The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 02-18-1986 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1986 7:30 P.M. OLD POST OFFICE CHAPEL HILL,'', N.C. . A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda 2 . Matters not on the Printed Agenda C. MINUTEST' D. APPOINTMENTS E. PROCLAMATION 1. School Bus Safety Week PAGE # F. PUBLIC HEARING 005 1. Closure of a Portion of Cedar Grove Road G. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) 014 1. Bids for Animal Shelter Expansion 020 2 . Health and Medical Care Advisory Council By-Laws Amendment 023 3 . Budget Amendment--Roof Funding, Chapel Hill- Carrboro and Orange Schools 025 4 . Sketch Thoroughfare Plan H. ITEMS FOR DECISION--OTHER 028 1. Z-1-86 Donnie Chapman Rezoning Request 034 2 . PD-5-85 Scotswood 134 3 . Eubanks Road Subdivision--Preliminary 147 4. Marc/Sharon Connery Deed for Septic Easement 155 5. Efland Sewer Project--Land Use Policy Implications 158 6. Proposed School Fund Balance Policy 161 7. Housing Assistance Payments Program Annual Contri- butions Contract 169 8. Job Training Plan Summary for Program Year 1986-87 I (OVER) 1 PAGE # I. REPORTS 176 1. 1985 Summary of Activity Planning Board/Department 216 2 . Planning Department Work Program 218 3 . HSiAC Report: Its Past and Future 226 4. Property Revaluation Project Status Report J. ADJOURNMENT III ORANGE COUNTY • 001 Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS it No.___C ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT FETING DATE February 18. 1986 Subject: MINUTES • Department: BOARD OF COMMIISSIONERS 1 I Public Bearing: Yes X no il Attachments: Under Separate Cover Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe. Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 2270231 PURPOSE: To correct And/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: December 10, 1985 - Special Meeting December 18, 1985 - Special Meeting December 19, 1985 - Special Meeting January 14, 1986 -- Joint Planning Area P.H. January 21, 1986 - Regular Meeting February 3, 1986 - Regular Meeting NEED: Approval so the minutes maybe entered into the official minute book in the Clerk's office. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. 002 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ' Item No.A) ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE February 18, 1986 Subject: • •• Department: BOARD OF COMNIISSIONERS i Public Hearing: Yes X no I. l • Attaaments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under Separate Cover Phone Numbers: 732--8181, 96&- 501, 227-0231 • PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards. The following vacancies are announced for the first time for information and/or appointment. B-6 HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY BOARD 1 vacancy - expiration of term for Mary Rita Gray on 2/15/86. C-$ - ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - 1 vacancy; resignation of Margaret E. Miller. . ORANGE,ENTERPRTSES BOARD - New appointment to coincide with Orange Industries being converted to a non-profit organization. It is requested that one person From the Board of Commissioners serve as a liasion on a proposed board. The following vacancies are announced together with the indication of the status of securing candidates for possible appointment consideration. These vacancies have been duly advertised: B710 - NURSING HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - 1 vacancy. No nominations have been received. B-14 - ARTS COMMIISSION - 5 vacancies - 4 would like to be considered reappointment and one does not desire to be rea ppointedm re file andl1 additional resume has been received. . 12 resumes are on C-8 - ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - 4 vacancies; e Carl Walters, Alice Gordon, Frank Pearson and Sharlenr ePilke of terms for resumes have been received. y• Thirteen (13} RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides , ORANZE COUNTY - 00 t' BOARD OF CQ ISSIO rE2s Action Agenda ACTION ;Lau; ITE21 ABSTRACT Item No__E MEET_LNG DATE February 18, 1986 Subject.: PROCLAMATION - SCHOOL BUS SAFETY WEEK I pa t: ROAR]) OF COMMTSSTONF.RR •1 I Public Hearing: yes o 1 _.At nmet(s) : Iri£ormat ion Contact: Clerk to the Board • Yes - Proclamation Phone Number.: DOSE: To proclaim February 17-21, 1986, School Bus Safety Week. This is a joint proclamation issued by the Commissioners and the Mayors of Chapel Hill and Carrboro: 1 REED: To issue the proclamation. • . RECOMMENDATION: Proclaim February 17-21 SCHOOL BUS SAFETY WEEK and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation. 004 ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 East Margaret Lane HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 P R O C L A M A T I O N We, the Mayors of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim the week of February 17 -- 21, 1986 to be SCHOOL BUS SAFETY WEEK We all wish to stress the importance of providing training for both riders and drivers and to impress upon them the need for being courteous and helpful to each other while riding or operatin g our school buses; and, We wish to call attention to the importance of cooperation by parents, Y P , teachers and students, and to urge all those concerned to work together diligently to ensure that necessary safety precautions are taken throughout the school year. This the 17th day of February 1986 . Y , j: II County of Orange Don Willhoit, Chairman Town of Carrboro Town of Chapel Hill James Porto, Mayor Jim Wallace, Mayor oa O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date FEBRUARY 18 . 1986 Action A enda Item #F, SUBJECT: CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF CEDAR GROVE ROAD DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes w No Attachments) Info rmation Contact : SUSAN SMITH SKETCH MAP ORDER FOR CLOSURE RESOLUTION OF CLOSURE PETITION FOR CLOSURE Telephone Numbers Hi ltabo rough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on the closure of a portion of Old Cedar Grove Road in Hi llsbo rough Township . A resolution of .intent to close Old Cedar Grove Road was adopted by the Board of Commissioners on December 17, 1985 and reaffirmed January 21 , 1986 . To adopt an order declaring closure of a portion of Old Cedar Grove Road . NEED : The petitioner is requesting the closure of an abandoned portion of Old Cedar Grove Road . The portion to be closed is divided into two sections . The southern section extends in a northwesterly direction approximately 482.94 feet from the intersection of the Dixie Drive centerline with the western property line of the Orange County property (see attached sketch map) . The no rthern section of Old Cedar Go rve Road requested fo r closing is located no rthwest of Harper Street (SR 1395) . The street I section begins at the southwest corner of Lot #1 o f Blcok IB of High land Woods and extends in a no rthwestern ly directo'n approximately 1 ,017 .29 feet . A portion of Old Cedar Grove (Road which originally linked the two sections under consideration was closed by action of the Board of Commissioner on May L2, 1983 . IMPACT: Closure o f the abandoned po rtion o f Old Cedar Grove Road as requested in the petition would not deprive any adjacent _ 00E. property owners of a reasonable means of egress and ingress . Highland Woods subdivision has access by Larchwood Road to Harper Street and then to Faucette Milt Road (SR 1328) . North Dixie subdivision is being developed on either side of Harper Street and would also have access to Faucette Mill Road . Upon (',closure of the road , ell right , title and interest in the road is vested in persons owning adjacent lots or parcels and the title of each adjoining Landowner, for the width of his abutting land , extends to the centerline of the road . RECOMMENDATION:Adopt an order declaring the closure of the described p ortion of Old Cedar Grove Road . Direct that a certified copy of the order be filed in the Register of Deeds . II I IRMI6P UM- Imr. "rio 61.4o*E . A in:g4711 ON::I ; A p c MQ�i G IC V.4111 tz4►p \', 93 . nr�M ave�*caP 0 U:/ - t - II 1 �� .4 .0 2 AC 6 _ 1 `~1 ~: ` 48 .AC, 5232- - 552 j, - • y - - _ - .2AC. -_-� Fl - 1 ---_ ....-....... ---... ►",:-_r, - , l �� i . 1 ./ - - li It - - , • €. . •1 . _1 . - - › „e„ 1 .--- - .,. 23 2 II . _ - '� t: .... . tea . • 5A t g if P -\ .P--�, \-,. - (HIGHLAND t 4C \ < < 1 1 t I'. s 0 j f' t s y ` 836 • I:. f rt ,� - Jai c�`— -» 1 L — .._ �. _ t s / �c, -. i1lvnEr: a-ni� J 6A , o b. v\---- 1 ► I [I- f 1 t: " - iir - /\ . y t5'. , I 12.47 7 r 825 !....: A � r� r•t r t ti , . ___• 1 4 ., 2-::e.;;. / ,fi t 1n • I �1 _ _ .-- 1 -"' -. - , ....'''•.,../:-.--';:.%_ .1-"".A; ..zrz--_-,.......„:%.-- ..,„. _•. 1 16 62 •- 0 '''"s4/". - -- - ` �- -� 7525 . 1 *i ; 1/4,014. ' • --':.,_ 11..V • r8.74C. r I \ � �r°wr+ or � j + / I I �)� • ` FKKtssozo j{ 11 1.2 } �-� rn �-- F�ePi p 7 22 +4 - rr 1 X11 �' 197) i-• ii 190;; _3..-.AC�- �-� ` ` 1 t_ \ 7- _ l — — �,. _ 67 f f . r ...,1 1 \ •. 008 ORDER DECLARING CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF OLD CEDAR GROVE ROAD ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA WHEREAS a petition for the closure of a public road known as Old Cedar Grove Road was presented to the Orange County Board of Commissioners by the petitioners Robert and Rachel Scho ler, and WHEREAS the petition stated that the road so known as Old Cedar Grove Road and more specifically shown on a plat entitled PROPERTY OF ROBERT SCHOLAR AND RACHAEL SCHOLAR as surveyed by ENT Land Surveys and dated November 5, 1984 is now abandoned , and WHEREAS the portion of the said abandoned road that the petitioner , desires to be closed is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an iron stake located in the center of the right-of-way to Dixie Drive at the point where the center of said right-of-way intersects the western Line of property of Orange County ; running thence with the western property line of Orange County the following courses and distances : North 28 53' 21 " West 156 .05 ' ; North 22 17 '16"West 122.70 ' ; North 8 32' 16" West 109 .73 ' and No r-th 27 31 '00" West 94.46 ' . Also that portion of said road described as follows : Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot #1 of Block B Highland Woods as shown on plat recorded in Plat Book 15, Page 178, Orange County Registry ; runing thence North I33 17 '38" West 299 .74 feet to an iron stake; running thence North 13 24'04" West 635.02 feet to an iron stake; running thence North 04 57'19" West 82.53 feet , and WHEREAS the Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution on December 17, 1985, and reaffirmed January 21 , 1986 , which declared its intent to close the public road and called a public hear�ing on the question, and WHEREAS a public hearing on the proposed closure of a portion of Old Cedar Grove Road was conducted on February 18, 1986 and the Board of Commissioners found that the closure of the public road is not contrary to the public interest and that no individual owning property in the vicinity of the road would thereby be deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress to his property , IT IS HEREBY, ORDERED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the portion of Old Cedar Grove Road herein described be' closed and all right , title and interest in the road be vested in persons owning adjacent lots or parcels and 009 the title i*f each adjoining landowner, for the width of his abutting lani d , extends to the centerline of the road. This the 18th day of February 1986 . A certified loopy of this order is recorded in Book Page in the Reglister of Deeds of Orange County . Don Wi LLhoit' Chair of the Orange County Commissioners 010 RESOLUTION WHEREAS a petition for the closure of a public road known as Old Cedar Grove Road has been presented to the Orange County Board of Commissioners by the petitioners Robert and Rachel Scholar, and WHEREAS the petition states that the road so known as Old Cedar Grove Road and more specifically shown on a plat entitled PROPERTY OF ROBERT SCHOLAR AND RACHAEL SCHOLAR as surveyed by ENT Land Surveys and dated November 5, 1984 is now abandoned , and WHEREAS the portion of the said abandoned road that the petitioner desires to be closed is more particularly described as follows : Beginning at an iron stake located in the center of the right-of—way to Dixie Drive at the point where the center of said right—of—way intersects the western Line of property of Orange County; running thence with the western property line of Orange County the following courses and distances : North 28 53' 21 " West 156 ,05' North 22 17 '16"West 122.70 ' ; North 8 32'16" West 109 .73 ' and North 27 31 '00" West 94.46 ' . Also that portion of said road described as follows : Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot #1 of Block B Highland Woods as shown on plat recorded in Plat Book 15, Page 178, Orange County Registry ; runing thence North 33 17 '38" West 299 .74 feet to an iron stake; running thence North 13 24'04" West 635.02 feet to an iron stake; running thence North 04 57 '19" West 82.53 feet , and WHEREAS the North Carolina General Statutes Section 153A-241 requires that the Board of Commissioners adopt a resolution dolaring its intent to close the public road or easement and call a public hearing on the question . NOW BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Commissioners of Orange hearby adopt this resolution declaring its intent to close a portion of the public road known as Old Cedar Grove Road and call a public hearing on the matter for 7 :30 February 18 , 1986 in the Old Post Office Courthouse, Chapel Hill , North Carolina . This the 21st of January, 1986 . Don Willhoit Chair of the Orange County Commissioners On NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY To: The Orange County Board of Commissioners REQUEST TO CLOSE AN ABANDONED ROAD The undersigned, ROBERT SCHOLAR and wife, RACHEL SCHOLAR; petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners as •N follows: n N " That there is shown on a certain plat entitled PROPERTY Z I OF ROBERT SCHOLAR AND RACHEL SCHOLAR as surveyed by ENT Land O e a Surveys, dated November 5, 1984, a copy of which is attached 1 hereto, Ia certain road which is now abandoned, and designated on • said plat as "Old Cedar Grove Road" ; and whereas said "Old Cedar 6 I . Grove Road" as shown on said plat runs along the border of said W I • g property of the undersigned; and whereas said abandoned road is a . Yno longer used for vehicular traffic or for other purposes; that • to permanently close that portion of "Old Cedar Grove Road" more m ce particularly described hereinafter would not be contrary to the N 6 public interest, and that no person, firm, corporation or individual owning property in the vicinity of said "Old Cedar Grove Road" would be deprived of a reasonable means of ingress and egress to his property by the closing of such portion of sail, road; that it is to the best interest of the Petitioner and the general public that said abandoned road be closed and that the petitioner herein is the only owner of any property abutting said road; I I 012 WHEREFORE, the undersigned respectfully requests that the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopt a resolution closing that part of the said abandoned road as hereinafter I described permanently, pursuant to North Carolina General Statues; Section453A-241 and 160A-299. That portion of the said abandoned road that the undersigned desires to be closed is more particularly described as follows: • • BEGINNING at an iron stake located in the center of the right of way to Dixie Drive at the point where the center of said right of way intersects the western line i. N of property of Orange County; running thence with the d western property line of Orange County the following courses and distances: North 28° 53' 21" West 156.05 0 feet; North 22° 17' 16" West 122.70 feet; North 8° 32' 0, 16" West 109.73 feet and North 27° 31' 00" West 94.46 . feet. et Also that portion of said road described as follows: O x a BEGINNING at the southwest corner of Lot #I of Block B 0 ofHighland Woods as shown on plat recorded in Plat Book 15, Page 178, Orange County Regsitry; running thence North 33° 17' 38" West 299.74 feet to an iron o stake; running thence North 13° 24' 04" West 635.02 s feet to an iron stake; running thence North 04° 57' 19" d West 82.53 feet. W 1 M Respectfully submitted, this the 21s4 day of November, ° Ici 1985. a w o (2644-1/ 44-144-A-1 ROBERT SCHOLAR t t 4L4 - RACHEL CHOLAR I I it +f f I . • o1�. NOTIFICATION LIST REQUST TO CLOSE A PORTION OF OLD CEDAR GROVE ROAD (CERTIFIED MAILING) MAP 5 BLOCK A LOT 17 ROBERTA AND RACHAEL SCHOLAR P .O. BOX 22 HILLSBOROUGH , NC 27278 LOT 3A EVERETT AND EVA KENNEDY 120 S.CHURTON ST . HILLSBOROUGH , NC 27278 LOT 15A ORANGE COUNTY 108 E. MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH , NC 27278 MAP 7 BLOCK B LOT 1 EDDIE AND MARY PULLIAM RT . 4, BOX 352 MEBANE, NC 27302 MAP 5A BLOCK A LOT 16 KENNEDY (SEE ABOVE) BLOCK A LOT 15 CLEA-THA BROOKS RT. 6 , BOX 332 HILLSBOROUGH , NC 27278 BLOCK B LOT 4 FLORENCE ROBERTS 1005 FERNCREST DRIVE DURHAM, NC 27705 CERTIFIED MAIL :s P 689 848 794 through P 689 848 799 NOTICE PUBLISHED - NEWS OF ORANGE January 22, 1986 January 29, 1986 February 15, 1986 February 12, 1986 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION A NDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO.kii. MEETING DATE 2/18/86 . 014 SUBJECT: .Bids for Animal Shelter Expansion 1 i 1 DEPARTMENT: Purchasing & Central Services PUBLIC HEARING: YES 4 NO ^ ATTACHMENT(S) : Bid Tabulation INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela Jones Notice of Award ext 497 a) General ',Contractor PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 b) Plumbing Contractor HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 c) Electrical Contractor CHAPEL HILL 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider accepting bids from three contractors for various phases of the Animal Shelter Expansion Project. This project was rebid due to insufficient number of plumbing contractors as provided in G.S. 143-132. In the second round, bids were received from six general contractors, two plumbing contractors and four electrical contractors. A bid tabulation is attached for your review. NEED: General Statutes of North Carolina require approval of Board of Commissioners for "construction or repair work" requiring the expenditure of $30,000 or more. IMPACT: Bids for the three sections of this project total $75,780. According to the Finance Dept. on February 10, there is $76,500 , available in this project fund thereby requiring no budget amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Award bid to: General: Holt Construction Co. - $56,460. Plumbing: Acme Plumbing Co. - $9,950 Electrical: .Watson Electrical Co. - $8,455 - Base Bid $ 915 - Alt. E-1* Alt. E-1 is the heating system for the expanded area. t I QZE DAIL DIXON&ASSOCIATES,Architects ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER EXPANSION ANIMAL SHELTER DRIVE CHAPEL HILL,,( N.C. BID SUMMARY FEBRUARY 5, 1986 General Delta Builders, Inc. Base Bid 69, 93 7.°O Alt. G-',1 /, / 44. 6° Holt Construction Co. Base Bid 65(01 44,0.°o Alt. Gil a, WO. 0° McAnallen - (Barnes Constructors, Inc. Base Bid 6.9,Ss9. s Alt . G-1 J. 440, e° Riggs and Harrod Builders, Inc. Base Bid lt3,9/S°-° Alt. G-' l /,Bao.00 Security Building Co. G Base Bid 7a, Z/OO ` Alt . G 1 a.Soo The Resolute Co. Base Bid 4.b. 7eO•eo Alt. G—' 1 /, 700.7° Suite .20A Garr dill. Ciirrhoro. NC 27510. 419 4',8 41+33 hlemhr.r< of thi!Arneric.an Institute of Architects Plumbing O 1 E Acme Plumbing Base Bid q,4So, o Alt . P-1 /• SSO. 00 Brown Brothers Plumbing and Heating Co. Base Bid //, /// - °`) Alt. 0-1 /, //i. 0 0 Carolina Plumbing Co. Base Bid A10 8,6 Alt. P-1 /V a Sub F.E. Davis Iand Co. Base Bid Alo Erb Alt. P-1 Ni Biz Electrical Adams and Tilley Electric Co. , Inc. Base Bid /4, 88V-5 88'b°-° Alt. E,-1 Modern Electric Co. Base Bid 1,2,383." Alt. E--1 / a$0 R.V.M. Electric Co. Base Bid /0, CvaB.°D Alt. E-1 .39s. Q0 Watson Electric Co. Base Bid g, 4.rS.t6 Alt. E-1 9/5. OD U A �' evtPxaJl '. j.4 . ( 4ruc#tOn : � (p.46p.°° Ptt,.r&btrig . lame lrlu'rhbikb . 9. 150. oa 5Iec4r,Cal'. Wt,ory 6-1Q.C}irl - CL) q IS• D� 1,3 ` A F}er Ah e. E� 7 6,1i50- '- ►y(�,5o0.ov -k-1 3'ro3 ems' ud5 c r I in rt DA.- 'R.,, r+ 172° 01 % (I)NOTICE OF AWARD 10 ACME PLUMBING AND HEATING CO.,INC. 636 Foster Street Durham, NC 27791 PROJECT/CONTRACT ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER EXPANSION The Owner has considered the Bid submitted by Yo u for the above Work in response to its Advertisement for Bids dated February 5 , 19 86 , and Information for Bidders. You are hereby notified that your Bid has been accepted in the amount of nine thousand nine hundred fifty dollars ($9,950.00 ). You are required by the Information for Bidders to execute the Agreement and furnish:. the required Contractor's Performance Bond, Payment Bond, and certificates of insurance within ten calendar days from the date of this Notice to you. If you fail to ,execute said Agreement and to furnish said Bonds within ten days =from the date of this Notice, said Owner will be entitled to consider all your rights arising' out of the Owner's acceptance of your Bid as abandoned and as a forfeiture of, your Bid Bond. The Owner will be entitled to such other rights as may be granted by law. You are required to return an acknowledged copy of this Notice to the Owner. Dated this 18th day of _ February , 19 86 OWNER ORANGE , NORTH CAROLINA BY Chairman, Board of Commissioners Enclosures RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED THIS day of , 19 BY TITLE 0!8 a► ° NOTICE OF AWARD TO HOLT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PO DRAWER 118 GRAHAM. NC 27253 PROJECT/CONTRACT ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER EXPANSION The Owner has considered the Bid submitted by you for the above Work in response to its Advertisement for Bids dated Fahr„ari, c , 19 86 , and Information for Bidders. You are hereby notifid that your Bid has been accepted in the amount of fifty six thousand four hundred sixty dollars ($ 56,460.00 ). You are required by the Information for Bidders to execute the Agreement and fi1tTiSh:_ the required', Contractor's Performance Bond, Payment Bond, and certificates.of insurance within ten calendar days from the date of this Notice to you. If you fail to ,execute said Agreement and to furnish said Bonds within ten days from the date of this Notice, said Owner will be entitled to consider all your rights arising out of the Owner's acceptance of your Bid as abandoned and as a forfeiture of your Bid Bond. The Owner will be entitled to such other rights as may be granted by law. You are required to r turn an acknowledged copy of this Notice to the Owner. Dated this 18th day of February , 19 86 OWNER ORANGE s•' ■; 4 NORTH(AL,CAROLINAA BY Chairman, Board of Commissioners Enclosures RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED THIS day of , 19 BY TITLE 0I.� N (C:(0) OTICE OF AWARD TO WATSON ELECTRIC COMPANY PO BOX 2116 BURLINGTON, NC 27216 PROJECT/CONTRACT ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER EXPANSION The Owner has considered the Bid submitted by you for the above Work in response to its Advertisement for Bids dated February 5, , 19 861 and Information for Bidders. You are hereby notified that your Bid has been accepted in the amount of BASE BID: eight thousand four hundred fifty five dollars ($ 8,455.00 ). and ALTERNATE BID: nine hundred fifteen dollars 915.00 You are required by the Information for Bidders to execute the Agreement and furnish__ the required Contractor's Performance Bond, Payment Bond, and certificates of insurance within ten calendar days from the date of this Notice to you. If you fail to _.execute said Agreement and to furnish said Bonds within ten days from the date of this Notice, said Owner will be entitled to consider all your rights arising out of the Owner's acceptance of your Bid as abandoned and as a :forfeiture of your Bid Bond. The Owner will be entitled to such other rights as may be 'granted by law. You are required to return an acknowledged copy of this Notice to the Owner. Dated this 18th day_- of February , 1986 . OWNER ORANGE s &, NORTH NiR0 NA BY Chairman, Board of Commissioners Enclosures RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED THIS day of , 19 BY TITLE 02C ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. CU. Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 18, 1986 SUBJECT: HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY COUNCIL BY-LAWS AMENDMENT DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: TELEPHONE NUMBER: PROPOSED AMENDMENT Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider amending the Health and Medical Advisory Council By- Laws. NEED: The Health and Medical Care Advisory Council has adopted a resolution requesting an amendment to their by-laws. The pro- posed changes would reduce existing restrictions on appointment of individuals employed by health care systems. Ed Crowe, Chairman of the Health and Medical Care Advisory Council will present rationale for the modification. IMPACT: Proposed amendment would enhance the Health and Medical Care Advisory Council ability to recruit qualified members. RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. 021 PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE CRITERIA FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE.ADVISORY COUNCIL II I. Current Criteria for Appointment by the Commissioners Section V of the Resolution which established the Health and Medical Care AdvisorylCouncil states that persons appointed to the Council by the Board of Commissioners shall be persons who are: "not employed, directly or indirectly, by any component of the health and medical care system; selected so as to balance representation by residence and socio- economic characteristics; willing to exert the necessary effort to deal effectively with the complexity and technicality of the medical care system." It is the strong feeling of current and past members of the Council that the limitation against appointment of persons who are employed by some com- ponent of thelhealth care system defeats the purpose of recruiting interested and informed citizens who meet the third criterion for Council membership (i.e. , "willing to exert the necessary effort. . ."). Accordingly, we propose the following modification in the criteria for_appointment, with the rationale for this changle discussed below. II. Proposed Change hange in the Qualifications for Council Membership Our proposal is to amend Section V of the resolution of establishment in the following way: sub-section (A) would state that "persons appointed shall be: limited to those without direct financial interest or position as an officer or director in any component of the health care system; except that a person whose sole involvement is as an employee shall be eligible. Such persons shall comprise no more than three of the nine members of the Council." Sub'i-sections (B) and (C) would remain as they are now. III. Reasons for the Proposed Change While those with a direct financial interest in some component of the health care system have the right to present their views tot_the Council, we recognize that a clear conflict exists between their private interests and the public responsibilities of a Council member. As currently stated, however, the exclusion of employees removes from consideration many able and dedicated people whose only financial interest in the health care system is employment. Their interests as employees are materially different from those of officers, owners, stockholders or directors. Exclusion of employees, who comprise a significant percentage of the Orange County work- force, greatly 1 limits the Council's ability to attract qualified people who can be effective members. The health care system is complex and rapidly changing. The county and this Council can derive great benefit from the active involvement of persons whose expertiseland interest are in health care, but who have no direct conflict of interest. Persons currently excluded who would be eligible for consideration by the commissioners include employees of local health care institutions and consultants to those institutions who are recognized experts in the health care field. r I II -2- o2c Finally,' we believe that limiting such persons to no more than one-third of the Council's membership would ensure that this group of interested county residents is adequately represented within the broad overall balance mandated by the resolution which established the Council. - Resolution adopted by the Health and Medical Care Advisory Council on December 12, 1985 ORANGE COUNTY 04! - UOARU OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION 1GENt;h ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM ((O.1;_a_ • MEETING DATE Februatyl8} la$6.-. _ SUBJEC(•: Roof Engineering Funding for Orange County Schools 1 1 DEPARTMENT: County -Manager PUBLIC HEARING: YES x 1t0 ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Manager's Office • ext. 501 Letters from Superintendent of PHONE NUtjBER$: HILLSBU OUG}( 737-£3I31'-- Orange County Schools HILLSBOROUGH 732-9361 - CHAPEL HILL -- 967-9251 MEBANE - 227--203.1 DURHAM - 6$8--7331 PURPOSE: To consider proposal from•Orange County Schools to alloi. them to spend $ 20,000 during the 1985-86 fiscal year for engineering fees for Prior_ity• I • roofs at Stanford Jr. High and A.L. .Stanback Schools.. A .decision on this • . was tabled at the last meeting in order to allow the School System to • determfnela possible source of funding. _ NEED_ The Stanford Jr. High and the• A.L. Stanback roofs are Priority I roofs listed. in ''the Law Engineering report. 'These roofs are the highest priority . •- - roofs remaining to be done according to a memorandum from Dan Lunsford to - . the Board 'last November: In order that the roofs be completed in _the summer of . 1986, the School System needs funds available now to do the preliminary • .• engineering work. . . _ I • . IMPACT: According to the proposal attached; $20,000 would be transferred from the I . current appropriation for the Orange High School Renovation/Expansion • Project toibe used for the roof engineering fees. This $20,000 would be refunded back to the County in July, 1986 by the Orange County -School System from next year's county appropriation to the Schools. This would - replace the amount transferred from the High School project. . I REC:O ; _i;t)r`(T(j;:\t;) : I Approve the request from the School System as outlined in the attached letter. . . ' . - . 024. 0S �' _ 1 886 ii range C�Cuun# c ry 5.1+ 200 EAST KING STREET HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT (919) 732-8126 February.11, 1986 Mr. Ken Thompson, County Manager Orange County 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsboro h, NC 27278 Gam/ ' Dear ompson: Re: Roof Replacement Engineering Following our discussion at the Commissioners Meeting on February 3, 1986, on the request for engineering funds for reroofing of Priority x roofs at Stanford Junior High and A. L. Stanback Schools, I reviewed the situation with the Orange County Board of Education on February 10, 1986. At that meeting the Board authorized me to request of the Commissioners th'e following action: 1) That the Commissioners allow the Board of Education to transfer, on a temporary basis, $20,000 from the allotted funds for the Orange High expansion/renovation project,. This transfer would be solely for the pur- pose of doing necessary engineering for Priority I roof work noted above. The funds transferred from the renovation project would be refunded in the next fiscal year from our county appropriation. 2) That the Board of Education, following completion of specifications, will proceed to bid and report those bids to',the Board of Commissioners for funding purposes in June; 1986. We regret having to file this request, but the Board and its staff see it as imperative that we proceed with this work at this time so that the work can be done this stunner, R- .-ctfully, Lunsford Superintendent DGL:ha cc: Mr. Norman Haithcock, Board Chairman Mx. Don Will'hoit, Commissioner Chairman Mr. Wayne Watts, Director of Business Affairs Ili ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date EEHRX_11+_126 Action nda Item #E _ SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PREPARATION OF SKETCH THOROUGHFARE PLAN BY NCDOT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _Yes L. No Attachment(s ) Information Contact : SUSAN SMITH RESOLUTION ADOPTED 2/3/86 REQUEST LETTER Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To request NCDOT to initiate the development of a sketch throughfare plan for Orange County. NEED: On February 3 , 1986 the Board of Commissioners adopted the attached resolution and directed that implementation actions be initiated. The ' first step in the preparation of a thoroughfare plan for the County is the development of a sketch plan by NCDOT. IMPACT: Receipt of a request from Orange County to develop a sketch thoroughfare plan for the county is necessary for NCDOT to initiate the activity. RECOMMENDATION: Forward the attached letter of request to NCDOT. li ORANGE COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS 02 C 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CAREY BEN LLOYD BE ERLEY E.M RESALLL NORMAN WALKER DON WILLHO1T it February 11 , 1986 Dr. Larry R. Goode Edison Johnson NCDOT Thoroughfare Planning Division P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611 Dear Sirs : The. Orange County Board of Commissioners requests that the Thoroughfare Planning Division of NCLOT..- prepare a thoroughfare plan for Orange County. This request recognizes :that thoroughfare plans are currently being prepared for the Town of Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan area, the Alamance County Urban Area study, and the Durham/Chapel, lxj1/Carrboro Urban Area study, each of which is either partially or entirely within the boundaries of Orange County:.. It. :is, the desire of ..._the ` .County that NCDOT prepare a I sketch "throroughfare plan for the remainder of the county following >:completion of the sketch thoroughfare plan for the Town Hillsborough. preparation a this plan, in conjunction witl �the p an _. for te above r renced study areas , would provide for the development of a county-wide thoroughfare plan. Thank you for your prompt response on this matter. Sincerely, Don Willhoit Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners • RESOLUTION GP THE 02 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD CONCERNING A COUNTY—WIDE THOROUGHFARE PLAN It is apparent that as growth continues in Orange County , problems arise concerning the transportation needs for this new growth . To aid in the planning for future development the County must classify , and set standards . for , existing ' roads . As stated in the Land Use Plan : "While providing is vital service function , the means and manner by which people and goods are transported influences the physical development pattern throughout the County . " The Orange • County Planning Board , therefore , requests that the Board of County Commissioners ask the State Thoroughfare Planning Department to design a thoroughfare . plan for the remainder of the County that does not include the Hi l Lsblorough Thoroughfare P tan Area , the A lenience County Urban Ares study , and the DCHC Urban Area study . This Plan would bn designed follo -ing completion of the sketch thoroughfare plan for the Town ❑ t= Hillsborough ( to be completed 3 to 6 months) and would be designed so that the reed systems of the above area .studies would interlock into one countywide thoroughfare plan . This the (,27th day of January , 1OEC . • Alice Ool.dan Planning Board Chair ORANGE 02� A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date EMRUARY_ _1 Action A gnda SUBJECT: Z-1-86 DONNIE CHAPMAN REZONING REQUEST Item # 114- DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes - NO ___ Attachment (s) - �~ �- - Information Contact : SUSAN SMITH SEE 1-6-86 AGENDA 1VIARVIN COLLINS DRAFT 1-6-86 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DRAFT 2-4-86 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 I ' PURPOSE: To consider for decision the rezoning request submitted by Donnie Chapman to correct an error in the Zoning Atlas . This item was submitted to public hearing on January 6, 1986. To receive the Planning Board's recommendation. 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 designation 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 (EC-5) . IMPACT: Rezoning of the Chapman property would correct the Zoning Atlas., RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommended approval of th request to correct an error in the ZoningpAtlas . the rezoning IL.. ' ?1'�oPER vP toe/4141M �t. CL.I.&.PI.4L.L� CUt 'Cbvtt4S14tP — TAY- M.AP to OCIC ,\ ..........".....j > ' .31 II I 2 ei., N. A .7110 aol r ate'fr.% It ILL4 44 CI, I TowKS1a1P .9 c4 • LOT 3o' 1 .P f GOLSIA 4 4• 7 T# < SA i / ; = 1 nz. 1 i ;',"'- qr,._ / 7 A.5 a ie. i 0 ! , P =3 I. S, 4 CI-. e, . ‘04)fPrik s Fat�7li71l4C� r..aCdTlo� 'S �' d4-roosrx ea}fig+ AR Q ` 2� 4ecaa GLA. {44 Loc.sno� % �� • a✓ 1 PCeCFr' 2 Saa6txY II, �t -°ales-�,, __ , r romeo(Ace ro gc-g) • PROPERTY zo e-16 7dT To E ) 1 1 C N r 1 Pt ZeM1gD C*C-5 To AZ ofk, / 2 NaETN / i , i il / __ / gl .�JJ SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION 024 Subject: Dr>nn 1 P f"1'IAt5MAY1 _ RP7e/rti Beeploot Recommendation: _ . - - - . , A _ . I Vote: Unanimous _ Meeting Date: 2/4/Rh Issues Raised: II Explanation of Dissenting Votes: Other Information and/or Citations from County Regulations: Planning Board Member Responsible for Report: Barre Jacobs 031 JPH MINUTES 1-6-89 PAGE 9 I attorney was that State regulations preempted the County 's authority . The judge ruled that the County could regulate junked end/or abandoned vehicles, but indicated that ordinance revisions were necessary to ineu:e the constitutionality of the provisions. The County Attorney has prepared proposed amendments which address the judge 's concerns. Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance would allow staff to proceed with enforcement action. Staff recommends a ' pproval of the ordinance amendments . I There was no Board comment or public comment . MOTION: 1 Carey moved to forward the ordinance amendments to the Planning Board for recommendation. Seconded by Marshall . j VOTE: Unanimous. ft■ i AGENDA ITEM #E3: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT—DONNIE CHAPMAN Staff presentation by Susan Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on a rezoning request to correct an error in the Zoning Atlas . 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 designation was thought to include those buildings associated with Mr. Chapman 's automotive service. Recently , the Planning Staff Learned that 1 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 (EC-5) . Rezoning of the Chapman property would correct the Zoning Atlas . Planning Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request to correct an error in the Zoning Atlas . There was no Board comment or public comment . 03- JPK MINUTES', 1-6-86 PAGE 10 MOTION: Lloyd moved to forward the rezoning request to the Planning Board for recommendation. Seconded by Carey. VOTE: Unanimous. . I • 03 • DRAFT PB MINUTES 2-4-86 • Page 2 Jacobs deleted item #5 of the agenda at the staff ' s request . Best presented a report on the presentation of Carrboro ' s mayor on Joint Planning noting that Carrboro is not interested in discussing ETA extension unless it is granted to Chapel Hill ; • Carrboro is interested in a joint effort on the development of the plan and zoning atlas ; Carrboro desires that all three jurisdictions have veto power ; and that Carrboro desires a five year review of the plan . He continued that Commissioners Lloyd and Carey have been appointed to the "dialogue" committee to discuss the commitment of the Towns to services in the ETA prior to annexation streamlining the process and clarification of the use of office/institutional at the interchanges . Collins added that the issue on annexation is the relation of the fire district to the tax base . He continued that there was little difference in the • jurisdictions ' view of the interchange , just wlmt the permitted uses are in OI district in each jurisdiction. He noted the committee would also discuss the legality of joint planning and the banning of fast food restaurants at the interchange . Shanklin questioned the logic behind the latter. • AGENDA Oa: Z-1-86 Donnie Chapman (Rezoning Request ) Jacobs noted that no public comment would be received outside of public hearing. Presentation by Smith. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider for recommendation the rezoning request submitted by Donnie Chapman to correct an error in the Zoning Atlas . This item was submitted to public hearing on January 6 , 1986. 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 designation 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 sa-iie ownership) to?:_'d A -•g iCa). tur 1 moor- - I 034 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date ZEBB X_1$,._1986 Act ion ends Item _ SUBJECT: PD-5-85 SCOTSWOOD DEPARTMENT: PLANNING --N------ PUBLIC HEARING _Yes��_�_ No Attachment (s) Information Contact : EDDIE KIRK VICINITY MAP SEE 11-25-85 AGENDA PACKETS HANDOUTS DISTRIBUTED AT THE JANUARY 6, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS BY CHRIS BEST AND BARRY JACOBS STAFF MEMORANDUM ON CONDITIONS DRAFT 11-25-85 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DRAFT 2-4-86 PLANNI'NG BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham -- 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider approval of a proposed planned development and rezoning request submitted by John W. Graham and A. H. Graham, Jr. This item was submitted to public hearing on 11-25-85 and January 6, 1986. To receive the Planning Board's recommendation. NEED: John W. Graham & A. H. Graham, Jr. are requesting a planned development and rezoning for 331 .12 acres of land located along Highway 70 Bypass and St . Mary' s Road(SR 1002) northeast of Hillsborough. The property is referenced as Tax map 6 , Block B. , Lets 3 & 4 and Tax Map 22 Block A, lot 17 of Hillsborough Township. The property is located in an area designated as Ten Year Transition and Commercial Transition Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The present zoning classification is (Residential-1) R-1 . The applicants are requesting 290. 03 acres to be rezoned PD-H-R2 , 29. 50 acres to be rezoned PD-H-RS and 10. 43 acres to be rezoned PD-GC4. IMPACT: Approval of the request would allow development of 410 residential lots with a minimum 20, 000 sq. ft . per dwelling unit I216 attached multi-family dwelling units and a 65, 460 square feet of commercial space on 10. 43 acres. 03 PD-5-85 SCOTSWOOD February 18, 1986 PAGE 2 (See, Impact Statement) RECOMMKNDATION: The Planning Board recommended denial of the pIannedAmmmm development rezoning request and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit . However, should the Board of Commissioners approve the request , the Planning Board recommends that approval be subject to the conditions specified in the attachment . I 03E Article 8. 2 . 2 states that where a preponderance of evidence indicates compliance iance with the general Standards , 'specific rules governing the specific use, and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards , the application must be approved unless it is found,- in some specific manner that • 1 . The use will not promote the public health , safety and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to• the plan as submitted ; 2 . The use will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property ; 3 . The use is not in compliance with the genes- l plans for the physical development of the county as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof , adopted by tyrhe Orange County Board of Commissioners . The burden of proving one or more of the above findings is on those opposing the application . The proof roust also be in • the form of competent material and substantial evidence . The Planning Staff reviewed the application , the site plan and all supporting documentation and found that no informstio ; was received which would establish grounds for making one or more of the above findings : • The Planning Board has reviewed the application, the site • plan, all upporting documentation and the evidence received at public hearing and has found that the applicant does Lot comply with the general standard regarding the public health , standard and welfare nor with the specific rules and required regulations referenced as 8 . 2 . 4 c) , 20 . 3 . 2 e) , 7. 4. 2 and 7 . 15. 10 a) ' 2 . The Board ' s decision on 8. 2 . 4 a) resulted in a • tied vote . . The Planning Board , therefore , recommends denial of the request . however , should the Board of Commissioners approve the request the Planning Board recommends the attachment of conditions to the approval as follows : 03: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PAGE 1 1. The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange; County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all public improvements plus 10%. The amount', shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineler employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. Security for construction of the improvements in this project may follow phasing in the project . S Specifically, p y, as improvements are completed in each phase a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegoitiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements. 2. Security shall be provided for the grading, paving and stabilization of all cleared areas, streets and other vehicular travelways ; sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways ; erection of street signs ; utility installation and hookups ; recreational facilities ; and landscaping. 3. All necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone and cable television by any cable television provider franchised by Orange County to serve this development) installation, servicing and hookups to the development and to each unit within the development shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. 4. The rantee shall g promulgate Articles of Incorporation governing tenancy in the development and shall record a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and regulations promulgated under this condition in the Orange County Registry of Deeds . 5. Roads , parking areas , walkways , street signs , utilities , recreation facilities and sites, landscaping and mulching around units shall be maintained as constructed. All such Improvements and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. 6. Left And right turn lanes shall be provided on St . Mary's Road at proposed Graham Drive. 7. Graham Drive and Hamilton Way shall have a 60' right-of- way with a 41 ' paved cross section. (A motion to delete the Baldwin Road connection and reduce the paved cross section to 37' resulted in a 4 - 4 vote. In favor : Yuhasz, Walters , Shanklin, Kramer. Opposed: Best , Margison, Pilkey, Jacobs . ) 8. Turn lanes to the east and west shall be constructed on Graham Drive at the intersection with St . Mary's Road during the construction of Graham Drive. . 03 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PAGE 2 9. Curb and gutter shall be provided along all streets . 10. A sidewalk shall be provided on one side of the street along all streets in the PD-H-R2 zone with curb cuts for the handicapped at street intersections. 11. Scotswood Boulevard shall have a 90 foot right-of-way, containing a 65 foot cross section with 24 foot wide pavement widths and a 12 foot wide median. This would allow appropriate room for heavier vehicles . 12. Left turn lanes shall be installed on Scotswood Boulevard into the multifamily and commercial areas. 13. The driveway off Scotswood Boulevard into the commercial section is inappropriate for the entrance of trucks. The radii Ishould be reworked in this area to allow easier truck access. 14. A cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the southwestern end of Carolina Avenue and the entrance on St. Mary' s Road (SR 1002) abandoned. 15. A stubout to the western property line shall be provided from Seotswood Boulevard. This stubout shall be located to connect directly to the southern corner of Greentree Drive. 16. Temporary turnarounds shall be provided at all stub streets. -o ut 17. A third turn lane shall be constructed along US 70 between St . Mary' s Road and Miller Road (SR 1555) immediately upon initial construction of the development . (A motion for approval of the condition resulted in a 4 - 4 vote. In favor: Margison, Pilkey, Jacobs , Best . Opposed: Yuhasz, Walters ,Shanklin, Kramer . See minutes for issues and position statements) . 18. Left turns onto or out of the southernmost entrance to the commercial area shall be restricted and only right turn movements permitted. 19. All roads shall be named and the names not duplicate any other names within Orange County. Road name signs to Orange I County standards shall be erected at all intersections . 20. A 10-foot non-access easement shall be provided along the rear of lithe lots adjoining Carolina Avenue and Second Street . This easement shall be labeled so as to prohibit driveway or vehicular access onto Carolina Avenue and Second Street . I 03C RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PAGE 3 21 . Mercury lights shall be installed throughout the development as each phase develops . 22. The lift station at the southeast section of the project ( lift ) station #1) shall be of sufficient size to accommodate any future connections by property owners along St . Mary's Road. 23. Prior 4o paving streets , utility service laterals shall be stubbed out to the front property lines of each lot. Sanitary sewer laterals shall be capped off above ground. 24. All utility lines shall be installed to state standards. 25. All utility easements shall be shown on the site plan including easements to adjoining property. All required easement documents shall be recorded before final plat approval . 26. The number and location of fire hydrants shall approved prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 27. The following recommendations apply to the recreation area and facilities. a. Provide a minimum of 15 acres recreational u (active and 1 p rposes include the open space areapalongeNancyrHilloCreek. would b. A minimum of seven ( 7) acres are to be developed for active recreational purposes to include the following: - Toti, lot/playground area with play apparatus for children, ages pre-school to 14 ( i .e. swings, slides , climber , whirl ) and benches for adult supervision. Some shaded areas are to be provided within the tot lot ',area. - One lull-length basketball court - Picnic area which includes a small shelter with 3-4 tablles, 5-7 individual picnic tables scattered throughout the woods with 1 trash receptacle and 1 grill per 2 tables. - Bicycle paths throughout - Openi, grassed play area. - Adequate night lights for safety and security reasons - Appropriate landscaping c. Provide, 10 parking spaces to serve the above activities within the 15 acre recreation area. xes d. Along either side of Nancy Hill Creek, designate 100 ft . as open space/passive areas with walking and hiking paths. Provide public walkways (to be part of the designated "open space area) to these areas from both Graham Drive and Cameron Circle. Install bridges across 04 t RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PAGE 4 the creek at either end and midway, in conjunction with the public walkways. A pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle easement shall be dedicated coterminous with the open space area. e. Multifamily recreation facilities are to include an open grassed area and a picnic area ( i .e. tables, trash receptacles , grills) . f. Provide 13 parking spaces to serve the multifamily recreation facilities . g. Install a fence around the pool for safety reasons. h. Wherever appropriate, provide handicapped parking spaces and ramps . Construct all walking and bicycle paths on slopes ',no greater than 5%. 28. All. piens for drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation control shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County and the site plan modified accordingly to satisfy the Soil and Erosion specifications . In addition, Orange County shall inspect the installation of control devices and the on-going work for the total project . The project shall at all times meet the requirements of the Orange County 'Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 29. Construct and maintain stormwater devices to control the peak rate of runoff from the commercial and multifamily tract . The detention devices shall be designed and constructed so that the peak rate of runoff after development will not exceed the predevelopment rate for a 20 year 24 hour storm and for storms of greater intensity. 30. Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum. In lieu of planted landscaping, existing vegetation shall be maintained between units . Clearing shall only be conducted for purposes of installing improvements . 31. Final landscaping plans shall be submitted and approved prior to the imitation of construction activity. 32. A landscape architect shall be employed by the applicant to prepare a landscaping/screening plan for the designated 100' buffer area. The plan must be prepared in consultation with adjacent property owners and approved by Orange County Planning Department . The plan shall be prepared following a survey of the existing vegetation of the buffer area and must identify and specify the retention of specimen trees twelve inches or more in diameter , provide for year round screening and include implementation details and schedules . At a minimum the screening shall be opaque from the ground to 041 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PAGE 5 a height of at least six (6) feet , with intermittent visual obstructions from the opaque portion to a height of at least twenty (20) feet. (ADDED BY PLANNING BOARD 2-4-86) . 33. That all signs be erected in compliance with Article 9 Signs following issuance of a building permit and prior to them issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any unit . INo sign may be erected within the sight triangles for the entranceways to the development . 34. That 411 structures be erected in compliance with applicable building codes following submittal for and issuance of building permits . 35. Developer shall coordinate mail service with the Hillsborough Postmaster prior to construction of phase one of the development . (ADDED BY PLANNING BOARD 2-4-86) 36. The project shall be phased to limit construction of residential units to a maximum of 25% of the total number of approved units within a give 2.5 year period. 37. The applicant shall request annexation by the Town of Hillsborough for each phase of the development following the construction of required improvements . (ADDED BY PLANNING BOARD 2-4-86) . 38. A final) boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer. 39. The final site plan and narrative of the project incorporating all changes , deletions and additions through the final approval of the project are incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit . A copy of the final site Plan and narrative are on file with the Orange County Planning Department. Grading and building permitsi, upon application, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit . 40. The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with or fulfillment of the above (conditions and the Orange County development regulations and ordinances. 41 . If any', of the above conditions shall be held invalid or void, then this approval shall be void and of no effect . THE PLANNING BOARD DELETED THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ON 2-4-86: I o4� RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PAGE 6 A. A traffic light shall be installed at the intersection of St . Mary' s Road and U.S. 70 during the development of the first phase. (A motion for deletion of the condition was approved on a 6-2 vote.) B. A stub-out to . the Guy Baldwin Jr. property shall be provided with the location to be reviewed and approved by the NCDOT. (Unanimous) FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY . PLANNING BOARD PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: SCOTSWOOD C 0b 0or!"ci1 a::i c oti)p I k r I C..r i I a;I 0. ; -Ic -dS Art ;c1c Lq for j1peci all IJSL;s as Viel 'I as those -1, - h i I s!-10 a! Ar,`1c)_ 8.2 . 1 '1)" rcq-jlr,�S v i r l i t t e n findings, cc rte f y i n q c0fflj p 1 *1 a 11 cc wl Ch the h. \—Lic�c I T �r'ucl f j! C -cau lat jors govo-r,!i'g i V, al U;�';s as sct 'Or'C' 1 n Art: c!e S. 8 arc: d i v I do d into two (2) scc'cions whjcj� i,,.C]ude� 'Z) [cation cop.'Ponen'ks; and (b) SpL:c�lfic standards f'or Panne Dcv,?lopin,?nts (Article S. .Lj refers. 7-o Article 7 standar6s) and Spccial Uses (Artilciu L is sec forth in the Zoninc, ordlinanc_, linclud [ilg Lhe provisions of Article 5 kMin,crsiona] Au 0 U i11.;C'.L S 'd A r L l C e pa ica ICn of D I mU n icr. r c- ur n t s h c i nd'i n9s of ft(; Orano.e C�)unuy P I nin rn Bo-1 rd r-'Ilai-d lls? thc; app_ 'i cat lon in quest I on Th_� F1 ildi V s u I c:d by A r L 1 C I e a r) I-L;[TI L�1 C) �A S rcqu a n n I n o 3 car d 1.. v5 j or,,,, P F S ,I ncii�- d I ca t cs no n com o a n c i ',.i C ON P 0 N�N'T cc Board of Planning Board County C6mmissioners "2n U Findinqs -Evidence Submi tted to Support FlnCjlinqs Pludi nqq C4 7j O'l SL. flli ticCl Oil L-yes _N10 Application, narrative and legal description "Z"�s 0 le,0V n(-; f'u 1 1 and a c c u r a e submitted. C of T)1-03 o S ed- use '!ocation, appcarQncL X Yes N'0 Site pl um ans sbitted. ' r L) S-v,' cop� --s of tl,,e Yes IN o P .0 P Y a r C 9 j s L 0•r C. ,urv(.ycjr Or unqine�r con'talining: poi n I , sca is and da'Lv- X Yes No Shown on site plan. Ycs .1-'o of- ort✓a to be deve'lopad Yes NO Shown on site plan. Yes La(_ c,,,: r i-j I! F)d r g�1 L 5-C,F-wz!y "Ii thin 0: --z.j t hu 5 j to X—Yes Drainage easements are shown on the site plan. _Ye S N10 Utility easements will be provided as needed. — A%Ji CL I S S.5 AND 8. AP°L I ICAT11 C-11 CGMDA,�,!7,NTS {Continued} Boas . of Planning 3oard County Ci5i missioners Find*tnqs v7d -cc- Su�jm; ttod to Suoport Findlnqs Findings. Loc� on o;7 a axi st irn or prc- X yes "."0 Site Plan shows proposed structures in the . Yes N10 L ros c S L c"I C On, the 5 1 C multi-family & commercial districts. Individual structures in the single family district have not been indicated. a . Lb c ,_L 0 :areas a s o i-, t h � ` �- —Yes O � s N 0 X The 100 year floodplain for Nancy Hill Y — to flood hazarc or inunda- Creek is located within the open space area. u:-. a s h c,.,i n on f I o oJ i i�p s or z P S Loo- v;a tu r courses sus X Yos N!0 Water courses are shown. NO I U,1 V S • tL5 ncI U I n c., ,h,i di OVII a contour L X Y(l;s _N C) Topography at 5 foot contour intervnis 17 v a 4 0 f f V 5 C b a s C d has been shown. Y,.;5 31-1 Sea levo dat"Am X Yc'; Q Screening, parking, service and loading Yeas 0 a r 1:i ri.g areas have been shown. to s tc 'includling •site X YUS N0 Access to the site is proposed via new streets Ye=s Nt 0 0.) al ; .-oads used far off US 70 and St. Mary' s Road. Turn lanes and deceleration tapers have been indicated on the site plan. ill or.s of ill s-c r uc t L-r L;s Y 4L,s No NO Lo �)c usud in the __y_ Structural elevations have been shown for f v, the multifamily and commercial areas. addre�Scs Of 0.,�JrlLrs x Yc s 1!0 Provided in application. —Yes No 1,1;.::! Board of $490.00 application fee paid. 6l;s --.\I 0 t y 'RDS/A! I SPECi - L con, r. i E 3 ance "No" c� cs oar of 0 r d n n c:o Ri� e Planning Board E b S County CongPssione F rir L i U I r- S -I t; apD C,_n'c C, End &d a) of Applicant indicates Hills�hwz_tcr Ycs i- 7-p-P r o V a 1 ------No .3 r s C�, i s ci 1 i t i Motion for and sewer service is available via Lc a.)d viz:.-,ur uu ry i -,L. 4 - 4 votc (see extension of existing lines. minutes for position vote) 3 j :yid a 0.u a C Y Of P 0 11 1 cc, _Y1_,ACS N 0 Fire protection, police and rescue are to r;, and squad protc-,- be provided by the Orange Rural Fire Department, Orange Co. Sheriff's Dept. and the Orange Co. Rescue Squad respectively. The S h e r i f f' s Dept,. has ' indicated they w! I I require 3 additional personnel and 2 additional vehicles to provide adequate protdction. The Fire Department has indicated they can provide adequate service with proper sized water lines and fire hydrants properly spaced. The Rescue Squad indicated they can provide service fdr the development. hod arc a do n ua cy r, vch 1 C I e Ves 0 LO L"C i :C: aCd trafric X improvements to US 70 and St. Mary's Rd. —Yes —No indicate turn lanes and deceleration tapers., cond! around. t i c, s e Mn ;on for approval failed (3 5) Interior roads show a single smooth traffic flow.. (See minutes For position statement) 1 C L n �<7 T 1� I C S TIAN DA R 2 S P 0,� F ap[) C��D -,;Oct or''- of c e d ve I Ca.10's t ap P. Id n "'0. 01" Art —I'L LJ T i C L SPEC F C S T AN f)A;-",D S 7 0R L'V A L U I —' s V r d i c a L u s co-1.p-� 1 ail re I ;Orr 1 n d I c t c.s n C r,c i i D 1 C e Board of Planning Board County Commissioners s Findings v I rj--:-,cc Sub:t I t To Support F!rid i nnt; Findings 7.4 ind cat,s t is co.:Ip !v %q, q k j n Ar L i c',c c-s Those rcqt:i -UX(?,nLS -.9 S h G :1,g E C;c X Y�� N.3 S 'ite plan has been submitted. Yes N,0 Z! S C 3 j,U of — 10 0 nor rno re t LCclal CI L)tio[: L) X �-j Legal description has been submitted. Y�;s G L�6c, 07" T- -0-1 C, a 1 1 q J Y C P LArla L — — - Not applicable. No error alledyed !0 ro;- CcrrccteL, C on'J ;ens Not applicable. Changed conditions not a- a] ledged n a y "o vomoti: PL,`, I t and a-:-neral rar(: 2 fLv�a,-,-�r- in lZr, proposed Yas x No Property located in 10 Year Transition area ycs No i. n L, jq I CS r r ou ['.0 0 S.C Motion for as well as Commercial Activity Node. Designation - 1 3f adc"n calnp ruhtfS i vu approval failed permits R-2, R-51 and GC-4 zoning provided certain (--)' - 5) (See zoning criteria are met and a Special Use Permit is minutes for obtained. position statement) 1 L Tit J r.) T 1 :1 Rnard of Planning soard County Comm I s s 'one rs F i d ' , v I n I f, F ng rd i n n s C:1 0 on. C 5 i c t s c ior; I ii A r 2 Dcs i s located in a 10 Year y c G ' e property .1nated, by the adopted Land Ves The U s c Plan as @ Transition Area, Transition area which ti,�i 1 1 probably be annexed whicri can reasonably be expected to by Hillsborough within the next 10 to 20 years. be ;-;nnexcd by municipality in the ens,ring 10-20 years. Watcr and s&,,4er lines should VCs Ho The developer is proposing Hillsborough _YC's. ex. st at site or be assured of water and scocr service. Hillsborough has nsi�allation a-, part of the indicated a willingness to serve the site devc.lopnicnt process. and prc —iminary approval of the plans. US 70 VC-5 o Vch� ,;ulor across must consist X V is classified as an arterial and of direct access to a street St, Mary ' s Road is classified as an artcrla-F- clac,s', fled as either arterial or in the Land Use Plan. collector as designated by the adopted Land Use Plan. 1 C S—.fl, FO 1, EV.-V i(J 1 ON',/P i u c d Board of Planning ER o a d County ssloners f=i n d i n g s v 11 r.C- (f to Sur 3 r S 2 i dent Cs Lilts -r--I- v n i C:h w I n0i to C'.t J-.1 C "''.C t P I a C)'7 z C)n „g -I i s L r 1 C r. o;I CAP? Cant C 10 s 14 C-n 31 L i C.n I-I a T-cr that d I s t- c e, s .'t forth In )",r t I c 1 c 14 3 n d it- o c,,..:s DO'j 'Lgnated by the adopted n The DroDerty is located in a 10 Year YC's Trans I t ion area which oi 1 1 probably he annexed be annexed by a by Hillsborough within the next 10 to 20 years. 7-e ensuring 'rears . W;j I r and; s o r lines should X YCS No The 6evelopen is proposing Hillsborough 5 to � , L cat ;Jl W or be assured of water and sewer a ;i i ori .!s mart of the I T-1 L rend ,5 cul ar access must consist X Yes —N,0 US 70 is classified as an arterial and Yes tl0 0 : ' rccL access to a street St. Mary' s Road is classified as an arterial f ct,:i-,sifted as either arterial or in the Land Use Plan. co! lector as designated by the adopted Land Use Plan. Thc- full range of urban services X Yes No See impact analysis Yes No exist or arc proposed at the time of ievelopment including fire, police, recreation, education, co:--Jarcial and cultural activities. A T-n 7 - S I S �`,O D A R S IE:7 C :-7 1,, 1 ITI. 01"' P L A�'. Cr, i r. !j Boa d 0 Planning Board County Commissioners 0 R,0^,L j F i n irl 9 s c- S c F 1 nd 1 gs n a -.,, I C 4 2 1 dln t 1 F i e s t h i 'cc r -I i G h l i P.01-Ma Y 1"-0 it LO ff, :'pp cal.L d S i n a z 1 of) cr r i a or t^at d i strict r sc ,. forts, . n A t i c I c 4.2 , 11 Dcsiqnated in LUP as Property is located on Commercial- YCS M NO Corn ii--,rclal or industrial 'rode; IndLIStrial HB-3 Node in Hillsborough in Ero or Hillsborough Township. Tc,r,ji it i p s Water and sewer lines exist —)L Water and sewer facilities could be —Y C's No or a.-c assured of extended to the site as evidenced by letter ins kjil ]at ion. from Town of Hillsborough. Di r.-Ict access to arterial M Direct access provided to US 70 and Yes 0 or r s7l lector street. —Y St . Mary' s Road, art:�rlpl roads. S�)E` F . C S FOR E'-%0,L"'! Con n (t) NTE Board of P I ann i ng B,)a rd County Commissioners Findings :t ti: L 1 S —Findinas LVI -an C r o r t F r�d- nn P ,:1tli 0 U I to Z. ' ' CVC n T I C)C i o X Y'---s 0 Direct access will be provided to two V2 t� No o:- s'Li-octs and mass t En s i L arte rials (see impact statement) . c 2 r c s i g n c,d so not a C on I: nor r s t � 5 S t C S i t h r C 3 c c t to Y C;5 X J 0 Extension of water/sewer service from Z'u (I I Mot ion for ajol- ;)Vol H i I I s bo rough. Cost for extens-ion to be S C 4::r', L or fa I I c d 3 borne by developer. iii T I See minutes for D L�L)1 C" C C,r Z!r r ;position statemen I-s) rr c) J D 1 C co" L an U-' 0 ateL iin respect to —YL;s X No Letters regarding adequate service Y e s No d rescue 5:�r v I cc s , provision have been received from police, j Motion for approval 1 1��o S -and .%arks so as to fire and rescue services (see 8.2.4.b) . j t!-,e manncr failed (3 5)(See minutes for P d under tile cxisting position statements) i 'Lab i�or d-,wa 1 c.a- X Yes N'o Soil survey topo indicate several streams es NI o IL and with the majority of the property suitable uros c: and soil Sul,", I dLnca or for development . CA (7j T 7 S`C F C S!,i I il"Ll�AT 1 ON/Pt DE,V L C IS R U L Board of County Planning Board Co,mmiss :oncrs Findinqs V � '--ince To Support FinrJ;,,)ns Findings _CJI Ar t I c 10 7 L c- s forLh i p I ;f;I-,;n g,'' standards w 1 t all jl Icant mus-, S,L-O-r 0-a S o 1, s--- prov;d,�!d to X Ye Access ooints on US 70 and St. Marv' s Road are desicned to orovide controlled traffic Yes No t I I C C, 3 0 S:T.,)0 movements. Sincle family development is f lo,-.; .lit controlled turn- located behind multi-family so as to not affect s and w.i n imum 0 V e 1 ar or the amount of traffic on minor streets. U_c 01 by Substan- tiu; ra f f i c c ou r a g cd. r L and con v,--n i cn L, [_OLJ.0 X D 1-Ov ��d Fo r t r i--n,, AnDlicant has indicated walks in the YI S N ar s. C ro,s i n s multifamily and commercial zones. Planning staff recommends a sidewalk on one side of the road s z.--r I cc a!_u d and in the single family district. Y P rov 1 d at inter- __X_Y u s Applicant has indicated sight triangles at —Y C a;id v c-1!'1 cu3 r the intersections of streets and entrance a i u v, it. A r t I c I c E'). drives. Y N C) v NO r aIr district , A 100-foot open space area is provided alon of f the perime.te-r -of the PD-H-R2 and PD-H-R5 districts C, when the districts are not equivalent to the oar:. g s e t a 75 adjacent zones. a 0 X Ycs No Applicant has indicated that existing YtIs o V LO screen vegetation will remain where possible. I,i ng etc. L C C;; ,.!11 C-1 r U f LI 5 C; collec- iG,./ r a q 1 t 1 17 C -,7 r C' j Board of County Plann inq. ward Conin i ss i one rs L "Ind-inns F 1 n d i L-)g s Findings r L i c 11 t;L LI a r J j 1 d I X Yus Nb Maximum lou i Id'i ng height In residential Y districts is 25 feet. Building height c a rd s u t f r L 11 a 4 feet maximum_MRos�b_y_applicant- is 22 and as 3hot,.rr on elevation drawings. 1) 0 r C'_u J in Sign plans not submitted as part of aopli - es NO a! C:_ %'I i z 1) A t i C I cation. Plans can be required as a condition of approval . r "intern nd 170 � - t!r v all"! !}Q r i s YCS :ov;d. Site plans indicate that streets , drives iv O cG:. and parking areas are so designed as to us provide safe and convenient access. 'c' s z us ou ! zr con:.roll i�_-d r e -S sL-vinn 50 o�- X "'e Private drlvcs as shown on the site plans _Yes N'o E� CW q S 1-OV 0 and which serve 50 or less dwellings provide r C L _r -cu s 0 ci k d! rect access to parking spaces. V I C 0, a I%;'as , Yes NO `lac..`. �No _CL s s L�r n g a r See Article 8.2.4 and Article 7. 14.3a) l . a c cL s o p a+' n urlla5 50 -a s ln'u Ln, -I r C) C d a to cll ri n 0 c C,L: I r r U P I o A. con- X Y a's r, See Article 7, 14.3a)2. above. Maximum Yes I,.o n access L-0 distance between dwellings and refuse collection lac i I end, does exceed 100' . crt J rv,147 u E-.t' co on dee5 noE exEeed 109 '-feet. C T;'. FOR E V A L U PI arin ing Board Bcar-' of County C . , i c),iii��ss ioners Fi nd i ngs n g s io-Suppo 7. stzndlards Cent i f ::a: CA "Ways use: as play X Yes N 0 See comment on 7. 14.3a)2 and b)3. Y areas cif- school L;s ""0 C,;- Lnct 1.- Eros: C vises 3 n GI 5) !,i� Q�5 o v c- c c, s -n space Q rl,' P 001"i'_ RE(�!)'I `._hENTS I'Yes'' nc] C "I C }r-` i a n: e Board of County an n i no Board Commissioners F Fi nd i nns v i Fa sliopc)T-t Findings s t Lin x i,,u n L2. n a Opp] PD-H-R2 s a n C a rd S r I d a T-a a oer X Article 5 . 1 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Yes No -,9 u 20, 0 03 h YC-S •o Planned deve l or)mcn t s approved on site -Yes pia 0 /A b a s i s. •2 P/A roc, ��tback Y C;s ':o Same as above. Yes "o f S dk,i d rear YC 5 :•'D Y-�: N,o ---ar.c as above. VC,S `0 (j Maximum bulildling height_- shown on plan -I LI Y j N Yes No 25 provided by applicant is 25 feet. L of cove r a C v�1,o p m,3 n L i n t u;,, V ty i S F J d J-,3 S Ld n "os" I nd 1 ca co�no 3nce `No'' nd 1cal tes nonconlol an cc) '�PIFIL! "�-`ATICN OF FErMRf:,Mr7'I1- E Na Board. of County Planning Board Commissioners rice Su!�-r-,.! tted Tc Support IFT nd inns t S Findincs Findinas i s tc, f)(--C I f i c Cil n c to 1 ou 11`'Pus Of d'L:vc:I opoicn t C On S b 2 con I n s tiros.. n ap t a ;, I- P�y to c V Lc Q D P. n C s control ]C C, 'L!i : _ants Use i n tuns i ty y gross laid CS 0 Yes Nlo 30,00 0 so. ft. -X—Y Applicant's site contains 20,0.03 acres or — 2, 633, 7o6 sq. ft. Na", uii, u r c)s s i and Vey _'No Art I cle 5. 1 . 1 of Zoning Ordinance. sq. ft. X y e N'o Ycs NIO la �u IT: 1 :001- -1 ra L I(j Maximum permitted by ordinance is 960, 161 .65 sq. ft. Applicant' s plans indicate floor area will not exceed maximum permitted. -X Z'ca Based on a maximum floor area for the site C L' and the number of units proposed the maximum 6 1 .6 floor area per unit is 2342 sq, ft. q i.: :--,d m;n i r.iLi r.,i coon 0 S Applicant' s site plan indicates open space YL� 4O E C C, 5-Z., 0 - .82 area complies with the land use requirements. rod mlnlmu�m opcn _3 3't. Board of Planning Board County Commissioners RL F I n d i n a 51 V 'ndings S L, r,r F i r,d n s t 1 To F Z 0 t e c,;,.- 1. n tj,-i T v::- Applicant' s site plan indicates it '-Om.PlIes c, k��q L 1' r c d ith '-the 1 liveabi lity space ratio requirement as succified in the Ordinance. o;i i �IUIM 1 vaa!-- ty space P, .543 ,594.2 sq, ft, r x Y C s C) L, C);) Applicant ' s plans indicate recreation VLF Rio •022 areas totaling 705,572 sq. 'It. IR -3--s q ".—L L; L 1 Lill o p u n Yes !%Io Applicant' s submission indicates compliance with minimum spacing between buildings. No requirements established for tertiary walls r r,,- s it other than N. C. Building Code standards. c-c cis r y v.- 1 1 s Y U1, 1 ONIAL RE-k'l I'll RE HEI I,T� i ncl ice.,--s cofll --nce- ln("- ca!,�!s no nco�11.�! lan Board of Planning Board County Commissioners j 7i s F',n d I n g s• i i c G Su rr I e j To S or t nii"i n 9s Findings ,r I C,-d s Q. o L o n,E sicc find re r L La- s ma x,T mu in, 1)u'I i d-1'I n -;,,J d I rp.-.,,k.!n 1, j n te ris i ty i can L has a;)31 i ed cr PD-H-R5 r.' c):-i I e a n da-d t )-Zn t i c 1 ell C,,.-i S m ,rca pur Y��S Yes r 0 0! r.0 Lin i Ic N/A Planned developments approved on site basis. —T U., --No Same as above. Yes No /A e; Pa Same as above. frOl'it .--t!� LCk Y Some as above. N/A -,j I r, h C:h t 3 x1:;:<<,: `J - Maximum building height provided by Yes —No 2; 4t• applicant is 25 feet. cover3se i s addrt:: red in L R E 1)11 01 R E M E 7-S 'T Board of Planning Board county C"'Mi ss rl,iers nar co Rel),I, rerr,.,)"s Findings v I de n cc S u,'2m i t e To Su nbc r t F I nd'ino S Find; nqs 12 stun d a rd s X.111 ff u-.11 l Ive- X YC's N,0 Applicant' s submission indicates 950914. 8 Yes-- spzcL ratic, sq , ft. .52 R_�-q u 1 r c d m I I-, 1 :1"Cability Space 2 1 o-4 sq. ft. r L, nl IT.um r G C-L a t 1 or Applicants plans indicate recreation areas Yes -P a .036 totaling 51 ,400.2 sq. ft. qu L�d, n) [,j -ccreation 46 260 .72 P 4 -ed r.- • nium open Y Y,:!,-,: 1,10 Yes N,0, d t L Applicant' s submission indicates that minimum spacing between building walls is 18 feet. J •r no v,,a S The minimum spacing between building walls and off- street parking ar,3as or streets is 5.9 feet for s secondary walls and 11 .9 feet for primary walls. t,,ral s 9 ft. No requirements established for teritary walls other than H.C. Building Code standards. 0 a ry 5 ft. Article 6. 16.1 requires that x Yes No Site Plan indicates a declaration in compli - Yes No unit ownership of condominium ance ,,iith the ''Unit Ownership Act of North — — developments be declared and Carolina" will be submitted for review and approval pre-17ared In compliance with the by the County Attorney. %n! is Ownership Act of North Carolina. " nr p j i Board of. Planning Board nt y C omm s i one r s To Sur Findings Find 1 nos :.j Jot .. ire, rr d 1 ro s J i n d a r n L u n s 1 'L V c a r t ha ap p I i d DD(C)-GC4 0- o i ti. .:t a ru et c 2 X y App I i cant propoSes eleven 11 uses e s 0.1 e a C)(�!r Pao I f 1 0,000 Total I an d area is 454,330.8 sq. -ft. L 4 i .10 Yes 10 Not applicable to P. D. .11 5 0 J f Yes Not applicable to P. D. Yes N,o L Not applicable to P.D. �2- HO ---Y -YCS S Nn, No ... ...u:, d n h c I X y Applicant has submitted detailed building —Yes 45 elevations and specified on site plan that the proposed building height is 35' . Ford D W� th lo- cove rLge - L. d ant i n t n y s a r u 5 e n DI -Q I PEM E NI TS 1 an ci; n(I i C LA e C)n C r, Board of ng Board Commissioners In,- n s P I a n n 1 n d i nq q E v I c t t o T c, S n d' Fi nd i nc;q ly J p lou yogis of lains those I c I con L he vo I n 1,0 n s y wh ch aptly to L --nd Us,c l n ten t v "Ilii I n 1 r r 0:;S l a r d XYCS "10 Area of tract 454,330-8 sq. ft. S o 425,600 s f m s I a n U-j ye s No No maximum specifi ed in ordinance. y c s a rat t i o Y 5 N o Applicant proposcd 66,950 sq. ft. of 'y-S a Y, 00C -Y r.6 floor area. A�4 7_X I, j7 %c r(j a ' i n mum orjer. MO es yu� Applicant proposes 386,181 . 18 sq. ft. or- 0 .71 open space. P 6- 322574 BL sq. I t a 7 ol Of County Planning Board Commissioners a s r c R.--- 1 71 S F i n n q s S-pr ort r-�' nos "ind"in i 7 X Applicant has specified maximum building yes ;0 c' 1 t i elevations of 35' eleval on the site plan and c C!Ih t o,i: b U 't d 1 n a-3 ar, -.r i n A C I C and submitted detailed elevations for the proposed I structures. C -3 3 X M:M D G. art U' I n o L f5 C, NO X Yes 0 Applicant is proposing 104496.08 sq. ft. of C 5 .2 the re- land for pedestrian use and landscaping. The :and D th 3ropery !DC required area is 30866. 16 sq. ft. 70r- 05t'l P-n USP- and l3ndscLp;sn9, ti-i-,:t t r o v c d .:n,j e i a inc6 --L 7 7 OVIF X YCS X 0 Applicant is proposing 294 spaces for off-street der required number of spaces is 291 . )V parking. The -1 7 C 1 C -L. L Individual 5'D@ces are designated on the revised s i e plan. t C n00 L o 1.-- t h 0, t- cnd Droc, -.c:--1 o C n c: r c o v I C e S I�n 10 Q,:! d o a d-;--d. vc� 7 - 5 c r Z11 5 Z1. iapplicant has specified in narrative that all t- -phone lines to C electrical and telephone lines will be located u z:z;r c. o n. underground. C U I r C' h ail Applicant has not submitted sign details; Yes No S c n co'; 2,-,C:� ,:ith however, Article 9 Signs provisions will be I cz, end a - L -'s � C met. t c r..o r -!ticlly z On c d dl: -r!rcts. 7 -N: Planning FIndInqs S To S u i ne F nd-i ngs F nnis 5 or I tz L %�il h I*c h "an'' st- ,C �,g ra. 3 �z x t rcl F t'I or s 0 L Zr..- as TC v, j n .2 C��__Lf mJ1 t c-,_L_u s C L,ct t:r c s c a,,, _X_ access c/ i rom site is via US 70- No Yes No m 0.- S .-,CIcfureshuse, ore, oriented to or near a minor d,S et in a rcs ic dent ial neighborhood. ci 1 a - cc ;, , point sh Access to the commercial rc i a I site te is f rom US 70 —Yes X No Yes No and Scotswcod Boulevard . With the turn lane T C Hiotion for 2nd deceleration lanes proposed on Hwy. 70 approval fals n j -�i o v,:�nn:.r5 s c r. i rru,irl and the proposed traffic light at the' V 01 _,,G intersection of St. Mary ' s Rd. and Hwy. 70, _' �",7 3.�3 5) (Sec C C:- minutcs For T C I �n��s 0 smooth traffic flow with controlled turn*[�--,. -0 r-roll', C]C C.' xT Position i!4)vetiicn be generated. L,7 t('MCC t -F s in- C Vy S czl. n cc d yc.-63 cf a, x Pa -xternal yards of 50' and 1001 have been shown s ZI l c., P-o v j t 4.-hc p5-GPO:--Ly the northern and eastern property lines respectively, 1.1'Cre COII.M_ external yards along the western and southern property Q C 1 Z riots _-C, 3 Y a;. lines provide a 50 ' buffer. J. 'I bo Izn6scaped 3-. C) c,,: colicctor, r Sri a X Yes Applicant has submitted detailed landscaping on _y a s T i 0 t E s C t S n0 _:,t the site- plan. The site plan shows setbacks of fLc to r 5 0' along US 70 and l o l u" along C a r o l i n a Ave. w i t h Sin a l b-U J s cap�a general landscaping indicated.• 1. orlr s Ido ya-4s au 1:o 4, in i in 0 X YCS 0 es- -Applicant has submitted detailed landscaping o in r C., r-L i F,I districts , the site plan; 15 ' or greater side setbacks are shown `:c2 S f_c t t0 ce E r along. adjoining residential districts and general land- i j ri: h-a 1 C-3 1 a n s �,:-;c d soaping indicated on the site plan. O '7 7 7 S P E C 0 S D D S V Board of County Planning Boi rd Commissioners Findings F7nd; ngs c re-c n s 'E.'1 CO S U b T7 -c,.q -c� - a) Y07, ID NO- Coo I cab 1 C Yes Vh L�r c c),-s n a 7 - -de n t i L s' ', c-�': fa:c the pr000scd nc.-.,rcst • 10 �O thc ris�i�":-Of_WQW c ail ; n t c r v.2 n J n r, s 2C r a e t 0 0. fan S Cap d In all 0 t 0 C'S ex,C.S 0 t X YC S io Applicant indicates 10' or greater rear setbacks _-d_'Zcent to 0 r as shown and general landscaping indicated on the Yes 0 i r, a I d i s t r i c t s , the site plan . n-aa re s 10 f c.E t c ID r o.r e r t y c 0 1 1 'D e C!S C a C C.id q re-1 1 ng coiccal _ _ _ D Applicant has submitted site plan - indicating general —ye S """0 �_xtcn,s ' vc, inc, a rcas, service landscaping and screening of parking areas. arcs-' and un desi r Fl.1;c v'I "+�Jls , ^crncoq or h o d;i zr s a 0 S C) Applicant has speciFied screening provisions on the YOS i..O p -o c d :o s c r i�c r, against site plan. ZJ rIG J s c. t s or --n d e s'i r a b V 1 17'..1 S . -OT , a r c; a s `c ok,-s 1)j r2' ! t i es ar%c access route-, -ior -yes Faci Yes N0 lities for access, servicling etc. are n-e n an ce, v c r,a � separated from areas associated with pedestrian c'- are so I ocate as to preven t traffic. L I n 1 t P_-U`C S t r i a n �r a c. Bu J ncs , service a reas and X Yes jy '0 Applicant satisfies this provision as evidenced Yes ' D 0 r e nj s a ire Dnr'- Inc 2rd oc �as r on, L I I by general layout of uses and access ways on site. __G' 'r `7eo� and Organized oca- L u n Z, m c--n o r o v 1 di c f,o r Y,I m u i -onvc-n*1 cnce of cCC -r)ants. Board of County Planning Board Commissioners F'ndinqs T FindlnGs Fj C, r S G 24 L:v, u i a c 1.)n fj j-m, r `- iGiir 12 C L3 1_ arc as C, 1 c, j b I S U C C !'roll t z:j n d x S NO Yes N,-3 General landscaping detal Is are designated on the site plan which satisfy this requi remert. C u L2 d L: `uUt in Ii:. mound ;brass Or CO V-, r. FQ r p 1 11 X General landscaping details are designated —Y c:s 0 t on the site plan v.,hlch satisfy this requirement. a F C L2 U J, In 1 r lug L fceC n cn J1 cc r 4 s ro u r-i cc vc r fn.lnt rimer 1 z r,d s c a p i n must Yes N10 pruv] dL� ccvcrz�gc I of a� Applicant has not submitted detailed landscaping -- Yes !o 1 C:S plan; however general landscaping details are — - - 5Z c f z),,,y o i c i- designated on the site plan which satisfy this vu c u I Q r u5 c ore u requirement. The site plan specifies parking 'islands are to be planted. Board of County °lannir;a Commissioners Board Findings - s s -i n Findings VL �. � . S � ,n�'arct� rFl X AP-)J ; cant' s site plan complies with the Ye, J spacing requirement and specifies parking -rs- an 5v,,;-, 1oe -i and s cape-d --- - rl.;ous i)ou J vi --;n d,, .Und- ,-y r rC!: r ., of- �YeS —';o Applicant' s site plan complies with the Yes No ).�i i� n'.) ;�;J;=r,?�C'.� .7'>� spacing I"egLi rei!lent and specifies parking is ands wi l l be landscaped. in c . .. �_s c can ;s Ycs _!;� Y,:S ' A Class A screen is required in some areas -- cIui , 2c. � anci�rJ ' as specified or the site plan. r ;: L �; rlcl ul!C *o :o'.r i a. high opaque screen. 6. '0 ' high intermittent visual obstructions from opaque screen. Type B screen is required Yes No A Class 8 screen is required in some areas Yes ho n some areas. Standards as specified on the site plan. ____ : or that type include the following: a. 15' high intermittent visual o_. stractions SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION 06t Subject: Seotswood Planned Development Recommendation: Deny plan ind deve]npme and rAstory1ng Vote: 5-3 Meeting Date: 2/4/86 Issues Raises: Water shortage in central and northern Orange County, as identified in county manager's report Traffic hazards and congestion created by the proposed development on nearby roads and in Hillsborough Plan for Scotswood inconsistent with intent of county land use plan Tipacts on public facilities Explanation id Dissenting Votes: placed more credence in Hillsborough water estimates than those by county manager B 1 i t vAd i t_ unfair to penalize this developer for impacts inevitably arising from any development Other Information and/or Citations from County Regulations: Planning Board Member Responsible for Report: Barry Jacobs 06'4 AN ARGUMENT FOR DENYING APPROVAL OF THE SCOTSWOOD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT JAN. 1986 Barry Jacobs "The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical , aesthetic as well as monetary. " William O. Douglas SUMMARY: Scotswood fails on two counts to meet the burden of proof necessary to receive approval as a planned development, as stipulated in Section 8. 2. 2 of the Orange County zoning ordinance. As proposed, Scotswood violates ordinance sections 7. 1, 7.4, 71.4.2 and 7. 15. 1. Therefore it fails to meet the required test that it not violate the county's intent for physical development as embodied in the land-use plan. Equally important, Scotswood ' s impact would result in a failure to maintain the public health, safety and general welfare, another required test. Orange County' s ordinance on Planned Development Districts states in section 7. 1 that "The Planned Development technique offers distinct advantages to the public , while affording private property owners greater flexibility in the development of their land, the opportunity for the application of new and ingenuous development techniques and more prudent use of time, money, and effort. The public benefits include more efficient and effective use of land, more efficient use of energy, the reduction of the costs of continuing maintenance responsibilities and a higher average level of amenity in all types of development." Scotswood fails to meet these standards, certainly in its provision of public benefits and even in its usefulness for the developer: . . .more efficient and effective use of land.. . As designed, Scotswood employs the least efficient and effective use of land, as nearly 88 percent of its 329. 96 acres will be taken up by detached single-family housing. Such design necessarily involves more land per unit than would clustered housing, which is appropriate to an urban construction such as Scotswood. By choosing standard subdivision spacing, and an R-2 density, Scotswood will require nearly the largest possible public and private expenditures to provide water, sewer, power, telephone and road facilities. Clustering would reduce these costs. As Proposed, Scotswood also increases amounts of impervious surface ( roads, sidewalks, etc . ) and stormwater runoff, concerns of major import on a property so close to the Eno River. 06e Moreover, as Patrick Rohan points out in his book, "Incentive Zoning, " which was previously included in our packets, "Planned Unit Development (PUD) has its basis in the concept of clustering,' a zoning technique that differs from the normal Euclidean grid pattern in that buildings are grouped in certain areas, and ,the remaining land is left open for other purposes. " Rather than use Orange County' s Planned Development ordinance to employ the true clustering essential to meeting the public needs underlying the PD tradeoff, Scotswood 's developers merely resubmitted a single-family subdivision proposed about six years ago, and attached a shopping center and multi-family area to it. This does not satisfy the intent of the ordinance. . . .more efficient use of energy. . . Although the energy shortage has faded from public consciousness, the need for conservation of resources has not lessened. The inefficient use of land, necessitating more extensive roads and driveways and curbs and gutters and sidewalks means the inefficient use of energy and other resources. . . .reduction of the costs of continuing maintenance responsibilities. . . Scotswood serves to increase, rather than reduce, continuing public costs that will directly result from the development. These include an increase in the level of sheriff ' s patrols until such time as Hillsborough annexes the development, as Sheriff Pendergrass noted; intensified fire protection requirements; a strain on an already-crowded school system, as several citizens pointed out at the November 25, 1985 public hearing; pressure on a clearly stressed Hillsborough water system that makes imperative further public expenditures to provide reservoirs and wastewater treatment facilities. In his memorandum of January 6, 1986, Marvin Collins, Orange County' s Planning Director, notes that under current circumstances "it is impossible for the Planning Staff to make an objective evaluation of the impact of Scotswood or other developments" on the county' s and Hillsborough' s water supply. The director further states that as-yet unanswered policy questions regarding that water supply must be addressed even "in order to belable to develop staging plans for new developments." Under the circumstances it would be foolhardy to commit limited resources to Scotswood. Meanwhile, despite all the costs and problems to be generated by the project, the developers offer nothing to help the community at-large, either in funds to ameliorate impacts or land for the siting of additional needed public facilities. (See also 7.4. 2 ) To the contrary, the developers have responded in a less than satisfactory fashion to concerns such as those raised by the county' s Recreation Advisory Council. After hearing an analysis at the November hearing that found the active recreation area at Scotswood to be too small and poorly located, the developers obligingly moved the recreation space to a better site, then UU& virtually negated this improvement by actually decreasin g the proposed park area from 7 to 5 acres. ..I.a higher average level of amenity. . . Compared to other current developments throughout the Triangle, Scotswood offers a low level of amenity. The developer refers to the housing at Scotswood, presumable, the single_family units, as serving an "upper-middle class" clientele. This would certainly further indicate a higher than average level of amenities. Instead, Scotswood offers minimal recreation areas and minimal recreation facilities. In its sprawling single-family areas it offers tract housing of the least private and least buffered sort. Considerations regarding the quality of life at Scotswood and in its surrounds are crucial to our deliberations. According to projections, the 1,765 persons expected to inhabit its 330 acres would account for more than five percent of the population growth in Orange County to the year 2, 000. The first project of its magnitude in either the central or northern parts of the county, Scotswood will set an example for future developers who wish to share in shaping our future. We must ask, Does this project promote a satisfactory quality of life and a thoughtful use of Orange County's land and other resources? Does it meet the land-use standards we require for the well-being of our community, now and in the long run? Clearly it does not. Clearly most speakers at the November hearing believe it does not. Again, to quote from Section 7.1 of the ordinance: "Within PD districts, regulations adapted to such unified planning and development are intended to accomplish the purposes of zoning and other applicable regulations to an equivalent or higher degree than where such regulations are intended to control unscheduled development on individual lots, and to promote economical and efficient land use, and improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety, and a better environment. creative design (Emphasis added] This brings us back to the overall design of Scotswood . As mentioned, the sprawling single-family plan is basically a ' reprise of a past scheme and in no way responds to the conceptual requirements of a PD. This non-conformity is seven-eighths of the project. Then come the multi-family and commercial areas. No adequate justification for the inclusion of a commercial area of the sort proposed has ever been advanced by the developer. In his book, Rohan clearly indicates that the intent of PD's is to limit "cookie cutter" development, whereby a formulaic approach is 'taken to designing communities. Yet Scotswood as proposed amounts to a standardized plan insensitive to its surroundings, as many citizens asserted at the public hearing. The evidence indicates that the commercial district and multi-family area were tacked on to the pre-existing single-family design to take maximum advantage of the PD for the I 1 a developer' spurposes. Unfortunately, the developer's intent is at odds with the ordinance and the intent of Orange County. Section 7.15. 1 refers to all Planned Development Commercial Districts, including the PD-GC4 requested by Scotswood. It states that "It is the intention of these regulationshto provide for developments, in scale with surrounding market areas, at locations appropriate in terms of the Land Use Plan and Orange County Thoroughfare Plan, and in accord with standards set forth herein, to serve areas not already conveniently and adequately provided with commercial and service facilities of the kind proposed. " [Emphasis added] The proposed Scotswood commercial area would have a grocery store, drug store and small shops. Within approximately one mile of Scotswood are located the North Hills shopping center with a grocery store, drug store and small shops; a grocery store and affiliate drug store; a convenience store directly across the street from Scotswood; a small grocery store/convenience store. When referring to traffic flow near Scotswood, the developer' s Itraffic consultant said Lawrence Road would be a convenient route for Scotswood residents. All of the abovementiond shopping facilities are closer to Scotswood than is Lawrence Road. Scotswood 's proposed commercial area will serve as a traffic magnet, generating approximately half of the estimated traffic. Locating an unnecessary shopping center at the front end of a housing development for 1 ,765 people in order to be consistent with the commercial node designation for the St. Mary's-U.S. '70 corner merely subverts the intent of the land-use plan and the PD ordinance. Further, Section 7.4 of the ordinance states that PD districts shall be appropriately located "with respect to public and private 'facilities existing or clearly to be available by the time the development reaches the stage where they will be needed." In fact, the public facilities needed to handle any of the additional traffic generated by Scotswood are neither in place nor clearly available at this time . (Not to mention the water and school facilities. ) Judging by the standard set out in Section 7.4, Scotswood can be seen to be as ill-timed as it is ill-designed. U.S.I 70 in the area to be affected is already the most trafficked stretch in central or northern Orange County. Many testified at the public hearing that the intersection of St. Mary's Road and U.S. 70 - which Scotswood will immediately effect even on a phased completion schedule - is overcrowded and dangerous. Even on a phased completion schedule, Scotswood will have an immediate and substantial impact on traffic from the Eno River to N.C. 86. The enabling legislation under which counties are given the authority to exercise zoning authority states in Section 153A-341 that zoning regulations shall , among other things, be " . . .designed to lessen congestion in the streets" and "to promote 071 health and the general welfare." The latter stipulation p anon is also key to the burden of proof as delineated by Orange County. Adding traffic to an already stressed neighborhood violates this fundamental role of zoning under any circumstances. And these are far from ordinary circumstances. Having recognized that it faces a traffic crisis, Hillsborough is attempting to develop a thoroughfare plan for itself and its surrounds. To add Scotswood ' s 11,000-plus auto trips per day (an estimate purchased by the developers) to this congested area at this time is therefore especially unwise. Nor does it make sense to commit the county to Scotswood when the project may very well sit astride the proposed path of a Hillsborough highway loop, or a traffic artery connecting Treyburn and the I-85/I-40 area. As the attached Raleigh News and Observer article of Jan. 9, 1986 reports about the N.C. Transportation Task Force' s findings, "Task force members said building costs could be cut significantly if cities and counties could better protect right of way for planned roads." Hillsborough and the state of North Carolina may thus be saddled with reduced options and higher road-building costs in implementing a pending thoroughfare plan if we approve Scotswood at this premature date. With the increasing likelihood that counties will be asked to contribute to future road improvements, the costs to all Orange County residents would be increased yet another notch. Such shortsighted expenditure of our tax dollars cannot serve the best interests of the public . The ',public will not be well-served , either, by the Scotswood traffic that would feed down St. Mary's Road past the Cameron Park Elementary School and into downtown Hillsborough. As Hillsborough's mayor and others pointed out, this traffic will pose a major danger to health, safety and welfare. The school area is already dangerous for pedestrians, according to hearing testimony and a recent Durham Morning Herald article. (See also attached article regarding a similar situation in Cary. ) The developers' traffic consultant estimates 3,500 trips per day past the school; this is doubtless an underestimate, especially as the consultant sought to assuage citizen concerns by citing Lawrence Road, 1. 2 miles distant, as a likely commuting route from Scotswood to I-85 and I-40. St. Mary's Road passes right by Scotswood. Downtown Hillsborough is already traffic-clogged, with Churton Street and Churton Street Extension becoming dangerously overloaded at peak commuting hours when projected Scotswood traffic would add to the burden. To allow such an impact even as Hillsborough) is attempting thoroughfare planning may defeat the town' s best 'intentions to direct its own future. And (Hillsborough is a fragile and precious resource, one of the oldest communities in central North Carolina, a former state capital with a substantial historic district. "Over the years, Hillsborough has worked diligently to preserve its' rich heritage," the town' s Chamber of Commerce informs visitors and prospective residents and businesses. "Today, Hillsborough is building a community that will leave a 074 heritage as lasting as the one left by our colonial forefathers. " Ourlplanning efforts can help make that legacy a sorry one of squandered opportunity and needless haste, or they can contribute to protecting those qualities that make Hillsborough and Orange County a special place in which to live. As included in Orange County Planning Board packet of February 4, 1986. ICI II II 500#SWOOD _ DEVELOPER : J & A.H. GRAHAM Jr. t OHN ,yo� '� . _ Present Zane: R-1 Proposed ,Zone. Pp-H - R2, PD-H-RS ' ° R' PD-GC4 P Designation; 10-yr Transition and f • Commercial Transition � .• .. \�00 P—D H f i ? D— SA.290.03'# AC. ,;• rr` vi: � i::yq• � �J ! 1....16C•f A \.._ IU�0.xµ•1,.,. Wp LwiWl . 29.50%1 A C. � �1` N,11.1't+oo• r..a •.�• 1',' . . so m G C 4 • • 1..•M..y-t4!•JM... IIYII. ii : � i� - ........ .x•NI .43'± AC. .•'' i EmlwuodDrirlwl I SCOTSW040 FaxZONING MAP , 411.r �INy IA . '�" " rl iiY: NHINit Ak:1i %hlS1I1&N:IN):Iftif: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 0 74 27278 **Pi ogle MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: JANUARY 17, 1986 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND DIRECTIVES RECEIVED AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON SCOTSWOOD The following revised conditions are being considered to address comments and concerns raised at the public hearings on the Scotswood project : 1 . REVISE CONDITION #7 as recommended on January 6 , 1986 to deletel sentences 2 and 3 : Graham Drive and Hamilton Way shall have a 60 ' right—of—way with a 4L ' paved cross section . �I 2. REVISE, CONDITION #10 as recommended on January 6 , 1986 : A sidewalk shall be provided on one side of Scotswood Boulevard, Cameron Circle, Graham Drive, Davidson Drive, Hamilton Way and Wood lawn Drive. Curb cuts shall be provided for the handicapped at all street intersection . 3. DELETEICONDITION #20: Dwight Kelly, Division Engineer, NC. Department of Transportation , has indicated that a light would only be placed at the US 70 and Saint Mary 's Road intersection after a study by NCDOT determines a need for a traffic light based on overall traffic conditions in the study area , including but not Limited to a specific development and its contribution to traffic Levels . A study would be conducted upon request of any individual or public agency. Kelly clarified that NCDOT would not encourage or desire the private funding of a traffic light at the intersection . 4. AMEND CONDITION #39 as recommended on January 6 , 1986 : Construct and maintain stormwater devices to control the peak rate of runoff from the commercial and multifamily tract . The detention devices shall be designed and constructed so that the peak rate of runoff after development will not exceed the predevelopment rate for 07 t a 2—year 24 hour storm and for storms of greater intensity . 5 . ADD CONDITION #41 : The applicant shall request .annnoxation by the Town of Hillsborough for each phase of the development following the construction of required improvements and once the phase is built—out . OR The applicant shall request annexation of the entire project by the Town of Hillsborough following construction of required improvements and completion of the delvelopment . OR The applicant shall petition for annexation of the entire site prior to development of any phase. 6 . ADD CQNDITION #42: A landscape architect shall be employ',ed by the applicant to prepare a Landscaping/screening plan for the designated 100 ' buffer area . The plan must be prepared in consultation with adjacent property owners and approved by Orange County, Planning Department . The plan shall be prepared following a survey of the existing vegetation of the buffer area and must identify and specify the retention of specimen trees twelve _ inches or more in diameter, provide for year round screening and include implementation details and schedules . At a mimimum the screening shall be opaque from the ground to a height of at Least six (6 ) feet , with intermittent visual obstructions from the opaque portion to a height of at Least twenty (20) feet . 7 . ADD CONDITION #43:. A stub—out shall be extended west to the western property Line of the. adjoining property known as Hillsborough Township Tax Map 6 Block B Lot 2 from the northernmost intersection of Cameron Circle and Hamilton Way. II l I I � r - OE!A.NGE COUNTY ,( DEPARTMENT I:CILLSBO C)ti'C7 A. NORT7 C:1;0 .r 07r. 27278 Velt>aaty ,er� REVISED CONDITIONS FOR -SCDTSW000 JANUARY 6 , 1986 • Condition #7 Delete sentences 2 and 3 thereby revising the condition to read: "Graham Drive and Hamilton Way shall have a 60 ' right—of--way with. a 41 ' paved cross— section . " Condition i##10 Revise to specify roads on which sidewalks shall be required as follows : "A sidewalk shall be provided on one side of Scotswood Boulevard , Cameron Circle , Graham Drive , Davidson Drive , Hamilton Way end Woodla;in Drive . L,unb cuts shall be provided for the handicapped at all street intersections . " Condition #20 Revise to reflect WC00T criteria as follows : " A traffic light shall be installed at the . intersection of St . Mary ' s Road and US 70 by NCDOT based on thair• criteria . " Add condition #39 "Construct aid i:,rr ir,tain stormwater detention devices to control the rate of runoff from the commercial and multifamily tracts . Methods to sati :- l'y this condition shall be • review d and approved by the Sedimentation and Erosion Cotrol Officer . These devices shall be indicated on final plat and construction plans . " Add condition #40 "Tip ., a j E ct h t l l tic pfhnscd to limit ,.;r t.. iilu ., iii]L,;. of rb.., of it -A fi •`' .�.9. approved units ti:�.ithin a given 2.5 year . . Q7 � period . Note that' handicapped parking facilities are shown on the site plan) for the multifamily and commercial tracts . Hlandlcappeld parking and ramps are required within the recreation) areas by condition #29h . Handicapped ramps shall be shown on detai led final p lets and construction p lens for all areas of the development . Reinforce condition #2°a • wcreatpsi ace sion of the seven (7) acres of active recreation P five (5) acres proposed in the revised plat . Recommend the relocation of the recreation area as shown on the revised plat , without the addition of the area north of the Hamilton Way which was shown on the original plat • Note that all property lines , easements , bui lding Locations etc . are subject to minor modification based on on—site survey activity during the preparation of final plats and construction plans . Finel erosion control and stormwater management plans are particularly subject to this information . 07c MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ORANGE COUNTY MANAGER FROM: MARV'IN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: JANUARY 6 , 1986 SUBJECT: SCOTSWOOD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT — WATER SUPPLY CONCERNS At the November 25, 1985 public hearing , a 30—day continuation of the public hearing on the Scotswood development was requested Ito allow Planning Staff an opportunity to review the County Manager ' s report to the Commissioners regarding raw water availability in northern Orange County . Since then , the County Manager has presented a proposed five—point policy statement to address raw water needs in northern Orange County . Planning Staff comments relative to the Scotswood development and raw water availability, including the proposed policy statement , are listed below. 1 . The statement of purpose in the policy statement recognizes that the water resource of Lake Orange must be managed to provide optimum public benefit , subject to reasonable regulation to conserve the resource and provide conditions conducive to development and use of the water. 2. The policy statement recognizes that the usage of water released from Lake Orange is at or near capacity during periods of extended Low stream flow in the Eno River . 3 . The policy statement calls for the Orange—Alamance, OWASA and Hillsborough water systems to seek water from other providers during periods when water must be released from Lake Orange to maintain in—stream flow requirements in the Eno and the water level in Lake Orange has dropped to the emergency stage . 4. The policy statement calls for the initial safe yield for water supply to be set at 2.2 MGD, the current safe yield lof Lake Orange . As soon as proposed improvements are made to Lake Orange , Lake Ben Johnson and Corporation 07,1: Lake,, the safe yieLd may be increased to 3.43 MOD , the combined safe yield of all three reservoirs. The policy statement also calls for the Orange—Alamance, OWASA and Hillsborough water systems to identify improvement measures, timetable and financing sources for additional water sources by January 27, 1986 . The N .C . Division of Water Resources has recommended that en in—stream flow of 1 .1 MGD be maintained. The policy statement recommends that the in—stream flow be based upon the unadjusted 71110 flow rate below Lake Ben Johnson . This amount would be reduced to 0 as necessary as successive emergency stages were reached . Once the maximum withdrawal Limits and in—stream flow requirements are established , the policy statement calls • for Local governments and water suppliers to prohibit additional uses which singly or in aggregate would cause the water allocations established to be exceeded . Development approvals up to the a L location Levels would be staged in accordance with the amount of demand and the timing required to provide major, new water supplies . 5. The po licy statement calls for the County and water suppliers to join together to conduct an engineering study of new water supply sources and sites . It aLso calls ', for all water providers to study existing water rate structures to determine their capacity for developing a reserve to finance new construction for additional supply . IMPLICATIONS Listed below are the current water demands in the Upper Eno River Basin . Orange—A lamance Local Consumption 0 .16 MGD Inter—Basin Transfer to Mebane Area 0 .44 MGD Hillsborough Local Consumption 1 .40 MOD Inter—Basin Transfer to OWASA 1 .60 MOD In—Stream IF Low Requirement Adjusted for Inter—Basin Transfer 1 .10 MGD (NC Division of Water Resources) CURRENT WATER DEMAND 4.60 MGD At the November 25, 1985 public hearing , medium/high scenarios for', estimated water use were presented. For aLl developments approved by the County and Town of Hillsborough prior to November, the estimated (high) water use was 0 .52 MGD . The estimated (high) water use for Scotswood was 0.25 MGD and for Wildwood Section IV, 0 .04 MGD. Thus , the tateL estimated water 08i use for recently approved and pending projects was 0.81 MOD . If added to current water demand (4.60 MOD) , the projected demand becomes 5 .41 MILD . As indicat',ed previously , the current safe yield (Lake Orange) is estimated at 2.2 MOD. With recommended improvements, the combined safe yield would increase to 3 .43 MGD . If additional provisions of the Manager ' s recommended policy statement are implemented , reductions in the water demand can be obtained . As a minimum, these might include the following : 1 . Development of Back—Up Sources Orange'—Alamance (Inter—Basin Transfer/Mebane) <0 .44 MGD Hillsborough (Inter—Basin Transfer/OWASA) <1 .60 MOD 2. Adjustment of In—Stream Flow Requirements Adjustment (NCDWR to Unadjusted) 0 .71 MGD With the above steps , a total reduction in water demand of 2.7.5 MGD could be accomplished . This would reduce demand in low flow periods to 2.66 MGD or below the combined safe yield of 3 .43 MOD for all three reservoirs . RECOMMENDATION, Until a polLicy decision is made, it is impossible for the Planning Staff to make an objective evaluation of the impact of Scotswood or other developments . The policy decision must address improvements to increase safe yields, maximum withdrawal rates and in—stream flow requirements in order to be able to develop staging plans for new developments. The preliminary analysis above, indicates that with implementation of the policy, sufficient water would be available to serve Scotswood plus other developments . IIt is recommended , however , that a staging plan for Scotswood Ibe approved to establish limits regarding the number of newt units to be connected to the Hillsborough water system over a ten—year period . This is the minimum amount of time projected for planning and construction of a new reservoir facility . A recommended phasing plan for Scotswood is to limit construction of residential units to a maximum of 25% of the total number (626) within a given 2-1/2 year period . 081 • ORANGE COSY PLANNLNG DEPARTMENT naLLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA. 27278 �, 1:60"... a • _ r?, _ F • i MEMORANDUM TO: Eddie Kirk FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Office SUBJECT: Revisions to Scottswood Plan DATE: January 8, 1986 I have discussed my concerns regarding this project with Cindee Wolf of the John R. McAdams Company and reviewed the comments in her Letter of January 2, 1986 tolthe Commissioners . In her Letter, she proposes to have the flood plain and drainage easements surveyed and platted on the final plans, which seems appropriate . She also recognizes that unconventional construction phasing will be( necessery to provide erosion control during construction of the multifamily and commercial tracts and that the details of the erosion control will have to be worked out during the approval process for the erosion Icontrol plans for these tracts . The changes made to the Lots on Cameron Circle and the recognition that the street alignment may need altering sli.gptLy addresses my concerns about accom- modating &ration control devices in this area . Regarding the effects of the increased runoff due to development on properties downstream of the commer- cial and multifamily tracts , I suggest that a condition of approval be added that would require the construction of (appropriate stormwater detention devices or other methods to control the rate of runoff from these areas .") I also suggest that the specific requirements be Left to the descretion of the Planning Director so that a thorough investiga- tion can be made of the controls needed to provide adequate protection of downstream properties . ____.ii ! THE JOHN R. MCADAMS COMPANY, INC. CONSULTING r'NGINEERS . • 200 HAYES BUILDING.GLEN LENNOX CENTER 08,E P.O.BOX 2896,CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27515 (919)967-7079 f:rnuaY 2, 1985 Rowse� y, Grange County Board of Commissioners z 106 E. Margaret Lane Hitlsberough, North Carolina 27278 1 Re: Scotswood Planned Development GUM 8501A Dear Board Members: - In response to the questions and concerns raised at the November 26 public hearing on the Scotswood Planned Development, we would :like to provide additional information and clarification for the upcoming continuation of that public hearing. The following items are addressed or have been revised on the plans: Specification of existing vegetation types. -The entire tract is . densely wooded with both deciduous and coniferous type trees and underbrush. Although a detailed tree study has not been done, all considerations to preserve specimen trees will be taker. during construction. Also, supplemental plantings will be provided to meet all screening requirements and any Other conditions affected by the Special Use Permit. Impervious surface ratios. -These ratios were in fact provided in the plan package on the "Preliminary Storm Drainage/Erosion Control Plan". We have included our specific calculations in . this package to further clarify. objection to lots not facing St. Mary's Road and Carolina Avenue. -The lot layout of the project was designed to have the least negative impact on the adjacent properties. The classification and further improvements proposed for St. Mary's Road are not conducive to its use for a multitude of driveway turnouts and we resisted using Carolina Avenue frontage to avoid a traffic . { - impact on the existing Eastwood properties. The developers propose to work with these dissenting land owners and provide a solution using a combination of bufferyard and extensive 1' supplemental planting. t i I i i i a 1 w..- -. A0 Orange County Board of Commissioners Page Two Consideration of erosion control measures. -We have met with the Erosion Control Officer and discussed the options available in solution to storm drainage and erosion control needs. Prior to the design of detailed construction plans all watercourses and drainage outfalls will be accurately sur- - veyed. The topographic information used for preliminary . design was interpolated from United States geodetic maps. Slight revisions to road alignments, drainage easements, or loOines can be made before approval- of the final subdivision plats. In consideration of the proposed long-term phasing of theproject, the affects of the run-off from the development of the multi-family and commercial tracts on the downstream property should be investigated when designing detailed construction plans for these areas. With reference to our discussions with the Erosion Control Officer, we seem to concur that accomodation of erosion control devices can be provided by alternative storm drainage methods. More specific plans and detailed procedures can be approved prior to issuance of grading and construction permits. Provisions for handicapped parking and ramps. The site plans have been revised to note the provision of handicapped parking within the' commercial tract and multi-family areas and also for access to the recreational areas. Details for the construction of ramps will be included at street/sidewalk intersections. Provisions for recreation area. -We have revised the location of the active recreation space area in accordance with the suggestion of the recreation department. The area provides approximately 10 acres of land along the creek for passive useland 5 acres of land which is at a higher elevation and on more level ground for the active uses suggested. We would, also like to request that these changes be made to the conditions outlined in the Special Use Permit: Item 7. '' The design of Graham Drive and Hamilton Road for a 37' pavement cross-section rather than the suggested 41' would serve both to provide an efficient collector system and to preserve the neighborhood character of the subdivision. Item 9. We agree that curb and gutter would be appropriate on Scotswood Boulevard, Graham Drive, and Hamilton Way as collectors within the street system. However, the elimination of this requirement on the remaining roads would be consistent with the road standards of the North Carolian Department of Tra'Isportaticn and lend to the intent of environmental Orange County Board of Commissioners Page Three 08 . sensitivity concerning reduction of runoff. Item 10. - The developers request that sidewalks not be required on the cul-de-sacs or on streets where curb and gutter are not required. - I , Item 20. - We proposed that the traffic light be installed by the Department of Transportation based on their criteria. We hope that we have addressed all of the concerns and questions (�{ brought up at the previous public hearing and can continue through the upcoming meeting with -favarabie attitudes_ Please feel free to contact our staff if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation. ' Sincerely, THE JOHNIR. McADAMS COMPANY, INC. 4..-A,4 C. OkY, Cindee Wolf,. RLS CW/dw cc: Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director Mr. John. W. Graham Mr. A. H. Graham, Jr. 1 li U W L IMPERVIOUS SURFACES CALCULATIONS �r Single-family (R-2) Total Tract Area: 290.03 Ac. (12,633,710 s.f.) Pavement- 9,600 1.f. @ 37' (Graham Dr. & Hamilton Way) 355,200 s.f. 18,100 1.f. @ 20' (all other roads) 362,000 s.f_ 5.7 3 impervious surfaces 717,200 s.f. .Multi-family (R-5) Total Tract. Area: 29.50 Ac. (1,285,020 s..f_.) Pavement- 1,320 1.'If. @ 2 x 24' (Scotswood Blvd.) 63,360 s.f. 1,020 1.f. @ 33' (circulation roads) 33,660 s.f. 3,240 l.f. @ 20' (circulation roads) 64,800 s.f_ 444 @ 9' x 20' (parking) 79,920 s.£. _8,100 1.f. @ 4' (sidewalks) 32,400 s.f„. 274,140 s.f. Buildings- 216 @ 16' x 30' 103,680 s.f. Recreation- Tennis Courts 12,000 s.f. Pool and Club House Area 11,500 s.f. 23,500 s.f. 401,320 s.f. 31.2 5 impervious surfaces Commercial (GC-4) Total Tract Area: 10.43 Ac. (454,330 s.f) Pavement- 525 l.f. @ 2 x 24' (Scotswood Blvd.) 25,200 s.f. 1,550 l.fl @ 20' (circulation roads) 31,000 s.f. 294 @ 9' x 20' (parking) 52,920 s.f. 300 1.f. @ 4' (sidewalks) 1,200 s.f. 600 1-fl @ 10' (sidewalks) 6,000 s.$. 116,320 s.f. Built?irgs- 65,460 s.f. 181,780 s.f 40.0 % .impervious surfaces ToL:,i tract: 32')-96 Ac. (14,373,058 s. f.) vr' •Z1. Impervious Surfac s: 1,300,300 s.f. 9.1 t impervi.c)us surfaces • (overall site) • ' 081 Sit, ._ L od,";c e,..,4,L4 4 V\r!klir , 191-s-'4 \ . 1•12-4,'~o'otIgZre-N . 4 -(LZ -lb S ‘.1 . . . 14"1— t‘A.;--k 1.4- l % • - / • 1, -it - . .1- " ■A • • f-.) • r.•• '1 - _ • .5?Catr._ 1/4 • (/ ; -- ' \ 7 el I . . „ - • _ • . 08.1 - ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 77 I TABLE IQ.--RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT " ( 'Peres slowly" and some of ,the other terms that describe restrictive suit features are defined in the Glossary. See text for definitions of "slight," "moderate,' and "severe". Absence of an entry indicates that the soill was not rated] 1 ! ! Soil name and Camp areas Picnic areas ! Playgrounds ! Paths and trails map symbol ! t Altavista: ; .Aa !Severe: =Moderate: Moderate: ;Slight._ ! wetness. ! wetness, wetness, floods. floods. ! I Appling: ApB --- Slight--- ----------- Slight--------------- Moderate: Slight. slope. ApC Moderate: Moderate: Severe: - Slight. slopee. ! slope. ! slope. .. ! ! 1AuC: _ I ; Appling part. - .Slight----------- !slight.-. ---- Severe: - Slight. slope. - Urban land part. • 1 Cecil: . Cr5 --�•-----•-- Slighlit---.--------.---- slight----- --------- Moderate: Slight. ! slope. CfC —!Moderate: Moderate: Severe: !Slight. slope. slope. slope. ! 1 ! Chewacla: Ch Severe: ;Severe: Moderate: wetneess, floods, wetness, wetness, - floods. floods. floods. 1 Congaree: Ca Severe: Moderate: . Severe: Moderate: - floods. floods- floods. floods. Creedmoor: Cr3 Moderate: Slight Moderate: Slight. perm's slowly. peres slowly. Enon: EnB Moderate: Slight Moderate: Slight. peres slowly. percs slowly., 1 - slope. - EnC Moderate: Moderate: Severe: Slight. peres slowly. slope. slope. , (eorgeville: ! i CeB Slight ;Slight lModerate: Slight. i ! slope. CeC Moderate: Moderate: ;Severe: ;Slight. slope. slope. slope. 'ChC Slight Slight ;Severe: Slight. slope. Goldston: - u1D -- Moderate: Moderate: Severe: Moderate: small stones, small stones, depth to rock, small stones. slope. , slope. slope. CIF Severe: :Severe: Severe: Severe: slope. ! slope. depth to rock, seal]. stones, . slope. slope. See ._ -•.,:-te at e:..'. or table. 78 SOIL SURVEY 08t TABLE 1O.-.RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT—Continued - Snit name and Camp areas Picnic areas Playgrounds ; Paths and trails symbol , Helena: I HeB Moderate: Moderate: Moderate: Moderate: peres slowly. - wetness. - ; peres slowly. wetness. 1HhA: Helena part Moderate:' IModerate: Moderate: Moderate; ports slowly.. ; wetness. peres slowly. wetness. Scdgetield part Moderate: Moderate: Moderate: ,Moderate; peres slowly. wetness. pews slowly, = wetness. - wetness. • _ f Herndon: Z HrB Slight,---.---- Slight - ;Moderate: 'Slight. slope. HrC-------- .w - Moderate: 'Moderate: 'Severe: Slight. slope. slope, _ slope_ Hiwassee: HwB. Slight Slight Moderate: • Slight. $ slope. HWC ft-•. Moderate: Moderate: Severe: - Slight. slope. slope. slope. Iredell: I - • IrB :Moderate: Moderate: Moderate: !Moderate: I peres slowly, too clayey. percs slowly, ; too clayey, I too clayey. slope. I slope. 1Iu8: I 1 Iredell part ;Moderate: Moderate: Moderate: Moderate: I pares slowly, too clayey. peres slowly, too clayey, , too clayey. slope. - slope. . I i - Urba^ :.end part. 1 I Lisnum: LT, Moderate: • ;Moderate' Moderate: Moderate: . peres slowly, peres slowly, ' peres slowly, • wetness. wetness. wetness. wetness_ - Lou:stur;; LoC- Moderate: Moderate: Severe: Slight_ slope. slope. slope. LoF Sevlere: Severe: Severe: Severe: slope. slope. slope. , slope. Orange: ' Or Modl,erate: Moderate: Moderate: Moderate: pelres slowly, wetness. percs slowly, wetness. . wetness. wetness. Pits: . Pt. 1 1 I . 1 Tatum: _ TaD Moderate: ;Moderate: Severe: ' Slight. slope. slope, slope. Ta'-' Severe: Severe: Severe: (Moderate: slope. slope. slope. slope. Urban _, Ur. :•ant=: :a- Moapr:tW: Slight Moderate: Slight peres slowly. ; p..res slowly. 1 -- _-.._note at ^_n1 oe table. • 08 oECEIVET COMPELLIN - -e S REASONS FOR DENIAL OF SCOTSWOOD: 1) WATER RESOURCES ARE STILL UNCONVINCING. Until a policy decision has been made,on the water resources of Orange Co. and the ties it has with new development, growth of this magnitude cannot be justified. The developer has not addressed this problem adequately or offered solutions. 2) RECREATION AREA IS SMALL (revised down to 5 acres active). A Planned Development should promote a sense of community, and a recreation area, both active and passive, plays an important role in bringing community members together. The developer apparently does not feel the need to highlight a sense of community togetherness. 3) ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPACTS ARE TOO GREAT. a) all turning lanes should be built initially. b) curb and gutter should be provided on all streets. There is going to be on-street parking (parking overflow) which requires a curb. PLUS, curb and gutter should have been addressed in the statements made by the Erosion Control Officer. 4) THE PLANNED PD-GC4 IS REDUNDANT FOR THE AREA. A grocery store and drug store aren't necessary in an area that already has both within 2 miles of the proposed site. 5) THE SCHOOLS IN THE AREA ARE ALREADY OPERATING AT CAPACITY. There is no commitment from the developer to help alleviate the overcrowding that would occur. 6) THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO IS TOO HIGH (9.1%). Cluster housing would seem appropriate in places to reduce the amount of roadway as well as fewer dwellings. The commercial area is obviously standard fare, with no attempt to provide lesser amounts of impervious surfaces or innovative landscaping. 7) PROBLEMS INVOLVING SOIL EROSION DURING THE PROJECTS BUILDING PHASES HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED ADEQUATELY. S) THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE WILLING TO BE VOLUNTARILY ANNEXED. A f L i I 09 AN ARGUMENT FOR DENYING APPROVAL OF THE SCOTSWOOD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT JAN. 1986 Barry Jacobs o IE -)JELJ C E I "The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary." William 0. Douglas SUMMARY: Scotswood fails on two counts to meet the burden of proof necessary to receive approval as a planned development, as stipulated in Section 8.2.2 of the Orange County zoning ordinance. iAs proposed, Scotswood violates ordinance sections 7.1, 7.4, 7.4.2 and 7. 15.1. Therefore it fails to meet the required test that it not violate the county' s intent for physical development as embodied in the land-use plan. Equally important, Scotswood's impact would result in a failure to maintain the public health, safety and general welfare, another required test. Orange County's ordinance on Planned Development Districts states in section 7.1 that "The Planned Development technique offers distinct advantages to the public, while affording private property owners greater flexibility in the development of their land, the opportunity for the application of new and ingenuous development techniques and more prudent use of time, money and effort. The public benefits include more efficient and effective use of land, more efficient use of energy, the 1,reduction of the costs of continuing maintenance responsibilities and a higher average level of amenity in all types of development." Scotswood fails to meet these standards, certainly in its provision of public benefits and even in its usefulness for the developer: . ..more efficient and effective use of land. .. As designed, Scotswood employs the least efficient and effective use of land, as nearly 88 percent of its 329.96 acres will be taken up by detached single-family housing. Suchl design necessarily involves more land per unit than would clustered housing, which is appropriate to an urban construction' such as Scotswood. By choosing standard subdivision spacing, and an R-2 density, Scotswood will require nearly the largest possible public and private expenditures to provide water, sewer, power, telephone and road facilities. Clustering would reduce these costs. As proposed, Scotswood also increases amounts of impervious surface ( roads, sidewalks, etc. ) and stormwater runoff, concerns of major import on a property so close to the Eno River. Moreover, as Patrick Rohan points out in his book, "Incentive Zoning, " which was previously included in our packets, 091 "Planned Unit Development (PUD) has its clustering, ' a zoning technique that differs lfrom the normal t of Euclidean grid pattern in that buildings are grouped in certain areas, and the remaining lance is left open for other purposes." Rather than use Orange County's Planned Development ordinance to employ the true clustering essential to meeting the public needs underlying the PD tradeoff, Scotswood 's developers merely resubmitted a single-family subdivision proposed about six years ago, and attached a shopping center and multi-family area to it. This does not satisfy the intent of the ordinance. . . .more efficient use of energy.. . Although the energy shortage has faded from public consciousness, the need for conservation of resources has not lessened. The inefficient use of land, necessitating more extensive roads and driveways and curbs and gutters and sidewalks means the inefficient use of energy and other resources. ...reduction of the costs of continuing maintenance responsibilities... Scotswood serves to increase, rather than reduce, continuing public costs that will directly result from the development., These include an increase in the level of sheriff's patrols until such time as Hillsborough annexes the development, as Sheriff Pendergrass noted; intensified fire protection requirements; a strain on an already-crowded school system, as several citizens pointed out at the November 25, 1985 public hearing; pressure on a clearly stressed Hillsborough water system that makes imperative further public expenditures to provide reservoirs and wastewater treatment facilities. In his memorandum of January 6, 1986, Marvin Collins, Orange County's Planning Director, notes that under current circumstances "it is impossible for the Planning Staff to make an objective evaluation of the impact of Scotswood or other developments" on the county's and Hillsborough's water supply. The director further states that as-yet unanswered policy questions regarding that water supply must be addressed even "in order to be able to develop staging plans for new developments." Under the circumstances it would be foolhardy to commit limited resources toIScotswood. Meanwhile, despite all the costs and problems to be generated byithe project, the developers offer nothing to help the community; at-large, either in funds to ameliorate impacts or land for thelsiting of additional needed public facilities. (See also 7.4.2 ) To the contrary, the developers have responded in a less than satisfactory fashion to concerns such as those raised by the county's Recreation Advisory Council. After hearing an analysis at the November hearing that found the active recreation area at Scotswood to be too small and poorly located, the developers obligingly moved the recreation space to a better site, then virtually negated this improvement by actually decreasing the already-minimal proposed park area from 7 to 5 acres. • 09‹- . ..a higher average level of amenity. .. Compared to other current developments throughout the Triangle, Scotswood,.offers a low level of amenity. The developer refers to the housing at Scotswood, presumable the single-family units, as serving an "upper-middle class" clientele. This would certainly further indicate a higher than average level of amenities. Instead, Scotswood offers minimal recreation areas and minimal recreation facilities. In its sprawling single-family areas it offers tract housing of the least private and least buffered sort. Considerations regarding the quality of life at Scotswood and in its surrounds are crucial to our deliberations. According to projections, the 1,765 persons expected to inhabit its 330 acres would account for more than five percent of the population growth in Orange County to the year 2,000. The first project of its magnitude', in either the central or northern parts of the county, Scotswood will set an example for future developers who wish to share in shaping our future. We must ask, Does this project promote a satisfactory quality of life and a thoughtful use of Orange County' s land and other resources? Does it meet the land-use standards we require for the well-being of our community, now and in the long run? Clearly it does not. Clearly most speakers at the November hearing believe it does not. Again, to quote from Section 7.1 of the ordinance: "Within PD districts, regulations adapted to such unified planning and development are intended to accomplish the purposes of zoning and other applicable regulations to an equivalent or higher degree, than where such regulations are intended to control unscheduled development on individual lots, and to promote economical and efficient land use, and improved level of amenities, i, appropriate and harmonious variety, creative design and a better environment. [Emphasis added] This brings us back to the overall design of Scotswood . As mentioned, the sprawling single-family plan is basically a reprise of a past scheme and in no way responds to the conceptual requirements of a PD. This non-conformity is seven-eighthsof the project. Then come the multi-family and commercial areas. No adequate justification for the inclusion of a commercial area of the sort proposed has ever been advanced by the developer. In his book, Rohan clearly indicates that the intent of PD's is to limit "cookie cutter" development, whereby a formulaic approach is taken to designing communities. Yet Scotswood as proposed amounts to a standardized plan insensitive to its surroundings, Ias many citizens asserted at the public hearing. The evidence indicates that the commercial district and multi-family area were tacked on to the pre-existing single-family design to take maximum advantage of the PD for the developer's purposes. Unfortunately, the developer' s intent is at odds with the ordinance and the intent of Orange County. 09 Section 7.15.1 refers to all Planned Development Commercial Districts, including the PD-GC4 requested by Scotswood. It states that "It is the intention of these regulations to provide for developments, in scale with surrounding market areas, at locations appropriate in terms of the Land Use Plan and Orange County Thoroughfare Plan, and in accord with standards set forth herein, to serve areas not already conveniently and adequately provided with commercial and service facilities of the kind proposed. " [Emphasis added] The proposed Scotswood commercial area would have a grocery store; drug store and small shops. Within approximately one mile of Scotswood are located the North Hills shopping center with a grocery store, drug store and small shops; a grocery store and affiliate drug store; a convenience store directly across the street from Scotswood; a small grocery store/convenience store. When referring to traffic flow near Scotswood, the developer's traffic consultant said Lawrence Road would be a convenient route for Scotswood residents. All of the abovementiond 'shopping facilities are closer to Scotswood than is Lawrence Road. 1, proposed commercial area will serve as a traffic magnet, generating approximately half of the estimated traffic. Locating an unnecessary shopping center at the front end of a housing development for 1,765 people in order to be consistent with the commercial node designation for the St. Mary's-U.S. 7q corner merely subverts the intent of the land-use plan and the PD ordinance. Further, Section 7.4 of the ordinance states that PD districts shall be appropriately located "with respect to public and private facilities existing or clearly to be available by the time the development reaches the stage where they will be needed." In fact, the public facilities needed to handle any of the additional traffic generated by Scotswood are neither in place nor clearly available at this time. (Not to mention the water and school facilities. ) Judging by the standard set out in Section 7.4, Scotswood can be seen asill-timed as it is ill-designed. U.S. 70 in the area to be affected is already the most trafficked stretch in central or northern Orange County. Many testified at the public hearing that the intersection of St. Mary' s Road and U.S. 70 - which Scotswood will immediately effect even on a phased completion schedule - is overcrowded and dangerous. Even on a phased completion schedule, Scotswood will have an immediate and substantial impact on traffic from the Eno River to N.C. 86. The enabling legislation under which counties are given the authority to exercise zoning authority states in Section 153A-341 that zoning regulations shall, among other things, be " . . .designed to lessen congestion in the streets" and "to promote health and the 'general welfare." The latter stipulation is also key to the burden of proof as delineated by Orange County. Adding (traffic to an already stressed neighborhood violates this fundamental role of zoning under any circumstances. And these are far from ordinary circumstances. Having recognized I i I � 09q that it faces a traffic crisis, Hillsborough is attempting to develop a thoroughfare plan for itself and its surrounds. To add Scotswood 's 11,000-plus auto trips per day (an estimate purchased by the developers) to this congested area at this time is therefore especially unwise. Nor does it make sense to commit the county to Scotswood when the nrojeCt may very well sit astride the proposed path of a Hillsborough highway loop, or a traffic artery connecting Treyburn and the 1-85/1-40 area. As the attached Raleigh News and Observer article of Jan. 9, 1986 reports about the N.C. Transportation Task Force's findings, "Task force members said building costs could be cut significantly if cities and counties could better protect right of way for planned roads." Hillsborough and the state of North Carolina may thus be saddled with reduced options and higher road-building costs in implementing a pending thoroughfare plan if we approve Scotswood at this premature date. With the increasing likelihood that counties will be asked to contribute to future road improvements, the costs to all Orange County residents would be increased yet another notch. Such shortsighted expenditure of our tax dollars cannot serve the best interests of the public. The public will not be well-served, either, by the Scotswood traffic that would feed down St. Mary's Road past the Cameron Park Elementary School and into downtown Hillsborough. As Hillsborough's mayor and others pointed out, this traffic will pose a major danger to health, safety and welfare. The school area is already dangerous for pedestrians, according to hearing testimony and a recent Durham Morning Herald article. (See also attached article regarding a similar situation in Cary. ) The developers' traffic consultant estimates 3,500 trips per day past the school; this is doubtless an underestimate, especially as the consultant sought to assuage citizen concerns by citing Lawrence Road, 1.2 miles distant, as a likely commuting route from Scotswood to 1-85 and 1-40. St. Mary's Road passes right by Scotswood. Downtown Hillsborough is already traffic-clogged, with Churton Street and Churton Street Extension becoming dangerously overloaded at peak commuting hours when projected Scotswood traffic would add to the burden. To allow such an impact even as Hillsborough is attempting thoroughfare planning may defeat the town's best intentions to direct its own future. And Hillsborough is a fragile and precious resource, one of the oldest communities in central North Carolina, a former state capital with a substantial historic district. "Over the years, Hillsborough has worked diligently to preserve its rich heritage," the town's Chamber of Commerce informs visitors and prospective residents and businesses. "Today, Hillsborough is building a community that will leave a heritage as lasting as the one left by our colonial forefathers. " Our planning efforts can help make that legacy a sorry one of squandered opportunity and needless haste, or they can contribute to protecting those qualities that make Hillsborough and Orange County a special place in which to live. - • . • • ' • • _ • .... 09 • ; •. — _ _. . . .. .. .. . Highway pane! says additional $200 million needed • Combust Nan cage IC. _ ,. • it seems to me oe've wiped fortable positko by making him million,a year for highway con- • •.. .2' ' • :cla aft.the words that say we've••• choose among the recommender-.•.structiott. w a n-c o n t e r e n e e r-t h a t heismouid• d i e c o v e r e d-s o m e th i n g o r w e'v e....dont. .••••••• •" : Njd he eiee ensure 4=0 the tailr.foreets.report for a come to a totietuSion,"Missile C. "Therre Dying to matte the "about what-effect the transfer mouth. an two-before deciding Trosch, a_member of the Chart governor.stake Wawa out,that einem.have to the Geiss.el Fend what,reareinendationt he.would .. tette City:Cowie!, told.the task-• they're ping to Pier Politica with and said it might net he&wise toodtholsginistion-s- -• •-• farce. •- ,• • •-• • . it,"•Stroud said in,an totervievt. tbing.to do.. • .As•he-has.dare-far-atoodu, . •••••"We're heating' arrant the, •after the meeting; Several' committee'smembefs . Martin declined to give a hint-of. bush,"said Neil°L Tear Jr..of "It was a bqmrtisancomraitteo- esprensed• skm.::about the methods he Sould propose fur Durham •.-.•••- ••-• • • If should:have made recomosem whether the legislature would ap. looting, state's 0-oo3etnity.to. 134 state Fiefk Martin L.;Neibitt- datiotto",`--• - -'• prove such erfunding transfer._as Tammany formed projects.___, of Ashervillm a leading.Democrab- Stroud.:a close.associal e.of itheedeekhed to:de preeteehly.L. He said he had been briefed on me legislator,and be was meow- Raleigh Mayer-Avery p.. the task forte's initial report but ratable making specific MOM- church,is allartio hacker.As the. -"I feel it should be donee.' bedroom:sinned it.at length._ mendatIons toMartin because he meeting booed down late in the Upchurch.said."But they are nal "I did ask demist to put Use ha did notwant to-to bald to the task' afternoon,Upehurch became,the. going to do • • • - ampler tonbere I couldn't make force'a. recommendation when •task force member most vocal in. thane task force agreed What any choices," Martin. said..He tive legniabze voted co Martin's.• pushing for a S-to Scent increase the transfes-as one option., - said he wanted a list of attains- proposals.- • - ' '- . inthe rooter fuels tam k Task bone members said build- their frees which be could cheese Nesbitt said that some'of:tin "I'd-like tube upfront.and-say log costs couliteicut significantly "those that I believe I can sup- propmala might-baie merit;but let's raise the gasoline tar to. if cities and candies could better • poet." . . that_they-had•not been--sbidied whateveris neecled,"'he said.But- protect right of way for Manceft After ruoi■ney,what.actains he amogisfor him.to ha&them. • he.couldn't get the.task_force.to roartu.. • --— favomidartin said..he will try to- "Whatever we send to the go'v- agree to that recommendations: ' Among options'that should be buibi, gorse-roots support, for moor,.he's just'going ba pick and Several committee members-.considered, the task-farce said; .them.•. I_ •• _ • choose anyway,"Nesbitt;aid— ...Ahmed•great entbisiasim about.:are allowing counties bu • • Both dUring smd-aiter.the Six- &Stephen Staved.a.task three .shifting funding for the N.C.ragb - rightof Way,whiirk hone meeting,sriend task fierce member.frons Raleigh,said Dew'. way Patrol and the.Driver's Edn..•:••earawit do;and allowing amide, members-.said the panel.should_ rcraticlegislatorsca tbs commit" cation..program oat of'the High,. andeities toprovideproperty tat • . make.specifo•orcoresosndalieno. tec..tried,to gut.the.repotuanck• way Fund and into the Gesseral,. relief for people who own property!- to Martin. • . • ,hoped tOputIdarlin Mao oncommi- Fuad,whick wetddfreitabout 81107 lathe path of a-proposed raaskik-.1 • • „ . . . - : . . • • • „•.- _. •• • ' • T h e N e w s and O r s e r v e r.RslemØi N C. Saki Jan.I I.1986 3C . . . . . . . _ . _ - . .Cary takes steps to improve safety • .. • • at crossing after thfrd child hit . • • . . . • . - By SIMEON ovine:0N - wag walking a few steps behind COY traffic records show that to ime woes • Miss Worsky at the time of the 1984,.6,390 vehicles a day traveled Cary officials have taken steps accident,wasn't hint,Wails sail, on Walnut&rest in the vicinity of to inthroen safety at an internee_ The-driver of the car,Christine the intersection. On Eildaire moot st. don near Car s Elementary school S.AlbrO of 808 Grin St in Cary, Farm Road,10,400 vehicles tram after a firs-grader was struck by was charged with a sate MUM- clad each day near the=gift. Cant I;1111 a car this week, the third such mein violation..Want said. Although 1988 traffic counts Bem. 1 accident this School year. Cary Elementary Principal weren't available, city engineer Wendy was*.6,of 552 Cam Maude W.Reese said other chft- Debbie Rutchaigs said the nom- CrossIng, iyn Court,:Rifted a hrohen leg dren suffered minor *Pates in bees hadincreased greatly. g When she was hit by a ear match* too other accidents this school The speed limit is 35 mph.on requested • a l tarn ones Kudaire Farm year at this intei-seetIon,which is Walnut street and.25 mph on R o a d at t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n w i t h equipped w i t h both a t r a f fi c l i g h t M i d a i r's F a r m R o a d- W a l n u t Street. a f t e r school a n d c r o s s w a l k W M said pgatt *teal of * Increasing traffic. volumes Mrs. Reese asked the Cary the.Cary police Department.she makes arming the road estreine- Town Coaled.Thursday to.place a. was listed b satisfactory condi. ly Wordlists far Ywmg eh*km. police officer at the intersection lion Friday at Res Elospital. Mrs.Rome=id. before alai after school.On Fn-- The child was being helped 'lea iust frightening."she said day,a-police officer was/wiling fah-and shah-grade safer).Pa- acmes the road by maw&Jones, in a telephme interview."People children erma the raw,she wit trd students who currently moni- - a tom: who was serving as a- AM dart stop a lot of timer.They A police officer will continue-to tar the aroaSwalk.Worm said- crossing guard. Ms. Jones, who don't slow down and try to yield to work at the intersection until the The city also is aaosalafille the.peanut= hlte they mos crity,me hire r, adult craning ways to redesign the crosswalk to to." guard to.0gredsvogvii.teachers and imProve saretY.Mrs.Reese said. . . _ . . . . • • • . . _ _ _ _ " • � r �i` -5 r `� iZt G Ff IN.6 k i�v/ S ace and who is ( concerned about the growth that will take pl ,ground I U[�� erested in what will benefit the town. CQt•"r,E�1TS QR QUESTIQP;S FROM CITIZENS / None. p . ED DE{/EGOPt SENT HCUSII�!G R-- tV dD ESDE IAL-1 10 _ LP.:t; _. ----�—Li 5 ��pCIAL-p- ND Pt�I� LOPME�tT--GENERAT• 0�"-�-� item were sworn in by / A �A Those pe'ogle who wished to comment on this I Chair Willhoit. Director of Planning Marvin Collins presented for the receipt of public comment a proposed planned development and rezoning request submitted • �'ap ose Jr. for 331-12 acres of land located along by John W. Graham and A. H. Graham, The property 70 Bypass St. Mary's Road northeast of Hillsborough. Commercial Highway 7 Year Transition . and Cottffiez' is located in an area designated as Ten Land Use Plan. The present Node in the Orange County Land Transition Activity Residential-1. Collins pointed out on .a map zoning classification is Res3. using as points of reference Highway 70, location of the proposed project *S Road. He indicated the Orange High School , Cameron Park School and St. Hart applicants are requesting. the proposed area. The apP type of zoning surrounding three different zoning disignativns: (1) 290.03 acres PD-H-R-2 (2) 29,5 acres PD-H-R-5 (3) 1 10.43 acres PD-004 the location of the three Coll ins pointed out on a large scale s would be located at the. areas. The commercial portion different zoning s Road and would consist of a grocery and St. Mary, intersection tore,Highway 70 r small shop stare, drug store, and other shops. Two principle accesses are proposed with one on Highway 70 and one onScotswood Bouloparnt based on the 1980 per The lestimated population of the Lion of 2.6 persons per household and based on the 626 household population at complete built outat 1,765 persons. dwelling units proposed would be Impacts of the development include: 1 1r1 licant is to provide water and t nd Sewer Ser� S - the app r.��--- within the development. The plans have been reviewed the water the sewer lines who has given superintendent for the Town of Hillsborough serve the property. On plans. The water pressure seems to be adequate�v "`o'eed to provide water and 1985, the Hillsborough Tour; Board agreed 18, � Staff looked at the County Planning project. The Grange Q sewage e treatnent sewer service) to the �'ro� n water treatment plant and the sewag capacity of the Hillsborough plant to detern;re what impact this development would have upon full bui]to-t I Oyu 4 on those facilities. The current water treatment plant capacity is 3.0 MGD with 1 .4 MOD being used. With the approved development- that the Town has approved over the past year it is estimated that 519,000 GPD additional wate will be used by these projects. This would increase the usage to 64% which represents an increase of 17% above what it is now. The Scotswood development and Wildwood Section IV would take another estimated 283,000 GPD which • represents 74% of the water treatment plant's capacity. Scotswood would use 247,000 GPD. In terms of the sewer treatment plant, the increase in usage would increase from 66% to 81%. Commissioner Marshall asked what the impact would be with the _ additional 325 GPD promised for the Efland sewer and Collins indicated the 325 GPD would increase the capacity from 15 to 17% putting it near capacity for the sewer treatment plant and at 90% capacity for water treatment. . • 'c c s - the traffic count for St. Mary's Road for 1981 indicated 2000 vehicle trips per day. Highway 70 Bypass east of NC 86 has 7,800 vehicle trips a day and about 8,800 trips a day just east of Lawrence Road and Highway 70. According to the traffic impact analysis prepared by the applicant's engineer, Scotswood would generate 5,700 trips to the site and an equal amount from the site on an average day. It would add 1 ,725 daily trips east of the project on St. Mary's Road and 3,450 trips west of the project op St. Mary's Road. An additional 4,025 would be added to US 70 Bypass east and 2,300 trips to US 70 west of the project. (3) Recreation Facilities -- the applicant has proposed a swimming pool, two tennis courts, a recreation building to serve the multifamily dwellings and proposed 16.2 acres in single family development which includes approximately six acres designated as a recreation area. The remaining ten acres would be designated along the creek which runs through the property and has been initially designated for transiet recreation. This creek is included in the floodplain which runs along the creek. (4) School Facilities - The number of estimated school age children for the single family development would be 294 school age children. For the multi-family development it is estimated that 42 school age children would be addedi bringing the total fer the project to 336. The students in grades K-5 would attend Cameron Park School; the children in grades 6-7 would attend A. L. Stanback; the children in grades C-9 would attend Stanford Jr. High and the children in grades 10-12 would attend Orange High School. The Orange County Board of Education has indicated that all schools except Orange High are operating at capacity. • (5) Pojice_.__ Fjrg__ and itRseue ,S ry _ce - The Orange Rural Fire 09 Department has indicated they can provide fire protection with proper sized water lines and fire hydrants at proper intervals. The Sheriffs office has indicated they will require three additional personnel and two additional vehicles to provide adequate protection. The Orange county Rescue Squad can presently provide service for this development. The Town of Hillsborough expressed in a letter dated 1ovember 12, 1985 to the Board of Commissioners a concern about the traffic safety and congestion especially along Highway 70 in the Cameron Park School area, and in downtown Hillsborough and recommended as a requirement for approval of the project substantial improvements to Highway 70 and St. Mary's Road. Other conditions of approval include: (1) provide curb and gutter along all streets, (2) provide sidewalks along both sides of the streets within the residential areas, (3) construct the lift station at the southeast section of the project of sufficient size to accommodate any future connections by property owners along St. Mary's Road, (41) install sewer lines more than 100 feet from Nancy Hill creek. The preliminary utilities plan indicates that sewer lines are to be installed at least 50-80 feet from the creek. Members also asked that the lines be placed on a 6" sand base with additional protective measures to'help prevent any leakage, (5) install mercury lights throughout the project area as the project develops for additional security, (6) provide more recreation space that the proposed 6.0 acres at the north end of the single-family development. Spread out the open space/recreation areas in order to more adequately serve; the single-family lots. Provide a "greenway area along Nancy Hill Creek with a jogging trail and other recreational activities, (7) install a traffic', light immediately at the Intersection of St. Mary's Road and Highway 70 Bypass, (8) provide a minimum side and rear setback area of 20 feet, rather than 15 feet for each single-family lot, (9) submit data concerning the amount of impervious surface to be added by the project, and (10) require the developer to place on file with the Town of Hillsborough a petition for voluntary annexation for the proposed project area. Collins presented the staff's recommendation. He explained that the applicant must comply by specific standards for Planned Development and that with three different types of development the applicant must comply with the specific standards of each of the three types of development. In addition to the standards for Planned Development all the other standards contained in the Orange County's Zoning Ordinance must be in compliance. The Planning Staff has found that the applicant does comply with al] the requirements for approval and therefore recommends approval of the Planned Development rezoning 09 6 request and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit with conditions as listed below: 1 . The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all public improvements plus 10%. The -bmount shall' be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. Security for construction of the improvements in this project may follow phasing in the project. Specifically, as improvements are completed in each phase a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yeti to do" portion of the improvements. - 2. Security shall be provided for the grading, paving and stabilization of all cleared areas, streets and other vehicular traveiways; sidewalks and other pedestrian walkays; erection of street signs; utility installation and hookups; recreational facilities; landscaping and mulching around all mobile home units. 3. All necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone and cable televisioniby any cable television provider franchised by Orange County to serve this development) installation, servicing and hookups to the develo pment and to each unit within the development shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. 4. The grantee shall promulgate Articles of Incorporation governing tenancy in the development and shall record a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and regulations,promulgated under this condition in the Orange County Registry of Deeds. 5. Roads, parking areas, walkways, street signs, utilities, recreation facilities and l sites, landscaping and mulching around units shall be maintained as constructed. All such improvements and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. 6. Left and right turn lanes shall be provided on St. Mary's Road at proposed Graham Drive. • . 7. Graham Drive and Hamilton Way shall have a 60' right-of-way with a I O L' paved cross section. Hamilton Way shall extend directly north to Baldwin Road and Cameron Circle, realigned to curve into Hamilton Way at a 90 degree angle instead of connecting to Baldwin Road. This would provide an efficient collector system using Graham Drive and Hamilton Way. 8. Turn lanes to the east and west shall be provided on Graham Drive at the intersection with St. Mary's Road. 9. Curb and gutter shall be provided along all streets. • 10. A sidewalk shall be provided on one side of the street along all streets in the PD-H--R2 zone with curb cuts for the handicapped - at street intersections. • 11. Scotswood Boulevard shall have a 90. foot right--of-way, containing a 65 foot cross section with 24 foot wide pavement widths and a 12 foot wide • median. This would allow appropriate room for heavier vehicles. 12. Left turn lanes shall be installed on Scotswood Boulevard into the multifamily and commercial areas. . 13. The driveway off Scotswood Boulevard into the commercial section is inappropriate for the entrance of trucks. The radii should be. reworked in this area to allow easier truck access. 14. A cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the southwestern end of Carolina Avenue and the entrance on St. Mary's Road (SR 1002) abandoned. 15. A stubout to the western property line shall be provided from Scotswood Boulevard. This stubout shall be located to connect directly to the southern corner of Greentree Drive. 16. A stubout to the Guy Baldwin Jr. property shall be provided with the location to be reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. 17. Temporary turnarounds shall be provided at all stub-out streets. I 101 8. 18. A third lane, shall be provided along US 70 between St. Mary's Road and Miller Road (SR 1555). 19. Left turns onto or out of the southernmost entrance to the commercial area shall be restricted and only right turn movements permitted. 20. ' A traffic light shall be installed at the intersection of St. Mary's Road and US 70 during the development of the first phase. (This provision may be satisfied by direct action of NC DOT). • 21. Al roads shall be named and the names not duplicate any other names within Orange County. Road name signs to Orange County standards shall be erected at all intersections. . • 22. A 10—foot non—access easement shall be provided along the rear of the lots adjoining Carolina Loop. This easement shall be labeled so as to prohibit driveway or vehicular access onto Carolina Loop. - - i 23. Mercury lights shall be installed throughout the development as each phase develops. - 24. The lift station at the southeast section of the project (lift station #1) shall be of sufficient size to accommodate any future connections by property owners along St. Mary's Road. 25. Prior to paving streets, utility service laterals shall be stubbed out to the front property lines of each lot. Sanitary sewer laterals shall be capped . off above grounds. 26. Al). utility, lines shall be installed to state standards. 27. All utility easements shall be shown on the site plan including easements to adjoining property. All required easement documents shall be recorded before final plat approval. 2r. The number and location of fire hydrants shall be approved prior to the sssuance of theispecial use permit. 29. The following recommendations apply to the recreation area and facilities. a. Provide a minimum of 15 acres recreational purposes (active and passive). The passive recreation area would include the open space area along Nancy Hill Creek. b. -' A minimum lof seven (7). acres are to be developed for active recreational purposes to include the following: - Tot lot/playground area with play apparatus for children, ages pre school to 14 (i.e. swings, slides, climber, whirl) and benches for adult supervision. One 611-length basketball court Picnic area which includes a small shelter with 3-4 tables, 5-7 individual picnic tables scattered throughout the . woods with 1 trashlreceptacle and 1 grill per 2 tables. -- Bicycle paths throughout Open, grassed play area. .. Adequate night lights for safety and security reasons -- Appropriate landscaping c. Provide 10 parking spaces to serve the above activities within the 15 acre recreation area. d. Along either side of Nancy Hill Creek, designate 100 ft. a„ open space/passive areas with walking and hiking paths. Provide public walkways (to be part of the designated "open space area) to these areas from both Graham Drive and Cameron Circle. Install bridges across the creek at either end and midway, in conjunction with the public walkways. A pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle easement shall be dedicated coterminous with the open space area. e. Multifamily ,recreation facilities are to include an open grassed area and a picnic area (i.,e. tables, trash receptacles, grills). f. Provide 13 parking spaces to serve the multifamily recreation facilities. g. Install a fence around the pool for safety reasons. u. ICO 10' h. 1:herever possible, provide handicapped parking -spaces and ramps. Construct all walking and bicycle paths on slopes -no greater than 5%. 32.. All plans for drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation control shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County and the site plan modified accordingly to satisfy the Soil and Erosion specifications. In addition, Orange County shall inspect the installation of control devices and the on—going work for the total project. The project shall at all times meet the requirements of the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 31. Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum. In lieu of planted landscaping, existing vegetation shall be maintained between units. 32. That all signs be erected in compliance with Article 9 Sims following issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any unit. No sign may be erected within the sight triangles for the entranceways to the development. 33. Final landscaping plans shall be submitted and approved prior to the initation of construction activity. • 34. That all structures be erected in compliance with applicable building - codes following submittal for and issuance of building permits. 35. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer. 36. The final site plan and narrative of the project incorporating all changes, deletions� and additions through the final approval of the project are incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. A copy of the final site plan and narrative are on file with the Orange County Planning Department. Grading and building permits, upon appli cation, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. - 37. The developmennt shall be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with or - .. fulfillment of the above conditions and the Orange County development - regulations and ordinances. 104 38. If any of th'e above conditions shall be held invalid or void, then this approval shall be, void and of no effect. • Marvin, Collins qualified the recommendation indicating that because of the lack of time to review the new information that has been received by the Planning Staff which addresses concerns about the 'availability of raw water in the northern portion of the county including Corporation Lake, Lake Ben Johnson and Lake Orange, he would recommend at least a 30-day continuation of. the public hearing which would allow ample time for the Planning Staff to review the report and determine the water resources available. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. OR PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Marshall noted that in the conditions of approval no reference was made to the specific problems brought out by the Erosion Control Officer in his memo dated November 21, 1985. She suggested that the changes need to be made l',on the plan before approval in order to meet the soil and erosion control needs. Collins indicated the condition that requires the soil and erosion plans be approved, by the Erosion Control Office would be sufficient because it • would allow him to address those concerns. Commissioner Marshall noted it extremely important that the plans - be changed before approval by the Board and Collins indicated this would be addressed at the same time the public hearing is continued. Chair Wilihoit asked about the impervious surface ratio and Collins • noted that the Town of Hillsborough asked that information be provided about the amount of impervious surface ratio because this area is not in the protected watershed area of Orange County. Commissioner Marshall requested that in the conditions wherever it indicates "existing vegetation" that the type of vegetation be specified and • how much should be left. Commissioner Walker questioned the necessity of the 100 foot buffer zone on Carolina Avenue along the roadway and Collins explained that the 100 foot buffer is required as long as it is a road or a residential lot. Planning Board member Parry Jacobs asked how the single family area plan was different', from the project that was presented in the late 70's for the same area and Collins indicated he Was unfamiliar with the other plan, He • 12 asked if a report, had been made on the thoroughfare plan for Hillsborough and • - if so .if a copy could be obtained. Barry (Jacobs also asked how much of the 100 feet on each side of Yanceyville Creek is in the 100 foot buffer and Collins explained that the floodplain in some places extends beyond the 100 foot buffer as shown and in other areas the floodplain comes within the 100 foot buffer. On an average, the property takes in the 100 foot floodplain with the exception of the southeast portion'. Commissioner Marshall asked why the condition recommended 'by the Town of Hillsborough with regard to voluntary annexation was not included in the conditions and Collins indicated that since the County is not involved in annexation that it was more of a municipal policy and as such the County should not be involved. Commissioner Walker asked about the location of the Durham Loop and - its affects on the project. Collins indicated that the location of the loop is not known at this time. PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT -- John McAdams, facility engineer, presented Larry Meisner, engineer with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ho made a report on the traffic impact. He referred to the traffic impact analysis report which is in the permanent agenda file. He noted the proposed Scotswood development is served by several thoroughfares. Other future road developments thatlmay have an impact on the proposed development would include the widening ofi 1-85 to six lanes, and I-40 which is currently under construction. There is a thoroughfare program being studied for the Hillsborough area and Central Orange County.. He mentioned that Highway 70 has a 50 foot right-of-way that could be used to widen the road. The development would access on IUS 70 and St. Maryts Road. The total development would generate 11 ,400 total trips with 5% of this total traffic ocouring during the first phase of the project. The second phase would generate 70% of the total and the third and fourth phases would generate about 12% each. In all cases the existing volume and proposed volume would be under the capacity of the road. Regarding the improvements that would be required to accommodate the traffic, the applicant is in agreement with those recommendations outlined by NCDOT. Specifically, (1) that a traffic light be installed at the full buildup of the development, (2) left and 'right turn lanes at all the project entrances (3) a left turn lane from St. T•Nary's to Highway 70 West, and (4) Caro] ina Avenue be changed to a cul-de-sac. Chair 4iil)hoit asked if First and Second Avenues were paved and Meisner indica.ec� '�there are no access to the:e roads from the development. 13 _r Commissioner Carey asked about the four exits onto St. Mary's Road and McAdams indicaated they are proposed 600-800 feet apart. Peter Kramer asked if the traffic from Trayhorn down St. Mary's Road had been taken into account because those people use St. Mary's Road and McAdams indicate° the impact of that traffic had been considered to some extent but that the traffic going . up St. Mary's Road to Hillsborough had not been-'considered because most of those people are employed in Durham. Peter Kramer asked that the traffic from Trayhorn down St. Mary's Road also be reviewed. Barry Jacobs asked on what criteria was based the assessment that - most of the traffic on St. Mary's Road would come to Hillsborough rather than away and Heiser indicated it was based on the attraction of Hillsborough and Chape. Bill and on the number of alternate routes available to the Chapel Hill and Carrboro area rather than through Hillsborough. Barry Jacobs questioned the distance from'Lawrence Road to Scotswood which was not answered. McAdams also did not know the difference between the plan as submitted in the 1970's and the plan as submitted for Scotswood at this time. He indicated, in response to a question from Chair Willhoit, that the project would be phased in within a ten year period. • Commissioner Marshall requested that the beginning and completion dates be placed on the plan for all future projects to come before the Board. Chair Willhoit asked about the situation on the water pressure and McAcirrns indicated their study shows that water pressure would be adequate for the project including the improvements that will be made and included as part of the project. Chair Willhoit asked if there was any proposal to provide additional classrooms for the schools and McAdams indicated there was no. proposal for such: He noted the approximate value per house would be,r75,000. Chair Willhoit pointed out that at the current I18 per pupil, it would take a x130,000 house just to break even. McAdams assured that the impervious surface ratio would be provided. He pointed out that the design of the development included a 200 foot buffer zone on both sides of Yanceyville Creek and special efforts were made to minimize the traffic impact on adjoining properties. He made comments on the proposed conditions of approval: (1) With reference to f7 that the 41 ' paved cross section be reduced to 37' . lar 14 - (2) the development because there is no stipuiation that curb and gutter be requiredd by the County of NCDOT. The elimination of curb and gutter is in line with the entent of environmental senstitivity and does add to the cost of the project. (3) With reference to #10 and sidewalks that sidewalks not be required on the cul-de-sacs or on streets where curb and gutter are not required. (4) With. reference to 020 that the light be installed by DOT based on their criteria. (5) With reference to 29b, McAdams questioned providing the • lights, stating it is usually done by the municipality. He comMented about the requirements recommended by the Town of Hillsborough with regard to the sewer line being installed at least 100 feet - away from Yanceyville Creek and noted the applicant would prefer not to be required to do this because of the slope on both sides of the creek. With reference to the comments made in a letter from DOT, McAdams indicated the appll,icant does concur with everything as stated in the letter. Planning Board member Nancy Lazio asked about mail delivery and McAdams indicated 'that the single family dwelling would have a rural mailbox and in the multi-family dwellings a mail gezebo would be provided. There will also be dumptser locations. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZEN Tom Metzer, resident Of the vicinity of the proposed project, expressed concern about (1) adequate water resources, (2) human services including law enforcement, (3) classrooms, teachers, etc., and (4) roadways. The traffic pattern in that area has increased over the last six years. Ron Hyatt, member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, expressed concerns about the proposed recreation area. with regard to the size and location all the proposed recreational area along Yanceyville is in the floodplain and would not provide for those activities of an action nature. He asked that consideration be given to another three acres (get location) for the project that would be more suitable: This would provide safety and lend itself to a variety of activities. The type of soil has been described as wet2ards which ma be the' type of soil that would need additional support. Mr. C. D. Smith, area resident, questioned condition i2 which states "landscaping and mulching around all mobile home units" and if this was in fact a mobile hone park. . 15 10c Marvin' Collins indicated that reference should be deleted. Smith indicated the residents in the area of would .prefer to have the homes facing St. Mary's Road so the present homes would not have to look at the backside of the proposed homes. He requested that the development be compatible with what is now on St. Mary's Road and be 150 feet lots facing St. Mary's Road. He voiced no objection to the development but .wants to be proud of what is built. Joyce ', Brown questioned the adequacy of the water supply for the development. The traffic problems and the amount of noice and polution of the air had been questioned. She asked if the present sites for garbage disposal would be adequate and questioned the increased toxins at:the landfill and the impact on the land values. She stated that taxes are already extreemely high and development of this kind . will inflat present prices in the area and land values. She asked that the County stop and see what has been approved and to look at the impacts on the environment and the quality of life. Jane Gaede, resident of Highway 70 near St. 1'ary's Road, voiced opposition against the project. She listed four (4) major concerns: (1) traffic - Highway 70 is already dangerous; allowing additional traffic on the corner of Highway 70 and St. Mary's Road would make an already hazardous situation severely dangerous, (2) water - adequate water supply, (3) schools -- already crowded and the additional tax base from the development would not pay for additional facilities necessary, and (4) crime - will increase and the demand on the Sheriff's Department to provide protection. She expressed concern that Hillsborough will be ruined .if the development is not stopped. Mr. C: J. Andrews, representative of the Hillsborough Historical Society, expressed concern about the traffic problem on East King Street and Churton Street. ,The Historical Society is concerned that the people who come to visit Historic Hillsborough and walk from one area to another and the dangerous situation that will be produced by increased traffic.. Ms. Vivian Roberts, resident of Carolina Avenue which borders the proposed development, does not object to development but does oppose the Scots wood Development because of the magnitude and impacts on the traffic and schools. On the proposal to rezone single family housing area from RI to R2, most of the other homes bordering the project are built on one acre roads. She questioned the use of the buffer zones and if it would maintain or enhance the value of cc?ntigious property which is a requirement of a Special Use Permit. She expressed concern about the increased- traffic that would be placed on St. Mary's Road which is already dangerous. She expressed dismay it 16 that the traffic impact report states that the interesectjon is not yet- at capacity. The development calls for Carolina Avenue to be closed at the west end which would route traffic back in front of the existing homes on Carolina Avenue and Ids.. Roberts asked if this increase in traffic cn the dirt road would maintain or enhance the value of contigious property. There are already seven buses that travel on this road daily. The addition of 3004- children would add to that traffic. She asked that the Board of Commissioners think very seriously of the impact that a development of this magnitude will have on the citizens of the area. She is not against development but prefers it to be limited to one house per acre so that it is more compatible with the adjoining property as well as to lessen the impact on traffic, schools and water consumption. Mayor 'Frank Sheffield expressed concerns about the development that mainly stem from the size of the project and the additional services that will be required. With regard to the traffic impact it seems that there must be a traffic problem before the road improvements are in place and it would seem that the road improvements should be in place prior to or concurrent with the development. He,agrees with the people that stated that Highway 70 is already at capacity and,is a crowded highway. This would make a dangerous situation in front of Cameron Park School even more dangerous. With regard to water consumption, it is true that the Town currently has water and sewage treatment capacity to handle the project but the concern is that this will use a fairly large portion of what is remaining and this project coupled with several others that are planned or already approved would essentially use up most if not all the available capacity and expressed an uncertainly of the Town having the resources to expand the plant. The other problem, in the long run, would be the raw water shortage problem. Plans need to be in place to assure raw water supply to handle this project and future projects. The infrastructure and support facilities that are necessary for a project of this size needs to be in place or taking place at the current rate of development. Sheffield explained that, at the time the project was discussed by the Town Council they had not included in their water and sewer policy the requirement of annexation. The Town Council has since adopted that policy and am requesting voluntary annexation of this development. Johns McAdams indicated the applicant would readily petition the Town of Hillsborough on a phased-in basis for annexation. Farvin Collins Trade reference to an earlier question from Barry Jacobs about the proposed project for this property and stated that in 1980 I - • , 111. DRAFT JPH MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1986 BOCC PRESENT: Don . WiLLhoit (Chair) , Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd, Shirley Marshall, Norman Walker P/B PRESENT: ALice Gordon (Chair) , Chris Best, Barry Jacobs, Peter Kramer, Betty Margison , Margaret HiLLer, Frank Pearson , Sharlene PiLkey, David ShankLin , Carl. Walters, Steve Yuhasz P/B ABSENT: Steve Kizer AGENDA ITEM El : PD-5-85 SCOTSW00D Staff presentation by Marvin Collins . The purpose of this agenda item is to receive additional pubLic comment and information on a proposed planned development and rezoning request submitted by John W. Graham and A. H . Graham, Jr . This item was submitted to public hearing on 11-25 85. The public hearing was continued for the receipt of additional information (See draft 11-25 B5 pubLic hearing minutes) . John W. Graham & A . H . Graham, Jr. are requesting a planned development and rezoning for 331 .12 acres of land Located along Highway 70 Bypass and St. Mary 's Road(SR 1002) northeast of Hillsborough . The property is referenced as Tax map 6, Block B . , Lots 3 & 4 and Tax Map 22 Block A, Lot 17 of Hillsborough Township . 111 JPH MINUTES 1.-6-86 PAGE 2 The property is Located in an area designated as Ten Year Transition and Commercial Transition Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The present zoning classification is (Residential 1 ) R-1 . The applicants are requesting 290.03 acres to be rezoned PD—H—R2, 29.50 acres to be rezoned PD—H=R5 and 10.43 acres to be rezoned PD—GC4. Approval of the request would allow development of 410 residential Lots with a minimum 20,000 sq.. ft . • per dwelling unit 216 attached multi—family dwelling units and a 65,460 square feet of commercial space on 10.43 acres . Approval of the planned development rezoning request and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit with conditions specified in the attachment . Collins addressed some of the concerns expressed at the November 25th public hearing . One concern was the amount and Location of the open space/recreation area of the proposed development . Collins referenced the memo from the Recreation Director, Mary Ann Black, noting that in her opinion, after walking over the area , and that of the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council, a more appropriate area for active recreation facilities would encompass proposed Lots #116-119 and this area should be designated on the Site Plan as "open space/recreation area". Collins reviewed the shift in Location of the recreation area on the revised site plan . Collins then referenced a Letter from John R . McAdams Company which attempted to address some other concerns expressed at the public hearing. Collins addressed the items where the applicant had requested changes in the conditions outlined by Planning Staff. Staff had recommended a 41 foot pavement cross—section on Graham Drive and Hamilton Road and the applicant is requesting that this be changed to a 37 foot cross—section . Collins indicated the Location of these roads on the site plan . Staff had also recommended curb and gutter for all streets in the single family development and the applicant is suggesting that curb and gutter would be appropriate on Scotswood Boulevard, Graham Drive and Hamilton Way, but that the elimination of this requirement on the remaining roads would be consistent with the road standards of NCDOT and lend to the intent of environmental sensitivity concerning reduction of runoff. The applicant is also requesting that sidewalks not be required on the cul—de—sacs or on streets where • JPH MINUTES ', 1-6-86 PAGE 9 curb and gutter are not required. In referencleit the proposed traffic Light at the intersection of St . Mary 's Road and US Highway 70 Bypass , the applicant is requesting that the traffic Light be !!! installed by the Department of Transportation based on their criteria . Collins referenced the memo from Warren FairoLoth, Erosion Control Officer, outlining his concerns. Paircloth recommended that a condition be added that would require the construction of appropriate Stormwater detention devices qr other methods to control the rate of runoff due to development on properties downstream of the commercial and multifamily tracts. He also noted that to accommodate the stormwater runoff, the multifamily area would probably have to be constructed first. Marshall inquired how the County could control the development of the commercial tract after the multi—family tract to give the Erosion Control Officer the information he needs to put in place for the erosion control plan . Collins responded that the applicant would address the phasing plan. ALL final subdivision plans would be reviewed by Planning Staff and approved by the Planning Board . The multi—family and commercial development would be strictly administrative approval by the planning staff. If the Board wanted information regarding the development in total or any portion it could be presented to the Board as approved by staff or the Planning Board . Marshall continued asking how the development would be controlled to assure it would be built in the proper order. Collins responded that a condition of approval could be added addressing phasing of the development . Collins noted that the Erosion Control Officer felt that as part of his approval he would have to address the rate of runoff and any potential impacts to the south . The facilities designed for the commercial and multi family tracts would have to be designed so as to reduce the rate of runoff. Commissioner Carey inquired if condition #39 would address the concern with stormwater management . Collins responded that the condition does not address phasing specifically . He suggested that phasing of the installation of the stormwater � i 1t JPH MINUTES ' T-6-86 PAGE 4 management devices could be addressed by condition or by in—house staff review and approval. Commissioner Walker expressed concern about developing the commercial and multi—family area before the single—family area. Collins noted that a ridgeline existed between the single—family end the multi—family and commercial area so there would be Little stormwater runoff impact by development of one area on the other. Commissioner Walker questioned the 10—Year phasing plan. Collins responded it reflected a desire to address the water crisis, as well as reflecting a t0—Year reservoir construction period. Carey noted the applicant had offered a 10—Year phasing period at the previous public hearing . Commissioner Carey asked if the stormwater could be controlled without imposing a condition of approval. Collins responded it could be achieved at the staff review Level and noted there were many solution options available. Commissioner Marshall expressed concern about specificity in the conditions and an understanding of all parties over time of the conditions imposed. Commissioner Marshall directed staff to add a condition regarding voluntary annexation as requested by the Town of Hillsborough. Barry Jacobs, Planning Board member, requested more specificity regarding vegetation . Collins cited the developer 's Letter of intention which indicated a willingness to identify specimen trees . Collins noted he assumed a rule of thumb to be the retention of trees 12-18 ' in diameter. Identifying smaller trees is an enormous undertaking and is generally done by mass identification . Commissioner Marshall inquired about the process that would assure that these objectives would be met. She noted there was not much protection in a "statement". Collins related the inrarmation included in the memo located on pages of these minutes . Sharlene PiLkey, Planning Board member, asked about the policy statement regarding an in—stream flow rate of "0". Collins responded that emergency flow I 11.4 JPH MINUTES 1-6-88 PAGE 5 rates are determined by the Like Level in Lake Orange. Commissioner Marshall inquired if NRCD had approved such a "backward" in—stream flow policy. She questioned the use of such a provision in the County policy without NRCD's comment. County Manager, Ken Thompson, responded that both the County and NRCD plans call for reduction in flow rates with increasing crises Levels , including a "0" flow rate. Horace Johnson , Water Superintendent for the Town of Hillsborough, was sworn in to present evidence that water supply is available to serve the proposed Scotswood Subdivision. Johnson also stated that the Hillsborough water treatment facility is operating at 50% capacity. He noted that figures from the staff's statement were too high, adding that 150 gallons per day per unit is a rule of thumb suggested by the Town to engineers generating estimated use f igures . He supported this statement with figures giving the average daily use from a random survey of four sections of the Town for the six—month period from August 1 , 1985 through January 1 , 1986 . He concluded that utilizing actual use records, the projected use figure would be 153,805 versus 249 ,300 gallons per day estimated by staff. He noted that the rate system must be self—sustaining . Commissioner Carey inquired if developers were required to correct any adverse impacts and Johnson responded that a condition for improvements by the developer is required for service to be extended . Johnson emphasized again that the Town of Hillsborough did have the capacity to serve the subdivision and , if there were no new customers , at some point in time he foresaw a rate increase. Vii llhoit noted that if the pressure problem continued , the Town would have no recourse over the developments already approved . 1, I + Planning Board member, Chris Best , asked how many water customers were being served by the Town of Hillsborough and Johnson responded 3400. Most of these are residential . There are a few businesses and Johnson noted that Hillsborough Textiles recycles water . _ Y I L.. JPH MINUTEST 1-6-86 PAGE 6 Commissioner Walker asked if the Town provided all of the area within the Town with water service and Johnson responded yes , except for a few properties service by wells. 1 John McAdams, agent for the applicant, stated that 1 his firm was basically pleased with the revised Planning Staff conditions. He noted that he still 1 felt that a 41 ' cross—section on Graham Drive and Hamilton Way was excessive and he was requesting a I 37' cross—section . He also cited the request of the applicant that sidewalks not be required on the cul—de—sacs or on streets where curb and gutter are not required. Ha also noted that the condition requiring a traffic light at the intersection of � St. Mary 's Road and US 70 needed clarification. This conditions requires action by an "outside party". McAdams expressed concern with the wording of the Erosion Control Officer's memo in regard to the word "phasing". He noted that term particularly applies to the stormwater detention management facilities and not the development of the tract . McAdams continued that phasing of the stormwater facilities might require construction of these facilities to serve areas that are not y et under construction . Erosion Control Officer agreed that this wording needed clarification . { McAdams commented that in regards to the water supply issue the applicant had originally suggested the 10—year phasing and is willing to work within the staff recommendation (25% of the units in a 2.5 year period) . He continued that in relation to the pacing of development issue, an impoundment or major changes in agreements affecting raw water supply would help , and if the concerns ceased to exit , that there be wording in the condition which would eliminate the pacing requirement imposed on the project . Chair Willhoit stated that he was not sure he understood the rationale behind the pacing of the • development . He felt if the Town was making a commitment to providing water it made no difference whether it was all built in one year or ten . He noted there were no firm prospects to establishing additional reservoirs even in a ten year period . McAdams responded that pacing gives the Town the opportunity to react to needs by either raising tap fees or requiring other conditions to be I satisfied. 1 tar JPH MINUTES' 1-8-88 PAGE 7 • Commissioner Walker noted also that other projects should perhaps not be approved roved if pacing was imposed on this project. He expressed a preference for this project as a coordinated development as opposed to many Little projects. Willhoit inquired about the phasing of road improvements on US 70. Larry Messner stated that he felt the third Lane would be added at the same time that the traffic Light became necessary. Weisner also noted that prior to construction of I- 85, US 70 traffic was worse than what is estimated to result from this project when fully built—out. He continued that phasing the development , in addition to the ongoing state thoroughfare planning process, helps future needs to be met through review of the Scotswood development plan. The Scotswood project is now known and incorporated as part of the state planning process. Willhoit asked that Meisner submit the data on the traffic counts cited prior to construction of 1-85. This information is included on page of these minutes . McAdams noted the provision of the two additional acres of recreation area . Marshall inquired . about the process for planting new and maintaining the existing vegetation. She j. cited the statement regarding retention of specimen trees noting the conditions need to be clarified to have a meaningful comment . She also questioned the need to have a condition addressing the statement providing for negotiation with additional property owners. She concluded that there is a need to have a process and a known solution to assure that these objectives will be met . McAdams responded that he envisioned the hiring of a Landscape architect to do a reconnaissance of the 100 ' buffer and to prepare a plan for implementation of a pLanting schedule which would establish a year round screening buffer and to meet and to come to an agreement with adjacent property owners . Marshall asked that this be added as a condition of approval . Best asked about the change in the staff condition regarding the traffic light . McAdams continued that NCOOT does not want individuals installing the traffic Lights . Best inquired if they would accept payment for the traffic light . He responded that JPH MINUTES 1-6-86 PAGE 8 if the Light was warranted for the general public, NCDOT should be the agency to install it. Best asked if any traffic counts and projections were available for New Sharon Church Road and Cameron Street . Meisner responded that the traffic Projections generated are within the traffic report . He added that the St . Mary 's Road US 70 intersection is the only signalized . site warranted. Best asked if Scotswood traffic would impact downtown Hillsborough and Meisner answered yes. Don Cox was sworn in . He spoke as an individual citizen, as chairman of the Soil And Water Conservation Board and as a member of the Eno River Society . He cited potential damage to Strowd 's Creek which would require that all necessary erosion control and stormwater devices be in place and stabilized and be enforceable by phase. He suggested turbidity monitoring upstream and downstream. He recommended that the curb and gutter requirement be eliminated as it does not allow infiltration . He asked that the project be coordinated with the development of new raw water sources . He expressed a concern with further reduction in in—flow stream Levels . MOTION: Carey moved to continued the public hearing to February 3, 1986 to receive the Planning Board 's recommendation . Seconded by Marshall . VOTE: Unanimous . AGENDA ITEM E2: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS—JUNKED MOTOR VEHICLES Staff presentation by Susan Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on amendments to the Zoning Ordinance . The amendments relate to 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 118 DRAFT PB MINUTES 2-4-86 Page 3 Residential . The intent of the rezoning is to match the building locations with the appropriate zoning classification (EC-5) . I Rezoning of the Chapman property would correct the Zoning Atlas. The planning staff recommends approval of the rezoning request to correct an error in the Zoning I Atlas. MOTION: I Shanklin moved approval . Pilkey seconded the motion. VOTE: I Unanimous AGENDA ITEM# 3b.1 Scotswood (Planned Development) Presentation by Smith. The purpose of this agenda item is consider approval of a proposed planned development and rezoning request submitted by John W. Graham and A. H. Graham, Jr. This item was submitted to public hearing on 11-25 85 and January 6 , 1986. John W. Graham & A. H. Graham, Jr. are requesting a planned development and rezoning for 331.12 acres of land located along Highway 70 Bypass and St . Mary's Road (SR 1002) northeast of Hillsborough. The property is referenced as Tax map 6, Block B. , Lots 3 & 4 and Tax Map 22 Block A, lot 17 of Hillsborough Township. The property is located in an area designated as Ten Year Transition and Commercial Transition Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The present zoning classification is (Residential 1) R-1 . The applicants are requesting 290 . 03 acres to be rezoned PD-H-R2, 29. 50 acres to be rezoned PD-H-RS and 10 .43 acres to be rezoned PD GC4. Approval of the request would allow development of 410 residential lots with a minimum 20, 000 sq. ft . pe; dwelling unit , 216 attached multi-family dwelling units and a 65, 460 square feet of commercial space on 10.43 acres. ICI (See Impact Statement) I The Planning Staff recommended approval of the planned development rezoning request and issuance 1 1 11.c: DRAFT PB MINUTES 2-4-86 Page 4 of a Class A Special Use Permit specified at public hearing with those hspecitfiedoon of 1-17-86 memorandum (See attachment on page f these minutes . ) —•~ o MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of 8. 8 a) 1-3 . Yuhasz seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous . MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of 8. 8 a) 4-12. Yuhasz seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved positive finding on 8. 2.4 a) . Yuhasz seconded the motion. Best noted the issue of water availability is a volatile area of discussion and that he was not satisfied with its availability based on the Manager ' s report . Yuhasz cited the evidence given by the Water Commissioner who stated the Town had the ability to serve the site. Margison questioned how to resolve the two sets of facts. Yuhasz suggested the Manager ' s report was based on a hypothetical situation while Johnson' s was based on daily exposure to the situation on which to make judgements . Kramer asked if a letter was received from Hillsborough . Smith responded yes , citing Town Board action. Margison asked if this decision was made with awareness of other projects . Smith responded they had considered this project while considering three other major projects . Best cited a statement from Collins ' memorandum. Walters noted Hillsborough controls extensions and in the absence of a northern Orange County policy it is hard to say there would not be enough water if improvements were made. He added that other projects are being approved by the Town for water extension. Kramer raised the question of fairness citing that letters from Hillsborough had been accepted for past projects . 121 DRAFT PB MINUTES 2-4-86 Page 5 Jacobs noted that he attended the Hillsborough Commissioners ' meeting at which Seotswood was discussed and an attempt to total water usage was only made subsequent to Scotswood approval . Pilkey felt it was hard to get an accurate picture adding she was skeptical about Johnson' s figures and was concerned with new projects coming in. Shanklin noted everyone was concerned to varying degrees with raw water supply. Kramer suggestion a narrower interpretation of the issue given the acceptance of past letters of approval from the Town. Margison suggested there was testimony that the Board may not have the true picture. Collins clarified his statement in the memorandum regarding the lack of information to make an objective statement as being specifically related to the staging plan and solutions proposed to address the availability issue. VOTE: 4 in favor - Shanklin, Yuhasz , Walters , Kramer 4 opposed - Pilkey, Margison, Jacobs , Best MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 8. 2.4 b) . Pilkey seconded the motion. VOTE: 7 in favor. 1 opposed - Best . Best expressed concern with the need for increased services. MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 8.2. 4 c) Yuhasz seconded the motion. Best cited accident reports and suggested that improvements to the roads would not necessarily make the roads safe . Walters suggested road improvements at Cameron Park School . Shanklin felt the applicant should not be held responsible for a design flaw at the intersection of St . Mary' s and US 70 given the acute angle at the crossing. He expressed a concern with the lack of NCDOT' s action prior to a problem reaching a severe level . 121 DRAFT PB MINUTES I2-4-86 Page 6 Kramer expressed concern with traffic moving south. Pilkey expressed concern with internal traffic conditions . Yuhasz noted that limiting access points means more internal back-up. Margison expressed concern with traffic on East King Street . Yuhasz felt that all the traffic problems could not be attributed to even a project of this size. Kramer agreed that there was no direct impact except on St . Mary' s. Yuhasz maintained that the applicants addressed this situation as much as they could in their proposal . VOTE: 3 in favor - Shanklin, Walker , Yuhasz 5 opposed Motion failed. Smith noted that condition #40, presented at the January 6 meeting should be included as part of the staff conditions . MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 20. 3.2 a--e) . Walters seconded the motion. Best questioned how 23 .3 e) was satisfied by the project . He suggested the proposal was a "clone" of the area to the north. Yuhasz noted the comprehensive plan has designated this area as an activity node where such uses are expected and allowed. Best felt the PD section allows us to look at these uses and that the project did not carry out the purpose of the Land Use Plan. Walters suggested that availability of urban utilities, roads , schools and services does suggest the project complies with the Land Use Plan and was an alternative to the destruction of rural natural resources. Best expressed concern with redundant uses. Walters noted that an importance difference is that homes would be within walking distance of the commercial area. Best suggested it would serve as a magnet and that there was already a Pantry store immediately across St . Mary' s Road from Scotswood. Shanklin responded this would mean less traffic off-site on US 70. 12z DRAFT PB MINUTESI2-4-86 Page 7 Pilkey inquired about separation requirements . Smith responded there were none specified, but that the Land Use Plan set the "density". She cited the adopted Land Use Plan as the policy statement providing for four activity nodes along US 70 between the Durham County line and Hillsborough, adding that the node west of this site is a Hillsborough activity node, not County. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Shanklin agreed to the consideration of a)-d) only. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 20 .3.2c) . Walters seconded the motion. VOTE: 3 in favor - Walters , Shanklin, Yuhasz 5 opposed Motion failed. Jacobs stated that the vote is on the purpose/intent of the Land Use Plan, not the strict interpretation that the activity node exists . Collins asked Board members to state their position for information to the Board of Commissioners . Smith added this is a critical decision and would provide direction in the future. She noted that the lack of discussion did not provide a clear statement of the dissenting positions. Best cited Jacobs ' statement on page 57 of the agenda and the purpose of planned developments . Which reads as follows: "Section 7. 15.1 refers to all Planned Development Commercial Districts , including the PD-GC4 requested by Scotswood. It states that "It is the intention of these regulations to provide for developments , in scale with surrounding market areas , at locations appropriate in terms of the Land Use Plan and Orange County Thoroughfare Plan and in accord with standards set forth herein, L, LYa &L&RA fQl a1Lgath aanmanianjlg and 1/1Qida1alX atgaided with aamiraial and laLxial f aailiiia.a al .ha kind amagaad," (Emphasis added) " Kramer felt it was oor use of P the node. Smith asked the Board members to clarify which aspect of the project they diagreed with. Best and Kramer stated it was the commercial area. 12 DRAFT PB MINUTES 2-4-86 Page 8 Margison felt the project does not enhance the town. Walters expressed concern that the written comment of Jacobs and Best were their opinions , not the consensus of the Board. Pilkey expressed concern with the commercial aspects and the lack of separation between commercial areas. Jacobs cited his written statement . MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 4.2 a-c) . Yuhasz seconded the motion. Best inquired if d) concerned water. Smith said b) was the specific provision. Best expressed concern with the statement of the Sheriff. Shanklin felt the Sheriff did not say he "had to have" the vehicles and personnel . VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 4.2. 11 a-c) . Walters seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 7.4.1-3. Walters seconded the motion. Pilkey questioned 7. 4.3. Smith noted the statements at public hearing referred to timing of installation of stormwater devices, not the devices themselves. Pilkey asked the classification of Miller Road. Smith responded it is a collector road. AMENDMENT TO THE MOT Consideration of each item separately. VOTE ( 7.4. 1) : 6 in favor 2 opposed - Pilkey, Margison VOTE ( 7.4. 2) : 3 in favor - Shanklin, Walters , Yuhasz 5 opposed Motion fails VOTE ( 7.4. 3) : 7 in favor 1 opposed - Best 12 DRAFT PB MINUTES 2-4-86 Page 9 MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 7. 14.3 a) 1-5. Yuhasz seconded the motion. VOTE ( 7.14 3a) 1) ! 7 in favor 2 opposed - Kramer, Pilkey VOTE ( 7.14 3a) 2-5) : Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on and b) 1-3. Yuhasz seconded the motion. a) 6-7 VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 7. 14.3 b) 4-5 . Yuhasz seconded the motion. Margison asked if sidewalks were required on the main street . Shanklin cited statements by Don Cox requesting no sidewalks for drainage purposes. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 5. 1 .1. Walters seconded the motion. Margison indicated she was opposed as the project is uneconomical . . Smith cautioned the Board that specific findings must be based on evidence presented and not on one's personal concerns . VOTE: Unanimous . MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive findings on 6 . 12 a-d) . Yuhasz seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Yuhasz moved a positive finding on 6. 12 f) - h) . Shanklin seconded the motion. Kramer asked if a distinction is made in the standards between passive and active recreation. Smith responded no. Pilkey asked how separation requirements are determined. Smith cited the formula in the ordinance . VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 5.1. 1 a-e) . Pilkey seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous l2t DRAFT PB MINUTES 2-4-86 Page 10 MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 6.12 f)-h) . Yuhasz seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Kramer moved a positive finding on 5. 1 . 2 a-e) . Shanklin seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 6. 12 a-d) . Yuhasz seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 7. 15. 6-9. Walters Seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 7.15. 10a) 1-3. Yuhasz seconded the motion. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Consideration of items seperately. VOTE ( 7. 5.10 a) 1'I and a) - 3) : Unanimous VOTE ( 7.15. 10 a)2: 3 in favor - Walters , Yuhasz, Shanklin 5 opposed. Motion failed. Best expressed concern about the creation of hazardous situations . Margison and Kramer concurred with Best . Pilkey added it does not encourage smooth traffic flow. Collins asked the Board to speak specifically to the design. Kramer felt the added lanes may not be sufficient for St . Mary's Road. Shanklin noted that traffic on St . Mary' s was not related to the commercial area. Kramer withdrew his comment . MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 7. 15.10 a) 3 and d and 7.15. 10b) . Yuhasz seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of 6.24 f)1-3. Kramer seconded the motion. 12C DRAFT PB MINUTES 2-4-86 Page 11 Shanklin inquired about specific landscaping. Smith noted the applicant had specified a screening requirement on the plan which is described in the ordinance. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 6. 24 e) 3-4. Kramer seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous Smith informed the Board that they could consider the negative findings as is in making their decision on the project or could attach conditions of approval to address these findings . Shanklin suggested that the Board consider the conditions whether or not the project is recommended for approval . The Board considered the general standards. MOTION: Walters moved a positive finding on the satisfaction of the standard that the project promotes the public health safety and welfare. Yuhasz seconded the motion. Kramer indicated there were substantive questions regarding public safety because of design, objections raised by neighbors , objection to the commercial area and concern with traffic flow. Walters felt no specific testimony to that effect had been provided at public hearing. Best expressed concern with water and transportation issues , noting the applicant did not address these problems adequately. He cited school capacity. Walters felt this project could not address school capacity. He suggested that the school children would be there whether one project or many were approved. He noted the problem of overcrowding already exists and all projects impact the schools . Kramer expressed concern with the locational impacts of water and traffic. Walters noted rural land cannot be preserved if development is allowed to be dispersed. He added if a town was desireable, it was best to have it where services are available. P 7� DRAFT PB MINUTES 2-4-86 Page 12 Yuhasz maintained that the project will impact roads but that this project could not be held responsible for all traffic problems on US 70 . He felt the proposed improvements would address the impact of this project and that the applicant had expressed a willingness to make improvements to solve traffic problems the project will generate. Best questioned if the Board was asking them to do their fair share. VOTE: 3 in favor - Walters , Yuhasz , Shanklin 5 opposed Motion failed. MOTION: Shanklin moved a satisfaction of the standard vthat fthe �project will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. Walters seconded the motion. Shanklin felt there was no testimony disputing the finding. Kramer indicated there was some desire for less density. Shanklin noted that those closest to the project had objected to the size of the lots . He suggested one acre lots around the perimeter. VOTE: 7 in favor 1 opposed - Best Best was opposed due to concerns with density. MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive that the project complies withd1theoLand eUse aPlan. Walters seconded the motion. Shanklin noted the project was located within an area designated Ten Year Transition and Commercial Transition activity node. VOTE: 6 in favor 2 opposed - Jacobs , Best MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval with conditions to be attached. Walters seconded the motion. Kramer inquired how specific the conditions needed to be. Smith noted they should be as specific as possible. Kramer expressed concern with the lack of policy by the Board of Commissioners . 126 DRAFT PB MINUTES 2-4-86 Page 13 Smith cautioned the Board not to attach conditions which the applicant has no control over . VOTE: 3 in favor - Shanklin, Walters , Yuhasz 5 opposef1 Motion failed. The Board discussed the conditions of approval recommended by staff and attached on page of these minutes. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of conditions 1-6 . Walters seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous Yuhasz questioned the responsibility of homeowners if the condition of the special use permit is violated. Smith responded they would be cited for the violation. The Board discussed condition #7. Smith noted NCDOT had reaffirmed its recommendation for a 41 ' cross-section. Walters suggested deleting the connection to Baldwin Road to avoid creating a thoroughfare and a shortcut for traffic to the north. Best noted this would not provide for a traffic system in the area. MOTION: Walters moved to delete the stubout to Baldwin Road and reduce the cross-section to 37' . Shanklin seconded the motion. VOTE: 4 in favor-Yuhasz, Kramer , Shanklin, Walters 4 opposed - Jacobs, Pilkey, Best , Margison Shanklin cited testimony from Don Cox supporting the deletion of curb/gutter . MOTION: Shanklin moved deletion of condition #9. Yuhasz seconded the motion. Margison felt it was desireable to have curb/gutter with sidewalks . Collins noted such improvements would be provided following annexation. Best noted that curb and gutter required less maintenance , defines the street and provides protection for pedestrians . VOTE: 2 in favor - Shanklin, Yuhasz 6 opposed 12 DRAFT PB MINUTES 2-4-86 Page 14 Motion fails . MOTION: Best moved to amend condition #8 to specify ecif that the turning lane on St . Mary' s Road should be constructed during construction of Graham Drive. Pilkey seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous The Board accepted the staff revision to #10 by consensus. There was no comment on conditions #13-15. MOTION: Walters moved the deletion of #16. Shanklin seconded the motion. VOTE: 6 in favor 2 opposed - Best , Jacobs Collins expressed concern to the Board that by this condition the staff is attempting to tie developments together. He noted that the Board has voted both ways on this kind of issue and that the staff needs better direction from the Board. There was no comment on condition #17. MOTION: Best moved approval that condition #18 be amended to require that the improvements be constructed immediately upon initial construction of the project . Margison seconded the motion. Walters cited cost factors. Best cited safety factors . Kramer questioned at which time this requirement is reasonable. Yuhasz questioned the requirement that turn lanes be constructed beyond the property 's frontage. Smith clarified that the third lane serves as a turn lane and would be of no purpose without the direct entrances/exits on US 70. Yuhasz asked staff if extensions beyond the site were required previously. Smith responded no. Best asked if that is an issue. yes. Best suggested the applicant Kneeded tosbecome responsible. Yuhasz responded the applicant is not 131 DRAFT PB MINUTES 2-4-86 Page 15 solely responsible as the first developer but should only share part of the burden. VOTE: 4 in favor - .".".argison, Pilkey, Jacobs , Best 4 opposed - Yuhasz , Shanklin, Kramer, Walters . The Board noted that the issues here were the length of improvements and the timing of construction of the turn lane. Smith informed the Board that NCDOT had verified it wanted no involvement by a developer in the installation or financing of traffic lights . Best concurred with the staff on NCDOT' s position. MOTION: Best moved deletion of condition #20. Kramer seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous . MOTION: Shanklin moved extension of the meeting for twenty minutes . Pilkey seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous Shanklin inquired if #22 should refer to both Carolina Avenue and Second Street . The Board directed that the references be corrected. The Board discussed condition #23 . Jacobs asked about Town standards . Smith responded there are none. Pilkey asked what size was implied on Condition #24. Smith responded there was no information from the Town. Yuhasz questioned how far along St . Mary' s was intended by condition #24. There was no discussion of conditions #25 - 28. The Board discussed #29. Jacobs questioned (h) noting "wherever possible" should read "wherever appropriate" . Walters expressed concern with the convenience of access for bikes and dirt bikes to these recreation areas. Collins suggested entrance obstruction. Yuhasz noted wheelchair access is required. 131 DRAFT PB MINUTES 2-4-86 Page 16 Margison expressed a desire for shaded areas in the tot lots . The Board amended h) to read "where appropriate" and by concensus added that "shaded areas are to be provided within the tot lot area". There was no discussion of condition #30. The Board discussed condition #31 . Pilkey suggested the hiring of a forester . Margison inquired about internal tree retention. Smith noted if this was imposed on the single- family area it would raise the question of the desirability of regulation beyond the imposed buffer requirements . Jacobs noted that Commissioner Marshall had requested specific criteria for protecting existing vegetation. Smith suggested in response to the concern that the condition be amended to control construction of improvements to limit clearing. MOTION: Pilkey moved approval of condition #31 to limit clearing on the single family area to the installation/construction of improvements . Kramer seconded the motion. VOTE:N: in favor 3 opposed - Shanklin, Walters , Yuhasz MOTION: Shanklin moved the extension of the meeting to conclude this item. Pilkey seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous There was no discussion of conditions 32-38. Yuhasz expressed concern about the responsibility of individual homeowners and the continued validity of the Special Use Permit if violation occur . Smith noted that condition #39 has been amended by staff to add specificity regarding the storm event standard. The Board discussed condition #40. Jacobs inquired how the different housing types were accounted for. Collins responded any 13 DRAFT PB MINUTES 2-4-86 Page 17 combination resulting in 25% would satisfy the condition. Pilkey inquires if commercial uses were included. Smith responded no as these were not typically high water users . Shanklin inquired why there was no "escape clause" if the water crises is solved. Smith responded the condition also addresses the impacts of the total project over time. Kramer noted a water policy is needed to guide the decisions of the Board. Walters questioned why the project is bound to conditions others are not tied to. Kramer expressed concern with the tinkering with unresolved issues. Smith reviewed the staff options provided for conditions #41 . Collins commented on annexation requirements and the general rule of thumb that projects be 60% built-out . The Board discussed phase related conditions . MOTION: Kramer moved approval of option a) . Shanklin seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous. The Board discussed condition #43. Collins recommended its deletion as the property to be served has other access. VOTE: 7 in favor 1 opposed -- Best MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of the addition of a condition requiring consultation with the Hillsborough Postmaster for the provision of mail service. Kramer seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous Kramer expressed opposition to the project on the basis of a lack of clarity with the water issue and traffic problems . He felt he could not act on the proposal in any form in the absence of a water policy. MOTION: , Kramer moved that the Board ask the County Commissioners to develop a water policy prior to consideration of approval of Scotswood or any other pending projects that require water and sewer from Hillsborough. Margison seconded the motion. 133 DRAFT PB MINUTES 2-4-86 Page 18 g Smith questioned the application of this proposal to the Town of Hillsborough 's subdivision projects . Collins determined that these projects would also be subject to these decisions. VOTE: 3 in favor - Pilkey, Kramer, Margison 5 opposed Motion failed Jacobs noted that the Planning Board could itself work on developing such a water policy, and that the Commissioners had voted their support to such an effort . MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of the conditions as revised. Best seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Pilkey moved extension of the meeting. Best seconded the motion. Margison announced the League of Women Voters workshop on February 11 and 12 and asked that a Board member attend. MOTION: Shanklin moved that the proposed amendments distributed by staff be sent forward to public hearing. Best seconded the motion. VOTE: 6 in favor Kramer and Yuhasz out of the room. Jacobs asked for written comments on the Joint Planning Area Plan if Board members did not attend the meeting on the 17th of February. Meeting adjourned at 11 :40 p.m. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 134 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE EEMB Y.,.1j4_1111 SUBJECT: EUBANKS ROAD SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY Z ►►� LL DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _X_ No Attachment(s) Information Contact : SUSAN SMITH PRELIMINARY PLAN VICINITY MAP APPLICATION CERTIFICATION JOINT STAFF MEMORANDUM AGENCY COMMENTS DRAFT 1-.27-86 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers—_�_w_~—__�_ Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Eubanks Road Subdivision. To receive the Planning Board's recommendation of January 27, 1986. To receive the Chapel Hill Town Council decision of February 10, 1986. NEED: Brooks & Son Construction Company has requested approval of a subdivision for 6.36 acres of land located south of Eubanks Road (SR 1727) in Chapel Hill Township. The property in question is known as Lot 27B of Tax Map 18 in Chapel Hill Township. The purpose of this request is to permit construction of a five (5) lot subdivision. Lot #5 is reserved for use as a community septic system drainfield. The property is located within the Twenty Year Transition area designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan. That designation permits single-family residential housing. The present zoning classification of the property is Residential-1 (R-1) . The property is located within the Joint Planning Area and subject to joint approval of the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange's County. The Chapel Hill Planning Board unanimously approved the request with the joint staff recommended conditions on January 30, 1986. r I '1 EUBANKS ROAD SUBDIVISION PAGE TWO FEBRUARY 18, 1986 The Chapel Hill Town Council is scheduled to consider the request for decision on February 10, 1986. Their decision will be made available at the Board of Commissioners meeting. IMPACT: Approval of the request would allow development of a five (5) lot subdivision. A public road (Tanbark Drive) constructed to state standards is proposed to serve the subdivision. Development of a the subdivision would add approximately 23 trips per day to Eubanks Road: The addition of this subdivision would increase traffic on the road by six (6%) percent above the 1981 traffic count of 400 trips per day at the intersection of Eubanks Road and Mill House Road (SR 1725) , All lots will be served by individual wells and a community sewer system. The Orange County Health Department has provided preliminary approval of both systems. Police, fire and rescue services will be provided by the Orange County Sheriff ' s Department , New Hope Volunteer Fire Department and the South Orange Rescue Squad. RECOMMENDATION: The Orange County Planning Board, by unanimous vote, recommends approval with the following conditions:" (1) that a stormwater management plan which satisfies the standard for control of the first one-half (1/2) inch of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces be submitted for review and approval prior to approval of the final plat. (2) that engineered plans for the community sewer system be submitted for review and approval by the Orange County Health Department prior to approval of the final plat. (3) that a perpetual maintenance agreement for the community sewer system be submitted for review and approval by the Orange County Attorney prior to recordation of the final plat . The Chapel Hill Planning Board, by unanimous vote recommended approval with the conditions stated above ,on January 30, 1986. SARY OF ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION 13N Subject: I E tba nk$ Road - Prelim Ina?.v 1: Aonroval . w1th 1 staff::. r�cor+ Pndatjnns 3ha k 9 h . :PS t moved. • Vehr :*.�Ifni modus Meeting Date: . 1/27/86 Issues Raised: Chapel F111•s inability to get to this Plat durinz an eight-month period. � I Explanation of Dissenting Votes: . I Other Information and/or Citations from County Regulations: Planning Boa lyd Member Responsible for Report: 3. Pilkev . . .. • . . . • . . i - . 4i. . . . l'. QM'V• CL .N.4,,Z•%, , ■"-."775:,•,' nr) cr•A_ 1 . -'el i AA N I Zr.... — - — "' .— — .. '7( 4 . lb'\\•-•...\ -----------ji—----•--,,,,,,;:esNy I I! Z.i3ei. '172 Z ..,......., \ . 5 .. ■ ,..f.er '''.. rs, 0 ■•■ . , 0 A 1 I y../ • I, MI q ■ 1 -7 1 g 1".■ ...! i . r...„).. --- --- 'V c.) N g2?-1 41141114_ i el < ' ,0, PI !---- - __.. . •"•■•■ -:....■.....•■■. . ,•... .- i • !,.; 1,- 4. ---- ci c_?: — •f.—",, ,,•) , , P •Q\, ) ,, -- ,.. ,-, ---- j . . ( . ,, . . .. t , ! - . t — • . 'CZ z..)/..... :\\\:: . . 4..1 . .. 1-. ,. .. o n . .: - 1 •.0 ''')) 4,. 4 ,%-. _-.., ::,-- .-_.. , ... . - _ — -1 9 ;._ r r ., ..•7 4, Ci, 7..• ' i J : daS 0 il■, i N 1 •:=1 c=. 0 -..— L; , , '4., • P C= C=0 0 LI • ..-.. _ — - - 7....: ._..> N CO .C:C CO CO ! ..,-.--__ . LiJ •••■•11 .... .S., . CL 0— C .4 , ■ , .., _... _ 1 1 . _. - • . _ . .. .. - . - ---,PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY) lit. .._. _ ....... 11/85 APPLICATION FOR U D VISIO APPR A ORANGE COUNTY DATE: January 14,1986 SUBDIVISION NAME: EUBANKS ROAD SUBDIVISION LOCATION: off Eubanks Road (SR 1727) , east of Rogers Road (SR 1729) OWNER/DEVELOPER: Brooks & Son Construction Co. ADDRESS: 112 S. Graham Street TELEPHONE NO. ; 942-2eU' Chapel Hill, NC 27514 AGENT/CONTACT: Cindee Wolf TELEPHONE NO . : 967-7079 The John R. McAdams Co. , Inc. A. SUMMARY INFORMATION:. Orange County Tax Map 18 Block -- Latta] 27B Township Chapel Hill Zoning. District(s) ; R-1 (Residential) Total Number of Acres: 5.99 Ac. Phases: 1 Total Number of Lots: ,5___ Average Lot Size:40.3 Minimum Lot Si 2840,000 s.f. Number/Type of Structures: [existing] N/A [proposed] N/A Lineal Feet in Streets: 560 Acres in Open Space N/A Water Supply: L Public[specify] Community X Individual Wastewater Disposal: Public[specify] x Community Individual School District:. Chapel Hill Fire District: New Hope Volunteer General Land Uses in Area.: Low density residential Critical Areas: X stream/dreinageways N/A flood prone areas. N/A watershed[specifyl Nom_historic sites other[explain] B. ALL plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two— hundred feet [1 "=200' ] and no Larger than one inch equals fifty feet (1 "=S0' ) and must contain the following information : f :.4.,'s• �� Subdivision nasa building setback Lines nasa of e.nerte) ;; by netatlon or t :heck items x name of yer, engineer or ,: laydst typical Lot• land planner saucing end proposed asss- :ompleted) ± ('title' Preliminar Plan t▪ it+.'? sands (drainage, utilities, '�'� aabLr4 north error (North at � } reads. etc.] • top of amp) existing, prepoasd end duce (including rsvieisn dotes) ' :: tbsnahip, Cu x sap—block—lot ...g Including rights-of-way u lions rsfarenea. including dimensions and ?' ti'i atrsst naaaa and stets road boundary described with nurbars :4; bamringm and dietane.. existing end total * propound i„.2 4 go of the tract K;y▪ �a:?. utilities., including and aCraagm 0f Lots, inCLmding ; t a, sizes sad stet uding area within ti hydrant,, valves and rights-of-say :::s *animism control corner vv '•AVM propound lot Lines with �'��'v-: existiand proposed culvert dlsensions including elm and grids. 77��gg((-- : =simians typical street cross—sections NLes. ° ppeelnq Lines Al.. end intersection dstei le topography at tan foot (101 '' including design and width y of trevelwey and shoulders N A .' intervals -0.. horizontal elign*snt end eater bodies, streams, flood— '.j4 general. curve data (public N/a ?:$ way end flcodplainm rosls) LA. stream buffer, and notation permanent features such as •� indicating restricted development buildings, cemeteries, Ka■'• '�f p patrnelsl a historic Landmark., . to,lasbip. corporate and extra— adjoining tt tm'irritori.l planning names of adjoining propertyut ut ', julrisdictian lines which owners and subdivisions ., cross the property • Loostion and size of pergola dedicated for publics use or raservad • 1n', mammon Loaetioa and size of Lots of restricted davelapment potential and 0) —� notation On plat regarding same atereneter ■anageeent plan indicating provision for control of the first 1/2 inch of runoff from impervious surfaces O.)-mess l,., veto ra(RRRw_ AREAS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) • _I. _J'. EUBANKS ROAD 11/85 CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS — PRELIMINARY OPLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: SUSAN SMITH SKETCH PLAN: Received 5-13-85 Reviewed 5-15-85 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 5-20-85 Reviewed 5-31-85 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 11-11-85 Reviewed 1-9-86 1-16-86 1-16-86 NCDOT: DATE 6-3-851 CERTIFICATION SUITABLE SEE COMMENT SCHOOL BOARD (Orangs/Chapel Hill—Carrboro) : DATE6-3-85 _Certification NO COMMENT UTLITIES (OWASA/Hi L Ilsbo rough/Mebane/Orange A lamance/Durham) : DATE 11-7-85 ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Certification SUITABLE _ OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council (Date) Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel Hit NO DECISION YET (Date) (JOINT PLANNING) Carrboro (Date) Hillsborough (Date) Durham _ (Date) Other (Date) (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date 1-27-86 Approval Approval with Conditions X Denial i BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS : Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 t HILLSBOROUGH `' NORTH CAROLINA 27278 s E oii MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY AND CHAPEL HILL PLANNING BOARDS, CHAPEL HILL TOWN' COUNCIL AND ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FROM: ORANGE COUNTY AND CHAPEL HILL PLANNING STAFFS DATE: JANUARY 9, 1986 SUBJECT: EUBANKS ROAD SUBDIVISION This memorandum analyzes a proposal for subdivision of Land within the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Area . The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Plan for the division of 5.99 acres of Land Located on the south side of SR 1727 Eubanks Road . The property is . identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 18 , Lot 278. The property is designated Twenty Year Transition on the Orange County Land Use Plan . The property is zoned Residential-1 (11--1 ) . The site is approximately 1 .7 miles from the corporate limits of Chapel Hill at Weaver Dairy Road. Adjoining properties are undeveloped residential land . The Orange County Landfill is located 200 feet east of the site. WATER/WASTEWATER 'SERVICES The site is tai be served by individual wells and a community sewer system . Lot #5 is reserved for use as a drainage field and is 62,344 square feet in size . A 30 ' sewer easement runs the length of the property along th'ie rear property lines of the proposed lots . The Orange County Health Department has indicated that the proposed water and wastewater systems are acceptable. Engineered plans for the community sewer system musts be submitted for review and approval by the Orange County Health Department prior to approval of the final plat . A perpetual maintenance agreement for the proposed system must be submitted for review and approval by Orange County prior to the recordation of the final plat . ACCESS The site is to be served by a road constructed to state standards for subdivision roads', and dedicated public. The development will generate twenty three (23) trips per day on Eubanks Road (SR 1727) . The most recent traffic count for Eubanks Road (1981 ) indicates 800 trips per day . Eubanks Road is presently classified as a Local road in the 141 EUBANKS ROAD SUIBDIVISION PAGE 2 JANUARY 9, 1986', Orange County Land Use Plan . Recently proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan , if approved , would reclassify the road as a sub—collector. NCDOT has indicated that the location of proposed Tanbark Drive is acceptable . Construction details must be submitted for review and approval by NCDOT prior to recordation of the final plat . A performance bond, Letter of credit or escrow agreement for the proposed public improvements must be submitted for review and approval by the Orange County Attorney prior to the recordation of the final plat . SERVICES The site is served by the Orange County Sheriff's Department , South Orange Rescue Squad and New Hope Volunteer Fire Department . All the referenced agencies have indicated a capability to serve the development . RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the preliminary plat for Eubanks Road Subdivision be approved subject to the following conditions: (1 ) that a stormwater management plan which satisfies the standard for control of the first one half (1/2) inch of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces be submitted for review and approval by the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer prior to the approval of the final plat . [2) that ', engineered plans for the community sewer system must be submitted for review and approval by the Orange County Health Department prior to approval of the final plat . (3) that la perpetual maintenance agreement for the community sewer ', system be submitted for review and approval by the Orange County Attorney prior to recordation of the final ptat . il 300 W.Tryon Street 4‹ rage County 732-8181 HEALTH DEPARTMENT Chapel Hill i.305 Chapel Hill line 9.2727 1 968.4501 Mebane line 227-2032 Durham line 688-7333 688-7331 Carr Mill Mall, Suite 225 100 N. Greensboro Street Carrboro, N.C. 27510 942-4168 November 6, 1985 Jerry Robinson.M.P.A. Director John R. McAdams Company r n Attn: Cynthia A. Wolf J7 P. 0. Box 2896 Chapel Hill, M. C. 27515 Re: Eubanks 'Road Subdivision for Charles Brooks Dear Cindee, I have reviewed the last plat of the Brooks Subdivision submitted by you. The first four lots can be developed if the fifth lot is reserved for a community sewer system. This system would have to be a low pressure pipe system dosed at .2 gallons per day per square foot. The entire system can be no more than 2,000 gallons per day. A permit can be issued for the construction of system once the following three conditions are met. First, the planned subdivision would have to be approved by the Orange County ' Planning Department. Secondly, complete engineered plans for the collection and disposal system would have to be submitted to our department for review and approval. Third, a perpetual maintenance agreement between individual lots owners is legally documented to provide a means of repairing any future malfunction of the system. Water supplies for the lots in the development can be attained through the use of individual wells. Permits to drill these wells can be issued after proper application to our department is made by the individual owners or developers!, Please feel free to call if you have any questions concerning this matter. ' Sincerely, C—;61"._ Ron Holdway, R. S. RH:bb cc: Susan Smith, Planning Department . 143 .t STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION it JAMES G.MARTIN June 10,1985 GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E. HARRINGTON SECRETARY 1 Ms . Susan J . Smith , Planner Orange County Planning 106 E . Margaret Street Hillsborough NJC. , 27278 Dear Ms . Smith This is in reference to the proposed Brooks and Son development on SR1729 ( Eubanks Road) west of NC86. The location of the proposed Tanglewood Drive is acceptable. The roadway cross- section , grade, and intersection design will be reviewed as a part of our drilveway permit process . If we can be of any further help please advise. Sincerely, , 7 i --:'1 .W. Watkins Division Engineer JWW/JH/DBK/mm cc: Mr. Joe Haynes Mr. D .B . Kelly An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer I ...Ord .4 4 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH 11 N 4 ORTH CAROLINA 14 27278 y„„6�..ry it d Cl= vii d .4 i MEMORANDUM • TO: Susan Smith, Orange County Planning ��// PROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Officerw SUBJECT: Proposed Eubanks Road Subdivision DATE: June 4, 1985 I have reviewed the Preliminary Plan for this project and have the following comments. An Erosion Control Plan must be submitted and ap- proved prior to the beginning of construction. It appears that a drainage easement will be necessary in order to provide adequate drainage for runoff from Tanglewood Drive. The exact location of this ease- ment will depend upon the topography of the lots below the, road and the final design of the road. c: Brooks & Son Construction Company II � I - 146 New Hope Volunteer Fire Department p ment of Orange County, Inc. Station No 1 Route 2 Station No.2 Whitfield Road Chapel Hill.N.C.27514 Hwy.86 North May 29, 1985 Orange County Planning Department 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Re : Tanglewood Dr. Subdivision Tax Map 18/Lot 27B Eubanks Road (S.R. 1727) Orange County, NC Dear Sirs: The John McAdams Company of Chapel Hill , N.C. has requested that I foward a letter to you indicating fire protection to the above subdivision. Since this project is located within the New Hopei Fire Protection District, the New Hope Fire Department will provide fire protection . Sincerely, Mike Tapp, Chi New Hope Fire Department cc: Board of pirectors , New Hope Fire Dept . John McAdams Company, Inc. EC,EIVIE' j i/4 0 SOUTH ORANGE RESCUE SQUAD 14E P.0.Box A Carrboro,N.C.27510 June 30, 1985 Orange County Planning Dept. 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Sir, South Orange Rescue Squad is responsible for the Emergency Medical Service response to the area of Eubanks Road upon which The John McAdams Company plans to build a subdiv- ision. At their request, this letter is to confirm that it is within our response area and that we will be happy to respond anytime we are called to that area. If there are any ,further questions, phase feel free to contact me at any time. Sincerely, t+� Jane Brice Senior Captain South Orange Rescue Squad �,I O R A N G E C O U N T Y 14t BOARD OF COMM I S S I ONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date EnR ?I_ L,__I g 8 Act Actiontelunda SUBJECT: Marc & Sharon Connery Deed for Septic Easement Item - I DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING __Yes _X_ No Attachment (s) Information Contact : MARVIN COLLINS TO BE PROVIDED AT MEETING JANET VAN HANDEL Telephone Numbers - Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Marchand Sharon Connery have submitted a Minor Subdivision of the slot known as Chapel Hill Subdivision of the lot known as Chap',el Hill Township, Map 2 , Lot 28B. Only Lot 12 of this property has suitable soil for a septic system. Therefore a document is needed to allow Lot #1 to use the septic system on Lot #2 . Our County Attorney requested that Orange County be party to the document so the easement would not be transferable and so the easement would be permanent . NEED: The Board must accept and the Chairman sign the Deedto Septic System Easement before the Planning staff can Dap rove the Connery 's Minor Subdivision. ppoe IMPACT: A perpetual septic system easement will be in effect on lot 2 for the benefit of Lot 1 of the Connery Minor Subdivision and the Connery lot would be subdivided. RECOMMENDATION: App-rove, subject to recommendations of the County Attorney and Planning Department. The recommendations will be presented at the meeting. II • 146 NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY • This the day of _ , 19_, personally came before me who, being by me duly sworn, says that she knows the common seal of Orange County and is acquainted with , who is Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, and that she, the said , signed her name in attestation of the execution of said instrument in the presence of said Chairman of said Board of County Commissioners. Witness my hand and official seal , this the day of , 19 Notary public My commission expires; • III . 14 'I - (SEAL) (SEAL) ORANGE COUNTY DON WILLHOIT, CHAIRMAN. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF - COMMISSIONERS ATTEST (OFFICIAL SEAL) CLER1f, lORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF . COMMISSIONERS NORTH. CAROLINA COUNTY I, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that Mark Connery and wife, Sharon Connery, Grantors, personally appeared before me this day ofl , 1986 and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument . Notary Public My commission expires: I ri 1 ti Co _ --- - - --—- - --- - - ----- -- -- ---_ ._.------ - - - ---• � =-==-- -- - i-ILA-S 80R� _5 'P . CHAPEL } :. — BILL 2 I K3 7i87 %,,e •� 3i66 29T ioaRoKz-YAR�Y ARKS c FTUSCLa3 Y 2.94 AC. . � oa 180 I J r 45% 5942 N 30.Y�� I ga 291J 8894 i0.03'3A / IA t 3i37 1343AC ba� i 2 Ac 'RURAL . N _ —__ — z RA�G a�yaa 29E � — �` sa.za J 00 _ u A 8595 i ORANGE GROVE ,• � c [Tr) t. 17.1142AC• 7321 � Y 31.9325AC ?ri 15-8{,85 AC 1.76Q4AC. 13 AC. -4W3 •0892 U L7t7f33 .: p� j 91 3 • -1429 5328 8434 19 88 (1!D) 18.56 AC. .8. 39.08T AC. i l 8 27.6 JC • + y�A i. �8B C 6979 + 28E ;[ -j 23G 6.71 AC. 1.84 AC. n m N/F CLARK HEIRS °E.r a N 84°39 59 W ------ --------------------------------------- 0 ri CO ' I ° O D u'1 R A 5 84°39 54 E = 0L 30 EGRESS d INGRESS FASEMENT 479 AC. . E O Z N I'.. 606.7 0 tr y I S84°39 59 E g i r N m I m_ l 3.98 AC. O' CONTROL CORNER 1 F. I r __ 998 19' l .581°3376'�E I P " 1 i , N/F THOMPSON LANDS ;•rS ,.. UY V e"7 FINAL PLAT PROPERTY Of Q MARC A. a SHARON K. CONNERY ALAN C. 81 SYLVIA KERCKHOFF ui, ., ,r.-.^'L• ..,..,....... �...~' - �8e.co. ri>ratkHeR CHAPEL HILL TWP. ORANGE CO i NORTH CAROLINA i lOD- i "•°••^• •. . . . dE�. 85 DECEMBER 10, 1985 SCALE t*'-10d loo zoo 300 ®s OWNER: RT. 3,BOX 985, HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. k.r. CJ RT. 5, BOX 216-1, CHAPEL HILL, N.C. • COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, DICKERSON, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 110 CHL-RTON STREET HILLSBOROUGH.N.C. 272718 919-732-219G 919-942-8000 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SUITE 20. FRANKLIN BUILDING 137 E.FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL,N.C.27514 919-929-7151 January 31, 1986 ALONZO B.COLEMAN.JR. STEVEN A.BERNHOLZ DONALD R.DICKERSON ROGER B.BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL DOUGLAS HARGRAVE MARTIN J.BERNHOLZ RICHARD J.SNIDER.JR, JANE G.de LISSOVOY G.NICHOLAS HERMAN LYNN A.ANDREWS Of Couneel 1CoraLynn Harvard BONNER ID-SAWYER Attorney at Law (1902-1972) 2502 Sevier Street Durham, North Carolina 27705 Re: Connery Subdivision Septic Easement Dear CoraLynn: Thank you for your January 2.3, 1986 letter and the deed to dedicate a septic system easement which was included with the letter. I have enclosed a copy of the deed with this letter which has some suggested additions. It seems to me the septic system easement should be specifically described. The septic system easement will be shown on the plat and a reference to the plat should take care of any description problems. Please excuse my handwritten notes. It seemed to me that handling it this way would save some time. When last we spoke it was your idea that some provision should be included in the deed regarding maintenance of the septic system. This seems desirable to me. I also think the following paragraph should be included with respect to the County's acceptance of this dedication and the conditions of acceptance. Orange County, party of the second part, accepts the dedication of the perpetual septic system easement granted herein by the Connerys for the purpose of ensuring its perpetual nature. Orange County, by accepting this dedication, disclaims all responsibility for the installation and the maintenance of the septic system, which installation and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the owners of the property described in the above referenced recorded plat as their interests may appear. ti • . 53 . CoraLynn Harward Page Two January 31, 1986 I have also enclosed a revised signature page to ,incorporate County execution of this document. By copy of this letter to Janet Van Handel I would ask her to request this item be placed on the Board of County Commissioner's agenda for Board approval . Very truly yours, 4 ./ �eo�f. = E. Gledhill GEG/lsg Enclosures cc: Janet Van Hande i II � I � I � II - I I f I i I ' I Prepared by: CORALYNN Y. HARWARb, 2502 Sevier St., Durham, SC 27705 I I • . NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY DEED TO DEDICATE SEPTIC SYSTEM EASEMENT R This deed, made this ._ay of , 1986, by and between Mark Connery and wife, Sharon Connery, both of Orange County, North Carolina, parties I of the first part; and Orange County, North Carolina, party of the second part; I . .• SJITNESSETH: I That whereas, said parties of the first part are the owners of a certain tract of land lying on the eastern side of old Highway No. 86, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, the same being the land conveyed to .,R ? them by Alan C. Kerckhoff and wife, Sylvia Kerckhoff by deed recorded in Book I at Page_ in the office of the Register of Deeds of Orange County, which -:`.• deed is hereby-referred to for greater certainty of description; and whereas, said parties of the first part desire to subdivide said tract of land in ac- , 1 I cordance with survey entitled . • dated , by , Registered Land Surveyor, recorded in Plat Book , Page , Register of Deeds of Orange County to which reference is hereby made for a more particular description; and said party of the second part has agreed to the subdivision upon the condition that j parties of the first. part dedicate a septic system easement for said tract. Now, therefore, said parties of the first part, for and in consideration �� of subdivision approval by the party of the second part do hereby dedicate perpetual septic system easementOor said tract; it being agreed that the 1 1 right and easement hereby dedica ed runs with the land now oJned b • y parties , of the first part. In testimony whereof, said .arties of the first part have hereunto set qtheir hands and seals the day an year first above written, i •• i (SEAL.) 1 (SEAL) , NORTH CAROLINA y.W.4et46±4(4-.4 Q,.�l c.--- -. '.: ORANGE COUNTY �(7 O , I, a Notary Public of the County and state aforesaid, certify that n ..- • - y hat .lark Connery and wife, Sharon Connery, Grantors, personally appeared before me this 1 day of , 1986. .. My My Commission expires: Notary Public l i j I i I i I . .;;I I el ORANGE COUNTY 155 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Da t e EEEREBRY_1$4._19$St Action nda- SUBJ.ECT: EFLAND SEWER PROJECT - LAND USE POLICY IMPLICATIONS _ DEPARTMENT: PLANNING - PUBLIC HEARING __Yes _�_ No Attachments) Information Contact : GENE BELL MEMO FROM DR. ALICE GORDON EXCERPT FROM 5-6-85 BOCC MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To review the land use policy implications of Alternates A, B, and C of the Efland Sewer project . NEED: The need to review such policy implications was identified by Dr. ALice Gordon, Chair , Orange County Planning Board (see attached memo) and by Planning Board member Carl Walters and Commissioner Shirley Marshall at the 5-6-85 BOCC meeting ( see attached minutes) . IMPACT: Proposed construction of a 12 inch gravity sewer line along McGowan Creek north of Efland would make it possible to extend gravity sewer to an extensive area of 20 Year Transition in the west Orange area. Such extensions raise serious land use issues related to the pace, timing, amount , type , and impact of development . RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board' s position will be presented verbally at the Board of Commissioners meeting. _ _ . 15€ MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners From: Alice Gordon.Chair,Planning Board AM G— Subject: Revised Preliminary Report-Eland Sewer Date: May 6,1985 According to your May 6 agenda you®ill be making a decision concerning the findings p esented by Hazen and Sawyer in the Revised Preliminary Report-Efland Sewer. The base bid appears to be essentially the same as that previously approved by the County.I However,alternatives A,B,and C appear to have policy implications that have not been addressed by either the Orange County Planning Board or the Board of County Commissioners. Therefore,the purpose of this memorandum is to request that,before alternatives A,B,and C are considered for action by the Commissioners,these alternatives be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation. 3oca l M' iu-r-t5 . 3_ Chair Willhoit suggested ' as a- way to recover some of the cost in running the line through Orange Heights would be to request the Town give the equivalent amount of money that the County would lose for not charging a tan fee to the project and turn over future tap fees to the system in that area until that amount of money is recouped.' Kenneth Thompson indicated that a possible tradeoff would be for the County to waive the tap fee in Orange Heights in return for the Taan waiving the blanket tap fee which is in the rate structure at five cents..of the $1.16 per thousand gallons to be raid back in thirteen years; Don Cox, Chair of the Soil and Water Conservation District Board, ' endorsed the proposed engineering plan. It-would enable the County to serve those areas as designated and enable an economical way to provide sewer for everything north to Lebanon Church Road; He Pointed out two long term impacts for the opportunities presented by options A, B, and C: (1) Residential development north. of McGowan Creek and (2) The temporary problems of siltation draining into Corporation Lake and Lake Ben Johnson.' With regard to the Neuse Basin and the nutrient sensitive aspects he suggested the possibility of small units of government or some utility supplier opting for land dispersion or secondary treatment affluent instead of stream dispersion whereby this. - luent would be used as a resource; Chair Willhoit noted that while he does not object to land dispersion, the limited amount of time due to the consent order prevented the pursuance of this application. Carl ,Walters, representing the Orange County Planning Board, commented that the base plan is similar to that presented by McAdams; Alternate "A", "B", or "C" extends into the water quality critical area and there is a policy not to extend the sewer into the water quality critical area.' Walters asked that if Alternate "A", "B" or "C" is adopted that the Planning Board be requested to review the plan; ChairlWilihoit questioned the line going into the water quality critical area and after reviewing the map it was determined that no connections would be made in the water quality critical area; Commissioner Marshall indicated that Alternates "A", "B" and "C" do have planning implications and asked that if these alternates are considered that they be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation on the planning implications; The gravity sewer opens up the area to the north which is in the 20-year transition area; ChairrrWillhoit suggested going with the base and expanding the base by $50,000 to include as many of the committed customers as possible. Commissioner Marshall suggested meeting with Hillsborough to reach an agreement on Orange Heights; It was agreed to add $25,000 to the $50,000 committed for the school; Hazen', and Sawyer will take the base bid, review the customers that have made a commitment, and include as many of those as possible in the Project that $75,000 will allow; Commissioner Walker expressed concern for those who have made commitments and will not be included in the first phase of the project and again questioned the commitment made by the County; Commissioner Marshall noted that if the County must serve all those who signed the contract agreement a referendum would be needed to do the project if done in one phase. It was a consensus that Hazen and Sawyer would present the report to 'aiiA indicating (Orange County's commitment to go with the base bid and as many of the committed customers that 1.154 million will finance. The go-ahead for the engineering design will be postponed pending a final contract with the Tian of Hillsborough; Although alternates are not y:A consic'era' at the prr,...,nt fit. '.)� __ I 1 ORANGE COUNT . HOARD. OF CO �'�1ISSIONERS ACTION AGLi'Or'� ACTION AGP:PEUA ITEK ABSTRACT ITEM 11014_4__L • MEETING DATE •Fchriar418, 1986_- , 156 SUBJECT : School Fund Balance Policy - DEP,IRTi iEC;T: Finance ' I PUBLIC HEARING: YES X PzO ATTACI IEP:_r($) - IPIFORFIAI IQ�! CONTACT_ Finance Director ext. 496 .Recommended Policy on Fund Balance PHONE NUMBERS HILLSBOROUGH - 73?-818- of School Systems. .1 HILLSBOROUGH �,�2-93S- . ' CHAPEL HILL — 967•-925; • ' IIEBANE - 227--203' • DURHAM - 688-733 PURPOSE: It was decided at the last budget session for 1985-86 'that a policy be developed 'regarding the level of _fund balance available but unappropriated _ • that .should be maintained by the two school systems. The attached recommend= • • ation is a follow-up to that decision. • - • • . NEED: Each year during the budget deliberations, the question arises as to the _ _ appropriate amount of fund balance available but unappropriated that each school system should maintain. .A predetermined level that has been agreed upon by the County CommiSsioners .and the Boards of Education Would simplify-- the process to determine the County's appropriations for the schools. . I • • IMPACT: • RE C•C) ' " END ATI U. (S) : Adopt the policy as outlined in the attached recommendation. 5 as �oaaty of ib�Ot �+.^ rd9 7wl FINANCE DEPARTMENT Opt esTe Q ORANGE COUNTY GORDON R. BAKER DIRECTOR To: County Commissioners From: Finance Director Subject: Recommended Policy on Fund Balance of-School Systems. Date: February 13, 1986 During - ring the 19$5 86 'budget process, it was decided that a policy should be developed regarding the appropriate amount of fund balance available but unappropriated that each school system should maintain. This policy would be agreed upon by the County Commissioners and the Boards of Education. This recommended policy regarding the fund balance applies to the local current expense fund and addresses the maximum amount of fund balance available but unappropriated that each system should have at the beginning of each fiscal year. The school systems 'should maintain only the fund balance necessary to meet their cash flow.needs and to make relatively minor adjustments in their appropriations during the year. The Local Government Commission monitors the fund balance of the General Fund of all tax levying units of government in North Carolina. They have established a policy that such units of government should maintain each fiscal year a General Fund fund balance available in an amount equal to at least 8% of the total expenditures of the General Fund for the year. The expenditures on which this 8% is computed includes the County's expenditures for the school systems' local current expense as Well as for their capital outlay. Thus, in meeting the Local Government Commission's minimum standard of 8%, the County's fund balance avail- able for the General Fund includes a substantial amount that is related to expen- ditures for the school systems. The Local Government Commission does not have such a minimum standard for the school systems themselves. One can conclude from this that they, rely on the counties to maintain an adequate fund balance level for the school systems. The superintendent and the finance director for Orange County Schools have expressed their desire to build the fund balance available but unappropriated in the local current expense fund to a level of $120,000. This amount would equal approximately 2.7% of the budgeted expenditures in this fund for 1985-86 as originally adopt'ed. Based on the fact that Orange County Schools receive the major portion of their local current expense revenue from the County in an equal amount each month, and using the County's 8% minimum standard as a gauge, a 2.7% fund balance level should be adequate. 106 EAST MARGARET LANE • HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 • 919/732-8181 16L The Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools rely on the supplemental school district tax in addition to the monthly County appropriation. The supplemental tax is approximately 1/3 of their local current expense fund revenues and is received primarily during the months of January and Februar7. Because of this reliance on the district tax and again, using the County's 8% minimum standard as a gauge, a 5.5% fund balance level should be adequate for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools. In addition to my own analyses of the above percentages, I have discussed the fund balance level appropriate for school systems with others in state and local government who are familiar with school and county finances. The consensus was that the fund balance level for school systems should be somewhat lower than that of the County's 8% standard and that a system relying on a supplemental tax would need a higher level than otherwise necessary. Based on my analyses and discussions, I recommend that the following policies be established: 1. Orange County Schools begin each fiscal year, to the extent possible, with fund balance available but unappropriated in the local current expense fund that is equal to no more than 2.7% of the budgeted expenditures in that fund for that year, and; 2. Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools begin each fiscal year, to the extent possible, with a fund balance available but unappropriated in the local current expense fund that is equal to no more that 5.5% of the budgeted expenditures in that fund for that year. It must be noted that, based on the local current expense budgets as originally adopted for 1985-86, Orange County Schools fund balance level was approximately $86,000 short of the level recommended in this draft policy. Also, Chapel Hill- Carrboro Schools fund balance level was approximately $204,000 short of the recommended level. Considering the federal cut-back in assistance to local governments, the County should not be expected to build-up the school systems fund balance levels in one fiscal year. I recommend that this be accomplished gradually over a period of several fiscal years. . ORANGE COUNTY 161 . BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM N0.N q 1 MEETING DATE February 18,1986 SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Execution of Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program Annual Contributions Contract. 19T1T: Housing/Community Developments 1._ PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: TARA FIKE, X 425 HUD Resolution PHOME NU�•1BE RS: IHI LLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 - Annual Contributions Contract for HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 Section 8 Vouchers Program CHAPEL HILL - 961--9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 -� I'URPOSL: To consider adopting a resolution authorizing execution of Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Annual Contribution Contract for Housing Vouchers Program. NEED: The County's application of May 14, 1985 for thirty (30) additional units to be assisted by Housing Assistance Payments (through Housing Vouchers) was approved by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)on September 10, 1985. This allocation • will enable the County to issue Housing Vouchers to tenant families for residence in units to be rehabilitated through the Rental Rehabilitation Programs being administered by the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The Annual Contributions Contract is an agreement between the County and HUD which establishes/provides housing assistance payments for the ''30 units. IMPACT: Provide rental assistance to eligible applicants in the Rental Rehabilitation Program in Carrboro and Chapel Hill. • • RECOMMENDATION(S)!, Adopt resolution. . . .. . ..,.,,.,._,.w� __. _. .....-�... _..._. ....,..._._.� it RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRACT Whereas, the Orange County Housing Authority (herein called the "PHA") proposes to enter into an Annual Contributions Contract (herein called the "Contract") with the United States of America, Department of Housing and Urban Development (herein called the "Government"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the PHA as follows: Section 1. The Contract, numbered Contract No. A-2903 is hereby approved and accepted both as to form and substance and the Chair of Bd of Commissioners is hereby authorized and directed (Title of Officer) to execute said Contract in triplicate on behalf of the PHA, and the Clerk to the Uc of Commissionerds hereby authorized and directed to (Title of Officer) impress and-attest the official seal of the PHA on each such counterpart and to forward said executed counterparts to the Government together with such other documents evidencing the approval and authorizing the execution thereof as may be required by the Government. Section 2. The ,:;unto Manager is hereby authorized (Title of Officer) to filewith the Government from time to time, as monies are required, requisitions together with the necessary supporting document, for payment under the Contract. Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRACT Whereas, the Orange County Housing Authority (herein called the "PHA") proposes to enter into an Annual Contributions Contract (herein called the "Contract") with the United States of America, Department of Housing and Urban Development (herein called the "Government"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the PHA as follows: Section 1. The Contract, numbered Contract No. A-2903 is hereby approved and accepted both as to form and substance and the Chair of Bd of Commissioners is hereby authorized and directed (Title of Officer) to execute said Contract in triplicate on behalf of the PHA, and the Clerk to the Bd of Commissionerss hereby authorized and directed to (Title of Officer) impress and- attest the official seal of the PHA on each such counterpart and to forward said executed counterparts to the Government together with such other documents evidencing the approval and authorizing the execution thereof as may be required by the Government. Section 2. The County Manager is hereby authorized (Title of Officer) to file with the Government from time to time, as monies are required, requisitions together with the necessary supporting document, for payment under the Contract. Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. I _ 1 ACC Part I Number: A-2903- V U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT SECTION 8 E XlSTIN G ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRACT—PART I for HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM LL DEFINITIONS. A. ACC. Annual Contributions Contract. B. Fiscal Year. The PHA Fiscal Year as specified in section L2.B of this ACC Part I. C. HUD. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. D. 1 Maximum Annual Contribution Commitment. The amount of contract authority preserved by B U D for a project The amount of contract authority reserved for each project in the Horsing Voucher Program is stated in Exhibit I of this ACC Part I (subject to reduction in accordance with section L3.E and section 2.3 of this ACC). E. PHA. Public Hosing Agency. F. Program. The PHA's Housing Voucher Program. G. Program Receipts. Amounts paid by HUD to the PHA under this ACC for the Housing Voucher Program, and any other amounts received by the PHA in connection with the Program. H. Program Expenditures. Amounts which may be charged against Program Receipts in accordance with the ACC and HUD requirements. L2. HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM. A. Projects. The Program under this ACC corrists of the projects listed in Exhibit I of this ACC Part I, each of which represents a funding increment for the Program. Page 1 of 5 pages HUD 52520 D (June 1985) B. PEA Fiscal Year. The Fiscal Year far the Program shall be the 12-month period ending December 31 aE each calendar year. &t the day and month used as the Fiscal Year ending date for other section 8 assistance administered by the PHA under an ACC with HUD.) L3. ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION. A. P ym ent. BUD shall pay the PEA annual cortribut for s far the prcr�ects in the Program in acccrdanc a with HUD regulatiors and tequirem ents. _ B. Term. Payments an account cf the annual aontrib Liars for each proieCt may only be made during a term of five years, and shall not be made after the end of the five year term. The term for each project begins when HUD makes the first advance to the PHA an account of the annual cunt ik lions far the project. After BUD makes the first advance for a project, BUD may enter the first and last dates of the ACC term far the project an Exhibit I cf this A CC Part L The Exhibit I as revised by HUD shall aormtitute an amendment cf the ACC Part I, and the revised Exhibit I supersedes any previous Exhibit I far the Program. C. IA mount and Purpose. The annual contribution far the Program fcr a Fiscal Year shall be the sum cf the amounts paid an account cf the annual oar buticn far each of the projec*s in the Program. The annual contribution for the Program shall be in the amount approved by BUD for the Fiscal Year to cover: L The amount of housing ass ante payments by the PEA. 2 The amount of PHA costs for Program ad ra inistrati n. ,T re am ourt of the annual contributions by HUD may be reduced, as _ determined by HUD, by the amount of Program Receipts (such as interest income) other than annual contributions. D. Maximum Annual Cctrtdbuti n Coinmitment fcr Project Except for payments from the ACC reserve account as provided in section L 3.F of this ACC, or far payments under section L3.G, the annual contribution payment by BUD far a project for a Fiscal Year shall not be mare than the M axi m u m Annual Contribution Com m itm eat for the project Such Maximum Annual Contribution Com mitment I shall be available during the five Fiscal Years beginning with the Fiscal Year when BUD makes the first advance to the PHA on account cf the annual coons for the project. E. Reduction of Amount Payable. BUD may reduce the amount cf the annual woes payable by HUD fcr any project ar fox the Program, and may reduce the amount of the contract.authority fcr any project, by giving the PHA written notice of reduction in accordance with section 2.3 of this ACC. The notice by HUD may include a revision of Exhibit I of this ACC Part I to reflect the Page 2 of 5 pages BUD 52520 D (June 19E5) I - • 1610 suction in the amount of contract authority for a project. BUD Notice of the revision shall ooristitube an a Exhibit hit the and the revised Exhibit I supersedes any pr evn xch Program. F. ACC Reserve Account. An ACC rwerve acool.sit may be established and maintained by HUD in an amount as determined by BUD. The ACC reserve account may be used by BUD fer payment of any portion of the annual coritzeibutiun payment approved by BUD. G. P• - •• ' Procedures: Prelim' = Fee Repel • • PHA. _ In addition to the :swim um annual contribution com matzo ent under sectico 1.3.1D, and payments from the ACC reserve account under section L3.F, BUD may approve additional annual contribution -payments ba the PHA for the purpose of paying preliminary fees to °'per PHA acting as Receiving PEA in accordance With BUD requirements under the portability procedures. H. Limit on Total Payments for Project. The total of annual — payments by HUD for each project Ong any payments from the ACC reserve account es provided in sew 1.3.F, but not including any payments under section 1.3.G) small rot be more than five times the Maximum Annual Contribution Com mitm ent for the project. 3..4. ACC. A. This ACC for the Program c orEL is of this ACC Part I (including Exhikxit I) and the form ACC Fait II prescribed by BUD for the Housing Certificate Program and Housing Voucher Program, designated as form BUD 52520 E, and dated June 3.985. The dca rr.en corestate the whole ACC fcr the Frog a m. I - Page 3 of 5 pages HUD 52520 D (June 3.985) ii B. This ACC any previous A C Cs far the Program. Matters relating to operation ct the Program under a previous ACC Shall be governed by this ACC. (SEAL) Signatures ATTEST: PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY (Official Title) ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Name of PHA By Signature Date signed • _ _ Print or type name and official title of signatory UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3LCRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT By Signature Date signed Print or type name and official title of signatory • - _ I I -- li II Page 4 of 5 pages BUD 52520 D (dune 1985) i I w 113 ACC Part I Number: A-2903- V EXHIBIT I PROJECT CONTRACT FIRST DATE LAST DATE NUMBER AUTHORITY ( OF TERM OF TERM - I I NC19-V104-001, 33,601 .00 NC19-V104-002 100,803.00 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SECRETARY I OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Date signed Page 5 of 5 pages HUD 52520 D (June 1985) f '4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. n Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 18, 1986 SUBJECT: JOB TRAINING PLAN SUMMARY FOR PROGRAM YEAR 1986-1987 DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 JOB TRAINING PLAN SUMMARY TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider approving the Central Piedmont Service Delivery Are.: Job Training Plan Summary for Program Year 1986/87. NEED: On February 11 y , 1986, the Central Piedmont Private Industry Council (PIC) approved the Job Training Plan Summary. In accor dance with the consortium agreement, all units of government i the Central Piedmont Consortium are require to approve the pla beforelsubmission to the State Division of Employment and Train ing. The plan does not address concerns unique to the County an. previously discussed by the Board in December, 1985. The con cerns Aare: expanded program outreach, an additional trainin. site in the County, participant transportation, improved finan cial reporting and increased coordination with County agencies. Bob Ferguson, Director of Central Piedmont Employment and Train ing will provide verbal and written response. Written response will be forwarded under separate cover. IMPACT: The Job Training Plan Summary outlines the financial commitment for all upcoming program activities. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve'IJob Training Plan Summary for Program Year 1986/87. r 17CI CENTRAL PIEDMONT DEPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM PROGRAM YEAR 86-87 SDA JOB TRAINING PLAN SUMMARY I. Political (Jurisdiction Counties of Durham and Orange II. Grant Recipient/Administrative Entity City of Durham III. Local Goals and Objectives _ The Job Training Partnership Act under the auspicies of the Central Piedmont Employment and Training Office will conduct programs during 1986-1987 to provide educational enhancement, occupational training and private sector employment opportunities to Durham and Orange County citizens. The program will provide these opportunities to the eligible unemployed and/or economically disadvantaged populace within the service delivery area within the confines of the federal law and prescribed regulations. The Service Delivery area will furnish training opportunities ranked among the highest annual job needs in the SDA. Skill instruction through classroom activity, employer-based training, remedial education, school dropout prevention assistance, job placement for offenders, job referral and job search direction will be the key resources utilized to attain planned goals. These endeavors have been targeted as viable methods to assist individuals in attaining marketable skills for -permanent, unsub- sidized jobs with sufficient wages and sound work conditions pursuant to the goals of JTPA. Fund expenditures also include vocational career and personal cunseling. The State's goals and objectives and the mandates of the Governor's Job Training policy under Executive Order 93 will be addressed by assertively pursuing and actively encouraging the cooperation of local employers, educational and training institutions, state agencies and social service deliverers in the planning and implementation of all program activities: Linkages of this nature will enhance the selection process of local employers by providing a larger, more competent and productive labor force. The SDA will focus on disadvantaged youth 16-21, high school drop- .: outs, public assistance recipients, offenders, the handicapped and disadvantaged adults as prime target groups in need of comprehensive services. i"71 JTPA PROGRAM BUDGET SUMMARY July 1, 1986 - June 30, 1987 Estimated New Resource Carry-over Funding Available Budget II-A $ 40,000 $382,343 $422,343 Incentive 64,400 64,000 $ 40,000 $446,743 $486,743 $ 486,743 II-B $127,950 $349,184 $477,134 $ 477,134 Cost Pool Ir-A $ 40,000 $ 67,472 $107,472 Incentive 27,600 27,600 II-B 33,861 33,861 $ 40,000 $128,933 $168,933 $ 168,933 Grand Total $207,950 $924,860 $1,132,810 $1,132,810 .•al e - JTPA II-A i TRAINING PROGRAM SUMMARY 1986-87 # Served Activity Type - Budget Title II-A Institutional Skill Training 60 Claims Clerk & Retail Sales Staff Cost $2,580 , Staff Travel 155 Rent Expense 255 Other Related Trng. 2,425 Tuition Fees 297 Books 750 • $6,432 X 4 Classes $25,728 • Transportation 60 X 11 wks. X $10.00 6,600 30 Electronic Manufacturing Staff $3,450 . ••• Travel 50 Rent 1,050 - . Other Trnng. 1,350 Tuition Fees 297 6,197 X 4 Classes X 50% 12,394 Transportation 60 X 6 wks. X. $10.00 X 50% 1,800 , 59 Individual Referral 17,920 - Transportation 9,188 Institutional Skill Training 15 ABE (Adult Basic Education) 15 students X $42 each 630 Transportation 15 X 11 wks. X $6,25 1,032 DTI Coordination Staff - $37,690 - Travel 1,236 Office Expense 500 Equip. Repairs 350 Telephone 1,800 Alarm System 700 $42,276 42,276 . • I I • 17 # Served Activity Type Budget Exemplary Youth Programs _ 80 Dropout Prevention - 2 schools @ $18,025 each 36,050 24 On-the-Job Training @ approximately $2,340 per participant 56,302 Services Only Programs: 52 ESC Offenders Program . @ $423 per participant 22,000 100 Durham Chamber of Commerce - $454 per placement 45,400 Day Care Reserve 5,000 Total Served 420 Total Program Cost $282,320 Training Staff - Salary & Fringe 170,923 Operational Cost 33,500 Total II-A Program. Budget 486,743 II -2- ..17PA II-B 174 1986 Summer Youth Employment Training Program (SYETP) SERVED ACTIVITY TYPE BUDGET AMOUNT Work Experience 183 Durham County Wage & Fringe Benefits $188,856 78 Orange County Wage & Fringe Benefits 80,496 Basis: 40 hrs. X 3.35 = $134.00 Fringe Benefits 102 = 13.40 $147.40 $147.40 X 7 wks. = $1,031.80 Work Experience/Remedial Education 20 Durham County Wage & Fringe Benefits 64,856 20 Orange County Wage & Fringe Benefits 64,856 Basis: 40 hrs. X 3.35 = $134.00 Fringe Benefits 10% = 13.40 $147.40 $147.40 X 22 wks. = $3,242.80 Training Staff Salary & Fringe Benefits 52,475 (8 counselors, 2 drivers, 5 eligibility/ counselors, 1 assessment/regional aide) Operational Cost 19,595 Services to Participants Van Rental 4,500 Bus Passes 1,500 $477,134 I - I 175 JTPA COST POOL 1986 - 1987 Administrative Salaries & Fringe $103,406 Indirect Cost 26,527 . Operational Cost 39,000 Total Administrative Cost $168,933 ORANGE COUNTY 176 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date EEBR Y_1$}_1211_ Act ion 4 nda Item t=____ SUBJECT: 1985 SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY, PLANNING BOARD/DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _X_ No Attachment (s) Information Contact : Janet Van Handel Building Permits 1985 and 1985/86 Comparison Major Subdivisions 1985 Minor Subdivisions 1985 Exempt Plats July 1985-December 1985 Rezonings , PDs ,Clasls A SUPs 1985 Land Use Plan Amendments 1985 Board of Adjustment Cases 1985 Violations 1985 Ordinance Amendments 1985 Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To inform the Board as to departmental activity in the calender year 1985. NEED: IMPACT: R.ECOMMENDAT I ON: i i BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED 1985 [RAW NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES] SF SF-add HH MF NR NR-odd POOL BARN SIGN WALL OTHER TOTAL Little River 18[4.5) 10[5,21 25[4.7) -0- -0- 2(4.4) 3(16.61 2120,01 M2.51 -0- -a- 59[5.01 Cedar Grove 16(5.31 10[5,2) 33(6.31 -0- 1[6.6) -D- -0- -0- -D- -0- 9*• 84[5.41 - f Cheeks 24(8.7) 79[9.8) 92117.51 -0- 1(6:6) 5[11.1} 1[5.6) i Hillsborough Township 91126.31 28(13.5) 77{14.6] 4(80.01* 2{11.1) 5(11 .1) 1[6.61 -0- -0- -0- -0- 206 117.61 Town of Hillsborough 22(6.11 22(11.51 4217,9) -0- 9(50.0) 20[82.21 1[5.61 -0- 4(59,0) -0- -a- 128{10.8) Eno 30[8.4) 21[19.91 76114.41 -0- 8[16.61 318.71 -9- 1[19,01 -0- 1 1** 136(11.4) Bingham 55[15.31 18(9,9) 01(16,41 -0- 115.61 1(2.2) 2(90.2) 1(10,0) -0- 1 -0- 161(13,51 Chapel Hill 703;28,7) 86(33.9) 101[19.21 1[20.01 1i5,61 1[2.2) 10[65.5) 6{60.0) 2(25.0) 1 2** 282[24.6i s Total 359 192 527 5 16 45 16 10 8 3 4 1189 [30,2) 116.1) 144.31 101 11.51 (3,8) 11.51 [<11 {<1) [<11 (0) (190.0) 'Percentage down is permit type issued in township/permit type isued in county Totsl percentage down is permits issued in township/total permit:s issued in county Totat parcontaga across is permits issued by type in tawnahip/totat permits isauad *3B MFDU in Hillsborough Twp., 2 MFDU in Chapel Hitt ** A tower in Eno, zoning permit in Chapat Hilt, eateltits diehas in Cedar GFoveand Chapel Hill i c ' CHANGES IN NUMBER OF BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED, 1984-55 NSW SINGLE FAMILY UNITS '84 '85 % Change Little River 31 18 -48.3 Ceder Glen 17 18 +11.7 Cheeks 19 24 +26.3 Hillsborough ('township) 55 91 +65.5 Hillsborough lsborough (Itown) 17 22 +29.4 Eno 30 30 _0_ Biinghem 53 55 + 3.8 Chmpe L Hill 114 102 -10.5 TOTAL 338 359 + 6.8 MOBILE HOMES Little River 24 25 + 4.1 Ceder Glen 27 33 +22.2 Cheeks 66 92 +39,4 Hittaborough (township) 80 77 - 3.7 Hillsborough (town) 38 42 +18.7 Eno 81 78 - 8.1 Bingham 75 81 + 8.0 Chapel Hill 77 101 +31.1 TOTAL 466 527 +13.1 . TOTAL BUILDING P§FRMITS ISS% D Little River 67 59 -11.9 Ceder Glen 64 84 -0- Cheeks 112 143 +27.7 Hillsborough (township) 166 206 +24.1 Hillsborough (town) 129 128 + 0.7 Eno 145 136 - 6.2 Bingham 176 161 - 8.5 Chapel Hill 272 292 + 7.4 TOTAL 1131 1189 + 5.1 TOTAL BUILDIN PERMITS ISSUED BY TOWNSHIP AS % OF COUTY TOTAL, Little River 5.9% 5.0% -0.9 Cedar Glen 5.7% 5.4% -0.3 Cheeks 9.9% 12.0% +2.1 Hi lllsborough Township 14.7% 17.6% +2.9 Town of Hillsborough 11 .4% 10.8% -0.6 • Eno 12.8% 11.4% -1 .4 Bingham 15.6% 13.5% -2.1 Chapel Hilt 24.0% 24.6% +0,8 1985 MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS Type of Date # of Total Lot Water Supply Type of Water & Name of Subdivision Approval Approved Lots Township Type of Road Acerage Sizes Watershed &.Sewer System 1 . C. Norman & Peggy Preliminary 12-17-84 3 Little Corner of SR 1519 9.98 ac. 3.32 Individual wells Walker Final 2-18-85 River and SR 1508 2.76 Septic Tanks 3.90 cr- 2. Mary Ruth Woods Preliminary 1-7-85 6 Eno Corner of Sr 1561 10.56ac. 1.76 Individual wells Final 2-18-85 and SR 1562 ave. Septic Tanks 3. Richard C. & Bonita Preliminary 3-6-85 2 Cheeks SR 1341 10.2 ac. 5.0 ac.Upper Eno Individual Wells Roemmich Final 3-18-85 5.2 Septic Tanks 4.Warren Summey Sr. Preliminary 3-6-85 2 Eno SR 1554 4.631.3ac. 1,7982ac. Individual Wells Final 3-18-85 S.Peeler Creek Preliminary 3-6-85 8 Bingham Peeler Creek Rd. 16.16 ac. 2.02 Univ.: Lk. Individual Wells Final 4-15-85 Private Class B ave. Septic Tanks leading to SR 1948 6.Loretta Smith Preliminary 4-1-85 1 Cheeks SR 1346 7.00 ac 7.0Oac.Upper Eno Individual Well Final 4-19-85 Septic Tank ].North Dixie Sec. 11 Preliminary 1-7-85 6 Hills SR 1395 2 ac. .25 ac. Hillsborough Final 5-20-85 ave. Water & Sewer $,Wildwood Section 11 Preliminary 11-7-83 14 Hills George Anderson Dr.3.O8 ac. .22 ac Hillsborough Phase 5 Final 5-20-65 Walter Clark Drive ave. Water & Sewer Public Roads constructed to State Standards 9.Fox Meadow Sec. 11 Preliminary 7-2-84 12 CH Tallyho Trail 8 13.5lac. 1.13 ac. Individual Wells Final 5-20-85 Lair Ct. Public ave. Septic Tanks Roads constructed to State Standards 1O.Sturbridge Preliminary 9-4=84 8 CH Sturbridge Lane 21 ac. 2.63 ac.Univ. Lk. Individual Wells Final 5-20-85 Public. Road con- ave. Septic Tanks strutted to State staftdards 11 .Mel-Oaks Preliminary 5-17-85 15 CH Mel-Oak Drive 19.53ac. 1.30 ac.Univ. Lk. individual Wells Final 5-20-85 Public road con- ave. Septic Tanks strutted to State Standards 12.Chapel Hill Preliminary 5-17-84 7 C" Chip Lane 20 ac. 2.86 ac. Individual Wells 'ndusteial Park Final 5 20 85 Pilvate Clubs C ave. Septic a s leading to SR 1727 9985 MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS Type of Date # Of Total Lot Water Supply Type of Water ;Name of Subdivision Approval Approyed'Lots Township Type of Road Average Sizes Watershed &Sewer System 13. James Hill Realty Preliminary 7-01-85 6 Cheeks frontage on 31 .3ac. 5.22 Individual Well ' Final 7-15-85 Mill Creek Rd. Sit 1343 ave. Septic Tank 14. Indian Springs Preliminary 7-01-85 12 Bingham Indian Springs RU 20.13 ac. 1.68ave. Individual Well Final 7-15-85 Private C1.B leading to SR 1005 Septic Tank 15. Forrester Bend Preeli-mina_r_y--]-01-$5_ _4_—_-Little_ f_ron-tage_on-NC57 3.71 ac-.---.92,--- Individual--We 1-1-' Section Two Final 7-15-85 River .92, .93, .94 ac. . Septic Tank 16. Quinn Subdivision Preliminary 6-03-85 4 Bingham Ryan Road Private 10.7 ac. 2.5, University Lk. lndividual Well ; Final 7-15-85 Class C leading to 2.5,2.6,3. 1 ac. Septic Tank SR 1103 17. Kenny Martin Preliminary 7-01-85 3 Bingham pDaylight Drive 4.15 ac. 1 .623 University Lk. individual Wellr Final 8-19-85 Lea�Ing aasEvsaCLane Pv. Cl . A9 h acting to NC 54 Septic Tank 18. Nanco Woods Preliminary 6-03-85 2 Chapel Frontage on 7.3 ac. 5 ac. University Lk. 1ndividual ±fells. Final 8-19-85 Hill Sit 2047 2.3 Spptic Tank 19. Leonard Wilson Preliminary 8-05-85 9 Little Frontage on 9.73 ac 1 .08ac. Individual Well ' Final 8-19-85 River SR 1548 Average Septic Tank 20. Wedgewood Section Preliminary 8-05-85 4 Cheeks Blue Jasper Lane 10.19 ac. 2.35 ac.Upper Eno Individual b1e11 : Two Final . 9-03-85 Pr. Cl. B leading to 3.22,1 .95,2.67 Septic Tank SR 1306 21. Stormy Acres Preliminary 6-03-$5 6 Chapel Rutoni Drive 10.9 ac. 1 .82 ac. Individual Well . Final 8-19-85 H.i,l.l Pr. Cl. A leading Average Septic Tank to SR 1129 22. Wildwood Sec. II Preliminary 11-7-85 13 Hills. Judah Benjamin Ct. 2.9 ac. .22 ac. Public Water & Phase 413 Final 8-19-85 Public to be Average Sewer constructed to state standards 23. Wildwood Se. II Preliminary 11-7-83 6 Hills. George Anderson Dr.1 .38ac. .23 ac. Public Water S Phase 6A Final 8-19-85 Public to be Average Sewer constructed to state standards 24. Patricia R. Enoch Preliminary 8-05-85 1 Cheeks Frontage on 16.97ac. 1 .3940 Upper Eno Individual Well ' Final 9-16-85 SR 1310 Spptic Tank I.i 1985 MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS Type of Date # Of Total Lot Water Supply Type of Water F Name of Subdivision Approval Approyed 'Lots Township Type of Road Acerage�Sizes Watershed Sewer System y; 25. Alma C. Wagoner Preliminary 9-03-85 1 Cedar Frontage on 11 .48 1 .0 ac. Cane Creek Individual Well Final 9-16-85 Grove SR 1177 Septic Tank 26. C. Bunn Pope Jr. Preliminary 9-02-85 1 Cedar Frontage on NC86 2.6351ac 2.6351ac Individual Well 1{1 Final 9-16-85 Grove & SR 1506 Septic Tank 27. C. Bunn Pope Jr. Preliminary 9-02-85 5 Cedar Frontage on 21 ac. 4.2ac. Individual Well. - Grove --SR-1508--- - --- Average - ------Septi-c-Tank---- .- 28. North Fork Phase II Preliminary 8-05-85 12 Little Fork Drive 12.74ac. 1.06ac. Individual Well Final 9-16-85 River Pubiiic to be Average Septic Tank constructed to state standards - ; �9. Annie Mae F. Edwards Preliminary 7-i-85 2 Chapel Nora Way 5.53 ac. 1.49 ac.University Individual well and Joseph Edwards Final 10-21-$5 Hill Private Class C 4.04 ac. Lake Septic Tank Off SR 1945 30. John & Vida Preliminary 9-30-$5 1 Hills SR -1555 4.6 ac. 4.6 ac. Individual we] IL Tubiolo Final 10-21-85 Miller Road Septic Tank 31. Heron Pond Preliminary 11-4-85 8 Bingham Heron Pond Dr. 26.714 ac. 3.0$ ac. Individual well. Final 11-1$-$5 Private Class B Average Septic Tank Leading to (SR 1005) Old Greensboro Rd. ;. 32. North Dixie Preliminary 11-4-$5 15 Hi.].ls Jara Court 5.2 ac 15,055 sq. ft. Hillsborough Section Ill Final 11-1$-85 Lower Loop Average Water & Sewer Phase One Wildaro Court Pub] is Roads to be constructed to state standards 33. Ed Joyner's Creek Preliminary 12-2-85 4 Bingham E. G. Joyner Rd. 18.2 ac. 5.0 ac. Individual well! Final 12-16-85 Pri. Class B. leading 5.0 ac.. Septic Tank to (SR 1006) Orange 4. 1 ac. Grove Road 4.1 ac. 34. Comet Trail Preliminary 12-2-85 Chapel Price's Creek Rd. 43.76ac. 6.25 University Individual well' ( !formerly Prices Final Pri . Class A leading Average Lake Septic Tank Creek ) to (SR 1939) Poythress Rd. 1985 MAJOR SOBDIVISIONS Type of Date # Of Total Lot Mater Supply Type of Water Name of Subdivision Approval Approved 'Lots Township Type of Road Acerag a Slzes Watershed FSewer System 35. Leonard J. Brower Preliminary 11-4-85 1 Little NC 57 2.5 ac. 2.5 ac. Individual Well Final 12-16-85 River Septic Tank s i r i I I i ' I i LL , i 1"� i • 1 , MINOR SUBDIVISIONS 19$'5 First Quarter Report fl SUBDIVISION TOWNSHIP DATE # OF TYPE OF TOTAL AVER. LOT WATERSHED TYPE OF WATER NAME M.BLK. LOT APPROVED LOTS* ROAD ACRE.* SIZE* AREA C SEWER SYSTEM 1 Charter Meadows LR 1-3-85 3 SR 1541 2.86 ,gg NIA Private Well i :' 21 .. 1 s Septic I•+ 2 Powder Mill CH 1-4-85 3 4500' 15.8 5.27 N/A pp; ; 3.+16 Blunderbuss Lane 3 Jessie Dixon CKS 1-24-85 1 SR 1135 2.1 2. 1 Upper Eno " ! 4 Thomas 6 Diane Cantrell HILLS 1-30-85 4 CL"C" 3.94 .99 N/A Public Water 38.8.26A Sewer 5 Coleman, Errol CG 2-7-85 1 SR 1343' 2.0 2.0 NIA 43. . 15 6 Walker Heights CG 2-8-85 4 SR 1383 5.6 1.4 NIA " 38..34 7 H. M. 6 Vi rg i rd a Perry 'B!I HG 2-8-85 1 SR .1 m4 1.4 t.4 !Cane 14_2 Creek 8 Marvin Vaughn CH 2-1}-85 1 SR 1179 9.55 9.55 Univ. " 1 21. .8 Lake 9 David Kiger CG 2-19-85 1 NC 57 3.92 3.92 N/A " 47- .7 10 Randy G. Lloyd. BING 2-25-85 1 SR 1960 4.83 4.83 NIA 24. ..14 11 Floyd Parker LR 2-28-85 1 4500, 3.01 3.01 NIA Private Well 1 . .21 . Floyd Parker Dr. 6 Septic 12 Jacob Hardee Eta]. CH rrp • . 3-4-85 3 : CL„a" 3.03 1 .01 NIA t 109!.30C Hardee Lane 13 Anthony Sarah Riinh r BING 3-4-85 1 : c300' 0.92 0.92 Cane ” f 19-.5 Brent Hill Rd. Creek 14 Hilda Tilley CH I" 3-4-85 1 CL ."C'" 1.045 1.045 NA 3••24 Mtn. Laura] Ln. I r< 15 Johnny R. Kennedy ENO 08 � I` 37 5 3 < 500 10.14 3.38 N/A i 25..24 J.R.K. Dr. 16 Carl Purefoy CH 3-11-$5 2 <500' 5 3.01 1.505 N/A 24..3A Tara Ln. ?=does not Include residual lot if It is over 10 acres 2 MINOR SUBDIVISIONS 1985 Fi rst Quarter Report Continued 11 SUBDIVISION TOWNSHIP DATE # OF TYPE OF TOTAL AVER. LOT WATERSHED TYPE OF WATER NAME M.BLK.LOT APPROVED LOTS* ROAD ACRE .* SIZE* AREA SEWER SYSTEM 1 17 V1rglnia McPhearson CKS 3-12-85 2 SR 1335 3.01 1.505 N/A Private 'We) I t� 5..5C Septic 18 Charlene Sneed LR 3-?13-85 1 SR 1581 1.06 1.06 X/A r+ 14..5 19 Eugene C. Brooks III CH 3-14-85 2 CL "B" 3.58 1.79 N/A " 2•.17 Seminole Tr. 20 John P. Abernathy Inc. CKS 3-19-85 2 SR 1120 4.6 2 3 Upper Eno " I x+9..1 i i 21 Owen S Mabel Allison CKS 3-25-85 1 SR 1144 3.03 3.03 Upper Eno " 44..3 22 Crawford Blake b ENO 3-2]-85 3 58 1595 10.8 3.6 N/A Brenda H, Riley 14..8 i e 1 LL 4 . 1 j OD *does not Include residual lot If It is over 10 acres 1 • MINOR SUBDIVISIONS 19$'5 SECOND QUARTER REPORT SUBDIVISION TOWNSHIP DATE # OF TYPE OF TOTAL AVER. LOT -WATERSHED TYPE OF WATER NAME M.BLK. LOT APPROVED LOTS* ROAD ACRE .* SIZES AREA E SEWER SYSTEMi 23 Lategan, Deon. 6 Sue CH 4-2-85 2 <500' 3.22 1.61 NIA Private Well. 109. .16 Lategan Ln. Septic j 24 Coleman Acres HILLS 4-3-85 1 SR1332 5.3 5.3 NIA ++ � 3. .2B CJi 25 Woods, Corbett BING 4-3-85 2 CL "B" 8.09 4.04 Univ. Lake If i . 29..4A Elva Ln. 26 Riley, Troy E. ENO 4-4-85 2 SR1570 5.519 2.76 MIA ,+ „ 23. .31A 27 Harris, Gina & James CKS 4-10-85 2 SR1313 4.4 32.. 10 2.2 Upper Eno " " j {' i 28 Vaughan Denise & J. Franklin CG 4-11-85 1 SR136i 2.95 2.95 N/A i 13..26 29 Riggsbee Ire W. CH 4-11785 2. c500 4.5 2.25 N/a i 3. .$ Peggy Rd. t k}, 30 Pendergraph, Frank Eno 4-16-85 2 SR-1572 4.2 2. 1 N/A If 16.. 16 r! i 31 Apple, John 6 Margaret BING 4-16-85 2 SR1128 9.0 4.5 NIA 5. . 18 - r 32 Coombs, Gerald & Kathryn CKS 4-22-85 1 SR1182 2.0 2.0 N/A 42. .19 :; 33 north Dixie - Sec.1 HILLS-' 4-23-85 3 SR1395 0.69 0.23 N/A Public Water 5.A.:17 : E Sewer 34 Wed ewood CKS 4-23-85 3 <500. 5.83 1.95 Upper Eno Private Well {? ' 12. .7D Blue Jasper Ln. & Septic 35 Roberts, Geter C Dorothy LR 5-1-85 1 SR1517 1,3 1.3 N/A Private Well r: 8. . 11 Septic f I *does not include -residual 10 t if It is over 10 acres MINOR SUBD I V IS 1 ONS 198 SECOND QUARTER REPORT CONTINUED 2 SUBDIVISION TOWNSHIP DATE Of OF TYPE OF TOTAL AVER. LOT . WATERSHED TYPE OF WATER NAME 14. BLK. LOT APPROVED LOTS* ROAD ACRE.* 53t1 * AREA C SEWER SYSTEM, ; 36 Allison, C. F. CG 5-2-85 2 SR1361 6.12 3.06 N/A Private Well j. 28„7 6 Septic f 37 Fearrington, Mack BING 5-2-85 2 SR1005 4.0 2.0 N/A 37.. 10 n a 38 Hicks, Bet ty - - HILLS - -- - - - -- - - - 5 4-$5 2 Hwy. ]D 14.0 5.0 N/A Public Water. 32.A. 11 6 Sewer 39 Tillman, Lillie Hrs. CH 5-6-85 2 SR1919 17,31 $.66 NIA Private Well 15,•7 i , C Septic f 40 Allen,, Bertie ENO 5-6-$5 2 <500' 6.8 24. ..10 3.4 N/A Kenwood Dr. i 41 Naquin, David BING 5-7-85 2 CL "Cr' 10.0 5.0 Cane Ck. 3••26 Marengo P1 . 42 Culbreth, J. H. HILLS 5-9 785 2 Tuscarora Ave. 17.61 $.$ N/A Public Water . f 37.C.3 C Private Septic 43 Harden, Earl CKS J 5=14-$5 2 CL "C" 7.01 _ 3,5 Upper Eno Private Well 15. . 13 Harden Ln. Septic • I f 44 McBroom, Joseph ENO 5-14-$5 I SR1710 3.0 3.0 N/A 27.. 10, 13A' ( 45 N.C.Electric Mbr. Corp. CG '5-15-85 t SR1506 2.9 2.9 N/A No Facilities b. .6• 46 Boone, Rufus CKS 5-164 5 1 SR 113$ 1.1 1.1 NIA Private Well ' I Septic 147 Rose, Charles 8 Holly CKS 5-16-85 1 CL "C" i 3.2 3.2 Upper Eno - ' 43• •278 Squires Rd, Extension Atwater Raymond CH I- i 8 y 5-23-85 1 5R 1944 2.76 2.76 Univ. lake" " 112. .17 *does not Include residual lot if it Is over 10 acres ! = MINOR SUBD 1 V I S I ONS 198 5 SECOND QUARTER REPORT .CONTINUED 3 i SUBDIVISION TOWNSHIP DAVE # OF TYPE OF TOTAL AVER . LOT WATERSHED TYPE OF WATER NAME M. BLK. LOT APPROVED LOTS* ROAD ACRE. * SIZE* AREA SEWER SYSTEM; 49 Whicker, Gary ENO 5-23-85 1 SR 1002 2. 1 2.1 NIA Private Wel-1 14. . 19 & Septic �♦ 9 5-24-85 1 SR 1118 R 5O Sykes, Jeffrey Bin 3.82 3. 82 Cane Creek 10. .4 51 Burch, Frances CH 5-24-85 2 CL"B" 4.48 2.24 NIA Mary Ellen 24-45 Link Rd: 52 Tilson, C. Y. Jr. CH 5-28-85 2 45001 5.26 2.63 N/A " +, Priscilla 24. .44A Tilson Pl. 53 Smith, Maie BING 6-5-85 1 SR 1959 3.764 3.764 NIA 32. . 13 54 Lankford, Henry CKS 6-7-85 1 CL "C" 1 .0 1 .0 N/A . 47. .23 Lankford Drive 55 Johnson, W. W. CH 6-13-85 2 -C 500' 2.0 1 .0 univ. Lake 115. .19A Johnson Lane 56 Combs, Raymond ENO 6 714-85 1 SR 1831 .6158 ,6158 N/A 6.C.2-1 57 Evans, Ola Mae ENO 6-17-85 2 SR 1548 4.0 1 .98 NIA 9. .913 58 Snyder , Kehheth CG ' 6-20-85 1 CL„C" 5.0 5.0 N/A 24..8 Whitetail Run 59 Smith, Terry BING 6-.21-85 3 CL"B" 4.3 1 .43 Univ. ,Lake -28C. .2 Sertoma Drive 45001 Jackson Court 60 Council , Thomas D. BING 6-21-85 2 CL "B" 2.42 1 .21 Univ. Lake 280. , 1 Sertoma Drive 4500' Jackson Court *does not include MINOR SUBDIVISIONS 198-5 SECOND QUARTER REPORT CON'T. # SUBDIVISION TOWNSHIP DATE # OF TYPE OF TOTAL AVER. LOT WATERSHED TYPE OF WATER NAME M.BLK. LOT APPROVED LOTS* ROAD ACRE.* SIZE* AREA S SEWER SYSTEM ENO 61 Kingdom Hail of 14..2705 6-27-85 2 SR1595 3.38; 1.69'; NIA Private Wei+ Jehovah's Witnesses Septic 62 Annie Lee Ray CH 6-27-85 2 SR1712 10.01 5.0 N/A " j 63 Be tty Sue Edwards CH 6-28-85 2 SR1945 6.09 3.05 Univ. Lake 115..30 • i I li i f f4 .r . i � r i i I E ' I 1 ... W i H k *does not Include residual lot if it is over 10 acres MINOR SUBDIVISIONS 1985 ,- THIRD QUARTER REPORT # SUBDIVISION TOWNSHIP DATE # OF TYPE OF TOTAL AVER. LOT WATERSHED TYPE OF WATER ' ; DAME M.BLK.LOT APPROVED LOTS* ROAD ACRE.* SIZE AREA C SEWER SYSTEM 64 Efland, Simpson CKS 7-11-85 3 SR 1144 2.76 0.92 Upper Eno Private Well ' 28..51 S Septic !-+ I 00 1 65 Mauer, Rosa CH 7-17-85 3 SR 1723 10.683 3.561 NIA " cr. ; . 13. .1 66 Bergman, Lee Ray CH 7-17-85 2 4500' 17.92 .8.96 NIA " 15..150 Bergman Dr. 67 Hinson, Josephine CH 7-1$-$5 1 SR 1127 3.59 3.59 NIA 8 Samuel Etal . 11. .5 ` 6$ Weaver, Ed ENO 7-18-85 2 5R 1710 5.07 2.535 NIA " 26..37 69 Ross, Charles T. HILLS 7-22-85 1 NC 57 1.24 1.24 NIA [' 8 Barbara R. 4. .4A 70 Stonesthrow ENO 7-24-85 4 SR 1595 . 5.5 1.38 NIA " 1 15. .13 71 Lasiey, Gilmer BING 7:25=85 2 SR 1007• 5.3 2.85 Cane Creek 16_17A ' 72 White, Clifton CKS 7-26-85 .1 SR 1340 1 .136 1.136 Upper Eno 2„13 r 73 Hicks, Carl Thomas CKS. 1-1.5-85 f CL "C” 5.0 5.0 Upper Eno ;. 45:65- Thomas Ruffin Dr. 74 Jesse Marvin Rogers CG 8-1 9-85 1 t500' 1 ,09 1 ,09 NIA 4.6::8H Katy Rd. 75 Bass, Hugh CH 8-21-85 2 SR 1714 s 3,28 1 .64 NIA " 5.,5A SR 1715 5.,. 76 Sorrell, Fred ENO 9-04-85 2 SR 1538. 2,03 1 .02 NIA 8.. 19 t' `does not Include -residual 10 t if It is over 10 acres MINOR SUBDIVISIONS 19$'5 - THIRD QUARTER REPORT 1! SUBDIVISION TOWNSHIP HATE # OF TYPE OF TOTAL AVER. LOT WATERSHED TYPE OF WATER NAME M.BLK.LOT APPROVED LOTS* ROAD ACRE.* SIZE* AREA 8 SEWER SYSTEM 77 Sharpe, Judy CH 9-05-85 3 (500' 6.63 2.21 NIA Private Well 21. .24E Sharpe Rd. Septic 78 Mangum, Jeffrey 1.BdNG 9-06-85 1 SR 1115 2.7 2.7 NIA If 12..6E [ 79 Latta, Malcolm fH0 9-13-85 1 SR 1002 5.0 5.0 NIA " 12. .5 80 Kennedy, W.L. CG 9-16-85 1 HWY 86 4.45 4.45 NIA If " 46..IIA. 81 Tflson, C.Y. CH 9-17-B5 I SR 1777 LOOP 1.008 NIA 24..44 82 Shumate, Joe ENO 9-17-85 2 Saddle Dr. 4.49 2.245 N/A 8 Lubys 17A.C.1 ' 83 Medlin, Randy BING 9-17-85 1 SR 1006 8 5.21 5.21 NIA 4..13H SR 1199 84 Kirkland, W. I . Sr. CH . 9=19=85 1 HWY 86 . 7.07 7.07 NIA " If " 19. .16 85 Adams, Alberta HILLS 9-20-85 3 SR 1144 5.01 1.67 NIA " of 38.8.7 86 Sykes, J. Hubert BIN C 9-20-85 .1. SR 1117 3.8 3.8 Cane Creek 10. .35 k, 87 Herrin, Ester CH 9-26-85 2 . SR 1973 4.2 2.1 Unix, take 116...15 �. 88 Pope, Franklin CG '5-27-85 2 Hwy 86 4.88 2.44 N/A if 25.. 11 ; ± 89 Hackler, Raymond CKS 9-3045 2 SR 1324 2.06 1 .03 Upper Eno " If 14..16 CC e— f f *does not Include residual lot If it is over 10 acres HINOR SUBDIVISIONS 1985 FOURTH QUARTER REPORT . SUBDIVISION TOWNSHIP , DATE # OF TYPE OF TOTAL AVER. LOT WATERSHED TYPE OF WATER NAME M.BLK.LOT APPROVED LOTS* ROAD ACRE.* SIZE* AREA SEWER SYSTEM 90 Hedgepeth, Alonzo _ ENO 10-01-85 1 SR 1573- 2.11 2.11 NIA Private Well 1 O..20A Septic P 91 Brown, John W. CH 10-04-85 1 Dry Creek 2.51 2.51 N/A 25 92 Thompson, Charles CG 10-07-85 1 X500' 0.92 0.92 N/A It " 40. .22 Waxstaff Rd. 93 Adams, Grady T. CG 1.0-0885 1 SR 1343 7.22 7.22 N/A " " ! 43. .58 94 Taylor, Charile CH 10-08-85 1 CL "C" 2.5 2.51 NIA " 6..44 Nature Trail Ln. I. i 95 Scott, John W. CKS 10-08-85 1 CL "B" 3.0 3.0 Upper Eno 49. .5D Pender Dr. � ! 96 Baldwin, Arthur BING 10-18-85 1. SR 1124 1996 1.96 Cane Creek " 2..30 E, 97 Dorsett, Scott CKS 10-18-85 1 SR 1332 1.71 1.71 Upper Eno 1 5..6 ' 1336 98 Jones, Daylon s Martha BING 10-18-85 2 CL "C" 6.16 3.08 NIA 28. ,21A Pussycat Ln. 99 Coleman, Joseph s Demisie HILLS '10-21-85 3 SR 1332 21.8 7.27 1f1A 3,-'2' 100 Southard Arthur ENO 10-23-85 2 SR 1561 5.91 2.96 NIA it 21.. 160. 101 Jones, Henry HILLS 10-23-85 2 SR 1335 .3.83 1.92 NIA 1.A. 3 102 Hi If , James Realty 11 1 CKS 10-2'3-85 4 SR 1343 6.3 1.58 NIA It it 2..16 k. *does not Include residual lot If It is over 10 acres M I NOR SUBDIVISIONS 19$'5 FOURTH QUARTER REPORT SUBDIVISION TOWNSHIP DATE # OF TYPE OF TOTAL AVER. LOT WATERSHED TYPE OF WATER NAME M.BLK. LOT APPROVED LOTS* ROAD ACRE.* SIZE* AREA s SEWER SYSTEM 103 Carden, William Denise L-R 10-24-85 1 SR 1521 5.0 5.0 NIA Private Well 10. .10 Septic 104 Laws, W Iliam T. S Betty HILLS 10-24-85 1 SR 1328 1.21 1.21 N/A 5.A.33 -105 Smith, William E. Josle CH 10-31-85 2 500' 2.51 1.25 N/A It 12. .17D ' Brlck Lh. 106 Tripp, Victor BING 11-6-85 3 SR 1005 8.1 2.7 N/A 38..16B- 107 Rives; William Frances P. GH 11-3=.85 1 SR 1915 2.09 2.09 NIA It " i 108 Dodson, George CH 11-19-85 1 SR 1113 0.93 0.93 NIA , 12..23 . 109 James, Steve LR 11-21-85 1 SR 1579 5.4 5.4 NIA It to 110 Bradshaw, Charles CKS - 114-85 1 1.500' 5.2 5.2 NIA Charles Bradshaw Dr. 111 Oak Rise - Phase 1 HILLS 11-25-85 2 SR 1555 2.2 1.1 N/A 4..20, 21: 112 Mi tcheI I , John s Regina CFI - I1-25-85 1 Counci 1 vi 1 le 1. 16 1.16 Un Iv. Lake " It 113'.C..21, Public Rd. 113 Murra y , De reck.� Dorothy thy CG 11 26-$5 CL n C n 1.78 1.78 NIA 5..5A Rapples Dr. 114 Blalock, Lydia CG 11-26-85 1 SR 1359 1.1� 1.13 NIA 26..13 Q � 115 Hogan, Ethel CH 12-2-$5 1 SR 777 1 2.39 2.39 NIA ' 109.. 11A t ; *does not IncIude -resIduaI lot if it is over 10 acres f; MINOR SUBD I V I S 1 ONS 198 - FOURTH QUARTER REPORT SUBDIVISION TOWNSHIP DATE # OF TYPE OF TOTAL AVER. LOT WATERSHED TYPE OF WATER NAME M.BLK. LOT APPROVED LOTS* ROAD ACRE .* SIZE* AREA G SEWER SYSTEM. 116 Talmage, ,Roy Helen CH 12-4-85 2 CL 111311 12.25 6.125 UnIv- . Lake Private Well 117. .26E H1gh,.11lckory Rd. '6 Septic 117 Wood Hlii 5/D CKS 12-6-85 4 CL 1113" 6.85 1.72 NIA 21•.35 Lysander Ln. 118 Michael , Mary Roy BING 12-13-89 a SR 1957 7.0 7.0 N/A '� R 31..9A i 119 Honeycutt, George ENO 12-17-85 2 Hwy 70 2.25 1.125 N/A 25..77 ; 120 Lee, Doris CH 12-18-85 2 SR 1723 7.75 3.875 N/A 3.' 27 ` - 121. Dotson, William G Myra B I NG 12,40—85" 3 S R 1006 10.01 3.34 N/A 22..3 6 _ k . d. t. i Efi [I". 1 G,; I, *does not Include -residual lot If It Is over 10 acres ?' is 4. .as (\ _ 4a,-.,,- T. ,... ..- -.-T-,-,- - ..,- -IF!: -1.var 1 V , ,, ....'. AZ:Jig ' /.... ' ; . , • ler ' 16:211yr isallt mufti I ux j eor,� Vrart am, =,,.. , ,,,,, l .„. ,„„,,,t,.. , „jilt , ,,, .. .riiir: 4„, .. . 4.. , -......, _e,„.... .431 .,;, ,fos..,,,„„foo- A , _ ._ . i , . ,.... . „ . . ,. . , ,r. ' -,- - �r�,aw O �� , r r� i. ' ,a� r ..I..' ' 0140 L..._-...c.-: `tirk.:10e47--d. i i a -i------ rim- Pftia. ).- 11....,skiluil,,,airik ni,„ . . _ . e . -,.... ..I-II-III1Tq ___11 .-=---irAllir NIVIIII0 !dill' II'. II- la a woo - . _-...11.1"..:•.2.- __ --+Mr... ....,. ..-1.:..1;11*-12111 ..,,. ...). • ,1.11pip Millar liir-" ,;.--.5„, iii . 4iiirt.. it . . . ... . _ .., , ._ kcp,„„___„,..,_ _ ..„,,,..... . PPP-, .ice it f .1 . i•~ K I. �'1t emu' A ems -,4.1t , - I.: •t - it __,.., . ... - . .. • wi „ \., . . . , ,..,,,,. ri„, ,..... - „ .e . .. t mi .• , _ ,` if _ )11,14,Lt.... . ,,, . tillake--_ , 1 4• \TP , tilar4iihtk_,Li,,,-, . -I' , - - . _.:111144TW 'm -71 "i:JO.4 7 rirl_ ,.•--""--,'691 x o' -1 Nttlii* . v. ,,,,..„80,,, . 19 8.5 -: asi i :'g. ' 4 .C.10.4 1-4": :11rAihrl6P.1111":'.46443:44j L,,i, m IN0 ik f 'Al . r , . SusblvlsioN: c r O H' A T If w _ I a.us -- C O U N T Y 1 0 ORANGE COUNTY EXEMPT PLAT LOG 7-26-85 – 9-30-85 PLAT TITLE & EXEMPTION # OF PLAT COPY PLAT A APPLICANT T.M .B.L. DATE REASON NEW LOTS RECEIVED, BK/PG. 1 Robert P. Ta l l0 6.19. .11 7-26-85 2 1 JVH 2 Orange County 3.28 . .20 7-29-85 1 0 JVH Investors 3 Pine Ridge 2.29 . .14A 7-30-85 1 0 JVH Swimming Pool Inc. 4 Joel Doubles .Blalock 2.30. .28 8-1-85 7 0 JVH 5. H . T. & Marie Torain 4.1 .C.1A 8-9-85 7 0 JVH 6 CharLes F. & Nary E. 6.17 . ..8 8-13-85 3 1 JVH McPhearson 7 Couch Property 7.15. . - 6-20-85 3 Old JVH Dalton Loftin 8 Stagecoach Run 4. . . 8-23-85 7 0 SJS Section 3 9 Moses Ramsey 2.9 . .13A+ 8-23-85 1 0 SJS 10 Francis H . Day 8-23-85 — — JLA 11 Berry 's Grove 1 .2. .27 8-26-85 1 0 JVH Baptist Church 12 Johnny Johnson 3.45 . .14 8-26-85 0 1 JVH & 15, 11G 13 Johnny Johnson. ) 3.45 . .11G 8-26-85 0 1 JVH 14 Frances H . Fox _ 8-28–B5 7 0 JLA 15 Herbert & Frances Fox 8-28-85 7 0 JLA 16 Robert & Shirley Greer 8-28-85 7 0 JLA 17 Merry Moos & Locke 7.15A.A .5A 8-29-85 2 EK — DeBroyne 18 Melvin Parrish 7.112. .5 8-29-85 3 1 JLA REASONS FOR EXEMPTION: (5) division of 2 acre or less tract in single [1 ) combination * ownership with no ROW dedication * (2) recombination * (6) utility lot (3) 10+ acre lot division* [71 boundary or description survey [4] public road ROW acequisition * See definition of Subdivision l9t 19 Bruce & Kathryn 9-5-85 1 0 JVH Peters 20 Older Place 1 .24. .1 9-5-85 3 1 JVH 21 Dee Durham Hrs. ll 7 .110. .24 9-5-85 3 3 JVH 22 James' Tippens 6.3. .1 9-6-85 7 0 JVH 23 William Bowman 4.7.A.7 9-11-85 2 1 JVH 4.7.A .7A 24 Jimmy Freeland 7.29. .15 9-20-85 3 1 JVH 25 Johnny McFarling, & 7 .19. .25E 9-23-85 1 0 SJS Charlene C. McFarling 26 Jack B . Chaddock 2.38. .110 9-23-85 7 0 EK 27 Twin Streams 8 .22C. .11 9-24-85 2 0 SJS Subdivision Lots J3 & J4 (Jeff Peloquin) 28 Johnny Johnson 3.45.1 .14,9-23-85 1 0 JLA 15 & 116 29 Thomas Bacon 30 James & Tenn i e Allen 6 .31 . .13A 9-24-85 3 1 JVH 21 Hebert Whitfield 1 .13. .4 9-26-85 1 0 JVH —Earl Roberts, Atty . 32 Dorothy Rebman 3.40.E.1 9-26-85 2 0 JVH —Steve Yuhasz 33 Covered Bridge 6.27. .8 9-27-85 2 0 JVH —Ann Joyner 34 Henry M. Ashley , 4.3. .19 9-30-85 2 0 JA REASONS FOR EXEMPTION : (5) division of 2 acre or less tract in single (1 ) combination * ownership with no ROW dedication (2) recombination * (8) utility Lot (3) 10+ acre Lot div,ision* (7) boundary or description survey (4) public road ROW acequisition * See definition of Subdivision 19 ORANGE COUNTY EXEMPT PLAT LOG 4TH QUARTER 1985 PLAT TITLE & EXEMPTION # OF PLAT COPY PLAT # APPLICANT T.M.B .L. DATE REASON tgm LOTS RECEIVED BK/PCB 35 Robert McBroom 4.3. .19 10-1-85 7 0 EK 36 Wayne Wagner 5.20 . .24 10-1-85 1 0 JVH — Marion Clark 5.20. .25C 10-1-85 37 Arthur Southard 5.21 . .16A 10-4-85 7 0 JVH — Louie Callemyn 17A 38 Thomas & Annett 7.10A. .3A 10-7-85 1 0 JVH Kennedy 39 Ed Joyner's Creek 8.4. .150 10-9-85 3 4 SJS — (Ann Moss Joyner) 40 Stonesthrow 5.15 .13 10-9-85 2 0 JVH Lots 1 & 4 — Steve Yuhasz 41 M.M. Strowd Hrsl. 7.108. .40 10-10-85 7 0 JVH — Henry M. Willis 42 Sadie & Willie 7.117.C.17C 10-11-85 1 0 JVH Carson — Emma Jean Levi 43 Strowd & Jennifer 6 .38.2 10-11-85 3 1 EK Lloyd 44 Preston Schiller 6 .4.15 10-17-85 3 1 JVH 45 Harold Garner I 3 .46 . .11 10-17-85 3 5 JVH — Steve Yuhasz 46 Leroy T. Wilson 5.17. .36 10-18--85 2 0 JVH 37 47 Carolyn Davis 7.1 . .15 10-25-85 7 0 JVH Morena REASONS FOR EXEMPTION: (1 ) combination * (6) utility Lot (2) recombination * (7) Survey boundaries (3) 10+ acre lot division* (8) Easement (4) public road ROW lacquisition (5) division of 2 acre or Less tract in single ownership with no ROW dedication * *See definition of Subdivision 198 —David Graffunder, RLS 48 Dennis & Sandral 5.20. .63E 10-29-85 7 0 JVH SeeLye 1 4S ELLa B. Trice 7.6 . .33 10-29-85 7 0 JVH —Newsome & Graham 50 W.L. Miller 1 4.6.8.1 10-31-85 3 1 JVH —Stephen Johnson 51 Lakeview#16-23 I 4.17. .5 11-1-85 7 0 JVH Jean Wilson, Atty . 52 Buck Quarter Farms 5.9. .21A 11-4-85 3 10 JVH — Louie Ca L lemyn 53 Mary KLopfer EtaL 7.6 . .28 11-5-85 7 0 JVH — Bryan Kempter, Atty. I 54 Minnick Miller 1 4.6.8.2 11-5-85 3 1 JVH — Coleman, etaL. , Atty . I 55 Frances H. Fox 5.13. .14 11-5-85 7 0 EK —Coleman , eta l. ,1 Atty. 56 Frans & Joan 3.49 . .3 11-8-85 7 0 JVH Jobsis 57 Sam Ray 4.37.C.3 11-13-85 1 0 JVH — Steve Yuhasz 58 James & Paddy 5.21 . .14 11-14-85 2 1 JVH Simmons 59 Covered Bridge—Rev6 .27. .8 11-11-85 3&2 0 JLA Ann Joyner I B0 North Fork— l 1 .18 . .3 11-15-85 7 0 EK Revision Phase 11 & 2 I 61 West Hills 0r. I 5.25. . 11-18-85 3 1 JVH Outfa l l I 122-126 City of Durham Engineer REASONS FOR EXEMPTION: (1 ) combination * (6) utility lot (2) recombination * (7) Survey boundaries (3) 10+ acre lot division* (8) Easement (4) public road ROW acquisition (5) division of 2 acre or Less tract in single ownership with no ROW dedication * *See definition of Subdivision 19; 1 62 Jerry & Gail 1 4.2. .16 11-21-85 3 1 JVH Smith 1 63 Denise W. Wilson 4.2. .16 11-21-85 3 1 JVH 64 G. Wayne Pollard 4.45. .2A 11-21-85 2 1 JVH 65 Chandler Concrete 4.45. .32 12-3-85 7 0 JVH — Phi L Post 66 George Horton 1 .23.4 12-5-85 7 0 JVH 67 Hickory Grove 7.112. .3A 12-9-85 8 0 JVH Baptist Church 4,5 — Church Trustees 68 John Jeffries 4.28.A .25 12-10-85 7 0 JVH 69 West Hill S/0 4.34.0.8, 12-16-85 2 0 JLA #187--188 BA 70 James E. Hopper 4.45. .33 12-16-85 7 0 EK 71 Duke University 4.32.C.7 12-17-85 7 0 JVH — Edburn Judson 4.32.A.30 72 R. Herbert 6.2. .38 12-17-85 3 1 JVH Wallick 73 Tommie Edmond 6.33 .21A 12-19-85 3 1 JVH Smith — John Northern—Atty. 74 Eugene Blackwood 7.19. .24 12-19-85 3 2 JVH — Florence Long—Atty. I 75 Loretta Smith 3.14..7 12-23-85 7 0 JLA 76 Ervin W. & Hi ldall 3.11 .40 12-27-85 7 0 JLA Allen , Jr. 77 Covered Bridge 6 .27. .8A 12-31-85 3 10 JVH — Lot 1 — Ann Joyner REASONS FOR EXEMPTION: (1 ) combination * (6) utility lot (2) recombination * (7) Survey boundaries (3) 10+ acre tot division* (8) Easement (4) public road ROW acquisition (5) division of 2 acre or Less tract in single ownership with no ROW dedication * *See definition of Subdivision i 1886 REZDNING8 (GENERAL) PROJEfeT BCE€p MC_€ e$OEGZ NANE APPLIl=ARI. REQUEST eP091111 P€poleIlPL+ PIAllis I-1-86 ----------- B.A.D. Investments R-1--GC-4 5.25..710 1 .0 acre Application withdrawn Z-2-B5 ----------- Khys Wang Ng 11-1--R-3 4.8..28 41.80 acres Approved 8-30-88 Z-B-BS ----------- Bob Sohalar R-1--R-4 4.5.A.P/0 17 12.4 so. Approved roved R-8 9-30-86 _ Z-4-86__ Buckhorn Jockey_Lot-------- Orange Co. Investors R-1--fit-4_ $.28.-.20_&_P-/-0__20B-- App-licat-ion-not------- -- ----s-=- 29.84 acres accepted (some request within 1 year of denseLl ?. Z-5-85 Wiloom Trucking Co. Burch Compton R-1--EC5 8.28..87 & 36C Application withdrawn 21.28 acres Z-6-85 ----------- Clarence Wayne Doby R-1--EC5 3.28..P/0 1 Approved (280 x 8901 (200 x 200) 18.85 scree 4-1-85 Z-7-85 Beard Property George Horton R-1--DI & 4.40.A.il 108 acres Approved 7-1-85 I-1 (DI-28.66 esree; I-1 - 69.86 acres) Z-8-06 Sootswood A.H. & J. graham R-i--R-2, 4.6.B.3 &4 Application withdrawn R-4 & GC-4 4.92.A.7 330 sores Z-9-06 ----------- James L. Frasland R-1--R-4 4.6.A.28 1.6 acres Denied 7-1-05 2-10-86 Cornwallis NiLts Atlenton Realty R-1--R-3 4.42.C.P/0 1 Approved 11-4-05 (Section III 4.44.A.8-28 64.71 acres I Z-11-05 Partin Property Gardner Altmen Jr. R-1--R-3 7.128.8.20 89 acres Application withdrawn Z-12-86 Wildwood Sec. IV Wildwood Corp. R-1--11-4 4.46..4 & 26 Pending 28.8 acres Z-13-06 ----------- P. & S. Sporting A-R--LC-1 6.26..28 4.64 acres Pending Goods, Inc. Z-14-85 ----------- Janes Hill Realty R-1--CGS 5,25.,104 57 acres Pending Z-16-86 Partin Property Gardner Altman, Jr. R-1--11-4 7.128.8.20 80 acres Pending n i �V i f f f I f i . i r i I 1985 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (REZONING AND CLA198 A SPECIAL USE PERMIT) eROJ€91 REEEREHCE BI OESCHLPTIO1N PD-1-85 Oakwood Estates Chuck Sneed R-1--PD-fl-R-1 5.18..24A 34.7 sores Application withdrawn PD-2-05 Chandler's green Weaver Dairy Ltd. R-1--PO-H-R-2 7.17..47 80.0 acres Approved 11-4-05 26..7 8 11 PD-3-05 West Ten Mobile Park McFarland 9 Barrett R-1--PD-H-R-1 8.28..58 87 acres Approved 7-1-85 PD-4-85 Chandler Concrete Co. T. E. Chandler R-1--PO-I-3 4.45..P/0 32 Approved 10-15-85 1.41 acres PD-S-85 Scotewood Jahn 9 A.H. 9rehom R-1--PO-0-R-2 4.0.0.8 A 4 Pending PD-H-R-5 4.22.A.7 PD-0C4 290.03 (R-21, 28.5 (R-5), 10.43 (GC41 PO-8-86 Bradshaw Hobile Home Beth Bradshaw AR--PD-H-AR 6.35..27A 84.44 acres Pending Acres PD-7-05 The Timbers Fred Cates R-1--PD-H-R3 4.38.A..1 13.18 acres Application not accepted Section V-VI {incompletel i i I `V A j 1985 CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMITS PROM PROJECT IIAH APPLIC f€�F�I t PROPERLY O &RIP71ag PTATUS SUP-1-85 Bingheia Sobasl Inn Robert Kell Y Clees A-Historic Structure Reuse (SEE 1888 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS - REZONING AND CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT) Li i. s i i 1886 REZONINGS, PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMITS AND LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS i F PRDJECT BEEEBEME E88J€8.i NAME APPLLME MARST EBBEEBIY PEE88E,I-1-09 HAIM • LUP-4-86 Orange Trues Dean float Application Not 8.6..14 69.28 Acres - Returned • LUP-2-86 Chandler Concrete Thomas Chandler Tan Year Transition/ 4.46..82 4.84 Acres Amenc,ed Application Commercial Industrial for n-26-86 --!- - Hearing- -- •• LUP-8-85 Chandler Concrete Thomas Chandler Tan Year Transition/ 4.46..8E 1.44 Acres A Commercial IndustriaE Approved 8-80-BS Transition Hoda I •st LUP-4-06 -------------- Gar C Y C. Ten Year Transition/ 4.60..6 8.12 Acres Denied 1-6-86 j Richardson Commercial Industrial Transition Node I • ROY 20, 1886 Public Hearing '- •• August 28, 1886 Public Hearing *a• November 26. 1986 Public Hearing I f 1 - � E t 1885 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASES i APPLICAHZ TYPE 0E CASE LOCATIO DATE APPROVEfl N —� AR D—E_1E 1 Elizabeth B . Class 8 Spacial Use Permit On a private drive off Approved Verson under Section 8.8.12 for a SR 1719 (Friends School Rd . ) 1-7-85 one (1 )---year Tom" -r-a-r-yUe-e-- i n -Chaps-1--H-1 1-1Townsfii-p -- - -Of a Residential Mobile Home . United Tole— Class B Special Use Permit SR 1554 (Baldwin Road) in A Spectrum, Inc. under Section 8 .8.17 for Eno Township Approved the construction of a 150' p 2-11-85 cellular mobile communications network tower and associated electronic equipment . C & C Partrarship Variance from Section 6 . 24.5 SR 1942 (Jones Ferry Road) , Denied which requires now septic Lake Woods Subdivision in 2-11-85 tanks and their nitrifica— Chapel Hill Township tion fields to be located a minimum of 30O' from the edge of a water supply impoundment or perennial or t intermittent stream within Water Quality Critical Areas . The approved areas for the lots were inside of this 300 ' distance. Cleveland Breeze Class 8 Special Use Permit On a private drive off Approved under Section 8 .8.12 for SR 1339 (Harmony Church Rd . ) 3 11-85 a one (1 ) year Temporary in Cheeks Township Usa of a Residential Mobile Home . i Carolina Metro Class B Special Use Permit On a private drive off Not under Section 8 .8 .17 for SR 172B (Lake Hogan Road) A6-10-85 the construction of a 1501 in Chapel Hill Township ' transmission tower and an equipment building . E t Orange Grave Variance from Sections SR 9006 (Orange Grove Rd . ) Denied Volunteer Fire 6 .24.6 and 6 .24.7 which in Bingham Township 6-10-85 Company, Inc . regulates impervious surfaces in protected watersheds and requires a percentage of the property to remain undisturbed . The applicant requested to enlarge the--fire sts-ti-on -wh-i-ch wou-ld--sntsi-i- - --- - - - adding more impervious surfaces than is currently allowed . Huffman Oil Variance from Section 5 .1 .2 US Hwy . 70 in HiLLaborough Denied Company , Inc. (EC-5) which requires a 35' Township 6-10-85 front setback . The applicant requested to replace an existing I. pump island and two ( 2) pumps with two (2) pump islands and four (4) pumps , to replace an existing 241x24' canopy with one 24' x46 ' canopy and to erect a 610 ' sign , all of which would be within the required 351 front setback . i Michael 0 . Appeal to the ruling of the Off Nc 54 (Tex Map 26 Lot 6, Denied Hartley, Sr. Zoning Officer {under and Tax Map 26A Lot 6 ) in 6—io-85 Section 2.3 .7) , who , in a Bingham Township Letter dated April 19, 1985 determined that OWASA 's proposed application of treated municipal sludge to Land in Bingham Township falls outside the Zoning ReguLations of Drange County. Julian Rosenmen Variance from Section 6 .23 .4 SR 1997 (Concord Drive) , No quorum which regulates impervious Heritage Hills Subdivision in attend— surfaces in protected in Chapel HILL Township ance 7-8-85; watersheds. The applicant applicant requested to construct a withdrew 280 square foot addition to request . his house which would entail adding more impervious surface than is currently allowed . Raymond D. Heckler Variance from Section 5.1 .1 SR 1324 [Brookho L Low No quorum �R-7 ) which requires a Road) in Cheeks Township in attendance minimum tot width of 130 8-21-85 fast . The applicant has 118.73 feet of road frontage . C Raymond 0. Heckler [See above] i-See above) - -Approved--9-9—g5 - Wilson Ef lend Variance from Section 5.1 .2 SR 1120 (Mt . WI L Ling Rd . ) Approved (EC-5) which requires a 35' in Cheeks Township 12-5-85 front setback . The applicant requested to replace an existing 23' x1B ' canopy with one (1 ) 241x36 ' canopy, and to instaLL two (2) additional pumps, aLL of which would be within the required 35' front setback . 1885 ZONING VIOLATIONS I ALLEGED t HAMS VIOLATION LOCATION DETERMINATION TAKEN N Norbert K. Andrews Instelteticn of a mobile home West of BR110E A violation Ali applicable (19-72-55) without obtaining a building/ (Dodson's Cross- does exist. permits were zoning permit. Violation of roads) and North obtained, Section 21.4. 'af Arthur Minnie BP i 850610 Road and Lloyd Little C -----Property In-Bingham To owns hi - - -- ' Herbert Ray Auto Operating a Used Car Lot without NC 84 in Bingham A violation Currently preparing Sales obtaining a zoning permit, Township (12-3-55) violation of Section 21.4 and does exist. Landscaping end Article 12 (Landscaping and Stressing require- Screening Requirements). Plants in order to f obtain zoning permit. Margery Key Constructing an addition to house North side of A violation Na building/zoning Cooper without obtaining a building/ Dairyland Road does not (2-22-85) zoning permit. permit required ea 1n Bingham exist. work is under $5,000 Township. and no work effects toed bearing wells- all work is internal. Christine Bowmen Subdivision created zoning South aide NC A violation Habits home has been James Alphus violation es existing mobile Highway 64 in does exist. Vacated end expected James Pollock home is non on the property Bingham (10-23-881 tine• Township, to be removed. Richard Fondren Model hone for Smokey Mountain NC Hwy. 54 in A violation Applicant wilt apply (11-27-65) Log Homes constructed on lot, Bingham does exist. for a Home Violation of Sections 4.318281 Township and 21.4. Occupation. Donnie Chapman Constructing an addition to SR1333 Orange A violation Applicant is request- (8-28-86) existing non-conforming use Crossroads does exist. 1ng a rezoning. without obtaining building/ Church Road in zoning permit. Violation of Cheeks Township Section 21.4. i i i �r F 1�l i Charles and Operating an automobile repair 601184 (Dimmocks A violation Not applicable Marilyn Mclemb service out of residence in Hit[ Rd.) is dose not exist. r [B-ft-85) residantial zoned area. Cheeks Township. Orange County Development activity occurring Southeast quadrant A violation Applicant has Investors without obtaining applioabte of the intersect- does exist. complied with Partnership permits. -85 of I and regulations. C> [1-71-86) 881114 (Buckhorn Rd.) In Cheeks Township. i Frances Carter Property being used for rataiL Intersection of A violation Not applioabte 12-11-85) sate of wood. 8RIS48 (Doe Run does not exist. Rd.) and 681848 (Mill Crack Rd.) In Cheeks Township. Carolina Sport Property being used for North side of A violation CCB of Durham are Art Center commercial activity in BR1777 Womeatead does exist. Trustees* their (10-2-85) residential zoned area. Rd.) in Chapel Hilt attorney to notify Township. Lessees that they must Geese operation immediately Richard E. Operating photography business MC Hwy. BS South A violation Photography business Stockman out of residence. sign posted in Chapel Hilt does exist. operated out of [6-18-05) on property in Violation of Township residence on a pert- Article B, time basis. (not Livelihood), applicant modified sign to conform with Article B. I Richard Rigebee Auto repair garage being BR1714 (Murphy A violation Applicant (5-21-85) operated out of residence in School Rd.) In does exist discontinued use. residential zoned area. Chapel Hill Township. i Al PeEogin Petoqufn Associates being BR1034 (Seawet[ A violation Applicant (2-20-85) operated out of residence In Road) in Chapel does exist. discontinued use on residential zoned area. Hill Township 4-15-86. Deck House, Inc. Rodai hone for Deck House, Ing. 101 Barnhill A violation Applicant (7-30-85) constructed on lot, violation place dose exist. discontinued use. of Sections 4.3[828] and 21.4 [intersects with BR17301 in ChapeL Hill Township. Louie C Edwards Tex" 'service being operet_ed o_u_t _8R1-846_-(No v-i-t-te -V vJolstIon- -Not-appitcotiie. —- - --� - - -[10-14 i i Karen Cook Three 191 mobile homes located on Intersection of A violation Applicant has (5-30-06) one (1) Lot, however only one SR1711 (Piney does exist. compiled with (1) being occupied. BrOve Ch. Rd.) regulations as the and SRIS31 [Lennie mobile hones ware N Drive) . removed. Lot 197 "*bite hone set up an lot US Hwy. 70 in A violation Applicant obtained ~ Dixie Mobile without obtaining epplfcsble Eno Township dove exist building penal. Vane Park permits. (e-17-B6) t C eIg Can pbetl Used Auto sales being operated Intersection of A violation Automobiles were (6-12-85) out of residence in residential SR1710 IOLd 110) doss exist. removed. zoned area, and SR1728 (Hew Hope Church Rd.) Paliouree Used car lot being operated on HC Hwy. 06 in A violation Turned over to Enterprise property zoned R-1, also Hilleborough does exist county attorney. Inc. -Horkmanse violation of Article 8 Township Used Car Lot Sections 21,4, 4.8(826) (7-95-881 ! Bunny Young Motorcycle repair shop being SR1888 {Luther A violation One (1) mobile home (2-4-86) operated an property in Drive) in does exist. removed from rseidentfaL toned area. Also. Hilleborough property. Repair shop f two (2) mobile homes on property. Township situation turned aver to county attorney. 1 - HiLlsborough Flashing sign and Auction Center SR1710 (Old #101 A violation The sign was removed Legion Hut being operated on residential in Hilleborough does exist. and Auction Center {b-21-f35) zoned property. Violation of Township Article 0 and Section 21.4. discontinued. i Chandler Devatopment activity underway to- SR1710 (Old 0101 A vlclatisn Applicant complied Concrete Co., expand Chandler Concrete on in Hillsborough door exist. with regulations. Inc• property zoned for residential Township (3-25-56) uses. Carroll Realty Construction of a block masonry Southeast quadrant A violation Applicant complied and Construction building without obtaining of the I-B6/MCSB Company does exist. with regulations. applicable permits. Violation Interchange. (1-15-85) of Section 21.4 and MTC require- ments. ! i i I 1985 ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ORDIN ANCE HUNK PESCHEU99 EMU-11; tLEARIN RAIN- Zoning Ordinance Article 4 Revision of permitted use table to 11-26-84 Section 4.8 allow temporary use of residential mobile home. Approved 2-18-86 Zoning Ordinance Article B Provision for temporary use of 11-20-04 Section 8.8 residential mobile home. Approved 2-78-Bb Zoning Ordinance Article 22 Addition of dofinition of "Temporary 11-26-84 A Residential Mobile Home" Approved 2-18-85 Zoning Ordinance Article 2 Revision to appeal process to 80 11-28-84 Sao. 2.8.7.2 days. Approved 4-1-S5 I Zoning Ordinance Article 4 Revision of permitted use table to 11-26-84 Denied 4-1-85 Section 4.8 provide for motor vehicle sales/renteLs In CC-3 district Zoning Ordinance Article 4 Revision of permitted use table to 11-26-84 Approved 4-1-85 Section 4.8 provide for historic structures mixed use under a Class A Special Use Permit provision f Zoning Ordinance Article B Addition of Class A Special Use 11-28-64 A Sec. (1.0.24 Permit provision for mixed use of Approved 4-1-Bb historic Structures. Zoning Ordinance Article 4 Revision to permitted use table to 2-25-55 Section 4.8 provide for extractive uses under a Approved 4-1-85 Class A SUP provision in A-R and I1-8 districts. Zoning Ordinance Article B Revision of Class A Special Use 2-25-85 Approved raved 4-1-88 Sec. 8.8.1 permit provisions for extractive uses. � Zoning Ordinance Article 22 Revision of definition of "subdivision"2-25-86 to track B.S. 158A-885 Approved 4-9-65 Zoning Ordinance Article 8 Revision of site plan submittal 2-25-86 Section 8.8 requirements top s eoial use Approved 4-i-B8 4 p permit applications. Zoning Ordinance Article 8 Revision of Zoning Atlas replacement 2-25-85 Approved 4-1-85 Section 8.8 procedures i i i. Zoning Ordinance ance Articls 4 Addition of Class A Special Use 6-28-85 Approved 7-1-85 Section 4.8 Permit provision for non-profit educational cooperatives to permitted use table. +^� i'. Zoning Ordinance Article 5 Revision of table of dimensional 5-28-06 Section 8.1.2 requirements to correct error in minimum Approved i1-1H-H6 tat size In PW-1 district i Zoning Ordinance Article B Revision of home occupation provisions 5-28-88 ---_—Sect-ions— to Chet-r-a Approved 11-78-8fi -f- - -- - -- - - - - - Y- Ppltcsbi city to on- --- - -- 8.18.6.1-d Premisas Dale of goods. 6.18.2-a1 Zoning Ordinance Article 6 Rsvisian of watershed provisions to 6-28-66 ` Sections 8.23.5, 824.1 and state minimum lot size regirements in Approved 17-19-85 7.19.1 square feet. f Zoning Ordinance Article B Addition of Class A Special Use 5-20-B5 Section 8.8.24 Permit provision for non-profit educational cooperatives. Approved 7-1-85 Zoning Ordinance Article 11 Addition of provision allowing 5-28-85 p Section 11.961 raPlacoment of individual non-conforming Approved 7-1-85 mobile homes outside of mobile home perks. Inning Ordinance Article 22 Addition of definition of "Hon-Profit 5-28-88 Educational Cooperative" and "Goads, incidental". Approved 7-1-sb I Zoning Ordinance Article 22 Deletion of definitions of 6-28-85 Pending "farming" and "bons-fide farm". Subdivision Regulations Section IV-B-8-C-2 Provision of additional standards 6-28-66 for evaluation• of Approved g-S-85 partial width rights-of-way requests. I. Subdivision Regulations Section IV--B-H Addition of provleione Providing for 5-28-85 A 1/2" starmwater Infiltration standard and Approved 1i-1B-8b 50' stream buffer for ell property outside of zoned portions of University Lake, Cane Creek and Upper Eno watersheds and the Roanoke basin. Zoning Ordinance Article 8 Revision of general standards 8-26-85 Approved 14-99-86 Section 8.1 provisions special use permits to 8.2.1-4 specify conditions of apprval. i I i Zoning rdinance E 9 Article 0 Revision of impervious surface 8-26-85 Approved 11-1g-95 Sections 8.23.4 and requirements in designated watersheds 8.24.6 to 6,12 and 30% Zoning Ordinance Article 6 Revision of first 1/21' starmwater 8-26-85 Sections 6.23.7 and infiltration standards to aLtow alternative Approved 11-18-65 j 6.24.0 oontral methods. Zoning Ordinance Article 20 Clarification of public hearing 6-26-85 A Section 20.6.3 _ -not-i-f-i-cat-ion requ-i-rsmente-to-provide-for- Approved 11-98-ES - - - --- -- certification of wailing as required by State enabling statutes. Sedimentation & Entire Ordinance Revisions to reflect changes in the 11-4-05 q Erosion Control Ordinance Sedimentation Pollution Control Pproved 42-2-86 Act and Its regulations and the state modal ordinance. Zoning Ordinance Article 4 Refinement of access criteria by 11-25-06 Pending Sections 4.2.3.b3 zoning district. 4.2.4.b3 4,2.8.66 4.2.10.b7 4.2.11.b3 4.2.16,65 4.2.21 .b3 4.2.22.b3 4.2.23.b3 Zoning Ordinance Article 22 Refinement of street classification 11-25-85 Pending definitions Zoning Ordinance Article S Refinement of LUI system for 11-25-85 Pending Section 6.1.2 industrial uses. Zoning Ordinance Article S Addition of Special Use Permit 11-25-05 Pending provision for modification of Impervious surface requirements in PW-II district. Zoning Ordinance Article 6 Addition of provision for use of 11-25-05 Pending easement over or ownership of property to satiafy watershed standards off-site. r i Subdivision Regulations Section III-0-1 8 Addition of 15 days to preliminary 11-85-85 Pending E. III-D-4-b plat review period. Subdivision Regulation Section III-0-1 Revision of submittal requirements to 11-26-86 Pending require 27 copies of preliminary plat. i I I � I Y j F j I 1 I f I r. I t, _ I ORANGE COUNTY I BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date : February 18 , 1986 Action Agenda Item SUBJECT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORK PROGRAM *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING:_Yes X No *************************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS:Proposed Work Program CONTACT: Marvin Collins (Under Separate Cover) TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 **************************************************************************:* PURPOSE: To consider a proposed Planning Department Work Program for the period January 1-June 30 , 1986. NEED: At the joint Board of Commissioners-Planning Board meeting of December 10, 1985, five work elements were identified by the Board of Commissioners as having the highest priority. These elements included: Joint Planning Area (Chapel Hill/Carrboro) I--40 Interchanges Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Recreation/Open Space Plan Water Resources The Commissioners directed the Planning Department to prepare a six-month work program for the period January 1-June 30 , 1986 , including a schedule for completion and allocation of staff resources. IMPACT: Development of a work program for the completion of priority items would enable the Planning Department and Planning Board to focus on those elements which were considered of the highest priority by the Board of Commissioners . The inclusion of a program calendar would assist the li r 2.! Board in tracking progress on the program and in scheduling public meetings or hearings related thereto. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Planning Department Work Program. The Planning Board will meet on Monday, February 17, 1986, and will prepare a recommendation regarding the Work Program. The Planning Board' s recommendation will be presented verbally to the Board of Commissioners at the meeting. +. Ft11Gt COUNTY_. . .... _..._ - - - •• BOARD. OF COMMISSIONERS.S ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEm ►NOZ3, MEETING DATE Zpb_ritary 1 R 19 86 SUBJECT: HSAC Report:I Its Past and Future DEPARTMENT HSAC J [ PUBLIC. HEARING- YES x NO • Report INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Passmore, Ch= ext 280 PHONE NUMBERS:- HILLSBOROUGH - 732»8181 • HILISBOROUG1 - 732-9361 • • CHAPEL HILL. - 9674251 • MANE - 2272031 DURHAM' 588-7331 4 PURPOSE• To present the Orange County Commissioners . a summary of HSAC's • Past activities . from 1979 to 1985 and to request some direction as to HSAC's future. It is recommended that the HSAC Service . Delivery Committee examine the purpose /charge of •HSAC and whether the 'current structure is capable of achieving it. If approved ,by the County Commissioners, the Committee's findings -would be reported by May, 1986. D' Before . such la study is done, the County Commissi • answer four key questions that would effect the outcomeuof the study. ('Questions are listed in the report on page 4 and 5 . ) • • IMPACT: Such a study l based on the County Commissioners ' desires could i have a majoriimpact on the future planning, funding and coordination of county human services. • RECOMMDATT ON(S) : Refer to the Manager for further study and recommendation together with any Board guidance. • 2 1 ORANGE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION: ITS PAST & FUTURE A Report to the County Commissioners- 1979-85 by .erry M. Paesmore. HSAC Chair Established by County Commissioner resolution on February 5, 1979, the Orange County Human Service= Advisory Commission' s (HSAC) PURPOSE is "to plan for, evaluate, strengthen and coordinate the activities and functions of the many and varied human service efforts e::istino_ within Orange Count,. " The HSAC mandated CHARGE is to: 1. provide ADVICE to the Commissioners and other boards requesting help in PLANNING. EVALUATING, and COORDINATING the delivery of human services in such areas as ma:,imizina resources, promoting cost-effective approaches, and increasing inter-acaency coordination. 2. facilitate greater COMMUNICATION and COORDINATION among finders and service providers. 3. study and report on the human service NEEDS and RESOURCES. 4. undertake STUDIES resulting from special reouests by County Commissioners. To carry out HSAC' s purpose and specific responsibilities over the oast sir; years is a membership composed of a county commissioner, representatives from three municipal councils (Chapel Hill , Carrboro, Hillsborough) , members of two school boards, a representative from the United Fund, and twenty-four director/staff representatives from local human service Iagencies. HSAC has grown from an original twenty- one members to thirty-one. resulting from several small private non- Profit agencies being admitted to membership. Generally sneaking, the Commission structure and leadership has been ore-dominantly ❑aid agency staff. Only one HSAC chair has been a volunteer and only two have been elected from private non-profit agencies. The HSAC Chair- persons have been asl, follows: 1979 - Pegay', Pol l i tz er. United Fund of Chapel Hill-Carrborc 1980 - Peggv, Pollitzer, United Fund of Chapel Hill-Carrboro 1981 - Bill Baxter. OPC Mental Health Center 1982 - Keith'IAldridge, Interfaith Council 1983 - Jerry Robinson. County Health Department 1984 - Kathv', Moeller-Peiffer, County Public Library 1985 - Jerry' P•assmore, County Dept. on Aging A current HSAC Membership list is attached indicating organization name. representative; classification either member (M) . Alternate (A) , or Other (0) , and characteristics such as race, sex and whether paid or volunteer appointee. II 2 2 L PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND SHORTCOMINGS To gain a perspective on HSAC's past accomplihments as well as its shortcomings, all major activities have been categorized under the four specific Charges. 1. Advise the County Commissioners/others on PLANNING, EVALUATING and COORDINATING human services, Generally speaking, past accomplishments have been in the area of COORDINATION and PLANNING recommendations for NEW structures. However, HSAC' s weaknesses lie in its inability to PLAN or EVALUATE the delivery of existing services. The likely explanation is the reluctance of HSAC membership to evaluate its member and non-member services. In most cases, the advise/counsel was initiated by HSAC not by the County Commissioners nor the County Manager's Office. Past activities were: 1981-82 - HSAC (its Transportatin Committee) updated the County Transportation Development Plan (1980-85) , recommending to County Commissioners ( 1 ) the establishment of .a permanent Transportation Board, and (2) the submission of coordinated transport- ation applications for vehicle replacement. Results; A County Transportation Board was created to coordinate participating agency vehicles in the TDP. The Dept. on Aging served as lead agency and prepared applications funded far over $ 300,000 for new vehicles utilized through the Coordinated Agency Transportation or CAT system. 1981-82 - HSAC (its Case Management Committee) researched for several months the feasibility and issues of a county wide case managment system. Results: While no county system was developed, individual agencies developed or expanded its case management service such OPC Mental Health Center and County Dept. on Aging, 1983-B4 - HSAC (its Housing Committee) identified substandard housing issue and recommended the adoption of a minimum housing standard ordinance for rental property . Results: Adoption of the Minimum Housing Ordinance by the County Commissioners with enforcement assigned to the Orange County Housing Authority. 1993-84 HSAC (its I/R Committee) identified the need for and recommended the creation of a centralized computer I/R Collection System with periodic updates. Results: An I/R Steering Committee was established by the County Manager for carrying out the tasks necessary to produce a loose leaf directory. r,ard 221 file, computer disks/tapes for sale. As of p January, 1986 the I/R Collection project is . still unfinished, suffering from inadequate financial support. 1983-84 -- HSAC (its Child Care Subcommittee) recommended the creation of a county commissioner appointed Task Force to establish a child care coordinating agency. Results: The Child Care Networks, Inc. , a private non-profit agency, was created to serve as a focal point for information and coordination of children services. 1984-85 HSAC (its In--home Care Committee) was instrumental in promoting greater in-home health coordination and recommending a permanent board to deal with this issue. Results: A County In-home Care Board was established by County Commissioners which is staffed by the the Dept. of Social Services and advisory to the Social Services Board. 1984-85 HSAC (its Displaced Workers Committee) studied the impact of the lay offs in the Hillsborough area and recommended the establishment of a credit counseling service. Results: OCIM (Orange Congregations in Mission) began offering the credit counseling service. 2. Facilitate COMMUNICATION and COORDINATION among providers. Since the very beginning, HSAC has devoted time at monthly meetings for information e:rchanae, through a round robin practice or special programs. In fact, the communication function was ranked as the highest relevant HSAC activity in a 1982 membership- survey. Perhaps the best effort in communication and coordination was the 1980 Conference and and Report on Human Services Coordination: Challenge for the 80's.1, The results were the sharing of ideas and identifying of major coordination issues such as needs assessment (setting priorities, evaluation, resources, etc. ) , funding, and specific service coordination areas such as women, aging, children & families, health care, legislative action, case management, and board development. -4- 22‹ _ . Study and report on NEEDS and RESOURCES. HSAC has excelled in its efforts over the oast five years to identify and prioritize human service needs in Orange County to a lesser dsgree on resource/service identification. In 1981 HSAC (its Needs Assessment Subcommittee' submitted to the County Commissioners a Proposal for a Comprehensive Needs Assessment Process which met their approval . In 1982 the Needs Assessment Process was completed and a report was submitted to the County Commissioners. While the results were helpful the County Commissioners had difficulty utilizing the report (needs identification) in their policymakinq role such as service and funding priority setting. In 1982 HSAC fists Transportation Committee) completed an agency client transportation survey. Without a doubt. the survey indicated a need for more transportation to make human services accessible. especially in rural Orange County, and parti cul ar1 v among disadvantaged groups such as the •poor, the elderly and handicapped. Interestingly, in a 1984 HSAC member survey on priority work issues, the highest ranked items were PLANNING, and INFORMATION/ REFERRAL. This implies a need for a more effective and clearly defined community planning process. 4. Undertake STUDIES by request. In the past eix' years, the County Commissioners requested the HSAC to research two issues: ( 1 ) whether there was duplication of Women Organization's services and (2) ways to coordinate the. the Summer Youth Nutrition Program. The findings were no unnessary duplication of ,Women's services. HSAC recommended that Recreation Providers be given uo to $2000 who joinly plan the Youth Program. THE FUTURE OF HSACI The primary objective of HSAC for 1985-86 will be the treater involvement of its membership in identifying community needs in a systematic manner and recommending specific solutions. Naturally. this should be done where possible in cooperation with other key planning/coordinating groups such as the Association of Community Agencies (ACA) . the Human Services Advisory Boards of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. and the United Funds, To accomplish this HSAC objective, several changes are necessary. 1 . New Meeting Schedule. To give more time and emphasis to working committees, HSAC will meet bi-monthly. 2. New Committee Structure. Several special committees have been established, primarily to address HSAC's mandated charge. Committee de=scription, are as -Fellows: , 22 _5- A. Needs Report Committee- prepare and submit to the County Commissioners as well as other interested parties an updated Needs Assessment Fteport for consideration in the upcoming local budoet process. The Committee is charged to do what is necessary (hold( a conference, public hearings, evaluate oast needs', assessment efforts, etc) to provide assistance to funding groups as to priority of needs/services, their' level and severity in our county. B. Service Delivery Committee- recommend ways to improve human, service delivery by maimiing resources, adopting cost effective measures. and increasing i nter--agency coordination. Areas likely to be e::plored by the committee are the present status of a centralized computer I/P Collection system and the local impact of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budoet and • Emergency Deficit Control Act (PL 99-177) . C. Housing Action Committee- recommend ways to deal with the high priority housing needs of Orange County. The committee is establishing an inventory of resources and community efforts. D. Frogam Committee- recommend and arrange special community awareness programs for HSAC and the public. One major program being planned is on the Deficit Control Act. 3. HSAC News 'Ex change. To promote greater awareness of issues, programs, 'and agency changes, a HSAC newsletter will be prepared and distributed to the membership on a periodic basis (bi-imonthly) . If this communication effort is to be effective, all organizations must contribute noteworthy items. The success of the propose changes is vitally dependent of the active participation of the HSAC membership and the support of the County Commis_Sioners. Several key questions must be answered by the County Commissioners as to the future direction of HSAC: 1. After briefly reviewing the past Accomplishment and short- comings of HSAC. Should the mandated charge or its emphasis be changed ? 2. What future relationship (reporti np. etc) would the County CoMmissioners like to see with HSAC ? its relation- ship with the County Manager' s Office ? . What kinds of human service issues should HSAC be addressing to increase its relevance to the County Commissioners For example, joint plannig/funding efforts, prioritizing needs/servicee, housing alternatives. 22 4_ -6- 4. Should there be active -membership requirements ? The by-laws do not provide for a minimum attendence ec that in-active members can be replaced. ( This has been a problem at times) In conclusion, I would propose that the HSAC Service Delivery Committee examine on behalf of the County Commissioners the purpose and charge of HSAC and whether the current structure is capable of achieving it. However, before such a self-study can take place, it would be vital for the County Commissioners to respond to thelabove Questions. The committee would then Present its findings and recommendations to the County Commissioners for action by May.i 1996. On behalf of ',the Orange County Human Services Advi sort' Commission (HSAC) .I I thank you for your past and future support in our joint efforts to maintain the quality of life for Orange County residents. Jan. , 1986 ORMON COUNTY nUMN Class C S ADVISORY COMMISSION M - Member HSAC MRMBRRSHI�P ].985-86 A = Alternate '. . 0 = Other j . RisOtlydll ORt3 NAME CITY PHONE CLASS LASTNnW „� 11 ASSN. Or COMMUNITY A©ENClE9 CF{APEL HILL 96@-450! M PttTNAM FIRSTNRME PRIUaRVOL RACE BEX l(ATHY P {+ F y CHAPEL }MILL 14aUSINB nUTHaR1tY CFfnPEL HILL 969-4556 M MCCALLI87ER MARY p W F 1 F�}fiE(, FF��iL HUMAN SERVI Eg. CN}�pPE HH e9120105? yq rr qq 4! Itf3PEL FiI1�-CnRRBORa CI Y SCH. CHnPER Ff1LL 969- 9 Or C�RitLYN '31 C11APEL HILL-CRRnBand City 9CI�. GNAREL HILL 969 8794 M bATtLE ED WILD CARE NEtwanKg CARRBun[? 948-0194 M }�{} FRED P Co. "Dann or COMMISBIONERB ELPnND YCR CAROL P W F E5 DlIIpUTE 81:ttLEMENT CENTER CIiAPEL HILL 929-8eod M MILLAR CLAIRE P W F BEN V w M r.;:•, 44 'DISPUTE BETTLEMENT' CENTER C14APEL HILL 929-5 @00 A FENHAGEN @g HEALTH R MEDICAL Cnam IIDV COUNCL CHAPEL HILL 962-6991 M CROWE EEWAY P W F !8 ' HdM6 11knLTH AGENCY CHAPEL HILL 929-7149 M PLlCHtA EDWARD V W M 41 HOME HEALTH naENCY CHAPEL HILL 989-7149 A TLRILINvTON FRnNH P W M .;;;. 10 INTERFAITH COUNCIL PAT P w F t fFITEftF13ITFl COUNCIL. CHAPEL FALL 948-8560 H POLLITIER PEGGY V v CHAPEL HILL 989-6300 A MORAN W F ' 14 JOINT OhnMbE/C"gTj4n 1 CON. ACTION PI TTSBURa 989-0434 Ff WILLIAMS C!lR I S P W M JOINT t1hANGEICHATFIAM CaM. ACTION CNgpEL HILL 929-0498 A HARRIS bLORIR 0 B F 01. NORTH CAItdLINA NEMallfnL HOSPITAL CHnFEL 14ILL 966-4483 M LANE BRENDA P B F +� 1+frGRT11 CAROLINA MEMORIAL HOBt+#tAL CHAPEL HILL 965-4131 A HILL. JAMES P W M 99 NORTH STATE LmL !#ERVICES C WALLACE P W M +:: ►.N:::.,',;;:. H APIEL 14ILL 738-8l3T M CARAWAY CRNORCE p 1�3 UPC MENTAL HEnitN CHAPEL HILL 989-0471 }r) BAXtEp W F z+. ; .,;•_',.a ,:. 3i ORANtlE Co. AGR#CIlLtURAL, km t. OEM MtLLSBDnouw4 732-9361 M MRINOU9 BILL P W M 4T ORANGE to A8RICULTUnnL EXT• sell H1!_LSBaRDU9H 732-9361 A DAVIS BONNIE P W M 60 ORANee to. BOAR6 Of= COMMISSIONER FIILLSBdRau"" 732-519! t# gty� BONNIE P 8 F }; ;. tIIIRNtlE CO. 13OARD OF EbUbATION NILLSBaROUGI# 693-6317 M FARIBndLt*.th. WALTER v W F CSI. COMMI$BION FOR WOMEN HItL.sBaRolIGH 732-9l9i N B M Y INSHO VERLn P W F f'. ;t a3; �� OnAmer CtINCiREQIttIONB fN H188ION 1IILLBBOROUg" 73e-9494 'M SLADIM ;; `: -.+0 OnmaE CONgnpeAtIONO IN t4lS810" HILLSBallaue" 738-9494 p OTILWELL ORANGE COUNTY Dept. ON n9lNg F1ILLOPORWo" 967-925! M PA6BMORE SUSAN P W F BETH P w F r; l� SO , ORANGE tOumTY DEIST. ON AutNf9 f;HRPE1 HILL JERRY P w 542-22 @!3 p WEST RUTH V M 13 OlinNtlE CtIUNtY bEPT. SOCIAL $ER. F1iLLSBOROU[tl1 732-4341 M WARD W F TOM p Ili ORANGE•COUNTY HEALTH OEPARTMENt HtLLf3BtlRautlH 96@-450! !+I ROBINSON W M 0 1lRRNtIE t;L1i�NtY IIEALTN bE ARTMENt LLSOURVU04 73e-slat F4 HAMSLEE JERRY P w H annNam COUNTY IMUSINO ApTHORI tY ��{{rrLL1900rl tl 738-9181 M UNHAM W F U H1 LYNN A ORANGE COUNTY NAHABEll b �rldt HILLSBORatl@N 732-8161' O kITTRELL _ P � Bab p w M 3O OnnNSE CtfUNtV 11nIViiO�If�L# LCE—_HIL18IIt1ItOUtlM 738-8191-0-- -T}IONP6L7N ALPERT -P -B M- ' 34- ORANGE COWTY PUBLIC LISRRnY FtfLLSBOROUI3F1 73e-6i81 N MOELLER-0E1f-FER kRTHLEEN p -: EO ' ORANGE/CHATNwM Camp. f1EALTH I#EftV CRRRBDRO if4L-D741 M ALStON F t,:_�, ;.• ;• 48 tIRANGE/GHRtHFIM COMP. HEALTH BERV CA"019001 PAUL P B M 7 f7I.ANNEb PARENTHOOD . 9ae-9741 A I:nnRINDt1IN DonOTHER P B F t. & O PLANNED PRRENtHaOD CHAPEL HILL 92+1-540e M CULM E CHAPEL HILL. 94e-5553 A CHnwtTt JANET V W F 0 pSYCHOLday Assoc IAtEB EL I SI{R V W F 3E TO11N OF CnttRBOREI ` CHAPEL HILL 942-8596 O WnaDwRRD f3I3_L P CHAPEL HILL 966-2656 M ANDERSON DOUG W M 411 tam OF CARnauna. CARROD"a 948-8541 A SaDNE W M 3• TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL JOHN V w M ± CHAPEL HILL 489-6550 IN WERNER H M j;.. 4 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH HILLSBaROUGN 738-8410 M PAGE ART V is UNC SCHOOL tw SOCIAL NOW CFIAPEL HILL. 962-tees 0 BOWEN GARDA>:R V w F ! 1; UNITED WAY-CIjnPEL HILL/CAnftban{i CHAPEL 1LIL.L 929-3192 M AVER GARY V yI M 5 UNITED WAY-CHAPEL HILL/CARRBatlo CHAPEL HILL 929-7273 n t3CFlRAUER FRRNI�LIN V N M e7 VOLUNTEERS, ran YUUTHj INC. L'RnRBORO 9419-0003 p► DELOnurn 9UE P W F 45 VOLUNTEERS FOR Yf3UtH0 INC. JIM P w M CAn"PORD 942-0003 A J011NOUN ! IMMEN19 ItEnt_m COUNSELING BERV. CIInPtL HILL 968-4649 M PIE"" MARIAN V a w r- l;nrlly P W F 226 w ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. :LA Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 18, 1986 SUBJECT: PROPERTY REVALUATION PROJECT STATUS REPORT DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 RE-VALUATION STATUS REPORT TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-733. PURPOSE: To brief the Board on the progress that has been made. Recognizing that property values fluctuate the Machinery Act of 1971 ( requires that all real property be periodically reappraised. Orange County is scheduled to complete its next scheduled revaluation effective January 1, 1987 per resolution of thelBoard of Commissioners under the terms of G. S. 105-4 286 (a) (2) . The status of preparatory work will be reported February 18, 1986 by the Tax Supervisor. See attachment. NEED: IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION(S) : 227 RE-VALUATION STATUS REPORT FEBRUARY 12, 1986 The Orange County 1987 Revaluation consists of four major phases: 1) 'iOrganization and Development 2) (Land Pricing 3) Data Entry 4) ,Final Review Organization and Development involves plannning and development of computer systems and building value schedules, as well as the collectionslof good data concerning all county properties. Land pricing requires close analysis of real estate sales and valuation schedules. The Development aspect of phase I and all of phase II are very much dependent on current market value sales information. Data Entry requires closely supervised entry of the data from phases I and II. In final review all projected values will be compared, on site, to the property being appraised., Phase I. Organization and development consisting of Planning, Data System pesign, Data Research, and analysis, Data Collection, and valuation is 100%. Complete in respect to Residential and Agricultural property. Commercial and Industrial phases are 25% completed with its projected completion being near the end of the revaluation.) Phase II. Land Pricing of the placing of Base land values on all the county maps has been 100% completed in Little River, Cedar Grove, Eno, and Bingham townships. Cheeks is 80% complete with an expected completion date for the entire county of April. Phase IIII. Keying of Land values into the computer for computation of current appraised value is finished for township one, Little River, with township 2, Cedar Grove 95% keyed. Projected completion for all land entry keying is August. PhaselIV. Final Review is a field review of final appraised values where appraisers review all the entries and values on each property record card while looking at the particular property which the card represents. This phase is expected to run one to three weeks behind phase III. All cards should be returned and data entry of changes completed by the end of September. Finally, there will be a thorough examination of the residen-. tial/agricultural sales analysis, adjustments made, and in November the "Notices of change of value" will be mailed. Informal hearings will be set up at this time and should run between November and March. Commercial/Industrial notices are slated for mailing in late December. Thanks to an active Orange County real estate market an ever growing sales file of 3000 plus sales of Residential/Agricultural (Vacant and Improved) and Commercial/Industrial (Vacant & Improved) current market value sales have been compiled. Analysis of the sales file indicates minor increases in land values and an average 30% ;increase in building costs for the majority of the county excluding Hillsborough and Chapel Hill Townships. Areas where land values have increased in Little River, Cedar Grove, Cheeks, Eno, and Bingham are usually well defined, compact areas where real estate is moving with verifiable and documented value. As previously indicated the last two townships have not yet been thoroughly analized, however it is expected that high density and commercially developed areas will show major increases. eir January ,23, 1986 Ms. Beverly Blythe Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners 106 East Margaret Lane H4.l1sborough,iNC 27278 Dear Ms. Blythe: Y am enclosing the resolution adopted on December 12, 1985, by the Health and Medical Care Advisory Council, requesting an amendment to our bylaws. Our proposal is to amend Section V, sub-section (A) to read: "Persons,appointed shall be limited to those without direct financial interest or position as an officer or director in any component of the health care system; except that a person whose sole involvement is as an employee shall be eligible. Such persons shall comprise no more than three of the nine members of the Council." The attached resolution describes the reasons for this proposed change. I understand that the Board of Commissioners meets on February 3. If our proposal could be included as an agenda item for that meeting, I would be glad to attend the meeting and explain why we seek this change. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Edward Crowe Chairman, Orange County Health and Medical Care Advisory Council 202 Brandywine Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Attachment • t=: I PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE CRITERIA FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY COUNCIL I. Current Criteria for Appointment by the Commissioners Section V of the Resolution which established the Health and Medical Care Advisory Council states that persons appointed to the Council by the Board of Commissioners shall be persons who are: "not employed, directly or indirectly, by any component of the health and medical care system; selected so as to balance representation by residence and socio- economic characteristics; willing to exert the necessary effort to deal effectively with the complexity and technicality of the medical care system." It is the strong feeling of current and past members of the Council that the limitation against appointment of persons who are employed by some com- ponent of the health care system defeats the purpose of recruiting interested and informed citizens who meet the third criterion for Council membership (i.e., "willing to exert the necessary effort..."). Accordingly, we propose the following modification in the criteria for__appointment, with the rationale for this change discussed below. II. Proposed Change in the Qualifications for Council Membership Our proposal is to amend Section V of the resolution of establishment in the following way: sub-section (A) would state that "persons appointed shall be: limited to those without direct financial interest or position as an officer or director in any component of the health care system; except that a person .chose sole involvement is as an employee shall be eligible. Such persons shall comprise no more than three of the nine members of the Council." Sub-sections (B) and (C) would remain as they are now. III. Reasons for the Proposed Change While those with a direct financial interest in some component of the health care system have the right to present their views to,the Council, we recognize that a clear conflict exists between their private interests and the publiclresponsibilities of a Council member. As currently stated, however, the exclusion of employees removes from consideration many able and dedicated people whose only financial interest in the health care system is employment. Their interests as employees are materially different from those of officers, owners, stockholders or directors. Exclusion of employees, who comprise a significant percentage of the Orange County work- force, greatly limits the Council's ability to attract qualified people who can be effective members. The health care system is complex and rapidly changing. The county and this Council can derive great benefit from the active involvement of persons whose expertise and interest are in health care, but who have no direct conflict of interest. Persons currently excluded who would be eligible for consideration by the commissioners include employees of local health care institutions and consultants to those institutions who are recognized experts in the health care field. -2- I Finally, we believe that limiting such persons to no more than one-third of the Council's membership would ensure that this group of interested county residents is adequately represented within the broad overall balance mandated by the resolution which established the Council. - Resolution adopted by the Health and Medical Care III1llll1l'r Advisory Council on December 12, 1985 om,, State of North Carolina lna Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Division of Land Resources 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 James G. Martin, Governor Stephen G. Conrad S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary Director February 10, 1986 Mr. Donald Wilhoit, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Wilhoit: The Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance as revised,, adopted, and submitted to the Land Quality Section has been reviewed. During the review several corrections were discovered which need to be made to your ordinance. These include various typographical errors., several general comments, and several significant conflicts with the intent of the Sedimentation Control Commission's Model Local Ordinance. Please find enclosed a list of the changes needed. I am also sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Warren Faircloth along with the list of changes and copies of the pages from your ordinance where the corrections are indicated. I will be glad to discuss these items with you or Mr. Faircloth if you so desire. We urge you to address this matter at your earliest convenience so that your ordinance might be presented to the Commission. Their next regularly scheduled meeting is on March 5, 1986. The Commission does require ordinances to be adopted locally prior to consideration for approval. Please submit the adopted ordinance again once these revisions are made, and if additional changes have been made please indicate same at that time. P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Ca 8 , Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone 919-733-3833 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer Ai , '- _° DISTRIBUTED ...) ,,.7,c......0"..- State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Division of Land Resources 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 James G. Martin, Governor Stephen G. Conrad S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary November 22, 1985 Director Mr. Donald Wilhoit, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr.' Wilhoit: This is to acknowledge receipt of the amended Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance pursuant to the Revised Model Ordinance approved by the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Commission on June 25, 1985. The staff of the Land Quality Section will review the proposed document and present all revised local ordinance documents and review comments to the Sedimentation Pollution Control Commission for consideration and final approval in March, 1986. Reviews of any documents which are completed prior to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission in December, 1985 will be presented at that time. Questions or comments concerning this review will be addressed to the local governments if necessary. We recommend that local governments delay formal adoption of the revised ordinance until final approval is issued by the Commission. Until such time all local erosion and sedimentation control programs shall operate under the terms of their current ordinance. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Should you have questions or comments do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, . Taylor Currin P.E. Sedimentation Control Engineer Land Quality Section cc: Mr. Warren Faircloth Mr. Charles Gardner P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina � 27611-7687 Telephone 919-733-3833 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer Mr. Donald Wilhoit February 10, 1986 Page Two If we might be of assistance in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sinc ely, S. Craig D 1 Assistant edimentation Specialist Land Quality Section cc: Mr. Warren Faircloth Mr. Charles Gardner Mr. Harlan Britt Mr. Taylor Currin Mr. John Holley February 10, 1986 Corrections to the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance NOTE: Referring to the Model Local Ordinance may be of benefit in noting these corrections. 1. Typographical errors as noted. 2. p. 4 Section 3 the definition of Adequate Erosion Control Measure, Structure, or Device should have "under responsible control of the person conducting the land-disturbing activity" added at the end of the definition. p. 4 Section 3 the definition of Buffer Area should also refer to Section 8(a) as it pertains to buffer zone. p. 7 Section 3 the definition of Ten-Year Storm in the third line should have "once" inserted between "average", and "in". 3. p. 9 Section 6(a)(b) and 6.1(b) these paragraphs would be more technically adequate if "persons engaged in . . ." and "persons responsible for . . ." were replaced with "person(s) conducting. . ." as shown. You have already included a definition for Person Conducting Land-disturbing Activity which defines not only the person conducting the activity but also the person responsible for any violations. p. 9 Section 6(b) and 6.1(a) although prior plan approval is required in Section 8(e) it should also be stated in these sections as well. As they read now only a requirement for the preparation and submittal of a plan is stated. p. 10 ' Section 6.1(c) change "engaged in" to "conducting". 4. p. 11 Section 7(f) in the second line insert "runoff" between "water" and "resulting". 5. p. 12 ' Section 8(c) change "is" to "are" as shown. p. 12 Section 8(d) either change "calculated peak rates" in the fifth line to "calculated maximum peak rates" or "calculated peak discharge" as defined in Section 3. Change "a ten-year frequency storm" to "the ten-year frequency storm". p. 12 Section 8(e) change "is" to "are" as shown. it .ice 6. p. 15 Section 8.1(1) the velocity requirement in this paragraph could be strengthened by making it contingent upon adequate design calculation procedures. 7. p. 17 Section 9(b)(3) change the maximum permissible velocities in F.P.S. in the table as shown to 5.0 and 5.5 respectively. 8. p. 19 Section 13 this paragraph omits several key items including installation of such measures as required by the Ordinance, or the Act as well as an approved plan, the requirement for installing as well as maintaining permanent measures, and the responsibilities of persons in possession or control of the land as well as the landowner. See Section 13 of the Model Ordinance. 9. p. 19 Section 15(a) in the third line a reference is made to Section 5.1. Where is Section 5.1? p. 20 Section 15(b) in the second line reference is made to a "written notice to comply". This is in conflict with the intent of the Model. This must be changed to state a "written notice of violation". 10. p. 20 Section 17(a) this paragraph states the requirement of approvals and permit issuance for sites 20,000 square feet and larger. This is fine; however, you may wish to consider those instances in which erosion control plans may be required for areas smaller than 20,000 square feet as provided in Section 6.1. p. 21 Section 17(a)(3) same note as above. p. 22 Section 17(f) change "engaged in" and "responsible for" to "conducting" as shown. 11. p. 22 Section 18(a) change "is" in the fifth line to "are". 12. p. 25 Section 20 change "of a plan" in the fourth line to "of an approved plan". 13. p. 26 Section 21(c) change "sites of land-disturbing activities" ito "sites of any land-disturbing activities" in the sixth line. p. 27 ,Section 21(f) change "responsible for" and "owner or contractor" to "conducting" and "person conducting the land-disturbing activity" respectively as shown. I I Prepared by: CORALYNN Y. HARWARD, Attorney at Law, 2502 Sevier St. , Durham, NC 27705 Mail to: NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY DEED TO DEDICATE SEPTIC SYSTEM EASEMENT This deed, made this day of , 1986, by and between Marc A. Connery and wife, Sharon K. Connery, both of Orange County, North Carolina, parties of the first part; and Orange County, North Carolina, party of the second part; WITNESSETH: That whereas, said parties of the first part are the owners of a certain tract of land lying on the eastern side of old Highway No. 86, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, the same being the land conveyed to them by Alan C. Kerckhoff and wife, Sylvia Kerckhoff by deed recorded in Book 541, page 264, Register of Deeds of Orange County, which deed is hereby referred to for greater certainty of description; and whereas, said parties of the first part desire to subdivide said tract of land in accordance with survey entitled Property of Marc A. and Sharon K. Connery, dated January 10, 1986, by Dale D. Faulkner, Registered Land Surveyor, recorded in Plat Book , page , Register of Deeds of Orange in its name by its Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners, and its official seal attached hereto, attested by its Clerk, Orange County Board of Commissioners the day and year first above written. (SEAL) (SEAL ORANGE COUNTY Don Wilihoit, Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: a_ Clerk, Orange linty Board 4i . mmissioners • - ` • II NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY This the /9td.ay of,91.Iz , 1986, personally came before me ,.S,1. , who, being by me du y sworn, says that she knows the common seal of Orange County and is acquainted• with Don Willhoit, who is Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, and that she, the said � r signed her name in attestation of the execution of said instrument in the presence of said Chairman' of said Board of County Commissioners. Witness my hand and official seal, this the /Q 'day of tg , 1986. Not ry Public 8a 6�'P S. CL �'' My commission expires: �•�\ E °�° MuIARy /x1990 1 5. i m '� t1 it ACC PartI Number: A-2903- V U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT SECTION 8 EXISTING ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRACT—PARTI for HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM Mili...■._ LL DEFINITIONS. A. ACC. Annual Contributions Coact B. Fiscal Year. The PHA Fiscal Year as specified in section L2.8 of this ACC Part L C. HUD. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. D. Maximum Annual Contribution Commitment The amount of contract authority reserved by HUD far a project. The amount of contract authority reserved for each project in the Housing Voucher Program is stated in Exhibit I of this ACC Part I (subject to reduction in accordance with section 1.3.E and section 2.3 of this ACC). E. PHA. Public Housing Agency. F. Program. The PEA's Housing Voucher Program. G. Program Receipts. Amounts paid by HUD to the PHA under this ACC for the Housing Voucher Program, and any other amounts received by the PHA in connection with the Program. H. Program Expenditures. Amounts which may be charged against Program Receipts in acc rdanae with the ACC and HUD requirements. 1.2. HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM. A. Projects. The Program under this ACC consists of the projects listed in Exhibit I of this ACC Part I, each of which represents a funding increment for the Program. Page 1 of 5 pages HUD 52520 D. (June 1985) B. PHA Fiscal Year. The Fiscal Year fa the Program shall be the 12-month period ending December 31 of each calendar year. U sect the day and month used as the Fiscal Year ending date far other section 8 aseistance administered by the PHA harder an ACC with BUD.) 1.3. ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION. A. Payment. BUD shalt pay the PHA annual � al aocrs for the ,projects in the Program in accerdanoe with HUD regulatiors and requirements _ B. (Term. Payments on account of the annual contributions for each Tqc7rect may only be made during a term of five yeas, and shall not be made after the end of the five year term. The term for each —project begins when HUD makes the fib advance to the PHA on account of the annual contributions for the prajec . After HUD makes the first advance fa* a project. HUD may enter the fist and last dates of the ACC term fee the project on Exhibit'of this ACC Part I. The Exhibit I as revised by HUD shall constitute an a m end m ent of the ACC Part I, and the revised Exhibit I supersedes any previous Exhibit I for the Program. C. Amount and Purpose. The annual contribution for the Program far a Fiscal Year shall be the sum of the amounts paid on account of the annual oontdbut en for each of the projects in the Program. The annual contribution for the Program shall be in the amount approved by HUD far the Fiscal Year to cover: 1. The amount of h m sing asEistance payments by the PHA. 2. The amount of PHA costs far Program administration. The amount cf the annual aonttibutiors by HUD may be reduced, as determined by HUD, by the amount of Program Receipts (such as interest income) ether than annual contributions D. Maximum Annual Contribution Commitment for Project. Except far payments from the ACC reserve account as provided in section LIT' of this ACC, or for payments under seen 1.3.G, the annual contribution payment by HUD fcr a project far a Fiscal Year shall not be mare than the Maximum Annual Contribution Com mitm ent for the project Such Maximum Annual Contribution Commitment shall be available during the five Fiscal Years beginning with the Fiscal Year when HUD makes the first advance to the PHA on account cif the annual oontlitxrtions far the project. E. Reduction of Amount Payable_ HUD may reduce the amount of the annual contributions payable by HUD fear any project er for the Program, and may reduce the amount of the contract authority far any project, by giving the PHA written notice of reduction in accordance with section 2.3 of this ACC. The notice by HUD may include a revision of Exhibit I of this A CC Part I to reflect the Page 2 of 5 pages HUD 52520 D (June 1985) - I _ reduction in the amount of contract authority for a project. BUD notice of the revision shall constitute an amendment of Exhibit I, - and the revised Exhibit I supersedes any previous Exhibit I far the Program. F. ACC Reserve Account. An A C C reserve account may be established and maintained by BUD in an amount as determined by BUD. The ACC reserve account may be used by H U D far payment of any portion of the annual contribution payment approved by BUD. G. Portability Procedures: Preliminary Fee-of Receiving PHA. _ In addition to the maximum annual contribution commitment under section 1.3.D, and payments from the ACC reserve account under action 1.3.F, BUD may approve additional annual cant ibution -peym eats to the PHA for the purpree of paying preliminary fees to another PHA acting as Receiving PEA in accordance with HUD requirements under the portability procedures. B. Limit on Total Payments for Project. The total of annual contributions payments by BUD for each project (nc'uxling any payments from the ACC reserve account as provided in section 1.3.F, but rot including any payments under section 1.3.G) shall rot be more than five times the Maximum Annual Contribution Com mitmennt for the project 1.4. ACC. A. This ACC fear the Program consists of this ACC Part I (including Exhibit 1) and the form ACC Part II prescribed by BUD for the 'Rous'ing Certificate Program and Housing Voucher Program, designated as form BUD 52520 E, and dated June 1985. The locum ents constitute the whale ACC fcr the Program. • Page 3 of 5 pages HUD 52520 D (June 1985) B. This ACC supesedes any previous AC Cs fcc the Program. Matters relating to operation cE the Program is a previous ACC shall be governed by this ACC. (SEAL) Signatures ATTEST: de Ate id" ' PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY Clerk to the Board (Official Title) ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Name of PHA By ...�� ( 2/1 i/86 Signature Date signed _ Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners Print or type name and official title of signatory UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT By Signature Date signed Print or type name and official title of signatory Page 4 of 5 pages HUD 52520 D (June 1985) ACC Partl Number. A-2903- V EXHIBIT I PROTECT CONTRACT FIRST DATE LAST DATE NUMBER 1 AUTHORITY ($) OF TERM OF TERM NC19-V104-001 33,601 .00 NC19-V104-002 100,803.00 • I . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Date signed Page 5 of 5 pages HUD 52520 D (June 1985) r II 203 Lexington Rd. Chapel Hill , NC 27514 March 4 , 1986 Chapel Hill, Newspaper Orville Campbell , Editor Dear Mr . Campbell , I agr',ee with your March 3 , 1986 Editorial , Scotswood would provide growth for northern Orange County . This proposed development would provide housing opportunities that would be preferable to septic tank-type subdivisions spread throughout the county. I also agree that the Grahams are outstanding citizens of Orange County and "if you can ' t trust the Grahams to play by the rules teii Orange County is really in for serious trouble . " However, our zoning ordinance does not permit us to consider fac- tors such as how long developers have owned property in Orange County or whether t:- e County Commissioners consider them to be good citizens . It is'1the Commissioners ' responsibility to determine that infrastructure needs are adequately addressed before this project is approved . 7r_ t^e case of water supply , the Town of Hillsborough , the Orange-Alamance Water Corporation, and the State ' s Waster Resources Section have yet to reconcile t eir an- derstan_di^g of the water supply situation in northern Orange County. It would be irresponsible for us to approve this project before reaching an accord on this matte= . Hillsborough does not , " thanks to former mayor Fred Cates . . . .have one of the best water sup_ of any town its size in the state . " If credit is due , it is for Hillsborough ' s water treatment ' plant which has a capacity of 3 million gallons per day . What remains to be determined is _ f there is a.ei te reservoir capacity to feed it k WA a41 non Willhoit, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners 1 - a°r"- '1 a ,;• •1• ....,. a .1." r ^St _,' q ,.'" ; ,r •#' e, 1 A\ 84.1.4 •g 0;-"I pt . ` �y.1yiF b.r..Ma..prf p r.fl:. ; �•rw kri/k: awx..�{ .,. {{}, g •+..y � wt: . ,a 1r1, f t i 4�p,", . - Y- z xv'. ? 3i 11` .. 1 1 - t"'±a K T:7 •fir;. 1 It I ,''''1?-1,.,5t-1;;--4;, „ . .;J .. t. .. -` F4 1 1 c }., : 1 ...‘%.....,.„;A:-:, �L + -H rill 7 ' -,--'..'"t t� .�y++4 1,:c ‘ ry1 yet ., '..,,,.).,w.-7 .f.v. «,.+:•.4 ., _,t-''..r., .Z. M'.�` 1 11, 1 1 1 'M t l y V 4.'",_,, I '1 - / �i'±r f .C7' 51 -'tR ,! .r< I'L' lets y, :f/{IlillG�.That C'�{.!S 1' dp Vita y 1/� �. ,1i- rt _7:4)k. - aA ` a��' �+ ,a ! ,i fig 1 a. Be 1t A, .' ,• •7 �.ti,..., -I,. n rX!pt =x r ., ..1 {`-s _ r•'�s.1- 1 •Tbjl vy9,.. �1Xv!' � g ILIA. A •+ '- r t. . 1, , ;--..,N'1 ”'CI%j 1 .-..-z-11,,_r Die 1 t 'i �1 I,' I' tic. pro .., , .1 1 , .. I n set tl�': I t 1 1 r` s .Orange CdUnty.Thelive who voted against F t jeck. -never w= er the beg g , :.a . - - . '..- t;r , d I �� ,C.- 11: „ ,-�, • 1 cells , OpY •'I i,1:rf. ! ' =1. 1 '§/ rlf.1 1 b. 1. Develop• R!�, � ..-, r _ t� J'.A ,1�+,`ti c sots living theii�e.'11=J1.;°�working Dut m?and`:,' sp iddacst of thit ars° • anOoccariity Count BO rd cif Coinm1 i t Fi -"Fake fina'1'action on,the proje 1.~317,ti ;a *;fu t ? and the public bearing has been continued.I March 25. - 11.1 - II !. �..�I1 rx.n• •t 1 -• th•b Ile Wants to 1' +.i..;;. ' 1•;rid' f. ,, _ilk 73' _ Make .' 4' �r't t .: " .. 4",".:. '' ':-r, ■a x "ter th project:that shoi4d i ot` a problem.W°,a e time the entire project is''completed1 Chapel :ri .and all of Orange County will not only be getting getting voter from a I finished Cane Creek,but also from Jordan Lake.The } town of:Hill , thanks to former?''mayor Fred boroi�h . Cates;already has one.of the best water supplies of any town its size in the state. - The Orange County Planning Board is nit=picking the Graham project-just as it is trying to nit-pick future boundary lines for the towns of Chapel Hill and Carr- born, Maybe some of the members should do a little moriihomeWor>a1,; 4+=.M:,rw...0' -= it Ai- ;_ It would be a shame for the County Board Commis- sioners not to give its stamp of approval to the Graham requests. There is absolutely nothing unusual about.. the requests being made, and if you can't=trust the . f ' . Grahams to play `the rules then Oran ount is, f . p Y by gG Y' really in for serious trouble, ' - Y • • , - Such a development would be one of the finest things.: I ', � ;- that could possibly happen to northern Orange County. . i , _ - , I: v _ _ _, ,,,,„„ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RALEIGH 27611 JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR February 28 , 1986 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E. HARRINGTON SECRETARY Mr . Don Wilhoit Commissioner- Orange County Board of Commissioners 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Wilhoit : SUBJECT : Orange County Thoroughfare Study Thank you for your letter of February 19 , requesting our assistance in developing a thoroughfare plan for Orange County. If the current Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Urban Area and Hillsborough thoroughfare studies proceed expeditiously, we can probably initiate work on your County ' s study by the end of this year. I will assign Mr. Edison Johnson , P.E. , to be the project engineer in this effort as he is in charge of DCHC and Hillsborough studies . Ed will contact your staff in the near future to develop a study schedule and to provide interim technical assistance as appropriate. Sincerely, .....-- X144/,,,le.,47-7J-e-- Larry R. Goode , Ph.D. , P .E . Thoroughfare Planning Engineer do cc : Mr. W. B. Buchanan Mr. George Well , P.E . Mr. J. W. Watkins , P .E . Mr. C . D . Adkins , P .E . An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer I ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGAlIET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 'MOS'ES CAREYE. NORMAN WALKER DON WILLHOIT CERTIFICATE OF RECORDING OFFICER . . The undersigned duly qualified and Clerk of the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby certify: . That the attached order declaring closure of a portion of old Cedar Grove Road, Orange County, North Carolina is a true and correct copy as adopted at a legally convened meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners duly held on the 18th day of February, 1986; and further, that such order has been fully recorded in the journal of proceedings and records in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 7th day of March, 1986. Orange County Board of Commissioners %; p ;Beverly A.._ yt ;: C1erk A F }ti __� _ "�-:y.• ��• Y`y_ , J� r• ._ Sih �- � � .a ... • :�t '. wiwr. � r " _ n +.+ + . cf`. ,-, ego; 7 'mil_ •gel 4�_ ','I- f ,'"� '' -. ,- -_t - -'., z: ''1 I`,04-,...,, t,,, i . - = ,fie. , II ORDER DECLARING CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF OLD CEDAR GROVE ROAD ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA WHEREAS a petition for the closure of a public road known as Old Cedar Grove Road was presented to the Orange County Board of Commissioners by the petitioners Robert and Rachel Scholar , and WHEREAS the petition stated that the road so known as Old Cedar Grove Road and more specifically shown on a plat entitled PROPERTY OF ROBERT SCHOLAR AND RACHAEL SCHOLAR as surveyed by ENT Land Surveys and dated November 5, 1984 is now abandoned, and WHEREAS the portion of the said abandoned road that the petitioner desires to be closed is more particularly described' as follows : Beginning at an iron stake located in the center of the right-of-way to Dixie Drive at the point where the center of said right-of-way intersects the western line of property of Orange County; running thence with the western property line of Orange County the following courses and distances : North 28 53 ' 21" West 156. 05' ; North 22 1?' 16"West 122 . 70' ; North 8 32 ' 16" West 109. 73 ' and North 27 31 ' 00" West 94, 46 ' . Also that portion of said road described as follows : Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot #1 of Block B Highland Woods as shown on plat recorded in Plat Book 15 , 'Page 178, Orange County Registry; runing thence North 33 17' 38" West 299, 74 feet to an iron stake; running thence North 13 24 ' 04" West 635.02 feet to an iron I stake; running thence North 04 57 ' 19" West 82 . 53 feet , and WHEREAS the Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution lution on December 17, 1985, and reaffirmed January 21 , 1986, which declared its intent to close the public road and called a public hearing on the question, and WHEREAS a public hearing on the proposed closure of a portion of Old Cedar Grove Road was conducted on February 18, 1986 and the Board of Commissioners found that the closure of the public road is not contrary to the public interest and that no individual owning property in the vicinity of the road would thereby be deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress to his property, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the portion of Old Cedar Grove Road herein described be closed and all right , title and interest in the road be vested in persons owning adjacent lots or parcels and the title', of each adjoining landowner, for the width of his abutting land, extends to the centerline of the road. This the 8th day of February 1986. A certified copy of this order is recorded in Book _ _ in the Register of Deeds of Orange County. vV _ Don Willhoit Chair of the Orange County Commissioners it ti 1—1 WORK PLAN PROJECT: JOINT PLANNING - CHAPEL HILLICARRBORO OBJECTIVE NO. t DATE: FEBRUARY 13 1986 --=--- - OBJECTIVE-:--TO-REVISE-AND-OBTAIN-ADOPTION-OF-THE-JOINT-PLANNING-AREA LAND-USE-PLAN---PRESENTED-AT-PUBLIC-HEARING JANUARY-14,-1986. - -- —----- - -- -- - TASK ACTIVITY STAFF J F M A M J J A S O 1 N D Revise Draft Plan based on public Review and comment by Chapel Hill Planner III- A (Feb uar) 14) comment and advisory board Township Advisory Council. Comprehensive recommendations. Recommendation presented to Planning Board 2-17-86. Review and comment by Economic Director ® (February 14) Development Commission. Position statement presented to Planning Board 2-17-86 Review and comment by Orange County Director Q (February 17) Planning Board. Position statement to be presented to Joint Planning Board meeting 2-26-86 Review and comment by Chapel Hill ----- �1 (February 18) PLanning Board. Position statement presented at Joint Planning Board meeting.2-26-86. Review and comment by Carrboro Planning ----- Q (February 20) Board. Position statement to be pre- aented to Joint Planning Board meeting 2-26-86. Prepavation of Joint Planning Board ----- (February 26) recommendation regarding Plan revisions (Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro) Revise and distribute Joint Planning Director Q Area Land Use Plan Planner III- Comprehensive Plan presentation to New Hope Improve- Planner III- (Mar b 11) ment Association. Comprehensive Plan presentation to League of Women Planner Ili- Q (Mar•h 12 Voters. Comprehensive ACTIVITY SYMBOLS: A ACTIVITIES TO BE COMPLETED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE. ■ ACTIVITY COMPLETED. AE-- ❑ ACTIVITY COMPLETED AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. A ->A ACTT ITY DELAYED TO NEW COMPLETION DATE. Ys 1-2 V_ ORK PLAN PROJECT: JOINT PLANNING - CHAPEL HILLICARREORO OBJECTIVE NO. I DATE: FEBRUARY j3, i9jqk OBJECTIVE: TO REVISE AND OBTAIN ADOPTION OF THE JOINT PLANNING AREA PLAN - PRESENTED AT PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 14, 1986 TASK ACTIVITY STAFF J F M A M J J A S O N D ASSIGN Secure public comment regarding Conduct public hearing to receive public Director Q {March 20 revised Land Use Plan comment/recommendations of advisory boards and commissions. Refer Plan to Planning Boards for further revision following public hearing. Revise Draft Plan based on public Review public hearing comments and Director comment and advisory board prepare list of recommended changes to Planner III- L, recommendations. Plan. Comprehensive Review and comment by Chapel Hill --- Q (Apr 1 1) Planning Board. Prepare final recommendation for presentation at 4-16-86 public hearing. Review and comment by Chapel Hill ----- 0 (Apr 1 2) Township Advisory Council. Prepare recommendation for 4-8-86 Planning Board meeting. Review and comment by Carrboro Planning ----- Q (Apr 1 3) Board. Prepare final recommendation for presentation at 4-16-86 public hearing. Review and comment by Orange County Director Q (Apr 1 8) Planning Board. Prepare recommendation as to Plan alternatives to be presented at public hearing. Secure public comment regarding Conduct public hearing to receive public Director Q:{Apr 1 !6 revised Land Use Plan. comment/recommendations of advisory boards and commissions. Refer Plan to Chapel Hill and Carrboro governing boards and Orange County Planning Board for recommendations regarding adoption. ACTIVITY SYMBOLS: A ACTIVITIES TO BE COMPLETED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE. ■ ACTIVtTY COMPLETED. ■v— A ACTIVITY COMPLETED AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. TI V I TY D�LAYED TO IqFW COMPLFT ION DA Tr 1-3 j WORK PLAN PROJECT: JOINT PLANNING - CHAPEL HILLICARRBORO OBJECTIVE NO. 1 T DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 1986 OBJECT IV E: TO REVISE AND OBTAIN ADOPTION OF THE JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN - PRESENTED AT PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 14,' 1986 TASK ACTIVITY STAFF J F M A M J J A S O N D Secure adoption of Land Use Plan Review and recommendation regarding ---- 0 (14. 6) adoption of Plan by Carrboro Board of Aldermen. Review and recommendation regarding ----- a (Ma 12) adoption of Plan by Chapel Hill Town Council. Review and recommendation regarding ----- Q (1,14 C9) adoption of Plan by Orange County Planning Board. Review and consideration of adoption of ----- (Jun 2) Plan by Board of County Commissioners. Implementation. Staff Q ACTIVITY SYMBOLS: a ACTIVITIES TO BE COMPLETED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE. ■ ACTIVITY COMPLETED, Q ACTIVITY COMPLETED AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. A A ACTIVITY DELAYED TO NEW COMPLETION DATE. S 2-1 P. WORK PLAN 1PROJECT: 1-40 CORRIDOR STUDY OBJECTIVE NO. 2 DATE-FEBRUARY 13, 1986 OBJECTIVE, TO DEVELOP A PLAN AND STANDARDS FOR IMPLEMENTATION ADDRESSING LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO THE INTERSTATE 40 CORRIDOR TASK ACTIVITY STAFF J F M A M J J A S o N D Delineate I-40 Corridor boundary Prepare base map of I-40 route from -planning Q Durham County line to I-40/1-85 Technician interchange. Identify and delineate facility zone - Planning area's that can be potentially be Intern developed for commercial, industrial redidential purposes. Q Identify and delineate visual zone - Planning areas that can potentially be seen from intern I-40. Prepare composite map showing facility Planner III- a and visual zones and delineate corridor Comprehensive boundary. Identify dominant characteristics of Identify and map landscape areas, scenic Planning Q the landscape that enhance driver features and landmarks. Intern understanding. Map locations where each landscape area, Planning Q scenic feature and landmark can be Intern experienced. 1 Prepare composite map showing locations Planner III- �! with greatest opportunities to experiencl Comprehensive landscape areas, scenic features and landmarks. Identify noise exposure levels for Compile data regarding number and type of Planner 1 - Q sites abutting I-40. vehicles, vehicle operational data, and Current conditions where vehicles are operated. Calculate noise level from each source Planner I - Q using [IUD Noise Assessment Guidelines. Current Map location of areas that have Planner I - acceptable and unacceptable noise Current exposure levels. i ACTIVITY SYMBOLS: A ACTIVITIES TO BE COMPLETED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE. A ACTIVITY COMPLETED. ■E— ACTIVITY COMPLETED AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. AAA ACTIVITY DELAYED TO NEW COMPLETION DATE. 2-2 -- - --WORK--I--LAN--- - - --- PROJECT-:-INTERSTATE 40 CORRIDOR STUDY -- -- -- - - -- - OBJECTIVE-NO. -2----- DATE FESnun�Y-i -- - -OBJECTIVE: TO DEVELOP A PLAN AND STANDARDS FOR IHPLEMENTATION ADDRESSING LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO THE INTERSTATE 40 CORRIDOR TASK ACTIVITY STAFF J F M A M J J A S O N D Identify noise exposure levels for Identify noise attenuation measures for Planner I - Q sites abutting T-40. sites with unacceptable noise exposure Current levels. Identify environmental constraints and Identify most restrictive/permissive Planner II - Q opportunities foi development. environmental features for residential, Current commercial and industrial development. Map locations of each environmental Planning a feature. Technician Prepare composite map showing most Planner:II&- Jt suitable locations for residential, Comprehensive L, commercial and industrial development. Identify locational preferences of Survey/inventory of location preferences Planning Q residential, commercial and industrial of residential, commercial and Intern uses. industrial uses in State and Southeast region. Map locations preferred by residential, Planning commercial and industrial uses by type Intern L� of use and relative importance of location. Prepare composite map showing most Plannev%III- preferred locations for residential, Current commercial and industrial uses. Identify land use preferences of Compile list of all property owners Planning n neighborhood residents and property within I-40 corridor. Intern (� owners. Prepare questionnaire for identification Planner III- of owner/resident preferences regarding Comprehensive development types and administer by mail. i Compile questionnaire results and rank Planner III- resident/owner preferences in order of Comprehensive importance. ACTIVITY SYMBOLS: A ACTIVITIES TO BE COMPLETED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE. A ACTIVITY COMPLETED. - p ACTIVITY COMPLETED LM W III 2-3 WORK_ PL!"'11 PROJECT: INTERSTATE 40 CORRIDOR STUDY -- ----- - OBJECTIVE NO_-_-_? RUARY13 --- ----OBJECTIVE. TO DEVELOP A PLAN AND STANDARDS FOR IMPLEMENTION ADDRESSING LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO THE INTERSTATE 40 CORRIDOR TASK ACTIVITY STAFF J F M A M J J A . S O N D Identify land use preferences of Map potential residential, commercial Planner III- Q neighborhood residents and property and industrial locations preferred by Comprehensive owners.(Continued). residents/owners. Prepare design standards for Compile current NCDOT access standards Planner I - Q interchange/corrdior development. for Interstate (controlled access) Current highways. Compile current Orange County standards Planner I - Q for Interstate corridor and site Current development. Survey/inventory of interchange/corridor Planner I site design and access standards for Current State and Southeast region. Q Identify desired standards and apply to Planner III- example sites. Current Review and comment by Ordinance Review Planner III- Subcommittee. Current Make revisions as necessary. Planner III- Prepare alternative plans for Prepare composite map showing locations Current A development of E-40 corrdior. most suited for residential, Planner III- L] commercial and industrial development. Comprehensive Prepare plan alternatives which: Planner III- - Reflect existing Land Use Plan. Comprehensive - Reflect development locational preferences. - Reflect neighborhood locational preferences. - Reflect balanced development/neigh- ; boyhood preferences. Conduct public information meeting to Notify residents/owners, Township Planner I- obtain comment on plan alternatives. Advisory Councils and Orange County/ Current Chapel Hill/Carrboro Planning Boards of meeting. ACTIVITY SYMBOLS: A ACTIVITIES TO BE COMPLETED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE. A ACTIVITY'COMPLETED, At— A ACTIVITY COMPLETED AHEAD Of SCHEDULE. ❑ -),A ACTIVITY DELAYED TO NEW COMPLETION DATE- 2-4 t _YYORK I_LAN- _ --- PROJECL: INTERSTATE-40-CORRIDOR--STUDY - - OBJECTIVE--NO.- z --—j DATE:-FEBRUARY-13 1486-- - OBJECTIVE: TO PREPARE PLAN AND STANDARDS FOR IMPLEMENTATION ADDRESSING LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO THE INTERSTATE 40 CORRIDOR TASK ACTIVITY STAFF J IF M A M J J A S O N D Conduct public information meeting to Conduct meeting - review background data Director D obtain comment on plan alternatives and plan alternatives, and proposed site (Continued). design/access standards, and solicit public comment regarding preferred alternatives. Prepare draft plan for I-40 corridor. Compile/review comments from public Planner III- a information meeting. Comprehensive Revise preferred alternative and site Planner III- design/access standards to reflect Comprehensive public comment. Conduct public information meeting to Notify residents/owners, Township Planner�l - D obtain public comment on draft plan. Advisory Councils and Orange County/ Current Chapel Hill/Carrboro Planning Boards of meeting. Conduct meeting - review draft plan and Director Q site design/access standards, and solicit public comment. Make revisions as necessary Planner III- Comprehensive Conduct public hearing and adopt plan/ Review and comment by Ordinance Review Planner III- standards. Subcommittee. Current Review and comment by Transportation Planner IlI- Subcommittee. Current Make revisions as necessary. Planner III- Review and comment by Hillsborough, Current Cheeks and Chapel Rill Township Planner Ill- Advisory Councils. Comprehensive Make revisions as necessary. Planner III- Comprehensive ACTIVITY SYMBOLS. A ACTIVITIES TO BE COMPLETED AT 4 SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE, ■ ACTIVITY COMPLETED. ■E-- A ACTIVITY COMPLETED AHEAD Of SCHEDULE. 2-5 WORK PLAN PROJECT: INTERSTATE 40 CORRIDOR STUDY OBJECTIVE NO. 2 DATE: FEBRUARY 13 1986 OBJECTIVE: TO PREPARE PLAN AND STANDARDS FOR IMPLEMENTATION ADDRESSING LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 40 CORRIDOR TASK ACTIVITY STAFF J F M A M 1 J A S O N D Conduct public hearing and adopt plan/ Review and comment by Chapel Hill ----- a (.June 3) standards (Continued). Planning Board. Prepare recommendation for presentation at public hearing'. Q Review and comment by Carrboro Planning (Jun a S) Board. Prepare recommendation for presentation at public hearing. Review and comment by Orange County Director Q (Jun 51 Planning Board. Approve draft plan for public hearing. Conduct joint public hearing with Director Q Carrboroand Chapel Hill to receive (Ju IQ) public comment/recommendations of advisory boards and commissions. Refer plan to Chapel Hill and Carrboro governing boards and Orange County Planning Board for recommendations regarding adoption. Review and recommendation regarding --- adoption of plan and standards by Carr- (Jul 8) boro Board of Aldermen. Review and recommendation regarding ----- A (Jul 14 adoption of plan and standards by Chapel Hill Town Council. Review and recommendation regarding Director adoption of plan and standards by (Jul ?.]) Orange County Planning Board. Review and consideration of adoption of Director G (A ,uat ) plan and standards by Board of Commissioners. Implementation. Staff ' ACTIVITY SYMBOLS: ❑ ACTIVITIES TO BE COMPLETED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE. A ACTIVITY COMPLETED, AE— ❑ ACTIVITY COMPLETED AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. A -->A ACrIVLTY f-)r-IAYFr) TO NEW COMPLETION DATE, 3-1 _V 11 MK_-PLAN---— ___- __ PROJECT:- ADEQUATE PUBLIC-FACILITIES_ __--- CTIVE_-NO.-- 3 -_--DATE:-FEBRUARY-13.-1986- -----OBJECTIVE TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A SYSTEMATIC METHOD FOR ASSESSING THE FUTURE CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT TASK ACTIVITY STAFF J F M A M J J A 5 o N D ASSIGNMENT Identify community objectives and Review statements of community goals and Planner III Q types of impacts to be measured objectives. Comprehensive Review Federal, State and local Planning Q legislation. Intern Analyze past local development reviews, Planning Q public hearings and development-related Intern, court cases. Review recent citizen surveys with Planner III Q questions pertinent to development. Comprehensive Review expressions by citizens groups, Planner III Q private industry, academic leaders Current and members of local government. Comprehensive Prepare staff recommendation regarding Planner III Q types of impacts to be addressed. Current Review and comment by Ordinance Review ----- Subcommittee. Make revisions as necessary. Planner III Q Define appropriate impact measures Develop tentative list of impact Current measures (Using An Impact Measurement Planner III System To Evaluate Land Development - . Current Schaeman) Identify measurement needs by decision- Planner III making purpose Current 1. By type of development review. 2. By major stage in review process. Identify available data and data gaps Planning Q through information survey of local Intern departments, Federal/State agencies and other groups. I ' ACTIVITY SYMBOLS: p ACTIVITIES TO BE COMPLETED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE. ■ ACTIVITY COMPLETED. A<- A ACTIVITY COMPLETED AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. 3-2 WORK PLAN PROJECT-. ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES OBJECTIVE NO. 3 DATE FEBRUARY 13, 1986 OBJECTIVE TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A SYSTEMATIC METHOD FOR ASSESSING THE FUTURE CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT TASK ACTIVITY STAFF J F M i A M J J A S O M D ASSIGNMENT 7 Define appropriate impact measures Identify measurement needs by groups Planner III ❑ (Continued) potentially affected by development: Current I. By physical proximity. 2. By business relationships. 3: By political jurisdiction. 4. By socio-economic and demographic characteristics. Select measures and measurement Planner III ❑ procedures, and develop documentation Current format. Make initial trials through evaluation Planner I-III ❑ of past developments. Current Incorporate impact measurement system Review and comment by Ordinance Review ----- ❑ into development review/approval Subcommittee. procedures. Make revisions as necessary. Planner III Review and comment by Planning Board. ----- {ilg i1 2 } Make revisions as necessary. Planner III Conduct public hearing. Director ❑ (Ma 27) Planning Board recommendation. ----- © (J.T1 16 Decision by Board of Commissioners. ----- ❑ {Jul 7) Implementation. Staff Q ACTIVITY SYMBOLS: 'A ACTIVITIES TO BE COMPLETED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE, A ACTIVITY COMPLETED. ■<--A ACTIVITY COMPLETED AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. A -->A ACTIVITY Or-1 AYFr) TO NEW CQMPIFTION DATE. 4-1 t WORK PLAN _ PROJECT. WATER RESOURCES PLANNING __— —___ -- OBJECTIVE-NO. -4 - _ -DATE:-FEBRUARY-13--1986 OBJECTIVE: TO DEVELOP A POLICY AND STANDARDS FOR IMPLEMENTATION WHICH ADDRESS WATER SUPPLY/PROTECTION NEEDS OF ORANGE ",OUNTY TASK ACTIVITY STAFF 1 F M A M 1 1 A S O N D ASSIGNMENT Develop water resources policy for Compile existing Orange County policies Planner III- cons ideration of Board of County regarding water quality and water Comprehensive Comnissioners. supply resources. Identify water supply needs/issues Planner III- Q Comprehensive Identify water quality needs/issues Planner III- .1�. Comprehensive J-1 Development tentative supply/quality Planner III- polieies to address needs/issues Comp rehenaive Review and comment by Natural Resources Planner III- Subcommittee of draft policies Comprehensive Make revisions as necessary. Planner III- q Comprehensive [� Review and comment by Planning Board Planner III- of draft policiestrecommendation of Comprehensive (Maich I } Natural Resources Subcommittee. Make revisions as necessary. Planner III- Q Comprehensive Review and comment by Board of County Director Commissioners regarding draft policies/ (April 1) Planning Board recommendation. Make revisions as necessary. Planner III- Q Comprehensive Adoption byyBoard of County Commissioners Director Q {Apr 1 15 Inventory of Existing/Potential Review of water resources documents Planning Water Supply Resources prepared by Orange County, TJCOG, Intern NCNRCD, Water Resources Research Institute and private consultants. , ACTIVITY SYMBOLS: 0 ACTIVITIES TO BE COMPLETED At A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE. 0 ACTIVITY COMPLETED. 0<— ❑ ACTIVITY. COMPLETED AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. 4-2 WORK PLAN N PROJECT: WATER RESOURCES PLANNING - --- - OBJECTIVE-NO�--4 -- -DATE OBJE C TIV EC TO DEVELOP A POLICY AND STANDARDS FOR IMPLEMENTATLON WHICH ADDRESS THE WATER SUPPLY/PROTECTION NEEDS OF ORANGE COUNTY TASK ACTIVITY STAFF J f M A M J J A 5 O N D Inventory of Existing/Potential Inventory of existing/proposed Water Supply Resources (Continued) Yield, c sites Planning q (Location, type, yield, constraints) Intern Ll Mapping of existing/potential sites. Planning Q Intern Ranking of sites for development Planner III- Comprehensive Review and comment by Natural Resources Planner III- Subcommittee of sites inventory/ranking Comprehensive Hake revisions as necessary. Planner III- Comprehensive Review and comment by Planning Board of Director sites inventory/ranking and (Apr'1 21) recommendation of Natural Resources Subcommittee. Make revisions as necessary. Planner III- Q Comprehensive Review and comment by Board of County Director ® (May 5) Commissioners regarding sites inventory ranking and Planning Board recommendation. Make revisions as necessary. Planner III- Q Comprehensive Adoption by Board of County Director Commissioners. L] (May 20) Development/refinement of water Compilation of current Orange Count Q quality protection standards g Y Planner II- water quality standards Curren[ Application of standards/examples Planner II- !L Current Identification of standards deficiencies Planner Current ACTIVITY SYMBOLS: ❑ ACTIVITIES TO BE COMPLETED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE. ■,, ACTIVITY COMPLETED. ■E— ❑ ACTIVITY COMPLETED AHEAD Of SCHED LE ❑ ->A ACTIVITY DELAYED TO NEW COMPI El ION D.A 16. 4-3 r WORK ORK PLAN _ Q�QJ_��j _ WATER RESOURCES PLANNING _ OB�ECj�VE NO. —4 -DATE; FEBRUARY 13i--1986--OBJECTIVE TO DEVELOP A POLICY AND STANDARDS FOR IMPLEMENTATION WHICH ADDRESS THE WATER SUPPLY/PROTECTION NEEDS OF ORANGE COUNTY TASK ACTIVITY STAFF F M A M i i A S O N D Development/refinement of water Survey/inventory of water quality Planner I- quality protection standards standards utilized in State and Comprehensive (Continued) Southeast region. - Identification of standards applicable to Orange County - Refinement for application to County - Application of standards/examples Survey of water resource agencies Planner I- Q (Providers, regulatory agencies) Comprehensive - Identification of desired standards - Refinement of standards - Application of standards/examples Compilation of proposed/current Planner III- a standards Current Review and comment by Natural Resources Planner III- Q Subcommittee. Current Make revisions as necessary. Planner III- Q Current Review and comment by Planning Board. Director (Apr 1 21 Make revisions as necessary. Planner III- A i Current Conduct ptiblic hearing. Director (May 27) Review/recommendation by Planning Board. Director Q (Jun 16) Decision by Board of Commissioners Director © (Jul 7) Implementation. Staff Q ACTIVITY SYMBOLS.' A ACTIVITIES TO BE COMPLETED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE. ► ACTIVITY COMPLETED. A<— A ACTIVITY COMPLETED AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. A =>A ACT IV!TY DELAY-ED TO NEW COMPLETION DA FE. A H HAZEN AN D SAWYER P.c. CONSULTING ENGINEERS II February 18, 1986 Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson _ Orange County Manager 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Efland-Cheeks Township Sanitary Sewer Facilities H&S Job. No. 3600 Dear Mr. Thompson: Based on a recent field survey and a visual observation of the existing Hillsborough sewer system directly affected by the interconnection with the Efland system, it is apparent the section of line immediately north of King Street to the manhole south of Eno Street is currently overloaded and could not take any additional flow from the proposed Efland sewer system. Hazen and Sawyer evaluated the various options available for relieving the overload condition on this section of line and also allowing for the additional flow from the Efland system. The options and estimated costs (construction plus engineering) for those options are as follows: OPTION, NO. 1 $85, 000 This option leaves the existing design of the proposed Efland system unchanged, and provides for paralleling the existing Hillsborough sewer system immediately north of King Street to the manhole south of Eno Street. The County should be aware that there still remains the potential of having to upgrade the upper section of the existing Hillsborough system between Lakeshore Drive and King Street at an estimated cost of $95,000. The time frame for this upgrade is variable, depending on the growth in the Efland area and the Town of Hillsborough. OPTION, NO. 2 $ 65,000 This option extends the 8-inch force main down West Hill Avenue south of the railroad tracks, east to the 21-inch interceptorlin the existing Hillsborough system. This option eliminates the sewer in Orange Heights at an estimated reduction of $55, 500. 4300 GLENWOOD AVENUE•P.O.BOX 30428•RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27622•(919)782-8333 OFFICES IN NEW YORK RALEIGH.AND HOLLYWOOD,FLORIDA Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson February 18, 1986 Page 2 Based on this comparison, it is P , our recommendation the County procejed with extending the force main to the 21-inch interceptor (Option 2 ) . Please advise if you have any questions. Very truly yours , HAZEN ADD SAWYER, P.C. Kev1 arter , P.E. Proj ct Engineer KFC/dve II r LL ui 2 8C ,gyp _ FEE ;�- , , _ X39 `�� r i+ 1T HAvL DR Q Ow ,--..W LW ---- - 41 t-- --- i Oe 01 o0o, 1 Prl J,zk;,: -.64.44- __• ,. ' � ._..y:.•�. J.,., - ...�:.,::..,;:.ia�t�fi.ii.:.�r'si..:.�.A::-._cv:—•r.�� .- ..� :i�. . •� � :'r',/rir ! lI • f -" �.., � :4��.v.:.sae_ '-i:.u:_._.... .. .. �..."__._ —__—_ �—._-_ _"_ —.. .4q J39 T7f+ !}F3 7iiANE DA nI `4'i t-- - 1 ' � '1 � � / f Div' �►��,. � _ l ; OR tv. � J :i j' . ............�... a,.w.►�a J.'J: v;J.e-.�i•'�....a...�'t+i�l,._.. �N.—_'1L0,1�� - .. � � - � .I a ,; t '!► � + MULTIPLE PIN NORTH CAROLINA ASSIGNMENT Page of / ORANGE COUNTY .-DLK561 ' 518 Verified by -' FOLLOWING PINs ASSIGNED TO: 6:2 f- L 561 / 520 Document Type Book Page SUBDIVISION DESCRIPTION: 6aditt_te.. e AV7 PLAT / PIN DESG: - 1 - 2 - ? / 7 2. -7-re 47-_3 7-47-WA) c.//, �/, x/ '- . 3_ . . /,7 2 21 & -_49 --- d 43 F- 3. --,/7 .3 . ,N jr,(/'c., ,d .c ell . -A A / 4 ''./ S79. . /S ✓ 6v5 - G06- ?5 S6 5. , c -- >c( ' c ->,3 - - 6. - 7. - __ __ __ __ 8. - 10. ____ __ __ __ - __ - __ __ __ __ 11 . Lim....m...---____ - 12, Prepared by/Return "Lo: ��n 7 'Beverly A. Blythe 61 .� C County Manager's Office ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 .MOSES CAREY BEN LLOYD S URLEY B-MAREMAT.T. NORMAN WALKER DONWMLFMIT CERTIFICATE OF RECORDING OFFICER The undersigned duly qualified and Clerk of the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby certify: That the attached order declaring closure of a portion of old Cedar Grove Road, Orange County, North Carolina is a true and Correct copy as adopted at a legally convened meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners duly held on the 18th day of February, 1986; and further, that such order has been fully recorded in the journal of proceedings and records in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 7th day of March, 1986. Orange County Board of Commissioners ,.,... + Beverly A w-; Clerk is yy _ .. . .p , prl.., 4 ,�" 4$1—, • 2 r J i J — or m ,561 pct 520 ORDER DECLARING CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF OLD CEDAR GROVE ROAD ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA WHEREAS a petition for the closure of a public road known as Old Cedar Grove Road was presented to the Orange County Board of Commissioners by the petitioners Robert and Rachel Scholar , and WHEREAS 4e petition stated that the road so known as Old Cedar Grove Road and more specifically shown on a plat entitled PROPERTY OF ROBERT SCHOLAR AND RACHAEL SCHOLAR as surveyed ly ENT Land Surveys and dated November 5, 1984 is now abandoned, and WHEREAS the portion of the said abandoned road that the petitioner desires to be closed is more particularly described as follows : Beginning at an iron stake located in the center of the right-of-way to Dixie Drive at the point where the center of said right-of-way intersects the western line of property of Orange County; running thence with the western property line of Orange County the following courses and distances : North 28 53 ' 21" West 156. 05' ; Northl22 17' 16"West 122. 70' ; North 8 32 ' 16" West 109. 73 ' and North 27 31 ' 00" West 94.46' . c, Also that portion of said road described as follows : m Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot #1 of Block B c C rn Highland Woods as shown on plat recorded in Plat Book 15, Page 178, Orange County Registry; runing thence 7:17, rrl North 33 17'38" West 299. 74 feet to an iron stake ; c 4°' running thence North 13 24' 04" West 635. 02 feet to an CD iron stake ; running thence North 04 57' 19" West 82. 53 feet fl and WHEREAS the Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution on December 17, 1985, and reaffirmed January 21 , 1986 , which declared its intent to close the public road and called a public hearing on the question, and WHEREAS a public hearing on the proposed closure of a portion of Old Cedar Grove Road was conducted on February 18 , 1986 and the Board of Commissioners found that the closure of the public road is not contrary to the public interest and that no individual owning property in the vicinity of the road would theraby be deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress to his property, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the portion of Old Cedar Grove Road herein described be closed and all right , title and interest in the road be vested in persons owning adjacent lots or parcels and .� 561 ;tCE 521 the title of each adjoining landowner, for the width of his abutting land, extends to the centerline of the road. This the 18th day of February 1986. A certified copy of this order is recorded in Book . 6 Page 520 _ in the Register of Deeds of Orange County. ALVAIX-1 Don Willhoit Chair of the Orange County Commissioners FILED eooK* 561 PA6E05 Mu 13 ID 42 II PC BETTY JUNE NOES REGISTER OF Dr EUS ORANGE COUNT't.N.C. v ''t s a r ant .a x x D Q w td 4 S . x vial u y - e., 1LS La c) -CGO P C . Tr