENTH EDITION•ROW 1977•MA.•019?? 111E AMERICAN INSTITUSE Of A CHITECIE, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE. N.W.. WASHINGTON. D.C. 2005 0141.1977 11 • . • • 025 This Agreement entered' nto as of the day and year first written above OWNER ARCHITECT Orange County Board of Commissioners CHR'Assnr;atPS_ P.A. Hillsborough, NC P.O. Drawer 2678 Chapel • '1�., NC 27514 0 .. i� Arthur . Cogswell, FAIA Donald C. Willhoit pre de C Chairman MA DOCUMENT 8141•OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT•THIRTEENTH EDITION•MULY 1777•MAS• p1977 12 8141-1977 111E AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YO+vC AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20004 'ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. 0 MEETING' DATE 12/2/85 030 SUBJECT: .Acceptance of Bids for Computer and Associated Peripherals in '85-'86 1DEPARTMENTpurchasing tal Central Services PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO • ATTACHMENT(S) -Bid Tabulation INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES, X497 . Contract PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 4 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider acceptance of bid and approval of contract for computer equipment and peripheralS listed on bid tabulation. NEED: This equipmentiwas approved in the 1985-1986 budget as being necessary to accommodate the County's growing data processing needs. The proposed system will triple the County's current speed and capacity on the Reality. The Reality isIscheduled for trade. The list below -represents -4- equipment budgeted in several departments, not data processing only. It should be noted that due to the County's requirement of obtaining equipment compatible with current operating software, Microdata is the manufacturer's brand name that can meet the specifications with no modifications. _Since Microdata has Set exclusive territories for their sales of new mainframes no company other than Infocel could bid new equipment, hence the single bid. • IMPACT: The County will spend $76,974.00 of budgeted funds for the following equipment: One (1) Microdata 6525 (New) equipped as per specifications 77,453 with on system printer Less trade of one (1) Microdata 2904 14,000 Net cost to County 63,453 Two (2) used 8-ways for sequel - @ $2,500 5,000 Eight (8) lAdds Viewpoint Terminals @ $430 3,440 One (1) 400 CPS Printer 2,086 One (1) L.4ser Jet Printer 2,995 $76,974 1 • The expenditure falls within budget and will therefore require no budgetary amendment. RECOMMENDATION: 1 To authorize the purchase of aforementioned equipment. BID 'TABULATION FOR OFFICE USE: BID 'FOR: }bYY[�7cttf f �2��vh h o BID AWARDED TO: r CLOSING DATE: BID PRICE: CLOSING TIME: j0: BUDGETED AMOUNT: I•+ —lkJ--- r (� cc� 1- t+�ku•— -� g .w �}�t75 • 400 cks . UA4:%-LV J;h3u �"rac .�,, lUifu evc j -��-�!s� �'�o .4 Lei �Kt �,:vc. Da�lZly •- Gen+c�c� � 344 Ao A4S°g0 I-oo& t9l,000 58 r t.�r.,c�Se�•gf•. �-�•�2 piscpear� 7 - �cab"`�• . Aoa6 BID 'TABULNrION FOR OFFICE USE: BID FOR: � "Y�u .WS r Q,1t i Ptta�t/ BID AWARDED T0: a CLOSING DATE: BID PRICE: CLOSING TIME: wl BUDGETED AMOUNT: -TzLPe T)!sc �tii -r° 2.� C�s� •_�}�. .�. - • Sa l•„ tbuc:rod .000. $,, Soa '' 3 F3• �. a v t�s O 38 !'t boa a .� 'TSs� oo _ - Lkse-D lsol +t • S- W ,600, trtnUuc#e ctC t�u�Lu�d�rtt -t-u -tutu r1� oaf. arOO �o� _rOt�o tma) Ad aa-Y-t c� ' Tolr w,t Y kk s W' 14•Brouu1n S [t iC�Sr •LtnC- _ I\•1 O3:i . - NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY THIS CONTRAcT, made and entered into this 2nd day of December ;19 85 , pursuant to a resolution heretofore adopted by the Board of Commissioners4 Orange County North Carolina, by and between Infocel, Inc. a corporation with its principal office and place of business in Raleigh, N. C. r party of the first part, hereinafter called the Company, the County of a body politic hereinafter called the County. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the County of Orange duly advertised for bids for a Computer System and Peripherals and bids were received and duly opened as required ' by law; and WHEREAS, after a careful consideration of the bid submitted by the Company, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County has heretofore adopted a resolution authorizing the- acceptance of such bid, and the execution in the name of die County of Orange of a contract with the said Company covering the installation of the computer system. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and in further consideration of the mutual agrleement contained herein, as well as the financial consideration hereinafter refe ed to, the parties hereto have contracted and agreed as follows; (1) I accordance with the County's specifications and Company's proposal, :7 - copies of which specifications and proposal are attached hereto and made a part hereof, Company will furnish and install the computer system more particularly described in the proposal submitted by the Company or in the specifications attached herIrto. (2) Thle total purchase for said equipment/materials in the sum of seventy six thousandl nine hundred seventy four ($76,974) to be paid to Company by County in cash within 30 days after installation of the computer system and its acceptance by the County. (3) The specifications, the proposal thereon by Company the advertisement by County, and the Performance Bond on the part of the Company, copies of which are attahced hereto and made a part hereof shall constitute the contract between the parties as though fully written herein. • 034 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part and the party of the second Loart have caused this contract to be legally executed, in duplicate ech of which shall constitute an original, all as of the day and year first about written, the corporate seal of each having been affixed herirto by its proper officers, all as provided by. law. CORPORATION ATTEST: NAME OF COMPANY BY (SEAL) INDIVIDUAL • ATTEST: BY (SEAL) • • PARTNERSHIP ATTEST: BY (SEAL) PARTNER BY (SEAL) ATTEST: TRADING AS. • ORANGE COUNTY BY CHAIRMAN OF BOARD/COUNTY MANAGER This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government & Fiscal Control act: FINANCE DIRECTOR • • - . ORANGE 'COUNTY . • 035 • • . • BOARD. OF COMISSIONERS . ACTION AGENDA • • ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO.114 • MEETING DATE December 2, 1985 . . . . . . SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENTS . . DEPARTMENT: FINANCE- ; - . 1 PUBLIC HEARING: . YES x yo . . . _.... . . . • . INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Wagner ATTACHMENT(S): . • . PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 Proposed Budget Amendments . - : HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 . -. . • CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 • • - - MEBANE - 227-2031 - . . . . . - DURHAM - 688-3331 1 • - • -. - ' PURPOSE: Consideration of proposed budget amendments.' - -7. NEED: . . - • GENERAL FUND - . ..__ - .• To apProptiate funds for repair of two sections of the roof at the New . ... - . , COUrthouse. . . • ' ' -CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND • . . • ' • . . . . • . . • To transfer funds to the General Fund for repair of roof at the New Courthouse. - . - - • COUNTY REMAPPING PROJECT - . • • - ' - To budget for State's incomplete funding of the 50% matching grant program. . . . IMPACT: ' GENERAL FUND • . This amendment will increase the Public Works budget with a transfer from the Capital Projects Fund. . • _.. •-• ' - • ' CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND .- - . -• . . - - --.. This amendment will transfer- funds from the Capital fund to the General Fund for expenditure. COUNTY REMAPPING PROJECT This amendment will decrease funds available for the Remapping Project due to a decrease' in State funding. A General. Fund appropriation will be required in 1 - fiscal year 1986-87 for project completion as permitted by General Statutes 153A-13. 1 . . . . - , _ - • RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve motion to amend the 1985-86 Budget and Project Ordinance. 03€1 ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1985-86 BUDGET AND PROJECT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The 1985-86 Budget and Capital Project Ordinance as adopted on July 3, 1985, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows: BEFORE AFTER AMENDMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT GENERAL FUND Appropriation: Public Works $1,265,309 $2,850 $1,268,159 Source: Transfer from Capital Projects Fund 36,656 2,850 39,506 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Appropriation: Transfer to General Fund 36,656 2,850 39,506 Source: Fund Balance Appropriated 64,001 2,850 66,851 To budget for roof repairs to New Courthouse. COUNTY REMAPPING PROJECT Appropriation: Orthophoto & Topographic Maps 179,892 (54,946) 124,946 Source: State Grant 89,946 (73,946) 16,000 Transfer from Gener 1 Fund 89,946 19,000 108,946 To budget for compens tion of State incompletely funding the matching grant program. Approved this 2nd day of December, 1985. i so°old Dr.o FINANCE DEPARTMENT I ` :re'art ORANGE COUNTY GORDON.R. BAKER DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM To: County Manager • . From: Finance Director/id • Re: Budget Amendment Insurance Coverage Date: December i, 1985 Based upon the information received today from the Purchasing and Central Services Director, a budget amendment of $73,176 will be needed to fund the General Compre- hensive Liability; Auto Liability, and EMS Malpractice Insurance. (See computation below for a breakdown.) • It appears now that we will receive full funding of revenue sharing for the 1985-86 fiscal year. If so, we could budget an additional $128,500 in revenue sharing funds. If we use$73,176 for the insurance coverage, this will leave a balance of approximately $55,000 in revenue sharing funds for other purposes. Alsq we still have approximately $32,000 in contingency. Based on the compromise reached by the joint Senate-House Conference, we will be. able to budget one revenue sharing payment in the 1986-87 budget. This payment will reflect the proposed 8% decrease. Thus,we could budget approximately119,000. This would represent a revenue loss of almost $580,000 from the current fiscal year. Increase Budgeted Actual (Decrease) Gen. Comp. Liab. $15,000 $84,340 $69,340 Auto Liab. 39,975 89,344 49,369 Unemployment 50,000 10,122 (39,878) Law Enforcement Liab. 20,000 -10,000* (10,000) EMS Malpractice -0- 4,345 4,345 $124,975 $198,151 $73,176 * This is an estivate based on preliminary quotes that Pam received: today.. She is confident that $10,000 will be the maximum amount needed for this coverage. Note: Keep in mind that other policies that are up for renewal at a later date (such as Umbrell a Policy) may require another budget amendment. These calculations. are based on the best informliation available at this time. I i 106 EAST MARGP RET LANE • HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 • 919/732-8181 Insurance Expenditures November 27, 1985 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Actual Actual Budget Buildings and Grounds $16,765.00 $17,322.00 $29,150.00 Central Services 83,804.76 118,890.04 • 204,200.00 Motor Pool 15,606.00 29,743.00 39,975.00 Data Processing 1,728.00 1,800.00 2,106.00 Emerg. Serv. - Communications 6,209.00 6,427.00 3,050.00 Health - Malpractice 4,911.00 5,183.00 8,400.00 Workers Comp. 8,407.32 10,507.87 11,400.00 Finance-Bond 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,600.00 Tax Collector-Bond 300.00 300.00 300.00 Sheriff-Bond 255.00 300.00 $139,486.08 $191,672..91 $300,481.00 Anticipated net increase per agenda abstract for 12-2-435 Board Meeting $ $365,481.00 • :•..- ' . TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL - No umbrella renewal - Budget amendment of $140,000 increase required • • . . - Auto liability increased by 1000% - No environmental impairment coverage available WAKE COUNTY - Non-renew at any price for auto liability and umbrella coverage BURKE COUNTY . - No coverage ROBESON COUNTY . I . - ExElverienced 800% increase in premium RIRUTHERFO COUNTY - No coverage HARNETT COUNTY - No coverage unless packaged with other coverage ORANGE COUNTY 037 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AIWA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Imm NO. MEETING DATE December 2, 1985 SUBJECT: EXAMINATION OF OFFICIAL BONDS DEPARTMENT: pugarAsING & cENTRAL sEmacEs PUBLIC HEARING: YES xx NO ATTACHMENT(S) : ' BONDS FOR THE FOLLOWING: INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Jones, ext 498 1. Sheriff 2. Register of Deeds PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 3. Finance Officer HILLSBOROUTd - 732-9361 4. Tax Collector CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 5. Blanket Employee ME3ANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To conduct an examination of bonds as required by State law of the following officers, employees and agents: • 1. Sheriff 2. Register of Deeds 3. Finance Officers 4. Tax Collector 5. An officer, employee or agent of the County who handles or has in his custody more than $100.00 of the County's funds at any time or who handles or has access to the inventories of the County. NEED: G.S. 109-5 reads as follows: "The bonds of the officers named in G.S. 109-5 shall be carefully examined on the first Monday in December of every year, and if it appears that the security has been impaired, or for any cause become insufficient to cover the amount of money or property or to secure the faithful performance of the duties of the office, then the bond shall be renewed or strengthed, the insufficient security shall be made good; but no renewal, or strengthening, or additional security shall increase the penalty of said bond beyond the limits prescribed for the term of office." IMPACT: - The Sheriff's bond, is presently written for a total of $25,000.00, representing $5,000.00 "for the due execution and return of process, payment of fees and moneys collected, and the faithful execution of his officelas sheriff" and $20,000.00 ttLthe collection and settlement of County and other local taxes according to law, a sum not exceeding the amount of Such county and other local taxes for the previous year", as satipulated in G.S. 161-8. - The Register of Deeds bond is presently $25,000.00, G.S. 161-4 requries that the bond be not less than $10,000.00 but not more than $50,000.00. - The Finance officer's bond is presently $250,000.00, the maximum allowed under G.S. 159-29 (A). - The Tax Collector's bond is presently $30,000.00 G.S. 105-349 (C) says that the amount of this bond is to be determined by the Board of Commissioners. - All Cou-ntylemployees are bonded to $10,000.00 through a Faithful Performance Blanket Position Bond. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Bonds at present levels. INCREASE CERTIFICATE THE /ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY • Hartford, Connecticut 06115 UFE&CASUALTY 038 Bond No. 25 S 44872 - Amount of Bond $5,000.00 Principal ALBERT LINDY PENDERGRASS, SHERIFF OF Hereby increased to $25,000.00 ORANGE COUNTY/1 NORTH CAROLINA 1 Obligee STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA As of the 1ST day of DECEMBER , 19 83 , the amount of the above described bond is increased from tan sum of$5>000.00 to the sum of$ 25,000.00 , but the liability of the Surety for any acts or defaults oc- curring before the effective date hereof shall in no event exceed the sum first named, and the aggregate liability for any a ad - all acts and defaults, whenever clommitted, shall in no event exceed the sum last named, it being the intent hereof to preclude cumulative liability. This certificate, when signed by the Principal, shall become a part of the said bond. Signed, sealed and dated this 1 T day of DECEMBER L , 19 83. THE ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY By 44161. . HOIP4M ' Attorney-in-Fact I hereby consent to the above increase. Witness my hand and seal this day of , 19 . -- ,/ ,r ALBERT LINDY PENN• RASSPrinc .al INSTRUCTIONS TO AGENTS = IMPORTANT Do not deliver this certificate to the Obligee until it has been dated and signed by the Principal. One signed copy must be re- turned to the Surety. • •1F-904-F1 11-87 PRINTED IN U. 5. A. I . (� 4 Ai 9.7.:7 ,' PUBLIC OFFICIAL BOND - THE /ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPA7J ` •%T i° $� FOR DEFINITE TERM 1 FLED Hartford, Connecticut 0611 LIFE&CASUALTY S`( r �p p xk�FY # 1�3 BiU',r . 1 p i 112 BOND NO. 25 S X44 2�' PdG c DEC S 3 os F` 9 . BETTY `,J iF HV(ES • REGISTER OF REEDS OR,;Fi E COUNTY,H.C. . KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we ALBERT LINDY PENDERGRASS of CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA , as Principal, and THE ,ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a corporation of Hartford, Connecticut, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto STATE OP NORTH CAROLINA . • in tha penal sum of FIE THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($5,000.00 ) Dollars, • lawful money of the Unitkd States of America, for the payment of which well and truly to be made, said Principal ' binds himself/herself, his,/her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and said Surety binds itself, its suc- cessors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. SEALED and dated this ! 1ST day of DECEMBER , 1982 • WHEREAS, the said Principal has been ELECTED to the office of SHE;lteio OF ORANGE COUNT'.(, NC for a dec,•i•te term beginning DECEMBER 1, 1982 and ending DECEt€ER i, 1986 and is required to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of the duties of the said office or position. • NOW, THEREFORE THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that if the above bounden Principal shall (except es hereinafter provided) faithfully perform the duties of his/her said office or position during the said term, and shall pay over to the per pons authorized by law tc receive the same all monsys that may come into his/her hands during the said term wit bout fraud or delay, and at the expiration of said term, or in case of his/her resignation or removal from office, shall turn over to his/her successor all records and property which have come into his/her hands, then this obligation to be null and void; otherwise. to remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED, HOWEVER. that the above named Surety shall not be Iiable.hereunder for any loss of any public funds . resulting from the insolvency of any bank or banks in which said funds are deposited; and, if this provision shall be held void, this entire bolnd shall be void. AND PROVIDED FURTHER, that the Surety may cancel this bond at any time during the said term by giving to the Obligee a written notice of its desire so to cancel and at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the receipt of such notice by th Obligee the Surety shall be completely released as to all liability thereafter accruing. If this provision shall be h: • void, t_L._e tire bond shall be- void_ WITNES-: ALB. (T LINDY P ,::NDE' !.ASS •'J-TCi- t--C'. r~ .a-` \___.__.__ _ B ,� 'if-ear 7 i.4".t{ w AL) (Princift, I) THE &TNA CASUALTY AND•$UREt`Y COMPANY r: ._,;`,'S .t: ::: - /`/ i H. THO't4..S DA i•TKIt3S, Attorney-in:Fact • PUBLIC OFFICIAL BOND THE /ETNA CASUALTY AND 1E 'Y COMPANY FOR DEFINITE TERM Hartford, Cgli 0611E • UFE&CASUALTY • BOND NO 25 S 411856 �� t nn 04 C► QEc 6 3 BETTY JUNE HAYES REGISTER OF DEEDS • ORANGE COUNTY,N.C; KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we BETTY JUNE HAYES, of HYIL BOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA , as Principal, and THE ,ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a corporation of Hartford, Connecticut, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto STATE-OF NORTH CAROL3NA • in the penal sum of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND AND OO/10O---------..($25,000.00--,.---.. ) Dollars, lawful money of the Unitedl States of America, for the payment of which well and truly to be made, said Principal . binds himself/herself, his/her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and said Surety binds itself, its suc- cessors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. SEALED and dated this 6TH day of D , 19 82 _ WHEREAS, the said Principal has been APPOINTED to the office of REGISTER OF DEEDS for a definite term beginning DECEMBER 6, 1982 and enclingDECEMBER, 6, 1986 and is required to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of the duties of the said office or position. - NOW, THEREFORE THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that if the above bounden Principal shall (except as hereinafter provided) faithfully perform the duties of his/her said office or position during the said term, and shall pay over to the persons authorized by law to receive the same all moneys that may come into his/her hands during the said term without fraud or delay, and at the expiration of said term, or in case of his/her resignation.or removal from office, shall turn over to his/her successor all records and property which have come into his/her hands, then this obligation to be null and void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the above named Surety shall not be liable hereunder for any loss of any public funds resulting from the insolvency of any bank or banks in which said funds are deposited;and, if this provision shall be held void, this entire bond shall be void. AND PROVIDED FURTHER, that the Surety may cancel this bond at any time during the said term by giving to the Obligee a written notice of its desire so to cancel and at the expiration of thirty (30)days from the receipt of such notice by the Obligee the Surety shall be completely released as to all liability thereafter accruing If this provision shall be held void, this entire bond shall be void. - ESS: BETTY i'I HA Olt - l .. (SEAL) (Print I I • THE ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY Countersigned' • Licensed Resident Agent H' THOMAS HAWKS, Attorney-in Fact {S•719-M) 1-78 CAT. 409960 PRINTED IN LLS.A 1 .. A . CONTINUOUS PUBLIC OFFICIAL BOND FOR INDEFINITE TERM THE /ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY Hartford, Connecticut 06115 LIFE&CASUALTY 041 BOND NO. 100159135 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we GORDON RAY BAKER of 228 WEST QUEEN exii.pan!, P.O. BOX 1004, RILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA , as Principal, . , and THE ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a corporation of Hartford,Connecticut,as Surety,are held and firmly bound unto ORANGE COUNTY, NORM CAROLINA. in the penal sum of TWO :;L or Do eir.Or TROUS.AND AND 00/100--------(e 250,000.00—)Dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which, well and truly to be made, said Principal binds himself/herself, his/her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and said Surety binds itself, its successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents, the liability of the Surety, however, being limited to the penal amount above named regardless of the number of years this bond remains in force or the number of premiums paid. SEALED and dated this 16TH day of APRIL , 19 85 . WHEREAS, the said Principe has been APPOINTED to the office of FINANCE DIRECTOR for an indefinite term beginning APRIL 16, 1985 and is required to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of the duties of the said office or position. I NOW, THEREFORE THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that if the above bounden Principal shall (except as hereinafter provided) faithfully perform the duties of his/her said office or position during the time this bond remains in force, and shall pay over to the persons authorized by law to receive the same all moneys that may come into his/her hands during the said time without fraud or delay,and at the expiration of said time, shall turn over to his/her successor all records and property which have theretofore come into his/her hands, then this obligation to be null and void; other- wise to remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the above named Surety shall not be liable hereunder for any loss of any public funds re- sulting from the insolvency of any bank or banks in which said funds are deposited; and, if this provision shall be held void, this entire bond shall be void. AND PROVIDED FURTHER, that any party to this instrument may cancel the same at any time, with or without cause, by notifying both of the othersiby certified mail of an intention thereby to cancel, in which event such cancellation shall be fully effective at the xpiration of thirty (30) days from the mailing of such notice. In the absence of such a notice, and if there should be no cancellation by agreement between all of the parties hereto, the bond shall remain con- tinuously in full force and effebt, in the penal amount above named, as long as the Principal holds the said office or position. GORDON RAY BAKER WITNESS: BY: 43staefx... ,ç ....44/ - (SEAL) 7 Principal Countersigned: THE ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY 7 ^ , By: , .A..e. /af` d . / . ' gi Licensed_Resident Agent By STOPRER. H. NO;Et Attorney-in-Fact •(S-1394-•JI 10.75 - at k �i� • ••,., ra "•'N L.-A•)t-%NL.I 7 / 1'•Li 3UT\1.. 1 1 Luvor"ir } 1\ 4.. r PUBLIC OFFICIAL BOND Hartford, Connecticut 06115 t-A044. FOR INDEFINITE TERM LIFE R CASUALTY TAPS IS TO Co ST TBIS IS A MOE BOND NO. 25 S 381-15'+ AND EXACT COPY OF ThE BY: Qi+�lc IY . 0 � Nancy M. �/ii, Beaident Secretary KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we JOHN THOMAS HORNER • of HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA , as Principal. and THE /ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a corporation of Hartford,Connecticut,as Surety,are held and firmly bound unto ORANGE COUNTY' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS in the penal sum of THIR THOUSAND AND 00 100 �i / -c$ 30,000.00 1 ha rl1:IrS, lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which, well and truly tobe made.said Principal binds himself/herself, his''her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and said Surety hinds itself, its succc•ssots and assigns, jointly and scyctlally, firmly by these presents, the liability of the Surety, however, being limited to the penal .amount above named regardless of die number of years this bond rem:tins in force or the number of premiums paid. SEALED and dated this 1ST day of JULY • 19 78 WHEREAS. the said Principal has been ApPOINTED to the office of TAX COLLECTOR for an indefinite term beginpning JULY 17 1978 and is required to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of the duties of the said office or position. NOW, THEREFORE-THE CONDITION OF THIS OBBLIGATION is such that if the above bounden Principal shall to ueept as hereinafter rroyidedl faithfully perform the duties of his.'her said office or position during the time this bond retrains in force, and shall pay oyeir to the persons authorized by law to receive the same all moneys that may come into his her hands during the said rime without fraud or delay,and at the expiration of said time, shall turn over to his/her successor all records and property which have theretofore come into his her hands, then this obligation to be null and void; other- wise to remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED. HOWEVER. that the above named Surely shall not be liable hereunder for any loss of any public funds re- . suiting from the insolvency of any bank or banks in which said funds are deposited- and, if this provision shall he acid void, this entire bond shall be void. AND PROVIDED FURTHER, that any party to this instrument may cancel the same at any time, with or without ca :se. by notifying. both of the othejrs by certified mail of art intention thereby to cancel. in which event such can.'ell.atton shall be fully effective at the expiration of thirty (nO days from the mailing of such notice_ In the absence of .urh .a notice. :.ad if there should bye no cancellation by agreement between all of the parties hereto. the bond shall remain ran_ tinunusly ir. full force and effect. in the penal amount above named, as long as the P:incipal holds the said office or position. • • WITNESS; JOIN THOMAS Hold BY: tSE.11-1 • Principal »c'WS THE ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY CO\li':.Ny • Br 6,....*".7Z"--•'''' ,c......,..›.-- H. tH04A.S DAMNS, ` :'tttornrc in V.act 1 1 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES BLANKET BOND 04 Revised to May,1958 V ENI S'ILVAN14 NATIONAL.. r C INSURANCE COMPANY Pa sax trot n sxeaatr,,PCM•SnVAM/a mat (A Mutual Company, herein called Surety) DECLARATIONS Item 1. Name of Obligee: Orange County Board of Commissioners 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N. C., 27279 Item 2. Name of Insured: Orange County Board of Ccnmissioners 106 E. Margaret Lane Frill thorough, N. C., 27278 Item 3. Bond Period: from the beginning of January 5, 1983 to 12 o'clock night on the effective date of the cancelationor't=nation of this Bond as an entirety, Item 4. Table of Limits of Liability: Insuring Agreement I Honesty Blanket Bond Coverage $ Not Covered Insuring Agreement 2 Honesty Blanket Position Bond Coverage $ Not Covered Insuring Agreement 3 Faithful Performance Blanket Bond Coverage $ Not Covered Insuring Agreement 4 Faithful Performance Blanket Position Bond Coverage S 10,000.00 Item 5. The liability of the Surety is subject to the terms of the following riders attached hereto: SR 6071 Item 6. The Obligee and the Insured by the acceptance of this Bond give notice to Surety terminating or canceling prior bond(s) No.(s) FE 19349 such termination or cancelation to be effective as of the time this Bond becomes effective. Signed, sealed and dated February 1, 1983 PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY 1 Attorney-in-Fact Judy-Farmer PUBLIC EMPLOYEES BLANKET BOND Bond No. FB 77572 • Obligee Orange County Board of Commtissioaers ENNSYLVAN/A�}� �{/p�}/� Insured NATIONAL.., illad LKG___ b Orange County Board of Commissioners 'O*,rx.:raer" r , 58 5655 044 ORANGE COUNTY BOA OP COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA. ITEM ABSTRACT Item No.I Meeting Date: DECEMBER 2, 1985 SUBJECT: CONTRACT APPROVAL FOR TRANSP0R'1'ATI0N Mai!I VIlVG GRANT DEPP.RTMEN: PUBLIC HEARING: motes X No A TMEI+IE.NEM: INFORMATION CONTACT: drAMmy PASSMORE X280 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Bill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 Pt7RPOSE: P0 ;consider approving an increased local funding match with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) for Transpor- tation Consulting Services. To consider authorizing execution of 'local funding match contract with DOT. NEED: On March 19, 1985, the Board approved a resolution authorizing the Aging Department to apply for Transportation Development Plan (TDP) grant funds. At that time, the local match was $600 or 10% of the grant award, $6,000. After unsuccessful efforts to attract qualified consultants at this amount, DOT increased the; grant funds to $9,400. Therefore, the local match was increased to $940 or 10% of the total grant amount. As stated in March, the County needs to update its WP with the assistance of a Transportation Consultant. The County can not be consi- dered for future vehicle replacement funds until a five year RDP (1985-90) is prepared. IMPACP: Funds will be expended from the Department on Aging Budget. • REQ)MEM)ATION(S): Authorize $940.00 local match and execution of forthcoming contract with DOT. _ • BOARD. OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA • ACTION AGENDA. ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. 0,11 • MEETING: DATE' Dec. 2, 1985 • 045 SUBJECT: Contract Approval with Carter -Goble Associates, Inc AllMesemnammrlaa., DEPARTMENT:. AGING PUBLIC- HEARING-. YES NO • - 01•11/1111111■11111.111■11111111W 11111•1■1111111111•11~ ATTACHME1T(S) : • INFORMATION .CONTACT:. JERRY. PASSMORE, X2so • PHONE NUMBERS:. HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 copy of contract • HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 • • • CHAPEL HILL - 9674251 • MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM' - 688-7331 - - PURPOSE: To approve the execution. of a transportation planning contract with Carter Goble Associates, Inc. for a maximum of $9,400 subject to the approval of NCDOT. The purpose of this contract is to - prepare an updated Orange County Transportation DeVelopment Plan (TDP) for 1985-90. • • • - NEED:-. An updated TDP must be in place before any futrtee federal/state - transportation-funds for equipment and operations can be pproved for Orange County. Approfessional consultant can assure that an • approved and quality TDP can be achieved for Orange County. The planning process would be completed by August, 1986 and a draft TDP would:be available by April, 1986 to meet funding application deddline. • • IMPACT:. This would require that a transportation steering committee work with the consultant in preparing and revising the DDP for County Commissioner approval. If NCDOT planning contract is approved for this project, Orange County would contribute $940.00 toward the Carter Goble contract. The County Transportation Committee approved the • award of thd contract on November 15#.. 1985. - • • • RE COMMEN DATI ON(S) : - - . , • • :• ...L.:I-I.._ Award and excmte contr&ct-wjth axtet Goble Associates. 046 • Contract For • • Orange County Transportation Development Plan between • Orange County and • Carter—Goble Associates, Inc. THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 1985, by and between Carter Goble Associates, Inc. (hereinafter called the ' "Consultant") the Orange County (hereinafter called the "Client"). This Agreeme r t is a subcontract of the contract between the North Carolina Department of Transportation (hereinafter called "NCDOT") an the Client, incorporated h rein by reference. I • 04 SECTION I. PURPOSE OF CONTRACT The purpose of this contract is to provide for the preparation of a Trans- portation Development Plan for the Client in full accordance with the Consultant's Proposed Work Program" and letter, dated- October 31, 1985. SECTION II. STUDY AREA The specific study area for this project is the Orange County, - North Carolina. SECTION III. PROVISION OF INFORMATION AND ACTIONS The Consultant shall complete the scope of services as specified in Attach- ment A. The (Consultant shall supply all reports and materials as needed to complete the scope of services. The Client shall provide information and data that it has or has access to which is relevant to this study. The Client shall L e responsible for providing or completing the following items: 7. Formation of Steering Committee, issuing meeting notices, and other actions as needed to call to order meetings of the committee. 2. Provision of background reports such as land use plans, population and housing reports, etc. 3. Provision of socioeconomic data the census tract level at the request of the Consultant. SECTION IV. TIME SCHEDULE The Consultant shall commence work on the project with all practical dis- patch only after this Agreement has been fully executed or only after receipt of authorization to initiate work from the Client. The Consultant agrees to complete a draft Orange County Transportation Development Phan within five (5) months after receiving' authorization to . . . • • • proceed from the Client. All work shall be completed by August 31, 1986. • . • SECTION V. METHOD OF PAYMENT The Consultant agrees to perform for the benefit of the client all services set forth and described in this contract on a cost plus. fixed fee basis in - • • .the amount not to exceed Nine Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($9,400). • If the Consultant is requested to perform extra work, the Consultant shall promptly notify the Client that the work is beyond the level of effort required in the• contract. Examples of extra work include, but are not limited to, special or extra data collection; furnishing additional copies of reports; orl change in scope, character, or complexity of the study. -. • • The Consultant agrees to negotiate for extensions to this contract to encompass extra work or expansions of scope or effort that may be desired by the ClientJ, All changes in scope of services shall be included in sup- plemental agreements, which shall be executed prior to beginning of such supplemental work. The supplemental work agreements shall be approved by the Client, and NCDOT. The Consultant shall submit periodic invoices to the Client based on the • completion of tasks set forth in Attachment A to this contract. These - invoices shall be supported by a progress report. SECTION VI. TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT AND CONVENIENCE • A. Termination for Cost-Type Contracts The Client may terminate this Contract, or any portion of it, by serv- ing a notice of termination on the Consultant. The notice shall state whether the termination is for convenience of the Client or for default of the Consultant. If the termination is for default, the notice shall • state the knanner in which the Consultant has failed to perform the requiremenIts of the Contract. The Consultant shall account for any property n its possession paid for from funds received from the Client, or property supplied to the Consultant by the Client. The -Consultant shall promptly submit its termination claim to the Client and the parties shall negotiate the termination settlement to be paid the Consultant. • 045 If the terinination is for the convenience of the Client, the Consultant shall be paid its Contract close-out costs, and a fee, if the Contract provided far a payment of a fee, in proportion to the work performed up to the time of termination. If the termination is for default, the Client mayl fix the fee, if the Contract provides for a fee, to be paid the Consultant in proportion to the value, if any, of work performed up ' to the time of termination. If, after serving a notice of termination for default, the Client determines that the Consultant has an excusable reason for not perform- ing, such as a strike, fire, flood, events which are not the fault of and are beyond the control of the Consultant, the Client, after setting up a new w' ork schedule, may allow the Consultant to continue work, or treat the te' rmination as a termination of convenience. 1 1 B. If, through any cause, the Consultant shall fail to fulfill, in a time.e. ly and proper manner, his obligations under this Contract, or if the Consultant 1 shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, representa- tions or stipulations of this Contract, the Client shall thereupon have • the right 'to terminate this Contract by giving written notice to the Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date there- . of, at least fifteen (15) days before the effective date of such termi- nation. hi such event, all unfinished documents and other materials collected ar prodiked under this Contract shall, at the option of the Client, beCome its property, and the Consultant shall be entitled to receive jusit and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work com- pleted on Such documents or materials. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Client may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of setoff fpr damages caused by the Consultant's breach, until such time as the exact amount of damages to the Client by the Consultant is determinedl. C. The Client may terminate this Contract at any time by giving written notice to the Consultant of such termination and specifying the effec- tive date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished docu- , ments and other materials produced or collected under this Contract • shall, at the option of the Client, become its property. If this Contract is terminated by the Client as provided in this paragraph, the Consultant will be paid either: 1. an amount which bears the same ratio to the total compensation to be paid to the Consultant under this Contract as the services • actually performed prior to the termination of this Contract bear to the total services to be performed by the Consultant under this Contract, less payments of compensation previously made; provided, however, that if less than sixty percent (60%) of the 1 services covered by this Contract have been performed • by the • •••J ,)* ' • 051 effective date of such termination, the Consultant shall be reimbursed (in addition to the foregoing payment) for that portion of the actual out-of-pocket expenses (not otherwise reimbursed under this Contract) incurred by the Consultant during the I Contract period, which are directly attributable to the uncompleted portion of the services covered by this Contract. SECTION VII. AUDIT AND INSPECTION OF RECORDS The Consultant shall permit the authorized representatives of the Client and NCDOT to inspect and audit all data and records of the Consultant 1 relating to his performance under the Contract until the expiration of three (3) year after final 'payment under this Contract. I The Consultant further agrees to include in all his Subcontracts hereunder a provision to the effect that the Subcontractor agrees that the Client and NCDOT or any of their duly authorized representatives shall, until the. expiration of three (3) years after final payment under the Subcontract, have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of such Subcontractor, involving transac- tions related tO the Subcontractor. The term "Subcontract" as used in this clause excludes (1) purchase orders not exceeding $10,000 and (2) Subcon- tracts or purchase orders for public utility services at rates established for uniform applicability to the general public. The periods of access and examination described above, for records that re- late to (1) appeals under the "Disputes" clause of this Contract, (2) liti- gation of the settlement of claims arising out of the performance of this Contract, or (3) costs and expenses of this Contract as to which exception has been taken by the Comptroller General or any of his duly authorized representatives!, shall continue until such appeals, litigation, claims, or exceptions have been disposed of. The Client, NCDOT, or their duly authorized representative, shall have access to and the right to inspect all project materials. SECTION VIII. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY • In connection with the execution of this Contract, the Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. The Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed, and that em- 051 ployees are treated during their employment, .without regard to their race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. Such actions shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or • transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay lor other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The Consultant shall comply with all of the - requirements ol f Title 21, U.S.A., Chapter 5, Subchapter 6, relating to fair - • employment practices to the extent applicable. A similar provision shall be included ir any and all Subcontracts. - - SECTION IX. NONDISCRIMINATION During the performance of this Contract, the Consultant, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest agrees as follows: A. Compliance with Regulations • The ConstItant shall comply with the Regulations relative to nondis- criminationi in Federally-assisted programs of the U.S. Department of Transporttion (hereinafter, "USDOT"), Title 49, Code of Federal Regu- lations, 1" rt 21, and 23 CFR 710.405(b) as they may be amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this Contract. B. Nondiscrimination • The Consultant, with regard to the work performed by it during the Con- - tract, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin in the selection and retention of subcontractors, in- cluding procurements of materials and leases of equipment. The Consul- tant shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the dis- crimination prohibited by section 21.5 of the Regulations. C. Solicitations for Subcontracts, Including Procurements of Materials and Equipment In all solicitations either by competitive bidding or negotiation made by the consultant for work to be performed under a subcontract, includ- ing procurements of materials or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor or supplier shall be notifed by the Consultant of the Consultant's obligations under this Contract and the Regulations rela- tive to non, discrimination on the grounds of race, color, sex, or na-. • tional origiln. • • D. Information-Reports • The Consultant shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the Client and NCDOT .to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Regulations, orders, and instructions. Where any information is required and is in the exclu- sive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this infor- mation, the Consultant shall so certify to the Client, as appropriate, and shall set forth the efforts it has made to obtain this information. E. Sanctions far Noncompliance • In the event of the Consultant's noncompliance with the nondiscrimina- tion provisions of this Contract, the Client, and NCDOT. shall impose - such contract sanctions as it determines to be appropriate, including, but not Um' ited to: • 1. Withholding of payments to the Consultant under the Contract until the Consultant complies; and/or 2. Cancellation, termination, or suspension of the Contract in whole or in part. F. Incorporation of Provisions The Consultant shall include the provisions of paragraphs A through F in every subcontract, including procurements of materials and leases of 'equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto. The Consultant shall take such action with respect to I any subcontract or procurement as the Client or NCDOT may direct as means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance; provided, however, that in the event the Consultant becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or supplier as a result of such direction, the Consultant may request the Client and NCDOT to enter into such litigation to, protect the interests of the Client and NCDOT and, in addition, the Consultant l may request the State of North Carolina to protect the interest of the 'State if there are any. G. Disadvantaged and Woman-Owned Business Enterprise Policy - Contract Requirements - . 0 5 1. Policy It is the policy of NCDOT and USDOT/UMTA that disadvantaged and woman-owned business enterprises (hereinafter DBE/WBE), as defined in 49 CFR, Part 23, as amended in July 1983, shall have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts financed in whole or in part with Federal funds. Consequently, the DBE/WBE requirements of 49 CFR, Part 23, as amended, apply to this Contract. 2. Disadvantaged and Woman-Owned Business Enterprise Obligation NCDOT and its Contractors agree to ensure that minority business enteriprises, as defined in 49 CFR, Part 23, have the maximum oppor- tunity to' participate in the performance of contracts and subcon- tracts financed in whole or in part with Federal funds. In this regarcl, NCDOT and its Contractors shall take all necessary and reasonable steps, in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 23, to 'ensure' that minority business enterprises have the maximum opportunity to compete for and perform contracts. NCDOT and its Contractors shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the award and performance of DOT-assisted contracts. 3. Sanctions for Noncompliance The contractor is hereby advised that failure of the Contractor, or any Subcontractor performing work under this Contract, to carry out the requirements set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above shall con- stitute a breach of contract and, after notification of the USDOT/ UMTA , may result in termination of this Contract by Orange County or such remedy as NCDOT deems appropriate. 4. Inclusion in Subcontracts The Contractor shall insert in each of its subcontracts this DBE/ WBE Policy dated May 7, 1980, and also a clause requiring its Sub- contractors to include this same Policy in any lower tier subcon- tract which they may enter into, together with a clause requiring the inclusion of this Policy in any further subcontract that may in turn be made. This Policy shall not be incorporated by reference. SECTION X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS The Consultant and the Client mutually agree as follows: A. Ownership of Documents • • - . 054 Basic notes, sketches, charts, and other data prepared or obtained under thiS Contract shall become the property of the Client without restriction or limitation on their use. No material produced in whole or in part' under this Contract shall be subject to copyright in the United Sthtes or in any other country. The Client, Consultant, and NCDOT shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distri- bute and otherwise use, in whole or in part, any reports, data, or other materials prepared under this Contract. The Client and NCDOT shall retain ownership of all plans, specifications and related docu- ments. B. Delays and Extensions Reasonable extensions of the time schedule defined in Section IV shall be mutually arrived at by the Consultant and the Client in the event of• unavoidable delays considered beyond the control of the Consultant.. Final determination will lie with the Client in determining if an extension is justifiable. • C. Responsibility for Claims and Liability The Consultant shall assume all risk in connection with the performance of this Contract and shall be liable for and save harmless the Client and State of North Carolina on account of any damages to persons or • property resulting from the negligence of the Consultant in connection with the completion of the work covered by this Contract. D. General Co!mpliance with Laws The Consultant is assumed to be familiar with, and at all times shall observe anld comply with, all Federal, State and local laws, ordinances and regulations in any manner affecting the conduct of the work. E. Subletting, Assignment or Transfer Subletting, assignment or transfer of all or part of the interest of either party to this Contract is prohibited unless by written consent of the other party and the approval of the NCDOT. F. Covenant Against Contingent Fees The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any com- pany or person other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant to solicit or secure this Contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant any fee, commission, percentage, 05E brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Contract. For breach or • violation of this warranty, the Client shall have the right to annul this Contract without liability, or, in its discretion, to deduct from the Contract price, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. G. Control All work -by the Consultant is to be done in a manner satisfactory to the Client and in accordance with the established customs, practices and procedures of the Client. The Client may request, from time to time, visits to the Consultant's office to inspect work being done by the Consultant, and conferences to insure that the work is being done by the Consultant in a tastisfactory manner and that all work is per- formed in accordance with the wishes of the Client. H. Responsibility for Performance by Subcontractors The Consultant shall be responsible for the performance of any approved Subcontractors performing work under this Contract. The provisions of this section shall also apply to any approved Subcontractors performing work under the terms of this Contract. I. Amendments The Client may, from time to time, require changes in the scope of services of the Consultant to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of the Consultant's compensation, which are mutually agreed upon by and between the Client and the Conisultant, shall be incorporated in written amendments to this Contract. J. Interest of Members or Delegates to Congress No member of, or delegate to, the Congress of the -United States shall be admitted to any share or part of this Contract or to any benefit arising therefrom. K. Prohibited Interest • No member, officer, or employee of the Client, during his tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Contract or the proceeds thereof. _ . 0 L. Copyright No material produced in whole or in part under this Contract shall be subject to copyright in the United States or in any other country. The NCDOT, Client, and Consultant shall have unrestricted authority to publish, dilsclose, distribute and otherwise use, in whole or in part, any reports, data, or other materials prepared under this Contract. • M. Disputes • In any dispute concerning a question or fact in connection with the work on this Contract, or compensation thereof, the decision of the - Orange Cmiinty Manager in the matter shall be final and conclusive for both parties. N. Maintenance of Records Records must be maintained to show actual time involved in accomplish- ment of the project and costs incurred. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Orange County and Carter Goble Associates, Inc. executed this Contract as of the date first above written. for • for Carter Goble Associates, Inc. Orange County • By: Date: Date:• Attest: 1?). c Attest: Date: . 4 IC( Date: 057 Attachment A Scope of Services • • • • • ! • • • • O5 TECHNICAL APPROACH • CGA's proposed scope of work for this project will, pursuant to the Request For Proposals, correspond to the standard outline for TDP preparation out- lined in "Transportation Development Planning for Non-Urbanized Areas: A ' Guidebook for Local Governments and Service Providers." The 23 steps con- tained in this NCDOT guidebook are embodied in our ten consecutive work tasks. In several cases, CGA has combined NCDOT steps to take advantage of on-site presence of the Consultant in order to carry out the study in a manner as economically efficient as possible. The following Idescription of the proposed work program follows the outline of work detailed in our letter, dated September 18, 1985. In order to demonstrate comparability between the proposed work program and the NCDOT • process, each of the NCDOT steps are listed in parenthesis under each CGA task heading. WORK PROGRAM • Task 1: Study Organization and Introductory Steering Committee Meeting (TDP Steps 1 and 2) This task will set the direction for the remainder of the .study effort. CGA will approach these introductory work efforts by addressing two key subtask s Subtask 1.1—Study Organization. This subtask is particularly important, given the complexity and diversity of conditions and the availability of existing transortation services in Orange County. In this task, the Consultant proposes to hold an initial meeting with the project director from Orange County and the technical representative from the North Carolina 2-1 O56 Department of Transportation. The purpose of this meeting would be two- fold: 1. To discuss, State and local objectives in the TDP update and to deter- mine priorities for the Consultant's work focus; and 2. To discuss the study schedule and determine from the NCDOT represen- tative howl preliminary findings from the planning work will or will not be used or needed in the submittal and evaluation of Federal grant applications' --applications whose deadlines will fall prior to the corn- pletion of the Orange County TDP. It will be very important for Orange County and the Consultant to under- stand expectations for each of the two issues outlined above. The NCDOT process for preparing a TDP has been summarized into a simple 23-step process; however, each of these steps involves the completion of a myriad of details in order to address the guidelines if enforced to their fullest extent. For *ample, virtually the entire budget allocated for this study could be expended in the examination of Chapel Hill Transit/Orange County coordination. While this issue is important, Orange County certainly will have other objeCtives and priorities that the Consultant will also need to consider. To complete the TDP within the budget allocated for the project, CCA would like to define eny local and State priorities at the very onset of the project. Therefore, this subtask will involve a meeting of the appropriate Orange County officials and NCDOT representatives as soon as the study contract is executed as the first step in the study process. The meeting would be designed to ensure that the Consultant fully understands these State and local expectations with respect to the available budget. This process will result in the Consultant being able to respond with •the appropriate level of effort to the work tasks necessary to successfully complete the TIT. Secondly, the Request For Proposals indicates that a preliminary report will be due by March 1986 and be acceptable to NCDOT in order to apply for Section 18 funds, if appropriate. If such an interim report can be used (in place of a completed and approved TDP—and recent experience suggests that it cannot) to support a grant application, the Consultant will want to establish a complete understanding of the requirements for this interim report in order o produce a document that is useful to Orange County offi- cials. The Consiultant proposes to also address in this preliminary meeting all issues of the overall study schedule in relation to the production of this interim report. Subtask 1.2—Conduct Initial Steering Committee Meeting. As soon as practical after the initial study management meeting, the Consultant will meet with the Project Steering Committee. The primary purpose of the- 2-2 .06t • • meeting would be to establish study goals and objectives, although the Consultant woOld suagest an agenda for the meeting that would accomplish, at a minimum: ° Introduction of Committee members • • ° Review of the TDP process ° Review of the Consultant's proposed work program Announcement of the study schedule - Review of human service agency survey instrument o Establishment of interview appointments with human service agencies ° Establishment of goals and objectives • - By the close ef the first Steering Committee meeting, all parties should have a full understanding of the work program, objectives, and schedule to be followed thereafter. Task 2: Ser lice Area Profile (TDP Step 3) This task will provide for a brief overview of the relevant service area characteristics that may impact transportation services delivery. Follow- ing the NCDOT suggestion of brevity in this section of the planning document, the Consultant will rely on secondary sources, such as existing land use plans, census reports, and regional economic forecasts in the preparation of this overview. Maps will be prepared of the study area location and major centers of population. Task 3: Inventory of Existing Transportation Services (TDP Steps 4 through 7) The Consultant will update the inventory of available ground passenger transportation 4ervices in Orange County, describing the operating charac- teristics, vehicles, routes, schedules, facilities, revenues and expenses, and ridership for these providers (to the extent possible). The task will be divided into'several subtasks, with each subtask addressing a different transportation mode. Subtask 3.1—hrventory Chapel Hill Transit. The Consultant will inven- tory and report Chapel Hill Transit's (CHT) route design, individual route and schedule information, current public and elderly/handicapped fare poli- cies, E-Z Rider services, hours of service by route, and summarize recent ridership history. A roster of existing transit vehicles will be obtained and information regarding other capital facilities, such as the CHT 2-3 0 61 maintenance facility, will also be obtained. Particular attention will be directed towards documenting cooperative fare/pre-paid pass arrangements; specialized serrvices; vehicles designed for elderly/handicapped services, etc.; and the willingness and attitudes of transportation officials to expand the cur' rent level of coordination. Subtask 3.2—Inventory Intercity and Other Local Bus Carriers. All intercity bus Carriers operating from or through Orange County will be identified through North Carolina Utility Commission records, interviews conducted at local union terminals, and telephone interviews with managers of the respective regional carriers. For each carrier identified, the Consultant will document routes and schedules, potential interline connec- tions, and representative fares (both one-way and round-trip) to selected destinations. If local bus commuter carriers are identified, the Consultant will, through either personal or telephone interviews, ascertain the same basic inventory- . information despite the fact that such information is not usually consider- ed in the publiC domain. An emphasis for all carriers will be, however, to determine if these carriers would be interested in contract services provi- sion or other similar cooperative agreements. CGA has been involved in several situations, most recently in Killian, South Carolina, where we have obtained private sector interest in service that is operated directly between two Points—service, for example, that might be similar to a Hillsborough-Chapel Hill run. Subtask 3.3—Inventory Taxicab Companies. The Consultant will review taxicab ordinances and annual license registrations in Chapel Hill and Hillsborough in order to compile an inventory of available taxicab ser- vices. This information will be checked against a master taxicab inventory maintained by the North. Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles on file at CGA offices. Special cooperative arrangements, such as the contract services provided in Chapel Hill, will be documented. Subtask 3.11—Inventory Human Service Agencies. Using the 1982 Human Ser- vice Client Transportation Survey as a starting point, the Consultant will update the inventory of human service agencies engaged in client transpor- tation through the administration of our own inventory survey. CGA has conducted numerous transportation development plans and members of the proposed project team have conducted plans in accordance with the NCDOT guidebook in 14 North Carolina counties, including 11 counties in the last year alone. Since the firm's original conduct of the Evaluation of Elderly and Handicapped Transportation Services for the Region IV offices of UMTA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 1977/78, the firm has continually refined and improved its human service, agency survey 2-4 . _ .. ' 062 . . instrument. Ttlis survey was revised and improved again in August 1985—an improvement designed specifically for use in North Carolina. Information on human- service agencies is collected in three main- areas: (a) organization/administration;. (b) operating characteristics/vehicle re- sources; and (c) finance. This data includes, but is not limited to: ° Services provided by the agency; o Service eligibility criteria; a Number of I clients currently receiving transportation; o Method of transportation service delivery; O Maps of routes for agencies providing client fixed route services'; I . o Current and projected transportation expendittires—both . direct and I indirect; o Operating Statistics on transportation services; and * Estimated number of additional clients or future case loads that may require transportation. . - - - . - This survey wily be conducted through a personal interview process,. rather • than on a mail-ol ut/mail-in basis. CGA has found this interview method to . be faster and More accurate because it affords the opportunity to explain definitions and survey terminology on the spot. Moreover, this face-to- face contact provides better opportunities to understand the transportation problems of each agendy, enabling the preparation of recommendations that address agency -specific problems. The end result is better acceptance of the Consultant's recommendations by the affected agencies. The Consultant will also interview other agency personnel, such as social workers and senior center workers, to gather additional information on _ transportation in the County. These individuals, who must deal with trans- portation on a daily basis, can provide a good perspective on both problems and opportunities. All inventory data will be summarized and presented in written and tabular • fashion. Com arative performance statistics, such as cost per vehicle hour, cost per vehicle mile, passengers per mile, passengers per hour, 1 etc., would be analyzed for comparable carriers. Route maps and vehicle utilization charts would -be used to identify service usage patterns. In addition to examining existing service providers, the Consultant, with the assistance of the Project Steering Committee, would also identify and in- ventory agencies that are not direct service providers, but that may be in need of transit services. I . . In summary, the' Consulant's work under this task will provide a thorough overview of exiting service provision among providers and potential agency consumers of transit service, including a summary of existing transporta- tion cooperative, arrangements. -.. _.......--- 2-5 - -- •• 06(= • Task 4: Analyze Unmet Need Among the Transportation Disadvantaged and Assess Potential for General Public Transportation • (TDP Steps 9 through 13) This task will Assess unmet needs through four methods: 1). Open-ended questions concerning unmet needs from CGA's inventory of human service agencies will be analyzed to gain insight into subjective assessments con- cerning the nerd for new or additional services; 2) data will be collected on major origins, destinations, and predominant traffic flows to assess the extent to which existing transportation routes serve these key areas; 3) socioeconomic and demographic data will be collected for use in CGA's own demand estimation model to forecast the transit needs of the "transpor- tation disadvhntaged" population; and 4) the CGA model will also be'used to • predict a separ'ate assessment on the demand for rural public transportation • from the gener0 public. The first two n!ethods will be accomplished through the analysis of existing data or data c.oilected as part of this study process. The last two methods are accomplished through the use of our own in-house demand model. . i . This model, which is based upon a trip generation rate approach applied to selected census! demographic data for the study area, was originally devel- oped by CGA iri 1977. It has been refined over the years and computerized, and has proven to be a very reliable estimator of the need for public transit and paratransit potential in both rural and small urban areas. CGA • has used this triodet on all its planning and developmental efforts. The trip gener tion rates used in the model are factors that have been developed from the firm's own data collection base, which is periodically F expanded and now includes data on 109 rural and small urban transit and paratransit systems throughout the United States. The trip generation rates, in terms of trips or passengers per day are provided for both rural and small urban areas; are disaggregated for the transportation dependent (elderly, transportation handicapped, and low income persons); and, more- over, generate ow, moderate, and high demand potential estimates based on rates representative of systems that operate at either a relatively low, moderate, or high level of productivity. Consequently, the trip generation rates available within the model can be varied to be sensitive to different local conditions!, accounting for not only the size of the area, but also the level of sySitem productivity and demand usage likely to be achievable in a given environment. The data base needed from the 1980 Census to apply this model is total population, population 60 and above, households without automobiles, house- holds below poverty level income, and age group breakdowns of the total population, all by census tracts or county enumeration districts, whichever is available and I most appropriate for the given study area. Ratios expres- sing the prevalency of ten different types of transportation handicapped _ conditions that affect people's ability to use either transit or paratrans- it have also been extracted by CGA from the National Health Survey and are • 2-6 ! • 064 applied to age group breakdowns for each census tract or enumeration dis- trict in order to estimate the transportation handicapped prevalency for each subarea. This computerized model generates demand estimates by census tracts or enumeration districts for the various transit dependent subpopulations (individuals who are also likely to have human service agency clientele) and for the general public. CGA will then compare these demand estimates • with existing levels of service to .develop the estimate of unmet need. Those areas or tracts/districts exhibiting the greatest unmet need will be identified and tat rgeted for service alternative development. • Task 5: Presentation of Inventory and Analysis Results (TDP Steps .8 and 14) At the conclusion of Task 4, the Consultant will prepare an interim report detailing all findings to date. The report will be presented to the" Pro- ' ject Steering Committee at their second meeting.. In addition to the writ- ten report, the Consultant will prepare maps and overlays on a large scale, showing existing transportation routes and the locations/patterns of demand from the demand and needs assessment. The meeting will serve two purposes. First, the Committee will have an opportunity to review and comment on the report, thereby ensuring the Con- sultant has accurately described the needs and priorities of the prospec- tive users of the system prior to initiating the service development phase of the project. Second, the Committee will be given the opportunity to revise original igoals and objectives, if necessary, due to the outcome of the inventory and analysis findings. Task 6: Develop Alternative Service Improvement Concepts (TDP Steps 15 through 18) Service alternatives development will be driven by four factors: 1. What are the service design objectives as 'originally stated in Task 1 and/or revised in Task 5? 2. What were the service delivery problems identified in the inventory phase and how can they be corrected? 3. Are there significant levels of unmet need for transit services and how can these needs be met in a cost-effective manner? 2-7 06E 4. What are the local political and economic factors that will influence the acceptability of any proposed option? With these fourl considerations in mind, the Consultant will prepare a range of service options which would result in both the improvement of existing services and, if found appropriate, any expansion. In Orange County, the previous TDP addressed what is usually the primary consideration in a human services coordination plan--what will be the management and administrative mechanism for carrying out , transportation coordination. This mechanism seems satisfactory to all parties involved. Thus, in this iaspect the Consultant will focus on an evaluation of this existing administrative structure, rather than developing a completely new mechanism. Th!e Consultant anticipates that the bulk of this work will fall into the service! improvement category with emphasis on the development of a • program that is coordinated to the maximum extent feasible. To accomplish the analysis, the Consultant will employ. a two-step approach that assesses • the maximum amount of vehicle-sharing possible and, secondly, the maximum • amount of ride-sharing possible. • For each of the service options developed, a brief discussion of the option will be provided, along with ° Management/organization impacts ° Participants affected by service option o Operating parameters o Vehicle requirements ° Projected Cost • All work accomplished under this task will be summarized in a second in- terim report and presented to the Project Steering Committee in their third meeting. • Task 7: Selection of Desired Service Alternative(s) (TDP Step 19) The Consultant, having presented a range of service alternatives along with a recommended improvement strategy in Task 6, will be available to provide one-on-one assistance or guidance to any particular agency or local govern- mental entity regarding the impact on their organization of any particular alternative. After a reasonable period of review, the Project Steering Committee will be asked to make a decision as to the desired service option recommended for further development. • 2-8 • 06€ • This point in the study process is one of the most critical, as it sets the guidance for the Consultant to prepare the development and implemenation portions of the TDP. Moreover, it is critical that the Project Steering Committee reach a consensus on the selected alternative, as they will be the group to ovrrsee implementation of the plan. Task 8: Prepare Draft TDP (TDP Steps 20 and 21) The Consultant will develop the detailed service design, capital improve- ment program, funding plan, and updating/monitoring/evaluation. plans. Organization of this section of the transportation plan will focus on: ° Management/Organizational Concerns—This section will address how implementation of `selected alternatives will impact the cur- • rent or recommended administration of the coordinated program. Improvemerits in structure, organization, or procedures will be specified, as appropriate. The need for additional personnel, if required, Will also be addressed. • ° Operational' Issues--This section will focus primarily on ve- hicle utilization: routing, scheduling, driver assignment, cost sharing agrieements, joint purchase arrangements, and cooperative maintenance arrangements, as appropriate. ° Capital Improvement Plan—Based on the vehicle utilization schedule proposed under the operational plan, vehicle utilization projections as well as an assessment of new capital needs will be conducted. Replacement and/or refurbishment of existing capi- tal items, along with new equipment will be planned over a five- year horizoln. Various types of vehicles will be considered and recommends recommendel to best meet the needs of the respective users in the service environment. Consistent with State requirements, the acquisition of accessible or lift-equipped vehicles in the over- all vehicle replacement and acquisition schedule will also be addressed in this section. ° Funding—Estimated costs- for carrying out recommended actions in the five-I year plan, including administrative, operating, and capital costs will be identified. Potential sources of revenue will also be specified. 2-9 O6 7f: ° Implementation Schedule--All major actions identified in the plan will be placed in chronological order with benchmark dates attached t, each action to serve as a master schedule for imple- mentation activities. With the development of this material, the Consultant will assemble all project docurneriii tation into a draft report, entitled "Orange County Trans- - portation Development Plan: 1986 - 1991." The report will be prepared consistent with the standard outline contained on page 3 of the NCDOT. guidebook. Note that CGA proposes to use a five-year horizon covering the period 1986 through 1991, rather than the 1985 through 1990 .specified in the Request For Proposals. We-believe the proposed time span projected by CGA will more closely align with grant application deadlines and the pro- jected completion of the TOP. Copies of the draft report would be transmitted to the Project Steering Committee prior to the Corisulant making a presentation at their fourth meeting. Task 9: Final Reviews, Modification, and Approvals (nil" Step 22) The Consultant will solicit all review comments from the Project Steering Committee and NCDOT following presentation of the plan to the Committee. Upon receipt of review comments, the Consultant will incorporate changes, additions, or modifications arising from the review process into the final project documeni t. The Consultant suggests that a one-month period be allowed to incorporate these revisions into the final document. Task 10: Final Presentation The Consultant will make the final presentation to the Orange County Board of Commissionrs. Upon their final acceptance of the report, CGA will produce 50 copies of the final report for the County, as well as provide a camera-ready Original from which additional copies may be reproduced. • 2-10 06r- ON-SITE VISITS CGA would administer the project from its Raleigh, North Carolina office. Due to this close geographic proximity, the Consultant is prepared to make as many trips as necessary to conduct the project. The Consultant anticipates that a minimum of ten days on-site will be re- quired to carry out the proposed, scope of planning activities. .Five days will be required for inventory and data collection activities, while an additional fivel trips will be required to meet with County officials and the Project Steering Committee, and to present the final report to the Board of Commissioners. PROJECT REPORTING • - During the course of the proposed project, CGA will be submitting interim reports, as outlined in the preceding scope of work. These reports are Report #1: Draft Report on Inventory, Assessment, and Analysis Findings • Report #2: Draft Report on Service Alternatives Report #3: draft Firial Report - Orange County TDP Report #11-: Final Report.- Orange County TDP In addition to the submittal of these interim technical reports, CGA would also submit_monthly progress reports (on the 10th day following the close of the reporting period), detailing: o Activities accomplished during the reporting period o Problems, if any, encountered during the month o Adherence to schedule and budget Anticipated accomplishments during the next reporting period o DBE/WBE expenditures during the period This monthly reporting format was developed by one of our team members for use in North Carolina and follows the requested format specified in the Request For Prioposals, except that CGA will also provide DBE/WBE expendi- ture reports four the Client's reporting purposes. 2-11 0(h." STUDY SCHEDULE The Request For Proposals specified the milestones and time parameters, for • the conduct or the study. All work must be completed by August 31, 1986, and a maximum of ten months will be provided, to produce the draft plan. One month shol uld be allowed for local and State review, with an additional unspecified period allowed for the Consultant to make the necessary modi- fications, produce the final report, and present the report to the Orange County Board! of Commissioners. If the Consultant is allowed one month to perform these final tasks, a total study period of 12 months has been spe- cified. - Given the due date for response to your Request For Proposals, the Consul- tant selection process, and the NCDOT requirement for a pre-award audit' prior to contract execution, CGA projects that December 1, 1985 is the ear- liest realistic starting date. This schedule will not allow for a 12-month study process,. CGA has developed and proposes a schedule, outlined in Figure 1, that 'assumes a December start date and will conclude by August 31, 1986. This will result in a nine-month study. Our study schedule adheres to the sequence of tasks as outlined in our proposal and tie NCDOT TDP guidebook and will provide for the completion of appropriate tasks within a timeframe to provide for a submittal of a grant application under NCDOT's Section 16(b)(2) program, if appropriate. Specific milestones to be met by the Consultant include: - December 16, 1985: Introductory Meeting January 14, 1986: (Optional Meeting) February 11, 1986: Presentation of Inventory and Needs Analysis March lit 1986: Presentation of Alternatives April 8, 1986: Presentation of Draft TOP August 19, 1986: Presentation of TOP to Orange County Board of County Commissioners • 2-12 *z: Figure 1 WORK PROGRAM SCHEDULE TASKS MONTHS . DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 1) Study Organization/Initial Meeting mm 2) Service Area Profile 3) Inventory of Existing Services mm 4) Analysis of Unmet Need S) Presentation of Results 6) Develop Alternative Service Concepts 7) Selection of Service Alternatives) 8) Prepare Draft TDP 9) Final Reviews, Modifications and Approvals IN- 10) Final Presentation O • 071 Attachment B Project Budget • I ATTACHMENTS . .. .,,-• I North Carolina Department of Transportation ' Reserve for State Use Public Transportation Division Cost and Price Analysis: Professional Services Contracts This form is to be submitted with proposals in response to -Requests for Proposals," for the procurement of professional services.Hyour cost accounting system does not permit analysis of costs as required,contact the Public Transportation Division for further instructions. Name and Address of Offerer Title of Project Carter Goble Associates, Inc. Orange County Transportation P. 0. Box 27404, Ralei•h, NC 27612 Develo•ment Plan Estimated • Total Estimated*ill 'Omit Desaiption Rate/Hour I Horns (Dollars) 1. Direct Labor 6)&lu,74. I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIII Richard Garrit - Senior . s•ciate IliMillinnITII, INEMIMMIIII Karen L. Chinn - Senior Planner iMill1111111113e1.11.111MEMIN 48 IMWERENMEringli NNRMTrgillIllillNMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllii.M.MIMMIMINMIIII al I aIIINMMMMMIIINIMMNMMIMM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMNMMMMIIIIIIIMIIIIIMIIMNIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIMMMIIMMMMI MMMNMMMMIIIII/IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/IIMMMIMIMMMIIIIIM ---a . I Total Direct Labor 12 9 al 2. Burden Overhead— ,:... '1, De.artment or Cost Center Burden Rate X Base= Burden % biSSIWEESSMBE te1 illif:71111.111.mimmiammgmenzme Ell ' 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111E, .. IIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINI al IIIIIIIIIIMMIIIIIIIIINNIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIMNNNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILMNIMIIIIII_ tiMENi§ §11$11 I Total Burden :::iii::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::W.**1111 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::' 1 08 III 3. Direct Material Printin. 0 .04/page: IIII..i./illNIIIIMI interim Resort #1 I 70 •a•es x 18 cosies = 1 260 50 11111.011MIN nterim Resort #2 I 25 " x 18 " = 450 11111MMEIMENIMIIIIII. Draft TDP I 110 " x 18 " = 1 980 79 11111111111•111111 Final TDP I 110 ' " x 50 " = 500 arrallMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIII .111111.1111.... 1111111 Total Material RigUEM 367 III 4. S•- iil Testin: ncludi . Ltd work at,• - ment installations MORESSEINUMEn 111111111111111MMEMENE . 1111.11111111111MMESSMN . - 111111111111MEMEM Total S. •..": Testin:. Signang111111111111111111111111111 5. S.ecial E. i•ment direct cha .4,..1.." ' in Exhibit B on reverse IMIIIIMIIIIIMIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 6. Travel direct cha ,e I 11111111111111EMennang a. Trans..rtatior. 658 ml. 0 20.5 IIKEIIIIIMMEEMEN b. Per Diem or Subsistence I Total Travel • :iii;iiiiii:iiiNi!iii:::::::: 135 al 7. Consultants detail_ NEMEMBEEREMIEN Jo ce P. Marchand in-house con ul al - • IMMINIESEMEMEN NEEMENNEVA INIMMIEMIKENE 111/../Mintenng 1 Total Consultants . intiMENIIIIIM/1111, 111111 8. Subcontracts rs,. .A, in Exhibit A on reverse Davi• J B • it • • - , II IltirgracmgmrEr ,emi zn =III S on reverse 10. Total Direct Cost and Burden 11111111111111111111' Ill . 1....................111111ninilli, Ill 11. General and Administrative E •-nse 'ate 90.4 %o 3217 simull :Till 12. I Total Estimated Cost • 13. Fixed Fee or Profit State basis or amount in law,• at : 1 Cl • 14. I Total Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee or Profit I • II IIII 1 FORM PTO 20(Rev.7/85) I 1 , • Exhibit A—Subcontracts • For each subcontractor/supplier participating in this project,the proposal must include the following information as`E dhibit A": (1)The names of subcontractors/suppliers participating in the contract; (2)A description of the work each of them is to perform or products provided;and(3)the dollar value of each proposed subcontract. • 5S� ' Firm Name Description of Tasks to be Performed Contract Dollar Valve ti3 Burton g Task 2 - Service Area Profile (100%) • $1110 • Associates task 3 - Inventory (12%) 280 Task A -- Unmet Need- (29%) • 350 • Task 8 - Prepare TDP (60 _195 } • $875 • • • • • p - • • • • • { Exhibit B—Other Direct Costs • • • Direct Cost(Speci.f9)j Estimated Hours) Rate/Hour Total Estimated Cost(Dollars) • • • • • FORM PTD 20(Reverse) • 1 . . . _ • • - ' I • • , ORANGE *COUNTY - 074 . . • 1 . . 1 • BOARD. OF COMMISSIONERS • - ACTION AGENDA . I ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM H0.148 - MEETING.DATE Dece mber 2, 19149 • . , . - • 1 - . . I • . . • SUBJECT:. General Liability and Automobile Insurance Coverige . . . .- • . . . : . DEPARTMENT: Purchasing & Central Services I —PUBLIC HEARING YES x NO _....--- . . . . . . . • ATTACHMENT(S): . . • _INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam ..Tones, ext. 497 • . . NONE ' ..' ' PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 - : HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9351 . • . • . . -. - CHAPEL HILL. - 967-9251 - . - . • MEBANE - 227-2031 - . . . ' DURHAM - 688-.7331 • . . . . . . .. % .. . . . . . -... - PURPOSE: To have the Board consider 'ratifying the County Manager's binding of General Liability and Automobile Insuriicecoverage. . - .. • • .... • - • : - . - • . . . . . . • • - - .- • •. ' - ' ' - . . . . _ . • • • - . . . . . . . . - - - - - -: .. . . - ' . . . . - - . • • - • . ' - • - • - . . . . • . . . - • NEED: As predicted; the premiums for these coverages have increased substantially'. • ' Current estimates indicate an estimated $100,000 for General Liability and . • . . $70,000 for Automobile Liability. - . • . - . . - The Purchasing and Central Services Director has been actively seeking a . - • markei:for this coverage. Proposals-were submitted to approximately 30- - .--: . . • markets and were turned down by all but Charter, Inc. Charter; Inc.. is . . new in writing insurance in North Carolina. The County is fortunate in •. - being able to obtain this coverage at all (This is not due to the County ... • • as a risk.J. The industry is not interested in the governmental markdt as . . . - . a whole.) . . • . . : . An• actual quote has not been received from this Company as .of this writing. - However, if this Company does provide a quote, the insurance will have to • be placed on 11-27-85. Current policies expire 11-28-85. IMPACT: 1 it is anticipated the County will be expending $170,000 for the coverage. • A budget amendment of $65,000 will be required if the quotes come in as expected. The amendment will be brought o the Board at the next . meeting. . . . • . . • . RECOMMENDATION(S): Ratify the County Manager's binding of General Liability and - . •I Automobile Liability Insurance coverage. • 075 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date December 2. 1985 Action A nda Item # SUBJECT: PROPOSED SEDIMENTATON AND EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No Attachment(s) Information Contact : WARREN FAIRCLO H TEXT OF PROPOSED MENDMENTS DRAFT MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 1985 PLANNING BOARD MEETING Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 -- Durham — 68B-7331 -- EXT 351 Mebane — 227--2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 _ PURPOSE: To consider the proposed amendments to the Sedimentation a d Erosion Control Ordinance. The proposed amendments we e presented at the November 4, 1985 Public Hearing . To receive the recommendation of the Planning Board concerni g the proposed amendments . • NEED: The North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission has ap proved a revised Model Local Soil Erosion and Sedime.ntatio Control Ordinance to make it consistent with changes to th: Sedimentation Pollution Control Act and its Regulations. Th- Commission has mandated that all local governments administer ing such ordinances revise their Local ordinance to conform t. the Model Ordinance by January 1 , 1986. IMPACT: The proposed revisions are primarily minor changes to the word ing of the Ordinance and will not substantially affect th - application or enforcement of the Ordinance. Most of th : requested changes are currently incorporated in Orange County ' : Ord.Hance . If th!a Board approves the proposed PP roves amendments , the changes wil be sent to the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commissio for their review and approval as required by State Law. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of amendments . 07€ PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ORANGE COUNTY SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE SECTION 2 Section 2 Purposes This ordinance is adopted for the purposes of: Cl ) Regulating the clearing , grading , excavation , fill- ing and manipulation of the earth and the moving and storing of waters in order to : control and prevent alccelerated soil erosion and sedimentation , prevent the pollution of water, prevent damage to public and private property, maintain the balance of nature, prevent the obstruction of natural and artificial drainageways, inhibit flooding and reduce the under— miming of roads and other transportation facilities . NOTE: The underlined portions of the paragraph above will be added to the Ordinance . SECTION 3 Section 3 Definitions Act means the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 and all rules and orders adopted pursuant to it . NOTE: This definition will be added to the Ordinance. Person Responsible for the Violation — as used in this Ordinance means : (a) the developer or other person who has or holds himself/herself out as having financial or operational control over the Land—disturbing activity; and /or (b) the landowner or person in possession or control of the L6nd when he/she has directly or indirectly allowed the 1.6nd—disturbing activity or has benefited from it or he/she has failed to comply with any provision of this Drdinance, the Act , or any order adopted pursuant to this Ordinance or the Act as imposes a duty upon him/h r . 07 NOTE: This! definition wi ll be added to the Ordinance. Person Conducting Land—disturbing Activity — means any person who may be held responsible for a violation unless expressly provided otherwise by this Ordinance, the ! Act, or any order adopted pursuant to this Ordi- nance or the Act. NOTE: This definition will be substituted for the definition of Person Conducting the Land—disturbing Activity in the Ordinance. Siltation — means sediment resulting from accelerated erosion which is settleable or removable by properly designed, constructed, and maintained control measures; and Which has been transported from its point of origin _ withn the site of a land—disturbing activity; and which has been deposited, or is in suspension in water . NOTE: This definition will be added to the Ordinance. • Sedimentation — means the process by which sediment resulting from accelerated erosion has been or is being tranSported off the site of the Land—disturbing activi- ty or into a Lake or naturaL watercourse . • NOTE: This definition will be substituted for the definition of sedimentation in the Ordinance. Working Days — means days exclusive of Saturday and Sunday during which weather conditions or sail condi— • tions permit land—disturbing activity to be undertaken . NOTE: The word "days" has been added along with the phase "or soil conditions" to this definition . NOTE: The letter designation before each definition in the Ordinance will be deleted and the entire section reorgSni zed with the terms Listed in alphabetical orderl. SECTION 4 Section 4 Scope and Effect Whenever conflicts exist between federal, state or local laws, ordinances, or rules , the more restrictive provision shalt apply . NOTE: Note this paragraph wilt be added at the end of Section 4. SECTION 8 • Section 8 Mandatory Standards for Land—disturbing Activity No land—disturbing activity subject to the control of this ordinance shall be undertaken except in accordance with the following mandatory standards: NOTE: The word "mandatory" will. be added before "standards". d . Design and Performance of Control Measures — erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices shall be so planned, designed, and constructed as to provide !protection from accelerated erosion and sedimenta- tion from the calculated peak rate of runoff from a ten— year frequency storm . NOTE: The Words "protection from" will be substituted for floor:trot of" in the Ordinance. e. Prior P Lan Approval * No person shall. initiate any Land- disturbng activity if more than 20,000 square feet is to be uncovered un Less , thirty or more days prior to initi- ating the activity, an erosion and sedimentation contro plan for such activity is filed with, approved by, and a Grading !Permit obtained from the County. NOTE: The above paragraph wi IL be added at the end of Section 8. SECTION 9 Section 9 Permanent Downstream Protection of Stream Banks and Channels b . HI the velocity as determined from the table of permissi- ble velocity for stormwater in 3) , or NOTE: Thij, section has been revised to correctly refer to the tab lie of permissable velocity contained in this section of tihe Ordinance . SECTION 13 Section 13 Responsibility for Installation and Maintenance During the development of a site, the person engaged in or conducting the land—disturbing activity shall be responsible for installing and maintaining all temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures and facilities as required by the approved or revised Erosion Control Plan . The respohsiblity for maintaining all permanent erosion and sedimentatlion control measures and facilities after site development is completed shall Lie with the land owner except facilities! and measures installed within road or street right—of—way or easements accepted for maintenance by a government agency. NOTE: Section 13 will be expanded to include responsibility for installation as well as maintenance and rearranged for i clarity. The paragraph above will be substituted for the one in the Ordinance. SECTION 15 Section 151 Existing Uncovered Areas b . The Erosion Control Officer will serve upon the Landowner written I notice to comply by registered or certified mail., return receipt requested, or other means . NOTE: The requirement concerning registered or certified mail is being added to the first sentence in "b". d. This rule shall not require ground cover on cleared land forming the future basin of a planned reservoir unless the disturbance and length of time of the exposure prior to the filling of the reservoir will result in erosion and sedimentation of the downstream channel . NOTE: "d" will be added to Section 15. The condition concern- ing title time of exposure before filling the reservoir has been added to prevent situations where the site may 08€ be Left disturbed for Long periods if there was a delay in filling the reservoir. 1 SECTION 17 Section 171 Permits a . No permlit is required for the following activities: I 1 . For the purpose of fighting fires. 2. For he stock piling of raw or processed sand , stone, or gavel in material processing plants end storage yards, provided that sediment control measures have beenIutilized to protect against off—site damage. 3. For disturbances that do not exceed 20,000 square feet in surface area In determining the area, contiguous lands under one or diverse ownership being developed as 1. a unit will be aggregated. NOTE: This paragraph will be added to Section 17a to specify whatlactivities do not require permits. SECTION 18 Section 18 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans c . Failure to approve or disapprove a complete erosion and sedimentation control plan within 30 days of receipt of the complete plan shall be deemed approval. Denial of a plan must specifically state in writing the reasons for deniaL. IThe county must approve or deny a revised plan within 15 days of receipt , or it is deemed to be approved . If, following commencement of a land—disturbing activity pursuant to an approved ptan ,the County determines that the plan is inadequate to meet the requirements of this ordinance, the County may require such revisions as are necessary to comply with this ordinance. I In order to be considered complete, a plan submitted for approval must contain the proposed erosion control plan, the completed application , the statement of financial - responsibility and ownership, and the plan review fee . The 30 day review period begins when all of the components of the I omplete plan are received. NOTE: Section 18c will be expanded to include the two para- graphs above. 081 e. If the Erosion Control Officer, either upon review of the Erosion Control Plan or on inspection of the job site, determines that a significant risk of accelerated erosion or off—kite sedimentation exists, revisions to the plan will be! required. Pending the preparation of the revised plan, work shall cease or shall continue under conditions outlined by the Erosion Control Officer. NOTE: The paragraph above will be added to subsection a of Section 18. f. Erosion Control Plans shall be accompanied by an autho- rized statement of financial responsiblity and ownership . This statement shall be signed by the person financially responsible for the land—disturbing activity or his/her attorney in fact. The statement shall include the mailing and street addresses of the principal place of business of the perSon financially responsible and of the owner of the Land or their registered agents . NOTE: Paragraph "f' will be added at the end of Section 18. g . A copy of the approved Erosion Control Plan and any amend- ments and required revisions shall be kept on the job site at all times . NOTE: Paragraph "g" will be added to Section 18. SECTION 19 Section 19 ,Appeals a . The disapproval or modification of any proposed erosion controllplan by the Erosion Control Officer shall entitle the person submitting the plan to an appeal of the deci- sion to ' the Orange County Planning Director. If the Planning Director upholds the denial , the person shall be entitled to a public hearing if such person submits writtenldemand for a hearing within 15 days after receipt of written notice of disapproval or modification . NOTE: The underlined portion of paragraph a will be added to the Ordinance. This change is being added to allow a reasonable appeal prior to holding a public hearing on the denial . O8 d . In the event that the Local governing body upholds the disapproval or modification of a proposed erosion control plan following the public hearing , the person submitting the erolsion control plan shalt be entitled to appeal the local governments action to the North Carolina Sedimenta- tion Control Commission as provided in Section 113A-51 (c] of the 'General Stautes and Title 15 NCAC 48 .0018(b) . NOTE: The aragraph above will be substituted for paragraph "d" I in the Ordinance . It has been revised to refer appeOs to the Sedimentation Control Commission instead of the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. 1 SECTION 21 Section 21 Inspections and Investigations b . If, through inspection , it is determined that a person engaged in Land—disturbing actrivity has failed to comply with the approved plan , a notice of violation shall be served upon that person by registered or certified mail, return receit requested, or other means . The notice shall set forth the measures necessary to achieve compliance with the plan, specify a reasonable time period within which such measures must be completed, and warn that failurelto correct the violation within the time period will result in the assessment of a civil penalty or other enforcement action . If the person engaged in Land disturbing activity fails to comply within the time specified, enforcement action shalt be initiated . NOTE: Section 21b of the Ordinance will be replaced with the paragraph above. 1 SECTION 22 Section 22 Penalties a . (1 ) Any 'person who violates any of the provisions of this ordinance or rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this ordinance, or who initiates or continues a Land— disturbing activity for which an erosion control plan is required except in accordance with the terms, conditions, and provisions of an approved plan , shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $100. No penalty shall be assessed{ until the person alleged to be in violation has been notified of the violation by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or other means. The notice Shall describe the violation with reasonable particularity, specify a reasonable time period within Ofie' which the violation must be corrected, and warn that failure to correct the violation within the time period will result in the assessment of a civil penalty or other enforcement action . Each day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate violation under Section 22(e) (1 ) . NOTE: The underlined portion of Section 22a (1 ) will be added to the Ordinance. a . Civil Penalties [2] Thej Orange County Board of Commissioners shall deter- mine thd amount of the civil penalty to be assessed under this subsection and shall make written demand for payment upon the person in violation, and shall set forth in detail a description of the violation for which the penal- ty has been imposed . In determining the amount of the penalty the Board of Commissioners shall consider the degree and extent of harm caused by the violation and the cost of rectifying the damage. If payment is not received or equitable settlement reached within 30 days after demand for payment is made the matter shall be refered to the county attorney for institution of a civil action in the name of Orange County, in the appropriate division of the Gendral Courts of Justice for recovery of the penalty . Any sumS recovered shall be used to carry out the purposes and requirements of this ordinance. NOTE: The underlined portion of Section 22a (2) will be added to tle Ordinance. jW-APr ; //--/O- 36I I."PLA-AlMtNG eobeb MI ktUr 084 and since the lots had to be split because the road eliminated the opportunity to create 10+ acre Lots she decided to split the lots even smaller in size. She felt the Lots were nicely shaped as proposed. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM: AMENDMENTS TO THE SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE} Presentation by FaircLoth. MOTION I moved approval of amendments to Sections 2 and G. VOTE: Unanimous (Kramer out of the room.) • MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of amendments to Sections 4-15 . Pearson seconded the motion . VOTE: Unanimous (Kramer out of the room.) MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of amendments to Sections - 17-22. Pearson seconded the motion . Margison inquired if the fine was $100 a day. Faircloth responded that each day constituted a separate violation and therefore each day could represent a fine of $100.00. Gordon inquired what was meant be civil penalties . Faircloth responded that in some cases, particularly in the state enforcement of state—wide ordinance, negotiations take place on settlements for violations . He noted that nothing comparable had ever occurred in Orange County during his tenure. He suggested that the intention here was to clarify how fines are imposed and on what basis. Pearson noted that the penalty could not exceed $100.00 a violation . He added that court action could be taken to obtain damages as well in addition to the fines . Faircloth noted that no fines had been imposed in Orange County in three years . Shanklin inquired about the Scott case. Faircloth noted that that situation was a 1 violation of a different pollution ordinance in that manure was present in a stream. Shanklin noted that the provision was likely included to address a decision in a court case. VOTE: Unanimous Faircloth noted that the amendments would be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners for decision and then to the State Commission for approval before they would become effective in Orange County. • 1 ORANGE COUNTY OBE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date DECEMBER 2. 1985 Action_15:da Item # SUBJECT: ED JOYN R 'S CREEK — PRELIMINARY DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact: JANE ATWATER CHECKLIST VICINITY MAP PRELIMINARY PLAN DRAFT 11-18-85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8191 1 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To censider approval, of the Ed Joyner's Creek Subdivisio property of George Brumley. To receive the Planning Board recommendation . NEED: The property in question is Located on SR 1006 (Orange Gro e Road) in Bingham Township . The property is referenced as Lot 15E on Tax Map 4. It is bordered by agricultural, and residential, development . The tract is designated as Agricultural—Residential on the Land Use Plan . There are four (4) lots proposed out of approximately 21 . 1 acreS. The lot sizes are 2 tots at 5.0 acres and 2 tots at 4. acres excluding the right—of—way. The property is zoned A-- (AgricuLturet—ResidentiaL) . Access is provided to the sit. from1SR1006 via an Orange County Private Class "B" road. Fir. protection for the property in question is provided by th. Orange Grove Rural. Fire District. Law enforencement provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department . It will b - patrdlled on a 24 hour basis . IMPACT: Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact o the area. The projected traffic generation for thi : subdivision is approximately 26.8 (6.7 trips x 4 lots) trip: per day. According to the Department of Transportation , th: 1984 11(most current) traffic count is 200 for SR1006 which wa: deteriuined from the north side of SR1128. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommended approval of the Preliminar Plan on November 18, 1985. -- . j• I•.-: 08 i e- 62:6 I ''..-' DISTRiCT .., 6 1 AC I . I '/'? •L'( i V... 1199'itakQ.,_._•_x4f_.,_,_ __thi , . 7/1.4.://7/7138.25.4 AC. 1 ...:. - ..... ...... .— -;; --- 1 ri) ..rov 14 E. 6-844-4alies.„-i;-,,, , .... • , , blVAA41-11 vP,Ai ; /---\ '.., - "'".- 'L--—- _ - •J AL Fi APPLICANT : °CaZ6- - gm,,R.E5IDE OM. i LE!). it3r 1 --...,_ '...-- , "-""--.2=11* - BJ4/NG.: A k--Aoaleutitt , i - (-----\ - 1 k- 2-, . , , ,/ uRAJ\IGc- --4.------=.:. at p pgsIG-NA-n04: AGP,,,-", ,L/113PAL P-E51 1)Et473.1%5 \_,1, L. 2 45 AC. /...- RAG"" g , ! --- - f 8.9 AC "'s, 2 _.' / ZS .AC• . / / ' • 5 A C . . *-,....../ '8548 ,:a, ,.? 3526 / I -.6 I'- ..._: , ;13 , .21 .-N, 2 i 1 . ■,,_,,/ x 4..,r/ 4 AC. . I 933 , - ' . . 4 • 1 0 4 / ' C) • • I AC. , 1 • L'').?/ . . // . 4, , , 0 6.04AC AC. .' . , 4 9 70 • '.. . 4/7, H I — 0930 Ce...4 ." I es 39 949 AC ' I (--3D) 6.91 AC. 6.75 AC. \ . . . ,V ' 8518 34 AC: --. (—N 6514 l, '5 ' • 4447 .1 i • . ' 9389 // I . 1 0 '6'4\ ///IA I • . 6' • / jk 428 ./ 5. 9296.-• ,:c' ' Y1 i • . 1,174 Illip. ..--- • j • ///A 66 2 3-4 5 AC. -86 - i , 7--1 / ./ „di. ,„/ E.Ivii-,f,... i . i. . -- . ..41111111Gitt . / .. I AC - 2 AC ieL..-411■ZE ritiriT •, t, -4.,eala■,..14aNk—IwNis, /2 leilkalirIghltth■lb, "1111110-4-P / N. INX"Np,,.. . ,L370 • MIL111110V44414,. I • \ ILNIANOL 7/- LIIILNIlellbill■w"111116, mARIIIILIL----- 111111h,„11111 , ..- • , .7- (- :-•- . /- vic._ „k WIIII01101.011ftwa...–. It / 1] • `—'" . . I I • • • I 5CAL4: in.L.-4D01-00 01 o • 0 001 °.1 c). MAJOR SUBDIVISION? CHECKLIST NAA41E OF SUBDIVISION Fn .inymFg,S rRFFK =ER OR DEVELOPER ANN MOSS JOYNER ADDRESS RT. 5 Box 31 , Mebane NC 27302 Owner: George Brumley TOWNSHIP Bingham TAX MAP 4 • BLOCK LOT 15 E NAME OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER Total number of lots_ 4 T_o be developed in 1 phase_(r.)-,—To_tal-number-of acres---2J 0 -- Typical dwelling units at present or proposed 1 Per tnt' WATER SUPPLY: Public (Name) Commnuity Individual X SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public Community Individual Septic tank X SCHOOL DISTRICT !- FIRE DISTRICT nrnnqp- rmrnye Rur,Zl_ Access onto State Roa d Road Standard: Public or Private Class A , B X , C Existing critical areas such as streams (X ), Flood prone areas ( ), Watershed {�}, Historic Sites ( ) , Other ( } Explain: Stream f,Pd 1 na New Hopi • , re k 145-acre watershed Land uses in the general Vareajgr1cj,1 tjIra1 /res iden j� SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 10_tp_pr, Approved ( ) Recommended Changes ( X ) PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 11-1-85 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Preliminary Review by Health Department Ron Holdwav 10-22-85 Erosion Control: Officer MKR 10-23-85 Board of Education Ira Trollinger 11-7-85 Department of Transportation OWASA (if possible) Other - Mebane (if possible) -Hillsborough (if possible) -Orange/Alamance (if possible) Preliminary Action by the Planning Board_Approved. 11-18-85 Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners FINAL PLAT RECEIVED (Date) ( ) All lots were approved by the Health Departm3. t ( ) 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 Ok*ASA approval (where applicable) on'all plans & specifications, Date ( ) Final DOT approval on plat ( } Final action by the Planning Board Q cc �i Uirr 1& S6- PIANAII1(6 6M12-6 141141)7L5 08S prior to submitting the subdivision for approval. Shanklin agreed with Walters but indicated he would not approve a road with poor sight distance. Pearson suggested that the applicant had two options: l) to construct a road at the southern end of the property which was the worst Location from the developer's perspective or 2] to construct a road at the Location recommended by staff. Smith commented that option #1 was unacceptable to NCOOT. Gordon asked why the applicant had difficulty with the staff recommendation . Griffin responded that the road was built before they were informed of a problem . He noted that the original subdivision design had changed a number of times to accomodate the sale of the tot containing the existing house. MOTION: Kramer moved denial of the subdivision . PiLkey seconded the motion . VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM ED JOYNER SUBDIVISION— PRELIMINARY Atwater made the staff presentation . Best inquired if the owner of the front lot was the owner of the lots being subdivided. Atwater responded no Pearson asked if the Brumley lot was part of the subdivision . Smith responded no and noted that the entire tract had been subject to a 10+ acre lots subdivision and subsequent recombination . PiLkey asked what type of stream crossed the property. Shanklin responded interrmittent . MOTION: Shanklin moved approval. Best seconded the motion . Jacobs inquired if this would be a private road . Atwater responded yes and that the 60' strip belonged to Lot #4. Ann Joyner, applicant , commented that she felt this was a straightforward subdivision 09% and since th.e Lots had to be split because the roar; eliminated the oppor.t.unity to create 101- acre lots she decided to split the . Lots even smeller in size . She felt the lots were nicely shaped 'as proposed'. • VOTE: Unanimous'. - AGENDA ITEM : AMENDMENTS TO THE SEDIMENTATION An.-[, EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE) Presentation by Faircloth . fOTI.ON : moved approval of umendm.ents to • Section;; P and S . VOTE: • Unanimous [Kramer out of the room . ) • • MOTION : Shank Li n moved approval_ of amendments to • Sections 4-15 . Pearson seconded the motion . • VOTE: Unanimous (Kramer out of the room . ) NOTION : Shenk Lin moved approval of amendments. to • • Sections 17-22. Pearson seconded the • motion . largison inquired if the fine was $100 day . Faire Loth responded that each day constituted a separate violation and therefore each day could represent a fine of $100 .00 . Gordon inquired what was meant be civil. penalties . Fair-cloth responder that in some cases , particularly in •the state enforcement of state—wide ordinance , negotiations take place on settic:Grent> for violations . He noted that nothing comparable had ever occurred in Orange County during his tenure . He suggested that the intention here was to clarify he fines are imposed and on what basis . Pearson noted that the penalty could net exceed $100. DLi a violation . He added that court action could be taken to obtain damages as welt in addition to the fines Fn•i r cloth noted that no fines had been imposed in Granite. County in throe` yet rs Sher:i: Lio inquired about the Scott coon . FaircLeth rioted that that situation was a violation of a different pollution ORANGE COUNTY 091 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date DECEMBER 2, 1985 Action Agenda Item #=,S SUBJECT: CANBARRA SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No _.I Attachment(s) Information Contact : EDDIE KIRK CHECKLIST VICINITY MAP PRELIMINARY PLAN ' DOT LETTER DRAFT 11-18-85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider the Preliminary Plan for Canberra subdivision . To receive the Planning Board's recommendation . On October 21 , 1985 the Planning Board recommended that the subdivision be redesigned to provide access to each Lot via a private road constructed to Orange County standards and located along the western property tine of proposed Lot #8. The developer has not submitted a redesigned plan . To satisfy the 70 day review period requirement in the subdivision regulations , the Planning Board had to make a reoo mendation at their November 18, 1985 meeting . NEED: The property in question is located in Eno Township off SR1553 (Walker Road) . It is known as part of lot 19, Tax Map 0 . There are 6 lots proposed out of 7.3 acres . A privalIte road, has been constructed by the applicant acros the Mastern property Line of Lot #3 . The a pp licant proposed this road as a class B private road to serve Lots #1-7 . The property is zoned Agricultrual—Residential (A—R) and is desig ated Agricultural Residential in the Land Use Plan . It is Located in the Orange Rural Fire District. IMPACT: The aidditian of B lots could add approximately 40 trips per day to Walker Road. The sight distance looking west from the intersection of Canberra Drive and Walker Road is approximatly 600 ' . The sight distance looking east is approiximately 295' . The Department of Transportation has indiclated that this is inadequate sight distance and that the Iroad should be relocated where the existing drive exits; proposed Lot number 8. RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Board recommends denial . 1 430..........i --—•••,,,,- \ 622 ) •?4\s 2, . .. 092. a 17.35 AC. • 4 ,.............._. *. - 4, ---,....,--.., 2.3 AC. I . . • • -...„ "''''•:,..1; . I/ • . ,- -■ • at .t. qt", / ....7:.....,,,.... _ .-: ,i..,.: / illiF . • 00 C)8918 -,, N • *17 1.169 .1 AC.9975 -N"\•..\ - 4.5 AC.CA ". \\\ ii • • z / • • \‘..\ •068 4 i- / ,., . Li• 1 8.88 AC.CAL./ I . . - / ./ li . / 4, I : •,,,, 4/ 4.:. 2,„®3 7410 *... .,, 4:t..\ 46 tt z . . , ta Ft/ \\, "1 k5.41 AC.CAL. 0 0 . . . \\ // 3365 .• AC 6.8 5 AC :I. . \\ G.... ;'11:. -I • EIDP° 6 4 7A C L i •* , - . 1 #.0t,•010 \\\\ • : \\ -,4 1.98 ac cat \ FL/ ;r0 . . i Alto.. A \ 26.774 - 9s /1 1,0I 0 • 53.6 AC , . 1 • • 421 ' • CANBARRA i . Applicant: Fred G. Sorrell 11I t c. . LUP Designation: Ag....Res N \ .■ , , _.... . 13 Zone: A-R scale: i": 400'. /.7 - • . ......_ i -.. • • •-; 1 • 7 • „.._/ . . - • I 8 i i .., 1 - 0 P. Tr , 03 : 1 0 co - • • w LEGEND Mitill . T....................r,;--- MSC OF ROADWAY --"" ------ — DEED LOT NumeeN coulm um. 38-61 TOWNSHIP UNE .r.-......„-......—7,_ FAILROAD --;-- - . MAJ'0R SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST ' NAME OF SUBDIVISION Canbarra OWNER OR DEVELOPER Fred G. Sorrell III (Kim Griffin ADDRE'SS Jerry L. Hunt, P.O. Box 15224 TOWNSHIP Eno TAX MAP g BLOCK LOT P/O 19 NAIME OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER ,Jerry L. Hunt Total number of lots 6 To be developed in 1 phase.(s) , Total number of acres 7.3 -Typical-dcrellsn�-urists- t-present— or proposed I ATER SUPPLY:' Public (Name) Conunnuity Tnaividual X SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public _Community Individual Septic tank SCHOOL DISTRICT ' ' gL FILE DISTRICT Orange Rural Access onto State Road #_j.551 Road Standard: Public or Private Class A , B q , C Existing critical areas such as streams ( ) , Flood prone areas { }, Watershed ( ) , Historic Sites { } , Other { ) Ex;il ain: . Land uses in the general area Farming and Residential SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 2-8-85 I�pproved ( ? Recommended Changes ( } PRELIMINARY •PLAT\ RECEIVED (Date) 7-19-9-5 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 10-10-45 Preliminary Review by Health Department 9- -" Erosion Control Officer 10-10-85 ?KKR Board of Education -19- Department of Transportation OWu%.SIA (it possible)_ (Not approves Other -Mebane (if possible) -sillsborough (if possible) -Orange/Alamance (if possible) Preliminary Action-by the Planning Board October 21 . 12$5 recommended redes!,gn,- Novemher 18 jq85 rg-rnindn-mrlatj Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners FINAL- PLAT RECEIVED (Date) ( ) All lots were approved by the Health Department ( ) Lots failing Health Departments approval are combined or listed properly on the plat { ) Road Maintenance Agreement submitted (where applicable) . Approved ( ) Improvements have been provided*'for; completed; bond, letter of credit, cash. Date { ) Final. 01'.1ASA approval (where applicable) on'all plans a specifications, Date { ) Final DOT approval on plat ( ) Final action by the Planning Board • .. • 9 4 . STArt O 8 ;firfri:f10 f.b • STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . • Greensboro , NC 27429--0278 JAMES G.MARTIN October 15, 1985 GOVERNOR • DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E.FIARRINGTON • SECRETARY • • • • Mr. Eddie Kir Planner • Orange County Planning Department • Hillsborough, NC 27278 . Dear Mr, Kirk: This is in reference to the proposed Canberra Subdivision located on SR1553 (Walker Road) in Orange County. There is approximately 295 ' of sight distance looking south along SR1553 from the proposed drive because of ac rve . The speed lirait on SR1553 is 55MPH and 550 feet of sight distarce is required . It is recommended that driveway be relocated to provide 550 feet of sight distance. If we can be of any further help please advise. • • Sincerely, J. W. Watkins • DIVISION ENGINEER JWW/DBK/cb cc: Mr. D. B. Kelly • • • An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Ac•::,1 Employer • ��K� ��x�• � • • DRAFT 11-18—B5 PL&NNT./!8 BOARD MINUTES • • MBNBERS. P@E8ENT : ALICE GORDON (CHAIR) , FRANK PEARSON , CARL WALTERS, STEVE YUHASZ , PETER KRAMER , BETTY MAR0IGON , SHARLENE PILKEY, .DAVID SHANKLIN , CHRIS BEST , BARRY JACOBS MEMBERS ABSENT : MARGARET MILLER , STEVE KIZER STAFF PRESE,NT z ZUGAN SMITH , JOANNA BHADSHAWv JANE ATWATER . AGENDA ITEM CANBARRA SUBDIVISION—PRELIMINARY Presentation by Smith . • Smith noted- that in order to satisfy the 70 day review period the planning board was required to make a racommendotion- bn the proposed subdivision , even though the board . had previously directed that the subdivision be redesigned . Smith informed the board that the applicant had not redesigned the subdivision to address the Board 's concerns . • • Kim Griffin , agent for the applicant , noted that the Sorrell property was not for sale . • Pearson commented that it was likely that in the future the adjacent property would • bo developed . He continued .that a relocated road would cost more now but the cost would decrease with later development of the property . PfLkey inquired how much Land remained. Smith responded that the applicant was developing 7 .'3 acres and the remainder of an approximately 20 acre tract would remain . / . . Yuhasz asked if there was any other good location for sight distance . Griffin responded no because of the h1L [ . NoLtora inquired how this was different than the Blue Jasper Lane situation . Smith responded that the road existed already in that case as part of a previous subdivision , but in this case the applicant had constructed a road at his own risk � � - "�~�� prior to submitting the subdivision for approval . • • BhonkLin agreed with Walters but indicated he would not approve a road with poor sight [ distance. ' Pearson suggested that the applicant had two options : to construct a road at the southern end of the property which was the worst location from the developer 's ? perspective or 2] to construct a road at the Location recommended by staff. Smith commented that option #1 was unacceptable to NODOT . Gordon asked why the applicant had difficulty with the staff recommendation . Griffin responded that %h road was built before they were informed of a problem . He noted that the original subdivision design had changed a number of times to accomodate the sale of the Lot containing the existing house . • MOTION : Kramer moved denial of the subdivision . P1Lhay seconded the motion . VOTE: Unanimous . • AGENDA ITEM ED JOYNER SUBDIVISION— PRELIMINARY Atwater made the staff presentation . Best inquired if the owner of the front tot was the owner of the lots being subdivided. Atwater responded no . Pearson asked if the Brumley lot was part of the subdivision . Smith responded no and noted that the entire tract had been subject to a 10+ acre Lots subdivision end subsequent recombination . piikey asked what type of stream crossed the property . 8henhtin responded intermittent . MOTION : Shanklin moved approval . Best seconded the motion . Jacobs inquired if this would be a private road . Atwater responded yes and that the 60 ' strip belonged to Lot f4. Ann Joyner, applicant , commented that she felt this was a straightforward subdivision I - ORANGE COUNTY 9 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT DECEMBER 2. 1985 Actiorarda Item SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS DRAFT 5/28/85 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DRAFT 11/4/85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MECKLENBURG COUNTY CASE ABSTRACT Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 868-4501 PURPOSE: To consider for decision the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments to Article 22 DEFINITIONS (farm, farming) submitted to public hearing on May 28, 1985 . To recelive the Planning Board's recommendation . NEED: The proposed text amendments would address deficiencies in the Zoning Ordinance. An issue statement precedes the proposed amendments and is an attachment to this abstract . The Boiird of Commissioners tabled consideration of this amendment until. the receipt of information on the Mecklenburg County definition of "farm". The definition of "bona fide farm" contained in the Mecklenburg County Zoning Ordinance and subject to the litigation (See Attachment) follows: Farm, Bone Fide. Any tract of Land containing at least three (3) acres which is used for dairying or for raising of agricultural products, forest products, livestock or poultry and including facilities for the sale of such products from the premises where produced provided that a farm shall not be construed to include commercial poultry and swine production, cattle feeder Lots and fur—bearing animal farms . IMPACT: The proposed text amendments, if approved, would improve the ordinance and provide clearer direction in its administration and enforcement . 098 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends that the existing definitions of "farm" and "farming" be retained in the , Zoning Ordinance and that the County Attorney be irequested to investigate the possibilities of obtaining ' express statutory authority to define farming . The Planning Staff recommends deletion of the Idefinitions . O9S PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ARTICLE XX EIEUNITIONS ISSUE: IrJ a letter dated August 16, 1984 to the Orange COunty Board of Commissioners from Geoffrey Gledhill (see Adopted Policies of the Orange County Planning Board, March 22, 1985) the County Attorney advised that the definitions of "farming* and "bOnafide farm" not be defined in the ordinance unless Orange County receives express statutory authority to define those terms. EXISTING ORDINANCE: FARMING The use of land primarily for one or more of the following: The production in the open of cash grains, field crops, vegetables, melons, fruits, berries and nuts. The • raising or keeping of general livestock and poultry for the sale of such livestock and poultry for the products thereof or the breeding of such livestock and poultry. Farming includes any buildings or structures which are customarily incidental or subordinate to the farming activities listed above, including residences for the owners', operators or employees of the farm and their families. General livestock and poultry includes those animals involved which are customarily and traditionally raised on farms, such as beef and dairy cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, rabbits and horses, mules, ponies, chickens, turkeys, ducks, and geese for the purpose listed above. Farming does not include agricultural services and processing, avocational farming, specialized commercial horticulture, and specialized commercial animal husbandry. FARM, BONAFIDE The use of land for farming meeting one of the following criteria: (1) composing two or more acres on one or more tracts owned or leased by the bonafide farm unit; 100 (2) average annual sales of $1,000 for the preceeding three years; or a minimum of twenty acres of forest land for which a management plan has been prepared. _ ; � • k • • * (See Farming, Avocational Farming, Specialized Horticulture, Specialized Animal Husbandry, Commercial Feeder Operation, etc.) PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Delete the definition of "Farming" Delete the definition of "Farm, Honafide" Revise the definition of "Farming Definitions" to delete reference to "Farming". -�I. 1�:' it•,'•vi'' =,1.1,'::a.yyy�}.:'N,t j- .Y-•: ...`Cfx:-.,.i' .y •1 4-,..,2.:,,,,,..„..,,,.......,-,..„1 7-•i:}_•,�;:i,: .„..5.,-, E•."•.',l J.•:T.J?t.• -F ..r:.:._ 'ij li :?.{ "r;f iftsi.;; +'.:'r1 y..,,C;ai .:i .t..;+. n• • ,..,4- ,ti . r r: • `-.-vr,:t t.�--.. ..1.,_• =r:;. •,r.r..Ii-�-••a•:1„� t :.�;"ti;• -••ii«- ti'•.'i� .3" ;•ti`' r- H'�s,,{•'!'�.:.G 'c_.!=',1C}..51,�:.;,?!r__t.i:"..:•.• ,-...•';'',:".; ti•••. ,- r:��1•: �: .sr�.%!L.3':i.'a.•niifl' ,I;ro S•;�,a,.-.1„".•'•+3 ^... '• •�;�.Y k r. T••4^.^i7.= t i �`,.!'i• F� I. ' r ,.Y: -.,.-:.M1%.: :3+.•{i -2'-:ry:.ctTiv .:: h=;•ty+�.i:�Er'.,:.�♦ -�r�•'"�il;•i" 'S}, .•{qr:•:�l!`N. A-�. .11.rk:'!�::!•,::,.•{ y� T::T ��'k'y" i.. { �a=:;, r ;rF:11i S•. i ;7i: 7 i_ *�c .�,�}1y_:Lit' �r;, T .T7:'�:-�t'•:'J'.: '}. .i� .ea ^[��ti •�� ' � r�j'•-ti':.�; -lrx�':'-'.::y:,rt-;,L.•,•�St(:9.!;•1 _�r,�,,.yt. •:i-• .4,... r. �- f :a;'.: :�' 11$$,,,7.%.�.� ����q,.•,r....ib.•l.*Jt ,t^�;7'.M•^.1.S�1L�w`'�'u ?v,,:(:-.',�,,:L.(.� �.•..'.-,9.� •r;.;n: .}.�,.,�,�. gam, :/!'�. '` -••.,.�, ,�. .- .. �.•_ 22.f.4 't:`�`...t°i-,' .•d,.,.t,.,ttlt�.c J ,:,_,1- 1 •Lt�vl'r- K�AJi4 o:"�'y�• .-:S....,,:I-i: .:.r:34.:."1::,fis m'•-'j•4�7ti,•,..,•' Ji:.:?;:•fr.• �.•=;. 'iF r fc?: - . ;ti.:?.il eM ... r ',�,6-1:�,;���•i:.,,�s�1,��;a:;�. /.w..� r;. ..'•<.,:.: �•,u,. t1;r•[ ....7 .,Y. ,r , ..R:i'+c•FX3:oY�.at'w+�.: j-.p:�' +,-.i Y r' w: .,. l:T....I,;•�^.a,- ,,J (Y'_ f •y: +!- .rte'.t::ycs... ....1.-- • ., i a it .i i. j i -' t 1 0..1 i.•-Y••Y 1.: 236 N.C. 303 SU13ThI EASTF.R,N I(EI'()ItTCR, 2d SERIES if - % ; �- a r et t ttsy, I I t•I}' t hic h milled the proviso in C.S., 3,x'9I. The. .•:r'.'„¢•,:-"-- ft:. x'intion to sac:and hlt� failed , , 1 r, �• • r„ ;;P'::;:. to allege r: a.,,r,,, , " «c;•; ? ge registration as required by law." amendment to G.S. 1--69.1,which added the X14-'e. r tl After defendants effectively challenged requirement of an allegation of G-S, 66--68 ^ h - i plaintiff's capacity to sue in their converted recordation 3 motions for summary j rdation before suit ma• t LL • „ } x: brought common k: r;.":ro Iii udl,mt nt it t,ecamc t association in its common I,,x�-,;,.'r.. : ! an unincorporated ' .-•.:.,y ,.rf,;;.;; if I incumbent upon the plaintiff to resent u , `r a , ;' P name,was enacted effective 1 October 1975• `;:< -” s, :j.: ' forecast of evidence showing tbat there was Therefore, in the face of any irreconcilable Z• . :''''''''''.21'471 •71...r., ''.,.: -" l - . a triable issue on this question, See i osten conflict between the provisions of these two I r c {�;-_z ,;} ii , t v, Morgan-Schulthclss Inc., 46 •7�:s� .:. �:: �; : • 321 265 N.C.App. statutes G.S_ I-69.1 being the later F = • 321, 265 S.E.2d 6I5 (1980). Plaintiff has m, ci g he la er enact- , � t � a`: i failed to t nl,will control or be regarded tls a quali , ,,. ,. odoso. g i c.: a:*•�� fication of the-earlier statute. See;State v. :� ••..;r: ,.. [4-6) The record before us contains no Hutson, 10 N.C.App.•653, 179 • :•1,5; '''.;, :•• •`'` ` • evidence of plaintiff's compliance with the S.E.2d 8 n t � .;:. 1:;, P p (1971). We reach the same conclusion when directives of C 5. J• to file the crrlifi_ subject mutter of the two s tt,,�i ti; •j ? 1 6 ( , the s statutes is ; _3r f I:I ctttu ns Set out in(;.�i.ff► fiR. The statutory ' t"cnmittccl, since the more particular iii 4 .' t?, ;-`,<i' �.`:4,• language of G.S. 1-69.1 is very clear and rectives of C.S. c+ would prevail over • I-6_,1 w id g• �y +, , �.,;;tzt„ ; specific, i.e., any unincorporated association the g-eneral recordation provisions of G.S. [..,; + ?;.y i;:I 1 i desiring to commence litigation in its corn 66-68 et seq. See, Foul Stores v. Lo • an!oarcl pf <%,,,-: '•"� :;'-( monly held name must allege the location Alcoholic L'ontnil, 263 N,C. 6><t, 151 S.C?d r t, 'ti;;,:•• •ri' i - • of the recordation required h G. 582 19° ) The rcquiremt•nts of G.S. 1-69.1 Applying the well-settled principle that are mandatory and failure to satisfy them ;j i t.,: ' 3 +.-' j r statutes in derogation of the common I:Iw is not exonerated 1>}'.G.S. Gti•7I. ' • -:.;• ••j ti'' i•. Must •a= ::._t :,.i t; be strictly construed, we find the ac- For the foregoing reasons, tv '1 ~ g `t' e hold the ..� Lion of the trial court correct in dismissing dismissal of plaintiff's action to ix: proper. 4 1 1-. t•. plaintiff's complaint for failure to comply ;`•,•. _ ..r�.; 1It 1; tv'th these statutory into ate::. '�eu, 11f[irm,:d. t''1Kr' ;>:. i .F inglon v. Bradford, 2-12 N.C, 159,86 S.1,','2' %t•1; , ' [.GS and l3E „�.�:;> .,z '. I:•:i . 925 1915. (:TUh', JJ., cunt concur. s =:•. ( ) Strict construction of Ci.ti. 1- l: ' ' 'h , ; 1 requires that, before an unutrrrporulc•,1 i ,- ;9; i association may }>; w .=.;�,. ,:;Z;;�_,. ;; ' tin the privilege of lnstl- hoh,..mstr}s}t N �c�';:.a.:.t0,74 0,'I - tutilt• privilege o T 5 l : .M:?•:;- 1-_,,•- t.V ; 6 a lawsuit in its common name, first. • r ,,, r : ,, 11 ?: there must be recordation of the neve:isary q •[`tom " {• 1'y;;'• information r' ' • ' i E, x'' 10 ,(i required ti} GS. f;6 G5 and '.;'i. _,•,r=+ f ;•},ti: then allegation of - ,1 its specific location. "'�! -;4 �,-�c � We I3AUCt)tiI•S NUF{e;Fltl" G M1 „ ..tviz c,: x:-; _. ,::I% a are not unaware of the seeming con_ U.iFA.'YY, pt trndictiun between the specific mandate: of n corporation =F�ii': •' :;;. recordation r to filing.•-,::::„.;..1.:1,,:„',,c;;}h.. •,,,,:t,-•, n prix l,'an action tehirh is v • + {' in ' 11tI;(:I(I.I;t�'it11R(i q,. ' ? e .�;�,,,, r;.%,,c,t, et out G.S. 1• G.I.1 and the'pruvisic,ns of COUNTY,a' iy� :: NORTH 1ItTI f :,,ti t : i.;, t, IG.S. 66•-71. This Iust statute classifies the CAltt)1.)NA, Edwin I3. Peacock, dr., ;rr,u..<g vr*i :. it!. ( failure to record under G.S. 6t;-68 Chairman and, Member of the Board of l WI u r.v ,�,-�t i'.i misdemeanor which may result in a penait} County Commissioners of blcrklenbur j r ,i's� rs ,,� `i collectible in a civil action and states in County, North Carolina, and William H. r'' .•.*r{ryt ,,`:sf .: .,,•_t subsection (1r) that the "I iilure of Rose, Elisabeth C.Hair, any pet_ , air, W.Thomas Ray C Y = ` :t on to com!• with lho provisions of this and Ann U. Thomas, DlembEra of the per- il • lit` "' t Article dues not ,r t�tt a recover b such hoard of Count '• l t' ` 1 } } y Cornm[ssioncrx of k.,_ 1 t e,.,l 7.; ;4a;4yk IT I�eryon in any civil action brought in ttny of �I1tkltnburg County, North Carolina ' : ,- ,',':'g :} I , the courts of this State." A p l in c r 2}2 ;i:;;t• a�a:,' ••' If Y' 1~settled ' rules of statutory No. R' 6SC61•3, rt 'Z=a'>r`• 't•i construction, we conclude Court of Appeals of North Carolina ; cc;;S:;4 ;; that th '; r-' ti,• ; the provisions 1-.69.1 innt:u,I in f _;: ?yir> t j isions of G.S. ..?`•'r - T•- =. :;;;;i this case. .`hat is no:v ' . ; = �,,�f: i G.S.6fi-7I,allowing June 7, 1+98:3. _= �r �, v 1.:.11111" recovery in a civil action in spite of slatuto- 'r' =4 Y 'JAI!: '�i ,I l ry noncompliance, came into being by the • �"° '� = {' ( i enactment of •, Public 3 i,tndo::ncr sought a declaratory ud i ,-;;ry _z' j l lI chapter Late; J1(lt, went.nl Lb it its 19.G.acre Cra of }J g- I_ _ ' , teL land was n t' • I r,7,r'•. '.1 • t ' t- .,^%••:A':"% 1, 1'` • _ •••, t4 • Spit%'( lr '' �; ` ! -•ti='t�: . ,-t•+ ,�; 4; �=s:"! ' • ' 237 kRkk tt I Ii,�t}cai►>s NURSERY Y. n1IxI:I,l�.xt?;r1:C. coui`•rY, �.c_ 1`.c. �;1�1� t<...,.,...:_�- i l alesnsauas.rzusauor.c.:�n;i. 1953) It . :•. . 1 bona fide farm not su iject to the kiccklen- Jut c Robert 1). 1..ewis heard the cast: 4 burg County zoning ordinance. The Supe upon the parties waiver of trial by jury. 1+L1 .::.. '' 1 riot Court, Diccklenbur�g County, Robert D. Butit slues presented evidence. The judge. iii;_K;__. : ,y: Lewis, J., rendered juilkment for the land- made extensive findings of fact and con- -.I., -.7:-.-, c.:.,•�=rti r• owner and ldecklenb rg County api>saled. eluded, in part, that the: 19.6-acre tract is a i t'. `" I The Court of Aplx::+ll , Braswell, J., held bona fide farm within the definition of Sec- I, 1.4.,:t• '•:-;;,-.. that the tract, which was used for the ells- lion 2-21 of the Zoning Ordinance and that - t to c ing of agricultura}lroducts and v: , it is exempt from the provisions of the I la's, ET c7i the fucilitics for the sale of such Zoning Ordinance of Mecklenburg County. i 1 t •;: '' .:'. iI ,*"f:i*'-:--- i pox uc tuns t u �c G a bona •ilea: fntell• I)t frnd:tntw upixt:d, [I 1..44::;. • :•.:_ ..•. :` Affirmed Boyle, Alexander, llord & Smith by 13. 'id .'^ Irvin Boyle, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appal- ,,_.. ! `- Zoning and Planning X279 tee. } 1;45•1,.:, _• Tract of land;which was used for rail- Puff, Bont1, Cobb, Wade McNair by i i;D: ;;`� :..,::..• • . c ing of agricultural pr ducts,i.c.,vegetable•,, ,lames 0, Cobh, Charlotte, for defendants- . I leer"°bbel for soil erosion con- a> lhint..plants, an d ahru l I ' I'iiifgi.$,":: ::: :::3=.-i . trol,and which includfd facilities for sale Of :,[4.;;4,•...,..r.... '""•• such products, constituted bona tide farm m lift, Sit :Lt,, judge.. I' 1 t rr'= " nut subject to Mecklenburg Count zoning 141.4-.:;.•;:::-...-,::::,^,11 Y The applicable standard for appellate re- ordinance. G.S. § I�lt> .,5O, 1t)6 5ti3, 1Uti- view of a•judgment, rendered under the :-''_' :''• 7Ut1, 139-2(a)(1). I Declaratory Judgment Act was enunciated i 1. 1(3s:';?-; -' • by this Court in 1n+ur:uut.Co. r. Allison,51 ; s- This action is hero v;ht under the prori- N•t:.App- 65.1, (.g,7,'•77 ti-h:.'�d •173,-175,,dine. [; i :' I re v. el:•0 t'tl, :UM N.C. 315, .'1 S.k:.'�t{ (i5.', :ri•' pions of the North I t�urulimt llt'rinrattury �1 ,�• C.14 "t:i el stag. and in- (1!1x1}, lc: ht' ns follows: - Jud}�nu'nt Act, G. 1 � vulvas n controversy between plaintiff anti "[T[he (trial] court's findings or fact :me �' defendants concerning the I,•gal rigl?:: of conclusive if supported by :my Competent :! the plaintiff to the udc of its 19.6-acre tract evidence; and rt judgment. supported her :•i;,.:.`:••-. • 1.,.:.;::'• of Lund, contilnrous io its b3-acre tract, in such findinler will lx: rtf[irmed, even c'+ ' • . t' t nt • though there is c•:idt•nee which might sus- '! • 1.1g•;;:3•;;;.'•::::::::'.if:; ".::, Mecklenburg ,e t yl ill t; `; Plaintiff contends that it has the right •taun findin)s to the contrary, and even (i l:1 , under the enabling ptatutc, by vrhich the though incompetent evidence. may have • -• s:, ' it•,,:.=;- been admitted. [Cilatit ns omitted.1 The i r'a+ r Zoning Ordinance of Mecklenburg County ''i•a : ..•;•'•: was adopted, and by Section 2-21 of the function of our review is, then, to deter- i;:'. .••••,...„.r,.. •mine whether the record contains conrpc- 111';� ; Zoning Ordinance, td cultivate its 19.f>--acre g, ,� . • tract of land for farm and agricultural pur- tent evitienc4 to .support the finclin 4• , i" ;, ',.-:' findings support the i[•itc.:1!4-•;l:;s and whether the -`L poses without interfwcnee from the defend ?•t!is i:: :',� ;:';': " .:_=, ants or without any attempt by the defend- cunclusiuri•c:' . i1.1. ,;::;'-_ ants to subject said tract to other provisions IL is fttncItmt:nt;tl tmdc'r lhr. Declaratory :;Ai efts -. of the 'Loninb- Ordinance Uecausu Lhe 1:7.11- Jud};mert r�ct thatl a party teho runsiclera ir•.{'z��-_ _ _ _; acre tract is a Iona f�de farm under the law his rights to be afft'rtt't1 by a zoning ordi'. f I ,t--= .. and is exempt from reyulattion. The de- Hance, in a situation trherr- there can be no / doubt Una litigation involving him i::immi- I'l'„�+}.: . "' .,. •• .�-is;`:;: -'' fondants contend tlle truce is not a bona du ha 1}Li,;. i l in r,.,;�•;,. -'0,,s, Me farm, that it is pot exempt from rci;U- neat, does in t have to te:t'tt to be such, but `, tR : '•`.-: .:�• I ition under the endtlling statute by which that be may go to your!, taut tan it dechtrt- 1 �� tits,.:: <<,< the laving Ordinance was uduptrd, that lion of hip rights unlrr the ordiu:uu'c nad -1►1 :^,r.:rr_. .-' Other sections of the Ordinance in addition seek"relief from tine:wt.:tinty anll iclst'c•oraly :i 1tr;,::::: •.�'i+ to Section `.� 21 moist be considered, and t+ith resl,ccL to rights, status, and other 1:1'1!;;:f:.:1:2..0.".-417-f.::".•,:•: i •6.1. Moles v, City that plaintiff i9 sub ccL to the defcntlautls` Ivl;.d rt:kttions," G.S. 1 ' j• /• ` Zoning Ordinance. of Itak,gh, '>t�tl N.C. 'aII Ni S.I':.2d a5i !;IL:;f?` r; -Y__ ! [rly4 ;-- .l -- y' ��•;f i I t 1';5.;,':-1 e .i • i1it:/;.i1:, -';;;;.."-:ft. -", •r13 ��a'- ••.. i,.:^ : •t•• �,. :;-:: '.t.. •.y,('',f';f,.i.:'-:3` �} ,'• r.;'.-�•�.:g;,��.'q ': I.:t :YT,a;:n' :;r �. ,1::`�.. .r 1, t:::': .l.l•St.Y•tY"! ,:...: :': _� fl..:,ws: Fr• '.i'' '�- �<' - r,°•ter`"%-:.'i�.�=:tZ:,,7 7.i1 1_- � F }' �. :N A: - r�: __ ay +y•.1. t;rf. - tt :t:.'Y ,5.•_" /J .••_.'..,!7: :yam `:`:�• ..1-. ]i - /w�.'Ft..' 3 ..�J.e�.x - JJ J.:�'�F'.v '^'•t., t�iN .L'-. te w� .:tw •j••_ 'l,-r�• •+'Y' �i''.fY� •/r� r .•/•.i ":.1.:i1'-�'..5,,,• ';..:5".t'•-i .fir: °�• ri• :.v.- :r r .., ••L`w- - :�=ate':�": -•:•.,• s}. a, •ref i•: ti t• — t' -5�.-`=� 3• -7i^"• •l _t. :.'4''.'�'7r1..'.r�Pr ,:�.••.a o - II li `-J' '•. � r ._ -:'y •4:t �;'. - �.,,,r', „ vt:fl^.tt:.:4Y.r� • `t-_.L..- V. •N-•flit-':'' _ .,Y.. :2":i' ,l• i.� sv,V-•�;,�..- , ,ii:`'~ •.-4y, _:,:;t�F-�„T•j„fi:°..,";: ,}u_. tc-.:F41:4:-..'.-. :x'1^s% ..,:.-1,;:.:t 'le...Z • _ �'i-s 7''ii';:w :q^: "%;Sil.i:14: i''.41.44'i ^.".x.••-71• +-iii:::4-42. ym 'r. • rwv-{ ^J.t .,.:'-a':•t�'1..tr-..--tCt.' :F.fi•i''''LI 4••111-•. , > �,j,:::c1.;. „ ...4,, 1: ,1,' ..art'y - ."f{i'..:tt)i? *";"'•f-_. t4k3'i",µ ri'.`r•yam,_.:: ."4:::rJ;" + S'-:a:7.,�f�-�. •r2_w+' c '0" :�` 711c:.:.. •. � �.'4 w. b. ••�,:Vii' .:GLt�La_•s`•;l'= '..I,�:.f:r.,: s�: ' �;'2'., .,t ",'( ^.t:�: ''t t>:'•,Y4y .T,•'~„•r.��-•M�,..A'.1'e` %�'Y��� Lr;.._,*r1:�V-;_t •Sr_}'� - = .cE. .x," . •: _ ./ 'r 1. •'•'t .5, r'S:, 4.`1: ?, n:i r•:✓ %{ i�-:71 :I fYr i,Sj •-: 'l._� ,•;. wi:•fir, .'biv::�s-" 's,;',{,..{{��i 7.'f,y,..'�1.�.-4.::--r,-:.a !•r.a. ,,f;I.:sg�• j�:} n�::., i,-•,:+r.:,:.:� •Y' 'r� i:_ en;_. =-t2%':�•i _fcc,r:;,;at.G+ e4,,.Y «'Y.'•.- .j•V ..{.e.y:;..t,� :5�,`i _ _ _ ✓ Y-•.7 rY:,,i.•;. ::y;.;e•=;•,. `%'} }... •.•1+:.r,`'n.� r' 1' .,:.:..,P,,<l :.`y!'s"'�:;''+-:-, - ..Ei-."t`Y:.n ,G.. ' t•-.: -.;rlY•.,. .Tr yi',�,'':i:X-�<-:= .,t'' .�,�-,._ ' . i:��.J': .q i � :�Aft lr'..• :' l. ''i1.,1.• ' fn'•t -' '3 Y T-w-- =.�'J't\�:1T-N -�'l-' !•t.. ,t• r:,.%�.'-: _,.: .. ism .� - ••a., r -. �':.�:.�„ •.r, ,*,,;-Z:tq",. - -n,c'.�++111-.. '%.1mi,.N'1" xm '.,•-5 i.t..:754. ,.*.c ,3�i;-ii::w}.;'ti"w`.i...E vti,;- ^a.;-,.rr 'r [„tiO.;:-A f1µ.: :';':T .,,Y-,':',.°:.71.1: 14".. .''.f �`;; ,r.*.. `.+:''.E$.�v'~;Cr>rft.:y'? V!lrz.:.r,:r:;%;u"::5�+`.sr'jy,.-;. s ,'i Svc.•. -^`'_ .1 ' ---._-etc.$L$ •n..L.. -. -i i�`-I: rs+•'":.i t,�tii .•',�ti ;f;l;:-.1:. Y71 •• y� � I 2:j.�i N.r.. ;lus SOUTH 1:r1ti rl:lt �s • -_ ::'d.', `: i • N It1:1 t11i'I'1'at, 'd tilsltll:5 + "' `?s`. , - t : (19T3); Ltlxnd 1, C'itj' of II ilmini tun, 27x efficient --i•J''•: '`• Y l t•y nL pr•o{)tielron and utilization :� . ,:,-,' ,w a�. t 659 0 ! n! lixatiun of the N.C. 18D S.1 . t1 Sl:l(1171 See lets ! t -�a't- :;j am- 1.. )- 'astir- protlucls of the sat ;Ls essential to tat •;:;:e _-. •? ;-4 '1 :p once Co. r.,Gunk, 11 r�.C.r1},p. 49d, L'; ' '-„•_,...•..�;'xr” 1 _• r' I health and tvclfitrc of our people ,,,, --�..4-.•;,'r---.- ,1 '{ S.I'...cl itJ9(1'.171). Sc t't:rttl C.tclrrs created n ( r• ,S. 106•,i3. j. 't,"1.�:t `gip; . ', :� . genuine controversy 1 uncertainty ,•, 4. > tray an: certatinty as to r; "� "'''';'f {' Section l{i6 51(3 also sanctions the"[d]evcl-. :`'^:1'W r--'`''• r ' the status of the tract of land ant! now :,:r,s; titi V'a,.,$'. ' opment of new and improved methods of •-ii: r,�•q.. '�, require resolulinn h}' the cuurty: the exist- l rte:,. t ,."'"•'td.t , ,_;c:=sry` rP;, ence of the Mecklenburg Courtly Zoning production, •marketing,distribution,procesa- it-" ing and utilization of plant ... commodities is S▪ ..,y cli,:. ;•••• i Ordinance(luring the time in question; the l -;;' - ', 1 r al all stages s,., I,,ia..t4.l, `` •i ; 1, issue o. whether the plaintiff's 19.6-acre b from the original producer w t�- t,; r ,; a tract of land was a bona fide farm and . through .o the ultimate consumer , . (and] /A, :;>"�`; »� °'^' E'er ! from the, Zoning Ort1i- l:: :a r i therefore exempt : n:ethculs of conservation, develo mtent, and i- ,y.''ac- ,. 1; 1 ' "k'.= -,,'' i i nonce or whether lh tr•t t .�•,., ,,;,,d use of hind • -:;• ,�:t,n- 1'.Ia plant nursery and greenhouses and not. for By the evidence prresentccl, plaintiff hr�s• "'' 'Y: farm ur poses; and the history of dealings ' established that is I I°` ' = M▪'' •�� P' } - t,cts :ut�! rnnrh, ton the - V. : _,: -• ' between the parties all shown in the r,.cord. 19.6-acre tract are w•it he S•, `''==-.-� l hiZf 'y do �,y:y i;.;4r'. :.,1 .; It is the public policy of North Cttrclina ct;tred public policy- The evidence•shows ::i: _b-. : dI to encourage farming, farmers, and farm- that the plaintiff has utilized the most most- [ '4:'i'rY1` '� ` ' ` ' lands, The Gcncral Assembly has slated • ::;N-r,as"•-r{,.; •,-: sy� Y ern and efficient equipment and methods in �f :` _i: ;_;�:- �: ;A. this policy in various ways: p{ron'inp* cultivating- and haw ting�^grf- i''"7 '`''_'`''?'`-'a' •�'r' ' ' "It is declared to be in the interest of cultural products of all kinds pincLurlin , • tr ,.?-3-.: the public welfare that the North Carali- vegetahlcs and vegetable ilant.s, and in /� ' f,....!...;.,-4.:',..-.:-.-•„•:-..-..,`-... ...1 11 iii•• !!! i na farmers who are producers of .-• growing.and cultivntin r shriddr• V I: =• >: ; ' ' field crops ttnd other agricultural prod- C w ich is t i:.. . :.y,_.., ;,:;.' ' 1i ! used fur. the )m vent�n of soil erosion, for r,: - - -'t'' acts,including .••- vegetables ... as well a ;,':'xc:n'{ ;l i noise control. and for wind and ::un s 1'4 °,4--. :--j• as bulbs and flow and other - screen, „.-,:t- ' ,1 agi icul- llowevcr, about 1.1 May 197:1 defendants' a �'= ,j,:.;:: c. , turai products .•. shall he!x'rniitirtl and } rii. t`c•:,,L^.- .� %Itlllrlt,�1t1.ti1u•t•tt,t'lllflll'ttlt.`Il the plaintiff that • i.')t1? ;jva ► 1_ encouraged Lo net , ., in promoting and J'?'i?a?;- { ;i S stimulating, its 1 t,li-;Iere lr:u'l was zoned !t-•1'L for single z.' ,„ , .• g, • ,• the inemtsctt prudue. u t t family residences and that plaintiff's rats- 1•. ".7,1:::5%.:-,,f--.r.'4'.'• ''� . 'ni••' Lion, use and sale, domestic and forci n, t '°-•f-'..'3 • ;•' ' g inl agricultural products thereon in con- t = �:11.i.;:'.•-: ,,;;, :r, of any and all of such agricultural cam- f i ts;,rs' ;, ::h •�;' moditics." G.S. 106--5a0, junction with its contiguous 83-acre tract a :`'`" ::•"d 'y;.:t it I ` "The farm ,', , lands of the State of `ls in violation of the Zoning t, �'%' �"�,•,;,Ji'�M b Ordinance, 1 , I Plaintiff's subsequent request.to 1 it ' `•`� I ! >G rezoned 'c�'�'��.�"'�-'-'f`� c,l ; - North Carolina are among the basic a:;- =••"�;• '`' `1'.,r "'f i st is of the Slate and the preservation of to 1tU-Rural District was denied. This de- i ;L't.; y:?•r ji,.� t-.j 1. "` '''°"'t-� +•r 3: these lands is necessary to protect and clarpica-v judgment action followed on 1 1 ', ::rr'�. ;1:,i promote the l February 19,:A El ,.:,,.;, ; •;,,, p to he he ilt.t, safes}, and general r YMt ] ', welfare of its people . . ,," C.S. 139 The ii tsic evidence and findings of act F, ::,y r; , ,`.r'11 (,• a: (�)O are rat subhlnntiaily in dispute. Plaintiff t' ,,l: y*u'p ��1,' It is the declared policy of the St:tic to purchased the 19-6-acre tract in 1976, and 1' a;i,, y ^'7F* a 1.::; conserve and pratert and encourage the during the three years prior to institution t:., :;�''1-- .si development and improvement of its ag- of this action in 1950, plaintiff prepared, . •/ .•1 r'' ricutlurul land for the production of food developed and used the land for ugricuttur- i "':':is• .▪•., and other agricultural products." G.S. at purposes in conjunction with its adjacent ic 'r;' e a+ ', lOG-700. ' 't .4_. 83;lcre tract. It is the application of the • =Prza•,N;;x� :14:,1 i "1t is declared to be the policy of the late to the facts that divide the ptu'ties. i' `} ;;:_i ?r;,ria,•;y:11-' • State of North Carolina to promote the now take a closer hook at the zoning law, k' -.-r,:::-..:6,..r...1:-..-,:i.:,:. I i. Rrusscll sprouts,broccoli,cabbage,eauliflo-.c- alyssum, cclosia, coleus, dust miller, Imp:t- (P...' =-.- : er, cucumbers, eggplant, greens, lettuce, on tans,marigolds.portu'aca,salvia; photinta,II- f ;�~ 'f i I l i tons, a i. ,,•;.r •.i: peppers,potatoes,squash,tomatoes,can- gustntm, burfcrdi juniper; azaleas, and other a s a' ti!; talus,le, watermelons; petunias, snapdragons. :p .' •_ _ . P types of pants and shrubbery. ;. �; ,5 ;, i verbena, begonias. pansies, sinca; ageratum. i;'� ?a.:4':4.;-F` 1'i: `• G.Y Sri^=r'..---•'-''�ti.'e` .. a ."r`+:i- :!'^?i; ••,..' ..'7`'�7i.;--_••,n•:,.;-.�a...._...-�.-y...-,yF:"ai�+^�x _ .-.. -.. _. «N•'-"+,s .--..•• g` I - 1 1;'`v�•+a,~ 7 .. }yt.i 4�t}• 239 •::_r. • ,j 39 • t'i' :1, ", gar-'','f- IlA1IC0:11'S NURSERY v, hiECKLF.N1ItitEG COII TY, N.C. N.C.N C ! j. ( t ktcli;; ^ nu-a►�O3!Lt..2d 230 (N.e.:�pp• 11Th3) •i ! `�n g The grant of lb,. power of zoning was soil mixture, plaintiff has th.vclopcil a nue- • :I t i t' , e given to the counties by the General Assem- ccssful operation- Plaintiff grows many 1 I 1sr-'`=:.:: t in 19;;9 b• former G.S. la3-266.10, now plants in tots on to, of plastic ground coo- 'p 4 t{':t:'••'::' . xr bly y � ' p 1 1 I Lr �. �. ,.. .._-. '-'=' rcdesignatcd G.S. 1�t3A-3'10. This enabling; cr, instead of planlimg, seeds in the ground. l �11 aJ ' 1 . act allows a county)to regulate and restrict, • Plaintiff utilizes a lake, greenhouses, cold ' I I 11,` ':.'.'. : among other things, "(5) The ... use of frames, hanging basket:, potting sheds, ` '� tom. ( � I � � ia.,�a;•::: I .. land for trade, industry, residence, or planting beds,and other methods of cultiva- if . ;.'' Iother purposes,except farming: These reg- Lion advocated by the N.C. State Depart- " ;', 1 ulattons may not affect bo:ia tide farms, ment of Agriculture. Plaintiff's improved IjIe, ':'�_a;- • 1 but any use of farn property for nonfarm anclhtxls of culLirxlion enable it to produce p, JY •--. .,- 1 purposes is subject to the regulrations. , on one acre what wse used lu produce on 50 aaia'. :` 1 ( phrsis added.) In 1967 the enabling,*act, atcres." without. the use of the traditional' } ?,, '▪ '• 1 was amended through an act applying only farm mule or row plan. Section 2-21 of . l •`' ";` I o Mecklenburg County to add this aen- the Zoninp- Ordinance does not. say "how" • t" `- .;:f:;;....,; : ry ? cf lir, w iK tense: "The board lof county cammissinnara, the nutlucl T must be raised vn Lhe land but a ;( .ar' '•-e •: part of any ordnance adopted pursuant that its use he "fur the rtising of ag;ricul- 1 11 i 1:1111.'..:•• ▪ .1 to this Article,mak define bans tide farm' lurid products. Likewise,this section does !l{;j -,i:._,• .4.:./•.:..::.;::;:i:. „ �' and 'farm purposes in such reasonable not say that it is suhjt'ta to.':any other provi- i ��1 rp� , „ s -. manner as !t may deem wise. 1967 N.C. siun or the %pnin{� (Irdinanre. !'hc record I11(;'„tN , • ti• Scss.Laws ch. 611. before us contains:ahuntlant competent.evi- :t 1j:'•,)::.'.. - t• dunce to support that trial judge's findings • i I I i.i;'ri •' :yi Pursuant to the enabling ;La, plet'kh:n- 1 L-,.r,....._,•' ::_ burg County tulolitati a Zoning Ordinance or fact. con(:trning* the. "raising; of agricul- t1.1,�, ;::}-:- ..;, ` 1, f I;..:, :.•_ • ? on 20 November 19[17, which, as antctuluai aural product::.•, 'thus, it follows that'a r.a°:•.:> _• from time to time,remains in fall force anal 1S)-6-acre tract of lent knoll! than 3 acres] •,11!'rr ” Section 2-21 of the Zoning Ordi- which is used for the r:ti::inl,-of ng;ricullur:d 1 t' `.-`• _ ,. Product!' t c r(•t;t't:tl,h•s, plants, s.rathhery nonce defines ho�ta lisle farm in these i 1 -'•. . • words: I for sap;! crosio' control) and including the it =•.j:..._. * i "Fi'rtn, Bonn Ficfc. Any tract of land facilili•�:: for the sale of such products from 17•:„ •• : acres Which the prc•:tises where produced constitutes a i{fl,.o h�.• containing at least three (3) g•.- I• lama title farm. ' 1 is used for dairying or for the raising of : Y `•'•'~'`'agricultural prolucts, forest products, Even so,dcfcnal mt -argue that Lhe provi- i ' livestock or pou�try and including file;);- :ions of Section 2--21 "should not annul the :}'t, 'r - • ties for the sale of such products!coon the et fleecy Of more specific: provisions of the ;.c,.�r- >s'.r °.r='.':'• • - premises where itrocluccd provided that,a ordinance." Ilefend:nit. emitend that seven ., (t I 1 t, = ✓ farm shall not'be construed to include other sections were more specific; that all ,,. + }t: - commercial Paull ry and:ovine production, the other sections were ignored and clisre- tg:.a{,, ' c ' _«: r genital by the lri:tl judge; that these seven ` '--s • •:� cattle feeder lot's and tar-bearing, animal t.f1,, , ..,G •-=�'�- farms." 1 • section prohibit plaintiff's present use of • - ',iy:li;.t. Although the evidcncc may not shoat that the 19.6-acre• tract; and that for this error y•til-: I,;•• ; , plaintiff's operations fit the traditional and of La.: in failing;to apply these sections,the 1 �`• fit,t• historic concept n a "farm; the• evidence: cast should hi rtI(tsttt and I iin uldrd willt 11• , q..t. -• _',: • direction to the plaintiff "to remove its f :,g c..:=: 6r does show that to equip itself for the rail- :��' : �:�•• greenhouse and plant nursery )sods from ••r�_t4 f w h_ , ''' in6 of agricultural products plaintiff has = worked with N.C.IState'University Division this area, and Lo raCr:act fr.on any future _ f ,,_,_. Agriculture, Clemson University, N.C. 11e of the 19.6 acre tract in connection with i i-- ;:,) ,_i of Ag, the :activities presently rondttcte:ii upon the. a "=--: ; lJepaartment.of Agi�rictlurre, out of tc rs. 1(y c It ,I r adjoining joining KI :accts:° We disagree and will , r , ', t r experinu:ntation and utilization of various �t,.,1:,,..,1 : „▪c• methods of improving the raising; of agri- cultural examine the ::a ran srrtions. l�.i,..;..;�,..„; cultural products,such :es et,st analysis, fc•r• Tilt:jurisdiction station, 1:I of the ()rill- , 1i L , tilizcr COO trot, pesticides,sac:ai:;,insecticides, nil ace, ;applies to all u s e of hunt in unineor- t „..:;.1.-.;; ;4...-:•,l;'.. s” )lant anal:is to ftrtilizar, nutrients, and puralra ;an •:s, -th„t :e■hl:•: 1 11{ocor,, '1 t • ; 1.. ) 1 -' ' r I i ::'i •• :f y , - X •-.:•:. . .s ''7:,*'•; . ,: -; }' ..t:ai .t''^v: t'i:a•''p ,J! •.r gi;r .yr',,. �, �• - t•i4•.:i :L.^.;;�\c..1�T.L:ti:! L:a�_ ,f•t-7.:=o-:�;i•-;?iY :' ,.<'- ' Lit'::::::: ): • '4,•.1.7:7!",,t`a .'1.::`izi,4I`^_:- . '' L• .}_�4^: .. .t':a { �:::• � ,.:3_ -i 1:z--Ii:ki= 1:; a!%14. ET 1 t+ '•ta:••.::jy:4:^ . :.'..y...' r `•S:;, .jt_z,;s,., . _ 'J•; ip ti. •i ., t•::r. a• rr=t�iv)r.•.vC7ti ..*rir.�:t 4i;.: .if: . ',� ;is � - z • •."t -a ., �•i:.ta§��. , :< _l; t - r�• ! > ' it te{ t�- `'- =r =` - �. ' _ :f.`••%• : tt:;+,: ::;5- ;r4-.4:.-.- ...'i• .w:y<<:,�n...Y:•xn: S-..e.�.£:c::�.. ,^ ... • _,.. :,,9.}... .;f; • .]Xt."5,. �.*;;; $ •,•i,rp.I. 'tsi{•:)i/ii .'i`y:5.4•,;... `F.-h.,j .': :::4 -t._ •11' 4 •:,F-- •_i.-",-.':.i.Z -,i i3�•� 'i:,'°•}•..=.', i ,`�" -ru.�.✓-"- .:7,y? -N•Y.tt:'f1:1 ,?i; .•,��•.,T�r.•.a t. e},..S h'�1�.t�`._ :ty--•-j�,:•,,. �.`••,-.rt: ,;, ror,'t'�-a, y•'{ .4 ,• .i.n,h'(..r•T C J t-•r':(':..•c.;; :•n"it:;•a;�5it•'••�f. 1r!-ii ;-'n•`---Y:,,e ,y •ra.�t tN. ._Tri 'i(n�.!�hX.: .;h��••�-S� ','� .17;,.:Ii:S: '•n:,�•" t. 1$5;1';.-z,.-r!{.t.�•. :'� `',:):::-C&': .t:-*_'.._u: .,.R1m: •1•C::,.a: - .1''f .c•:: ",G'.:a I • I,r •h_:, t! t1 r,.li:`�+S.,.c''.. J4 '`r_' �••''+k i. N. t�' >Y+ n.. ..1�:�'• •Y";;}" 'i'• .(. '••y ?� f':.`Y :�5 «:'� ``.., rti' ..::%1 q'i? , ..r.•.JL' '?.. • ,t• i'.-, ?r..�•t',;f�." {r-.., t'•L-6''4': V.;.14S:r;`"�':'s''':•i'�?" W° .;;;• sI' :l :r • .:i ���,�•. �i,`e^= t,. #;.�i:,',nom'�•.,e.:o.%h='r.•'!: r.'u-.••;:X. ;ti.: -•'.t;: .,;•t• .:};. ..-t Y:..>ir.:.�. ;:•s;rr'•t:-r,`i-�'���f .1t, .a)j-i*� _1.,�+ 4u :P7J .fs) •,:. +-`f•J� �F.♦ y`...;•••�•. :�:!•i=�l^,�'.:tnj1.''''':'';'40-� '�1:3�: �,r�y.•I _ wit. :,'Jj1% .y"� .1: .]. ? r. t, L.C.. ..J,�P,4.• .1v.ir �.✓- _ .,y>�.t,:.; •aA�"-':^✓ •.M. -". :•: - ,� '-f•y�,.-fr• .!••:•t5.w,,7J' .: �_,, _:n,;? ,`.•;.L" ::i: .�. r •F," .`!ill4:,1". c. ;f,,., :;re: t ..."L•: .Filet:`•.i.•:,:'-'.,.,rri"Ci •.. ,.+r ..• :.7.:.-,14 .r Y '".,_`;. t.Cr;, r'• Z "1 .r. '•',tt�e'i:,r„.�i-:ar �+v��kii� W.%�:s:�'r..�: .�y�.a-d.�+ a{ .'• yF.�wt..{r...M'.wiXL$'� nA/SiMP���L- "Y'I'i4^r.M� �s•N�' .•,` \�..'•b ._3'"�r... r- ...�..r„y�. � F'w.. cji ...::'- '•40 N.C. 303 'Ot"I'IL EAS'IEItN ItEl'Olt'I'J.R. '.td SERIES ,R, :t I.--:j:► 1. I a • •--oat?i.; it - -}<:• • r : 1g 1 t tesc regulations shall not Ile applicable to activities. This section is a table of permit- ,t�'.:. • • -.•.: 1t � ` bOna fide ftu•nts, eseep1 that such ri.ida- tt•ii Imes and is tleft:utlanL' Exhibit No. 9. -••+� •▪ - ;:,L . .s,. 1 - - tons shall be a,ilicetble incases where nun- on ,age two of the exhibit is the following • .+yy.�lr. ' ~`r4t.,... 'fIt 1 fur►n uses are trade of farm properties." use: "1:erns-type enterprises when not con •'• : .s;a.:;4, i':. Nye a{;rcc t;ith defendants fendunls that this tan sidcrccl as being peel of trine fide farm.,. ii r,r k�1•€ guat;c is consistent with the enabling act of such a ... plant nurseries, green houses ►: • ,z• I the General Assembly, that nu nffurt was ...'vegetable parking sheds the stile of F ;-- Q�.€c,• �i)-t, 1 i }' 1, I b :_rx.1•,., *:} .1'it) ki:', 1 4� .,;s• t 'optic to •reg-elate butte fide farms, and that ,., vegetables and similar farm products, i ,•t•',:,' ;ter ••-L•- -I4 i the re rulatlonb an. applicable licable to non-fartlt st ...." Defendants t ,? qtr b I 1 and miler uses -ts''2 j r + else. ZVL'a1 O agree a'lih defendants'exam- argue that lids t;thlc of uses permits the i . ,{,cu• ;. °I;t t plc (hilt "a used tar tut upon a:, area of n lists:d activities to lm dome only in Mural ;:.: ;_.:_�j,;; (,, �••tll• films would lx: a non-farm use Mauls el Districts, Light Industrial null General In- ••- -5F F"'€'i,t farm properties. However, the evidt•nrc dustrial I)i'tricts. On the contrary,we hold : :..t.Si Kauai '1 i: shows a farm use by plaintiff for the r,tis- t,� • ' Y;yy,`.- t:,`'t Y I shalt the explicit btnguugC of ibis table ex-• ; �•, ;j,:.s;`s_;,'is ( i g of agricultural products. This section empts plant nurseries, grcenhuuscs, and j•: ' 0.4:•r,j :4; I ' does not aid the defendants. veg-etablc packing sheds when they are con- ?z : " ` ` ` tx: Another specific section is 3 1, Rural L)is sidereal as being apart of a bona fill farm. • ".•' „ The evidence supports the trial judge's `i!, ' :�i4:,*'i,i, _; '1 r • trict,which provides: The major uses per- ,q,; • '�: =µt'- fcf'` i mated within this district are farms and elusion that Lite 19.fracre tract of land is a ,t= rr :; ;:. S`1 't ! rh 'lenses plus contntcrcial activities :end lxma fide farm and thus the complained of ''+ i - sit plus l ,:j .• 7.• . . I ::.':▪t: ', ,:;; 1 enterprises related to agriculture, such as farm-type enterprises of the plaintiff must 4: is { i•€t: ' dairies, plant nurseries, and rural hurne oc- he ccaisidcred as being a part of a bona fide • z ' F i '•-' f • 1sl1••1- I ' c1►pation." Solely because this section men- farm. 4 - .. :,,;` I•••••,..11.11': 1 lions "plant nurseries' anti because plain- Through Exhibit No. 10,defendants refer [.. - . '-P.P.. tiff once applied to have the 19.6-acre tract to on examination of Set'Lion a 2.3 of taw r:. ' " ; `::•'I: i:;�:. re'J•uned to ltuntl District art• not of lhtni- Ot•clin:tnl•c•. This exhibit is another table of i;a' .6...7:v,'•'�' ,tl a Ll 1 s-„'•i.•(t selves controlling in a declaratory judgment t� :�:�°��� 1 b Y J !. uses, and it shows that "Greenhouses :mil };: c:f 0.1iF.. .••� 4.i ;l lxr.• I . 1 {,i• i:_,,.r .,, I ;? )-.:•1} action. The evidence before the Superior• nurseries ries involving r retail and wholesale '.•' •' ,,;-,t_1 r`r.:.•i� dourt supported the juc}};e's finding that as .sales” tic excluded fruity all residential dis- -F'•'•:,, 1. , • i;inl"t, .• •'!_ �1- ;,3,•ta'�� o"the time of trial the plaintiff was making tric>ti. U'r agree with this interpretation, t-'!-- • t; ;s F,y••`'.r ,= ' age of the properly"for the raising of agri- Intl must ru}mat that the evidence present- X' :•sc.= 1 't ' cultural products." When agricultural e 1 in the trial court shows that the 19.0- •• '`rt"""f' 1 P ). I [ acre lr el. is a hona fide farm. EVhen the r.LI Ili I' rl oleos are grown, in )art in ' plant nor- --'• 4•• i :5'"t'',•!- • series" upon a Craft of land cunlainin* not r:.` • i, s;f,:d5, - ,f,,):II 1 g whole. of the Zoning Ordinance is.read col- - f;`' ;i 4; :: :': ,,••',iir.:c kiss than three acres, and within the ordi- h•l•tivel including the tables of uses con- • - .'4i5`,';61'::: ,poll? t,, nonce definition of bona fiat: farm,the fact tap1ed in Exhibit:; a;os• 9 and 10, it shnu's- o t.7':,17-.P..••"•: ,lele•, F I .; L;�> t, l: j ti!lat "plant nurseries" may also be utilized that. farm-type entet•pri:ces of J,grcenhouscs 't F1;":,•,j :r• I :i ,' ill a Rural District sloes not require the Lind plant. nurseries, when used :c a part of 1, - ' ;•r.,•NYr« i.l•fir;�a?I. . 'lima fide farm to he zoned Rural 1istrict. it•bona fide farm, are exempt from the I' -• '.A`"c;,. It is exem pt h the_ enabling eel in cot. one- b,. x : ;; k:4;.' ,;� I Y I~ J %(,Hitt Orclinancc. :!''+•','i_ ;' ::: ,. :''1' • Loon with Section '2 21 of the th-tlinanct:. t • .•':;:3-»;• `- I,•: ; t � Another section of late t)rtlinitm-e with a•??r•l.:";s4i-,4;'" .•• .- �Dcfunthtots cite Section : 1 for our son- g{ F ' r}.;•,_, • .tin•;,, negative proviso is Section 7-21.1. This n._ .'}0r , s- s ; i st lcration. This section is captioned '7,un- t :� .t:..x�' � t ; 1 i section states: "tVhen not considered na �;° °� .l li'' '�:.ic ;' .Y ii,ii ., ing Affects Buil:ling..and Use." Its being part of bona file taunts, farm-type ' s.':".*>,- ,_�S;!• ...;,;:ii i t I hist sentence rcacls: "'I'iti regulations con- enterprises, such as ... plant nurseries, .1 _ • "ZCJI�* :it.'1sili.I • tamed herein shad} not be applicable to bona green houses, fruit or vegetable parkins . , `:7• :'; r := fide farms." Thos, the Orditetnec cttau•ly •§ .4:•• -' , shell:,the sale of fruit,vegetables Simi- 1 a„j `I I ; expresses an intention not to regulate bona tar farm products ... and similar uses are t.-1,-.I. t I• i..�,- a;1'-,'. I fall k farms. pertnitLed within the Rural District subject 't' • •k°....:'-'." f! !, 1 1 'I.. - Defendants cite Section GL.1 lls being a to Lite Lhe following provisions,and other ,u'ti- ti.. .-1 ;C, c; -J(+•' 1 d�rect, explicit prohibition of the plaintiff's vent provisions of this ordinance." Al- "i' Y;:. • aP,:4Kr• errs , l h' • • v , i.l.• ` li 1 <i•• .. ';.i%' 'r;t 1 k``' t-•_• c'`' '.,,•: tf t'• 1 , ;;• •?: .' �.: �: i I I 1,,,• ..-:::,v :.aw'••'•4••rrV • n . :i, r`77.1:•-f•T7r.77,^'- ..a... .v .. ...t:'r•107.7•••:. .. .•.4 - X01-..:.t•7,Y'W,/..,!,v. rm.w.�iYf .;:::=4,-.-,,,P.,/,, •e i i ii i art -: i BAUCO3?1'S NURSERY e. AIECK•I.ENBUI,G COUNTY, N.C. N.C. 244 ' } Cite ea 303 S&«d 236(N.C.&pp• [993) !`�- �`• ;x• ' , :. a 1.t•t:,,- c.:.f�`•'1' -.,r:.. though this section does define farm-type tional}y define bona fide farm in a rensona- ' i i--tb.., enterprises,"we calnnut overlook lh<Lt it also ble manner. F,vrn when the seven other �' :..':`.=•"' ;` ' contains the disclidmcr of When not con- sections cited by the defendants are into- ! SJ7r`%;_, ' sidered ss being pirt of bona fide farms." }.rated into our consideralion, the Orin- .; : i i l�tcr We hold that plat nurseries and },men- nonce definition of bona fide farm as ap- 1 • l9l� , _. -' houses when used in conjunction with bona plied to this case means(1):3 or more acres • i ;T•r,"',• - � fide farms are exca!oded from this section of. of land, 01 °r " '` (2 used far the raisin} of agricul- ,;:r•-:•:+ * the Zonin Ordinance. s t !Ir�a 3:- o,. .- Zoning � local product. Th�_r definition and the en- ' t�r• _� • :- "'`:' The final section of the Ordinance cited :ailing teL are clear and unambiguous. The ! !!ril, •:'' ' e:'t:: fi by defendants is Section 4-23. This section evidence of the silt: and the use of Cm .i. ='- - is u statement of the proposition that if a 19.6-acre tract fits the definition container{ , i in-c,„,,....LO ... '1::.• ' • particular land useliis not affirmatively per in the Ordimince. i 1 1 j`i' , mittcd within a zoning district, such use is We hold that the record before us does t ' j a - '••prohibited.- Even though we agree with contain competent `` `` } tent evidence to support the , ri:1;',..---:::• :1:-.. _:.;.' defendants' statement that "The Mecklen- findings of fact of the tri:d judge and that • I I ' , burg County Zoning Ordinance is ecmplicat` the findings support the conclusions of law • : ! kli,ff.,y_er.�i. •.'s„_..,zi ed," this specific .cetion Clot not aid cle- ' in the judgment. } t t'tt i fondant_% because'the plaintiff's evidence ! ' :-.:•.•1,...,..„-.z.-.,. ._ brought it within the meaning of the ) For the forcguinl,� n assns the judgment �. +i ling act and the ex�em lion of Section 2-21 exempting plaintiff's 19.8-acre tract from - I 11ie'Fa�:•,.•`. ':-;.'` ° p the Zoning Ordinance is 1 tt.,,::::::-`12;,,,;-1.-:`.•:',..," I./ being it bona tilde farm. Our Supreme >ti 11!;•I ,Court has held: "A zoning ordinance, how- Affirmed. r t}xe !.. ever,is in derogation of the right of private ' I a :. l= i . t= k.,Ef property and provisions therein granting \VEBB and W,HICNAItD, JJ., concur, I. ii1 '•,.' exemptions or permissions are to he lilxtral- i � ';• , ly construed in fns or of freedom of tiro." i. 'fr t:"'"` . • in Re Application bf C'�uixlrurGnn f.'u., 272 C i .. • - t ntiqui xs"s)i 1) St I,•l'• .,N.C. 715, 718, 158 S.E.'?d 887, 890 (1967). ? • Although the wool "furor" appears in „'' """ more t)inn one at r l on of the t'ut s • `{{ ' '°i.'-'` tats' :Ion- I !j .$ : Alex Ordinance, II `!!! Section 2-•21 does uncondi- i , i-4- -• - I: Y:` ''i;::Fi •`s -3 i•�µ/. ^ - l i• •t i-r l e t — i . . . 1 il 1";'::::iipi:;":.,.-,.• 1 J.,............• .� .i `'_Y fit) r =`. - • •f1(( iitj', _ ,_ . ,/ilia ra, -_4•••i,• (11:7!..-7,;:;:!:::-: `'. :.. y'} . 1 '.i:.r�s; • ! 41:1,4. '..2.4t1'.:.',7 • E;, x_s ._..::r ,A:1,: r t '- Y 1 ���:••• 1 4• =• 1 1 at- ''1q�4 it f -. < C•P'j*k.�•4:i yt-a`�,=7 ri: 't,:�,lii t..r,Vi=F_' ' : :;1::+ 1 +r.Sre:t''_f-::,.!: ^St•. 4r•• .d .,,y.,A�dt.L•.+.,.,. %t "�C•e- ,JY'��':'•:r;ef ,. t,>:;' ., •s•' - _ - 1Il1;r-%r'-i•!"- ,-,:::-.,•,••'••••••.'::;.- %r�L'.,:1,: .e.l•}., _.f,;-1: ,A mot: .4.7::•;:`.s: .•:,__.)-vK=C+ ...'.`_M1 _ �..- .=w•R - - ,v„•i,TC•S;A,i<: - '..:'.:4. y.: S. ,::4. ..;,_:=i��'•,..''a7i.t, - 'i:?):j• - -"y_: t_t' .w R.x :.;:f;G ... . _ .,, � y . i:;;:; '".'•i'_ : :"�.r.�:i'•F-; :-'j" `•.r,. �r' 4•L.al •t3 --h...1rt;�. � �1?•-tea.«e;;;"'�6't.w. -{ - �.1i1: `F•};..i` u.+f:: :• - - L: iY.<),•.�•!i't• :�r-:r• _i Y!'.yi::,.�,• •".fir•".. :• .. :...• il'r'-Ps ti? = n= .� �."-.+. :,La ,„:•,;•:=•.1•4;.•.%;:;:.1:::: :::::';-•.;.: .5.+,ar Cl.'- ,a1,,;.-...' f.' t r: T i' - .i 1: •i •B. T �fi - - ":err�' . rte. fy••. :rS .L 1 .Y• .� v-.-.... .t .t ... .-._,. ..._...3. ',:_>", a•.:"•.-1!r.-�..-,•7..i -t ;t.gC -:1:.r.. :7S4i..,. Tn.f. '1''• ... ..,::,:r^i" '•%t.•_... • .L. •Ya[ ?.•1'Y ^Qi:>•._.t:%r.4:r. -.1,,''-•2''•• "•.. .._- • '°'" .--L^. .. r,'1`7!rvs-✓ca+.w•v....-........-......... - ... °t ...'o-1',:.'::" ...��:.i2•._1r........ .. a _ .. ... .-- - ... •. July 11 , 1984 7 1 m . !'t • ORAbTGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT • MilliI.SBOROTTGII • 107 x ' NOR= CAROLINA • ... ,..„ . 27278 , ... • '''. -.. I t '. .. rri tic*Is -,.. . REGULATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISMS 1 '.'. FOR . GREENHOUSE OPERATIONS • ZONING ORDINANCE -,- • The North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 153A Zoning Article 18 Planning and • Regulation of Development,Section 340 Grant of Power, specifically provides that "these regulation P may not affect bona fide farms, but any use of farm property. for nonfarm purpoSes is subject to the regulations". However, state law does $ not define what is intended by the term "bona fide farm" . Local government reg- ulations generalli, attempt to clarify what is intended by the term bona fide farm and, therefore, eicempt from regulation. These efforts by local governments are and continue to be subject to debate and,recently, court dispute. The recent ( . • • 1 '..- 1 court case from Mecklenburg County, in which was contested the exercise of plannin , - /. regulation against a- greenhouse operation, is attached and appears to indicate that greenhouse orleratiorp,including sales of both agricultural and horticultural products,. are exempt under the state law provision regarding bona fide Farms. Section 4.1 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance specifically permits certain 1 uses as a matter qf right. Under this provision, bona Fide farms are permitted as a use by richt and not subject to any further zoning regulation. Article 22 Definidions of The Ordinance generally defines Farming as "the use of • land primarily For one or more of the following: • • The production in the open of cash grains, field crops, vegetables, melons, fruits, berries and nuts. The raising or keeping of general livestock and poultry for the sale of such livestock and poultry For the products thereof or the breeding of such livestock and poultry. Farming includes any buildings or structures which are customarily inFidental or subordinate to the farming activities listed above, including residences For the owners, operators or employees of the farm and their families. Generalllivestock and poultry includes those animals involved which are customarily and traditionally raised on farms, such as beef and dairy cattle, togsi. sheevgoatsdrabbits and horses, mules, ponies, chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese for the purpose listed above. Farming does not include agricultural ser- vices and process4g, «vocational farming, specialized commercial horticulture, ..'.. and specialized commercial animal husbandry." . - • , '---~ / H . • • � Specilackzed Horticulture, which is by the above definition not considered to be • __=, is defined ornamental plants .and other nurser such as bulbs, florist greens, Flowers, shrubbery, flower and vegetable seeds and plants and sod and fruits and vegetables grown ����• primarily under cover". | ' The Ordinance Fu ther defines Bona Fide Farm as "the use of land for farming meeting one of the following criteria: _ • . • (1) composing two or more acres on one or more tracts owned or leased by the bona Fide farm unit; . (2) average annual sales of $1 ,000,00 for the preceding trhee years; or a minimum of twenty acres of forest land for which a managm- ment pl n has been prepared." | . Under the adoptaJ Orange County Zoning Ordinance an attempt is made to both define bona fide farm and to distinguish those types of farming operations which, by their nature, would not be exempt, but would be subject to local regulation. � Specifically, these reoulated operations include specialized horticultural • operations. � � . The Orange Cbunty Zoning Ordinance includes, in Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table, provisions which ecoonize greenhouses as permitted uses within certain zoning districts. The Ordinance further distinguishes between Greenhouses with on-premises sales of producte and those without on-premises sales. In the case of the Former, those operations With on-premises sales are permitted uses as of right in tha following districts: . . • . l �^�� . , icultursl Residential (AR) • Neighborhood Commercial 2 (NC-2) . • CoMmunity Commercial-3 /CC-3l . G oral Commercial-4- (GC-4) � Existing Commercial-5 (EC-5) Agricultural Services (AS) - . Greenhouses with no on-premises sales are permitted in the same ` dlstricte including . Residential-1 (R-1 ) . The establishment in a zoned township of a greenhouse opor- , ation meeting all local regulations would receive a zoning permit on request. • BUILDING ORDINANCE . CE . • Building permits t be issued Upon request for the . which meets all Idical regulations. Specifically, these regulations would include the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance-, Sedimentation and Erosion Contol , Ordinance and Flotid Damage Prevention Ordinance. In issuing a building permit, the application for the proposed structure must be reviewed to assure that the site is not subjedt to a grading permit; that the structure if located where proposed, would ' the structure is to be located is a legal lot of record; and that, if the structure is to be located in a zone township, there will be no more than one principal use of the lot of record, all applicable setbacks and dimensional requirements will be satis- fied and the use the structure is either permitted in the district as a use of right or on the ba Lia of the issuance of a special use permit. . _ �o� • :... .;;:,...- • MAT 020 M357 Pbezicitywiliz. ktovo5 10 . :.: • in the best interest of the neighborhood; and asked that if approved the Health Department would investigate the park within thee months. David Squires, Jr. expressed concerns regarding traffic impacts and childrens activities in the area; about the quality of people likely to reside . .in the park, and the quality of water supply in the area. 7 Michael ChiOrazzi expressed concerns regarding ' the sketchy plans, site 1 slope and visual problems, traffic, and the nature of the present community to be changed by theipark. • Kent Mann indicated he felt this was a better approach and provided more control that individual lot or subdivision development. . Garrett queStioned the appraisal submitted; noting it was a guess and - I questioned the materials made available to the - appraiser. Be expressed , concerns with not being able to question the appraiser. He noted the appraiser needed access to drawings and plans and cited landscaping plans he had that Tom 1;. ; Squires was given' access to, but that he had not received a request for from the appraiser. • Bledsoe responded at the appraiser had access to everything she had received from staff. 6. SUBDIVISION VEGuLATIogs TEXT AMFINDMENTS - • PRIVATE ROADS . . . . The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. Carl Walters cited the problem encountered by his neighbor in e- bdividing property. • . . . Alton Cummings described his concern and inability to subdivide his land to give his sons ihomesites with a 30' right-of-way versus a 60' right-of-way, • Commissionext Wilhoit asked if a variance could be granted. Smith responded there eere no variances granted to Subdivision Regulations. Commissioner Carey questioned the 60' right-of--way. Susan Smith responded 50' was requiredJ . - Cummings noted the land was to be used for family only. Commissioner Lloyd asked how planning staff could address this. Smith responded staff had . proposed this amendment to address similar problems. Lloyd asked Cummings to contact planning staff to see if what is being proposed will allow him to subdivide his laid. Henry McDon4ld 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 12' right-of-way. WATERSHED STANDARDS The presentiltion was made by Marvin Collins. Yuhasz queptioned the difference between the Town proposal which applies the stream buffer standard from the stream versus the County proposal which applies it from' the edge of the flood plain. Collins responded staff proposed that current County Standards dictate. Yuhasz expHssed concern with utilizing United States Geological (USG) maps for applying this standard as they are not intended for this purpose. Commissioned 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 floobplain ordinance from occurring and that these proposals are not thought out well. 7. 70,11.1003PINANCE TFX.TaAMENDMENTS7MEATIONAL CODEBRATIVES • The Presere6.tion was made by Planner Susan Smith. Willhoit q+stioned regulating toxic materials. Smith responded it was a provision desired by the Planning Board. Chris Herndal described the needs of the Health Sciences Consortium. Willhoit asked the relationship between use of the facility for staff versus a retreat facility. Herndal responded 20 - 30 full time staff were 1 proposed with some use of the facility for training purposes. No formal presentation was made nor comments received on the remaining public hearing items; Amendments to Article IV-Establishment of Permitted Use . . I r 1i 13 -Table, Article VIII-Special Uses, Article XXII-Definitions, Article XI Non comformities, Article VI Application of Dimensional Requirements, Article XX Definitions of he Zoning Ordinance and Section IV-B-3-C-2 Partial widths, Section IV Required Minimum Design Standards of the Subdivision Regulations. D. ADJOURNMENT Chair WillhoLt adjourned the meeting at 12:20 a.m. The next regular meeting will be hOd on June 3, 1985 in the Commissioners' room in the Court- house in Hillsborough, North Carolina. • Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Joanna Bradshaw, dmin. Secretary • • • I ' xul6 was an imFr filim- as nAmmiliata aeo,Afirszb 1% urea 11J PAGE 7 intent to grant a partial width to additional lots • using the same rights—of—way. VOTE: 10 in favor . - L opposed [Gordon opposed to granting of partial width right—of—way to the McDonalds because she felt the road was too small . • Item #7a : PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS Presentation by Gordon . • Article XX DEFINITIONS • In a letter dated August 16, 1904 to the Orange County Board of Commissioners . from Geoffrey Gledhill, the County: Attorney advised- that the definitions of "farming" and "bonafide farm" not he defined in - the ordinance unless Orange County receives express statutory authority to defin • those terms . Smith indicated that even where Local have pursued enabling legislation to define farms and farming for purposes of Local ordinances the • • court has in some cases overturned some • definitions . Walters inquired what the definition of farms and farming would then be Smith 'resonded the state definition . Pi lkey noted this is a broad definition . Smith continued that the critical issue with the state definition is that it has been determined to include commercial activities beyond those recognized treditionally• where the definition • - has been tested in court, for- example, retail sales at greenhouse establishments . Gordon noted that the desire is to regulate the commercial: aspects . Kramer asked Walters if he had a concern with the • state definition . Walters responded no , adding that there would he no need to obtain enabling legislation if the proposed farm Legislation was approved. Jacobs expressed concern that the County was giving up a better definition . Gordon indicated that the County could explore statutory authorization from the State or pursue other alternatives . Kizer noted that the courts do no Like Local ~ / • ' / 1 � � r� • | -� ' PAGE " legalisms" and * prefer that Local jurisdictions . generally defer to the general state definition . He continued that the broad definition . of farming works to the county ' s benefit as it involves more parcels . He added that there is a problem with porafarminQ operations such as greenhouses . Kramer indicated he favored more Land being eligible for farming districts . • MOTION:. PiLkey moved . to accept the attorney ' s recommendation that the farming definitions be deleted , but requested that the attorney investigate the possibilities of obtaining exprnou . Statutory' authority to -define farming . Seconded by Kremer. . • Best suggested that the County retain tfie current deinitions until approval to define Is obtained from the state . . Gmfth noted that the battle will be over the* Local definition not state authority to define . . . . VOTE: 3 in favor (Kramer, Kizer , PYLkey) B opposed MOTION : Jacobs moved that the existing definition be retained and that the attorney be requested to investigate the possibilities of obtaining express • statutory authority to define farming . Seconded by Best . ' VOTE: in favor . 3 opposed (Kizer, Yuhasz, Piikey] . • AGENDA ITEM 79 (2) Home Occupations Presentation by Smith. 'MOTIO0 : ' Kizer moved approval of th e staff recommendation . otfon , Seconded by Best . . . VOTE: . Unanimous . AGENDA ITEM 7a (3) Minimum Lot Size in Watersheds Presentation by Smtth . * i �� 1 • 1 ORANGE COUNTY 11 tr.4 • BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date DECEMBER 2 , 1985 Actio7rde Item f....L5 SUBJECT: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS • DEPARTMENT: PLANN, NG PUBLIC HEARING _Yes No ■••■•■••■•••••••••••••■■••• ....••■•••■•■••11101■0.■n.11.1.■•■•••.. Attachment(s) 1 Information Contact : SUSAN SMITH PROPOSED ORDINANCEIAMENOMENTS Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel. Hilt — 988-4501 PURPOSE: To continue the 11-25-85 public hearing. to receive . OWASA • comments, on proposed ordinance amendments affecting developmbnt in designated water supply watersheds. NEED: OWASA has requested the opportunity to further review and comment on proposed watershed ordinance amendments. IMPACT: Continuation of the public hearing specifically to receive OWASA comments would provide the Boards with additional input from the utilities ' services provider. RECOMMENDATION: • . , ._ • . 114 SATISFACTION OF WATERSHED STANDARDS OFF—SITE • • ISSUE: To provide for an approach which involves the use Of a perpetual easement over or ownership of off site property to satisfy the impervious surface and . Undisturbed area requirements for water supply vilatersheds as provided in the Orange County Zoning Oirdinance. This amendment would address the needs of the Orange Grove Rural Fire Department for expansion of their facilities within the Cane Creek water supply watershed. . • PROPOSED AMENDMENT: ARTICLE 6 APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ADD SECTIONS 6.23.9 AND 6.24.6 Satisfaction of Watershed Standards Off—Site Where property proposed for development cannot meet tie impervious surface and/or undisturbed area requirements prescribed in the Ordinance, an appLicant may satisfy these requirements off—site within the same water supply watershed as designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan . For the purpose of this subsection , "off—site" shall be defined as al Property in the same ownership as and either adjoining or separated from the tract being developed. b) Property owned by another individual either adjoining or separated from the tract being developed. Property used to satisfy undisturbed area requirements must adjoin the property under development . In the case of (b) , an easement must be provided which shalt I. run with the lend of the subject property (and) 2. be perpetual, in nature tend) 3. expressly prohibit any improvements or alteration of the use of the property in a • manner which has the effect of making the land conveyed in the easement unsuitable for use to satisfy the impervious - surface and/or undisturbed area requirements. The property subject to the easement shall be retained in its natural state as existed -at the time of the calculation of the impervious surface and/or undisturbed area requirements. The property subject to the easement may not be conveyed or used to satisfy the impervious surface and/or undisturbed area requirements for any other development application. The easement shall be so stated as to provide for the aforementioned and shall be approved in form by g'e• iii . I - I • I - - 11€ MODIFICATION OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS ISSUE: An inquiry has been made regarding the expansion of an existing industrial establishment in Orange County. Thai owner has experienced difficulty in complying with theimpervious surface ratio (12%) required for a site within a protected watershed and served by well and septic tank. The problem may also exist for other residences, businesses or industries. • • Drart proposals of the Research Triangle Counci L of Govprnments included provisions for flexibility through special use permit procedures. The proposed ordinance amendment is based on the TJCO.G proposals. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS There are no existing provisions for modification of the impervious surface ratios. PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS 8 .8.25 Modification of Impervious Surface Limitations I . 8.8.26 .1 Additional Information In addition to the information requested in Subsection 8.2 and 8.8, the following shall be supplied as part of Ihe application : A) 4 site plan which shall include the following: 1 ) The dimensions and acreage of the Lot to be built upon or otherwise used; 2) The site Layout of the entire project, including existing and proposed buildings and their uses, and its relationship to surrounding properties; • 3 The layout of all off—street parking and Loading areas, including the Location of entry • and exit points, the internal vehicular circulation pattern, the Location and dimension of required parking and Loading spaces, and the materials of which such facilities are constructed. 4 The location , dimension and method of construction of alt existing and proposed . streets and highways. 5) The location, size and name of all existing • - i 11 , plant materials to be retained and proposed plantings and screenings, including areas to preserved , as vegetated buffers along drainageways and undisturbed areas for runoff infiltration . 6) Title; north arrow; scale; names of owners, developer and person responsible for plan preparation; and the date that the plan was drawn or subsequently revised. 7) Location of all areas on the site subject to - flood hazard or inundation as shown on flood maps or soils maps. - 8) Location of all water courses on the site, including direction of flow. 9) Existing and proposed topography at a contour interval of five (5) feet based an mean sae level datum b) Statement from appropriate public service agencies Concerning the method and adequacy of water supply and wastewater treatment, including 't-he approval of a secondary wastewater treatment site in the event Of failure of the primary septic tank system. Cl Building plans for all existing and proposed buildings, including floor plans and cross—sections showing the proposed use of all portions of such • buildings. D) Statement from the appropriate public service agencies concerning the provision of fire, police and rescue protection to the site and structures . E) Detailed plans for controlling the first one—half • (1/2) inch of runoff from all impervious surfaces, including the capacity of infiltration, retention, detention or other control measures. F) Design, layout and construction specifications for runoff control measures, including methods for protecting undisturbed areas during and • after construction . • 9) Iflentification and protective measures for erodible soils (K factors greater than 0.36 in Orange County Sbi1 Survey) , alluvial soils, steep slopes (greater tian 15%) , fLoodpLains and wetlands . H) Inventory of all hazardous materials produced, stored, used on—site or tranparted to 'or from the site as defined by EPA 's Hazardous Substances or 118 Priority Pollutants Lists. X) Design and constructions specifications for storage facilities for hazardous materials, including spill containment measures and contingency plans for on—site containment and clean—up of spills. J) Sedimentation and erosion control plan . 8.8.26.2 Sta?derds of Evaluation The following specific standards shall be used in deciding on application for this modification and use: A) The site plan submitted meets all requirements specified in subsections 8.8 a) and 8.8.26.1 a) . 8) ALL applicable requirements of Article 4, 5, 6, 8, 8, 10 and 12 have been satified with the eixception of the impervious surface ratio for which a modification is requested. C) Fire, police and rescue services, and water supply and wastewater treatment methods are adequate to Oarve the proposed uses and facilities. 6.23.4 Impervious Surface Regulated in Protected Watershed (Revise second paragraph to read as follows). In order to promote infiltration of stormwater runoff intol the soil and to -minimize direct and immediate runoff into streams and water supply impoundments, impervious surface ratios shall be required as provided in the Table of Impervious Surface Ratios — Section 6 .23.4. Modifications of the Impervious • Surface Ratios may be requested, however, as a Class A Special Use in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of this Ordinance. In no case shall a modification be granted for property Located in a designated Water Quality Critical Area, and no modification granted under the provisions of Section 8 shall exceed the ratios established in Section 6.23.4 for the Protected Watershed (PW—II) District by more than five percent (5%) . Impervious surface calculations for en individual devet pment shall be cumulative for original construction and any subsequent additions, and calculations lati ans of impervious sur surface coverage for individual Lots shall include that portion of a rightiof—way between the centerline of the street and the abutting property line of the lot. . . . . . . _ . � 11L \ . . 6.24.B Imp vious Surface ReguLated in Protected watersheds [Revisions proposed are the same as for Section 6 .23 e.4| > � . � . . . � . . . . . ... Orange Water and Sewer Authority • 406 Jones Ferry Road l P.O. Box 366 Carrbbro, NC 27510 (919)968-4421 • December 2, 1985 Dr. Donald Willhoit Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County;Courthouse 106 Bast Margaret Lane Hilleborough, 'MC 27278 Dear Dr. Willhoit: Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) appreciates the Orange County Board of Commissionersjextension of the November 25, 1985 public hearing concerning certain proposed modifications to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. OWASA staff has completed review of those proposals which were included in November 25, 1985 Board of Commissioners agenda packet. The following comments are offered concerning those proposals affecting the control of development • activities within University Lake and Cane Creek public water supply watersheds. • General Comment: It is the understanding of OWASA staff that the proposed modifications to the Zoning Ordinance would be adopted for all of the Cane Creek and University Lake watershed areas. Perhaps rather than adopting these more permissive basin-wide development cgntrols, consideration could be given to handling extenuating circumstanceslon a case-by case basis through a variance request procedure or • similar procens which could be incorporated into the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. This would maintain intact the present water supply protection program but would also provide the flexibility needed to address a.limited number of cases where an alternative approach may be acceptable. Zoning Ordinance, Article 5: 1 When coupled with the recently approved increase in the impervious surface. • . • limits,, the proposed revisions to the Floor Area Ratio for the industrial district would permit a significant increase in allowable development intensity within these districts. Based on the example•provided in the information packet, development intensity in the RI and I-1 districts, as represented by "permitted grass floor area," would increase by more than 215% and 245x, respectively, ever that presently permitted. • It is stated that "If the adverse impacts are confined to the building space, it would seem advisable to allow a greater building coverage in BI and I-1 " r coverage,Generally, the greater the building c era a the greater the y s g "n$ $ s $ volume of trafjfic, the larger the parking area and greater the associated nonfpoint source pollution. The associated adverse impacts are not limited to li the building apace. If permissible development inte nsitq is increased f or the se districts them should be some corresponding measures for assuring the protection of rater quality. An Equal Opportunity Employer Dr. Donald Willhoit December 2, 1985 • Page Two firr: 6 B. Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 (Dimensional Requirements):, We understand the intent of the proposal to allow impervious surface limits to be met through off-site measures. However, provisions should be made to assure that a proper balance be maintained throughout all areas of the watershed. It would not be appropriate to allow more intense development in one sub-basin while receiving all "trade-offs" from another sub-basin, as this could lead to water quality degradation. Consideration should be given to limiting "transfer" opportunities only to } existing developments. Also, off-site transfers should be required to be within the same sub-basin and preferably from an adjoining property. It must be clearly•stated that the trade-off property must be permanently maintained with an established vegetative cover for enhancement of stormwater absorption and that the easement to this effect must be recorded prior to issuance of the building permit. • Zoning Ordinance, Article 8: fA The adoption of the "off-site" impervious surface limit transfer proposal could eliminate the need to allow variances from the impervious surface limitations through the special use •permit process. If the special use permit approach is taken, adequate measures for plan review, inspection and monitoring of on-site water quality protection measures must be in place. There is concern that the cumulative effect of the recently approved impervious surface limits and these proposed revisions under consideration may be to lessen the overall strength and effectiveness of Orange County's water supply x„y protection program, which has been cited as a model for the State of North Carolina. Relaxation of these development standards may set a precedent for similar revisions in the future. It is hoped that the adoption of measures which effectively increase development potential within these environmentally sensitive watersheds will be counter-balanced with the adoption of additional water supply protection measures. Thank you very much for your consideration of these comments. The Orange County Board of Commissioners' continuing concern for protection of public drinking water supply sources is appreciated. ve ly yours, . Everett Billingsley Executive Director wp cc: OWASA Board of Directors Mr. Kenneth T$ompson, Manager, Orange County Mr. Marvin Collins, Director, Orange County Planning Department 12t OR COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITE74 ABSTRACT Item No:IT*4; Meeting Date: DECERMER2, 1985 SUBJECT: OLD 041 I-44:01 CHANGE ORDERS DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 CHANGE ORDER TELEPHONE MITER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel R111 - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider change order (G.03) to the scope of work. NEED: Change Order G.03 requested by contractor October 16 and NOvember 15, 1985 and recommended by architect November 25, 198 : Would, (1) add the installation of a steel lintel and restore deteriorated brickwork above existing window opening outside roam 109, (2) provide new wood base to match existing base in room 109, (3) apply ardex K-15 latex leveling compound in hall and lobby, (4) construct closet in room 208 with a pair of Wood doors for storage for equipment, and (5) install carpet in place of vinly tile in rooms 103, 104 and 105. IMPACT: If 'approved the changes would add $5,568.90 to the original contract sum plus change order G.1 and G.2 for a total of $263,531.07. RECCHMEMIATION(S): Approve change order G.03 and authorize the transfer of $5,508.90 from the capital improvement fund to the old court- house project account. 7' CHANGE i Distribution to: ORDER I OWNER Pg • I ARCHITECT 53 .: ), ' "AlA DOCUMENT G701 CONTRACTOR Pg . E3 Flap . OTHER fal FILE • —......... — •••••......now........r......1.vor.o. •■•■■••••■•■•••••• . .M.A.O. , PROJECT: REN0VAITiONS: CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 5.03 -:-. (name,address) ORANGE COUNTY HISTORIC : • COURTHOUSE INiTIATION DATE: DEC 3, 1985 •, TO (Contractor): Hi LLSBOROI UGH NC - :1; I ARCHITECTS PROJECT NO oc.a -7,' • DURHAM CONSTRUCTION CO INC . ••• . 4 112 BRITTANIA AVE CONTRACT FOR: GENERAL - P.O.MOX 15028 CONSTRUCTION DURHAM NC 27704 0028 CONTRACT P/0 ID NO. 7741 CONTRACT DATE: MARCH 20, 1989 ' I • . You are directed to make Ile following changes in this Contract: 1. INSTALL STEEL LINTEL AND RESTORE DETERIORATED BRICKWORK ABOVE 1 - . EXISTJNG WINDOW OPENING OUTSIDE ROOM 109 . $ 258.94 , . . 2. PROVIDE NEW WOOD BASE AND SHOE MOULD MATERIALS, . MATCHING EXISTING PROFILES, TO REPLACE MODIFIED EXISTING MEMBERS IN ROOM 109 . $ 296.48 - " I 3. PERFORM LEVELING OF EXISTING CONCRETE SUB-FLOOR • 1 IN HALL 110 AND LOSEY 101 , USING ARDEX K-15 LATEX , 1 CONCRETE LEVELING COMPOUND iKY% • - 4 c+sTRucT STORAGE CLOSET IN ROOM 208 (CLERK'S OFF. ) INCLUDING PAIR OF WOOD PANEL DOORS, AS DETAILED ay ARCHITECT. . $1653.07 5. INSTALL CARPET FLOORING IN JUDGE'S CHAMBER (RM 105 ), JUpGE'S OFFICE (RM 104) . SEC. OFFICE (RM 103) IN PLACE OF VINYL TILE ORIGINALLY SPECIFIED (CREDIT FOR TILE) . • I (CARPET PRICE AT 23.00/SY AS SPEC. IN ALLOWANCES) . SI 0 98.68 • i TOTAL ITEMS 1 - 5 --"". 55.1. 0*-- 5361,11 I Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indilrate his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. ), I • . The original (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) was $ 247 700.00 . = Net change by previously authorized Change Orders ,.. $ 10 262.17 . The(Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) prior to this Change Order was $ 257 982.17 The (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) will be (increased) (dec-reased)-(unchanged) by this Change Order 1 $ _§.....-s-6-8-71/17 54C,I.11 Kle... . ,• The new(Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost)including this Change Order will be $ 263 5 3 t .07 eCo i 2,0•.5.4 . The Contract Time will be (ncreased) (decreased) (unchanged) by ( 0 ) Days. , The Date of Substantial Con-pletion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is JAN 10 S986 ' Authorized: c- ROMAN KoLODIJ ' JAMES WEBB DURHAM CONSTRUCTION CO INC COUNTY OF ORANGE ARCHITECT i AITCHITEcTS CONTRACTOR OWNER NORTH CAROLINA : Address 201 E RoSEMA114Y ST Address P.O. BOX 15 o 28 Address 108 E MARGARET LANE CHAPEL HILL INC 27514 DURHAM NC 27704 0028 HILLSBOROUGH NC 8 Y //4 /4(7,gie A BY .AY.e,1-1,-, - , 1,.... .... .... BY Al t...•.,....„ w,Ja.>e- .,. a DATE if.kr, '267 .-t--- DATE / - 0 3 - 7 .6 DATE '-' AlA DOCUMENT C701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AIA • 0 1970 k THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AkHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVE..N.W.,WASHINGTON.DC.2000(. G701—1978 ‘`,• 7 , . • \... ,._ ! 12 - • . • • . 4 I " Durham Construction Company, Inc. Phone 9191471-4497 - -r.- 112 Britania Avenue ...Joe,.., • fr turtO. I Post Office Box 15028 ••....• • N.C.Lie.*6533 Durham,North Carolina 27704.0028 November 15, 1985 . • . . . . • Roman Kolo ij , Architects . . 121 South stes Drive . . Chapel Hill , North Carolina 27514 . . Re i Hillsb rough Courthouse Renovation • Hillsbcirough, North Carolina • Dear Mr. KcIlodij: - There are some problems that we need clarifications from the . , . . 1 owner on b +ore we can proceed with our work. • • • - 1 . The lexisting base that was in room 109 is not the tirM-( i'te•-• right quantity or size for us to reinstall . We need - = to have Garland Woodcraft to make the following • ; • materials. Breakdown: . . . . . . - Wood base 107LF @ $2.08/LF $ 222.56- 1 Wood shoe mold 1O7LF @ $.21/LF 22.47 b.c.c. Labor to install • no charge . . Subtotal 245.03 - D.C.C. Overhead 107. 24.50 • Subtotal 269.53 D.C.C. Profit 10% 26.95 Total Additions $296.46 -&-- • 2. Addilg steel support plate over window at room 109. A tel support plate needs to be install to support itM14, el the 6xterior brick veneer above the window at room 109. Breakdown: . I • Removing existing cracked brick eneer 25.00 Support steel lintel 49.00 . . Installing lintel 20.00 • reinstalling 4-intel Vi,:. ' 120.00 Subtotal . 5:-.. . :- 214.00 D.C.C. Overhead 2140 Subtotal - 235.40 D. C.C. Profit ....„,....,_ . . Total Addition $258.94 < - 3. The existing floor that supports the existing large "Bell - I Clock" has decayed and is sagging. This floor needs to be I rebuilt to support the clock. Please advise us on what method you would like for us to use on the re-construction I . • 12 Durham Construction Company, Inc. Phone 919/4714497-tot*, 7, 112 Britania Avenue Post Office Box 15028 .... - N.C.Lic. #6533 Durham,North Carolina 27704.0028 October 16, 1985 ..,.- , 1. Roman Kolodij, Architects - 121 South Estes rive Chapel Hill , North Carolina 27514 Re: Hillsborough Courthouse Renovation Hillsborough', North Carolina I Dear Mr. Kolodij4 We would like tcl furnish some requested changes on the above project. E' 1. Leveling the existing concrete floor in area #110 and #101. We planIto use ardex K-15 no troweling floor underlayment concrete to level and fill the above areas to recieve tile. tr5(44. Breakdown: t'- t-t tAcAo,tw Matrials $ 1355.00 N.C. sales tax 54.20 v Lab6r 460.00 .-VF.'ri-F- juu, tt Subtotal 1869.20 1 • 0 --, 10%1D.C.C. overhead 186.92 Complete change $ 2261.73 . 1 . • 2. Adding floset at room 208. , . Breakdown: C New steel studs 50.00 /2,, Newli 5/8 F.C. Sheetrock 122.00 New 5'0" x 8'0" doors, jamb, l'1::-. , shIlving 950.00 ...%r- ti:Ntrt...a, Painting 100.00 17-) ') - 4.41-61 F>1 Wood base -----------V 45.00 Filish hardware-in the none allowance allowance Labor 200.00 Sugtotal 1467.00 .- Coo ..,...e.......1......, t.,31 -c,c) 1O D.C.C. overhead 0 146.70 ..—__L.'""7"''' - saftotal 1613.70 10% D.C.C. Profit 161.37 Coriclete change 1775.07 Ci&VU:::K. life).`919 Vde- 5VeMer- VtaT."3 -1 -, V .[, *. 16 15'3, 1 • ° WM‘---C..) (ALACt— _ . Q - . 'ReV6tCk\s 59 RoH,k_ts,\ c,;(„a.,),( ek,Rctuac_c__ 1\, 7I 124 tim.454r7 t%1 Vc1446. va,07Q A-FC.KIT-Or."-r WITe.A., .okfTt5T (g? 277/,- --.4 ilt. ‘ e5 it.) t...tli c - utv.2 (.. ittz. Itl . c51‘1' I 3. Deleting tile in room #105 and installing-6c-Pet. te.< BreakdOwn: __ --- Delete vinyl tile .- $ (114.00)--- - Add carpet at ,$23:60/SY 490.59 --- --' e 0 Subtotal ,,---- 376.59 ..- ' S 10 pl.....01,14 overhead 37.66 7 1-4 Artotal 414.25 . Profit 41.43 -- -a • Thiel change 455768— _ I .-, , I.6150‘K-- - r5zT 4. Replacing front concrete sidewalk. ....maametwocir Vic ' Breakdown: ReMoving existing sidewalk 900.00 !°4° _Aallglif Fodming for new walk 140.00 , ..--------- _ . Concrete for walk 650.00 66-11010 wire mesh 70.00 Concrete labor 260.00• Dressing up slab to landscaping 120.00 Subtotal 2140.00 10t D.C.C. overhead 214.00 Subtotal 2354.00 10%, D.C.C. Profit ' 235.40 Total change 2589.40 I Mr. Kolodij, pie se give us a call if you have any questions on the above item. 2- tGr-5- „I-55 Sincerely yours, / , 6.3.../ ," ...41;-4,.... _ -- .ent (1z,c,) ta,D lr ... " .. Q‘ c"--) --- c _ • .: 10-.5 Levr ." evr- az bt5) tOo v.•- ■ WA • 1.1 -t-1..-3,,,s, __- (ci.c-.5 da:5 -Tos47_, e,--, i c--= - 4 • 4 ...", W.- -- 1C.:71-.t Cr 1046,c CI 1 To-y•d,,, t -\ terc, An,So -- . `1416.E-....c,-- '1 ' C-ittV5C 12E ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 2, 1985 Action Agenda Item #=ri SUBJECT: SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING — JANUARY 6, 1986 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Ye X No ATTACHMENTS: CONTACT: Marvin Collins County Attorn y's letter of October 18, 1985; existing TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 1 ordinance proivsions; rezoning Hillsborough 732-8181 petition Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 888-7331 Mebane 227-2031 • • PURPOSE: To consider calling a spacial public hearing on January 6, 1986 to consider a rezoning request to correct an error in the Zoning Atlas and an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would allow Planning Staff to proceed with an enforcement action . NEED: On October 1 , 1984, zoning became effective in Cheeks Township . At that time, the property . of. Donnie H . Chapman was placed in an EC-5 Existing Commercial zoning category. The Land placed in that designationation was thought to include those buildings associated with Mr. Chapman 's automotive service . Recently, the Planning Staff Learned that the buildings are Located on an adjacent tract [in the same ownership) zoned AR — Agricultural Residential. The intent of the rezoning is to match the building Locations with the appropriate zoning classification EEC-5) . The second matter involves an enforcement action dealing with the removal of junked and/or abandoned vehicles from a parcel. in Chapel HILL Township near Calvander. Staff initiated legal proceedings and was prepared to go to court when the defendant 's attorney requested a hearing before the judge to determine the County 's right to enforce such provisions . The contention of the defendant 's attorney was that State regulations pre—empted the County 's authority. The judge ruled that the County could regulate junked and/or abandoned vehicles but indicated • 9 1 , ± I , 12Et- , -• that ordinance revisions were necessary to insure ,., the constitutionally of the provisions. The County Attorney has prepared proposed amendments :`- which address the judge 's concerns . IMPACT: The scheduling of a public hearing for January 6, 1986 would permit the correction of a zoning ,., error and allow Staff to proceed with an .'..."; enforcement action . The proposed hearing date -.. 1 coincides with a regularly scheduled Commissioners meeting. .., RECOMMENDATIO : Schedule a public hearing for January 6, 1986 at 7 :30 pm in the Commissioners Room, Orange County '..!: Courthouse, for the purpose of receiving public fr comment on the proposals . , . 1. . g . _ ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA . APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT 1.2'1; • Date: November 25, 1985 TO THE BOARD OF CDUUTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA - • The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning At Las of Orange County as hereinafter requested. . 1 .. The property is Located -on the south side --of S.R.d, 1332 _ Highland Farm Sit /Road) between • S.R.# 1334 - - and S.R.# 133!6 It is known as Latta) 5 & 72k . , Stock 1, of Orange County Tax Map 10 - Cheeks Township. .- It has a frontage • of .SPP mAp feet and a depth of SPP m»p feet, and contains 147,8 ,51_ square feet or 1,1R' acres. 2. It is desired and requested t et h foregoing property -be rezoned from EG-5 to U.e14- acr s) See- attached narrative AR EC-5 (2:24 acres) for explanation. • - : .3-.- The ._foLL.owing . information has been _ attached .-.in__, support of the . application for -changing the Zoning Atlas (m - required on. all • - appLicatians) . �_. _...._ �_. • *a. A fdlty dimensioned map at a scale of not Leos then one (1) inch squete one-hundred (100) feet nor more then one (1) inch 'equets -twenty"- 1201 • feet—ahawing°--the• Land which - is proposed. to be rezdned. *b. A LeigaL description of the Lend proposed to be rezoned. • *c. A 'tatement of justification addressing one or more of the foL iowing: • (1) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which • would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the error. (2) I The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment • reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety end general welfare. *(3) The manner in which the proposed amendment wilt carry out the intent end purpose of the.edopted Land Use Plan or part . thereof. •*(4) ALL other circumstances, factors and reasons which the - applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including, but not Limited to, documentation from service agencies (e.g. fire, police, rescue and utilities agencies) assuring services provision capability to the development. • d. A list of ell individuals, firma or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred (5007 feet of the property sought for rezoning is attached. The list is current as of 11/25/89 - Mate) - I certify that all information furnished in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge. - • • - App Li cant(s) : Address: - Phone: I - • • • 12t H NARRNTIVE STATEMENT - DONNIE H. CHAPMAN REZONING REQUEST On October 1, 1984, the property of Donnie H. Chapman consisting of approximately 1.38 acres was zoned EC-5 Existing Commercial. The zoning of the property occurred as part of the zoning of Cheeks - - - Township. The property was a portion of Lot 5, Tax Map 10 - Cheeks Twsp. The property placed in an EC-5 designation was thought to encompaSS thONd buildings comprising Mr. Chapman's automotive service business. It was recently discovered that the buildings in question are not situated on a portion of Lot 5 but on the adjoining Lot 7A, also in the ownership of Mr. Chapman. The purpose of this request is to zone 1.14 acres!,of the 1.38 acre tract now in an EC-5 designation back to AR. Thisrpqrtlem of the request invoes!;Lot 5. Approximately 0.24 acres of this tract would remain EC-5 in order to provide the required 50 foot side yard for an existing shop building on Lot 7 . The request also involves the rezoning of approximately 2.24 acres of Lot 7A from AR to EC-5. This request is made to provide for the existing buildings on that lot. The buildings include a large - - shop building, a smaller garage area to the rear of the shop, and a storage building to the east of the shop. The attached property drawing shows the property in question and those portions for which rezoning is requested. • • ' attsrf aP t014141> u. cuAPM Olt .19` cw=ate- -Cbu,tEttlip -- TAY. mA.17 10 i J0/1 I - e)- • . -� Ate- ,. 2 1 ........ A►� aiusec ,eI4 aTowatSUiP 4......`,. . % icy<a, �'- 1 3 7 0, :P ..."6 1494 .440 I a r. ., lb 1 """' 6 /I.' tt °� ��v1� Ate l I '5 " -�ilip. . 14 r., ,„.1, r . 4 7� 41 ay ce>CC�TIt�t4 2 l, oa-coo 4.)18 Ac to..4 es p1101146 'll°,4 h t✓XtOrg21‘E 5acr6{M "ra I�We g E ``' letzoHeo( mac--tea) PRCE'E1 TY 0006131' -Co E i 4.• l.U�i 2Gz •to° CMG'-5 'rb At_) a i"0 / 1 In 1141=fit v �' ( II SI i . .ass.(.g:t :406^0 V z r PTY i a rool 1 cf? t i/ ) 77-' � ♦ 4.4.l.... \P f f` -fir-- ---- - -- `\ > ' C -�Y� L t '� y� t,� s•r 1 1 • ■ • • ,......-. 13A . .,,... cr • 144444e 1 . ,..,.„. ‘.444.'ka:4 .- 44?"--- .e.„ :4-. I ' -.•,1/47.... ..... -- ... , . i...... , .." .... -4.z.,•,,, ,J At... . estecg414 tto .:-..-::% a-.I.,.... • --- * • , ..., 4- - ,otodosooeoozge.b I ---* ..- ,,.... • 4,,,,0011. ./. . --- ..- , -- r = . , -- - .. --' _...,, 7...., _ . •,' ,.-- • , - _ . .,- .• r - . . a • .„--r • i ,, - I -•-- . --- ,- , ..- ,..i.e's ,- - . - ,- ... .• -- .,,--' - - .--- ..--- ,--•^e•• •'. . , e• ' \ . ,• .. - . . I ' t: . - .." „.- - IIII - --- -• III ...*. --- ,.../- .-- --II -, ..- ,,.. • ..- .' . ../ - ..- NI I- -•I ., ...-- , .--- A -\ i • - -- • ..-- - ... " _-• •- -• „- .-- ' -- .,-- . -," . ..- • - ..- .,7 ._ -- .-- /IIII' -.- ---- I' „" I ..- .7' ..., , ''- „ ''s . --- , 3 7 IE A ,. ... '''. ../.' „....7' ... er ...e." \ i 1:7; Zr ti 4 •, .... ,•• e.'. '''' ...• " e „,...- ....• / .." . - .//' .... ."" ---- ,...,,.." Are, -..-4.4 .4...ar., . ...". ..--- \\- i el 6: : ...."" Y-44..(---- ..... , ... is. ..,-- - '-5"''' ...-1.4114.4.,.. ..--V .,-". ../.-- 7. "is-C> ...- ..., ,,,, : "I . •:::".-7,..--= . (,) (1. ili ‘j It , . -, E :- ,,, -.1-11,4„.;,. ,.... L.---4t51-41-1- fe.ca_c_ " e rq '1-- ' - ...I - KI . ,,,,,""- ..--''' ,••• ...--' •„.. i 4 * . ,".." e" , ."- 11-2. ez.-'4.- „e,,cir„,—, ■ ......,„-- 1 :i", RI. - --- . ,...,,_•_._,,, 1 ..,--`-' _ /... ..„/„.7 .... .„- ..,- ...• i ,.... _...._ ,.... i , it ky, ...1-----.' „. .,... , .„... ......-- ., ,•,-. ..„-- . • .-- _ .„--- „.-- „.---- ..,........„ ..._ . ...,. , w .... .. ,_. ..... . ._- - _ - ,... N - *I _,,.."- . ' ...' . . ., --- . 0 -7. . ..---- . ...--. II-CI _, i 11 - ° 1./"I'I ----.- - _ I-- .., ..• ..... . .- .. . 1. &-.• „-- . -- ' .. • .•- .,- -.- ..."- _--- . ' --' ../,- , ., -- .." ..- - - • - --'- .. --- N. () .,..•-• „... ,, - --- .---* . . „--- . .- -- ..• .. .... .. •-•-"( _- .-- .. ..-- ...- „. . I,i I .? .."-- ---------_ I .---`' -------,_„...., ..."..- ..-,...-" - . .... .---- 1 N --.., . - .."' . \V - . '' ."' -* ..,-.' ...7' ""'...... \I .....„ 10 . ......... ..?"-- - it ---.....,_ Rt 1 13 REIZONING, SPECIAL USE, MAILING ADDRESS REQUEST LIST TOWNSHIP TAX MAP BLOCK LOT TOWNSHIP TAX NAP BLOCK LOT --- Cheeks 10 7 Grace R. Miller Cheeks 10 8E Jean & Donald Crawford Cheeks 10 15 Orange Grove Crossroads Baptist Chur4 Cheeks 10 5A Donald Hanks Cheeks 10 14 James Upchurch Cheeks 10 6A Phillip A. Latta Cheeks 10 6 Charles D. Latta Cheeks 10 6B Samuel A. Latta Hillsborough 3 30 Charles D. Latta • • • • • • • • • . . . . . ti .i� K - 4 . i 4 FILED • ea0R 389 oi,rs137 #_ ` try _0 7 -- eu lel --. fUCX 389 137 - ,, .- :ZEDS t'' -` Breurdiiig Tbae.Sank and Psi e Tax ,Z, Parcel Identifier No. ilex Lot No. ... ti Verified by .. . County on the day of 9. tart i 3Tail after recording to Cheshire & Parker ,;;.L. This instrument was prepared by Alonzo Brawn.Coleman, Jr., 110 North Churton Street, .._ �'•, ; Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Brief description for the Index j I - - • Y ► NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL WARRANTY DEED t° .26th day Ma .19 82 ,by and between THIS DEED made this y°! y - GRANTOR GRANTEE ' CAROI, CHAPMAN DONNIE CIIAPMAN . - : rz , 3rc- M ;' ' .j� 2 278 1 s : ■i rter i°appropriate block for eaeb Dartr:came,address.end.it aperopriate.:hasacter or entity.e.q.corporation or partnership. ■ .t The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said patties,their heirs.successors.and assigns.and • _bail include singular, plural. masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context. • iYITNESSETH, that the Grantor. for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby aclmnwiedged, has and by these presents does grant. bargain. sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that . certain lot or parcel of land,situated in the City of Cheeks and Hillsborough Town:hip. . Orange County.North Carolina and more particularly described as follows: - ` . 1.61.TRACT I— 1.61. -7A • : a : BEGINNING at an iron stake in the South right-of-way line of State Road 11332 and • r at the Northeast corner of the Anderson Heileman Estate; running thence along and y with the South line of Charlie Latta South 58° 00' East 250.80 feet to an iron ib'.1 stake; thence continuing with said Latta's South line South-76° 38' East 66.90 feet to an iron stake a new corner with G. E. Miller; running thence a new line South 08° 19' West 311.70 feet to an iron stake; running thence South 16° 00' West 368.90 _ feet to an iron stake a new corner with G. E. Miller; running thence North 79° 05' ra- West 270.00 feet to an iron stake in the East line of said Heileman Estate; thence A P.M. {:�. along and with said Holeman line North 10° 04' East 772.00 feet to the point and ,,.., place of BEGINNING and containing 4.86 acres mote or less according to the plat and survey entitled "Property of Donnie H. Chapman° by W. R. Cates, Jr., dated ;; — May 16, 1973, and recorded in Book , Page , Orange County Registry. d 7;?1 N.C.ear Assoc farm V•.1:'sit.arroe°177: - v,• I i. TRACT It — Lo-r s a�a 3$9 138 ti l•{ •f i BEGINNING at a stone heap a corner of tot No. 1 on Richard Thompson's line, then j:1 .1 1 t)4 with',said Thompson's line North 36 ohs and 62 Iks. to a stone heap a corner of Lot ' y No. 14, then with No. 4 East 6 chs. and 30 links to pointers on Abisha Paucette's 1 I .. line,• then his line South have a degree West to.pointers a corner of Lot. No. 1, thence with Lot No. 1 West 6 chs. and 7 iks. to the first station, containing 22 and ' � ! 11/16 iaerea, be the same more or less. >~ • Reference is made to deed dated March 18, 1872, from Josiah McDade et al. to 3 • Anddrson Bateman, recorded in Book_,,__, Page 201, Orange County Registry. - •• The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor by instrument recorded in nook...243; Page,-.]....__ s and Book 255, Page 1105, Orange Count i Y. Registry.• _111.. 111. ,,, . A map showing the above described property is recorded In Plat Book . . . .... .,.... page.._.. .... 1I.•i • TO RAVE AND TO ROW the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the Grantee in feel simple. ', r ' et.. ..,p 9,t f t e,.»-f� .^ T 0:� !`tJ^,a�!.1. ..«....w s.C r..^ yormt K a xu r C�1 • 71tXOONC XINNUNWi-',1"4-E -.t_b.. .Gl'•'`.0_„. '•4 .0 •..4' •t • 4. -.#? - M‘DII CliX9i8#DQ :a j .i - ■e-.t.5 1• + .r.••.t-r..pPG1:a.0 -'4,4 41...I. .1...-u. De1E7i,XXSG@4b E' GIQ lgXdtD�IGElt$GCJDCXXXLXXX • =;�(a?- 1` . .0•..4 ,'y .R.. .. ..t..L*. t• 1.1^1.0.. !` :.,:t.. tee,. T .a, • 'i ; P' f 1 1 . � LY Wramp b ws duror. the Grantee has beremt. see hies band and teal,er sf corporate,boa eawed chid rostrameet to b,slatted in RI etsyalta. adore b7 its Maly authorised officer's and Its seal to be beresate affixes)by unborn: Si Its Boatel Si pM+etOer,the Mar add Isar first 1 1 1I� �.e . shoe.writtdd. -I ..•.. • p: •1 sat4ee=ee'- �wrl'��:�,e!'r=ads. ,.._fSCAU -f i S i _111.1___..�.». ^tcernorua flame) - Carol Chapman } i I nr... . ......w ......--'- ..... - m -- -------- CaaAw �� .._ .— .._ 1:. ATT63r1 --»_ 1111..-- r (SISAL) { •`^. ' 4 Z i ( t".trtrlttr,,,rr -Secretary(corporate Sean Z7. »`•, 11 { ,s„J�„t6 A.cR4:,,r1 :I tSP.nr.7 ',..q' `• t 1,+ :�fsSLtt>:-aSAi?h..r0'' NORTH CAROLINA,-----..... ..... - Couotr. es?. 1.11 1 ' NOTARY n 1.a Notary Public of Om Cooney awl State aforesaid. certify that • --__ . •.•! PUBLIC I 4aro1•_ l�Pman- ---.. ..---.... _- Grantor. 4;: • •� It i B personalty appeared before me this day and acatnowledred the execution of the feretoihr Instrument.witness my (fit { 4... Qi�'f COUI►�t tG,,'y. s head and ertfetal stamp or seal chi. 26tliaay of_ M}Y / / t7__B2 I 1 rrrnnns1110 1 10-10-82 E�^,ni,4c3.,.0 0"-Ck-4'. .e.t--v My Cemmhdlon ekplrea: omrl mime .14f._:1.-. 1, .. 111 1111.. 1111 1111 1111 ....... -{ - 1 1. 56AL•STAIIP NORTH CAROLINA. --- toanq. ✓' .+'� L a Notary Public .e the County and,state aforesaid. certify that _. — --.__. .t•'t•. It V • : a personally cams before me tbte day and aekoowledred that.___he is- y,%:i_` •i• v - _____a North Carolina corporation.and that 07 antnonty dole d • 1 :Men and as the art of the corporation. tb+ forcr0mt instrument wan stetted to des name by its -.-- •'� : President.staled watb Its corporate seal and attested Or--- ea des_..._......_---._..,—.....Seeregrr_ i ✓ wanness or nand and ef0.tai stamp or Goat.tbia_—...day of..-—.--- ---,17.-----.. t ,c Sly tommls:inn expire=---___.-_1.1__11_—_...--_...--._ -- Notary Public I sassy 'm1�H _. ._ ._. .Ae0esea i -._ s 1 The fnrecothr ear tflea1 0 of Jeanne A. Crabtree, lotary Pub 1 j c of Oranaq-Cgynty,,-N,,.c, „— 1_111_—��._.Y .....1111. — .: zr,: ..- u.Sll cottm.d Is be eoereet.This set and this reiUneat.ars dory retotertd u ch.note and tuna and In the Rook and Pate shown 45 the • -•''.#•- I tau pas,bseeof. This the 211th day of May, 1982 at 3:52 2.M. in Book 389 Page :37. `.. 1_ i:5r: . 1 y ne Hayes : • ctarca te oreos n- CoIINT a,' e LGi4 JT P 1..i.e.., ; 1 LWrerrArstatana-Reenter o Deed, •t.C.Rae Assoc_Farm No.a•:ter,.5entsd fry.-Ponied sv Edwards 9rothers. Inc. Carolina. ?..i.i ;- COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, D,ICKERSON, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL 8c HARGRAVE 13L - (-ATTORNEYS AT LAW • CHURTON STREET ...ILLSBOROUGH,N.C.27278 M9-732-MN 919-94 -8000 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SUITE 20.FRANKLIN BUILDING 137 E.FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL,N.C.27514 919-929.7/51 October 18, 1985 - ALONZO B.COLEMAN,JR. STEVEN A.BERNHOLZ DONALD R.DICKERSON ROGER B.BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL DOUGLAS HARORAVE MARTINJ.EMMiHM.Z RICHARD J.SNIDER,JR. JANE G.de LISSOVOY G.NICHOLAS HERMAN Marvin Collins LYNN A.ANDREWS - Orange County Planning Director cicounsel BONNER SAWYER Orange County Planning Department D. M02-1974 196 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 • Re: Storage of junked or wrecked motor vehicles Dear Marvin: This letter confirms our conference on October- 8th related to the changes needed in Orange County's Zoning Ordinance in order to regulate the storage of junked or wrecked motor vehicles. Changes are necessary because J0dge Paschal, in the criminal prosecution of Mr. Pratt, who was charged with violating the County ordinance prohibiting storage of junked or wrecked motor vehicles in a residential district, found the ordinance provision unconstitutional. In that regard it is important to note that Judge Paschal upheld Orange County's power to regulate the storage of junked or wrecked motor vehicles in residential districts • through the use of a zoning ordinance. This notwithstanding other statutory authority empowering the state and counties to remove and dispose of abandoned and junked motor vehicles. Judge Paschal ruled that the definition in the Orange County ordinance of a junked or wrecked motor vehicle was too broad. It would, for example, make unlawful the storage of an operable vehicle properly licensed and registered under the laws of some state other than North Carolina. Judge Paschal also eXpressed concern about the fact that a garaged or otherwise enclosed vehicle which meets the definition of junked or wrecked under the ordinance would violate the ordinance if the vehicle were so stored in a residential district. • I recommend we address these concerns by amending the definition of junked or wrecked motor vehicles H 13€ 11 Marvin Collins Page Two • October 18, 1985 contained in Article 22 of the zoning ordinance as follows: Junked or Wrecked Motor Vehicles • • Motor Vehicles which do not display a current license plate or a current registration sticker and which do not display a current inspection sticker issued by or in the same state as the license plate or registration sticker and which either: (a) are partially dismantled or wrecked, or (b) cannot be self-propelled or moved in the manner in which originally intended to move. I recommend the following change in Section 6.16.7 of the ordinance: • Storage of Junked or Wrecked Motor Vehicles The storage of junked or wrecked motor vehicles is specifically prohibited in all residential districts. This section does not apply to any motor vehicle in an enclosed building which building conforms to applicable building code and zoning regulations or which building lawfully exists as a non-conforming use under applicable building code and zoning regulations. Your comments concerning this are welcome . Fi1 nally, per our conversation on October 8th, enclosed • . a copy of the applicable statutes governing abandoned and derelict motor vehicles for your information in contacting the Secretary of Txtiansportation to determine if the remedies provided there can help us with Mr. Pratt. Very truly yours, 41/0 4111.P..."4 ,;eof rey Gledhill GEG/lsg Enclosures x8: Don Willhoit, Chair Orange County Board of . Commissioners, for the Board , 13 I . . . . ,.1 . . e) No more than 2 individrals not residing in the dwelling unit , . may work in the home occupation. . f) tf an accessory structure is to be used for the home occu- - . pation the following criteria must be met: :- - - 1. The accessory building shall be set back at least 30 feet farther from the road than the residence. . - 2. The accessory building shall not be closer than 40 feet to . -- the side and rear lot lines. . . . 3. The accessory building shall be adequately screened from"' -Jew of the road and adjacent property by a densely planted . evergreen hedge of shrubs or tress. ' . 4. . y outside storage of materials for use in the home occu- -ationshall be totally screened from the road and from ad- = jacent property in the same manner as the accessory-structure. ... : • e storage area shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. The set- . back from the side and rear property lines shall be the same as for an accessory building for use as a home occupation. • . ....- .. -- '. —. - . ---.-.: • ----___ . . . - • . 5.16.7 Storage of Junked Or Wrecked Motor Vehicles . • , The storage of junked or wrecked motor vehicles is soeci-:. • , fically prohibited in all residential districts. 6.16.8 liemoorary Yard Sale Temporary yard sales are permitted in all residential dis- tricts provided that these sales do not exceed two days . Per month. ,. 6.16.9 Temporary Fund Raising Activity Temporary fund raising activities are oermitted in all resi- dential districts provided that these activities do not i exceed two days per month. I • . ' 6.16.10 Recreational Facilities (Profit/Non-Profit) I . he following restrictions shall be applied to profit ov- ' hon-orofit recreational facilities such as a golf course or • 6ountry club with golf course! . a) he minimum lot area shall be 50 =ores. • i ( b) No building shall be closer than 20 feet to property 141e , property ' • I the minimum recuirements of the district which lier is 4r eater. . • , . : f . 6-22 13e Junked Or- Wrecked motor Vehicles Motor vehicles which are not . registered with the. State- of North Carolina? do not have current North Carolina inspection stickers • r-zeither: (a) are incapable of operation, or (b) are partially dismantled. Junk Yard An establishment operated or maintained for the purpose. of storing, dismantling, salvaging, re- . cycling, buying or selling scrap or used materials such as paper, metals, rubber, rags, glass, wrecked, used or dismantled products an articles, such as machinery, vehicles, appliances and the like. • • • 22-12 136 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OP COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGEMIA rim ABSTRACT Item No.:10;_ Meeting Date: DECEMBER 2, 1985 SUBJECT: MENDED AREA TELEPHONE SERVICE BETWEEN CHAPEL HILL, DURHAM AND H :1: r.11 DEPAREMNT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: DON WILLHOIT TEL ER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider establishing a task force to study and make recom- mendations on the extended area service (E.A.S.) and its possi- blelimplementation in Orange County. 1 NEED: As you are aware, several months ago the County gave notice to the Centel Phone Company of the several complaints County resi dents had concerning their local phone service. Centel in turn investigated each of the complaints and reported back to the Cou* results of the investigations. Any further citizen questions or concerns will likewise be forwarded to Centel for remedy. Anotlher action which would improve telephone service is the expansion of the EAS. There is an insufficient toll free area between Orange and Durham Counties. In response to public demand three years ago the Utilities Commission asked the tele- phoie companies serving Orange and Durham to solicit their subicribers and determine the interest level in an extended area service. Hillsborough subscribers voted overwhelmingly to accept the proposed (78.25% of those reporting voted yes) while Chapel Hill and Durham voters turned it down (30% of those reporting voted yes) . It should be noted, however, 4,285 ballots were mailed by Centel with approximately 3,205 responses while 5,587 responses were received by Southern Bell from their estimated 27,000 Chapel Hill Customers. Becalsue of close vote and the further linkage between our three (=Amities that has occurred since the vote and will occur in the near future, efforts to establish an extended toll-free area need to be renewed. Accordingly, I am proposing that the Board establish a task force to explore ways this might be accom- pliihed. The task force could be charged to: 1. Determine the costs and savings in long distance calls the 14C County, its citizens and businesses might experience through implementation of an EAS. 2. How much interest exists in making use of the several alter- native long-distance conpanies if the service were available in all areas of the County as opposed to only highly concen- trated ones. 3. Explore alternative telephone system features that would afford the residents and businesses of Orange County the most up-to-date communicationcapebilities. 4. Monitor the design for the new digital center proposed by Centel for installation in 1987 to keep the County apprised of the progress being made in engineering and of any choices the community may have in system features. The task force should develop recommendations and report find- ings to the Board of Commissioners within 120 days following the formation of this fact-finding group. In Lddition to other membership as the Board decides, it is reOmmended the task force be comprised of one representative from each of the phone companies with service area in Orange Cou4ty. These would include Southern Bell, OTE, Mebane and Centel. IMPACT: ForiBillsborough to be part of an EAS. The previously estimated cost was $2.51 per month per residence and $6.12 per business. Cost of HAS for Chapel Bill and Durham was to have been an additional monthly charge of $3.55 for residences and $8.28 for businesses. BECOMMENDATION(S/: Approve establishment of the EAS Task Force with the outlined charge and at a membership level and composition which the Board feels would be the most effective. 1 • • ORANGE COUN 'T Y I BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date December 2, 1985 Action Agenda Item # • • SUBJECT: • FALLS - JORDAN STEERING COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT: Board Df Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING Yes JL. No Attachment(s) Loc6.1 Action Plan Information Contact: Don Wilihoit for Falls-Jordian Watersheds Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 888-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To Update the Board of County Commissioners regarding actions taken by the Falls-Jordan Steering Committee concerning watershed protection action plans. NEED: At the November 25, 1985 Board of Commissioners meeting, a question arose as to whether or not recent zoning/subdivision text amendments incorporated actiona teddmmenaed blr the State for protection to the Falls and Jordan watersheds. A review of the action plans for both watersheds indicated that the State felt that impervious surface limitations were either not applicable or being complied with by Orange Cou4y. Recent amendments to zoning/subdivision regulations have brought the County into action plan compliance concerning 50-foot stream buffer requirements and infiltration of the first 1/2" of stormwater runoff. IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION: • LOCAL ACTION PLAN MATRIX FOR JORDAN WATERSHED. • MAY 9 1985 LEGEND NA 'INOT APPLICABLE • 1/ ACTION REJECTED 4lipalort BEING IMPLEMENTED 01ACTION BEING CONSIDERED ACTION ENDORSED IBY OLICY BOARD • eSCTION ENDORSED BY POLICY BOARD AlligignitilaNENITED . • Cw. 166., ,c; r (.4 q) 1•••• • , Ca CZ■ ta, • 47/ ' /ACTION 414- iac ACTION par ;4E? la ,4?• /iF LOCAL SEDIMENTATION/EROSION 0000000 •7000 PROGRAM. COUNTY SOI . & WATER PLANS FOR Ark . CRITICAL EROSION AREAS IM INA • INA • INA • INA • INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT . PROGRAM 1 !NA • • INA • 0-** Im Q> NA • LOCAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 411 - • (2) 0 0 4,0 0 0 0 INVENTORY 1/2" STORMWATER REQUIREMENT 000Aeft 'INAAA0 50-FOOT STREAM BUFFERS 0 0 • 0 CP 0 INA AA aa 1 WATER QUA4TY CRITICAL AREAS NA INA INA 4!) ;Fg„ OHNA INA INA NA Ail ' DESIGNATE!): 6% IMPERVIOUS LIMIT INA INA INA 0 431 4!) INA INA INA iNA All • RESTRICTED C I DEVELOPMENT INA INA INA 0 41O 0 INA INA INA !(A 11l NO SEWER EXTENSIONS ;NA INA INA 0 * 4!), INA INA INA INA It) • 12% IMPEiV/OUS (UNSEWERO/NON-CRITICAL) A A:o 0.. 11NA ØSØ3 30% IMP6VIOUS LIMIT: (SEWEREDNON-CRITICAL) AA 0 411 :NA • A * INA ;NA (2) 0!) LIMITED INDUSTRY AREAS DESIGNATED 'NA INA S ® 430 4!) INA INA INA 0 Ail . * ALLOW GRAVITY FLOW SEWER EXTENSIONS, BUT INCREASE STORMWATER REQUIREMENT TO 1". CH INDICATES RECENT CHANGES 1 , LOCAL ACTION PLAN MATRIX FOR FALLS WATERSHED . 1 - MAY 9 ri995 --. LEGEND • - NA I NOT APPLICABLE itiACTION REJECTED •ACTION BEING IMPLEMENTED, ' s, (2)ACTION BEING CONSIDERED A TATIVIDi OVENWOLICY BOARD; ACTION ENDORSED BY POLICY BOARD AILlomigiNgecmprot. • • • : #... sz, , *cz) I itz, a. ! • i !ACTION I . - LOCAL SEDIMENTATION/EROSION • 0 0 0 • ø • • I • PROGRAM I I; . .. . COUNTY $Ce & WATER PLANS FOR INA INA . • [NA •. • NA 0 I : CRITICAL EROSION AREAS I 1. I INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT NA 0 INA NA • INA 1 NA • 1 NA 1 PROGRAM LOCAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 0,e INVENTOR' ei 0 0 0 e• 0 • 1/2" $TORMW1 ATER REQUIREMENT 00000AS 1 .. ..., 1 • 50-FOOT TREAM. BUFFERS e0000A000 I . , WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREAS INA 0 0 0 INA !NA INA 0 0 DESIGNATED: 1 6% IMPERVIOUS LIMIT INA • e 0 INA INA INA 0- 0 . ' • RESTRICTED ' INA 0 e) et INA INA INA 0, • 0/I DEVELOPMENT I NO SEWER EXTENSIONS INA k 0 0 INA INA INA -0. 0 1. •, . IMPERVIOUS LIMIT: e • e 0 es 0 0 0 0 (UNSEWER O ED/NN-CRincAL) 30% IMPERVIOUS LIMIT: (SEWEREO/NON-CRITICAL) e 0 A i NA -NA INA 0 iNA 1 LIMITED 1 INDUSTRY AREAS • DESIGNATED 0 0 0.. 5 , NA ;NA :NA:a 0 1 41 ALLOW GRAVITY FLOW SEWER EXTENSIONS, BUT INCREASE STORMWATER REQUIREMENT TO 1". • $ INDICATES RECENT CHANGES 1 - - 0 . 1 APPROVED 12/17/85 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD CF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 2. 1985 The Orange County Board of Commissioners net in regular session on December 2. 1985. 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners' Room of the Orange County Courthouse, Hillaborough. North Carolina. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit, and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. 01AFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Assistant County Managers Albert Kittrell and William Laws. Director of Finance Gordon Baker. Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Director of Planning Marvin Collins, Erosion Control Officer Warren Faircloth, Director of Purchasing Pam Jones. Sheriff Pendergrass, Planner Susan Smith and Financial Analyst Donna Wagner. A. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Marshall requested that item F2 - Resolution of Appreciation for Chris Hogan and Robert Hogan. Jr. be postponed until the December 17, 1985 meeting. Chair Willhoit announced that a joint meeting will be held between the Orange County and Chatham County Boards of Commissioners on December 19 at 6:30 at the Western Steer in Cole Park Plaza in northern Chatham County for the purpose of 4 work session on the location of the county line and other items of mutual interest. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. MATTERS MITRE PRINTED AGENDA Chair Willhoit announced that those citizens in the audience who wish to speak one specific items will be recognized at the appropriate time their item is discussed. 2. MATTERS NOT opl THE PRINTED AGEN)P, None. ' C. MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Lloyd to approve the minutes for the special meeting held on November 4. 1985 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS: Motion was Made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the minutes for November 4. 1985 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS: Motion was nac1e by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to approve the minutes for November 19. 1985 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS: D. BOARD ONPANIZATION The Board reelected Don Willhoit Chair until December 3. 1986; the vote was: Don Willhoit, 3 (Cbmmissioners Carey. Marshall and Willhoit); Norman Walker, 2 (Cbmmissioners Lloyd and Walker) . The Board reelected Shirley Marshall Vice-Chair until December 3. 1986; the vote was: Shirley Marshall, 3 (Commissioners Carey. Marshall and Willhoit); Ben Lloyd, 2 (Commissioners Lloyd and Walker) . B.. AEECUB2220i 1. MANKIm Motion was made by Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Carey to reappoint Kenneth R. Thompson County Manager. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2. CLERK TO TEE BOARD Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to reappoint Beverly A. Blythe Clerk to the Board. 2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3. Canal' ATTORNEY Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner 1 . Marshall to continue the County's association with the firm of Coleman. Bernholz, Dickerson, Bernholz, Gledhill and Hargrave for services as the County Attorney. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Conunissioner Carey to reappoint Frances Douglass, John Woodson and Jan Pinney to the Mental Health Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. F. RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION OF ANETECIATIMI - MRS. MARY BACON It was the consensus of the Board to present to Mrs. Mary Bacon a resolution of appreciation as printed below: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR MRS. MARY BACON WHEREAS each citizen of Orange County has a profound and continuing interest in maintaining the public safety and welfare at its highest level of accomplishment and response. and WHEREAS each citizen of Orange county is concerned personally for the safety and welfare of each family umber and for the property possessed by each. and WHEREAS each! citizen observes the increased growth in - Orange County and! wishes that that growth not be accompanied by increased damage to person and property. and WHEREAS the Sheriff of Orange County has promoted the formation of ccambnity watch programs in our communities. and WHEREAS, the residents of the communities have joined in these programs, keeping their eyes and ears open. observing suspicious vehicles and persons and reporting all such suspicious observations to the Sheriff's Department. and WHEREAS Mrs. Mary Bacon assumed the presidency of the Community Watch Association and has served two terms in that capacity. and WHEREAS during those two terms Mrs. Bacon by displaying outstanding leadership and organizational qualities has overseen the formation of a vigorous Community Watch Association compoaed of 120 active community watch programs. NOW. THEREFORE the Orange County Board of Commissioners commends Mrs. BacOn for her tireless efforts and firm example. We thank Mrs L Bacon for her continued support. cooperation and promotion of the welfare and safety of each County citizen. FINALLY. we recognize and applaud the contribution the Community Watch Association under Mrs. Bacon's leadership. has made to the Sheriff's Department as it seeks both to provide efficientland effective patrol response coverage and to reduce the opportunity of criminal attach against persons and property. RESOPTION APPRECIATICN - plus } AN AND ROBERT HOW. JR. Postponed until next meeting. 3. IIOME CARE WEE( PJCLNTION 1 3 Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the proclamation as printed below: 1 HOME CARE WEEK WEEREAS, in a time of greater awareness of the cost of medical care, more attention is being placed on home health care; and WHEREAS with the provision of special follow-up care, earlier discharge, from institutions is possible for many; and WHEREAS, through teaching in the home settings the patient and family learn to attain maximum independence; and WHEREAS, patients are usually happier at home in a familiar place where the patient feels secure and contentment usually results in a better recovery; and WHEREAS, hone health agencies provide skilled nursing care and other professional health services under a physician's supervision and may reduce the need for a more costly long term institutional care; now THEREFORE. the Orange County Board of Commissioners do hereby proclaim the week of December 1 thraighEecember 7, 1985 as. HOME CARE WEEK in Orange Countyv and encourage all citizens to recognize the importance of home health care being provided to many elderly and disable individuals in their homesr not only by professionalsi but also by their families and loved ones. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. glA___BERGIME 1, BOARD OF EDUCRTION Orangel County Board of Education Chair Norman Haithcock gave opening remarks. IHe expressed appreciation for the hard work and unanimous support of the Board of Education and the Board of Commissioners for the future construction projects which are scheduled for completion in 1987. Superintendent Dan Lunsford presented a status report on the Orange High School renoiration/expansion project. He first reviewed the designed development drawings as done by the architectural firm of J. Hyatt Hammond Associates, Inc.! of Greenaboro. He pointed out on the drawing the proposed parking lots for] buses and students and the traffic flow to and from these lots. On the larger drawing Dr. Lunsford pointed out the new square footage areas of the actual facility. Some of the large classrooms are being redivided to get the most economical use of space. He pointed out the areas that will be renovated and noted that most of the renovation will be done on the main floor where the guidance, media and office areas are insufficient to serve the number of students attending the school. Since the science labs are grossly inadequate, the proposed renovation will provide a new physics and chemistry lab. The new construction will be adjacent to the gymnasium wing, and be composed of regular classrooms and a science lab. There will be an auxiliary gymnasiumi which will be a nonspectator gym for physical education and athletic purpbses a new economics lab and classrooms. The cafeteria expansion will connect to the vocational wing and be new construction. One major air conditioning unit is proposed that will accommodate either the cafeteria or the auditorium depending on what is in use but not designed to cover both at the same time. The walkways between buildings will be covered but not enclosed. In a letter to the Board of Commissioners. Dr. Lunsford indicated the next phases necessary to meet a timeline of summer. 1987 include: (1) Complete construction drawings and specifications in early 1986. (2) Advertise for bids and let contracts in March. 1986. (3) Begin construction soon after contracts are awarded. Dr. Lunsford pointed out that although the project has changed somewhat from the original discussion it has remained true to the concept of 1 4 going forth withla 9-12 facility. Hopefully. the project can be accomplished within 15-16 months and the new facility occupied in the summer of 1987. The current project cost is $2.800.000 plus 8 percent (5 percent for bid variance ad 3 percent for project contingency) . The project is designed to have full payout in July. 1987. Before, actual contracts can be awarded, it is necessary for the Board of EducatiOn to have a legal authorizing resolution to award actual construction contracts that extend over more than one budget period. Dr. Ldnsford emphasized that the project at Orange High is first priority and the roof replacement program is the second priority. New construction of either a middle or elementary school would need to begin in 1987 or 1988. Chair i1lhoit requested that the site selection criteria for any new school construction be available for review by the Board and Dr. Lunsford concurred. Dr. Lunsford informed the Board that reroofing was completed at . Cameron Park EleMentary and Central Elementary. ' All roofing projects for phase I have beeni completed. Phase II projects will cost between $400.000 and $560.000. The clear priorities include the reroofing of Stanford Junior High, Buildings 100 and 300 and Building 100 and the cafeteria at A. L. Stanback. He requested. on behalf of the Board of Education, an authorization from the County Commissioners, in the form of a resolution, that will allow the necessary speciAcations to be prepared. the request for bids and the contracts to be let. Ken ThOmpson indicated that the Board still needs to address the financing of the priority II roofs. Dr. Lunsford emphasized that time is a factor and a decision is needed in Januaryl, 1986 in order for the roof work to begin in the summer. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to request the County Manager prepare for the next agenda the resolution of authorization for the high school project, along with an outline of funding resources for the project through fiscal 1988, an update of the five year capital plan, and as soon as possible provide some cost projections and funding resources on the second phase of the roofing program. Commissioner Marshall requested that, in the future, figures be provided with they distribution of the agenda when appropriate on any item presented to the Board. School Board member Max Kennedy mentioned that growth projections will be studied and available very soon. When I-40. is opened the area will grow and the need for an elementary or middle school will be very evident. School I Board member Lindsay Efland expressed appreciation to the Board for the conàonality of goals expressed. a. M. i4urfree, member of the School Merger Task Force, referred to the Basic Education Act and questioned the requirement of providing basic swimming skills at the high school level. Dr. Lunsford stated that a staff member serves on the aquatic study commission which is reviewing the issue. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2.LMIBLIEESThrw_SMELEENEE (a copy of the report is in the permanent agenda file) The housing code became effective July 1. 1984. To date, the County has received twelve minimum housing code complaints. Another report will be forthcoming outlining ways in which the Section VIII surplus funds may be used. Assistant County Manager Albert Kittrell summarized the report. All 12 complaints were complaint triggered. Commissioner Marshall pointed out that at the time the public hearings were held on the housing code, various departments and service related agencies in the County emphasized the need for the housing code, yet the departments have not referred any complaints. 1 5 Commissioner Carey questioned the need for the code and if so why it is not working in the way it was intended. After further discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey that a report be done for the January 21 meeting which would indicate why those in County Government departments who supported the housing code and expressed a need for such a code are not using it. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3 . ITEMS FOR DECISION ;LlJL. LLI H &LA,Jo I A1IL I.AJL . 11.-CU I MMEMLUILJ2:S ' O---a Petri& Davis. Assistant to the Executive Director of MASA, made comments on the proposed modifications to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance which were on agenda for the Joint Public Hearing of November 25, 1985. He specifically spoke on those proposals affecting the control of development activities within University Lake and Cane Creek public water supply watersheds. On alternative for consideration would be to adopt some procedures which would allow the County to consider certain development activities on a case-by-case basis. This would maintain intact the present water supply protection program but would also provide the flexibility needed to address a limited number of cases where an alternative approach may be acceptable. With reference to Article Si Pat Davis noted that this article would not only increase the amount of "permitted gross floor area" but would also increase the volume of traffic and the associated non-point source pollution. The associated adverse impacts are not limited to the building space. If permissible development intensity is increased for the El and I-1 districts, there should be some corresponding measures for assuring the protection of water quality. With reference to Article 6 for dimensional requirements. MASA generally agrees and supports the intent of this provision. He pointed out that some provisions need to be added to assure that a proper balance will be maintained throughout all areas of the watershed. The way it is written Implies there may be trade-offs that would be permitted in one concentrated sub-basin of a watershed and the trade-offs would apply to development activities in another sub-basin of a watershed. You could have overdevelopment in one particular area of the drainage basin and that could lead to some degrade of water quality. Consideration should be given to limiting transfer opportunities only to existing developments and also that off-site transfers should be required to be within the same sub-basin and preferably from ah adjoining property. With reference to Article 8 for Special Use Permit issuance for variances of thel impervious surface limits, he noted the possibility of addressing that concern under the trade-off of the impervious surface limits rather than having an additional special use process. THERE BEING NO FUREM102COVENIS, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer the proposed ordinance amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation. VCTE: UNANIMOUS. (After disallowing additional testimony, Commissioner Lloyd changed his vote to N).) H. ITEMS KR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA. The County Manager recommended the following action by the Board: 1.----tmmgelm---NEEFmu =:-EmaEacx TO approve entering into and to authorize the Chair to sign a mutual aid agreement regarding Emergency Medical Services in the State of North Carolina which would (1) allow for response to calls which cannot be handled by a local provider. (2) allow a provider to respond to calls where er 6 there are questions about geographical lines or boundaries. and (3) allow for assistance during disasters in which widespread injuries may occur and cannot be responded to by local providers. 2. .4_11.1k; WPANIA4 Axilg414 01:1; PAWL, LOIked. IN To approve the contract with CHR Associates for architectural services of the Carr Building on an hourly basis with the total cost not to exceed $15.460 and authorize the Chair to sign. To accept the bid from Infocel and approve the contract for computer equipmelit and peripherals in the amount of $76,974 and authorize the Chair to sign. 5. EXAMINATION OF QEFICIALIP04 To approve the bonds at their present level for the following officers, employees and agents as in accordance with G.S. 109-5: 1. Sheriff 2. Register of Deeds 3. Finance Officers 4. Tax Collector 5. Any officer, employee or agent of the County who handles or 10 in his custody more than $100.00 of the County's funds at any time or who handles or has access to the inventories of the County. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Carey that the forgoing action be taken by the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. (Commissioner Walker was out of the room and did not vote) 4. BUDGET MIME= Commissioner Carey questioned the status of the remapping project and Ken Thompson explained that the 50% funding from the State has instead amounted to only $16.000 leaving a considerable amount outstanding. The utility companies, municipalities. area colleges, etc. have been approached for additional lades for the project. Not all replies have been received. A report will be giiren at the December 17 meeting of the Board. It was decided to postpone this item until that time. Ken Thompson explained this plan is required as a condition for transportation fu6ding from the State. The federal government makes this a requirement for the receipt of funds. It is a five year plan and will allow the County to be considered for future vehicle replacement funds. Motionl was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to authorize $940.00 local match for Transportation Consulting Services and execute the forthcoming contract with DOT. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. kit.hivz Wil//4. 4:001' e 4 10Afi_ j_ Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to award and authorize the Chair to sign the contract with Carter Goble Associates for a maximum of $9.400 subject to the approval of NCDOT and with the proviso that that portion of the contract dealing with termination from default be rewritten by the County Attorney so as not to change the substance of the contract. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. eiNolz4, __LI: _AN, • 11 'AIL., ILaR41,t piAi&.el Purchasing Director Pam Jones notified the Board that the County received notice bn October 14 that the County's auto liability would not be renewed and a pew days later was notified that the general liability coverage would not be renewed. The only bid received was from Charter House. After .extensive discussion. Chair Willhoit requested that the question of self-insurance be pursued through the Manager's Association and through the County Commissioners' Association and also request these associations and the State to consider liability limits for local governmental 7 entities. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to approve the bid from Charter House for general liability and automobile insurance coverage in the amount of $173,684. VOTE: UNANIMOUS: I. ITEMS FOR DECISION MEWED SEDIEENTATIO11 AND ENEIONCONTROL ORDINANCE MEIVMSNT$ (The amendments are listed on pages 9 -12 of these minutes. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to apprOve the proposed amendments to the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance subject to consideration and approval of the North Carolina Sedimentation Cohtrol Commission. VOTE: UNANIMOUS.' 2. ED JOYNER'S CREEK - PRELIMINARY Planner Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval the preliminary plat ' for the Ed Joyner's Creek Subdivision, property of George Brumley located on Orange Grove Road in Bingham Township. Four lots are proposed out of approximately 21.0 acres. The Planning Board recommended approval of the preliminary plat as submitted. Motion was made by Ccminissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve he recommendation from the Planning Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS.' 3. CANBABRA SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY Planner Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval the preliminary plat for Canberra Subdivision located in Eno Township off of Walker Road. Six lots are proposed out of 7.3 acres. On October 211 1985 the Planning Board recommended that the subdivision be redesigned to provide better site distance as identified by the Department of Transportation. The Planning Board recommended denial of the revised preliminary plat. Motionlwas made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the recommendation from the Planning Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 44_FIVIIIMISEEKSEMINENEMBHM Planner Susan Smith presented for decision the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments to Article 22 DEFINITIONS (Farm, farming) as submitted to public hearing on May 28, 1985. Item was postponed for the receipt of additional information from Mecklenburg Count/. i„.e1 IWO DIL Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve change order G.03 and authorize the transfer of $3.307.17 from the capital improvement fund to the old courthouse project account. VOTE: UNANIMOUS.' 7 SPECIAL PUBLIg HEARING FOR JANUARr 0 1986 (see the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office for a complete narrative of the two items) Director of Planning Marvin Collins presented for consideration of approval a request for a special public hearing on January 6, 1986 to consider two items: (1) correction of an error in the Zoning Atlas which was made at the time Cheeks Township was zoned. and (2) proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would allow the Planning Staff to proceed with an enforcement dealing with the removal of junked and/or abandoned vehicles from a parcel in Chapel Bill Township near Calvander. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd seconded by Commissioner Carey to schedule a public hearing for January 6. 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners' aim Orange County Courthouse, for the purpose of receiving public comment on the above two items. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 9.., FAUXEM,agegaiisig_Cat= (See permanent agenda file for a copy of the local action plan matrix for the Jordan and the Falls Watersheds) . 8 Chair l Willhoit presented for informational purposes an update regarding actions taken by the Falls-Jordan Steering Committee concerning watershed protection action plans. It appears that Orange County has not incorporated those actions as recommended by the State for protection to the Falls Lake and Jordan Lake watersheds. Ken Thompson stated there is still some confusion on what was being requested by the State of Orange County and what was done at the May 6 Board meeting. Marvin Collins indicated that following the State action plan. the 1/2" stormwaterI requirement. the 50 foot stream buffer and the 6, 12. 30 impervious surfa0 limits were reviewed. In accordance with the State plan. the 6% and 30% impervious surface limits are not applicable because the County does not have any portion of the critical areas within the Falls or the Jordan in Orange County. Because of the minimum lot size requirement of one acre the 12% impervious surface limits are being implemented by the State. Within the Zoning Ordinancd the watershed standards are aimed at locally designated. watersheds. A recent amendment to the Subdivision Regulations. which applies county-wide. requires that all new subdivisions comply with the 1/2" stormwater requirement and the 50-foot stream buffers. It is the feeling of the Planning Staff that the County is in compliance with the State Action Plan. 8. EXTENDED AREA TELEPHQNE SERVICE BETWEEN CHAPEL HMI' DURHAM AND BEISBORNali (The complete narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) . Three years ago a vote was taken to determine the level of citizen interest in extended area service. Hillsborough subscribers voted to accept the proposal/ while Chapel Hill and Durham voted to turn it down. Because of the further linkage between the three communities since the vote, efforts to establish an extended toll-free area need to be renewed. Chair Willhoit suggested that two groups be formed. The first would be technical and deal with the service-related problems with Centel and a second group would include consumers and representatives from the other telephone companies located in Orange County. MotionIwas made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to establish a technical task force and an extended area service task force. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. J. A3ENT Chair Don Willhoit adjourned the meeting. The next meeting will be held on Tuesday. December 17, 1985. 7:30 p.m. at the old Post Office on Rosemary Street in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blytther Clerk . f . 9 APPROVED CHANGES TO THE ORANGE COUNTY SEDINENTATION1 AND EROSION CCNTROL ORDINANCE SECTION 2 Section 2 Purpo i s This ordinance is adopted for the purposes of: (1) Regulating the clearing, grading, excavation, filling and manipulation of the earth and the moving and storing of waters in order to: control and preVent accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation. prevent the pollution of watar, prevent damage to public and private property, maintain the balance of liature, prevent the obstruction of natural and artificial drainageways, inhibit flooding and reduce the undermining of roads and other transportation facilities. NOTE: The underlined portions of the paragraph above will be added to the Ordinance. SECTION 3 Section 3 Definitions Act - means; the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 and all rule S and orders adopted pursuant to it. NOTE: This definition will be added to the Ordinance. Person Responsible for the Violation - as used in this Ordinance means: (a) the developer or other person who has or holds himself/herself out as having financial or operational control over the land disturbing activity; and /or (b) the landowner or person in possession or control of the land when he/she has directly or indirectly allowed the land-disturbing activity or has benefited from it or he/she has failed to comply with any provision of this Ordinance, the Act, or any order adopted pursuant to this Ordinance or the Act as imposes a duty upon him/her. NOTE: This definition will be added to the Ordinance. Person Conducting Land-disturbing Activity - means any person who maybe held responsible for a violation unless expressly provided otherwise by this Ordinance. the Act. or any order adopted pursuant to this Ordinance or the Act. . NOTE: This definition will be substituted for the definition of Person COnducting the Land-disturbing Activity in the Ordinance. Siltation - means sediment resulting from accelerated erosion which is settleable or removable by properly designed, constructed. and maintained control measures; and which has been transported from its point of origin within the site of a land-disturbing activity; and which has been deposited, or is in suspension in water. NOTE: This definition will be added to the Ordinance. Sedimentation - means the process by which sediment resulting from accelerated erosion has been or is being transported off the site of the land disturbing activity or into a lake or natural watercourse. NOTE: This definition will be substituted for the definition of sedimentation in the Ordinance. Working Days - means days exclusive of Saturday and Sunday during which weather conditions or soil conditions permit land-disturbing activity to be undertaken. NOTE: The word "dalys" has been added along with the phase "or soil conditions" to this definition. NOTE: The letter designation before each definition in the Ordinance will be deleted and the entire section reorganized with the terms listed in alphabetical order. SECTION 4 1 10 Section 4 Scope and Effect Whenever conflicts exist between federal, state or local laws, ordinances, or rtiles, the more restrictive provision shall apply. VOTE: Note this paragraph will be added at the end of Section 4. SECTION 8 Section 8 Mandatory Standards for Land-disturbing Activity No land-disturbing activity subject to the control of this ordinance shall ' be undertaken except in accordance with the following mandatory standatds: NOTE: The word "mandatory" will be added before "standards". d. Design and Performance of Control Measures - erosion and sedimentation control measures,1 structures, and devices shall be so planned, designed, and constructed as to provide protection from accelerated erosion and sedimenta- tion from the calbulated peak rate of runoff from a ten-year frequency storm. NOTE: The words "protection from" will be substituted for "control of" in the Ordinance. e. Prior Plan Approval - No person shall initiate any land-disturbing activity if more than 20.000 square feet is to be uncovered unless, thirty or more days prior to initiating the activity an erosion and sedimentation control plan for Such activity is filed with, approved byv and a Grading Permit obtained from the County. NOTE: The above paragraph will be added at the end of Section 8. SECTION 9 Section 9 Permamirt Downstream Protection of Stream Banks and Channels b. (i) the velocity as determined from the table of permissible velocity for stormwater in 3) , or NOTE: This section has been revised to correctly refer to the table of permissible velocity contained in this section of the Ordinance. SECTION 13 Section 13 Resporlibility for Insi-Rllation and Maintenance During the develppment of a site, the person engaged in or conducting the land-disturbing activity shall be responsible for installing and maintaining all temporary anI permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures and facilities as required by the approved or revised Erosion Control Plan. The responsibility for maintaining all permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures and facilities after site development is completed shall lie with the land owner except facilities and measures installed within road or street right-of-way or easements accepted for maintenance by a government agency. NOTE: Section 13 will be expanded to include responsibility for installation as well, as maintenance and rearranged for clarity. The paragraph above will be substituted for the one in the Ordinance. SECTION 15 Section 15 Existing Uncovered Areas b. The ErosionlControl Officer will serve upon the landowner written notice to comply by registered or certified mail. return receipt reqpested or other means. VOTE: The requirement concerning registered or certified mail is being added to the first sentence in "b". d. This rule shall not require ground cover on cleared land forming the future basin of a planned reservoir unless the disturbance and length of time of the exposure prior to the filling of the reservoir will result in erosion and sedimentation of the downstream channel. NOTE: "d" will be added to Section 15. The condition concerning the time of exposure before ¶xllmg the reservoir has been added to prevent situations where the site maybe left disturbed for long periods if there was a delay in filling the reservoir. SECTION 17 Section 17 Permit 11 a. No permit is required for the following activities: 1. For the purpose of fighting fires. 2. For the stock piling of raw or processed sand, stoner or gravel in material processing plants and storage yards, provided that sediment control measures have bean utilized to protect against off-site damage. 3. For disturbances that do not exceed 20,000 square feet in surface area: In determining the areas contiguous lands under one or diverse ownership being developed as a unit will be aggregated. NOTE: This paragraph will be added to Section 17a to specify what activities do not require permits. SECTION 18 Section 18 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans c. Failure tb, approve or disapprove a complete erosion and sedimentation control plan within 30 days of receipt of the complete plan shall be deemed approval. Denial of a plan must specifically state in writing the reasons for denial. The county must approve or deny a revised plan within 15 days of receipt/ or it is deemed to be approved. If, following commencement of a land disturbing activity pursuant to an approved plan, the County determines that the plan is inadequate to meet the requirements of this ordinance, the County may require such !revisions as are necessary to comply with this ordinance. In order tci be considered completes a plan submitted for approval must contain the proposed erosion control plan, the completed application/ the statement of financial responsibility and ownership/ and the plan review fee. The 30 day review period begins when all of the components of the complete plan are received. NOTE: Section 18d will be expanded to include the two paragraphs above. e. If the Erosion Control Officer/ either upon review of the Erosion Control Plan or on inspection of the job site, determines that a significant risk of accelerated erosion or off-site sedimentation exists, revisions to the plan will be required. Pending the preparation of the revised plan, work shall cease or shall continue under conditions outlined by the Erosion Control Officer. NOTE: The paragraph above will be added to subsection e of Section 18. f. Erosion Control Plans shall be accompanied by an authorized statement of financial responsibility and ownership. This statement shall be signed by the person financially responsible for the land-disturbing activity or his/her attorney in facp. The statement shall include the mailing and street addresses of the principal place of business of the person financially responsible and of the owner of the land or their registered agents. NOTE: Paragraph "f' will be added at the end of Section 18. g. A copy of the approved Erosion Control Plan and any amendments and required revisions shall be kept on the job site at all times. NOTE: Paragraph flg will be added to Section 18. SECTION 19 Section 19 Appeals a. The disapprbval or modification of any proposed erosion control plan by the Erosion Contra Officer shall entitle the person submitting the plan to an appeal of the dedision to the Orange County Planning Director. If the Planning Director upholds the denial/ the person shall be entitled to a public hearing if such prson submits written demand for a hearing within 15 days after receipt of.written notice of disapproval or modification. NOTE: The underliired portion of paragraph "a" will be added to the Ordinance. This change is being added to allow a reasonable appeal prior to holding a public hearing on the denial. d. In the event that the local governing body upholds the disapproval or modification of a proposed erosion control plan following the public hearing/ the person submitting the erosion control plan shall be entitled to appeal the local governments action to the North Carolina Sedimentation Control • 12 Ccgmission as provided in Section 113A-61(c) of the General Statutes and Title 15 MAC 4B .0018(b) . NOTE: The paragraph above will be substituted for paragraph "d" in the Ordinance. It has been revised to refer appeals to the Sedimentation Control Commission instead of the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. 1 SECTION 21 Section 21 Inspections and Investigations b. If, through inspection, it is determined that a person engaged in land disturbing activity has failed to comply with the approved plan, a notice of violation shall be served upon that person by registered or certified mail. return receipt 1requested. or other means. The notice shall set forth the measures necessary to achieve compliance with the plan, specify a reasonable • time period within which such measures must be completed► and warn that failure to correct the violation , within the time period will result in the assessment of al civil penalty or other enforcement action. If the person engaged in land disturbing activity fails to comply within the time specified, enforcement action shall be initiated. NOM: Section 2114 of the Ordinance will be replaced with the paragraph above.. SECTION 22 Section 22 Penalties a. (1) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this ordinance or rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this ordinance, or who initiates or continues a land-disturbing activity for which an erosion control plan is required except in accordance with the terms, conditions, and provisions of an approved plan. shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $100. No penalty shall be assessed until the person alleged to be in violation has been notified of the violation by registered or certified mail. return receipt requested, or other means. The notice shall describe the violation with reasonable partibularity. specify a reasonable time period within which the violation must be corrected, and warn that failure to correct the violation within the time period will result in the assessment of a civil penalty or other enforcementl action. Each day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate violation under Section 22(a) (1) . NOTE: The underlined portion of Section 22a (1) will be added to the Ordinance. a. Civil Penalties (2) The Orange County Board of Commissioners shall determine the amount of the civil penalty to be assessed under this subsection and shall make written demand for payment upon the person in violation, and shall set forth in detail a description of the violation for which the penalty has been imposed. In determining the amount of the penalty the Board of Commissioners shall consider the degree and extent of harm caused by the violation and the cost of rectifying the damage. If payment is not received or equitable settlement reached within 30 days after demand for payment is made the matter shall be referred to the county attorney for institution of a civil action in the name of Orange County. in the appropriate division of the General Courts of Justice for recovery of the penalty. Any sums recovered shall be used to carry out the purposes and requirements of this ordinance. NOTE: The underlined portion of Section 22a (2) will be added to the Ordinance. • • • • • . BALLOT FOR BOARD VICE-CHAIR • • Moses Carey, Jr. 1Ben. Lloyd. Shirley E. Ekt.rshall • kiTortnan, ifFillrfa-r • Don Triillhoit • • . • • • ,AtalltiketiZa • Signature ":2; • . • • • r • • • • • t'.-•.t.r4".;:.• i t ( - HAFT FOR BOARD VICE-CHAIR • . • 11 loses Carey, Jr. f„,Bezt Iaoyd - Shirley E. Marshall• !Forman Walker • Don Willho'it • • • • • • • • • • { • • • BALLOT FOR BOARD VICE-CfAIR Moses Carey, Jr. Lloyd. - 612irley B. Marr.hai 1, Norman Walker • Do fli�lhoit • • • • . . • • • • • • • BALLOT FOR BOARD VICE-CHAIR ses Carey, Jr. - /Ben Llmri I • J Shirley E. Marshall • Borman Walker • Don Willhoit • •• • • Signature • • • • • • • • } is a , t - 4 • 5 • • BALLOT- FOR BOARD VICE-CHAIR • Moses Carey, Jr. - )dLloyd rleyE. ) rshall . Norman Walker • • • Don Willhoit Signature ' . BALLOT FOR BOARD CHAIR Moses Carey, Jr. Ben Lloyd irley B. Nlarshsi11 - (/Borman Walker yF Wi1]hoit sx Signe 1 t , I� • BALLOT FOR BOARD CHAIR Noses Carey,• Jr. Ben•Lloy, • Shirley E. Marshall • r I�►rmsn Walker Don Villhoi't• / /%. Z./L Z Signature { 4� I • i•' Vii% 1 • • • • • BALLOT FOR BOARD CHAIR Moses Carey, Jr. Ben•L-oyd • • • . • Shirley E. Marshall • • Norman Walker Don Wihoit • • • • • • (14)-&-tehel->i/.. • Signature • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • BALLOT FOB BOARD CsA • Abases Carey, Jr. Ben Lloyd i hi rley B. Marshal • Ionian Volker 1 . if0n Wl71hO1't ./ / Signature • • • • • • • . • • • BALLOT FOR BOARD CHAIR • • • • hoses Carey, Jr. • Ben Lloyd • • 111rley E. Marshall • • ... Borman Walker • • • • / on • • • • • ..ignature • • • . I • • • • • • • • I i ' I