Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 08-04-1986
1 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 2 , 1986 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 4, 1986 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on h August 4, 1986, 7: 30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit and members Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Assistant County Manager Albert Kittrell, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins and Planner Eddie Kirk. A. BOARD COMMENTS None. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Chair Willhoit stated that those persons desiring to speak to items on the printed agenda would be recognize at the time that item is discussed. 2 . MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Mr. Bill Ray announced that in Cedar Grove there is about 15 acres of water that he would like to offer for use by those in the southern end of the County when needed. Chair Willhoit asked that the County Manager make an inventory of those water resources available in Cedar Grove. He noted that OWASA has identified other sources of water and that any other sources located 1 in the northern end of the County be maintained for use by Hillsborough. C. APPOINTMENTS D. MINUTES Items moved to the end of the agenda. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PD-2-86 HEARTWOOD AT BLACK MOUNTAIN - CONTINUATION TO RECEIVE DUKE UNIVERSITY COMMENT Marvin Collins presented comments from Duke University on the proposed planned development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit request submitted by Spence and Lyn Dickinson. The comments from Duke University indicated agreement with the number of dwelling units proposed and the positioning of the homesites. It suggested restrictive covenants to protect the buffer or some form of conservation easement. The package plant would be of some concern as it appeared to drain northward to a small stream eventually flowing to New Hope Creek. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to continue the public hearing until August 19, 1986 to receive the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2 . WOODS EDGE MOBILE HOME PARK Marvin Collins presented for consideration of approval a modification to the Woods Edge Mobile Home Park Planned Development special use permit. The applicant, Roger Dale Stephens has requested to make permanent an office mobile home which was installed on a tempora2 ry basis to assist placement of tenants in the park. In addition, he wishes to use an existing foundation to erect a storage facility for use by tenants of each mobile home unit. The Planning Board recommended approval of the modification to the planned development site plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to approve the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3 . SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (Revised list is in the Permanent Agenda File) Marvin Collins stated that each year the Department of Transportation holds a public meeting with the Board of Commissioners to receive citizen input on the Secondary Road Improvement Program. The total allocation for 1986-87 is $633,778 . 00 plus $70, 000 carryover from the previous year making the grand total $703 ,778. John Watkins, DOT Division Engineer, explained that the gasoline tax will increase from 1-3/8 cents to 1-3/4 cents next year. The criteria this year for the three different categories consists of spending 20% on paved roads, 15% on spot stabilization and 65% on unpaved roads. He highlighted some of the spot stabilization improvements and read the proposed list of roads that are included in the 1986-87 secondary road improvements program. Marvin Collins explained the sliding rate scale for the PPP which was adopted on March 5, 1986. George Bressler, Chair of the Secondary Roads Improvement Advisory r Committee, asked if the repairs scheduled for Old 86 had been completed and Mr. Watkins indicated that the $120, 000 is still available for those improvements that have not been made. Bressler questioned the procedure for conducting traffic counts, how they are made and how the roads are selected. Watkins stated that traffic counts are difficult to get. There is a statewide procedure that is followed. For a deadend road, six (6) vehicular trips is assigned per house. If there is a business or church the figures are adjusted accordingly. After further discussion, Watkins indicated it would not be a problem to do a traffic count on the top ten (10) roads listed on the report. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS 1. BARBARA LAKEY, SR 1358, expressed appreciation for the paving of New Sharon Church Road and asked when the work would commence. Watkins indicated the work would begin in the fall, 1986. 2 . BRUCE PETERS, Little River Township, spoke in support of paving New Sharon Church Road indicating he uses that road enroute to Guess Road. WITH NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the 1986-87 Secondary Road Improvement Program as presented by John Watkins. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. F. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION 1. EVELYN P. LLOYD, BOARD OF HEALTH Chair Wilihoit presented to Evelyn Lloyd a Resolution of Ammm Appreciation: 3 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR EVELYN P. LLOYD WHEREAS, EVELYN P. LLOYD has served Orange County's Board of Health in an exemplary manner; and, WHEREAS, EVELYN P. LLOYD has given freely and unselfishly of her time, talents and boundless energy for the improvement of the County's health programs and facilities; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners through its members Don Willhoit, Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker does hereby express its sincere appreciation to Evelyn P. Lloyd for her efforts on behalf of the people of Orange County. THIS, the 4th day of August, 1986. Commissioner Carey presented to Evelyn Lloyd a plaque commemorating her service on the Board of Health. G. REPORTS 1. EXEMPT PLAT REPORT This was presented for information only to inform the Board as to exempt plats approved by the Planning Staff from April 1986 to June 1986. 2. MINOR SUBDIVISION REPORT - SECOND OUARTER, 1986 This was presented for information only to inform the Board as to Minor Subdivisions approved by the Planning Department from April 1986 to June 1986. H. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA The County Manager recommended the following action by the Board. 1. AGREEMENT BETWEEN GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND ORANGE COUNTY To approve agreement and authorize the Chair to sign the joint funding agreement with Geological Survey for Eno River Gauge maintenance. 2 . RESOLUTION OF CONTINUING PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA'S LAND RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR A MATCHING GRANT To adopt the resolution of continuing participation in the State's Land Records Management Program which qualifies Orange County to apply for and receive matching fund grant money for the remapping project, 1986-87. RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners, that it recognizes and appreciates the Land Records Management Program of the State Department of Natural Resources and Community Development and its assistance to counties through matching grants, and desires to participate in the modernization program of land records for the 1986-87 fiscal year. It further agrees to abide by the agreements and contracts Y with the program that are mutually adopted. 3 . FOREST SERVICE CONTRACT To renew the annual agreement between Orange County and NRCD for the provision of support by the North Carolina Forest Service in Orange County. The County has appropriated $34,559 in fiscal year 1986 87 to match State appropriations of $51,838 for provision of this service in Orange County. 4 4 . STATEMENT OF PURPOSE - REACTIVATED CABLE TV ADVISORY COMMITTEE To approve the charge to the Cable TV Citizen Advisory Committee and establish November 18, 1986 as the committee's reporting deadline. The charge is as follows: 1. Request from Alert Cable TV an expansion proposal outlining specific areas to be served and other information deemed necessary by the Committee. 2 . Review Alert Cable TV expansion proposal. In reviewing proposal, the committee should consider criteria used in reviewing Cable TV franchise proposals in 1979. 3 . Recommend/draft standards by which an expansion request (amendment) to a cable TV franchise may be considered by the Board of Commissioners. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey that the forgoing action be taken by the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. I. ITEMS FOR DECISION 4. PANTRY AREA STUDY (A copy of the Study is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office) Marvin Collins presented for consideration of approval the Pantry Area Study Land Use Plan. The Public Hearing was continued from May 27, 1986 and June 16, 1986 to July 7, 1986 to receive the Town of Hillsborough's recommendations. Collins reported that the Planning Board and the Town Board on June 5 and June 9 respectively reviewed the Pantry Area Study Land Use Plan and recommended approval. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to adopt the Pantry Area Study as submitted. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5. CHARTER MEADOWS - PRELIMINARY Marvin Collins presented for consideration of approval the Pre- liminary Plan for Charter Meadows - Section Three. The property is located on SR 1541 (Kiger Road) in Little River Township. It is bordered by agricultural and residential development. The tract is designated as Rural Residential on the Land Use Plan. Thirteen (13) lots are proposed out of 14.22 acres. The Planning Board recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan contingent upon the condition that adjoining lot layout, names of adjoining property owners and subdivisions be shown on the plat. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 6. BLUEBERRY HILL - PRELIMINARY Marvin Collins presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for Blueberry Hill Subdivision. The property is located on SR 1102 (Dodsons Crossroads) in Bingham Township. The property is bordered by agricultural and residential development as well as "The Ranch" mobile home park. The tract is designated as Rural Residential on the Land use Plan. Nine (9) lots are proposed out of 24.7 acres. The property is zoned Residential-1. The Planning Board recommended approval of the Preliminary P, Plan contingent upon two conditions: (1) Property lines follow a 10 ' x 70 ' sight triangle at the intersection of Blueberry Lane and SR 1102 (note Department of Transportation comment) , and (2) The developer consult the Orange County Recreation Director prior to the development of the proposed park for Lot #1. 5 Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 7. ACRES OF NEW HOPE - MINOR (CLASS A ROAD Marvin Collins presented for consideration of approval a request for a Class A private road to serve the new seven (7) acre lot of Joseph Stone, Et al. The Orange County Private Road Standards requires the approval of the Board of County Commissioners for G establishment of a Class A private road through the subdivision procedures. The Planning Board recommended approval of a Class A road. Motion was made by Commission Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 8. WILLIAM AND MARY LYNN - MINOR (CLASS A ROAD) Marvin Collins presented for consideration of approval a request for a Class A private road to serve the new two (2) acre lot of William and Mary Lynn. The Planning Board recommended approval of a Class A road. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to approve the recommendation of the Planning Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 9 . WEST TEN MOBILE HOME PARK - PD/REZONING EXTENSION Marvin Collins presented for consideration of approval the extension of time limits on a planned development amendment when approval has expired. The request is for a second six month extension for the West Ten Mobile Home Park. The Planning Board recommends extension of the planned development rezonings for the West Ten Mobile Home Park for six (6) months from July 1, 1986 to allow additional time to obtain appropriate permits and approvals and to initiate construction activity. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 10. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (The Text Amendments incorporating the revisions recommended by the Planning Board and revisions recommended by the attorney are attached to these minutes) . Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments as revised by the Planning Board and as recommended by the County Attorney. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 11. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (The Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments including revisions as recommended by the County Attorney are attached to these minutes) . Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by i Commissioner Carey to approve the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments as submitted to public hearing on May 27, 1986 with minor revisions as recommended by the County Attorney. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 12. PROPOSED PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - AUGUST 25, 1986 This item was presented for information only. 6 13 . HUMAN SERVICES TASK FORCE • Commissioner Carey presented the charge and a list of individuals to serve on an ad hoc task force which will study the present charge of the Human Services Advisory Commission and present recommendations to the Board of Commissioners on the future composition, charge and resources necessary to support its activities. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to adopt the membership of the Task Force, the charge and policy directives as outlined with a report to the Board of Commissioners by the end of November, 1986. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. The following list of individuals will make up the membership of the Human Services Task Force: Keith Aldridge Dick Hildebrandt Ruth Royster Peggy Pollitzer, Chair Person Barbara Page Hilliard Caldwell Chris Nutter Betty Compton Arthur Whitted Ed Crowe Lane Cooke John Hartwell Jerry Robinson Jerry Passmore Al Mebane Lilly Atwater Dick Richardson Al Kittrell (Staff support) Beverly Blythe (Secretary) 14. REVISED FEES FOR DENTAL CLINICS (A copy of the fee schedule is on page of these minutes. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the dental fee schedule as recommended by the Board of Health and Health Director. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. C. APPOINTMENTS 1. REGULAR APPOINTMENTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to reappoint Dennis Howell as recommended by the Chapel Hill Town Council. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. BOARD OF HEALTH Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to appoint Nicholas V. Holland to the Board of Health for a three year term. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY BOARD Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to appoint Lorna Hines Harris to the Health and Medical Care Advisory Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 7 RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to appoint Cathrine Saxton to fill the AT LARGE vacancy on the Council. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2 . ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to appoint Mayor Frank Sheffield to the EAB. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Walker to appoint George Johnson to the EAB. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Chair Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to appoint David Moreau as Chair of the EAB. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3 . LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING TASK FORCE Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Walker to appoint the following persons to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Task Force: Tara Fikes Sally Walker Alvin Oakley Dick Patton Lightning Brown Sam Lehman Robert Seymour Judith Wegner Arnie Katz Marge Land Roger Dale Stephens Joe Herzenberg Gloria Williams John Coffey Judith Hauser Christopher Moran John Davis R. D. Smith (subject to his approval) Barry Jacobs VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Commissioner Marshall suggested that there be a direct liaison with the County Manager's office and this Task Force. 4. REACTIVATED CABLE TV CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to appoint the following persons to the Citizens Advisory Committee: Robert J. Gwyn Amy Elizabeth Hardee Clair Millar Edwin Riley Norman Vogel, Chair Col. Lawson P. Wynne Marvin Silver VOTE: UNANIMOUS. D. MINUTES 8 Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the minutes for April 17 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Chair Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the minutes for May 5 as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the minutes for May 9 as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to approve the minutes for May 20, May 27, June 5, and June 16 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the minutes for June 17 as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Chair I Willhoit to approve the minutes for June 18 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS THE MINUTES FOR JUNE 24 WILL BE CORRECTED AND RESUBMITTED AT THE NEXT MEETING. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to consider, Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on August 19, 1986, 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the old Post Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk _____ mm..___ _ ,mm ...m.monimullilli , ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 1986 7:30 P.M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. A. BOARD COMMENTS ° the B. AUD ea IENCE COMMENTS 0 A = r ca V 1 , 1• Matters on t] -- Sw:� . 2• Matters not c `R `h m �yy--- Ti t\lir C‘ 1 'o La 0 C. APPOINTMENTS 1. Regular Appoi `U a 2 . Environmental • 3 • Low and Mode' 4. Appointments c�l� Advisory Comn D. MINUTES `—°01 ` -° co R, co) go Cb N pA0E # E• PUBLIC HE �{. ARINGS I k I _cp -n 006 1. PD-2-86 Hear O0, c CD -ik. C\ 0 013 to Receive Du o 2 . Woods Edge ' 019 Receive Plann. 1 i O 3 . Secondar • Y Roar • O\NR �� - F• RESOLUTION OF AFPR] c 039 �b � CD 1. Evelyn P. Llo _ 3 c, G. N 't ' - o C RED 041 V o y 046 1• Exempt Plat Re n) 2. Minor Subdivis o R id H. ITEMS FOR DECISION- ` -* c (Any item ma • - y be re 051 1. Agreement Bet. °c °� County ` ° 053 } 2• Resolution of rrc of North Carol. v © 0 / for a Matching n )59 co°' 3 . Forest Service V )63 co k \ fa 4. Statement of co ir," Advisory Commit AMMO PAGE # I. ITEMS FOR DECISION 006 1. PD-2-86 Heartwood at Black Mountain 013 2. Woods Edge Mobile Home Park 019 3 . Secondary Road Improvement Program 065 4. Pantry Area Study 070 5. Charter Meadows--Preliminary 093 6. Blueberry Hill--Preliminary 106 7. Acres of New Hope--Minor (Class A Road) 111 8. William and Mary Lynn--Minor (Class A Road) 116 9. West Ten Mobile Home Park--PD/Rezoning Extension 120 10. Subdivision Ordinance Amendments 178 11. Zoning Ordinance Amendments 204 12 . Proposed Public Hearing Items--August 25, 1986 212 13 . Human Services Task Force 218 14. Revised Fees for Dental Clinics J. ADJOURNMENT I 1 ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CAREY HEN LLOYD SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL NORMAN WALKER DON WLLLHOIT August 13, 1986 J. W. Watkins, Division Engineer Department of Transportation P.O. Box 9278 Greensboro, NC 27408 Dear Mr. Watkins: ' 1 ' The • '_ , ,e qpp.inty Board mmission:- ".r, i; ', by unanimous e .w . • conda�^ :._ !:. vote the � �� ` }�= = - ,.,� .._..__.� _- �� ; ..'� ed at their r •;_ "��`� - - � �� ' �:�;�'as present a r_.. g-beld,or4 #_ 1986. l',; rtment of Transp F ; �� �,. . it._ state ,., 7 , a... s' to call me. - , ; , -'nil g Ag!"�a -, �. .. , tid,' ..ww0, fix - = - - ;'14q, ' Beverly A. Blythe Clerk to the Board /bab File cc: Eddie Kirk • ir....___-- 001 ORANGE COUNTY Action Ag BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. 1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE August 4, 1986 Subject: APPOINTMENTS IDepartment: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS r Public Rearing: Yes X no Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under Separate Cover Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968--4$01, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards. The following vacancies are announced for the first time only: A-13 - RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL - 2 vacancies; resignation of Emily S. Knight and termination of Lawrence Vanhook. B-5 - DOMICILIARY HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - 1 vacancy; resignation of Jeanne Gresko. B-14 - ARTS COMMISSION - 1 vacancy; resignation of Brenda Hackley. C-7 - ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - 2 vacancies; expiration of terms for Joe Rees on August 4, 1986 and James Ray on September 1, 1986. The following vacancies are announced together with the indication of the status of securing candidates for possible appointment consideration. A-4 - COMMISSION FOR WOMEN - 2 vacancies - no recommendation has been received. A-5 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION -- 1 vacancy - a recommendation has been received. A-9 - ORANGE COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES - 2 vacancies - no recommendation has been received. B-1 - BOARD OF HEALTH - 1 vacancy; 5 resumes are submitted for consideration. B-6 - HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY BOARD - 1 vacancy; 4 resumes are submitted for consideration. A-13 - RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL - 1 vacancy - a recommendation has been received. CORRECTION C-5 - ILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - see recommendation and copies of the State Statute. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. 00' ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ^ it No. 0_,1)'s ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE August 4, 1986 Subject: Environmental Affairs Board Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS c Hearing: Yes I � Publi H _ X no f 1 Attachments: Information Contact: Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To consider further nominations and appoint a chair person. NEED: The Town Council of Hillsborough has requested that Mr. John Upton and Mayor Frank Sheffield be considered for appointment to the EAB. The composition of the Board included an AT LARGE person. It is recommended that Mr. George Johnson be considered for this position. He would represent utilities. RECOMMENDATION: AS THE BOARD DECIDES. ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS it No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE August 4, 1986 Subject: LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING TASK FORCE Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ( I Public Hearing: Yes X no Attachments: Information Contact: Under Separate Cover Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 • PURPOSE: The Board directed the Planning Board to submit nominees for a task force on Low and Moderate-Income Housing. (Board Meeting 3/5/86) REED: Appointment of the following persons to serve on the task force: Tara Fikes Sally Walker Alvin Oakley Dick Patton Lightning Brown Sam Lehman Robert Seymour Judith Wegner Arnie Katz Marge Land Roger Dale Stephens Joe Herzenberg Gloria Williams John Coffey RECOMMENDATION: Judith Hauser Barry Jacobs RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. ORANGE COUNTY 00 q Action Agenda BOARD OF COMOCCSSIONERS it No. C y ACTION AGENDA ram ABSTRACT MEETING DATE August 4, 1986 Subject: Appointments to the Reactivated Cable TV Citizens Advisory Committee Department: BOARD OF COM SSIONERS c Hearing: Yes % no l I Public f 1 Attachments: Information Cantact: Beverly Blythe None Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: The Board directed the reactivation of the Cable TV Citizens Advisory Committee. All those who served on this committee were contacted. NEED: Appointment of the following persons to serve on the Cable TV Citizens Advisory y Robert J. Gwyn Amy Elizabeth Hardee Clair Millar Edwin Riley Norman Vogel Col. Lawson P. Wynne Marvin Silver RECONJEHDATION. As the Board decides. 006, ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS it No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE August 4, 1986 I Subject: MINUTES Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: Yes % no f � I Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under Separate Cover I t Phone Numbers: 732--8181, 968-1+501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: 4/17/86 Joint Planning Area Public Hearing 5/5/86 Regular Meeting 5/9/86 Continued Meeting 5/20/86 Regular Meeting 5/27/86 Quarterly Joint Public Hearing 6/5/86 Regular Meeting 6/16/86 Public Hearing on Woods Edge 6/17/86 Regular Meeting 6/18/86 Continued Meeting from 6/17/86 6/24/86 Special Meeting NEED: Approval so the minutes may be entered into the official minute book in the Clerk's office. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting Date August 4, 1986. 0 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Action Agenda SUBJECT: PD-2-86 HEARTWOOD AT BLACKWOOD MOUNTAIN Items s-°'� jZ DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X YES No Attachment(s) Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH SEE 5-27-86 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA PACKET VICINITY MAP LETTER FROM APPLICANT DATED 7-7-86 COMMENT FROM DUKE UNIVERSITY SEE DRAFT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES BEING DISTRIBUTED TO BOCC BY CLERK Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive comment from Duke University on the proposed planned development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit request submitted by Spence and Lyn Dickinson known as Heartwood. To continue the receipt of public comment on the request. This item was continued from May 27, 1986, June 16, 1986 and July 7, 1986. NEED: Spence and Lyn Dickinson are requesting a development rezoning and issuance of a ClassalA oSpeciall Use Permit for 35 .21 acres of land located west of Mill House Road (SR 1725 ) in Chapel Hill Township. The property is referenced as Tax Map 19 Lots 26A and 29 in Chapel Hill Township . The property is located within an area designated Rural Buffer in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The present zoning classi- fication is Rural Residential (R-1 ) . The applicants are requesting that the 35 .21 acres or 1 ,533,747.6 square feet be rezoned PD-H-R-1 .2 IMPACT: Approval of the request would allow development of attached and detached single-family residential structures with an overall density of one unit per 40,000 square feet. oo The applicants have revised the site plan to provide for a total of 33 dwelling units, including three (3) duplexes (buildings #4/14, 15/16 and 17/18) . Proposed building sites #22 and 22 have been combined on the revised plan as site $26. Proposed building sites 14, 14, and 15 are shown on the revised plan as the three duplex units. There is no building/site referenced as #25 on the revised plan. The proposed cul -de-sac is shown on the revised plan as a loop road named Blackwood Mountain Road . On the revised plan the septic tanks and nitrification lines, for the artist bungalows and community center have been shifted to the original location of community well #1 . The applicants have also shifted the location of well #1 south of the artist bungalows to meet state requirements regarding the location of well sites in proximity to septic tanks/nitrification fields. The revised community well location has not yet been approved by the N.C. Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services. The letter dated April 21 , 1986 from the Division of Health Services (See May 27, 1986 public hearing agenda packet) addressed only those suitable sites in the northwest and southw est corners of the property. See Impacts Statement for further information . RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the planned development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit request with the conditions of approval recommended at the May 27, 1986 public hearing with the following revisions: REVISE CONDITION #6 as follows: The following recommendations apply to the road and parking facilities: a. DELETE - The applicant has complied with this condition in the revised site plan. d . The private Class A road serving the community center shall be constructed to Orange County private road standards, but shall be hard-surfaced in compliance with NCDOT Minimum Construction Standards for pavement design for subdivision roads. fo_a_roasl_ maintenance agreement sybmltted_ foens', approve the F1 agrgement �haL Orange County Re.g [ster of Deeds REVISE CONDITION #7 as follows: The following recommendations apply to the recreation area and facilities. a. Tot lot/playground area to include play apparatus for childres, 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. with a Barr iers OP ooe c. Provide one ( 1 ) parking space for each dwelling unit. Provide one ( 1 ) handicapped parking space for every 10 spaces. Parking spaces shall meet the dimensional requirements of Article 10 of the Orange County zoning Ordinance. fret anclignoLLS arkin s aces shall be IQWS: ( 1 ) .s4_Lt han (2) fhe_ vgh Is1 a Date a I ev I surf act �u_i table f Qr w.hge l J n9 �lklgq (3) • REVISE CONDITION #8 as follows: 8. The following recommendations apply to the lot arrangement: a. Lots 13L And 34 s1 all be deleted, (These lots are a considerable distance from the remainder of the community. The revised site plan has addressed concerns regarding accessibility to lots 014 and 15 as shown on the original site plan . ) b . Delete condition - applicant has addressed concerns in the revised site plan . c. Each lot platted on the Final Plat shall include the area associated with the building site and the septic tank, including the nitrification lines and repair areas . , 1 - - . - - . . . . _ • - be platted and recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds along with legal descriptions and easement agreements submitted to and approved by the Orange County Attorney. REVISE CONDITION /9 as follows: Ih l°ca 1Qn ILLt ► I - • . „ = . • ■ , . ! j ; • _ Final plans for the community well system • • • • REVISED CONDITION #10 as follows: 00C All final 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, fhe Erosion Control Officer along, the Special Use Permit. In addition . prior• to the issuance of the Please note that conditions 111-5 and 10-20 are common to all. planned development-housing_rezonings and special use permits. WJ 20 2545 'r+ 19 67 AC, SEE. ♦ ti 1 MAP 19A \i 28.46 AC. s (PERRY,PERRY,CATES) 7 lri 11 r- w 1 0236 -1 AC- h 5348. iC 7010 e r - + 3931 `� 3l3L!LE9 M-�A1 DO?I L 8 38A r I E ' onr 7..12AC Q '} I� 7-' + !�� 'f 13?_!A 090f, ! t !BOB {G , k ,4_ 6Ir sroO_36 e8r� ?m _.__..-JR1 "2.55A C r (REST) � - 636 3.70 AC L DUKE Ft.�T 6524 1.75AC '4! I A ! r CAL ;i1 C r2AC. 5577 1r{. �UY.LWCk3,D�l rt13AC- 10 02 8734� �h,l, � � Fr + _ �t1Ac) _ t IL_ �— 2AC I _ L J 6A ( 3\I Ls - — 4120 Wei y,'_4163 7 sane; Wei 7c• 1l " , 4.2 5 AC MAPEL HILL %/ i-bCIC£141 .66 AC ! 27.77AC. ! ' ' 1 325PC. A E267 1A!.-50.7 - ,75rIC. I )qf, W - - ---- -- -- '��if> 61r 1 + 27 PRoP05eb � ICE 6094 --soa r 25 + 2385AC 3.l5rC- -- 17D X41- 2 / ` 2. V77r �{J 7667 24 Acs SUBar� t ( 2s — Ff$7 1`I l 20A agar r 18.54 AC N+ „ ;?+ 5 28A -- - UA[ICIi 1 11.74 4.. o - - re . F 7 9893 06557.71 Ac-) - -2 — ! 25D SEE 14.;' 3 229 W' _ ROD ------ } tj 383.931AC �10 25 .1127 2083 62 3.60AC 978 Aq�. 25E 1.5AC %o _ 1 R/W (23) r%5 55.1.^.AC _ n —�- ' FU 23D eh'AF� #ILc 7o-v ,5NrP 7519 %:7! - — ;,2a ac2 ( } 11 Fu 3 RC. 77.64AC 172(; __ ZOTRaurez. 7-7-& 011 Jury 1st, 19g6 Oitange County Panning BoaAd Okammge- County Comm.i2ss.sioneks H-i.ee,_5 bwto tqh, N.C. - To ate whom this conceftns, We ake wm.i ti.ng this £ettek AegaAdi.ng awe pkopo4ed development, Heafttwood. We cite addtess.ing 3. Aecommendations. in hopes to bettea cewi, y OWL intentions. 1) Lots #33g34 aM. s epaaated tAom the main panto the deve eopment and au • .located near. the Ohm ahea. These 2 tots cute irstJuunenta.. in OWL p.2ans BOA the ovum& educationaf. aspect of Hea a sod. One-haute wLU be the 6aAm managea!s house and the othea w.iet. be a bunk house 6o' use by those paAtie- ipating in ga1m.ing and ganden.i..ng pAo f ects. 2) Regaading the Aaads thAoughout Heahtwoad and a6teA eonsuPtation with the. suaveyou and Aoad buiedeas, the Aecammendations we have Received and ane in agaeement with one the 6oLeowing: a) The main entaance, Hevttwood Dftive, we wowed have built to state Stan loads and paved. b) 8.Packwood .Mountain Road wh , h is the .loop Aoad wound be built to pAivate standatds and paved to state standands. The main conceJut . heke is to- pAay.ide adequate Aoad yet pkesekve the taees and paivacy and natwte o4 the h-itt.side. A pftivate Aoad wowed Aequi'te £ittee to no ahtou2deA which would mean many glees wowed be p'esekved. The. .suAveyoAS and Aoad buiZdeA said the stapes and cWtves wowed be make. itexibte with the building o6 a pA-.vate standard Aoad and the cost maintenance wowed be easily q6oAdab.ee 6oA the numbeA o6 house sites . e) As pneviouAty, Requested, the Aoad to the Community 8uitding wowed be buret accoAding to private standaftds as"we2.e and in a 2atea phase o4 the development wowed be- paved at the time when useage o6-the . building wowed be. gkeatett.. 3) 7t has been Aecommnended to ws by the Aoad bui.edeAS to build Aoad with a 4 •inch payee base and maintain it untie 90% ob the homes weal built and then a tiina.e 2 inch tayeA- o s gtavet be added and pavement put down. This fieconnnendation was made to avoid having the Aoad toAn up by heavy equipment needed Uo_A the building o6 the home's . Tt would aezo be-netcit the 6utu'e maintenance 66 the Aoad i6 compaction cowed take peace by use on the gnave,eeed swt6ace be{►oke pavement cticzs pit down. This would save costly Aepaixs to a newly paved Aoad. Thank you 6oA com4ide to-lion o6 these Aeques-ts as they cvt.e in the best inteaest o6 cfteatimcg a qua.e.i.ty development and one that .Us cast etitiective Pit both the devetopeA and the homeowneas. Respec-taUy submitted, Spence Dickinson a3---,4_,) 4' •-,t4 • Lyn Diek.crtsonl • • • pule irtiiiereitg U 1 DURHAM NORTH CAROLINA 27706 SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES OFFICE OF THE DUKE FOREST TELEPHONE(919)694-2421 July 18, 1986 Ms. Susan J. Smith, Planner Orange County Planning Department 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Ms. Smith: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed Heartwood Development beside the Blackwood Division of the Duke Forest. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Orange County Planning Department and the Planning Board for their continued interest in protection of the natural resource values of the Duke Forest. Prior to receipt of your letter, I had spoken with Barry Jacobs about the project and subsequently met with Mr. Spence Dickinson, the applicant, who has explained his proposal to me. Basically, the number of dwelling units seems consistant with the intent of the "Rural Residential" classification, and the positioning of the homesites as indicated on the preliminary site plan revised June 16, 1986 appears to leave a wooded buffer along the perimeter. A possible improvement to this would be restrictive covenants protecting the buffer or some form of conservation easement. Adequately designed septic systems should not effect water quality, though Mr. Dickinson mentioned a package plant as a possibility for future developmental phases. That would be of some concern as it appeared to drain northward to a small stream eventually flowing to New Hope Creek. Otherwise, Mr. Dickinson's ideas are innovative and represent concern for multiple uses and provide a variety of amenities for the residents. I view the availability of the Duke Forest as a recreational facility to the residents of Heartwood in much the same manner as for others in the surrounding communities. It is available for hiking, jogging, picnicking and general enjoyment of nature. I have included a Discover Duke Forest brochure which summarizes permitted uses. We prefer that access be gained through the system of roads and fire trails which allows us, to some extent, to direct recreational use away from sensitive research projects or fragile ecosystems. This allows us to help protect study areas which our researchers consider important. We believe that we can provide these types of recreational benefits and still serve as an educational and research facility. I would be glad to answer any specific questions you may have, and again I appreciate the opportunity for input to the planning process. Sincerely, Lm Judson D. Edeburn Duke Forest Resource Manager JOE:lrr Enclosure cc: Dr. George F. Dutrow, Dean-w/o enclosure Mr. Barry Jacobs, Chairman, Orange County Planning Board O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Oitt ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date 2`1986 Action Agenda Item E SUBJECT: WOODS EDGE MOBILE HOME PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATION .2;2- DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _X__ No Attachment(s) Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH VICINITY MAP REDUCED SITE PLAN DRAFT 6-16-86 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES BEING DISTRIBUTED TO BOCC BY CLERK 7-21-86 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE; To consider a modification to the Woods Edge Mobile Home Park planned development special use permit for approval . This item was submitted to public hearing on June 16, 1986. To receive the Planning Board 's recommendation. NEED: The applicant, Roger Dale Stephens, is requesting that the Board approve a request for modification to the approved planned development special use permit for Woods Edge Moible Home Park . Mr. Stephens wishes to make permanent an office mobile home which was installed on a temporary basis to assist placement of tenants in the park . In addition, he wishes to use an existing foundation (not shown on the site plan submitted to public hearing and approved) to erect a storage facility composed of individual cubicles for use by tenants of each mobile home unit. Both requests would increase the floor area for the planned development. Section 8.7. 1 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance states that an increase in usable floor area constitutes a modification to an approved planned development. Section 8.7.2 further provides that " if it is determined that the proposed action is a modification, the Zoning Officer shall require the applicant to submit a request for modification of the approved special use permit . . shall submit the request to the Board which approved the original application (and) the Board shall set a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the modification 014 request." The Board shall subsequently approve, approve pprove with conditions or disapprove the application for modification . IMPACT: Approval of the applicant 's request would allow the placement of a permanent office mobile home and construction of a storage facility on the site. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends that the modification to the planned development site plan for Wood 's Edge Mobile Home Park be approved with the following condition: - that the office mobile home be relocated outside of the 100 ' buffer Rio 4 17 6533 c+ Da? QH 1223 38.OfAC. C ��� ` � t8 52714 19AC ncoor rs 3.74AC i ' I s nc 20 ?Z3.9fi AC 22.18 AC. 7F 144 i gSA�'-..` :•t 21 ', cs 21C 21%' 2rB r ` �R7 c7 fSlS aB36 8624 70 DD? { 271. 92AC .92 AC Q2 4^ } l.36AC 7a I.lx4C. 7Ei� 37E. da15 JA 1,6-W } r r; .74 AC. _ �° ! �.0.724 %:%Ji •, �; :- .. '+ - } i r, 6.84 } i _� S: ''r'- :}5.+,. .�y, ti..�,•f;.� - - IQ - � I�C'::+yi• ^,i4.', 2S SAL' 3.25 t r fir,_'' 3 A., I 802 AC- ! SI .--e, 4'•!kC r o �$2AC�a 4.�1�7 1.97A 1�1n' - ti�' l6.8 AC. CKINPE4. 100 ?79k `..' f..':r' E„r.+'•'.s iLCai sy. .. ;: ': -OWNS -; �.^�+;.:-w.b. '^” +w"` _ - L 58d - - ;i,� - GC+L; +..i.`" ,.i ....�,'r,�"�'�r.�';`i;ra.c:u�'•- 'k.t`. L�![�....�. rte.. .. f 7'.' - '!� - 'iC, . 44 AE: :i ;.:err: i7' •.tits r. i,? o.'.. f 41 L s 5 xw s 7. [., DOT ,a' Z 29G r 7888 243AC :OA32 s t� 2891' kC'IDN a 8.68 AC !fi fsz0 14 SG7Y e35a 17 6 AC. 8 AC. K 19411 39.085 AC — _ _ 12 s6 AC !9242 ^1 5 Ar, 24 7tr1A � seo C..�9o46 8.09 1 TTg `. _ � AC 7AC• oor 1 hfl' QA St'QREY LANE �J oor r r//� ) ��' ' g �4y, MAILBOX TUR#OUT r� PiPEUTION&L ims i $F ACN "� ` " °y�\. PVC 107 £ k€A1H�0 31 CLUB TER 1 ?• 6<'.:: '�► ibAl�@O][Etril'rE r 1lfw� I IS i F f 8 ' ■� �e.s y .ksnma®�i 'fie�mL'n.�rr`on • r / I �Q Srvan1}� I + �Z / � / + E �� �\\ �°`'� g y��� '' 'i — M 1 eaary�rr��oreq ,,, - ...,� 1 ' , \\\\�\�, �•Gd'-. SPACF r' Ld i14C�VD S arrrA Bt1 r NNYLfiwsiwa /.{t@ �V A 4. .BARa ;V`'�• � \, p r7 ODAC ti0 CI�4 0 �M r►iArir Lhlie]FFNCF O 77 `\\�`�\ a rn awiMr� /�,� 1 � •� 3 to o 01D t a t�4 4t# 19 �I RECREI�fQH ARtA 4 t4H s �Ctr�R�a _0 t+tr •t�/N�t +� , w PAay 4`P�kDE87RA1N,PATH N� r' s �' / tORAVILJ• aRx I PAII{TED&TRlAto CRO WALK 388 411 1 r --� J i �� tom.:-- I r r I ' I ! _ 1 t . 070 i {! • f �Y O ..y:-: 98 ` \ GAVE AS U f } ANY TREES IH SUFFER 18'Saa•p PA `+ �O• l I VFFFR \ \ ` AREA AS POSSIBLE ARl<INp a Art ce AN / + DIRECTIONAL SIGNS !8F EACH C >fkr�r erarjo ���+ r�+s� t @'yJ�= =PHkti r O t G p �� o� I PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 7-21-86 0r• allow the Board to delete the skirting provision entirely . DRAFTBest commented that he thought the skirting require- ment was included to address safety concerns with the spread of fire throughout a unit. Smith responded that the skirting materials permit- ted ranged from solid masonry block to open pressure treated lattice panels . Yuhasz noted that the provisions seemed inconsistent given that pole buildings are permitted in Orange County . Jacobs commented that there were two issues here 1 ) is landscaping an acceptable alternative and 2) safety concerns . Yuhasz inquired what evidence had been presented to suggest that skirting is safer . Best responded that open areas allow fire to "run" . Yuhasz commented that he supported the revision to provide relief to mobile home owners on wooded lots but that the Board needs to reconsider the skirting provision . VOTE ; Unanimous Walters noted that tax revisions are needed to encourage mobile home unit owners to make their homes more permanent. Lewis commented that if safely is the concerns then education , not regulation is needed. MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval of the amendment to Article 22. Taylor seconded the motion . Best inquired if the Board should recommend solid skirting . Yuhasz responded that that would be better discussed in the context of the broader discussion on skirting . VOTE: Unanimous . WOOD ' S EDGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN MODIFICATION Smith presented the matter . She noted that the temporary office mobile home unit was well placed and landscaped, but was located within the buffer . She indicated that staff was concerned about maintaining the integrity of the buffer though they recognized that the unit as is is visually accept- able and relocation may cause substantial disrup- tion . She added that the unit could be moved to a 01 h cleared area outside of the buffer. MOTION: Best moved approval of the staff ' s recommendation . Walters seconded the motion . Yuhasz inquired who would benefit from moving the mobile home unit given that it is already land- scaped and no vegetation was cleared to place it at that location in the first place. VOTE: 6 in favor 2 opposed (Lewis, Yuhasz ) Waiters commented that he would like this mobile home park to be a good examply and would not want this issue to be cited as a problem violation . PANTRY AREA STUDY To consider the Pantry Area Study Land Use Plan for approval . This public hearing was continued from May 27, 1986 and June 16, 1986 to July 7, 1986 to receive the Town of Hillsborough ' s recommendations . Development app-lications received and subsequently approved in the study area indicate a need for a review and update of the County ' s Land Use Plan for the area . Such a review, including the participation of the Town of Hillsborough, will insure that subsequent developments are in accord with municipal and County objectives . Adoption of the draft area study land use plan would establish development standards for the transition areas and additional protection for environmentally sensitive areas . Area Study as submitted. Walters noted that a northern loop for Hillsborough would be a major determinant in the development of the northern area of Hillsborough . Smith commented that no clear direction has been received from either the Town or NCDOT on loop road systems . The Board discussed the impact of Treyburn on the local thoroughfare system. Walters inquired how pedestrian easements could be established in the area. Jacobs responded that they could be established by ordinance or srecial authorizing legislation , neither of which Orange County has at this time. O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT a Meeting Date Allgys±_ 4, 1986 ActionKsenda Itew � %J SUBJECT: 1986-1987 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X YES NO Attachment(s) Information Contact: EDDIE KIRK PROPOSED 1986-1987 PROGRAM 1986-87 PRIORITY LIST MEMO TO BOARD MEMBERS UNDER SEPARATE COVER PLANNING DIRECTOR MEMO OF 7--31-86 • Telephone Numbers Hillsborough -- 732-8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen input and the Secondary Road Improvements Advisory Committee recommendation on the 1986--1987 Secopdary Road Improvements Program. NEED: The NCDOT Board of Transportation I s required by lays -Io pos.(- a County map in the Orange County Courthouse showing proposed annual secondary road improvement projects and to hold a public hearing jointly with the Board of Commissioners on the proposed program. The 1986-87 total allocation for secondary roads is $643,272.00 . The allocation. Includes $190,OOO.O( for paved secondary road improvements, $70,000 .00 more than 198.5_86, $40,000.00 for spot stabilization of unpaved roads, $355,000.00 for paving unpaved roads, and $48,272.00 for contingency. The allocation for paving unpaved roads includes: ( 1 ) P.O.P. project (Charlock Court) , (3) P.P.P. projects requiring County participation (Meadow Lane, Roliingwood Road and Stallings Road) and (2) rural roads (New Sharon Church Road and Ode Turner Road) prioritized on the secondary roads priority paving list. IMPACT: Approval of the proposed program would allow DOT ,c, schedule bec3ule and complete the projects during the 1986-87 construction year_ RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. See SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM • • 02U • ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1986-1987 SECONDARY ROAD I PROvEMENT PROGRAM 1986-1987 Secondary Allocation (Anticipated) $573,272.00 Previous Years Balance 70,000.00 Total 643,272.00 Map Priority SR No. No. No. Name and Description Estimated T�°� Cdst Paved Secondary Road Improvement 1 1009 Reconstruct Old 86 (Continue) l.3 $185,00000 2 1005 Improve Sight Distance in Northeast. Quadrant of Intersection with SR 1942 x'000`00 Unpaved Secondary Road Improvement. 3 1950 Improve Sight Distance on Curve 10,000.00 Snot Stabilization of Unpaved Roads SR 1116, SR 1140, SR 1141, SR 1144, SR 1175, 40,000.00 • SR 1194, SR I195, SR 1306, SR 1340, SR 1343, SR 1344, SR 1347, SR 1348, SR 1510, SR 1512, SR 1523, SR 1525, SR 1526, SR 1533, SR 1536, SR 1550, SR 1552, SR 1568, SR 1570, SR 1571, SR 1572, SR 1573, SR 1575, SR 1794, SR 1884, SR 1914, SR 1941, SR 1950, SR 1973, SR 2002, SR 2003 -2- 021 ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1986-1987 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Map Priority SR No. No. No. Name and Descri,tion Estimated Let,th Cost Paving Un aved Roads 4 1 ✓ 1538 New Sharon Church Road - Prom SR 1003 to NC (Complete Funding) 57 I.9 $I6S,QOO,pr 5 2 1130 Ode Turner Road - From SR 1006 to SR 1129 (Partial Fundin 1.6 I50,OOOoQp g) 6 ,1 1/a 1195 Meadow Lane - From SR 1104 to a Dead End (P. O. P. Paving) .2 10,000.00 7 1194 Prom SR 1195 to SR 1112 and 1198 From SR 1194 to a Dead End 0.47 20,000.00 (P. O. P. Paving) 8 t 1895 Charlock Court - From SR 1874 to a Dead End . (P. 0. P. Paving) 0.11 10,Q00.00 Contingency to be Used for Overruns, Additions to System, Paving Rural Fire Department Drives, k8,ry72.00 and Property Owner Participation. Note: If right of way is not available on the above unpaved roads, the funds will be programed on other roads in the order of priority or applied on property owner participation paving. • I S/R" PRTY NAME LNGTH $ , r_ 1538 1 NEW SHARON CH 3.00 IP'T 1130 2 ODE TURNER RO 1.60 487..; 1943 3 SESAME ROAD ' . .50 _" 360.' 1335 4 KENION ROAD 1.90 35`2.1 1730 5 TURKEY FARM R 1.50 287.: - 1137 - 6 BUSHY COOK RO 2.30 287_1 1561 7 LAWRENCE, ROAD .70 276, 1568 8 WILLET ROAD 1.20 - 274_t 1113 9 ROCKY RIDGE R 1.60 274.: 1941 10 OLD SCHOOL RO .90 268.1 1312 11 RICHMOND 1.70 _ 268_C 1569 12 GAILBRAITH RO .90 247.4 1135 13 MOORE IELDS R 1.90 7.0. 1383 14 ENO CEMETERY 1.00 5_4 1575 ' 15 WALKER FARM R 1.50 5_t 19;0 16 CARL DURHAM R 2.20 1_t 1727 17 EUBANKS ROAD .92 29_e 1955 18 DAWSON ROAD ' .90 252.0 1572 19 EBENEZER CHRU 1.10 - - 224.t . 1541 20 KIGAR ROAD 4.30 2217,,t 1563 21 YATES ROAD .60 . 218:_e. . 214.0 ti • RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS COUNTY 50 SIR PRTY NAME LNGTH PAGE 2 T/PT 1566 . 22 LINDEN ROAD .75 . 1552 23 MINCEY ROAD- 1.60 214.( 1346 24 SADDLE CLUB R 2.40 213,,,' 1555 25 MILLER ROAD 1.50 • 213.: 1351 26 GOVERNOR SCOT 2.60 24e. 1712 27 UNIVERSITY ST 1 .20 - 206_ 3 1540 28 HUNT ROAD 2.00 • 202.1 ,,1340B 29 HIGH ROCK ROA 2.10 202.1. 1725 30 MILL HOUSE RO 1 .83 20:�- 1128 31 KIMBRO ROAD ap 201 _: 1362 32 ALLIE MAE ROA 1 .40 200.: 1194 33 ROLLINGWOOt, R .30 19E.:: 1839 34 FREELANr HEIG .40 3344.1.. 1395 35 HARPER ROAD _ 32 1896 36 PUREFOY DRIVE .40 • 8,.s. 1162 37 LATIMER STREE .20 300. 1564 39 GIBBS LANE .40 304 1705 39 TUSCABORA DRI .40 274-1 • 1184 40 ORANGE HEIGHT .10 262,11 1591 41 GREEN PINE .20 252. + 1313 42 TINNIN ROAD .40 240. + - ' 215. 11 • ..... ....... ..... .. .,.,,. JI- .P c'g7Wnn1 IIVHm.7 1,,; S/R PRTY NAME LNGTH . . ' 1794 43 TxMBERLY DRIV .60 - 208 .0 1186 44 ORANGE HEIGHT .20 • 204.0 1824 45 WILKINS DRIVE .17 204.0 1557 46 CHAVIS FUNERA .20 0'� 200.0 1390 _ 47 HOLIDAY PARR .25 195.0 1303 48 E WASHINGTON .56' 195.0 1315 49 FULLER ROAD .20 195.0 1791 .50 MT. MORIAH RO .72 192.0 1131 51 CROSSROAD CH. .50 • 192.0 1195 52 MEADOW LANE .20 189.0 . 1573 53 BIVINS ROAD .b0 118.0 1144 54 WEST TEN 2.75 1$7.01 1508 55 HAWKINS ROAD 3.40 18b»G ' 1914 56 WHITE ROCK CH .20 183.4 1548 57 SCHLEY ROAD . 1.90 - 13.0 1204 58 REX DRIVE »2b. s 1e2. 2002 59 WAVE ROAD .31 1$0.0o ' • 1516A 60 BROWN ROAD WE 1.90 180.0 1396 . 61 LOCUST STREET .25 178.51 . 1397 62 TULIP TREE RO .35 178,0 1124 63 MARTIN ROAD .70 178.6 178.01•ij f RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS COUNTY 30 'AGE 4 S/R PRTY NAME • LNGTH 1520B 64 MARY HALL ROA 2.00 177. 1715 65 DOVE CREEK RO .45 177.w; . 1115 66 ARTHUR MINNIS 1.60 • 174.0; 1957A 67 GOLD MINE LOO 1.70 :472.7 1544 68 PEARSON ROAD 3.30 • :472.0 1581 69 SNEED DRIVE 1.40 170.7 1361 70 PENECOST ROAD 2. 10 170.0 - 1378 71 OAK STREET .16 169. 1515 72 BREEZE . ROAD 1.60 1'66 1198 73 STALLINGS ROA . 10 • 166.61 1344 74 HALEY ROAD • .40 166.0! 1341C 75 HARMONY CHRUC 1 .70 166.C . 1579 76 GREEN RILEY R 1 .20 165.E 1360 77 LEES CHAPEL R 1 .30 155•E;' 1366 78 ATKINS ROAD 2.70 • i63.C.; . 1140A 79 WILSON ROAD • 1.55 162.1 1349 80 POTEAT ROAD 11.20 162.1 1526 .81 GRAY ROAD 1.90 161.1 1947 82 IVEY ROAD . .60 161.C, 1959 83 MILLIKAN ROAD 1.80 156.0 1338 .84 BROOKHOLLOW R 2. 10 153.0. . .- 151.; S/R PRTY NAME LNGTH �... . 19W24. 85 RAY ROAD .40 �'/�'Iw 1516B 86 BROWN ROAD EA 1.60 150-C 1842 87 RUSCH ROAD .10 150.0 1512 88 HESTER ROAD 2.70 147.1 ]817 89 STATION ROAD .20 147,.1 1 1385 90 FOX TRAIL .21. 144.0 1314 91 SCHOOL HOUSE .32 144.0 2005 92 EDGEWOOD SIRE .37 - 142.0 1522 93 WAGONER DAIRY 1.00 -142.0 1534 94 MCKEE ROAD - 1.90 142-0 1960 95 LLOYD TOWN RO 1.70 . . 141.E 1341B 96 HARMONY CHURC 2.30 139-E 1306 97 LEBANON ROAD . .80 139.0 1325 98 N. OAK STREET .20 132.0 1949 99 FORD . ROAD .50 132.4 1975 100 BROOKFIELD DR .30 132.0 1116 101 APPLE MILL RO 1.10 130.0 1340A 102 HIGH ROCK ROA 1.00 129. 1359 103 OAKLEY ROAD 1.10 129.0 1318 104 CENTER STREET .23 129.0 1520A 105 MARY HALL ROA .80 128„rrG • 1128..28.0 0 28.C RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS COUNTY 50 PAGE - 6 S/R PRTY NAME - LNGTH 1369 106 WADE DEAD END 1 .60 I/PTA 1586 '107 CAROLINA LOOP .47 127.4 1988 108 WOODCREST STR .10 125 126..0 1594 109 SHAWNEE DRIVE .20 0 •1302' 110 MCBANE STORE .22 125.0 1556 111 GOV. BURKES R 1.40 125-0 1363 112 DOC CORBETT R 1 .90 121 .0; 1206 113 KING EDWARDS .20 121.x; 2042 114 PINEVIEW DRIV .20 120..0 1336 115 HALLS MILL RO 1.90 120.0 1140B 116 WILSON ROAD 1 .10 119." • 350A 117 LONESOME ROAD 1 .60 119,. 2001 118 MANGUM COURT .63 118.a 1550 119 EDMUND LATTA 2.00 118,.t' 1317 120 SOUTHERN DRIV .20 118. 1379 121 FRANK PERRY R 1 .35 116. 1823 122 WILKINS DRIVE .28 115.E 1503A 123 BAMA ROAD 1.60 - 115. 1114 124 BUCKHORN ROAD 1.60 1536 125 BILL POOLE RO 1 .70 114.E 112.E 1533 126 BUNNY- ROAD 1.40 111. 108. • "e p. rnid i�Ef1fl LNIiIH 1147 127 REX DRIVE .11 - Ti i~TS 1132 128 SHAMROCK ROAD .20 1. 8.0 1721 129 RIOSBEE ROAD .40 108,0 1722 130 DUM�'HUS ROAD .40 . 0 100.c 1519 131 GATES ROAD 1.50 108.0 1309 132 SHAMBLEY SER .13 107.0 1585 133 STRICKLAND RO .40 106.0 1501 134 ALLISON ROAD 2.20 1©5.106.E 1525 135 HALL DAIRY RO 1.40 121/ 136 HICKORY FORES .30 101 1592 137 SHELTON- COURT .16 199.c 1141 138 WHITAKER ROAD 1 .00 99.0 1185 139 ORANGE HEIGHT .05 96.0 1322 140 FORREST AVENU .20 96.0 2004 141 WILLIS ROAD .30 6.0 • 1343 142 TOM WARD ROAD - .40 6.0 1728 143 LAKE HOGAN FA .42 - . b.G 13508 144 -HARMONY CHRUC .50 96.C 1355 145 ALLISON ROAD ..90 96.0 1529 146 COUNTRY LANE .20 96«C 1973 147 -MOONRIDGE ROA .40 94,G 94.G EJ RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS COUNTY 50 PAGE 8 S/R PRTY NAME LNGTH 1337 148 BANE ROAD .80 T94T 1341A 149 IRA ROAD 1.60 •C 1739 150 WEST LAKEVIEW .18 93«; 1510 151 ORMOND ROAD 1.90 93,0 1353 152 COMPTON ROAD 2.20 92. 1175 153 MARIONS FORD '.70 92»t 1531A 154 BACON ROAD 1.40 90.0 1176 155 CAMP CHESTNUT .30 87.c 2043 156 PINEVIEW ROAD .10 8740. 1145 157. SQUIRES ROAD 420 34.c. 1183 158 VIRGINIA LATE .25 84 1944 159 HATCH ROAD .30 84.( 1610 160 BROMLEY ROAD .40 84.s 1547 161 BRADSHER ROAD .50 84•' 1347 162 CHARLIES DEAD .70 84.? 1370 163 DOC CORBE T T R 1 .00 84.c 1570 164 CABE FORD ROA .60 84.0 1584 165 BROOKS ROAD .20 82.r 1523 166 BERRY ROAD .30 82.0 1916 167 PARKER ROAD .30 82,0 1368 168 WADE LOOP EAS 1.10 3«CC - 81.S w. inn QQI.ruf`fp!•ir i 1117 • S/R' PRTY NAME LNGTH 1319 169 FORREST ROAD .08 TlP" 114000. HOLMES ROAD .40 - 81.0 15 �71 FIRST STREET .14 76.0 1840 172 WHISPERING PI .05 • 72.0 C 1797 173 SERVICE ROAD .15 • 72.0 1404 174 WOODLAND DRIV .18 72-C 1978 175 STANSBURG ROA .20 ' 72.C 1539 176 RICHARD LANE .50 - 72.0 1554 177 BALDWIN ROAD 1.70 72.0 1535 178 MCBROOM ROAD ' .b0 72.0 . 1881 179 MORIAH HILL R .20 71•e 1778 180 MURPHY SCHOOL .80 70.4- 1521 181 BLAYLOCK ROAD .70 68C• . 1148 182 ENO MOUNTAIN .88 68-: 1500E 183 HENSLEY ROAD 1.00 68.0 1212 194 HICKORY FORES .20 63.r 1380 195 JONES GROVE C .10 63.E 1333 186 ORANGE CROSSR .20 62.( 1100 187 TEER ROAD 1.70 61.t 1386 188 -PONDEROSA- TM .06 60.( 1503B 189 BAMA ROAD .14 64:.t. • 6U.Y RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS COUNTY 50 PAGE 10 S/R PRTY NAME LNGTH 1603 190 FOREST RIDGE .20 T60. 1913 191 BENNETT ROAD .28 60.0 1106 192 STROWD LANE .40 0.0 1518 193 TILLEY: ROAD .60 60.t 1199 194 TREE FARM ROA .70 60.0 1582 195 LAUREL RIDGE .20 60.0 1505 196 WHEELERS CH R .60 58.0 1542 197 JACKSON ROAD .90 58.0 1602 198 .SPRINGVIEW TR .20 59.0 1726 199 CLYDE HOGAN R .70 54.¢ 1143 200 ROCK QUARRY R . .50 54. 1835 201 OAK HILL ROAD .55 52.•1341D 2.02 LIB ROAD - .90 52.t 1126 203 BORLAND ROAD - .40 52.s 1513 204 TAPP ROAD 1 .20 MO_: 1613 205 QUAIL HOLLOW .10 • 50.i 1895 206 CHARLOCK COUR .10 48.0 1146 207 DEWEY ROAD .20 48.0 1991 208 LACOCK ROAD .20 448.0 1917 209 MADISON WOMBL .30 '48.0 • 1576 210 STEWART FARM .60 48.c - 47.0 • -°S/R " PRTY NAME LNGTH OIROWEVIBINE • 1587 211 CAROLINA LOOP .ire T/4T0 - 1356. 212 TOM POPE ROAD ' .40 46_0 • 1957B 213 GOLD MINE ROA 1.10 45 h r 1500A 214 ALLISON ROAD 1.50 132'■- 45.0 1597 215 NORMAN ROAD .70 1511 216 PRESTON GEORG .60. 44.0 1716 217 DUKE FOREST R .70 40_o 1549 218 WOODS LOOP .90 40_C 1401 219 MILDRED COURT .08 38.0 1316 220 GAINES CHAPEL .10 36=C . 1348 221 HENRY HAITH R .40 . 1527 222 GREEN ROAD .10 36,C 3 . 1502 223 BURTON ROAD .80 30.0 1531B 224 BACON ROAD .30 30»0 1.537 225 HOPKINS ROAD .40 26.0 1571. 226 PLEASANT GREE .30 25_0 2003 227 NO NAME .04 25.0 1377 228 THOMPSON ROAD .05 24.0 1188 229 SAMS ROAD .10 24 1578 230 BEASLEY ROAD .20 24.0 1509 231 RALPHS DEAD E .40 2424.x' .0 is RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS - COUNTY 50 - PAGE 12 S/R PRTY NAME LNGTH T/PTS. 1342 232 JAMES WARD RO .80 24.0 1514 233 JIMMY ED ROAD 1.00 1105 234 HACKNEY ROAD .30 24 20.0 1311 235 REDMAN ROAD .25 12. 1181 236 BEN JOHNSTON .30 12"0 1967 237 BPW CLUB ROAD .30 12"C 1398 238 REDMAN ROAD .10 10; NUMBER ROADS: 238 TOTAL MILES: 199.24 ,C • , I • 026 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 ,..4 ., • yl !r, goo MEMQRA,NAUM TO: KEN THOMPSON, COUNTY MANAGER FROM: MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: JULY 31 , 1986 SUBJECT: 1986-87 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM During our July 30 conversation, you asked that I address several issues related to the above subject. The issues and my comments are listed below. 1 . 1l ± $gconiiery &cola hAmlapry �Q1ru LtiQ reviewed IAD. 123A=131 pr gr ? Yes, the Advisory Committee has reviewed the program and a memorandum regarding its concerns forwarded to the Board of Commissioners under separate cover. 2. Have g.RX MIA gar i�_r�t_t eses chanaed MILL If asu Why? " Yes, priorities have changed . Of the 50 top priority projects listed in 1985 , 13 roads increased in priority, eight (8) roads showed no change, three (3) roads dropped out as completed PPP projects and 26 roads decreased in priority. Of those roads which decreased in priority, five (5) fell out of the top 50. Attachment A lists the changes summarized here. An explanation cannot be provided for the priority changes for individual roads since rating sheets are not available. NCDOT does rate roads on the basis of land use and public service, traffic characteristics and general route characteristics (see Attachment B) . Changes in these characteristics from one year to the next caused ratings to change accordingly. 3. AL.O. therQ ADM. P.Dlis_12a 1R Dx1Atur.e mhl,ch mDlIA a_f f Q&f 112 r a nk DrAgriiig P r o jOc t? On March 5, 1986, the Board of Commissioners adopted a proposal of the Secondary Roads Advisory Committee which -+ • would provide 'a sliding scale for property - owner participation under the County 's PPP program (see Attachment C) . The proposal did not recommend changes to the NCDOT rating system but did propose that only 024, projects with a NCDOT rating of 49 or less be eligible for PPP participation. Any road with a rating of up to .10 would be required to provide 50% of the cost of paving their road out of priority. For roads rated 11 to 50, the property owners cost would be increased by 1 .25% for each increase in rating level . There are five (5) roads on the NCDOT priority list which will be paved under the County PPP program, including Timberly Road, Moriah Hill Road, Meadow Lane, Rollingwood Road and Stallings Road . All of these projects were approved by the Commissioners prior to the adoption of the new policy (3-5-86) . Meadow Lane was the last project approved by the Commissioners - July 1 , 1985. The policy adopted by the Board would not affect rating - but the level of payment by property owners. 4. Given g Amount of money xhAt =1 12A expected 12 b.& ? The 1986-87 Secondary Road Improvement Program proposes the paving of New Sharon Church Road (Complete) and Ode Turner Road (Partial ) . Since these projects are 11 and #2 respectively on the priority list, there is little argument against them. The remaining funding for unpaved roads is earmarked for three (3) County PPP projects (Meadow Lane, Rollingwood Road and Stallings Road) and one ( 1 ) NCDOT POP project (Charlock Court) . As these projects met existing requirements, there appears little opportunity for change in these projects . Gordon Baker, Finance Director, is determining the availability of funding for additional projects during the 1986-87 fiscal year . If you have questions regarding the above information, let me know . 1/14(0A4Mival-Pif.412) Marvin Collins Planning Director • wM■I 031 • ' ATTACHMENT A • PRIORITY CHANGES - SECONDARY ROADS • 1985 TO 1986 PRIORITIES 1 THROUGH 50 1985 1986 R9.AD. 1 E PR I OBifli PR1OR.IY. CIANGE . New Sharon Church 1 1 None Ode Turner 2 2 . None Sesame ' 3 3 None Turkey Farm. 4 5 -1 Bushy Cook 5 6 -1 Lawrence " 6 7 -1 Kenton 7 4 +3 ' Richmond 8 11 -3 Rocky Ridge 9 9 None Willet 10 8 +2 Gailbreith 11 • i2 -1 Old School 12 10 +2 Moorefteids 13 13 None Carl Durham 14 16 -2 Eubanks 15 17 -2 White Rock 16 56 -40 Walker Farm 17 15 +2 Eno Cemetery 18 14 +4 Ebenezer Church 19 19 None K I ar None Linden 21 22 -1 Mincey 22 23 -1 Clearwater Lake 23 - Completed PPP Allie Mae 24 32 -8 Governor Scott 25 26 -I Saddle Club 26 24 . +2 Miller 27 25 +2 Crossroads 28 51 -23 Wilkins 29 45 -16 Wilkins 30 Completed PPP Rollingwood 31 33 -2 Freeland Heights 32 34 -2 Brigadoon 33 Completed PPP Latimer 34 37 -3 Orange Heights 35 40 -5 Gibbs 36 38 -2 Tuscarora 37 39 -2 Wilkins 38 122 -84 Timberiy 39 43 _4 Tannin 40 42 -2 Meadow Lane 41 52 -9 Rex 42 127 -85 Dawson 43 18 +25 Chavis Funeral 44 46 -2 Mill House 45 30 +15 Hunt 46 28 +12 Holiday Park 47 47 None Yates 48 21 +27 Orange Heights 49 44- . +5 Univ. Station 50 27- +23 . 031 Roads added to the priority list ( 1-50) due to increases in priority include the following: 1985 1986 Q aI QR I TY PRIORITY LBANGE High Rock 29 130 +101 Harper 59 _ 35 +24 Purefoy NA 36 NA Green Pine NA 41 NA Mt. Moriah. 55 50 +5 Fuller 53 49 +4 E Washing-ton 61 48 +13 Kimbro 54 31 +23 ATTACHMENT B 032 ' ' BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION RATING SHEET FOR UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS 1985-1986 COUNTY SR No. _ From Road No. to Road No. — Length — Miles Local Name I• LAND USE AND PUBLIC SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS •1. Homes (6 pts. per home -- seasonal homes 3 pts.) 2. Schools (10 pts. per school) 3. Churches (10 pts. per church) 4. Businesses (5 pts. per business) 5. Industries (5 pts. per industry) 6. Recreational Recreational Facilities (Public and/or Non-Profit) (5 pts. per• facility) 7. Sub-Total • 8. Sub-Total divided by a length of not less than • one mile II• n • TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS 9. School Bus Route (10 Pts.) 10. Average Annual 24-Hour Traffic Volume ---- 11. TOTAL • III. GENERAL ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS 12. The value of the road as a County Thoroughfare Route (10 pts.) 13. TOTAL RATING (Item 8 + Item 11 + Item 12) AMON • ATTACHMENT C - U e MEMORANDUM TO: The Orange County Board Of Commissioners FROM: The Secondary Road Improvement Advisory Committee • SUBJECT: Changes in North Carolina Department of Transportation Procedures for Paving Secondary Roads Date: February 18 , 1986 I .. Rec°mmenations The committee has reviewed the method of fund distribution to the counties and agrees that this distribution is equitable based upon unpaved road mileage. Attachments "B" and "C" are included to substantiate this finding. . The committee recommends that no changes be made the DOT Priority Rating System as concerns : at this time in A. Land Use and Public Service B. Traffic Characteristics I C. General Route Characteristics The factors that influenced this recommendation appear as Discussion Paragraph II A, B and C. • The committee does recommend that. the following changes: are. necessary in the.- administr.ation: of. the Participatory Paving Prog.ram•_ D. Ear-tiaiD rY a i ng Qgr.aia 1 .. A sliding scale should be established for Property Owner Participation- This. should be based upon the priority assigned the- road in the rating-. system... Only those roads assigned. a= priority: of 49 or less in the Priority Rating System would be eligible for public- funds assigned to the county for paving of secondary roads .. Up to and including the road assigned a rating of ten,. the property- owners would be required to provide 50% of the cost of paving: their- road Qui arior ity• For r r roads rated it to 50 the property owners cost would- be increased by 1.25% for each priority rating.- level . For ' 034 ' example: Priority #2-10 50%, #11-51 .25%, #20-62 .5 #30- 75%, #40- 87.5%, #50 and above- 100%. ' TI . Di:Sus,Sioq • A. Land Use and ,Euhl ie Service 1 . Fire ponds are important factors in Public Safety and are not recognized in the existing Priority Rating System. Though a fire pond ma y b infrequently, when needed it ' s use will berepeated.onIn inclement weather the heavier tanker trucks will cause rapid deterioration of an unpaved road. This could possibly lead to a slowdown , or stoppage in the delivery of water to a fire site. Though we feel that most First Aid or Rescue Facilities in North Carolina are located - on paved roads , we considered that the Priority Rating System . might allow. /0 - 25 points for each fire pond or first aid facility. Both cases were evaluated. The results appear in III , Evaluation. B. Traffic.Chazaciardslica 1. The existing Priority Rating System awards ten points for each road that is used by school buses. The committee considered that the points awarded should be proportionate to the total number of buses that use the road since the level of risk to public safety is 1 -~ proportionate to the number of buses , were evaluated. The results appear apuaoaones ppear in III , Evaluation. 2 . The types of vehicles using a road should also be considered in the assignment of question is not dealt with formally byr the�committeeThin this recommendation, and is mentioned here as a request for some guidance from the Board of Commissioners . Sand, stone, and gravel quarries/pits , and loin operations abound in North Carolina , and are usually located in a remote area served by unpaved roads. These i trucks represent both an increased road hazard and a more difficult maintenance task. As a result, the use of the roads by residents is at greater risk. would_ surely. reduce the- hazard level . Paving feels that the- Commissioners need to address thiiism issue because- the enforcement of speed ,, loading, access. . restrictions- become more• formidabl a withtrthe paving of these roads ... C. nazal_Rauta_Chaz aIttiiti.al 1 .. Another area that the Committee has touched upon is that of the quality of the unpaved road, and it 's assignment of a- priority: for paving. It would seem, logical that an unpaved - road which has many- turns , changes- in grade , MMI stream crossings,_ poor drainage, or is built upon a soft unstable base soil should be paved more urgently than a straight , flat , dry, road with a good firm underlying soil . W. Watkins , the Division Engineer, has been U't75:12 questioned about a general road quality rating plan that may be in effect in the Department of Transportation . Apparently there is none. Contact has been made in the' private sector of the road building industry, again with no success . This could be a time consuming procedure to organize , and would require experience that does not exist within the Committee , though an extremely simple approach could be' attempted in the future. Our committee would undertake the rating of Orange County roads if the Board feels there is merit in this approach for ' future changes to the system. D. E t i c i 2aint.X-.EaMini P r o 1. The most recent information concerning ' the cost of paving indicates that about $80 , 000 per mile would be required if no grading or draining were needed. There were 217.9' miles of unpaved roads in Orange County as of January first , 1985. This represents about 35% of the 625.01 miles of secondary roads existing in the county as of that date. Compared to the other 99 counties , Orange is 38th in percentage of unpaved roads, well below average. Using the optimistic $80 ,000/mile , a minimum of 17.4 million dollars would be needed to pave all of the existing secondary roads .. If it is assumed that allocations to the county for secondary roads were to continue at the $500 ,000/year level experienced for the ' 85-"86 program, and about 65% were to be used fort paving of secondary roads , over 53 years would be needed. Of this 65% of the total funds available' for the ' 85-' 86 program for paving of Secondary roads only 60% (39% of total) is to be used to pave roads within priority. Over $103 , 000 is being used in the Participatory Paving Program on roads that range from #31 to 172 on the priority list . This is felt to be inequitable in that roads that are viewed as more sorely needed are not being paved because the money is being used to assist in the paving of less essential roads . The committee felt that limits should be placed on the _ funds available for the Participatory Program and feel that the sliding scale proposed above is more fair than an arbitrary- limit to the percentage that, can be used for participatory work.. LII ., Evaluation Qf the EfLeal ..Qf._.$assmmandasi_Changaa A. Chaagaa_in_Ihe_EZiatirY_Bat:ine_a!aiam Attachments "Aa" and "Ab" show the Priority Listing for the top 40 roads. as.. published, by the Department of Transportation for Pr.ogr.am. Year "85-"860. For the purpose of comparison some of the descriptive information has been omitted. The two columns on the right side of the- list show the total priority points calculated using the recommended changes and th corrected priority standing. The committee corrected the Wit Priority Rating System using two sets of assumptions . On Attachment "Aa" fire ponds were awarded 10 points and all LQUpd • trip, school buses after the first were awarded 5 points . On Attachment "Ab" fire ponds were awarded 25 points and limn school bus after. the first trip was awarded 5 points. As can be seen, very little effect is shown for these changes . Though it is felt that the new ratings reflect a more equitable - approach , they do not appear worth the complication and extra work. B. Changes in Yha_EarYiaigatsng_Eaxing_Ezneram If the sliding scale approach to Owners Participation Paving had been applied to the ' 85-' 86 program, and assuming that the owners had accepted their increased liability, so that county participation in , construction was unchanged, over $89,000 could have been added to the paving fund. This would have paved over a mile of more urgently needed paving. Though this seems small , about 40% more priority paving could have been done. IV. Aa2Z2eo h to tha,Chang.s_Iak ing A. Changes tQ the Prioziiy_Raiing-aYliam Paragraph .0106 titled "Priority Ratings for Paving Secondary Roads" implies that "A priority rating sheet is developed for each unpaved secondary road in the county as a guide line and • the roads are then rated by priority " It is inferred from this and other language in the DOT Division of Highways Policy T19A.02C, that the composition of the Rating System is at the control of the DOT, and does not require legislative action. B. Changes to the Part.iaipa liZy_E WOfin1_EtnezaM In a letter dated April 24 , 1985 , Mr . Jack Murdock , the Secondary Roads Officer , informed the Division and District Engineers of revisions to the Property Owners Participation Plan. In the third paragraph he states : " The joint Secondary Roads and Maintenance and Equipment Committee voted- to increase- the property owners.:' cost from $2 . 00 per foot along, each side• of the road - or. $8 ..00 per centerline: foo-t ��..... .. From this it is inferred that this joint committee is empowered - to- adjust the costs of paving that are passed along, to property owners . The changes recommended by the Advisory Committee appear to be free of need for legislative action.. -e ATTACHMENT "Aa" 03 f CURR S/R LOCAL NAME TOTAL SUB CORRECTED PRT ' PRTY No. POINTS DIV TOTAL POINTS 1 1538 New Sharon Church 345 .3 N 365 .3 1 2 1130 Ode Turner Road 338. 7 N 348. 7 2 - 3 1943 Sesame Road 294. 0 N 304. 0 3 4- 1730 Turkey Farm Road 227. 0 N 292. 0 4 5 1137 Bushy Cook Road 276 . 7 N 286 . 7 5 6 1561 Lawrence Road 276 . 0 N 286 . 0 6 7 1335 Kenton Road 268.3 N 273 . 3 7 8 1312 Richmond Road 267. 4 N 272. 4 9 9 1113 Rocky Ridge Road 264 . 5 N 269 . 5 10 10 1568 Wi l let. Road 262. 6 N 232.6 8 11 1561 Gailbraith Road (Cole Mill ) 259. 0 N 12 1941 Old School Road 258 . 0 N 263 . 0 13 3 , 0 - 11 13 1135 Moorefields Road 254.4 N 259.4 12 14 1950 Carl Durham Road 237.4 N 242. 4. 14 15 1727 Eubanks Road 236 . 0 N 241 . 0 15 16 1914 White Rock Church Road 235. 0 N 235. 0 17 17 1575 Walker Farm Road 22730 N 233. 0 16 18 1383 Eno Cemetery Road 223 . 0 N 223 . 0 22 19 1572 Ebenezer Church Road 220 . 9 N 230 . 9 19 20 1541 Kiger Road 217. 6 N 232 . 6 18 21 1566 Linden Road 214. 0 N 22 1552 Mincey Road 213 . 5 N 223 . 5 . 25 224 . 0 21 23 1918 Clearwater Lake Road 210. 0 N 215. 0 25 24 1362 Allie Mae Road . 25 1351 Governor Scott Road 206. 7 N 206.1 24 ( 206 .1 N 203 . 26 1346.. Saddle Club Road 26 27 1555 . Mibler Road 203. 7 N 203. 7 7 27 28 1131 Crossroad Church Cemetery 202 .3 N 217.3 23 29 1824 Wilkins Drive 203 . 0 28 30 1803 Wilkins Drive 412 . 0 Y 417. 0 29 wood Road 410 . 0 Y 415. 0 30 31 1194 Rollingwood 39530 Y 400. 0 31 32 1839 Freer Heights MiiiRF 328. 0- Y 328 . 0 32 (Alexander) 33 1590 Brigadoon Drive 310 . 0 Y 310 . 0 - 34 . 1162 Latimar Street 300. 0 Y 300 . 0 33 35 1184 Orange Heights 252 . 0 Y 34 36 1.564 Gibbs Lane. 252 . 0 37 2. 37 1705 Tuscarora Road 52.. 0 Y 2.82 .-0 37 2..2 .-fi: Y 282.. 0- 35 38 1823. W lk.ins Drive.- 248 .,0 Y 39 1794 Timberl Drive 2 . 0 39. Y _ 216 . 0 Y 21166 . 0 39 40 1313' Tinnin Road 208..0 Y 208 . 0 40" • • ATTACHMENT' "Ab n CURB S/R LOCAL NAME TOTAL SUB CORRECTED PRTY PRTY No. POINTS DIV TOTAL POINTS• 1 1538 New Sharon Church 2 1130 Ode Turner Road 345.3 .N 3 .3 1 3 1943 Sesame Road � 338. 7 N 35588.7 2 4 1730 Turkey Farm Road 294. 0 N 314. 0 3 277. 7 N 307. 0 5 5 1137 Bushy Cook Road 276 . 7 N 296 . 7 6 1561 Lawrence Road 0 5 276. 0 N 296 .0 7 1335 Senion Road 6 8 1312 Richmond Road 268.3 N 278 .3 8 26 9 1113 Rocky Ridge Road 267.4 N 274.4 9 10 1568 . Willet Road 2644. 5 N 274. 5 10 11 1561 Gailbraith Road (Cole Mill ) 259. 0 N 282.6 7 12 1941 Old School Road 263 . 0 13 13 1135 Moorefields Road 258. 0 N 264.4 12 2 14 1950 Carl Durham Road .4 4 N 247.4 15 15 1727 Eubanks Road 237. 4 N 247.4 � 15 235 . 0 N 16 1914 White Rock Church Road 241 . 0 19 17 1575 Walker Farm Road 235. 0 N 235. 0 16 22 18 1383 Eno Cemetery Road . 0 N N 243. 0 16 19 1572 Ebenezer Church Road 2203 . 9 240. 9 24 20 ],541 Riger Road 220. 9 N 240. 9 18 217. 6 N 247. 6 14 21 1566 Linden Road 22 1552 Niincey Road 214. 0 N 234.0 20 213° 5 N 233. 5 '3 1918 Clearwater Lake Road _ 21 1362 Allie Mae Road 210. 0 N 215. 0 : - - 25 4 1351 Governor Scott Road 206. N 226. 7 23 26 1346 Saddle Club Road 203. 7 1 N 206.1 27 203. 7 N 203.7 28 27 1555 Miller Road 28 202 . 3 N 232.3 22 ■ 1131 Crossroad Church Cemetery 198. 0 N 29 1824 Wilkins Drive 422. 0 26 4 30 1803 Wilkins Drive 412. 0 Y 422. 0 29 31 1194 Roliing,wood Road 410 . 0 Y 420 . 0 30 32 1839 Freeland Heights Road 39530 Y 400. 0 32 328. 0 ' Q 328328 32 33 (Alexander) 1590 Brigadoon Drive 310. 0 Y 34 1162 Latimar Street 300. 0 33 35 1184 Orange Heights 25 . 0 Y 252 . 0 34 2522 36 1564 Gibbs Lane 252 . 0 Y � 252 . 0 36 3 ..52 . 0 Y" 252 T 1705 Tuscarora Road: 252 . 0 Y 252. 0 38 3.8, 1.823 Wilkins Drive- 252 . 0 38 21 39- 1794 Timberly Drive: . 0 r 216 . 0 35 2166 40. 1313 Tinnin Road: 216 .0 Y 216 , 0 39 208.0 Y 208 ..0 40 Or_, t ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMCSSIONNERRS Item No. F ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE August 4, 1986 Subject: RESOLUTION IDepartment: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I I Public Hearing: Yes X no 1 Attachments: Information Contact: Resolution Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 • PURPOSE: To recognize by resolution the outstanding tenture of Evelyn Lloyd for service on the Orange County Board of Health. NEED: RECOATION: Presentation of the Resolution of Appreciation by Don Willhoit, Chair. Recognition of Moses Carey for presentation of plaque. IP AMIE 04C RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR EVELYN P. LLOYD WHEREAS, EVELYN P. LLOYD has served Orange County's Board of Health in an exemplary manner; and, WHEREAS, EVELYN P. LLOYD has given freely and unselfishly of her time, talents and boundless energy for the improvement of the County's health programs and facilities; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners through its members Don Willhoit, Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker does hereby express its sincere appreciation to Evelyn P. Lloyd for her efforts on behalf on the people of Orange County. THIS, the 4th day of August, 1986. - Don Willhoit, Chair - Shirley Marshall S E A L Moses Carey Ben Lloyd Norman Walker O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 041 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date Aug ust_42,,,_1986 Action A enda Item faD._ SUBJECT Exempt Plats Report - Second Quarter 1986 DEPARTMENT. PLANNING ��- PUBLIC HEARING __._Yes No Attachment( s) Information Contact Janet Rigsbee Exempt Plats Report -- Second Quarter 1986 Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227- 2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : To inform the Board as to Exempt Plats approved by the Planning Staff from April 1986 to June 1986 . NEED , IMPACT' RECOMMENDATION ' WJ ORANGE COUNTY EXEMPT PLAT. LOG 044 2NQ_Q1JARTEP 1986 PLAT TITLE & EXEMPTION # OF PLAT COPY PLAT L. APPLICANT T.1I .BtL._ DATE REASON NEY LOIS RECEIVED BK/PG 55 Dwight Compton 2.33 . . 1 4-1 -86 3 1 JVH Tom Pope 56 Curtis & Donnie 3 .3 . .8 4-2-86 3 1 JVH Thompson 57 Kathleen Robinson 1 .3 . .3 4-7-86 7 0 SJS 58 R. Herbert & 6 .2 . .3B 4-8-86 3 1 EK • Bobbie Lou Wallick 59 Roger E. Snipes 6.21 . .5 4-10-86 3 4 JVH 60 Peter B. Gund I ach 2.7e .P/02C 4-14-86 3 3 JLA - & Elizabeth Jane Kage - - 61 John & Jane 6 .35 . . 15 4-15-86 2 0 JVH Filer 62 McKee School Est. 1 .23 . . 6 4-17-86 3 6 JVH -Louie Callemyn &5-29-86 - 0 JR 63 Alice Hawes 7 . 1 1 . . 10A 4-18-86 3 5 JVH 64 Mei --Oaks Estate 7 .. 118E . .5 4-21-86 2 0 JVH . Revision Lot 5&6 - . .6 - 65 Heron Pond 6 .38 . . 43 4-21 -86 2 0 JVH - Revision Lot 6&7 -.. - . ;44 - 66 Wilbur McLamb 6 .38 . . 16D 4-21-86 3 4 ' JVH 67 Twin Si-reams 6 . 22 . . 15 4-23.86 2 0 JVH Lot J--12 & J-13 . Revised -Jim Watson 68 Ruben & Brenda 2..46 . . 17A 4-23-86 1 0 JVH Dillard . 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 p 0 4 t! 69 Clarence Gates 5 .20 . . 16 4-23-86 2 0 JVH 70 Cascades 5.. 8 . .3 4-25-86 1 & 3 ' 22 JLA ph 1 & 2 71 Dr . W. S . Lynn 5 . 9 . . 28 4-30-86 3 3 JVH 72 Howard Welch 6 .4 . . 13H 4-30--86 7 0 JVH 73 David Parker, Sr . 4 . 11 .B. 12A 5-1 -86 7 0 JVH & & Betsy LH 74 James H. Ducker 4 .41 .B.20 5-1 -86 7 0 JVH . 75 Brad Walker 1 . 19 . . 15A 5--1--86 3 1 JVH 76 Max N. Wallace 7.6 . . 11 5-1x-86 3 1 JLA et al • 77 Larry and Brenda 5 .21 . . 1A 5--2.86 7 0 JLA Ray 78 Joseph C. Dodson 6 .3 . . 12A 5-5-86 7 0 JLA . - - Heirs 79 Paul L . Wilkerson 405 . . 15 5-7-86 7 0 JVH 80 James Taylor 3 . 10 . . 1C 5-12-86 7 0 JVH 81 Walnut Cove Farms 7 . 10 . .7 5-15-86 3 0 JVH -D . Graffunder 82 Charles Johnston 7 . 17 . .36 5-16-86 7 0 JLA - 83 V!i l l i am M. Ford 6 .37 . . 45, 5-16-86 7 0 JLA 45A 84 Parks--Richmond 4 .36 .A .2 5--21 --86 7 0 JR House - -Ent Surveys 85 Ralph Roessler 3 .24 . .5 5-21 -86 7 0 JR 86 George Tate, Jr . 7 . 5-22-86 3 0 JLA 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 • 04q 87 William Ralston 2.34. .21A 5-22-86 3 1 JR 88 Jack Sandus Et Al 7 . 120 . .713 5-23-86 3 2 JR 89 George Tate 7 . 23 .C. 25A 5-23-86 1 0 JR 7 . 23 .0 .256 90 Alvis Lloyd 6 .23 . . 8 5-27-86 3/8 3 SJS Loretta Hilliard 6 ..22 . .7 91 (Goforth ) - Being Recorded 5-27-86 7/8 0 SJS 92 Ruben & Brenda 2 . 46 . . 17A 5-28-86 7 0 JR Dillard 93 James Guard 6 .6 . .30 5-29-86 1 0 JR Epting & Hackney • - - 94 Denise Levis 4.38.B.4 5-29-86 3 2 JR & Scott Spain° • - • - 95 Peeler Creek S/D 5-29-86 7 0 JR 96 A . G . Fisher 5 . 10 . . 16 6-3-86 7 0 JR 97 Lakewood.s 7 . 116J , .5, 6-3 -86 1 0 SJS Lots Ph 1-5&6 6' - - • 98 Joan Pless 6 .3 . .4F 6-6--86 7 0 JR 99 Larry Elkins 6 .3 . .20A 6-9-86 3 2 JR 100 Russell & Betty 3. 10 . . 1 6-9-86 3 1 JR Harder 101 Needham Preston 7 . 4 . .53 , 6-11 -86 7 0 EK • Broadwell Sr & Jr 5A, 53B Windy Hi l l ' Dev . - 102 Clarence Loftin 3.31 .A. 19 6-13-86 7 0 JR 103 Clarence Loftin 3.35 .C.2 6-13-86 7 0 JR 104 Victor Sharpe 3 . 40 .E .5 6-16-86 2 0 JR 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 -gyp 105 Sturbridge 7 . 116 . . 22E 6-17-86 2 0 JR 04L Village -- Lot1 ,2 . .22C 106 Cora Wilson, 3 . 14 . . 11 6-18-86 1 0 JR et al 107 Arnold Nicholson 3 .53. . 13 6-18-86 7 0 EK 108 James & Vaughn 7 . 17C. . 8 6-24-86 7 0 EK Dykes 109 W . Lawrence 5 .8 . .41 6-25-86 3 1 EK Summey 110 Harry B. Sumner 7 . 12. . 15A 6-25-86 7 • 0 JA 111 Gary & Denise 3. 10 . . 8 6-26-86 7 0 JA Robinson 112 Jerry Overaker 2 .35 . .7D 6-26-86 7 0 JA 113 Bruce Smith 4 .44A . .2 6-26-86 2 0 JA 114 Maija L . Selby 2 .25 . . 17, 6-26-86 7 0 JA 17A - . 115 Betty Cates Ray 7 . 12 . 6-27-86 3 - 1 EK & James Douglas Ray p/o 10A 116 Walter M. Mayo 4 . 18 .B.8 6-30-86 7 0 EK REASONS FOR EXEMPTION : ( 1 ) combination * • (6) utility lot (2) recombination * (7 ) Survey boundaries. (3). 10t acre lot division* ( 8) Easement ( 4) public road R0W acquisition (5 ) division of 2 acre or less tract in single ownership with no ROW dedication * *See definition of Subdivision O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 04t ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date _ 41_ 1.986 Action enda Item ., SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision Report - Second Quarter 1986 . DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING ___Yes No Attachment( s) Information Contact: JanetRigsbee Minor Subdivision Report Second Quarter Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane -- 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : To Inform the Board as to Minor Subdivision approved by the Planning Department from April 1986 to June 1986. NEED - IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION WJ MINOR SUBDIVISIONS 1986 - SECOND QUARTER 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 32 Corcoran, Michael Eno 4-1 -86 2 SR1569 6.8 3.4 NIA Private Well Hogan, Martha 17. .24 & Septic 0 33 Dunnegan, Nancy CH 4-2-86 2 SR1130 3.4 1 .7 N/A 1 . . 1 34 Clayton, Mary LR 4-7-86 2 SR1516 3.65 1 .825 N/A 1 . .8 35 Goodwin, Rory LR 4-9-86 1 CL "C" Rd. 1 .5 1 .5 N/A Spruill , Tracy 8. .4 36 Latta, Kenneth CH 4-10-86 1 CL '1C" 3 .67 3.67 N/A 11 . .8 Green Meadow Trail 37 Carroll , Julian Eno 4-16-86 1 CL "C" 3.0 3.0 NIA 9-29 Albacore Ln. 38 Baldwin, Chico Bing 4-16-86 1 CL "C" 1 .365 1 .365 NIA & Doris 39. . 11 Tidwell Rd. 39 Dickey, Harold CG 4-1$-86 2 SR1507 10.02 5.01 N/A 24. .7B 40 Ward, Octavia Bing 4-23-86 4 SR1952 8.84 2.21 NIA " " 30. .21 41 Jordan, Walter Bing 4-24-86 1 SR10O6 2 .32 2.32 NIA F' " 11 & Onie 4. . 13 42 Torain, Nelson LR 4-24 786 1 SR1581 1 .86 1 .86 N/A 14. .4 43 stay, S.C. Eno 4-25-86 1 SR1709 4.8 4.8 N/A 21 . . 1 44 Bost, Marie LR 4-25-$6 1 SR1538 2. 11 2. 11 N/A Kenneth 27. .15 `does not include residual lot if it is over 10 acres M[NOR, SUBDIVISIONS 1986 - SECOND QUARTER r SUBDIVISION TOWNSHIP DATE li OF TYPE OF TOTAL AVER.LOT WATERSHED TYPE OF WATER NAME M.BLK.LOT AP PROtlED LOTS:: ROAD ACRE.* SIZE AREA SEWER SYSTEM 45 Frazier, Richard Cks 4-25-�6 2 Hwy. 70 2.31 1 .555 'Upper Private Well & 28• •22 Eno Septic 46 Rebman, Dorothy Cks 4-28-86 2 SRl144 2.86 1 .43 Upper " " It 40.E. 1A Eno 47 Frazier, Richard 11 Cks 4-28-86 3 SR1306 6.0 2.0 Upper 8• • 14 Eno 48 Covered Bridge - Bing 4-29-86 1 CL "A't 7.67 7.67 N/A " " " Lot 28 27. .28 Gait Way 49 Covered Bridge - Bing 4-29-86 1 CL "A" 2.5 2.5 NIA Lot 86 27. .8B Gait Way 50 Robinson , David LR 5-5-86 1 SR1532 4.81 4.81 NIA 5. .8A 51 Scott, Rajah Cks 5-5-86 1 SR1340 2.0 2.0 NIA " 2. . 1C 52 Webb, Tony et a] CH 5-5-86 3 CL "C" 5.36 1 .79 N/A 21 . .241 Abel 's Hill Rd. . .241 ..24D 53 Hartsell , Lynette Bing .5-9-86 1 SR1116 2.4 2.4 Cane et al l7. .36 Creek 54 Minnis, James CH 5-9-86 1 SR1129 2.77 2.77 NIA 1 . .328 55 Fields, Timothy Bing 5-12-86 2 SR1006 3.69 1 .845 NIA & Debra 5. .13 56 Sykes, Thomas W. Jr. Bing 5-13-86 1. 500' 2. 4 2.4 Cane 10. .7 Nellie Lou Rd. Creek p 57 Allison, Eleanor Bing 5-20-86 2 CL "B" 2. 71 1 .355 Univ. Willie 21 . .9 Snipes Farm Rd. Lake -`does not include residual lot if it is over 10 acres MINOR SUBDIVISIONS 1986 - SECOND QUARTER # 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 58 Duncan, J.H. - CH 5-21 -86 1 SR1777 3.93 3.93 NIA Private Well Estate lOg. .g & Septic 59 Hargrave, Douglas CG 5-22-86 2 SR1548 10.03 5.015 NIA 36. .5 . .5 D 60 Pearson, Lambert Cks 5-23-86 1 SR1324 6 .17 6. 17 Upper 14. . 17 Eno 61 Deseret CH 5-23-86 3 CL 118" 16.88 5.63 Univ. 22• • 19 Deseret Dr. Lake . .19A 62 Chapman, Donnie Cks 5-26-86 1 CL '{C11 40,320 40,320 Upper 10. .5 Chapman Dr. s.f. s. f. Eno 63 Manor Hi l l CH 5-26-86 4 CL 11B11 18.51 4.63 N/A 19. .25E Manor Dr. Manor Hill Ct. 64 Porterfield. Matthew LR 5-27-86 1 iiwv 57 2.54 2.54 N/A 11 11 11 5. .2 65 Yearaan. Hubert CH 5-28-86 2 CL 11B" 8.38 4. 19 N/A & Debra 16-6 Pine H i l l Rd. 66 white, Oma CG 5-28-86 1 SR1551 3. 6 3.6 NIA 11 lr 46. . 17A 67 Freeman, Mae G. Bing 6-2-86 2 SR1177 2. 56 1 .28 Cane 13. .21 Creek 68 Simpson, Noah & LR 6-9-86 1 <5001 2.0 2.0 NIA Pearl B. 20. .15 Crumbley Home Rd 69 Ernst, May T. CH 6-10-86 2 SR1723 2.6 1 .3 NIA 3. .22 *does not include residual lot if it is over 10 acres MINOR SUBDIVISIONS 1986 - SECOND QUARTER # 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 70 Johnson, Leon LR 6-12-86 1 CL "C" 2.02 2.02 NIA Private Well 12. .1A Pauline Ct. & Septic 71 Poole. Chester CG 6-13-86 2 SR1343 3. 11 1 .555 NIA & Annie 40. .48 72 Haggard. Harold Eno 6-16-86 2 SR1569 4.0 2.0 N/A 17. .25 73 Sleepy Hollow CH 6-17-86 3 CL "B" 6.42 2. 14 N/A Lots 1 ;2, & 22 134.6.1 Sleepy Hollow Rd .2 .4 74 Freeland, James J. Hills 6-19-86 2 Odie St. 0.46 0.23 N/A Public Water 32A. .5 • & Sewer 75 Acres of New Hope - CH 6-20-86 2 Public 6.0 2.0 N/A' Private Well Lot 4 2. .20 Cheyenne Dr. & Septic 76 Wilson, Thelma Eno 6-23-86 1 SR1554 6.35 6.35 NIA 8..41 C *does not include residual lot if it is over 10 acres 051 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. N Y Meeting Date: AUGUST 4, 1986 SUBJECT: AGREEMENT BETWEEN GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To enter into an agreement with U. S. Department of Interior Geological Survey to maintain a gauge on the Eno River. NEED: In June, 1985 the Board authorized installation of the gauge to measure the downstream flow on the Eno River. The authorization included a statement denoting the annual operational/maintenance cost. IMPACT: The County would pay $2,800. 00 for maintenance effective July 1, 1986 through June 30, 1987. Geological Survey would match the amount. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve agreement and authorize Chair to sign joint funding agreement with Geological Survey for Eno River Gauge maintenance. C.DARD OF CO'iMISSIONERS . ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO.110 MEETING DATE AUGUST 4, 1986 05,! SUBJECT: Resolution of Continuing Participation in the State of North Carolina ' s Land Records Management Program for a matching Grant : DEPARTMENT: Central Land Records I PUBLIC HEARING: YES ,ENO ATTACHMENT(S) : INFOR'1ATION CONTACT: Resolution R. . _ R _ _ - Application PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 Letter HILLSBOROUGH ,. 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL -- 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 - • DURHAM - 688-7331 • • PURPOSE: To approve a resolution of continuing participation in the State of North Carolina ' s Land Records Management Program, which _ - qualifies Orange County to apply for and receive ' matching fund grant money for the re-mapping project, 1986-87 • NEED: A resolution of participation is required by the State each year, to support an application for matching funds from the grant program for improving land records in a local government . - IMPACT: Orange will receive matching grant funds which it can apply to the remapping project in 1936-87- fiscal year. RECOMMENDATION(S) : That the Board of Commissioners adopt the resolution of continuing participation in the State ' s Land Records Management Program. 054 BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners , that it recognizes and appreciates the Land Records Management Program of the State Department of Natural Resources and Community Development and its assistance to counties through matching grants , and desires to participate in the modernization program of land records for the 1986-1987 fiscal year . It further agrees to abide by the agreements and contracts with the program that are mutually adopted. 05L NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION - STATE OFFICE USE ONLY LAND RECORDS MANAGEMENT GRANT APPLICATION DATE RECEIVED: --DATE EFFECTIVE: under authority of Chapter 1099, Session Laws, 1977 'DATE OFFERED. vAMOUNT: 1 'An Act to Provide Assistance to Counties for the Improvement of Land Records' ` li te .• , .∎. . N=sl - 1 INSTRUCTIONS: Complete all items. Submit in duplicate to: DATE ACCEPTED: N.C. Department of Administration, Office of Administrative Analysis, 116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, N.C. 27603 f ~ . ..rr-r-»..rti--• rnrti„ry HE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF: AREA CODE/PHONE: Orange _ 919-732-8181 Ext 547 ADDRESS (street or e� x,city, town, zip code) 208 S Cameron Street , Hillsborough,_ NC 27278 PROJECT TYPE:(check all applieablef' TOTAL GRANT REQUEST: TOTAL EST. PROJECT COST; ®BASE MAPS OPARCEL IDENTIFIER $ $ QCADASTRAL MAPS _ El AUTOMATED SYSTEM 75,430 150,859 CERTIFICATION: The attached statements and exhibits are hereby made part of this application and the undersigned representative of the applicant certifies that the information contained therein is true, correct, and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief. He further certifies that: he has been authorized to file this application by formal action of the Board of County Commissioners of said county as is evidenced by the attached certified copy of authorization made by the Board of County Commissioners; the applicant agrees that if a State Grant for the project is made pursuant to the Act to Provide Assistance to Counties for the Improvement of Land Records the applicant will arrange financing for all remaining costs of the approved project; the applicant will provide proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the approved project after completion thereof; and the applicant has substantially complied with or will substantially comply with all State and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the project. NWME OF REPRESENTATIVE: 'SIGNATURE: DATE: Roscoe E. Reeve l Land Records Manager I .•.....1... Z. '"-0 .,. — i—. , PROJECT DESCRIPTION (to be attached to application) w This item shall briefly define the work to be accomplished with the assistance of the grant funds requested herein. Such work shall be as outlined in the applicant county's Lang Range Plan for Modernization of Land Records broken down into convenient units or projects to be funded separately and in logical sequence. Projects should generally.be scheduled to be completed within two yeors or-less. Each should constitute a useful product which can be an immediate improvement in the service rendered to the public. Describe the oposed project in terms of man months, work elements and related costs, Indicate where additional personnel, consulting services, and equipment purchases may be required. Office space and additional overhead expenses should be noted. Other details that will further define the project should be included to assist the Department of Administration in arriving at a most favorable assessment of the described project, REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION (the following documents ore required as part of application, explain briefly if they are not attached) 1. Resolution(s) of Board of County Commissioners providing required assurances and agreements. 2. Long Range Plan for Modernization of Land Records (see Keys to Modernization of County Land Records). 3. Agreements with affected county officials. 4. Name and address of Land Records Manager, . 5. Engineering and other professional services agreements and contracts in force as of application date(if any). 6. Resolution establishing capital reserve fund(if applicable). tasialMmiwifingiremw GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Enter number of parcels in county as of date of application: Enter date of next revaluation: 47 ,000 1987 3. Enter estimated project costs for appropriate project: A. BASE MAPS (1) AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY I 48,223 (2) CARTOGRAPHIC BASE MAPS $ (3) ORTHOPHOTO BASE MAPS or $ 102 , 636 B. CADASTRAL MAPS C. STANDARDIZED SYSTEM OF PARCEL IDENTIFIERS $ D. AUTOMATION OF LAND RECORDS $ TOTAL: $ 150, 859 A A 16 (10-31-78) 05E FINANCIAL INFORMATION . Source(s) of funds: A. Funds to be made available by the applicant: AMOUNT DATE AVAILABLE CASH $ 75,430 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OTHER (specify) SUB—TOTAL B. FEDERAL GRANT—IN—AID SUB—TOTAL C. STATE GRANT REQUESTED $ 75,429 TOTAL: $ 150,859 2. Name sources and amounts of Federal grants and loans requested. Indicare status of each request: 3. If bond financing is required for Project: A.JYES Has bond issue been authorized by governing body? IF yes, give amount& date:, ONO If no, explain: B.❑YES Is referendum required to approve band authorization ? ONO 1. OYES Has referendum been held? If yes, give results and date: OPASSLJFAIL 0 NO If no, explain plans and proposed referendum dote: • 4.Most recent official total tax rote: 5. Estimate debt service tax increase caused by project: $ . 58 per$100 assessed value $ per$100 assessed value 6. Outstanding bonded debt excluding bonds for this project: 7. Total appraised property valuation: $ $ 2, 184,439,824 8. .n YES Proposed project of$ , when added to existing indebtedness, do not exceed present debt limit provisions of the general lows NO of the State. If NO, explain: • O5 Name and Address of Land Records Manager : Roscoe E. Reeve Central Land Records Office 208 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Plan: This grant request is a part of the on-going participation of Orange County in the State ' s Land Records Modernization Program through the Department of Natural Resources & Community Development . This request is for Proposal 1 , the completion of Phase 2 orthophoto base maps of Chapel Hill Township, and Phase 3 of the contract with L Robert Kimball & Associates, and marks the 3rd year of the program to completely re-map Orange County with base maps and digital cadastral mapping. This year will complete the base maps of Chapel Hill Township, the aerial photography and control for the rest of the County, and the orthophoto base maps for the rest of the County and a remaining small part of Chapel Hill Township. The plan will follow that filed with the Land Records Management Program and according to the State adopted standards . (Resolution of Participation by Board of Commissioners to follow) eirtf 4e 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 S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary Stephen G. Conrad Director July 15, 1986 Mr. Roscoe E. Reeve Land Records Manager 208 S. Cameron Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Reeve: We have received your application for a grant to help in modernizing the land records of your county. This application is being reviewed, and you should hear from us early in September. We appreciate your interest in modernizing land records, and in our program. If you have any questions in the next few weeks, please call me at our new telephone number, (919) 733-7006. Sincerely, 405-ft,a.Al W Donald P. Holloway N.C. Land Records Management Program DPB/ap 17 '1 O P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone 919-733-3833 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer ORANGE 'COUNTY DOARD OF CO MISSIONERS . ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM ([O. MELTING DATE August 4, 1986 054 • SUBJECT: Forest Service Contract DEPARTMENT. Finance PUBLIC HEARING: YES x ('O : .] ATTACHMENT(S) : . INFOR:IAT-ION CONTACT: Kenneth Thompson Agreement for the Protection, Development P1-It NE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 73Z-811 and Improvement of Forest Lands in Orang HILLSBOROUGH - 7;r . 3G- County, North Carolina . CHAPEL HILL - 967--9 251 . MEBANE --- 227-•2031 DURHAM -- 688-7331 • PURPOSE: To consider renewal of the annual agreement between Orange County and the ' ' North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. • for the provision of support by 'the-NC Forest Service. in Orange County. • • • NEEF)- This agreement will provide for the continued maintenance by the NC Department • of Natural Resources and Community Development of- the presence of NC Forest Service in- Orange County for the protection, development and improvement of forest lands in Orange County. • • • IMPACT: The County has appropriated $34,559 in fiscal year 1986-87 to match State appropriations of $51,838 for provision of this service in Orange County. Jai=CO , E N[)A 1I ON(S) : Approve renewal of the annual agreement between Orange County and NRCD for the provision of support by the NC Forest Service in Orange County. - • FC-42 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ' (6•.78) • Department of Natural Resources and Community Development 061 $86,397.00 • Total Cooperative Appropriation $51,838.00 60 % State $34,559.00 • County AGREEMENT FOR THE PROTECTION, DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF FOREST LANDS IN ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA • THIS AGREEMENT, made under authority of "An act to authorize Counties to cooper- ate with State in Forest Protection, Reforestation and promotion of Forest Man- agement," (Section 113-59 of the General Statutes of North Carolina - 1943), and also under authority of another Section of the General Statutes, namely Section 113.54, by the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Develop- ment (hereinafter called the Department), party of the first part, and the Board of Commissioners of ORANGE County in the State of North Carolina (hereina£te called the Board), party of the second part, witnesseth: That WHEREAS the said Board, recognizing the need for active forest protection, development, reforestation, management and improvement in ORANGE County, has accepted the offer of the Department for cooperation in accomplish- ing this object: Now, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual convenants hereinafter set forth, the said parties contract and agree to maintain a legally appointed and equipped Forest Ranger organization in said county at the joint cost of the State and County, insofar as the joint funds will permit, as follows Part I. THE DEPARTMENT AGREES: 1. To select, employ and appoint, after consultation with the Board, a County Forester or County Forest Ranger for the purposes of controlling forest fires in said County; for detecting and extinguishing fires that break out; for . investigating the origin of forest, woodland and field fires; for enforcing State forest fire laws; for taking such preventative measures, educational and other- wise, as shall seem necessary to prevent forest fires; for developing and improv- ing the forests through reforestation, promotion and practice of Forest Manage- ment practices; and for protection from insects and diseases. 2. To furnish to each Forester or Forest Ranger so employed a badge of office, stationery and report forms, instructional posters for use in the County, leaflets for distributing to landowners and others; to purchase necessary equipment, communication systems, and other Forestry improvements deemed neces- sary insofar as the joint funds will permit. 3. To pay the Forester or Forest Ranger for all official services rendered, at a fair rate of pay. Rates of pay are to be established by the Depart- ment in accord with existing State salary schedules. f . r . _ 2 - U61 • 4. To direct supervise, instruct, and inspect, through its agents, the work and conduct of the Forester or Forest Ranger, to discipline and, when : necessary, discharge such .Forester or Forest Ranger. 5. To submit to the Board of Commissioners monthly (or at other mutually satisfactory intervals) an itemized statement of all monies to be i paid by the County and those paid by'the Department for the the work within said County. P proper conduct of •6. To make a b 11 �fro State Federal, and other fund allotted to it, the sum vf�dr� � s 'ahtlg ollars ($ its share of an annual budget of $86 397.00 for carrying o �t� � 'rk in ) as . County. rry g n the work in said . 1 Part II. THE BOARD AGREES: 1. To pay to the Department 40% of the total cost of the Forester or Forest Ranger- salaries and expenses and of other proper expenditures made in connection with the overall Forestry program in said County, upon receipt and consequent approval of the periodic statements submitted by the Department. Thirty four thousand five 2. To appropriate annually the sum of hundred fifty nine dollars ($34,559.00, which sum shall be available for expenditure under the terms of this Agreement, and shall represent the County's share of the annual budget. Part III. IT IS EXPRESLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD BY BOTH PARTIES: 1. That this Agreement becomes effective July 1 ,19 86 . 2. That the annual appropriations as set forth above may be re- vised by mutual agreement between the Department and the Board, based on the amount of annual appropriation desirable for the proper conduct of the Forestry work, such revision to become effective at the beginning of a given Fiscal Year. Any unused balance of County funds remaining at the end of a Fiscal Year shall .revert to said County unless otherwise. mutually agreed upon by both parties. 3. That the Board reimburse the Department as provided in Part II, Item 1, by forwarding a county voucher draem in favor of the Department for the amount of the County's share of expenditures as set forth in the Department's periodic statement to the Board. That such payments be made by the Board within thirty days following receipt of the Department's billing. - 4. The title to all improvements and equipment purchased and/or constructed in connection with this agreement will rest with the Department; such materials or their equivalent will remain in the County as long as this Agreement is in effect, or as long as they are needed by the Department for the proper conduct of the work therein. 5. That the Forester or Forest Ranger periodically or at the re- quest of the Board, shall present to the Board statements of the work being done within the County, so that said Board may be fully informed at all times re- garding the Forestry finances and activities within the County. f M f d 3 • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties do hereunto affix their names . and seals upon the date herein below specified. - For the Board of County Commissioners of County. Date • Chairman Provisions for the payment of the monies to fall due under this Agreement have been made by appropriation duly made or by bonds or. notes duly authorized, as required by the "County Fiscal Control Act". Date County Finance Officer • For the North Carolina Department, of Natural Resources and Community Development Date Signature Title . -- 064 IMPACT: Alert Cable has requested an expedious response from the Board. Committee members have inquired about the duration of this special project. Therefore, a November 1986 deadline has been suggested. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve statement of purpose and establish November 18, 1986 as the committee's reporting deadline. ORANGE COUNTY O6c BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date ADIU.SLA 1986 Action Ag nda Item 1:1: 1 SUBJECT: PANTRY AREA STUDY DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment( s) Information Contact: SEE 5-27-86 AGENDA PACKET FOR DRAFT AREA STUDY TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH RECOMMENDATIONS 5-27-86, 6-16-86 AND 7-7-86 DRAFT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES (BEING DISTRIBUTED TO BOCC BY CLERK 7-21 -86 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider the Pantry Area Study Land Use Plan for approval . This public hearing was continued from May 27, 1986 and June 16, 1986 to July 7, 1986 to receive the Town of Hillsborough 's recommendations. To receive the Planning Board 's recommendation . . NEED: Development applications received and subsequently approved in the study area indicate a need for a review and update of the County 's Land Use Plan for the area. Such a review, including the participation of the Town of Hillsborough, will insure that subsequent developments are in accord with municipal and County objectives. IMPACT: Adoption of the draft area study land use plan would establish development standards for the transition areas and additional protection for environmentally sensitive areas. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends adoption of the Pantry Area Study as submitted. 06 r Ovum of ih1, nri1 Mayor Town Clerk Frank H. Sheffield, Jr. Agatha Johnson. HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Supt. Water Works Commissioners James Pendergraph Myron L. Martin Street Su t Horace H. Johnson P Allen A. Lloyd L.D. Wagoner Remus J. Smith nold o Police Rachel H. Stevens [PXT�] r Arnold W. Hamlett p Fire Chief I John Forrest AR, TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Laura Hill , Hillsborough Planning Department Li+ RE: Recommendations on the Pantry Area Study DATE: June 10, 1986 The Planning Board and the Town Board, on June 5 and June 9 respectively, re5iewed the Pantry Area Study Land Use Plan and recommended approval . PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 7-21-86 ` O cleared area outside of the buffer. CC�� MOTION: Best moved approval of the staff 's recommendation . Walters seconded the motion . . Yuhasz inquired who would benefit from moving the mobile home unit given that it is already land- scaped and no vegetation was cleared to place it at that location in the first place. VOTE: 6 In favor . 2 opposed (Lewis, Yuhasz) Walters commented that he would like this mobile home park to be a good examply and would not want this issue to be cited as a problem violation . PANTRY AREA STUDY To consider the Pantry Area Study Land Use Plan for approval . AET This public hearing was continued from May 27, 1986 and June 16, 1986 to July the 7, 1986 to receive he Town of Hi I Isborough ' s recommendations. Development applications received and subsequently approved in the study area Indicate a need for a review and update of the County ' s Land Use Plan for the area. Such a review, including the participation of the Town of Hillsborough ,• will insure that subsequent developments are in accord with municipal and County objectives . Adoption of the draft area study land use plan would establish development standards for the transition areas and additional protection for environmentally sensitive areas. Area Study as submitted .. Walters noted that a northern loop for Hillsborough would be a major determinant in the development of the northern area of Hillsborough . Smith commented that no clear directi on has been received from either the Town or NCDOT on loop road systems . The Board discussed the impact of Treyburn on the local thoroughfare system. Walters inquired how pedestrian easements could be established in the area . Jacobs responded that they could be established by ordinance or special authorizing legislation , neither of which Orange County has at this time. • • MOTION: Kramer moved approval of the Pantry Area Study. OFD • Best seconded the motion . Yuhasz commented that he would like to see plans which reflect what w i l l happen, not a "wish l i st" of advisory groups which is unrealistic. Best commented that the Boards should try to follow the adopted plan in development approvals. Yuhasz; expressed concern that the development pressure may be too strong. VOTE: 6 in favor. 2 opposed (Lewis, Yuhasz) Lewis concurred with Yuhasz ' s statement • Jacobs commented that this is a plan indicating how the area should be developed and the Boards should be committed to this course of action . y.'t . •" 6 1, r:5 ! -t \\ \\ 1\ I• f{. f"� L`r" '4,'.' rte, is� YrC'f - \\\ \ \�.: ' _�\\\ fj i� 7..�Jri• + r- .� r_.ry{41 r ' • \ \.::\,.,::,,,,,,,,-"s `y :-:0''''. • -• 6 \\ \` -e_\ ▪ JLYf �.. +�r fs+ y�^,1 ,l :,' bR � . • „ y x.••_••:.•'1+•.!1 F•. \. \\ �i •L� �'fli�' r.rr• .lei• .r _ 7. .r •tr r7• c 4 ,a • - i=:= f t r • v:': -- :•:d. \ %. •.mow ▪7`k• \ \ wr■■ ▪ r • r r -. ■aarr '• ■"'. 'C • v .. .>:.. : MB �▪ ' Cc1ii;TiiriIIPIjji. r x.r .#••::::`:.::: - :•_ <:>: «1 ■may i r•w�r r■■ - s■ ^yf. �- ru■Ci■ T Mai.::a;: •F - -- `5;icr. r'- ■■r■■r■■ i Ca r+�: _ .. 'ht 6?v1 •:a'•ya:.� :-;c=•;:•:-:..: •t%-s s _-i i M■■ A�rwA■r■ '�,' '� r,• :.: . ` r.*' 1'^"y M■■■r■■■■r�r■■ter■ .•.r.. :.. %1;' meo: - ■■■w■■■■■M■r■M■u■■N■ tom_" 'i .::••': :;: :<::wi ;:• .1: ,e,l ,,e .wr ■aa■■■ww■■wr■M r 6' ;44. ._ :'r,:5 'f r ;k y:.4:. _ - i/■C■■M■■sa■■■p■■■M■■■■■■ hA awi■■ -`yam ., . ^'r. - ':i: .:�. 4 ."l ■r■Mr■M■■uaasw■w■■■wrrws� '":. .:.;#•: z;ic #:; '•ti' ' :r■■r. �s`l� 1wua■r�■ar■ur ;?;liir - .3�r� '„:„.......e', - .:i• .. � e>Hr .� !!CM{�4rswuor .r:#c ; • ��• :_>.:._..• fTra►+��+rte°v `� :•o-r is wa.. ▪ - •�.o-•:�i?' - 'rte^' • �■►. waR .tiff:':'y''' yy • - o-0: :. r ;.i7i - w .y.-_ A - wy � r. �rh' k� ."1�1_ 4�.� r�� ;�:72 �L• a "r w"' :zY'r:;•Cgr' M■ .....-...,4. - r. ;err}6 - - ..f.: ami ..w• , r /. \ti IS:v r� 4' w c�. -'.s t Y V .y• Iv.. K `• • .001.00.: Y ;f{:' � , .,-;,.....< -& ,,, - ... `[r{ : r =. ki.. , PANTRY AREA STUDY .PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN N 0 URBAN Scale: 1" = 2000' ® SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL RURAL RESIDENTIAL 0 2000 4000 S AGRICULTURAL- RESIDENTIAL ft RETAIL TRADE RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS can°—.HILLSBOROUGH ETA 03.3 O R A N G E ormimm C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 07L ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date �luaust_4, 19.16 Action A enda // Item _ SUBJECT: CHARTER MEADOWS - SECTION THREE - PRELIMINARY PLAN DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _ No Attachment(s) Information Contact: JANE GARRETT Application Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Agency Comments Stormwater Management Plan Draft 7-21-86 Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Charter Mea- dows - Section Three. To receive the Planning Board 's recommendation . NEED: The property in question is located on SR 1541 (Kiger Road) in Little River Township. The property is referenced as Lot 1 of Tax Map 21 . It is bordered by agricultural and residential development. The tract is designated as Rural Residential on the Land Use Plan . There are thirteen ( 13) lots proposed out of 14.22 acres. The lot sizes are 2.26 acres, .92 acre ( 11 lots) and 1 .84 acres. No zoning has been adopted in Little River Township. However, the Subdivision Regulations (Section IV-B-1A) require a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet where the lots are to be served by on-site sewage disposal and water systems as in the case of this development. Also, each lot must abut the street on road with a frontage of at least 20 feet. Fire protection for the property is provided by the Little River Fire District. Law enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff 's Department. It will be patrolled on a 24 hour basis. The Planning Staff approved Charter Meadows - Section One as a minor subdivision on 1-3-85. There were three (3) lots pro- posed out of 17 .065 acres . The tract in question was Lot 1 of Tax Map 21 . The minimum lot size was .93 acre. The lots had direct road frontage on SR 1541 . This area is indicated on the vicinity map . The applicant then submitted Charter Meadows - Section Two 071 which was referenced as Lot 1B of Tax Map 21 . There were seventeen ( 17 ) Tots proposed out of 20.361 acres. The minimum lot size was 1 .01 acres. The lots had direct road frontage on SR 1541 . This area is also indicated on the vicinity map. The Board of Commissioners approved the Preliminary Plan for Sec- tion Two on 3-6-85 with the condition that SR 1541 be upgraded and constructed to Department of Transportation 's paved state road standards. This condition has been met as the applicant; has received approval from DOT of the construction plans (see1' enclosed letter) . IMPACT: Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area. The projected traffic generation for this sub- division is approximately 123.6 (9.51 trips x 13 lots) trips per day. According to the Department of Transportation, the 1984 (most current) traffic count for SR 1541 is 50 average daily trips as determined from the north side of SR 1538. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan contingent upon the following condition: - adjoining lot layout, names of adjoining property owners and subdivisions be shown on the plat. PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ( iNK ONLY) 07'4 11/55 APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL ORANGE COJIN T Y DATE: 6-50--86. SUBDIVISION NAME: CI--MT1z)2 ME'tbow --,5E0770{lJ MPEE LOCATION: Sk- 1 541 f l 16-02 am b OWNER/DEVELOPER: FJAafi--1 wIL.SCA/ (ALL/4 1rl/USDA1f ADDRESS: toIA7L I ON WA 9 TELEPHONE NO . : ?fuj2.oLi: Ail iLL II(► 2Tei'I/ AGENT/CONTACT:. _ Ai2I2 1 IA)/L-SQAJ TELEPHONE NO . -# Z- 2'1t2 (1104tG) 0. i o ( i fill5 3 t nzht / Vo -o4oc Io13/Li:) A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tax Map _ 2/ _ Block — Lot (s) I Township �TtL k1V7L Zoning Districts) N/A Total Number of Acres : Phases : •," . Total Number of Lots: Average Lot Size : Minimum Lot Si ze Number/Type of Structures.: (existing) ,(proposed) 5F Lineal Feet in Streets : Acres in Open Space Water Supply: WELLS Pub Lic(specify) Community L T_IndividuaL Wastewater Disposal: $EPric DINU.5 Pub Li c (specify) Community k-'"Indi vi dua L School District: NOldo-ECcuNr9 Fire District: JOn7,_EkltL7 . General Land Uses in Area : 402,oCuLnuim.- 12.ES1PE/dr7At-. Critical Areas : stream/drainageways flood prone areas watershed(specify1 historic sites ather(expLain) B . ALL pLets must be submitted on sheet no smaLLer than one inch equals two— hundred feet (117=200 ' ] and. no Larger than one inch equa Ls fifty feet (1 "=8C ' ) and must contain the following information : �.� subdivision noes ': ?f< .,.r '' ti nave of owner(sl –•_ .;�g�? building aetbsex Lines check items --- news of surveyor, engineer or <j to notation or typical lot - land planner lxystt completed) �„• [title] Preliminary lan .` ' existing and proposed aeaa- r ;M wants (drainage, utilities, ;;, soale, north arrow (North at _� `-,In roads, etc.) top of map/ ; sxiating, proposed and data (including revision dates) adjoining rights–of–wey township, tax msp–block–Lot M references -': �' including dimensions and M street names and state rand boundary described with numbers rfi bearings and distances ��s�r' — total acreage of the tract ??r!f utilities, and proposed `:: :t and acreage of Lots, including -- type, sixes, including :`':=• and excluding arse within type. y right.–of–war hanhoLss, valves and control corner � manholes �• -- , ??' existing and proposed culvert proposed tot Lines with rgi including gr dimensions typical street ecrosstlsections lay numbers and intersection details - SW phasing llama including design and width topography at ten foot (101 "' of trevelwa intervals r ign shoulders *.�.� ���� horizontal alignment and sets, bodies, etreewa, flood– general curve data (public way and ftoodpleina reeds] imi*'trees buffers and notation 111 permanent features such as ti.;;;.:, indicating restricted Mi buildings, cemeteries, development potential >s historic landesrke, township, corporate and extra– `•• rtii :g territorial planning adjoining lot Layout `•i$:} Jur1sdicylon floes which f adjoining property { cross the propere r owners and eubdlrielon. Location and size of < in common Paresla dedicated for public use or reserved Location and size of Lots of restricted development notation on plat regarding Sams potential and etoraweter management plan indicating provision for control of the first 1/2 inch of runoff from impervious surfaces _ (GRAY AREAS FOR OFFICE -l�1SE ONLY) • • ; • 07e • C . OTHER SUBMITTAL REaUIREMENTS: • 1 . Twenty—six (26) copies of the preliminary plat 2. Two full size copies of an Orange County Tax map (one copy with tax parcels involved clearly marked) . 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available , a Letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system for each lot . I , the applicant , hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate . , I understand that a $210.00 fee (subdivisions of 15 Lots or Less) or a $370 .00 fee (subdivisions of 16 lots or more) is due at the time of application . A $5.00 per Lot fee is due at the time the final plat is presented for recordation . .� � �APPL_ 'S IGNATURE O ' NER 'S SIG ATURE -) 96 4 -- 573 , DATE DATE FEES: Amount 450 p° Date Paid .67-30149 Receipt I I97 • O . O i N 4 w t CARrE1t 9 CTIOM THREE 074 • :ApvucANr: -I+AQQ) w1i...5o4 - . ZoA1146.: Nor APPLIC43LG , LIMA 12.WER. TO- ' VIP Dl 5IGNATto41: R.I.uL L 12.Lm)zn1T1AL. • 1 N 8 7_` 8'...-- 23 \\ ■ * . - -s.. f 1 'rt- -II' \ ; I eilA Anz. itr-APoteK--moo+: do '' . ,:_ ,._,. P, ' ,. \II - _* ..* ql -,,, 4 - ;, :.- _ .,.. r f-: \-.. . .' i I{*',_ FU CdG6 - 8965 -. J --i .iI bar, :42.:.\. _.;--,:-. y: . ,. , .,, ,, - ... . ,,.„ 20..5 ;,AC. . 38.359 AC. // 4 :/..:::: '411 '11 -7. 't..,,, 1 Y, � 0 . 22 , .. ., ...:1\ , -..... 0 W.1 4., 26 ;...*4.444401X--- 1 -' ', , + =_ 7 lQ e002 @ .416 CHARTER...._..)7 - T - � CAA 31\5� ' �- 13 3AC ;_ p0 0µi � : "�s. .93� � 1G / / / 9329 ✓� &A1.E: I = o'-o" ,/ zs / /,/ 14. 5 AC. • fir_ • Charter Meadows-Section Three 07 11/85 • oRANEGE_ COUNTY CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS - PRCLI M Ntu.14-, PLAI' STAFF ASSIGNMENT : ____,Lana Saaj re SKETCH PLAN : R e c e i v ed ._lam fa Reviewed 1-30-85 PRELIMINARY PLAT : Received ____Z-1_-pa, Reviewed 2-6-86 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT : Received 5-3Q-86 Reviewed 6-2-86 NCDOT : DATE 6-12-86 CERTIFICATION Joe B. Havnes;Highway Maintenance Engineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hi tl-Carrborol : DATE 6-2_36Certificatic "!/A UTLI i - E S (DWASA/Hi l lsborounh/Mehane/orange Alanance/Durham) : DATE' Certification (OTHER : (Recreation Advisory Council 6-12-86 [ Date ) C rrbore Fire Department -- - ___ -_- ( Dvtr_� ) Chapel Hill _____�_ (Dat.e ) Carrboro ( Date ) Hillsborough f (Date ) Durham -- _.- __-___ ( Date ) Other S&E -__ 7-8 �?5 _ ( Date ) Health Department _ 6-11 $6 ________ (Date )' PLANNING BOARD : Date _ _._ Approval Approval with Conditions Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS : Date Approval ____ Approval with Conditions Denial 07t HISTORY OF CHARTER MEADOWS SUBDIVISION f?rDAQD Act i.Yi±y Approval Date Charter Meadows- Final 1 -3-85 3 ( 17 . 065 ) Section 1 ( Minor) Charter Meadows- Preliminary 3-6-85 17 (20 .361 ) Section II Final 3-17-86 WJ • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 07 i IULLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 a�aa .r a p P 4 • May 28, 1986 D . Tyson Clayton Hillsborough Savings and Loan Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Clayton: Orange County has received a letter from NCDOT dated May 21 ,' 1986 regarding a payment to NCDOT for the construction of Kiger Road (SR1541 ) . The letter of credit dated March 5, 1986 for the account of Clem Johnson and Harry Wilson for $75, 000.00 may, therefore, be released . Please contact me if you have any questions on this matter. Sincerely, 41,44-4, Q./Lab- 1y.: Susan J . Smith Planner ✓ GC: Jane Atwater ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA O7 e 27278 • Rs],1 4 June 2, 1986 Dwight Kelly, Division Traffic Engineer 0 1,7,- t." f, N.C. Department of Transportation O ) ?,f,;- / . ( P.O. Box 9278 Greensboro, NC 27408 Re: Charter Meadows-Section Three • Dear Mr. Kelly: Enclosed is the Preliminary Plan for the abovereferenced subdivision for your review. . The property is referenced as Tax Map 21 Lot 1 in Little River Township and located on the west side of SR 1541 (Kilter Road) approximately 400 feet north of SR 1538. The applicant is proposing 13 lots to be used for single family units. Please provide your comments by June 16; 1986. It will be greatly appreciated. Yours truly, W- A4) "Jane L. Atwater Planner . JLA/ja Enclosure .lane- No drive permit required for this. . . Yours truly, &I,1,- .. 1.9 44'/-B , ' Z /1710'-'1,,.....-.6.--. Joe B. Haynes Highway Maintenance Engineer 07 54-4 (r:,-.rang•er CL Aulitu RaS.I.Q'.\.'.a if A �µ > 112. tiary J;nr:: 3L, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Jane Atwater, Planner FROM: Mary Anne Black 7 DATE: June 10, 1986 RE: Courtesy Review -- Charter Meadows, Section III Dunn Property Lake Hogan Lane Blueberry Hill Upon review of the preliminary plans for the proposed Charter Meadows (Section III), Dunn property, and Lake Hogan Lane subdivision, I find no element(s) warranting comment from a recreation and park perspective. In reference to the proposed Blueberry Hill subdivision, the 6.3 acre area designated "park (private)" is of interest from a staff perspective in that I would be interested in knowing what type of development is planned. It would be beneficial to the future residents to have this development encompass "passive" areas such as open/green spaces (cleared), walking paths, and a picnic area, possibly. Thank you for the opportunity to make these staff comments. I will present my recomendations to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council at their next meeting (July 1, 1986) and will forward to you any changes/additional comments they may have. MAB/pbl CC: Lorraine Parker, Chair, Recreation & Parks Advisory Council Robert A. Jones, Jr., Northern District Supervisor Brian E. Cox, Southern District Supervisor (s-I?-S4 Hillsborough, 732-9351 p Durham, G8B-7333 ¢ Chapai HUI. 963-4501 'et 2.7 Area Code 919 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH I, NORTH CAROLINA 0 8 L 27278 . Pg t7 b( � o I 7• i f I MEMORANDUM TO: Jane Atwater , Planner " IF FROM: Warren Faircloth , Erosion Control Office SUBJECT: Stormwater Management Plan for Section Three of Charter Meadows Subdivision DATE: May 15, 1986 This plan proposes to meet the Ordinance requirements by controling the peak rate of runoff for the ten- year storm using a detention pond on lot 01 . If implemented as designed, the detention pond would control the peak rate of runoff for the ten-year storm, releasing the runoff at a rate no greater than the peak rate prior to development . ituukcit 5-HP-S6, • 081 .J STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR SITE OF CHARTER MEADOWS SUBDIVISION • PA KIGER ROAD LITTLE RIVER TOWNSHIP • ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA APRIL 1986 PROJECT NO. 28603 PREPARED FOR: ENT LAND SURVEYS • 226 S. CHURTON STREET HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA • 27278 I. ='r e • 't t} ,,,,,,, PREPARED BY: ,a- PHILIP POST AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS/PLANNERS/SURVEYORS CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA A, ti hvr . ;i: PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB CJAkTFa M ,ApvWs SI"aRMofl->ER I�&M-r-• Engineers/Planners/Surveyors 401 Providence Road Suite 200 SHEET NO. I OF�J 0 g�G_ r7 CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 t� p CALCULATED BY—� W _ DATE y���Pi�_ (919) 929-1173 493-2600 •CHECKED BY • DATE_ _ DI SCALE . ct....... ........... ea-L......... •form&4: f�. fl .......fv:o? 1 . sTQ. .......Jul, .... T sTr�. -!.r-.91- 170. ... dev do)vr, I I , c tt ......,+o.......1/,"c�. ..r.e...`.c.e.ve ri_�2+ . : ... rig "(. ......._de.. .�.. ..,, .......Sf P:kiN.. ......ut .. .....1x....... t-k:.... I 1.ui..G:.. ....................... ?u a. . d ;... ... ham .......[�i V S � s. �d� P L7. l ,:,• ... Oorr.c,,& er.............d + - -............/J:1. r,.........c/_.-Rid.........`J2 .........G 1. v, ....,.... -c. L ........... .P...t!S s ......Sa. z.........._oT...........K,.... r : Peacf cc./4.' ...c......1 e-........... . .t.A.4-k a,de, fat 1.∎„1, ..........of......./4.... / -. ...pre([1rut,icFr/, ... la .......� et GLA 1Zo ........-Pon...... ..... ....:.... f Y .0 l_, 9. ..b ......t.,rs. i f t. . A . 15 CM P .51� .(d h - u r-ed a. (ILL ...Q �t/4 (2,,,..J......:.....a......cfra.!,61;. C. di.lc ........fron ....... ..... rctd......._rcc.l..vey-11 ... o.......`1 ........de-t4,01,1. .......................• Th L4 r :.. ...v.G..�:• Le+.,,,,,.l r.4!,=.L�..l. ., `���0.. v. .... a.KC gGSGYC a ,:��Y. ,�silvL ... G{✓ �o . 1'� al v. . ,S-1,c Vy'1m,c7.Y . ........ .. .. safe : .: ........ s ..- dtvc j).,,c,.. l P , C J.. -. CAS .. ..,J .......,....._. 6.8 CF 5 ti.- . . . ;.Ac{'..,,..L. i (fir "#"ic1,.'\ . . ..7,.8 CrS ' D.92-I ■ Jc 4A-1-1. iv. hC;sf A. IIA 10-YY. C1-1)i.11 k. . . [f-3 ce-e . . . . ....• . , Max . fy�; �'Y�7,. h:►s';L.., i,; /U-Ye., S'e.,:. .10.7 CFS v• .a y. a. . 4..... 7Inc Cioh,Mn1 C1471, rI A PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB CHANTER ►1_ . tt.JS.-_, oi?MWAT R. Mp1-r. tt�� Engineers/Planners/Surveyors SHEET r,o. Z 7 U O cl 401 Providence Road Suite 200 of ...,.." CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 CALCULATED BY -I"wLa _ DATE 1Fl$Je (919) 929-1173 493-2600 - . _... CHECKED BY DATE_ SCALE e*'.... ..V .. . Ia IiE. ..... fVe ai-ed ' .. .37, 75 Ae , T ,.., 37,-75_ ..._/�u....:.........:.......... ... . . .......................... ........................................ Lx: 1-ese4,* C vcrI = C)Z3 O - � _s . s J • pro ppsed Deve.(o P e,�.m Lid USA, .. . Ac ar 71c�';Lof Arco-............. G . ...............C< Yes .32.9-t . .. ... .. .. fs ;... ._1,.Z1 ... . . .. ..g,5I 0.95 .033 Ur�4Veu!o�i ....... :rd. Z.3� r N - 30 -� A w / c .. .. ............ .. .... ..�.....ul r ect. r£cc,k k'�u -t;oar.........` ..4 I A ; .......... (0.2,670.23)(66)(1716-55) = 6,8...CAS....... -; D.(.`4 • - 12.3 Ac- r k . L 1 800 C 13 Yrr I, `Y �,o ` 6.0 /41r• QH = 3v 3 Q,t = CIA = (r 25)(C.v)(/Z•3) . --- /e-5 crs Apr,,,r-i S-1-0,..,..)c 12x_,1•( — (6.8)03)(6-,0) - 5366, cF • Allccia.We. 0 1.1 1 0 a.J f■o., bas; , -- 10.5 - 6,g = I/.7 CFS A 11,4),C'ZO4 I Fnfi.:f,f DUI OK,1.,:yyn.Ma::DUI 411 = • • . . . . . . ' ri PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB----CHAgrD4kig • . . — Engineers/Planners/Surveyors 3 or 7 401 Providence Road Suite 200 SHEET NO. 7 • CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 CALCULATED BY—MA.0) DATE • • I- . (919) 929-1173 493-2600 . L'...,1 •.. • • CHECKED BY • DATE 0 8 4 . , : . SCALE . • , ; : : • : • " .1 . : . : . : : I .• i• . • . : : : :•• : : : •:: . . . : : . - . : • • - : . : . : • . 2.0 . : .••• - . . - tr,—.- i . - : : f . .,... ............... . „..„ E . chgrit. iml • ' A< • • : . .E : , ., 7 .: . A -t-,.• • 1 . __. NA-tuRAL _____.i __7_,.. - . .. _ • -GRA95" . • ----- - , r7. 6,01 .... 4,3°1 ---- - —- . i , !. .. , .. - .........--- ... , . „ WA. _ :• I. . _pullet i _ ____.;_ : - - ___T.,..E.— . . ----------- . :• • • : • : •rsr A-.‹. 1 : . , . . ...__... tti6-roOtt. L.- fq-o : . . f.,.:• . i I i . ; • ..... . : • • i : ! ..r• • : l•-• ! - i : • : • ,: ......_____....... .. 4. . • rap OF 0. AM: • . • • - . : - • .........._______...._........ ,......, : - . - , . - . . . . , ...,... ._ . .-.. : . Z- • : • -, . _ . . • • . .v_, ..... , i : • • .' • • : • 2o • : 1 .,, • . SEjCrNI —A . .,...„ . , ,••• .. " •:' ._ , ............... . A : . . . ....... ._.. • --_,. • - •, . .,_„... ..... ,- .............. ,-• ............1...... . . ti-rt A 17 0.vg... 0di 4 „..„ I --1-oyoe,--...(Cf). ......... .................,. : - , -. , - : .... , 1.6 .- . • • : . . z :• 1.560 • • . ,0 : • . • _.... : : . . , . 300 6 . - ...•• : • - - . • . • , . : : : ........................,. ..• .. , LI0 , : .57t? : i • . . : . . . ................ . : . . ." ..• , ..•• : 6706 • • • - : . ..„............._.................. • - - - • • : , - . i . . ........,......._______. . . : • :• ,- :• - : . • • .. . : . : .. .. . . • - - . — -ivy _cc...'...r.Z" igc. 17 . ,.7:.A • - : . . . .' . • . : • .......,................. .....„ . . • . . . .. : . • - : . .: . . . ...• .: .. . • .: . . • • . - : - , • - . : - .• , . . . • . . . . t . . : :• :• . : . . . . . : • .-,. • 0...,..,,. -1>i 0, • i-54 C ' F' • . . : • . , . . ., . .. : - - . . - : . . . . : . ..............., ,. . : . . . • . • . : .. . . . ' • : • - .••• •.. . • : ,• . : : • , - , . • : . ......... . , . : : :- . • • . : 3.- . •t, ' • : . . . • - it • C) fy i. c.„_ (5 ECP Q :4-cry :11. . : ....,. . . 1 • • . • • . • . .., ... . . - • • . : . - — . . . . , Pr • • , • . e. ..,... • . • • r• ... . • . • . : . • . rz. . • • • . .,.........:... .. ,..,,..... .. .. .. . . • . ... . . . .... . . . . ...-.....-' • • • 7 • • V . . • :. . . . . . . • : . ........ .. . . . .. . . . . • . :• • : • . , :• . . . • . : . : . I .• . . : . , • . :•• . i . . • ' :• . PRDOU(1 MI lAliS,Inc.,Cgion,Km.WM. • ......., .„..., , ....,. . .. - ., . . . ' ,'a 15" am '. TIME p INFLOW STORAGE r}0 C��. HEAD 7 OUTFLOW g (MIN) (CFS) (CF) (FEET) (CFS) .; 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 ' 0. 0 1. 0 0. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 16. 1 2. 0 1. 1 16. 1 . 0. 0 0. 0 s::: 62. 6 3. 0 2. 3 78. 8 0. 2 0. 2 ti 129. 4 4. 0 4. 0 208. 2 0. 5 0. 7 196. 2 7 5. 0 6. 0 404. 4 0. 9 2. 3 221. 8 6. 0 8. 1 626. 2 1. 2 3. 8 259. 1 7. 0 .10. 4 885. 3 1. 5 4. 6 343. 7 8. 0 12. 5 1229. 0 1. 8 5. 4 11 426. 5 9. 0 14. 5 1655. 5 2. 1 6. 2 ice. 498. 5 10. 0 16. 2 2154. 0 2. 4 7. 0 r- 550. 9 w.. 13 . 0 17. 4 .2704. 9 2. 8 . 7. 8 576. 4 12. 0 18. 2 3281. 3 3. 1 8. 6 577. 8 13. 0 18. 5 3859. 2 3. 4 9. 1 .. 564. 1 14. 0 18. 2 4423. 3 3. 6 .9. 5 .... 522. 3 15. 0 17. 4 4945. 6 3. 8 9. 9 ,f 453. 1 16. 0 16. 2 5398. 7 4. 0 10. 2 359. 5 17. 0 14. 7 5758. 2 4. 2 10. 4 255. 4 18. 0 13. 3 6013. 6 4. 2 10. 6 162. 2 7. 19. 0 12. 0 6175. 8 4. 3 10. 7 80. 6 20. 0 10. 9 6256. 5 4. 3 10. 7 r7. _ 9. 2 e F-74!.1,, "y 9. 8 6265. 7 4. 3 10. 7 l PEi,K -53. 2 T 22. 0 8. 9 6212. 5 4. 3 . 10. 7 - 107. 4 ti.. 8. 0 61. J. 1 4. 3 10. 6 -:1.54. 4 r u i2.4. 0 7. 3 59T-4E i. 7 4. 2 10. 5 f! 6. 6 -194. 8 25. 0 5755. 9 .E as -229. 1 26. 0 6. 0 55,7_6. 8 4. 1 10. 3 5 -2 C._ 8. 1 if/. 0 - 5. 4 52t.8. 7 4. 0 10. 1 F -x:82. 28. 0 4. 9 4956. 5 3. 9 9. r3 !r7 p 0 12. gC,P 0 8 1: ,strl TIME INFLOW STORAGE a HEAD OUTFLOW (MIN) (CFS) (CF) (FEET) (CFS) ' L 0. 0 0. C) 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 i*1 1. 0 0. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 ±c: L:d 16. 1 2. 0 1. 1 16. 1 0. 0 0. 0 74) 62. 8 f)‘ - Lid 3. 0 2. 3 78. 9 0. 2 0. 1 131. 4 4. 0 4. 0 210. 4 0. 5 0. 6 DI. 2043. it 5. 0 6. 0 414. 7 0. 9 2. 3 221. 7 r3; 6. 0 8. 1 636. 4 1. 2 3. 2 hint' 296. 5 7. 0 10. 4 932. 9 1. 5 4. 1 IT 378. 7 l' 8. 0 12. 5 1311. 6 1. 8 4. 7 468. 5 9. 0 14. 5 1780. 1 2. 2 5. 4 545. 1 r..-, 10. 0 16. 2 2325. 2 2. 5 6. 1 602. 9 r 11. 0 17. 4 2928. 1 2. 9 6. 7 644. 8 - J.2. 0 I 8. 2 3572. 9 3'. 2 7. 2 -1- 664. 7 13. 0 18. 5 4237. 5 3. 5 7. 6 , - 657. 0 14. 0 18. 2 4894. 5 3. 8 7. 9 r 619. 9 f 15. 0 17. 4 5514. 4 4. 1 8. 2 354. 5 .1, . 16. 0 16. 2 6068. 9 4• 3 8. 4 464. 1 , ..., 17. 0 14. 7 6533. 0 4. 4 8. 8 7,r4 362. 4 f Dept t o6 31 i J 7 c I mz I5 ' RCF TIME 08 1 INFLOW STORAGE r • HEAD L. (MIN) (CFS) - (CE) - (FEET) OUTFLOW (CFS) • r; 0. 0 L . 0. 0 1. 0 0. 3 0. 0 O. 0 0. 0 "' 16. 1 L 2. 0 1. 1 16. 1 0.,0 0. 0 62. 6 3. 0 2. 3 78. 8 0. 2 0. 2 :r' 129. 4 E 4. 0 4. 0 208. 2 0. 5 O.O. 7 196. 2 p"��' 5. 0 6. 0 404. 4 0. 9 2. 4 [IL 217. 2 6. 0 8. 1 621. 6 1. 2 4. 1 7 240. 0 7. 0 10. 4 861. 6 1. 4 5. 2 309. 1 8. 0 12. 5 1170. 7 1. 7 6. 3 i'" 371. 3 : 9. 0 14. 5 . 1542. 0 2. 0 7. 4 426. 6 ,. 1.0. 0 16. 2 1968. 6 2. 3 8. 3 Lti:. 470. 7 11. 0 17. 4 2439. 3 2. 6 9. 2 493. 1 1.2. 0 18. 2 2932. 4 2. 9 10. 1 490. 7 13. 0 18. 5 3423. 0 3. 2 nn 10. 7 468. 1 a.. 14. 0a 18. 2 3891. 2 1. 2 3. 4 4 11. 2 424. 4 r 15. 0 17. 4 4315. 5 3. 6 11. ��5 .. 16. 0 16. 2 4669. 5 3. 7 11. 8 ry... 260. 1 17. 0 14. 7 4929. 6 3. 8 12. 0 157. 2 1.8. 0 1.3. 73 5086. 8 3. 9 1.2. 2 Q top Ilen. Ur , . 66. '` ih. 19. 0 1 2. 0 5 1 5 3. 0 .r w e� 12. 2 -12. 6 20. 0 10. 9 514 0. 3 3. 9 12. 2 ' -80. 6 �: i.. U 9. 8 5053. 7 3. 9 12. 1 -139. 0 i�';-.2w 0 8. 9 4920. 7 3. 8 1.�.n k,+ -188. 6 23. 0 8. 0 47'3.= . 1 ..3. 7 11 . 9 T -•••C,.?,O. 4 ,. 24. 0 7. 3 4501 . 7 3. 7 11. 7 -255. 0 25. Q 6. 6 6 4236. 7 3. 5 11 . 5 r 29i_:. 9 26. 0 6. 0 3943. 8 3. 4 11. 2 -314. 7 27. 0 . 5. 4 -� 6c . 1 3. ,. 10. 9 n. 6 26. 0 4. 9 3298. 5 . = I :-•i___ ------.-------- -- r, . hi 0 ii4G- N4 . ..ti e.-- -.. '..' A c- 4"\ J./''" - (-1 *s. : (.1 &I ' Ci .2 \ 0 8 .-/ v)( •. /44.4/ , .,- gi- ,-.- P.9.4.44 _ .0.---\ --- 4 -...-* , Mot+ 1--4/-147 ,: .. 343-C 1 ••,,,!" \ L___ , •, - 0 • .... ..;..i, No i 0.(i2. A. . IX/ N.1 .44 AR, ,5,--;2 delt•-' : •... @ • • . , •••...4 it.•,.' ... ; • ..---- too Atl.... Tv 75 ; _ 4 , .F2 Ac.. . t.-. . . tilp• . . , i -. ).,.... . \' )\\s - ..: \ (.\\\11111) ..94 t4 - : . • tgif 901/11 :• . I Alu CPI9 fr‘n 4°' q. 7/ 1. .. ..0 (00# 1-"' .al-Pri-5;". .P .":/,'' ..• . ; ,". ,....ktkil ti ' • Ll' ' ' : • • 4 ] . IV • ' - . - .• .•• • ,--------:.C7Cr /1 - , . . . . . .. .• ... • ( , ' D' • 4j:ii ' •• .: .7.• • . . , - . .. . . s ; :..., C12.. ._. . . . . .,. ...„ ...._ • . .. ... . . . .. . . ' P . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . 4al , 40 \ - - , -- - ' •- .. - - ' t__ 6 - • .-..., 0.....; ....„.....ir. . . , .. - Ac _ - Z. .. . . -- . • - , k .*, - •-, - DyeRsi-01,i , ,-..-; v: , -, , . ::-.%.,..:, -..,, :.:...;.,.,._: DE.1-E-NTIO.ri - . - _i -4 i - - .: . -.AgEA- LAO !1 - . . aa, ,: . . .: - :. .. •- ; .• . . . . . ... . . t.3.4 71! '''.: _ . . ?f-52-$ W \ . .. :..1C44 : .--::' - .2 ..,.• -,,:.,:-..4.- ,.. , y,:::,‘...f..; -,,,'.. ;::-_,......-_,:„.,,,,-,..,,;.- , ,:,..„.......,7,-...,r'•-1••:. . ' .. . , . ? Al . , ,. . _. : .... ...., .- . .. , ' .'' : :i-f 284 Z...';;;;;!:':;:;.•-•':: .•;•.-, -: .0! ki•-• "• • ,, ,. ,.. , •''''" • ''• 7". •-,-'4'-•''':''t . ..:•'.'":-',7..-r•-- i:-.:', r::‘.. -',.. •-:";:.-" 'K.:.:'1'..•-•.t. A;'--;"...-''*•JO-.1::•;'-i"..Z!-':-:,:-....:','''''''tt-..-''' :" ' - ., :'.:. ' '.'- •••. " ••••• :.. :L- i'-i. :-::::'`"';-.''..'.: ' 1..•-:.r",.1- 7. ..... :.7',...;';:, ...'''':'..-" •-•-.- -,,,,-..',..:::"'...,--.::,..:,:::•;:i.--•!.--..f.P:;-':-,?:::::--.- ...-‘:'.:..?...i!.›,.:-,''.::Z:-%'.;;7„t.',ii;,,,.:,_"-N'ibil,4"?.:.7.-1.i.,-,,-;::4;,,, ,...,:t....14 :-..-,...-_-7--,,,,-.i; ,- -..r-, r-; .. ,_ -.0-_•.__:-- - - ., -,. : ; - , -..--.-..;.; , --.77, .7":,..Lf.,'-'tz■ •'!-.:---,,:-,•-•7- '',''•.v,f,---7'''.`..•'..--'-'.."7"- '!'f,i1-7:r"- V:24.r77';,--4:".."7.j.',.'-'?''''':''''•-:'.:.:•-•-.'''-. . . ...• ' • • • • ' : 7 - ;- ,-: :-:' .:'.'". (s ,..7•77.7,,7.' "I'...;:," %'''..7'''2.:7 .7',...77'.-:'''7"..7,-,i''' 7 : -7;',..J:..;''.';-. ":-.C!'.S._":•- :;.";s, ,_■.^' .. '. a s.:7. •._ , • > , .. ,.i.1-3,_,,,,',''•%.7,1°. ••,--%0,.. • -.;..:...4 ;-,..•..-7 :-'7.■••••;: ..„;1.';•.,,,i 7.3,i:,kt..-A-...1;e:3;,--A:';`:4.-.:, -:-..,--:::.I::-i-•-..,-. •-c"-: '• ..c...V- - -7-: : - - '-"-' • '-;:': -• -"'.:".-' '':2-74".:--:.1--- -..''i...-.---". --"% 1- :i..,-;,':: :'..:,'•'''' ----39,)!Ii*/.:;';'.1.--- .ffie•- •::-.;: '.-k, '''';','!' t•,.''..;..i 4 :Z.S-C- i'lk,,i.,_1!..".4f.,■•2.-ki•.,,,I-'..-.'i 1.•?'.4."''..'.,7:.-;•.;.....t;,.. • - -••-• -.:',1`,.•,:.:,•:•:. •'.. ....,. -• .'- ... ;_. ''..,7V:i....V.r,-,,,'...:1-?7A;•",!..:; -;,: '.--. ...;:••."/"..:' - Lil.,%,1:. ''' •!"&-•:"-'!r:;•''.:•-...-'r''''.'..!-, ,,•;,".....-''-:-;,`..-'.`-'...:',...--::::',..:', • . ■•%. s /15): :. - • - ''' ..i.. :7:' *;...,1'''....P:.--0 -.:-.-...• " '' •,t", ■•-..•,' ,r.-.'' '71.•':L-.'•■-:';''''' '''1.1-:-'•';'''4‘.-••••.'/"1-.ct- 1''' '--%S''''..i• % '.';;7!%41t..-'••••;"....at-si,Lt;P.-:-.4';',%•',.‘-•':. ••!.''..j ."....1.•:..■ ''.:••Y•'-'7"--• '- .. ,'.-1.-......--`1 .di.OV''''-:."...r.::i' 1-::'-'-:',. ',', ,,,,'.:k,' ,;., ,..`$:;..'..J:24j..1',...1•■.Z.T;...:::?;-'1,-'i•NO'-^1 r:,:'''- ". '.-:1-- ."--"7--'-"-'. --‘-----'"'".'-r"-• .!''''' '' !.1/4.1:'?---•'-'"••'''''••'•-'•-a.X.'77`""■'•,:j.,.:''.•.; -s.","•.-,s...sy it.:•,`.4.-:'.'er.i".:•1.4..fits,•,/,•" ..-•)'1•:,....\,.''1';'7,." .., ,:.ts ; -• • , s--•.. ..1.* A" -v-" •-.''7 1 i'.'•.--"'...;.,"' 70-i- .'..7'...".'-;;.; -.1... 7'.: •!1, •-•11,.-,.:L',,0-..,,!,.....; '-'•-1,;.'4.4.t;--` ••■''t,g5! ,-t±S•••"'";-±,;:"'..f,',-1,:!(.-F-::-•-t-i,.....1■'''-',;-,52•7(1,::::•.*::-.7.1",'",'1":47,:".z'-'7::'1-,',.1 •.- 7:;e:-,':. r, -.;;:...•-•-'- .,-':.--4:.'z;,--:;.■5-. .: z',,---;"':■,7-':.A..' '.-7: '`--..:;-:,;;'411--IP''''.'f'f'-'-''''''''':'34--":"C:"-'''' "'''''';1- ,:7'i.t:'!;■' 7j:,-;"41:1r;SAY..7ct.:::: -E,..AG'W-s'; '-i'.`,Z375-':ii!,''Cl-,.--51,-f1:-.1;:- ...1A . -.:.::'..::A--• 7,':, • .-.' .. 7' ''.:. --.4:--Yr-,..'1-!....:-.-.-.7 -''.-' '-±..74-'...-'. '..:-.-' 1-r',:-.;:-----••••.-'''.;-':'':'■:.;:''---it-7.4t.-;-,:-70.;7';':-;ErF7-- '!",i1:--'A:; s-'.-.-, -,.&‘!-'.:.;',R.::p.-;'.'.-,:;A:-,.,e•---,-.■-7q;, fr.,$'-,2,:•_‘!' I. '..:;,--...j. , --, - ;. f .,•. . :- . `'-.-:. !,,;-■;1-.-..-V"...-..;-:. -..''.. -L,L0i-i1;+"^4-4'7,-K:%-=',4.16.1.1;2;,\4■-!2.c..-s"- 4.-"-g'.':''''',k".$j,64;,' 14 i.. ., ,:.-:,...., ,. ..., - ,...,- : -. .4. . :„........::-.2,,,,..,--;?:,.,,, ,.--,. - .:.4.,,_-,:.- • -- . ;-...„....,-;.,20.„,,-.1",. :1,y,,fr:.0,;--,....t...,:.. , :-i,-:-:,-,-,,;'.:,.: !”:".,.,'I-..i.4--..L'i'..,..0-1'.-.7.**-i.,:i:4•1--.0.-!.4-:2#'.'-=,'-: '''-'.":!',-'• .- , - -,..7: ...-. -.-.,.".-,- .'.. .,:.i-,,•.,-..-.4.: 7.1':■7',:,';-''•fl•'''';'.-....7.: -C.'''',.■:-.-'2';''';'; "Y.:.1,-4777ir'''''/':?I''. .a.'7,•-•'4'Vti7.777, 77,,ti1/441"rt7':4•7:7..:ei...7:7?t,',4,--,-,.*.* ''.:(,'•N';'f,.i..721.';'-:t:4•''''-.!€/• ■ t ,-- L'• - ,='-7-t. '' . :-'.i-..'.- : '..'...";2';......1.:••....:•,Lz.y.si'i. f.'''7,,,__--'.f...‘....‘..'..-.--,.. :.,;;.'-I-'' '''. r, ,-'.-'.'-----.-:7,-'.4)-4,:?..tz,l,'',; ::-+-.\,-A.,;; •-..,'"c.'1.1.---;--...rti-L.,,,,.2,.,,-,,,.5., :-,..:-.!°:.‘r.f.,4!-,:.:...z,,,4.4.:,!;;,,,..,.::,:„,!;,rt,..4agf / .-'--:-.:•. -.., .._,-.::. ..-,,, :.., 7 ....,•.0.,. ....-..:,..,-:•-,•,•;.7,:.. ,.:-.1...-:,-.--: ,,e.-.7„,17.:,,,.1;.7,,, --:-..., 7ty..,-..,,1,:..i..k..,-r;,.,. ..4,-,,,,,f1,1•3,,,,,,ck -.,,,,,f,.2,...,;:zq,yhlk.....:-.4;‘,,-*•.--."-•-•1,-1:,!••,,;it.gli•f4..,,s--,,•,, ,,---1 0.,:, .•_r..,-x.:-.•,... •-..,,-.)•:-...:.,,, ,.,.1.:;._::,::, ..,...;:t.:t;..4' ;',1-.:-''.,:",.4.;.:.,;,.:. :...-..-...-',z L.,,Li...-::,..-..;-,,-y.%1;:;...-....e,..'44, 7','"c,-':-.ff-Z:C,--,1:4---.•.-4:-.,..',1.;,-;.',,,,'..:1,:ii;' ,t;...,-..-T.k.ty",.,,•71',.•.;'2:',..#41cfszt,,:tKc...) .s-7;;.`S,r' :.,i ;j-, -iv:::!-- ...,"P'f.".•''..7'7.;'•.7 ...::-.7.:.,-•:-..'.:-7.„:'....!;;.1,5.--...:',.4.4-,•,72..•-;__454-”,,„-p4-.:5i.,,„-.1;.-„:: :.•,f4::'...•;43,,!',•-;A;-:'A-;...._-t,'F7.Z:,-:?,,e•:;:4;iiy,,,"' ::-!.:...'':„....."-p';:-.,';-..1;-.-:::;•',„:- ';',;*A,. ,,,.7 _•;..,.:,. .-_.-,:t.-,•,,-,: : -.,... . .. _,_-.44, 4:.,::Y., ,..7:-,----,!--:..- '.;• -'':.-..--./..-.,--•:.''•;. :',.:- ..-..•"..:-'4:-''v.',17,-;,-"'• .- 1.11^'1".•:;••`'''••77;-::''k':•.::•7--..1.,'-.b.'f;',..`'-'"".."•'7,7-'-el--.7'::'"-';..C;-*-:'''''''';'--- --f''.-Y '''`'I-'f. . ; ■., .4, . .-.., •. . -.. • :•Ih.,'' - .7 ' •:. - ., .'• - . .. _ .,--. . •.- - 7.f', ..:' •,‘.....,',...•.,'"•'.., ..: r,.,.. ;..•.•F.- , .:i'.■ •....,"•:-...4'•-•".q•!'•!:•-•-r-':ii•;'•!..•.7••'..;.:,:-.-,...'„f '••••;.,.',/,..:,,,L,F,.;Ii.',•1, ".":.•,- ,-•''-.." ' - '•' -i"•..7.(t...-•••...., , ''• • ' '-}••,-.3-'.. "•• -"-'•L'i.;--*.f'••'''c.:•••-t •:' •:...,.-..1-(''.•:-..■',•%•:.''''..•--' "CM14+:S-4•4••-.V."•:fiA.-%14.:.;::',..":".,!.,i/A.N.J.:;.ki it-CAUt4::71..441.:Sdr.:44..'"...(..',V.t.,.!,...:....,'^."-- PLANNING BOARb 'MINUTES OF .7-2) -86 rom management requirements noting that the standards were adopted during the period of time when there was considerable momentum for such watershed standards at the state and regional planning levels . She commented that local staffs throughout the region are concerned with and need to address technical difficulties with the standards, and the effectiveness of the standards over time. The Board discussed their interest In receiving more specific comment from Faircloth at the last meeting r„ n AFT when this subdivision was considered . Jacobs inquired about the recreation director ' s comments . Garrett responded that the recreation director was interested irn the development of the private park on lot # 1 . Ms . Joyner commented that there was a conflict in the Board ' s statements as on June 16 ShankIIn had commented that the recreation director should not be consulted in the development • of a private park . Jacobs responded that if there was no objection from the applicant than the condition would be left as is . MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval of the preliminary plat with the conditions recommended by staff . VOTE: Unanimous . f . CHARTER MEADOWS - SECTION Ill - PRELIMINARY The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Charter Mee The property in question is located on SR 1541 (Kiser Road) in Llti- le River Township . The property is referenced as Lot 1 of Tax Map 21 . It is bordered by agricultural and residential development . The tract is designated as Rural Residential on the Land Use Plan . There are thirteen ( 13) lots proposed out of 14.22 acres . The lot sizes are 2 .26 acres, .92 acre ( 11 lots) and 1 .84 acres . No zoning has been adopted in Little River Township . However, the Subdivision Regulations (Section IV-B--.1A) require a minimum lot size of 40, 000 square feet where the lots are to be served by on--site sewage disposal and water systems as in the 'case of this development. Also, each lot must abut the street on road with a frontage of at least 20 feet . Fire protection for the property is provided by the Little River Fire District . Law enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff 's Department . It will be patrolled on a 24 hour basis. The Planning Staff approved Charter Meador-is - Section One as a minor subdivision on 1-3-85 . There were three (3) lots proposed out of 17 .065 acres . • 09L The •tract in question was Lot 1 of Tax Map 21 . The minimum lot size wa-s . 93 acre. The lots had direct road frontage on SR 1541 . This area is indicated on the. vicinity map . The applicant then submitted Charter Meadows , Section Two which was referenced as Lot 1B of Tax Map 21 . There were seventeen ( 17) lots proposed out of 20 .361 acres. The minimum lot size was 1 .0 acres. The lots had direct road frontage on S 1541 . This area is also indicated on the , vicinit map . The Board of Commissioners approved th Preliminary Plan for Section Two on 3-6-85 with the condition that SR 1541 be upgraded and constructed to Department of Transportations paved state road standards . This condition has been met as the applicant has received approval from DOT of the construction plans ( see enclosed letter) . Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area. The projected traffic generation for this subdivision is approximately 123.6 (9 .51 trips x 13 lots) trips per day. According to the Department of Transportation, the 1984 (most current) traffic count for SR 1541 is 50 average daily trips as determined from the north side of SR 1538 . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan contingent upon the following conditioniminary . upon the following condition: -- adjoining lot. layout, names of adjoining property owners and subdivisions be shown on the plat. Garrett made the staff presentation . She commented • that the preliminary plats for the subdivision had not been distributed to the Board . Best suggested that the item be tabled as incomplete materials had been submitted . Walters responded that considerable information had been forwarded to the Board and that it would not take long ,to review the plat. The Board discussed the policy on consideration of new materials and incomplete applications. Smith commented that the applicant had submitted a complete application . Copies of the plats for the Board were the only materials not submitted . Jacobs determined that the distribution of the preliminary plat maps at this time did not consti -- tute a major piece of information and should not hold up consideration of the preliminary plat. AMMM 091 MOTION: Best moved that the item be tabled until August 5, 1986 in like manner to the action on the Mel Oaks request previously heard this evening. Kramer seconded the motion . Greg Shepard, representative of the applicants, commented that the Mel Oaks request was not listed on the agenda whereas this item was submitted and accepted as complete and listed on the agenda for action this evening . Yuhasz commented that he had failed to forward additional copies of the plat for distribution during his vacation . Jacobs determined that the bulk of the information had been submitted to the Board and the item should be considered . VOTE : 3 in favor (Best, Kramer, Margison ) 4 opposed Motion failed . MOTION : Best moved to adjourn the meeting fifteen minutes to review the plat. Motion failed for lack of a second . The Board discussed the use of joint driveways . The Board discussed minimum lot standards for the district. The Board asked staff to comment on the paving schedule. Smith informed the Board that condition of paving had been attached to t;;e approval of the previous subdivision of the lot a; d that the applicants had negotiated directly r' i -� h NCDOT and had paid NCDOT for a share of the con- struction costs . Upon receipt of a letter from NCDOT indicating receipt of those funds, the letter of credit held for the road improvements had been released . Harry Wilson, developer, indicated that NCDOT had scheduled paving of the road for September and October . Best inquired about the housing unit types. Wilson responded the private covenants have restricted the housing type to stick-built units . He commented that mobile homes were placed on lots in an earlier phase by a previous developer . Kramer expressed concern with the consistency of the application of a Joint driveway standards. Smith commented that neither Board has supported a Joint . driveway provision in previous staff requests for policy approval . She also commented that the appilcant1s lot provided little room for design flexibility . 05� Margison expressed concern with the standard for separation of driveways and sight distance. Smith responded that there were no standards for driveway separation and that sight distance requirements generally apply to private and public roads. Margison expressed concern for maintenance responsi- bility for Joint driveways. MOTION: Best moved approval of the preliminary plat with the staff recommendations given the topography of the site. Lewis seconded the motion ! Best expressed concern with the nature of this type of development where land is cleared , bulldozed and then developed so intensely. Kramer expressed concern with the inconsistency of this development w ith development in the area . VOTE: 4 in favor 3 opposed (Margison , Kramer, Jacobs) Yuhasz abstained . Collins asked the Board what would have been their preference in the design of the development. Kramer and Best indicated that would have preferred larger lots . Collins commented that given the limited depth of the property this meant larger lot w idths . Clem Johnson, developer, inquired about the concern w ith Joint driveways . Jacobs responded it was a safety issue. Best commented that there were fewer points of conflict. Johnson commented iha;t this would create maintenancy responsibility conflicts , g . CHAPEL HiLL INDUSTRIAL PARK r- PRELIMINARY The purpose of this agenda item is to consider the Preliminary Piat of the Chapel Hill Industrial Park on Eubanks Road (SR 1727 ) . The Preliminary Plan was approved by the Planning Board on April 16, 1984 and by the County Commissioners on May 17, 1984. The Final Plat was approved by the Planning Board on May 20, 1985 . The property in question is located in Chapel Hill Township on SR 1727 Eubanks Road . It is referenced as Lot 6A Tax Map 18. The tract is designated Rural Buffer in the Land Use Plan and zoned Industrial -1 . There are seven (7 ) lots proposed out of 20 acres . The maximum lot size proposed is 144,016 sq. ft . or 3 .3 acres, while the minimum lot size proposed is 80,642 sq . ft . The property will be served by a Class C private road . I- 7 ORANGE COUNTY 094 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date Augur Action A ends Item , SUBJECT: Blueberry Hill - Preliminary Plan DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes , x No Attachment(s) Information Contact: Jane Garrett Application Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Agency Comments Letter from Ann Moss Joyner Re: Stormwater Management Plan Draft 7-21-86 Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider the Blueberry Hill Subdivision, property of Ann Joyner et al , for approval . To receive the Planning Board 's recommendation . NEED: The property in question is located on SR 1102 (Dodsons Cross- roads) in Bingham Township. The property is referenced as Lot 8 of Tax Map 27 . It is bordered by agricultural and residen- tial development as well as "The Ranch" mobile home park . The tract is designated as Rural Residential on the Land Use Plan . There are nine (9) lots proposed out of 24.7 acres. The lots sizes are 5 . 13 acres, 2.67 acres, 2.22 acres, 2. 13 acres, 2.06 acres, 1 .85 acres, 1 .82 acres, 1 .95 acres and 2.05 acres ex- cluding the rights-of-way. The property is zoned R-1 (Rural - Residential ) . An Orange County Class "B" private road (Blueberry Lane) is proposed to provide access to the lots in the subdivision. Fire protection for the property is provided by the Orange Grove Fire District. Law enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff 's Department. It will be patrolled on a 24 hour basis . IMPACT: Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area. The projected traffic generation for this sub- division is approximately 85 .59 (9.51 x 9 lots) trips per day. According to the Department of Transportation, the 1985 (most current) traffic count for SR 1102, determined from the north side of NC Highway 54, is 1300 average daily trips. AmIMW 09q RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan contingent upon the following conditions: 1 ) Property lines follow a 101 x 701 sight triangle at the intersection of Blueberry Lane and SR 1102 (note Depart- ment of Transportation comment) ; 2) The developer consult the Orange County RecreationiY Director prior to the development of the proposed park for Lot #1 (note Orange County Recreation Director 's comment) . PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ( INK ONLY) . 09i. 11/35 APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL , GRANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION NAME: VAu9 '°--f c k\\ LOCATIQN: �V� `\6�-' � .'' QSS r C9---4-5 OWNER/DEVELOPER: 'N nrN �dlrl���c2- .sue ADDRESS: '� -\- C ,-. })l _ TELEPHONE NO . : b-. -ik� AGENT/CONTACT::. - SCE-,—.- TELEPHONE NO . : A . SUMMARY INFORMATION: •Orange County Tax Ma 0,1 Block Lots] Township R- .0 -- Zoning Districts] : 1 v TotaL Number of Acres : .1 .q0 Phases: \ ----.- Tots L Number of Lots: _a ,,,_ Average Lot Size: 4-.43 Minimum Lot Size 1.512 Number/Type of Structures : taxi sting) 14tL ck Xa I (proposed) A ir -4.,:_a Linea* Feet in Streets: .zab°° Acres in Open Space ci) U Water SuppLy: v)--) Vi Pub Lic(specify] Community' >• IndividuaL. Wastewater DispasaL : ,� Pub Lic tap ecify) Community 5choc L District; �A�vf.. � y �Indi vi duo l �ti'`�`- Fire. District : 1b1atj&� G E Gen e re L Land Uses i n Area : G��:sr-�'. L,.._,M,,t /ye%,L-.5 I y}L;g. , y. f_tic. Critical. Areas : C] stream/draYnageways --) flood prop9, areas �7 watershed(specify) C> historic sites other(explein) B . ALL pLets must be submitted on sheet no smalLer then one inch aqua Ls two— hundred ,feet (1 "=200 ' ] and no Larger than one inch aqua Ls fi ft.y feet (1 "=5a ' ) and stoat contain the fo L Lowing information : vf. Mr subdivision name ?r building nose of owner(el DR::-...T t setback kcal. :heck items nose of surveyor, enginr•r or i ' * Layout or typical lot Lend planner la a :ompleted) ✓ p ;z .. existing and proposed sass– (title] Preliminary Plan - :`• aunts (drainage, utilities,— .1 '':'., scale, north arrow (North at roads, sta.1 :. to of mspl yl: v ,•;;;�,; existing, proposed and _:,, date (including revision dotes/� :: :•;: adjoining rights–of–Rey �. •+ township, tax asp–block–lot - -M includin NA g 9 end and boundary described with _ street names end state road "='`�•:; nusbers } 4. bearings and distances ,,,_ existing and e total acreage of the tract utilities ncoudang MM end acreage of lots, including _ type, sixes, including and excluding area within yp "`' �`- '-' hydrants, valves and rights–of–we), `':" manholes control corner f• including and sizes cgrades proposed Lot lime with including sixes end dimensions grease �.. lot nusbers _ typical street cross–sections amphasing Lines - inc intersection details topography including design and width et ten foot (101 '=�;; of trerslrey and shoulders •�.'�"•�4' intervals horizontal alignment and water bodies, straasa, flood– w_ }: general curve data (public ray end flaodpLaine roads)' _. stream buffers end notation `. Indicating restricted permanent features such a■ :.. ;•• Indicating potential ,r"': buildings, ceeeteries, development _•' historic landmarks, township, corporate and extra– ! .rw, adjoining lot territorial planning names of adjoining propertyut juriadl•ction Lines which owners and subdivisions Y ' .•'::. cross the property • 4▪ •�"'' Location and sire of parcels dedicated for public pee or reserved { in common Location and size of Iota of restricted development potential and "' notation on plot regarding same ▪ lat,ii star-avatar management plan indicating provision for control of the first 1/2 inch of runoff from impervious surfaces (GRAY AREAS FOR OFFI CE 1ISE mil vl 044 C . OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS : 1 . Twenty—six [26) copies of the preliminary plat 2. Two full size copies of an Orange County Tax map [one copy with tax parcels involved clearly marked] . 3 . Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not avai Lab le , a Letter from the Oren e County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system fr each Lot . I , the applicant , hereby certify th-a-t._t_ie foregoing application is comp Leta and accurate . I understand that er !210.0D ee [subdivisions of 15 lots or less) or a $370 .00 fee [subdivisions of6 '�c or more) is due at the time of app Li cation . A $5.00 per Lot fee is due at the time the final plet is presented far recordation . APPLICANT '5 SIGNATURE OWNER 'S SIGNATURE DATE E DAT E • • FEES: Amount 42/0, Date Paid 5 2i-& Receipt r v. O V • .__••• o / , 1_: ' 1_--7 j J ' te. = - '7=o / r, • �„' /'Di-. .�. • ` -- v u r .111p1,4111p. - . rfr # .4.71/1 A... • ; I; 41Ik AL AL 100,, . -- 4416,7411r411/4 -,1.. - ,. I N i O/ 4. i ..i.:). LuE BER R3 Iasi ILL I 4 1 g 1 IP APPUCA'JT: ANN hi 056 .7b5�N w' ZDAI IN G : R-1 1?U►LU. RE9 DE1014. LIP De51GNA71 DN: Ruth[, P-6ID$Nl1At+ . ' SG4LE: I' 400'_ 0 " y T' Blueberry Hill • 11/05 U4e ORANGE_ COUNTY .CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS P,RFLIMI'i!ARV PLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT : Jane Atwater ,Carrett SKETCH PLAN : Received 4-30-e6 Reviewed 5-7785 PRELIMINARY PLAT : Received 5-22-86 W Reviewed 5-3n-86 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT : Received - Reviewed NCDOT : DATE_„_____6TM12-86____ CERTIFICATION Joe B. Haynes. Highway Maint. Engineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hi ll—Carrboro ) : DATE_6-2-86_Certification [i/A UTLITIES (CWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange ALamanc.e/Durham) : DATE Certification _ T OTHER : Recreation Advi so ; y Council 6-12-86 . (Date) Cerrboro Fire Department ( Date) Chapel Hi l L (Date ) ' Carrboro -_ _ (Date ) Hillsborough .__ (Date ) Durham [Date ) Other Soil & Erosion 5-6-85 (Date) Health Department 6-4-P6 ; 7-8-86 [Date ) PLANNING BOARD : Date T___-_______. Approval Approval 'with Conditions _ Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS : Date Approval Approval with Conditions _ Denial ... . -e ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH U 4 t. NORTH CAROLINA 27278 1; u N� ,.l* p.c• June 2, 1986 Dwight Kelly, Division Traffic Engineer N.C. Department of Transportation = ‘1,1 d° P.O. Box 9278 Greensboro, NC 27408 RE: Blueberry Hill Subdivision Dear Mr. Kelly: Enclosed is the Preliminary Plan of the abovereferenced subdivision for your review. The property is referenced as Tax Map 27 Lot 8 in Bingham Township and located on the west side of SR 1102 (Dodsons Crossroads) approximately 3200 feet north of NC Highway 54 East. The applicant is proposing nine (9) lots to be used for single family units. An Orange County Class "B" private road will be constructed from SR 1102 to provide access for all lots in the subdivision. Please provide your comments by June 9, 1986 . It will be greatly appreciated. Yours truly, atryttiziJ Jane L. Atwater Planner Jane JLA/ja We recommend the following : Enclosure 1 . Driveway permit required . 2 . Property lines follow a 10 ' x 70 ' sight trir:ngle at intersection . YYours® truly , Joe B . Haynes , Hwy .Maint . Eng . ion • N 4, @range �.nua to earatcnn un 3 r - z fia tment 300 West Tryon Street ~'�' HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 Life. it. Mary Anne !Tack, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Jane Atwater, Planner FROM: Mary Anne Black DATE: June 10, 1986 • RE: Courtesy Review -- Charter Meadows, Section III Dunn Property Lake Hogan Lane Blueberry Hill Upon review of the preliminary plans for the proposed Charter Meadows • (Section III), Dunn property, and Lake Hogan Lane subdivision, ,I find • no element(s) warranting comment from a recreation and park perspective. In reference to the proposed Blueberry Hill subdivision, the 6.3 acre area designated "park (private)" is of interest from a staff perspective in that I would be interested in knowing what type of development is planned. It would be beneficial to the future residents to have this development encompass "passive" areas such as open/green spaces (cleared), walking paths, and a picnic area, possibly. Thank you for the opportunity to make these staff comments. I will present my recommendations to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council at their next meeting (July 1, 1986) and will forward to you any changes/additional comments they may have. MAB/pbl CC: Lorraine Parker, Chair, Recreation & Parks Advisory Council Robert A. Jones, Jr., Northern District Supervisor Brian E. Cox, Southern District Supervisor Itttal;i (c-12-0(0 Hillsborough, 732-9361 0 Durham, 638-7333 0 Chavl Hill. 958 45 i ,∎:;i ane, 227-2032 • Area Code 919 • • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT i U HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA • 27278 •aptti .r 0 1� a A. �11 � •J tr4-� MEMORANDUM TO: Jane Atwater, Planner FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Officer SUBJECT: Blueberry Hill Stormwater Management Plan - DATE : June 18, 1986 This plan proposes to meet the Ordinance requirements by using large lots to absorb runoff from impervious surfaces, grassed swates along the road, and retention of vegetation . This plan appears to meet the standards in the Ordinance. 0 11I S 1 1Fro� Lllj • 1O . lt,e.ee,iArtki 6-i 146 • June 11, 1986 Ms. Jane Atwater Orange County Planning, Department Orange County Offices Churton St. and Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Jane: Regarding storm water management for Blueberry Hill subdivision: We believe the following conditions meet the Orange County storm water management requirements: 1) Lots average 2.3 acres, with none smaller than 1.95 acres. The limitations placed on impervious surfaces (12% maximum) necessitate a large buffer of undisturbed area to filter and absorb run-off from said impervious surfaces. 2) The land slopes gently, dropping from 550 feet jn elevation to 510 feet in elevation over a distance of 1101feet to the east, and to 530 feet in elevation over a distance of 500+ feet to the west (representing a 4% drop in both cases) . 3) The grass swales along the road will be used for infiltration, so that the vegetaton will filter run-off from the road surface. 4) There is a 25-foot buffer between the private road and longer . boundary of the property. This area will be left undisturbed by covenant. 5) By covenant, no healthy trees may be cut within 20 feet of any lot line. Again, this preserves buffers around the road and hones. We believe this combination of natural terrain, buffers, large lots, and grassy swales will achieve the storm water management objectives set forth in the county's subdivision regulations. Please let us know if this meets with your approval. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Ann Moss ooyne cc: Warren Faircloth, O.C.Erosion Control 1(1 4 DRAFT DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 21 , 1986 WEST TEN MOBILE HOME PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING EXTEN The staff presentation was made by Smith . MOTION: Kramer moved approval of the second six month extension but requested that staff notify the applicant that no further extension would be granted . Best seconded the motion . VOTE: Unanimous . AGENDA ITEM #7: SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS a . TORIAN ESTATES -- FINAL PLAT b . WINDY HILL FARM -- SECTIONS 1 & 2 - FINAL PLAT c . LYNWOOD ACRES II DIVISION OF LOT 1 - FINAL PLAT d . RANDY AND SHERRY DUNN - FINAL PLAT .)( e. BLUEBERRY HILL -- PRELIMINARY The purpose of this agenda item is to consider the Blueberry Hill Subdivision, property of Ann Joyner et al , for approval . The property in question is located on SR 1102 (Dodsons Crossroads) in Bingham Township . The property is referenced as Lot 8 of Tax Map 27 . It is bordered by agricultural and residential development as well as "The Ranch" mobile home park . The tract is designated as Rural Residential on the Land Use Plan . There are nine (9) lots proposed out of 24.7 acres . The lots sizes are 5 . 13 acres, 2.67 acres, 2 .22 og. acres, 2. 13 acres, 2.06 acres, 1 .85 acres, 1 .82 acres, 1 .95 acres and 2.05 acres ex- cluding the rights-of way. The property is zoned R-1 (Rural - Residential ) . An Orange County Class "B" private road (Blueberry Lane) is proposed to provide access to the lots in the subdivision. Fire protection for the property is provided by the Orange Grove Fire District. Law' . enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff ' s Department. It will be patrolled on a 24 hour basis. Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area . The projected traffic generation for this subdivision is approximately 85 .59 (9 .51 x 9 lots) trips per day. According to the Department of Transportation, the 1985 (most current) traffic count for SR 1102, determined from the north side of NC Highway 54, is 1300 average daily trips . On June 16, 1986 the Planning Staff recommended appoval of the Preliminary Plan contingent upon the following conditions: 1 ) Submission of a Stormwater Management Plan; 2) Property lines follow 10 / x 701 sight triangle at the intersection of Blueberry Lane and SR 1102 ( note Department of Transportation comment) ; 3) The developer consult the Orange County Recreation Director prior to the development of the proposed park for Lot #1 ( note Orange County Recreation Director ' s comment) . The Planning Board tabled consideration of the Preliminary Plan until the applicant provided a Stormwater Management Plan . The applicant has addressed how the Stormwater Management • objectives will be met and Warren Faircloth found this information to be satisfactory . Therefore, the Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan contingent upon conditions 2 and 3 above. Jacobs informed the Board that he had spoken with Warren - Faircloth the Erosion Control Officer and that Warren had indicated that he desired a greater specificity in the standards for stormwater manage- ment plans as required by the Subdivision Regula tions . He also indicated that the standards were relatively new and that awareness of technical problems occurs as the standards are implemented over time. Smith reviewed the history of the stormwater 10 management requirements noting that the standards were adopted during the period of time when there was considerable momentum for such watershed standards at the state and regional planning levels . She commented that local staffs throughout the region are concerned with and need to address technical difficulties with the standards and the effectiveness of the standards over time. The Board discussed their interest in receiving more specific comment from Faircloth at the last meeting when this subdivision was considered . Jacobs inquired about the recreation director 's comments. Garrett responded that the recreation' director was interested in the development of the private park on lot #1 . Ms . Joyner commented that there was a conflict in the Board ' s statements as on June 16 Shanklin had commented that the recreation director should not be consulted in the development of a private park . Jacobs responded that if there was no objection from the applicant than the condition would be left as is . MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval of the preliminary plat with the conditions recommended by staff . VOTE: Unanimous . f . CHARTER MEADOWS -- SECTION III - PRELIMINARY The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Charter Mea The property in question is located on SR 1541 (Kiger Road) in Little River Township . The property is referenced as Lot 1 of Tax Map 21 . It is bordered by agricultural and residential development. The tract is designated as Rural Residential on the Land Use Plan . There are thirteen ( 13) lots proposed out of 14.22 acres . The lot sizes are 2 .26 acres, .92 acre ( 11 lots) and 1 .84 acres . No zoning has been adopted in Little River Township . However, the Subdivision Regulations (Section IV-B-1A) require a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet where the lots are to be served by on-site sewage disposal and water systems as in the case of this development. Also, each lot must abut the street on road with a frontage of at least 20 feet . Fire protection for the property is provided by the Little River Fire District. Law enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff 's Department. It will be patrolled on a 24 hour basis . The Planning Staff approved Charter Meadows - Section One as a minor subdivision on 1-3-85 . There were three (3) lots proposed out of 17 .065 acres . O R A N G E C O U N T Y lOt BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date A all± 42 1986 Action Agenda Item /Zv SUBJECT: CLASS A ROAD - ACRES OF NEW HOPE - LOT 5 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment( s) Information Contact: JANET RIGSBEE APPLICATION TAX MAP DRAFT 7-21 -86 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham -- 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider a request for a Class A private road to serve the new seven (7) acre lot of Joseph Stone Et al . The Orange County Private Road Standards requires the approval of the Board of County Commissioners for establishment of a Class A private road through the subdivision procedures. To receive the Planning Board 's recommendation . NEED: The applicant, Charles Harris, purchaser, is requesting a subdivision of Lot 16 Tax Map 2, Chapel Hill Township into a 7 acre and 10+ acre lot. Board of Commissioners ' approval of Class A private road is required before a minor subdivision served by this road can be approved for the Stones ' lot. Currently 9 lots are served by the private road known as Scar- lette Mountain Road . IMPACT: A minor subdivision of the Stones ' tract could occur if a Class A road is approved by the Board of Commissioners. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of a Class A road . If constructed to NCDOT the road would not comply with NCDOT criteria ( length and housing unit density) for acceptance as a public road . The Planning Board recommends approval . 10 i MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION i Property Owner(s) 90,42 >ed 6574-e- r Address //2„25-- n . ( ,,,,, ,„, 4..- . /erg- Phone ( ) UevUl e-r/Contact Name_ prIL� Address /24 //1,,C 4p 6p 4 Gc-/ /4: Phone ( ) / 307 - a. --/,(---- Location of Property C /&) township map block lot Zoning R - / Fire District 6 Watershed ` Impervious Surface - Joint Planning: C.H. • Carrboro School District State Road Number 1'"'"�'- 4 Name = _ Type Private Road Class /- 0R' V B£(C, Name 20-T-) Do you plan to build the road before final approval? 1lC1- or secure construction with a security document? JJ Utilities: Public Sewer Community System Septic Tank L---"' Public Water Community Water Well t� If on a septic system, the Health Department must examine all existing and potential building sites on lots shown on the plat. Total Lot Area I 6, Number of Lots Lot Number: Size of Lots: Structures (proposed or existing) : /0,4% etc,. -4rvc.X----' - I (We) hereby certify that I (we) have read the above information and that the information I (we) have supplied is accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. I (we) understand . _ my (our) application is not complete an annot be approved unles all required information and material has been provided. 6 -- i— g f° [10,Affas h Date Signature ,.�,Ar T _!.tom• Date Si. • ure Filing Fee # of Lots Fee Private Road Fee Other Fee Total Fees Date Paid ..e= :w: :'e's:° •r-o'.'.. 'nve7r �.± i .�. .•• ,._ -.r.-z:".r��.• ,: ':- refi .,t u , •p,,gti r- . nr'a. ' ••7., ,, ' - e ] - - ' rc . Mlarn Mti�; •' _r v x 1s ii.. ii- - Z'" i : L•L A1: f Jr; - ft Y.. y r.\1 w TOWNSHIP -- ....,1 _� -UK �_ POWER CO. 0 415 w <.R/w ,. • I -- 13.8 AC. e .4o \ FIo ,0832 2 �. 'li SECTION 4' \, - • .24 141$(,72 ` A 30.8SAC- C)16 0. , P/0 ---. 8 AC. 0 j 7.14..10C 17. 6 AC.; x -40R/W 1 �� / 1 11 N • i . ,. 6?242 , 3 ` SCAR LETTE " -` _ ( ', i . / \ .9046 8.09 AC- I T. i?gA17. __ (\--:— 3 Y. I acre `,z1 .8783 1 \ 0 \ �`+®• ' • c\ 0. \ , . . 7.92 AC. 2 I ` �C+\ 10. s 2 AG '''\ �. `_ I I s I °� ��� n 3 13.71 AC. e 11.77AC �` / ern, to, 7.52 AC. I \ ` .8336 I 7355► �'� 1 . s ; s�cn. 1 15-- ' \6 6z'2S \ .... _ =. 1 r 1028 /\\ \� '-2� —.:. eaa 2'Sa� 9C• z 22 • C 12.5 AC- 8709 � -2863 5783 \\. X. - 1776 p� 1 a / 1..e 3656 4,21Ar I, ,. 13.23 AC. e �� 1534 4.14 AC. 4.53AC• 4 , +, 2564 sEE 7. 14. 10 C 4.04 • AC. I ! sEcrie►t z , 11�- 1 , / i- 40 7612 ' 4.0IAC. 2 3 i 2\P • pRiv � _� - _T -- CHEYENNE -v W�------ ---- -�.- - - T10p • 21B 4 6121 3056 j 1)1069 r 9015 2p • \ 3 \--% 6.22AC / 2O _ 10.26 AC. 's' • 563.81 AC ,q 5 AC. 1 6 AC. {,.., .., ,• ,� a..erry;M��T, ,,.s'.r., .,,�r,�sM.,\+ry^t,,,,. ,..,,. ..,gr,._ :�l -^^rTr ... T. 'r: •� 0 ror. r ;�. ter. ' ,.t�. t r -• rR.a:.:roue..ti' �_aSi�dii2a.,d'uLrJCa�ii)�r��Yt.'..+,LRr ,, i.�;�, �" ;•+ei�3++'fir �� ',.�, .+.,:•;.:...:-��,-�� �� PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF 7-2] -86 1CI� rT r• The applicants William & Mary Lynn are requesting a subdivision of Lot 28 of Tax Map 9 of Eno Township !,) i into a 2 acre lot and 10+ acre lot . Board of Commissioners ' approval of a Class A private road is required before a minor subdivision served by this road can be approved for the Lynns ' lot. • Currently 14 lots are served by the unnamed private road . A minor subdivision of the Lynns ' tract could occur if a Class A road is approved by the Board of Commissioners. The Planning Staff recommends approval of a Class A If constructed to NCDOT standards the road would not comply with NCDOT criteria ( length and housing unit density) for acceptance as a public road . Smith introduced this item commenting that it is a further example of the difficulty of addressing road standards during the subdivision of previously subdivided parcels that were exempt from local. government review. Walters commented on the equity issue of requiring road improvements along lot frontages that vary . Barry asked if the applicant owned the entire development. Smith responded --he Lynn ' s owned only lot ##2. Best inquired if a private road existed . Smith responded yes and that it would - have to be improved along the site ' s frontage. MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval of a Class A road. Walters seconded the motion . VOTE: Unanimous 1 . CLASS A ROAD - ACRES OF NEW HOPE - LOT 5 - MINOR SUBDIVISION TTo consider a request for a Class A private road to serve the new seven (7) acre lot of Joseph Stone Et al . The Orange County Private Road Standards requires the approval .of the Board of County Commissioners . for establishment of a Class A private road through the subdivision procedures . The applicant, Charles Harris, purchaser, is requesting a subdivision of Lot 16 Tax Map 2, Chapel Hill Township into a 7 acre and 10+ acre lot. Board of Commissioners / approval of Class A priva-ie road is required before a minor subdivision served by this road can be approved for the Stones/ lot . Currently 9 lots are served by the private road known as Scarlette Mountain Road . if a Class A road is approved by the Board ofi Commissioners . The Planning Staff recommends approval of a Class A road . . If constructed to NCDOT the road would not comply with NCDOT criteria ( length and housing unit density) for acceptance as a public road . MOTION : •Margison moved approval of the Class A private road . Kramer seconded the motion . VOTE: Unanimous ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for approval . This proposed amendment was submitted to public hearing on May 27, 1986 . To receive the Planning Board ' s recommendation . Concerns have been identified by the Planning Staff concerning mobile home skirting/screening requirements for individual mobile homes on individual lots . The attached amendment addresses this concern . An issue state ment precedes. the amendment . The proposed ordinance amendment, if approved , would clarify and improve the administration of the Zoning Ordinance . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amendment.' Smith commented that the primary purpose of this amendment is aesthetic . MOTION : Margison moved approval of the amendment providing an option of appropriate landscaping in lieu of skirting . Kramer seconded the motion . Smith clarified that the item as submitted to public hearing was not advertised in a manner which would O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - I 1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date Augmaf_42_ 1986 Actio A rnda Item SUBJECT: CLASS A ROAD - WILLIAM & MARY LYNN DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes ,_. No Attachment(s) Information Contact: JANET RIGSBEE APPLICATION TAX MAP DRAFT 7-21-86 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough -- 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider a request for a Class A private road to serve the new two (2) acre lot of William & Mary Lynn. The Orange County Private Road Standards requires the approval of the Board of County Commissioners for establishment of a Class A private road through the subdivision procedures. To receive the Planning Board 's recommendation . NEED: The applicants William & Mary Lynn are requesting a subdivision of Lot 28 of Tax Map 9 of Eno Township into a 2 acre lot and 10+ acre lot. Board of Commissioners ! approval of a Class A private road is required before a minor subdivision served by this road can be approved for the Lynns ! lot. Currently 14 lots are served by the unnamed private road. IMPACT: A minor subdivision of the Lynns ' tract could occur if a Class A road is approved by the Board of Commissioners. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of a Class A road . If constructed to NCDOT standards the road would not comply with NCDOT criteria ( length and housing unit density) for acceptance as a public road. The Planning Board recommends approval . 1-14- 1 MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION Property Owner(s) Address 52? Phone ( ) SP'T 2 ' 7-6).7/ Developer/Contact Name e6lLFjpvet,p4 45- e9et, xis 173.2- gs-4/7'P1dvy Address Phone ( ) �j /C��DQ ;1 Location of Property • 9 • . oZer township map block lot Zoning 12. Fire District 61/7.--A./e■XIAE-/? -% Watershed Impervious Surface Joint Planning: C.H. Carrboro School District State Road Number /53 d Name- –C[, �yt_. � � T Private Road Class /`"t" Name Do you plan to build the road before final approval? ),/CS or secure construction with a security document? Utilities: Public Sewer Community System Septic Tank' Public Water Community Water Well If on a septic system, the Health Department must examine all existing and potential building sites on lots shown on the plat. V pfe //]] Total Lot Area / L •C— Number of Lots if v-. Lot Number: Size of Lots: Structures• (proposed or existing) : I (We) hereby certify that I (we) have read the above information and that the information I (we) have supplied is accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. I (we) understand my (our) application is not complete and cannot be approved unless all required information and material has been provided. Date Signature • Date Signature Filing. Fee n of Lots Fee Private Road Fee Other Fee Total Fees Date Paid - .. . .. ‘5. 5082 olz2 .sc � 'o .:6�a. W 2: . ,.' J1 .� o g�cv YN *.,. �+ ' -dr. 2.8AC :gyp AC. 1749 .464C. 1 :.: `g, - `• AC. Q'• fix.. ' 'y m • - ° t �� : S\. 2785. 2794 " \ / 29 t • �:.,. to a / � `� q\ 1312 AC ii\\,ir..--,-;:c. 4- . ..,._ 0 2 cr, let, 460 5095 a FU 34C- � 0 I:,.07_ FD.OI AC, -7. J • .6 AC. r .0 L \T:1 .f 536 �1 Ill;-! • ! ;i 580.01 488-57 '.1343.21 I8 .42 905 511.30 p e � • 21C 10.01 AO - I / .8122 •'7115 f 2007 '? - N t- ` 0 10-0IAC- 24 /4 I0•01AC• 098710.'. \ Go 7 10.01AC w f - — i f S : - — i / N. r r q 16i a-- ---- itA- --- �� r 3 b ICI 1489 0 0 cp - 2326 736:1 r ` 10164,AG p �O s � e I0•4AC. s - a c ,-- ` _0?_66 e j_-- io 10IAC• N 10 - 2�-s q , - M .•8.97 s1 -` Q en 'ti° ;.:.: 0 , 9.36 •- • 442.54 0.67 .. m T 1986 4 '6 o i t \4 1 - 3 s 1 C) FU I [ 9742 1 `:F:` I 71.7 AC. • ! ` 12.45 AC- • 1 4 1 , :v;`' 5. 9. .. 28 n { 1M- - - ti =_ j i _ Op +�M"". t� aid_. rF ki... � it 'K• ;.;LA� q�� '•F•�'� H•1: - w NMA6 y � j �:���� .i► •F�I+ rL�Ylywp�ullW �.+AR�'1s4a/ } (.n.. ....�;e': } ,. 91ii'��hr�#�i:_433sirV�'�'tl�Ni02yy,W;. ;. ,J..'+r..r i-: .PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF 7-2]-86 "I The "property is not In a protected watershed. The tract is located in the New Hope Fire District ik and . served by the New Hope Fire Department. Law a enforcement in this area is provided by the Orange County Sheriff 's Department and patrolled on a 24 hour basis . The subdivision will create serven lots zoned for industrial use. The intent of the Light Industrial --1 ( I -1 ) Distric is to provide appropriately located and sized site for I imited industrial uses ' engaged in manufacturing, processing, creating and assembling of goods, merchandise or equipment . Performance standards will be used to insure ' the absence of adverse impacts beyond the immediate space occupied by the building and to assure compliance with the development ordinances . - There have been changes in the conditions around the site with the construction of 1 -40 and the submittal of planned development/rezoning request for a proposed multi-family development directly east of the property. The site is not within an activity node and is presently outside OWASA ' s service area. The site is designated in the draft Joint Planning Area land use plan for light industrial use. There have been changes in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations and administra-- tive procedures ( Joint Planning Agreement) which would affect reconsideration of this application . Staff recommends that the Planning Board take action on the Preliminary Plan only . • This item was withdrawn at the request of The applicant in a decision to pursue the minor subdi - vision approval only. h .. CLASS A ROAD - WILLIAM & MARY LYNN - MINOR SUB-- DIVISION The purpose of this agenda Item is to consider a request for a Class A private road to serve the new two (2) acre lot of William & Mary Lynn . The Orange County Private Road Standards requires the approval of the Board of County Commissioners for establishment of a Class A private road through the subdivision procedures . The applicants William & Mary Lynn are requesting a subdivision of Lot 28 of Tax Map 9 of Eno Township into a 2 acre .l of and 10+ acre lot. Board of Commissioners ' approval of a Class A private road is required before a minor subdivision served by this road can be approved for the Lynns ' lot. Currently 14 lots are served by the unnamed private road . A minor subdivision of the Lynns ' tract could occur if a Class A road is approved by the Board of Commissioners . The Planning Staff recommends approval of a Class A If constructed to NCDOT standards the road would not comply with NODOT criteria ( length and housing unit density) for acceptance as a public road . Smith introduced this item commenting that it is a further example of the difficulty of addressing road standards during the subdivision of previously subdivided parcels that were exempt from local government review . Walters commented on the equity issue of requiring road improvements along lot frontages that vary. Barry asked if the applicant owned the entire development. • Smith responded the Lynn ' s owned only lot #2. Best inquired if a private road existed . Smith responded yes and that it would have to be improved along the site ' s frontage. MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval of a Class A road . Walters seconded the motion . VOTE: Unanimous I . CLASS A ROAD - ACRES OF NEW HOPE -- LOT 5 - MINOR SUBDIVISION TTo consider a request for a Class A private road to serve the new seven (7) acre lot of Joseph Stone Et al . The Orange County Private Road Standards requires the approval .of the Board of County Commissioners for establishment of a Class A private road through the subdivision procedures . O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT AIJGUS?__4, 1986 Action A enda Item IZ-9 SUBJECT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING EXTENSION- WEST TEN MOBILE HOME PARK DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes A_ No Attachment( s) Information Contact: MARVIN COLLINS 6/27/86 Letter from Wayland McFarland and Daryl Garrett 7/21 /86 Draft Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : To consider the extension of time limits on a planned development amendment when approval has expired . The applicant for the West Ten Mobile Home Park planned development rezoning (PD-H-R1 ) submitted the request prior to the expiration of a previously approved six month extension . This request is for a second six month extension . To receive the Planning Board 's recommendation . NEED: Sections 7.2.8 and 7.9 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance require that construction on property subject to planned devel - opment zoning amendments begins within six (6) months of Board action establishing a planned development district. Section 7 .2.8 provides that "construction must start and proceed at a reasonable rate within six months of the approval of the permit. If no construction has started the permit becomes null and of no effect. The owner can request a six month extension from the Board of County Commissioners if the request is received before the permit expires ." Section 7.9 provides that " if actions required in any amendment establishing a PD district are not taken within the time limit set, the Zoning Officer shall review the circumstances and recommend to the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners: a) that PD zoning for the entire area be continued with revised time limits; or I. 1 .'. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING EXTENSION-WEST TEN MOBILE HOME PARK PAGE 2 b) that PD zoning be continued for part of the area, with or without revised time limits, and the remainder rezoned to an appropriate category; or c) that the entire district be rezoned from PD to an appropriate category." All planned development rezonings require the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit. Prior to recordation of the Class A Special Use Permit the applicant is required to satisfy certain conditions of approval , including the revision of the site plan( s) (where necessary) and the issuance of appropriate development permits and approvals, including, but not limited to, landscape plans, drainage and stormwater control plans, utilities approvals and permits, etc. Following issuance of the Special Use Permit other approvals may be necessary before actual construction may begin including construction permits, grading permits, NCDOT street construction plan approvals and driveway permits, etc . On July 1 , 1985 the Board of County Commissioners approved the Planned Development Housing Special Use Permit (R-1 ) request for West Ten Mobile Park . The applicants have indicated that work with the State of North Carolina, engineers, soil spe- cialists and others have slowed progress on the project. The initial six month approval and subsequent six month extension were inadequate to allow the applicant to obtain necessary approvals and commence construction . The applicants are requesting a six-month extension from July 1 , 1986 . IMPACT: Approval of the time extensions would allow additional time for the satisfaction of conditions of approval imposed and additional development permits and approvals required for construction to begin . A decision not to approve the time extensions would require that a public hearing be held on the rezoning of the property in question to an appropriate zoning district. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends extension of the planned development rezonings for the West Ten Mobile Home Park for (6) months from July 1 , 1986 to allow additional time to obtain appropriate permits and approvals and to initiate construction activity . WJ . ' � � � � . / �. i � U uU �J / . . . . ' . 6/27/86 • 1 ' Ms. Susan Smith . Orange County Planning Dept. Hillsborough , N. C. Dear Ms. Smith , . Due to extreme competition for engineering services in the high growth area we now live in , we have been unable to complete the engineering for the waste water systems. We now respectfully request a second extension be granted this project. IF YOU REQUIRE MORE INFORMATION PLEASE ADVISE. Thank You L/ kL.L& '*/�� i . . Darrell Garrett Waylon Mc Farland WEST TEN MOBILE HOME PARK PROJECT . . ' ' ' ' . . • � . . ' . � . . . ` . ` _ - _ _ �- .. �� ' ' ORANGE COUNTY 12L BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date Hu. us±_/ Act in ggenda SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS Item .7Q DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes A� No Attachment( s) Information Contact: MARVIN COLLINS SEE 2-24-86 AND 5-27-86 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA PACKETS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DRAFT 2-24-86 AND 5-27-86 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES 6-10-86 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES COUNTY ATTORNEY COMMENTS Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider proposed text amendments to the Subdivision Regula- tions for approval . These proposed amendments were submitted to public hearing on February 24, 1986 and May 27, 1986. These items were tabled on July 7, 1986 . To receive the Planning Board 's recommendation . NEED: Concerns have been identified by the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board and Planning Staff concerning homeowners ' asso- ciations, school sites reservation, cluster development pro- visions, recreation standards, and landscaping and buffer provisions . The attached amendments address these concerns . Issue statements precede each amendment . IMPACT: The proposed ordinance amendments, if approved, would clarify and improve the administration of the Subdivision Regulations. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of the amendments with the following revisions: 121 ( 1 ) SECTION V IMPROVEMENTS (Homeowners ' Associations) amend line 7 of paragraph 2 to read "restrictions, articles of incorporation, ',here regmired, .ng/ot by- laws as approved . . ." amend line 1 of the final paragraph to read "where Articles of Incorporation shall b submitted on the form . . ." (2) SECTION IV-B-5 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENTS Sub-section IV-B-5-b amend line 1 of (a) to read "The tract is a minimum of 400,QOQ square feet for the AR district, . . ." amend line 3 of (e) to read " . . . area as a result of the cluster formal development and/or . . ." Sub-section IV-B-5-e amend line 3 to read " . . . under standard regulations and shall conform to the following criteria." amend lines 3 and 4 of (g) to read " . . . slopes otherwise adversely affect the design of the development. " Sub-section I V-B-5-f amend line 1 of (b) to read "A pl-anise description of the extent to which the . . ." (3) SECTION IV-B-8 LANDSCAPING AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS Sub-section IV-B-8-1) amend line 2 to read "On any land for which application for subdivision approval has been made after the n �1rm--QL Sub-section IV-B-8-b-1 amend line 4 to read " . . . one ( 1 ) foot or greater Aa measured I nbaye ground_ _I eve t. shall not be cut, damaged or . . ." Sub-section IV-B-8-b-2 amend line 4 of paragraph 2 to read " . . . buffer areas, the shall determine . . ." - amend line 8 of paragraph 2 to read " . . . aanning nitec±oc may approve the planting . , ." add sub-section ( f ) Necessity to remove trees in order to survey existing and for proposed property lines and 122 easements. Sub-section IV-B-8-b-3 amend line 4 of the final paragraph to read: ^Exc t_1or sideerslks and cirri) and gUtterl no paving with concrete, asphalt or other impervious material . . ." Sub-section IV-B-8-C-1 amend line 3 to read " . . . at least one ( 1 ) tree fo every (35 ) feet of frontage . . ." amend line 6 to read " . . . ( 1 ) tree for every Qgg- thausan_d 110Q0) square feet of land area . . ." Sub-section IV-B-8-C-2 move sub-section to end of text and label as "recommended standards" . amend the final paragraph to read: "The Diner of the property shall be responsible . . ." Table 6.6.4.3 Schedule of Required Buffers amend sub-title to read "Adjacent Undeveloped Vacant Land Zoning" amend provisions for arterial and collector streets under Office Institutional , Community Commercial and Existing Industrial from NA to . . The County Attorney has also recommended minor revisions for purposes of clarification ( see attached list) . 1 2 COUNTY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO ZONING/SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS NIN_G ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Section 8.4.2 Zoning Dilicar Prepares Analysis an figsgnmanglA±19112 Within forty-five (45 ) days of the receipt of the application, complete in nil respects, the Zoning Officer shall cause an analysis to be made of the application . . . (This section would become Section 8.4.3 - see below) . Section 8.4. 1 Pre-Application Conference Prior to the app I i.eat ion being received as Ln. Section 8.4.2, the applicant must request a pre-application meeting. . . (This section would be placed before the existing Section 8.4. 1 - Application Sukmi tfed IQ 2P21141 Offl2,e and all subsequent sections renumbered accordingly) . AUDDIUSIal BEDDLAIIDE1 NMENDMENIS IV-B-5-a Substitute for "Development umsLer this provision la optional": "Ili ordinance does llgf tffnu i ra nlitatgr_ c2ID Dents fiver, ALL jsfer sLemalpnmant.L. ii l fDr fb& ADX2IDD2LA. aknll l ADD& in nau I l ancp w � with e And. stanciards r.elatel ±Q er referring ±2 DIMai2t deveIoDment CALLtaingii IA ibis. Qr IV-B-5-b (c) Add J i th . eL2A2 21 Orange QQSrnty. not zon_e4, ib minimum mum . ,a i a_e naamitemenf ef1.a11 bg thousanj i4Q,.00D) square ." IV-B-5-e Change "ems, shall jig reviewed according tQ fo1lowi,ng tgria_n tom mu a± meet the strItaLlal. IV-B-5-e(g) Correct "typo" in last line from their to Ike, IV-B-7-b-1 The County Attorney raised a fairness issue related to the the exclusion granted to minor subdivisions. The basic concern is that the person (s) creating the fifth lot must pay payments- in-- lieu for all i2q lots created previously through the minor subdivision process. A further concern is that land cannot be obtained from minor subdivision approvals, and this will represent a lost opportunity to secure same. IV-B-7-b--5 Reword as follows: "Land dedicated for public recreation area as required by this Ordinance shall be designated on both the preliminary and final plat(s) of the subdivision and must be dedicated to an appropriate unit of local government. Determination of the appropriate unit of local government shall be made by the Board of Commissioners, upon recommendation from the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council and the Planning Board. Acceptance of the dedication may be one in trust if deemed appropriate by the Board of Commissioners." IV-B-7-b-6 Revise last sentence in third paragraph to read: "All monies received by Orange County pursuant to these requirements shall be used only for the acquisition and/or development of recreation, park and/or open space sites to serve the development within the recreation area as designated in the Land Use Plan ." Revise fourth paragraph to read: "The Board of Commissioners shall also have the authority to sell land dedicated pursuant to these provisions with the proceeds of any such sale used solely for the acquisition and/or development of other recreation, park and/or open space sites for development within the same recreation service area." IV-B-8-b-2 Delete subsections (a) and (e) as they are too open-ended and leave too much lattitude in terms of interpretation . . 12L PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT SECTION IV-8--7 SITES FOR PUBLIC USE ( e) SECTION V IMPROVEMENTS ISSUE : Section IV—B-7—b of the Subdivision Regulations contains no requirements regarding dedications andfor reservations of park and recreation areas other than the Planning Board shall approve such sites as to Location ; size and suitability . Sites can only be required through the Land Use Intensity System (Recreation Space Ratio) contained in Articles 5 and S of the Zoning Ordinance. The provisions only apply in R-5 , R-8 and. R-13 zoning districts, leaving R-1 „ R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts with no requirements for recreation area . The addition of recreation space requirements for all districts as well as standards for their development would insure adequate sites to serve all residents of the County . Provisions for payment—in-°Lieu of dedication would also allow deve Lopers an alternative to dedication of sites . The provisions of Section IV—B--7—a (School Sites ) indicate that such sites may be served in accordance with G .S . 153A-331 . Rather than referring an applicant ( to a statute , the provisions should be Listed in the Subdivision Regulations for clarity . EXISTING ORDINANCE: SECTION IV--B-7 SITES FOR PUBLIC USE (Attached) SECTION V IMPROVEMENTS (Attached) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT : . SECTION IV—B-7 SITES FOR PUBLIC USE [Attached) The proposed amendments would delete the existing provisions in their entirety and substitute the new provisions . SECTION V IMPROVEMENTS [Attached ) The proposed amendment would add a new paragraph to Section V which contains provisions for maintenance and responsibility of "private" facilities by homeowners ' association . ATTACHMENTS : National Recreation and Parks Association Standards ( Comparison — Application of NRPA and LUI Standards 1::15 17'11 = eltUi1V` v nt r a. • I5T - B -- 7. SITES FOR PUBLIC USE, IV - B - 7 - a. School Sites IV - B - 7 - a -- 1. Proposed dedications for School sites shall be approved as to location, size and suitability by the appropriate School Board. IV -- B - 7 - a 2. School sites may be reserved in accord- ance with N. C. G. S. 153A-331. Whenever • a -subdivision which includes part or all of a school site to be reserved in accordance with N. C. G. S. 133A-331 is submitted for approval, the Planning Board shall immediately • "notify the appropriate board of education. - - - The board of education shall promptly decide if it wishes the site to be reserved and shall notify the Planning Board of its de- . dision. If the board of education does not wish the site to be reserved, no site may be reserved. If the board of education does wish the site to be reserved, the sub- division may not be approved without the reservation. The board of education must acquire the site within 18 months after the data the site is reserved, either by purchase - • or b excercise of the by power - of eminent domain If the board of education has not purchased the site or begun proceedings to condemn the site within the 18 months , the subdivider may treat the land as freed of the reserva- tion. IV B - 7 - b. Proposed dedications for parks , playgrounds , and open spaces for public use shall be approved as to location, size and suitability by the Planning Board. The approval of a Final Plat with an approved dedication shall not be deemed to constitute an acceptance as provided in, Sectio III Subsection E-2 herein. • 31 • _ I ( PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS IV-B-7. SITES FOR PUBLIC USE I V--B-7-a aaha21.5iila IV-B-7-a-1 . Ai�R�icnht1.L�. In every subdivision, school sites may be reserved in accordance with the. adopted LaI1d_3gg._Elan for Orange County. For authorization to reserve school sites to be effective , the Board of Commissioners , prior to the adoption of the j„and_AT gQ Elan or any amendment thereto , shall have jointly determined with the Board of Education having jurisdiction over the area, the specific location, size and suitability of each school site to be reserved. All sites so designated shall appear in the L j J ae Plan. IV-B-7-a-2 . Me t hQd__Qi_$aagLyRjon Whenever a subdivision which includes part or all of a school site to be reserved is submitted for approval , the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners shall immediately notify the Board of Education having jurisdiction over the area. The Board of Education shall promptly decide whether it wishes the site to be reserved and shall notify the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners of its decision . If the Board of Education does not wish the site to be reserved, no site may be reserved. If the Board of Education does wish the site to be reserved, the subdivision may not be approved without the reservation and without the school site being designated on the subdivision plat as such. The Board of Education must acquire the school site either by purchase or by exercise of the power of eminent domain within eighteen (18) months after the date the site is reserved. If the Board of Education has not purchased the site or begun proceedings to condemn the site within the eighteen (18) months , the subdivider may treat the land as freed of the reservation. 4..A.1„ •d' zC1J l'r z G r LJV,L.�.l L14 • •' . i- SECTION V. IMPROV . TS i a Before a Final Plat of subdivision shall be approved, improvements shall be Provided as follows, or a security bond, or cash, or a satisfactory, irrevocable letter of credit by an approved institution and as approved by the Orange • County Attorney shall be posted with Orange County by the subdivider to provide for the com-- . pletion of the required improvements. - I V - A. STREETS - . V - A - 1. Grading and Paving - Street rights-o ---- way shall graded in accordance with the - lines and grades shown on the approved Pre- liminary Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance and the Department of Transportation. . V A - 2'. Proposed Improvements - imprvQements, _ proposed by the subdivider, or required by this ordinance, such 'as street pavement, curb ._ and gutter and sidewalk, shall be construc- ted in accordance with the standards and e- regni,-ements as provided. in this ordinance 5. • provided that where said improvements are to - be constructed subsequent to the approval of the Final Plat, plans and specifications for said improvements shall be approved by the appropriate agency and reference to said improvements shall be made a part of the Final Plat as provided in Section III, Sub- section E -- 5 - d herein. • (._ , - 33 1.?4 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SECTION V . IMPROVEMENTS Before a Final Plat of a subdivision shall be approved , improvements shalt be provided as follows , or a security bond, or cash , or a satisfactory , irrevocable Letter of credit by an approved institution and as approved by the Orange County Attorney shall be posted with Orange County by the subdivider to provide for the completion of the. requi red improvements . Where a neighborhood or homeowners ' association or simiLar Legal entity is to be responsible for the maintenance and control of any improvements required as part of subdivision approval , the subdivider sha L L file with the Planning Department and record with the final plat , a declaration of covenants and restrictions , articles of incorporation and by—Laws as approved by the County Attorney that will govern the maintenance and control of such improvements . Provisions shall include but not be limited to the following : [a) The association shall be established before any homes are sold and any building occupied ; (b ) Membership shall be mandatory for each home buyer and all successive buyers ; ( c ) The association shall be responsible for the Liability insurance , Local. taxes and maintenance of recreation and other facilities , including streets and utility lines ; ( d) The homeowners must pay their pro rata share of the casts , and any sums Levied by the association that remain unpaid shall become a Lien on the individual homeowner ' s property which shall. be subordinate only to tax and mortgage Liens ; [ e) If all or any portion of the property held by the association is being disposed of, or if the association is dissolved , adequate recreation space shall be deeded to Orange County or the appropriate unit of local government to satisfy the requirements for public recreation space under Section IV—R-7—b of this Ordinance ; [ f) The owner of each dwelling unit or tot shall have voting rights in the association ; and (g) The homeowners ' association shall be able to adjust any assessments to meet changed needs .. Articles of incorporation shall be submitted in the form in which they will be fi led with the North Carolina Secretary of State and , upon filing , a copy of the articles of incorporation shall be provided to the Planning Department . Di PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ORDINANCE : SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 0 REFERENCE: SECTION IV-B-5 AND SECTION II ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: XSTAFF PLANNING BD . BOCC �X_PUBLIC OTHER STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: HIGH MIDDLE LOW COMMENT: TO ADDRESS A FUNCTIONAL GAP IN ORDINANCE EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MAY 27, 1986 ********************** PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To provide cluster subdivision standards - and to define "cluster subdivision" in the Subdivision Regulations . ISSUES/ IMPACTS: Cluster provisions provide the development of the most suitable portions of a site, emphasize the protection and maintenance of environmentally critical areas and encourage innovative design solutions in exchange for reductions in minimum dimensional requirements within given zoning districts . Currently clustering of dweliing units is permitted only through . the planned development process . EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISION( S) : NONE PROPOSED AMENDMENT( S) : ATTACHED ******************* ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: DATE 4w16-. , DATE 4-30-86 PLANNING BOARD ( PRELIMINARY REVIEW) : DATE 5-19-86 BOCC (ADVERTISEMENT) : DATE 5-20-86. ( infor_nat i4.it_9AJ.,y) ( ..+ DRAFT 3-18-$'64 3-21 -86 4-23-86 4-25-86 5-20-86 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENTS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SECTION 22 Definitions A subdivision in which building lots are grouped together through a transfer of allowable density within the subdivided tract. Cluster development permits more efficient development by creating lots with gross land areas smaller than those required for conventional lot-by- lot development, yet maintains application of normal lot density standards to . the subdivided tract as a whole by requiring that land area saved by lot size reductions be reserved as permanent open and/or recreation space. SECTION IV-B-5 Cluster Developments IV-B-5--a Intent Cluster developments, as defined in -Article 22, allow for greater design flexibility and originality, permit the reasonable use of land with difficult physical conditions (topography, floodplain , unique natural areas, etc. ) respect the physical qualities of the land, reduce the overall development and public costs and, preserve open space to serve recreational , scenic and public service purposes . Cluster developments permit the modification and variation of lot and yard requirements provided that the sum of reductions in lot area becomes common open and for recreation space for the benefit of all residents of the cluster development or for dedication to public use. Development under this provision is optional . iV-B-S-b Application Criteria Cluster developments may be approved for any residential district upon the following findings: a) The tract is a minimum of 40,000 square feet for the AR district, 200,000 square feet for the R-1 districts and 80,000 square feet for all other districts. b ) Approved water supply and wastewater treatment systems are available and each lot is served by separate water supply and sewerage connections. c) The total number of lots proposed for the tract, excluding parcels of reserved recreation/open space, is not greater than the number determined by dividing the gross land area, excluding public road rights--of- way, by ( the minimum lot size requirements for the zoning district established in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. d) The recreation/open space reserved within the tract conforms with the recreation and open space standards established in Section IV-B-7-b . e) The minimum amount of land reserved as recreation/open space shall be the sum of all reductions in minimum lot . area as a result of the cluster form of development or the minimum recreation/open space required in Section iV-B-7-b, whichever is greater, f) Cluster open space shall not include areas devoted to public or private vehicular streets . IV-B-5-c Reductions In Lot And Setback Requirements For lots created as part of a cluster development minimum lot area, lot width and setback requirements specified in Section 4. 1 .2 may be reduced as follows: a. Minimum lot area requirements may be reduced by fifty percent (50%) but shall be no smaller than 5000 square feet. b . Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced by twenty percent (20%) , but shall be no less than fifty (50) ' feet. c. Minimum front setback requirements may be reduced by twenty-five percent (25%) except where the front lot line forms an exterior boundary of the cluster development. d . Minimum rear and side setback requirements may be reduced to ten ( 10) feet except where the rear or side lot Iine forms an exterior boundary of the cluster development. IV-B-5-d Ownership of and Conveyance of Cluster Recreation/Open Space a. Cluster recreation/open space shall be dedicated public unless the Board of Commissioners finds that the size, location, type or development or cost of development or maintenance of such space or the availability of public open/recreation space would make public use undesirable or unnecessary. c b . The applicant may request that the cluster recreation/open space be designated for private use. c. If cluster open/recreation space is not dedicated for public use, it shall be subject to approved legal arrangements sufficient to assure its maintenance and preservation for the intended purpose as provided in Section V IMPROVEMENTS. IV-13-5-e Approval of Preliminary. Plan An approved preliminary subdivision plan shall provide for total environment better than that which could be achieved under standard regulations and shall be reviewed according to the following criteria. ( a) Individual lots, buildings and streets shall be designed and situated to minimize alteration of the natural site features to be preserved ( b) The usability of cluster open/recreation space shall be determined by the size, shape, topographic and location requirements specified in Section 1V-8-7-b . (c) Cluster open space shall include irreplaceable natural features such as, but not limited to, streams, significant stands of trees, individual trees of significant size and/or species, uncommon plant communities, wildlife habitats and rock outcroppings. (d) Cluster recreation space shall be easily accessible to pedestrians, including the handicapped . (e) The suitability of cluster open space intended for scenic value shall be determined by its visibility from adjoining properties and streets and shall seek to lessen the area devoted to motor vehicle access. ( f) Diversity and originality in lot layout shalt be encouraged to achieve the best possible relationship between the land and the development (g) Up to one-fourth of the land with slopes greater than- fifteen percent may be removed or altered only when such slopes are small and isolated and otherwise do not adversely affect their design of the development. ( h) At least twenty percent of the gross land area Is designated as common open space. IV-B-5-f Application Requirements In addition to the information specified in Section 111 -D for Preliminary Plans, applications must be accompanied by: a. Applications shall be identified as Cluster Development Subdivision - Preliminary Plan -e • • b . A detailed description of the extent to which the proposed modifications depart from the standard requir ements of the applicable zoning district and the reasons for such departures. c . The location, type and area of the common open space and the adequacy of the amount and function of the open space in terms of densities and dwelling types proposed . d . Written site analysis accompanied by an illustrative site map, which identifies the following: 1 . slopes 7 1 /2 — 15% 2. slopes 15% and greater 3. vegetation 4. significant stands of trees 5. significant examples of a particular species of tree occuring in a native stand and specimen trees (those which have departed - in some respect from the standard characteristics of the species and developed a character of shape, size or branch structure that gives them a special interest 6 . drainage and waterways 7 . floodplains 8. significant rock outcroppings 9. significant scenic - vistas 10. soils with limitation for on—site wastewater systems and building development e. The manner ' in which the plan makes adequate for water and wastewater treatment. provision f . the relationship of the plan to the physical environment, the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established and the intent of the provisions providing for the establishment of a cluster subdivision. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations ®REFERENCE: Article IV-B-7-b Recreation Areas ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT:_X....Staff planning Board BOCC Public Other: Planning Board Chair/Planning Director STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION:_x_High Middle Low COMMENT: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 27, 1986 ******************************** PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To provide for the dedication of public recreation lands and/or payment in lieu by new subdivision developments. IMPACTS/ ISSUES: Section IV-B-7-b of the Subdivision Regulations contains no provisions which would require the dedication of public recreation and/or open space lands . Recreation areas can be required under Article 5 . 1 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance but only in high density ( five units per acre or greater) projects. The proposed ordinance amendment would require the dedication of such lands if park and/or open space areas are designated for the property on the, Land Use Plan . The amendment would require a payment in lieu if no such designations were shown . Payment in lieu would be determined by the fair market value as ascertained from tax records. Such payments would be earmarked for the acquisition and/or development of recreation areas. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: None PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Attached ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: MEMORANDUM. TO: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ti FROM: MARVIN COLLIN PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: MAY 23, 1986 SUBJECT: RECREATION STANDARDS - SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - ZONING ORDINANCE After meetings with representatives from other jurisdictions and the Triangle J Land Conservancy, the Recreation Director and I identified changes to the proposed recreation standards. These changes are listed below . The Board of Commissioners scheduled a public hearing on the revisions for May 27 at which time the proposed amendments will be presented for public comment . 1 . IV-B-7-b-1 Applicability This section has been revised to delete references such as "provide for" to indicate clearly that mandatory dedication or payment- in- lieu is required . A notation has also been included to denote that lands (or funds) received will be for "public" recreation purposes. A paragraph has been added to this section which "exempts" minor subdivisions (4 or less lots) from the dedication requirements. However, as soon as a property owner has subdivided land to the point that the subdivision moves from a "minor" to a "major" category, the applicant will be required to make payment- in-- lieu on all lots created under "minor" approval procedures. Such a provision provides relief for families wanting to create a limited number of lots for relatives but insures that, at some point, all new lots will contribute toward meeting recreational needs . 2. IV-B-7-b-2 D imene Iona I Requirements The formula contained i n the o r i g i n a l draft (SF = N x P x R) has been discarded and the following standards substituted : "At least one thirty-fifth ( 1/35 ) of an acre shalt be dedicated for each dwelling unit planned or provided for in the subdivision plan, except when land located in the flood plain of a stream or river as indicated by the flood plain maps of the Federal insurance Administration and/or is characterized by steep slopes ( 15% or greater) , then at least one twentieth ( 1/20) of an acre of such land shall be dedicated for each dwelling unit." The " 1/35th" standard results in approximately the same � , acreage requirement as derived by the formula . The �`��� " 1/35th" standard offers an advantage, however, in that it would result in the same amount of land dedication over time. Use of the formula would result in decreasing amounts of land as the population/household decreased . The " 1/20th" standard for floodplain is higher given the nature and location of the land . Another change to this section involves the reference to Article 5 . 1 . 1 and Article 6. 12 of the Zoning Ordinance. For high density projects (5 units/acre and above) and planned developments, the Recreation Space Ratios are proposed for amendment to require 1 /28th of an acre for each dwelling unit. The difference between the 1/35th requirement and the 1/28th standard would be established as "private" recreation for the use of the residents of high density and planned development projects. The reason for including such a provision is in recognition of the greater demands for recreation created by such projects. 3. ,IV-B-7-b-3 Site Suitability Subsection ( a) has been revised to allow locations of recreation space in areas other than those "centrally located" . Wording has been added to the effect that where proposed park sites are shown on the adopted Land Use Plan, and a subdivision plat contains a portion of the park site, then the recreation area may be located at the edge of the subdivision so that additional land may be added as adjacent land is subdivided. 4. IV-B-7-b-4 Site oyeme,rrf The first paragraph of this section has been deleted and wording added to the second paragraph which indicates that private recreation facilities (either required or provided at the option of the developer) must meet the standards contained therein . . Since the basic intent of the ordinance is to provide for "public" facilities, standards are unnecessary except for "private" recreation areas. 5 . 1,11-9-7-b-5 Method DI provJs ion Dedication This section has been amended to require mandatory dedication where land is designated on the adopted Land Use Plan for park and/or greenway purposes . Where private recreation facilities are also required (or to be provided at the developer 's option) , conveyance to an association of homeowners would be required . _ _ , 6 . 1V-B-771)-6 Payments In Lieu gf Ded iea t [op 1{`,C This section has been amended to require payment- in- lieu when no dedication was required in accord with the adopted Land Use Plan . The section has also been amended with respect to the basis for determining "fair market k. value" . Discussions with the Tax Supervisor have indicated that a simpler method for calculating fair market value is through the use of the following formula: Current Tax Appraisal Current Assessment Ratio The current assessment ratio (70% countywide) recognizes the increase in land values since the 1981 revaluation. This figure would be adjusted annually to reflect changes in land value. Its use would remove the need for a property owner to have an appraisal of property and for the County to hire a review appraiser. An example of the application of this method is as follows: Land Area ( in acres) 178.48 Current Tax Appraisal $322, 164 Divided by: Current Assessment Ratio .70 Fair Market Value $460,234 Per Acre Value - $2,578 Number of Lots (R-1 ) 164 1/35th Land Requirement ( in acres) Payment- In-Lieu 4.92 ( $ 12,683 Per Unit $77 $77 Other provisions which have been added to this section include time of payment- in- Iieu ( at time of final plat approval or within one year of approval of preliminary plat) , authority of County to sell dedicated land if decision is made not to develop or use for recreation purposes, and ability to secure combination dedication/payment- in- Iieu . Other than the "major" changes identified above, typographical errors and minor wording problems have been corrected . One other concern voiced at the public hearing has been addressed - holding of disparate parcels until development occurs . Contacts have been made with the Triangle J Land Conservancy, and they have indicated a willingness to hold the land in trust until the County is ready to develop same. The Cary Recreation Director did indicate that liability/maintenance responsibilities are almost non-existent and as long as the Jurisdiction responds to identified problems, there can be no legitimate claims of negligence. 4t- ORIGINAL DRAFT: 10-8-85 REVISED: 1-9-86 1-22-86 1-30-86 IV-B-7--b ReCre_atisil_Armla 4-23-86 1V-B-7-b-1 . ARpliag Every person , firm or corporation who subdivides land for residential and/or non-residential purposes shall be required to dedicate a portion of such land for the purpose of public recreation and/or open space areas to serve the leisure needs of the residents of the subdivision and/or preserve significant natural features and cultural resources . In all cases , the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council shall review and make recommendations to the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners on the provision or dedication of recreation and/or open space areas . The dedication of recreation and/or open space areas shall not be required for a minor subdivision; provided , however , the provisions of Article IV-B-7-b-6 (Payments In Lieu of Dedication) shall apply at the time of approval of a major subdivision to all lots previously created through the minor subdivision process following the effective date of these provisions . IV-B-7-b-2 . DimIn .ion .,ii gui rpment s At least one thirty-fifth (1/35) of an acre shall be dedicated for each dwelling unit planned or provided for in the subdivision plan , except where land is located in the flood plain of a stream or river as indicated by the flood plain maps of the Federal Insurance Administration and/or is charac- terizd by steep slopes (15% or greater) , then at least one twentieth (1/20) of an acre of such land shall be dedicated for each dwelling unit . If the application of the provisions of Article 5 . 1 .1 (Required Minimum Recreation Space ,Ratio) and Article 6 . 12 (Land Use Intensity System) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance results in a greater amount of land, then the difference between the application of the standards above and those of Article 5 . 1 .1 and Article 6. 12 shall be established as private recreation for the use of the residents of the development . The total land area dedicated as part of residential subdivision shall be determined abynoan analysis of . the site , the uses (s ) to be located thereon and the designation of recreation and/or open space sites as shown on the adopted Land Use Plan. The site analysis shall be h applicant and shall identify in written reandegraphic formthose areas characterized by steep slopes (15% or greater) , flood plains and wetlands , rock outcroppings , mature woodlands ( trees of 18 inches or greater in diameter) , existing structures and cemeteries , and lakes , ponds , rivers and other water resources . A written and graphic description shall also be submitted by the applicant which identifies the proposed use of each lot in the subdivision, the approximate amount of building and parking coverage for each lot , and the approximate number of employees associated with each use. In no case, however , shall the total land area be less than that required by application of the provisions of Article 5 .1 .2 (Required Minimum Pedestrian/Landscape Ratio) and Article 6.12 (Land Use intensity system) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. IV-B-7-b-3 . site Suit/1)2111u_ Land provided or dedicated for active recreational purposes shall be of a character , slope and location suitable for use as for play areas , tennis courts , multi-purpose courts , picnic areas , balifields and other similar recreation uses . Active recreation areas shall be located on land that is relatively. flat ( 0 to 7-1/2% slopes) , free of wetlands and/or flood plains , free of easements for public utility transmission lines , and is otherwise capable of accommodating active recreation uses . Land provided or dedicated for passive recreation and open space purposes shall be of a character , slope and location suitable for use for walking, jogging, reading and similar quiet activities , and the preservation of natural features and cultural resources such as steep slopes , rock outcrops , native plant life and wildlife cover , mature woodlands and water resources . In all cases , active and passive recreation sites as well as open space areas designated on the adopted Land Use Plan shall be incorporated into the design of the subdivision. Criteria for evaluating the suitability of proposed recreation areas shall include but not be limited to the following: 14� (a) Location . Land dedicated for recreation purposes shall be located so as to serve the needs of the immediate residents of ' the subdivision. Recreation areas shall be centrally located so as to provide , insofar as possible , equal accessibility to all residents of the subdivision ; provided, however , recreation areas may be approved in other locations where land more suited for recreational purposes due to shape , level slopes and/or dry soil conditions is 'p present . Where proposed park sites are shown on, the adopted Land Use Plan, and a Subdivision contains a portion of the park site , then the recreation area may be located at the edge of the subdivision so that additional land may be added as adjacent land is subdivided. (b) Dimity. Land dedicated for recreation purposes shall be a single parcel except where it is determined that two (2 ) or more parcels are suited to the needs of a particular subdivision. The Planning Board may recommend, and the Board of Commissioners may require, the dedication of a connecting path in addition to the land required in Section IV-B-7-b-2 of this Ordinance. Where a connecting path is necessary, a path of up to e- fifty (50) feet in width may be required, but in no case shall the path be less than thirty (30) feet in width. (c) aeaessibilj ty. Land dedicated for recreational purposes shall have at least fifty ( 50 ) feet of frontage on at least one (1) street within the subdivision. Where a recreation area is not accessible due to lot arrangement , the Planning Board may recommend, and the Board of Commissioners may require , the dedication of connecting paths which link the recreation area with other streets within the subdivision. (see figure below) Connecting paths so required shall be in addition to the land required in Section IV-B-7-b-2 of this Ordinance. Connecting paths of up to fifty (50 ) feet in width may be required but in no case shall the paths be less than thirty (30) feet in width. MEMMIlmommommr i ill0111114 `ems _ Conaecti..s ,� Paths i 4111114 Aramo-- -) 71:cal - , ..--- . . MM.E17-` . 1V-B-7-b-4 . al-e.-I en is Private recreation facilities , either required or provided at the option of the applicant , shall . meet the standards for site improvements contained herein. When choosing improvements for a recreational area , the anticipated characteristics and needs of the residents shall be considered in conjunction with the size of the development , any physical constraints posed by the site , and the availability of other improvements within the same general area as the subdivision. As an example, the existence of a multi-purpose court in an adjacent , existing subdivision and the availability of the facility for use by residents of the proposed subdivision may indicate to the applicant that another facility, such as a tennis court , would be more appropriate. Recreation facilities which are suitable for various age groups include, but are not limited to those shown on the following receptacles shall be provided for all precreati+onal areas regardless of the number and type of other improvements located thereon. • RECREATION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS .E GROUP FACILITY RECOMMENDED -- -----�-- RECOMMENDED RECOMMEND SPACE SIZE AND ORIENTATION REQUIREMENTS DIMENSIONS Families To t Lot ____.. T Enclosed play 2 , 000-4 , 000 Enclosed play None specifiA P y sq. ft . area of 21 sq. ft . area with play per family. Turfed apparatus and sand box. area and shaded. 2 . Open, turfed area for active play. area of at least 40 sq, ft . each. 3 . Shaded area for quiet activity. Families Basketball Court 4, 400-8 , 000 46 ' x 74 ' to Adults sq. ft . 50 ' x 941 Long axis Court dimensions north-south . with 5 ' unobstruct- ed space on all sides . Families Badminton Court 1 , 500-2 , 600 Singles-17 ' x 44 ' Long axis sq. ft . Doubles-20 ' x 44 ' north-south , with 5 ' unobstruct- ed space on all sides . Families Tennis Courts Adults 6 , 200-8 , 400 36 ' x 78' with Senior sq. ft . 12 ' clearance north-south . axis Citizens on both sides ; arth�-south . 21 ' at both ends . Families Volleyball Court Adults 2 , 800-4, 000 30 'x60 ' with Long axis sq. ft . 10 ' clearance . on all sides . north-south . Families Soft Sallfield Adults 1 . 5`2 . 0 Baselines-65 ' Locate home acres Pitching dis- plate so tance 40 ' -46 ' Field radius pitcher throe ing across s from plate- and batter n•. 275 ' between -facing it . foul lines . Line from ho - plate throu• pitchers mou runs east -_------- north -east . r • Families Soccer Field 1 . 7-2 . 1 195 ' to 225 ' x Fall season acres 300 ' to 360 ' long axis with ' l0 ' minimum northwest clearance on all southeast ; to sides . longer periods , port to south. Families T Handball Court Lo _„ Adults 1 , 000 sq. ft . 20 ' x 40 ' - (3-Wall ) g axis Minimum of 10 ' to north south. rear . Minimum 20 ' Front wall at overhead clear- north end. ance . Families Sw imm i n g Pool 0 . 5-2 . Minimum Adults of 27 sq. None-although Senior acres ft . of water sur- care must be Citizens face per swimmer . taken in Ratio -of 2 :1 deck siting of vs . water . lifegard Stands i relation ti afternoon sun Families Pedestrian pat hh s� None Adults Well defined head None Senior room with maximum Citizens 10 ' width . Maximum average grade 5%, not to exceed 15%. Path width 6 ' -8 ' , Senior Shuffleboard Citizens sq. ft . 10 ' x 52 ' with Long axis 2 . 5 ' clearance at north-south,: both ends ; 2 ' clearance on both sides . Senior Horseshoes 240 sq . ft . 6 ' Long 6 square pitchers bong axis box. Steel stakes north-south . 1" diameter , 14" above ground, spaced 40 ' apart . Senior Croquet Court 1 , 800 sq . ft . 25 ' x 55 ' Ditizens playing Long axis area with 2 . 5 ' north-south. clearance on all sides . ( Families Park bench , — ________ i4C Families One (1 ) Minimum table None other picnic tables and picnic table dimensions - (: iior grills and trash per 50 36"Wi;72"Lx30"H. ofashading fc Citizens receptacles residents shading fc Tables , benches picnic tables 50 sq. ft . of and other similar and benches . land per facilities securely table. anchored to ground. Families P i c n i c shelter `� ------ Adults structure One (1 ) open Minimum shelter None. _ Senior shelter per dimensions - Citizens 60 residents 20 'x30 ' with minimum of ten (10) picnic tables and • accompanying benches located therein and securely anchored to ground. Fireplace shall be installed at one end. . . . . . ....... .. . Ams • 14 In addition to land provided or dedicated for active recreation purposes , sufficient area shall be provided (. to make available a minimum of five ( 5) off-street parking spaces for the first two (2 ) acres of each recreation site and one ( 1 ) space for each additional acre thereafter . Where any of the following facilities are also provided, off-streets parking as required shall be provided in addition to the general standard above. Swimming pool One (1) space for each five (5) patrons Soccer and ball fields Eight (8) spaces per acre Tennis/handball courts Two (2 ) spaCes per court Picnic Shelter area One (1) space for each ten (10) patrons . Each off-street , parking space shall be a minimum of nine ( 9) feet in width and eighteen length. A minimum back-up aisle of twenty fourt(24) feet in width shall be provided for access to and from each space. Bay parking is prohibited, and entrance to and exit from each parking area shall be by forward motion of the vehicle. One (1 ) of the provided must be barrier-free and identifiiedgfor Use by individuals with physical disabilities . Handicapped spaces shall be at, least twelve (12 ) feet in width and shall be designed as follows : (a) So that handicapped individuals are not compelled to wheel or walk behind parked cars : (b) So that handicapped individuals can get into and out of an automobile unto a level surface , •suitable for wheeling and walking; and (c) In conjunction with sidewalk cut-aways and/or ramps , not exceeding five percent (5%) slope. IV-B-7-b-5 . Me,thad of Proviaian_lu.....pg.ditAlls211 Land dedicated for public recreation area as required (. by this Ordinance shall be designated on both the preliminary and final plat (s ) of the subs land must be dedicated to an appropriate unit s of government as publicly--owned and maintained; provided, however , recreation areas so dedicated shall be subject to acceptance by the unit of local government . Determination of the appropriate unit of local government shall be made by the Board of Commissioners , upon recommendation from the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council and the Planning Board . Land provided for private recreation purposes must be conveyed to the trustees provided in an indenture establishing an association of homeowners. The recreation area must be conveyed to the trustees subject to covenants and easements to be approved by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners and which provide for the continued maintenance and control of the recreation area in a manner which assures its continuing use for its intended purpose. Where the recreation area is conveyed to a homeowners association , the subdivider shall file a declaration of covenants and restrictions in accordance with the provisions of Section V of this ordinance. 1V-B-7-b--6 . Pumani__ltl_Litu_ adiaati on Any subdivider required to dedicate recreation area pursuant to this Ordinance may, with the approval of the Board. of Commissioners , make a payment in lieu of dedication or make a combination of land dedication and payment . Before approving a payment in lieu of dedication , the Board of Commissioners shall find that no recreation and/or open space sites have been designated on the Land Use Plan for the property in question . A payment in lieu of dedication shall equal the number of acres required to be dedicated multiplied by the fair market value of the land to be dedicated. Fair market value shall be determined by dividing the tax appraisal of the property at last re-evaluation by the current year assessment ratio. Upon approval by the Board of Commissioners , payment in lieu of dedication shall be made at the time of final subdivision plan approval or within one (1 ) year of approval of the preliminary subdivision plan , whichever occurs first . All monies received by Orange County pursuant to these requirements shall be used only for the acquisition and/or development of recreation, park and/or open space sites . i4 The Board of Commissioners shall also have the authority to sell land dedicated pursuant to these provisions with the proceeds of any such sale used solely for the acquisition and/or development of other recreation, park or open space sites . • C COMPARISON OF Rf7-"t EATI ON` STANDARDS ZONING DISTRICT AR, R-1 R-2 R_3 R-4 R-5 R-8 R-13 MINIMUM LOT AREA PER 40,000 SF 20,QQQ SF 15 DWELLING UNIT ,004 SF 10,000 5F 7,500 SF 5,040 SF 8,000 SF REQUIRED MINIMUM RECREATION SPACE RATIO -- __ .033 .039 .449 (LOT-BY-LOT DEVELOPMENT) RSR (EXISTING) GROSS RESIDENTIAL LAND 100 AC 100 AC AREA (G.L.A.) 100 AC 100 AC 100 AC 100 AC 100 AC CONVENTIONAL LOT - REQUIRED MINIMUM RECREATION SPACE 3.3 AC 3.9 AC 11.9 AC (RSP x GLA - LUI) REQUIRED MINIMUM RECREATION .019 425.022 . 'SPACE RATIO (PLANNED •034 •036 .042 .052 DEVELOPMENT) RSR (EXISTING) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - 1 .9 AC 2.2 AC REQUIRED MINIMUM RECREATION 2.5 AC , 3.0 AC 3.6 AC 4.2 AC SPACE {RSR x GLA - LUI 5:2 AC , MAXIMUM NO. OF LOTS IN 92 1$5 246 SUBDIVISION 374 493 A O 1 ,234 , 1135th STANDARD (.b3 AC) 2.76 5.53 73$ PROPOSED , 11,10 14.79 22.20 X7.02 1128th STANDARD (,04 AC) NA NA NA PROPOSED NA 19.72 29.60 49,36 ADJUSTED MINIMUM RECREATION .QZ$ SPACE RATION (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) .156 .074 . ]1] .197 .296 .494 RSR - BASED ON 1/35th STANDARD THROUGH R-4 AND 1/28th STANDARD R-5 AND ABOVE c DIFFERENCE .{PRIVATE -1: � NA e IECREATION REQUIRED) NA NA 4.93 7.4. 92.34 EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS 3.1.E Ai I1rr1l11.13 VON IIES IIlewr1Ar. 1 , ' 1ual.'rrlAk111.91= ita:sin:±lrrsA:. El[17'I:B.f3 f'181��tlHiellf Ndli"s4 Islu E'31HII.Y+ • Hill. MYr ARM 1'1:11 14111. 110 1Ki1:E.1.3tic; ficr' PIVNI 131fbI; 6 HAIr. 8F.11[i. "I". (r1tose I�. 11111. tIUAC I[P.AIt IMIGUT ni'i3id FgQ-. him. - 11±tiT i11l+71r 333:1'uACx SE=8AC1C F.ntl11 AF MA IrEit MAIL. ArAve �'Q• Hl„• _ ~ ._---- .__---------- (PIPS *110 81A'611L[i 1.1V8n81111'a'Y ItECIe8AT1011 r[rr +Ill,t1[lo - _ VAR RA'riA tIPACB RATIO SPACI: 104'114 tl Ct1-I 4n,ofm 150 411 20 25 _ _ - --•_ - - } 23 00r000 22 'Oge .04 .?5 .1319 l P t+-. 40,1100 1]t! 411 lose .44 X73 I 40,0x,0 2ri 2S - 1•11-2 40,0(10 - - 00,0011 22 .050 25 Q0011Q 22 .g4 .75 .fl1R urr 211,11110 1011 ltl - .05e .134 .73 .Dig 1111-1 20,081 _ 15 35 _ ` 211,0110 _ - 25 43,0013 28 ,U7G - I�Yr _ 15,11110- 1110 _-.__- _-45,0[10 2D .UA .117 .70 .027 7 1111-1 _ _ ]0 1s� 25 _ . . . '.._.. - .e2 - ._._72 .Qa3 110-2 _ _ - 25 30 01111 lip .111[1 - 25 131,0310 .RO .s$ .02s --. - 31 .107 .60 .63 1a1r itl,Iltltl 75 25 IQ ^- .1126 25 1�:OUQ 35 - -I�rr. �7 50t1 --- 25 13,rf0Q ]G .153 .?8 .54, .010 r 511 20 10 25 .75 _ .3] .030 I'll-1 - 1D .1 74 .77 -_ lw-2 - _ 23 10,000 4tf .53 ,013 _ 25 .200 .76 .33 ..016 ltrr 5,000 So ID,DilO 41 .214 .76 I'ta-1 _ 2u a a3 .51 .013 47 25 ?.flue 43 .246 .75 .49 .039. .2e3 .?# I.(rr ..--],0110_ 50 - 25 7,000 46 .301 .13 .45, ,042 act � .4s ,il�� 1 111►-1 - _ �5 - 40 , .314 25 5,000 311 .?3 , .43 .049_�- 23 3,0310 51 .400 .72 1 1x11 •-, .429 .41 .315r PD-1 .. _ 33 3,000 30 .1100 - r .025 35 -I'1r•2 - _ - _ 33 $,403) 4e .300 .76 ,33 w 73 3,000 41 .214 _ .E1 .039 45 . 3*000 eQ _- �_....,...._._ �..,_ --•--- 45 3e411138 i8 .4Q1' ,73 1 .44 .033 1x17' Orr,[1110 -•_•_'_1 331 40 .- 1409 � ] • 20 25 1100.2 _ � •• 35 - � '.�• 1,000 4p - a5 3,a1c1D 41 .314 ,a� .153 .016 a °Sg Proposed Ariendments r, 5.3.1 s"ll"xII& v011 'it's 111:irrM. IIYViiiAi'1111ri'Z 111114114 AW 'flit) t'AHlt,7e HIIl:1'iF'liIIE1,Yt ;t1:SlIilS;tirlAt, !it}7'l:l.ise ligUHll][i tatMifil:li� i;ri4, . Hill. L[Yt' AIWA 11VII HIU. 111rQ. BIN, i ieu. Hllr. [�lllil,r.]lrr; ltrr MAX.NnX isr,]]t;. Hill. Allos's r'[trrtl�' R8+111 Ilk ICUT CAllll AIWA ldll 1>M>s. AY�tI Pt'd?� ftlil. Fula H1ll. i+Ili'i' tt11Yi1i 011,11ACK SCTISACIC . . apar I,iVSAa�r.ilrit lO:CRi:ATiUti W1110 1 All Mill Ak'ACH 8111'1il ai'ACI.' r1A'rlq fir[' 4tr,tlttO 1 tifi 4U 2[} . 25 - _ _ - �.... 1-13-7 4r3,ut]ls_ _ _ ss 80'atin 32 .s]50 .02x3 ..._. __ i! [A3I•- $u,,01313 t q1I - 25 00,000 22 .0511 .44_-��.•_�.75 _ .0 all E'r3-•t 25 . [+]-t 40,nnu _ - _ 75 00,0011 77 .050 .04 -ilIT 20.1lull }q[] lst 15 25 RU,gf][] a2 .05a .0� .75 •034 t't I'i3-1 1t],tlnu •a _...,•. ...-T- 20,01113 _ 2 26 .U76 1 _.. ._-____-- ------ a' 4 5 f3UU . 2[s .111 7Z '0r� _ _,,,tll3t]• 1110 30 _�_.. : . . ... .tlisl .q7 5.9 VD-2 - _ _ 25 3f]et]rl[1 7q .10{l - _ 25 30,OU4 31 .107 tits' I),two 75 25 lA 25 35 ,.141 .74 rir+• 7,5titr 5r] •213 w 1Q 25 - - 36 .152 .70 .53 l5 rn-1 - 25 30 .174 Al .52 .197.- r 30,000 40 .200 ,7G 25 10,UUO 41 .51 .57 .200, 50 2U �5 - - .714 .76 47 .246 .7S .296 ----. 7,000 45 .203 .4 0 gg �._25 7,000 50 .4G 4G Jul .1] ' 1 3 I r►-1 - xtf tl 25 - 4tl 344 73 . 25 5,U0t3 �0 . .45 .400 .72 .g4 , girl,1- .- - -_.25 5,000 51 .42+3 .72 .47 t'13.2 - - 35 5,{11]4 30 _ .071 - _ ` .IUO S,UOU - 31 .101 ,00 .62 .077 35 5,000 40 .200 .76 43 214 .76 .57 .II 4 _ _ :.61 5 45 r 511 .41111 .7 .44 .200 _. �if 4r],i]r1p 110 4R--_._... ..._�.- ._•_._......,,.�...._ .479 .�7 ...�.._ _ .43 ..-......_....2D3 ...._-___ fl 25 ,-....-4- 1 35 - _ ------A--- tli3.2 35 5r{}1]tl 4U -. " .1.3 2 r t+Q r 7 .117 Amm Itit! PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE: Article IV-B-8 -- Landscaping and Buffer Requirements 7 ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X_Staff Planning Board BOCC Public ( Other: Planning Board Chair/Planning DIrector STAFF PRIORITY• RECOMMENDATION:_x_High Middle Low COMMENT: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 27, 1986 ******************************** PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To provide more definitive standards for the provision of buffers between incompatible land uses and to set standards for the preservation of existing tree cover and installation of new vegetation where nonexistent. ISSUES/ IMPACTS: Existing ordinance provisions provide an open-ended standard regarding buffer strips and no provision for preservation of existing tree cover. The proposed standards will address such concerns and will enable the County to protect important ecological , aesthetic, recreational and economic assets. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Attached Article IV-B-8 ( Subdivision Regulations) . (. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Attached - Revision to Article IV-B-8. ************************************ ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: April 16, 1986 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: May 13, 1986 BOCC REVIEW: ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE: Article IY-B-8 - Buffer Strip ' ']R i G I N OF AMENDMENT:_X_Staff Planning Board _ BOCC Public Other: Planning Board Chair/Planning Director STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION:...,,x_H i gh Middle Low COMMENT: . EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 26, 1986 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To provide more definitive standards for the provision of buffers between incompatible land uses and to set standards for the preservation of existing tree cover and installation of new vegetation where nonexistent. ISSUES/ IMPACTS: Existing ordinance provisions provide an open-ended standard regarding buffer strips and no provision for preservation of existing tree cover. The proposed standards will address such concerns and will enable the County to protect important ecological , aesthetic, recreational and economic assets. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Attached - Article IV-8_8 ' ' Subdivision Regulations) . PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Attached - Revision to Article IV-B-8. ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE April 16 , 1986 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: :_. I l5_B BUFFER STRIP • . . A buffer strip may be required in a subdivision adjacent to railroads , Limited access highways , commercial , development , industrial development , critical areas of natural environment and agricultural areas where the Planning Board shall find an incompatibility betweeen the existing use and the proposed use . The Planning Board shall determine whether the buffer strip shall be of maintained natural vegetation or other materials such as fencing . This strip shall be a part of platted lots , but shall have the following restriction lettered on the face of the plat "The building of structures is prohibited on this strip pursuant to Section IV—B-8 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations . " The nature of the existing use on the Lot adjoining the buffer strip shall also be indicated on the plat . *IV—B--5 WATERSHED RO ECTI N STAMDAFEDS *Amended In every subdivision , provision shall be made for 11 --19-95 the protection of water supply watersheds of regional importance . Lands which are within the boundaries of such watersheds shall be subdivided and developed only after r°pro e p provision is made for the preservation of vegetative buffers adjacent to streams draining to existing or proposed i reservoir sites and the first one—half EL/al inch of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces is infiltrated into the soil . IV—B-9- a. Applicability Water supply watersheds requiring special protective measures include all property Located within the Neuse and Cape Fear River basins outside the zoned portions of water supply watersheds designated in the Orange County Land Plan . IV--O--S—b Stre_em Buffer Standards In all new subdivisions Located wtihin a water supply watershed of regional importance , the preliminary and/or final plat of such subdivisions may not be approved unless stream buffers are provided in accordance with the following standards : 1 ) Stream buffers shall be provided aLong all perncnnial streams within or bordering new ( 32 • Y AM • 15c a IV-13-8 . sCa ' an ' 8u a Re ' r nt5 IV-B-8-a , A iaa i it In every subdivision , provision shall be made for the protection , preservation ; proper maintenance and use of trees and wand Lands located within the subdi ui si ran regulation jurisdiction of Orange County in order to achieve the following : ( a) To prevent damage from erosion , siltation and flooding , and to wildlife habitats ; (b ) To absorb pollutants , filter impurities and add oxygen to the atmosphere ; (c) To modify the climate through reduction of temperatures and absorption/reflection of solar radiation ; NO To serve as buffers between incompatibLe land uses through visual screening and the reduction of noise and glare ; and (e) To provide important physical , aesthetic , recreation and economic assets to existing and future residents of Orange County . Where tracts or parcels of land are to be subdivided which have been cleared or harvested of trees prior to application for subdivision approval , provision shall be made for the installation , maintenance and use of new trees and vegetation in accordance with the provisions of this Article . '-B-8-b. Protection of Existing Vegetation On any Land for which application for subdivision approval has been made , no person , firm or corporation shall remove or cause to be removed any trees or athr vegetation except in accordance with approved plans . Concurrent with the submission of a final plat for minor subdivision approval , or a preliminary of a major subdivision , the subdividerashallthsubmit plans or drawings at the same scale as the plat which kL identify stands of existing trees and those trees .which are to be preserved upon project completion , specifying their location and approximate size . Differentiation shall also be made on the plans between deciduous and evergreen plant species and between existing trees to be preserved and proposed planted trees . • • 15" :V-B-8-b71 . D - s • n - " .. T - - P - ser etion Are - - Existing trees , regardless ofs1ze , siallanotiaeaeycutr �r otherwise damaged or destroyed protection area , and existing trees having a diameter of one (1 3 foot or greater shall not be cut , damaged or destroyed within a secondary tree pro.tectian area defined as fo LLows: • (a) P 'm r T P etE tian Ara That portion of a subdivision or any Lot therein :which is to- be used for required recreation or open space area ; front , rear and side yard setback areas ; and/or buffer requirements of this Ordinance o r- the Orange County Zoning Ordinance . - In unzoned townships , forty (40 ) foot front yard setb-ack shall be provided adjacent to a street right--of-way line for the preservation of existing tress . A twenty ( 203 foot setback shall be provided along side and rear property lines for the same purpose . (b) g - , . . v T e - P - i ,n Acme., Any portion of e subdivision or any tot therein not included within the Primary Tree Protection Area . gaglatigal Upon approval of a final plat for a minor subdivision , or a preliminary plat for a major subdivision , existing trees may be removed only from designated street rights- of-way and utility and/or storm water drainages easements . In cases where the retention of existing trees would create unusual hardship or development problems i n building sites , recreation , open space , setback and/or buffer areas , the Planning Director or his/her designee shall determine when such hardships exist . and may designate that certain areas be planted - with new vegetation in lieu of preserying existing trees . The Planning Director or his/her designee may approve the planting of new trees if one or more of the following conditions exist : ( a ) Necessity to remove trees which pose a safety hazard to proposed buildings ; (b ) Necessity to remove diseased . trees or trees weakened by age , storm , fire or other injury ; ( c) Necessity to remove trees in order to construct proposed improvements as a result of the need for • 15c DESIGNATION OF THE PRESERVATION AREAS f ♦1t♦ �1 • ♦ ♦! 1♦♦♦! 1`♦♦♦ • !i ♦♦ mod. r a P ♦♦:♦♦+i♦+ #*f♦♦♦♦1 .i♦ •PAN SPACE *♦♦+ * ♦#♦♦ . . ,.. ♦ ♦ ♦ ► )i■ ,.*:*♦ ♦♦♦r♦♦♦♦�♦♦♦♦I ♦ 1♦♦!1 * fI*•Os..f ! ♦♦ i !1!i1 ♦♦ m • � ��# e ♦ �♦1 � ��♦�♦ ♦,, ♦ r, � � * s♦♦♦ f ♦ . •",. r. i'1�1"I11 ♦.♦. 1 ♦�,its *��• *�� ,�.� � 1.1♦♦mil -+:;:A ' c .!t64. a *f� ca r 5. te. -wo ♦ , *.-: 04: **1'. 'V • , %VG' 1.: 4,,t-V• ,A x - . ..1 ! 4014:144,-*. I:A ";'..4;101/ fo• - - --• 4; ).f2 4 ".;;1■;.- • Irt 449 r • -44 IT,"4.y., 4° *A 'A • ..0"110 _l°,°:4 *Ai .. .ory-•01)* 44 0 • - .rdrls-44, • y P.,, ♦ i1111` s 44. 1.-4.—#20 �� ♦ .414�f11111111fl� ►i 3ff51tP4♦♦♦♦s•• ♦♦ rrf ! R !1!!1♦ At,.♦ ♦4 ►• ,v.* •♦�+• •li�i�♦♦i4► /� ►*- �e OFFICE COMPLEX 44"q&- V..441 , APP fifr.• ... SIT:sammommmerimml �4. 1. w►.u� .. %+rmr 1 , _ . Legend: ►!� PRIMARY TREE PROTECTION AREA (Open space/recreation areas.; required buffer-strips; and front, rear and side yard setback areas) SECONDARY TREE PROTECTION AREA • • • • • access around proposed buildings for construction equipment ,, the need for access to the Lot or building site for construction equipment , and the need to account for essential grade changes , • surface water drainage and utility installations ;. ( d) Necessity to observe. good foresty practices , i .e . , the number of healthy trees that a given parcel of Land will support ; and ( e) Necessity to remove trees which may pose a safety hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic or threaten to cause disruption of public services . :v- 3—sib-3 . .ate i ye M,a3sts des During the development and construction of a subdivision or any Lot therein , adequate protective measures shall be provided to minimize damage to existing trees and other vegetation . Protective devices such as •a cord fence with strips of surveyor ' s flagging attached shall be installed prior to any grading , construction work or traffic taking place near trees to be retained , and shall be maintained until all work has been completed . Such devices shalt effectively protect the roots , trunks and tops of trees to be retained . Grading shalt not take place within the drip Line of trees to be retained . Where grading within a tree drip Line cannot be avoided , the following measures shall be used to maintain the life of trees : ( a ) Limit cuts and fills to one—fourth (1 /4) to one— half (1/2) of the area within the drip Line of a tree ; (b ) Avoid cuts and fills around the entire circumference of the tree ; ( c ) Root prune a tree several months prior to any cuts within the drip Line ; (d) Prune tree Limbs in an amount which reflects the area of the roots severed , but in no case allow pruning to exceed thirty percent (30%) of the limb area . Fertilize and water the undisturbed site of the tree ; ( e) Where cuts have Left roots exposed to the air , cut roots clean and paint Promptly with a tree paint ; and • • • • teL• ( fl Avoid filling within the drip Line of a tree without sgme method being installed such as a tree well to allow the tree to breathe and to allow water to reach the roots . • Vehicular traffic, storage of heavy equipment and stockpiling of soil or . other materials shall not be permitted within the drip Lines of trees to be retained . No paving with concrete , asphalt or other impervious - material within the drip tine of trees to be retained shall he allowed . IV-B-8-c . nds ' n S nd cj� Where a subdivision is proposed either on land which has been previously cleared, or trees have been approved for removal under one or more of the exceptions Listed in Article IV-B--8--b-2 , new trees shall be planted in accordance with the provisions of this Article . IV-B-8-c- I . Aeau re °1I As a requirement of a subdivision approval , - the subdivider shall plant sufficient trees so that there is at Least one ( 1l tree for every thirty (30 ) feat of frontage along both sides of all proposed streets in the. subdivision . In addition , there shalt be at Least one II ] tree for every two hundred and twenty-five ( 225) square feet of Land area designed for required recreation or open space area , and side and rear yard setback areas as required by this Ordinance or the Orange County Zoning Ordinance . Approved open play fields , building sites and other similar recreational faci Lities are exempted from landscaping requirements . Trees to be planted in required recreation and/or side and rear yard areas shall be spaced thirty (303 feet an center. Trees to be planted in required buffer areas shall be installed in accordance with the provisions o f Article iv-B-8-d of this ordinance . V-B-8-c--2 . Installation and Mai ntenange Existing Landscape material in a healthy condition may be used to satisfy the requirements of this Article in whole or in part when such material achieves the intent of this Article . Sound and accepted horticultural practices s h e l l be used to protect the root zones of a l l retained existing plant material during construction and also during underground utility installation . All new Landscaping shell be of good quality and installed in a sound , workmanship-Like manner and according to the • . • . REQUIRED LANDSCAPING• �. BUiLDiNG . . - - - A �ry : )- _' SITE "�."%It ily RECREATION . �'���r �...1f� ► r , •."- . AREA � � 4? - y ` ',t�t'v� �. 7 .�� M� BUILDING 401.1,1 _,riN3 3p, -..,-_ �, ~►�. +rY-, �1 SITE� \� t gyp., ..— `. AV x ET A Call. �l N. �~�T" / ¼'ç, �)4' ��� it._. 4%,...x/A-iplAVAIr.0,■,.. IV,. 0' i ..., ..:,-h" 11--4414 Alikilfgelk-11 ,..--7„,,,,,v00, 4; . : s. .....„, , ,,,,,, ,...,. ,,k....,.r.d, Nr.,,,,, .,,,,,,,,,,,, , , ,, , 1.s.:M4: .--....--mitlitt -----st , ---N -44.- -• 4 ‘if, 61 X .:f At. ..y.,00.____ _,Air, _ 4,... ..„*„.. ..„ --s---v , ,. .„.. i., , ,,,, .- - . - -440va r.-... -.........47-?... • ..1\,....._ ,'• , U 0- 4,. •••N'zipri," . - PLAY 1*17 �FIELD ......vitz A .- ... . ; . 4', .1-T =. ts,1,fr0_- e'—. lA As,APrA.. i*.'/��r ►�.:� r ' - BUILDING � , �.•`.A:C_.9 • f'r`S: •h 1�• i h° SITE . - ,0- apitirMln: \.,,,;:\.,,,e,.., 4 Vi :--%T!,,,sil - 1-- T.,.....\■Witio.- MA* - -,<:-... „-*Ar■ `f w *447‘ ;' 4040-1.1 `04 ‘'4:1-.. 41111.;S" .14.10r1/4-1/Pligt -"- ''*-1 -z441,4-1r.I.INWA-fAk vai1/44...... tOk.....t,- /tie. Vei-,- , elik._ 41.,' A �,�'-,,-- \ �V BUILDING \• ::W Legend: °- -- STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE/ PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE • RECREATION/OPEN SPACE BOUNDARY i, �,,; TREE SYMBOL C • • • following .planting procedures (See Appendix for details) : ( a ) Planting holes 'shall be dug at least one—third .(1/3 ) Larger than the root. ball . If the soil is poor, holes should be dug two ( 2) or three (3l times Larger than the ball and backfi LLed with rich top soil . • (b ) Plants shall be planted in their permanent Location immediately upon delivery to the site . Plants shall be installed so that the top of the root ball is one and one half ( 1 1/2) inches below around Level. . String around the stem of the plant shall be removed and the burlap around the root ball. folded from the top after the plant is in the hole . Soil around the plant shall be tamped to remove air • pockets , and a good mulch applied tc help retain moisture , (c) ALL trees shall be staked to prevent winds from Loosening the roots . ( d) A L L plants shall be soaked thoroughly with water immediately after planting and once a week ( unless soaking rains occur) thereafter during the first growing season . ( e) ' Deciduous trees and shrubs shall be cut back to between one—half (1/2) and one—third (1/4) their original size following planting . Evergreens are required to have only light pruning and shaping after transplanting . . Where new Landscape materi a is are to be installed , the type of Landscape material to be used in meeting the requirements of this Article shall be compatible with plant materials existing both on - the property to be subdivided and on adjoining properties . No synthetic plant materials may be used to satisfy the requirements At installation , trees shall not be Less than ten (IC ) in height , and shrubs shall not be Less than twenty—four ( 24) inches in height . In any event , plant material required for the purposes of this Article shall be of such initial size to reach the required height within two ( 2) growing seasons after installation . Installation and construction practices shall be utilized which preserve and replace existing topsoi l . The owner or developer of the property shall be responsible for the continued proper maintenance of all Landscaping materials and shall keep them in a proper , • neat and orderly appearance , free from refuse and debris , in accordance with the provisions of Article of this Ordinance . • V--B-8-d . Buff er_ Ractui rerun1s Buffers shall be required to separate a proposed subdivision from adjacent major streets -end different Land uses or zoning designations in order to protect , preserve and promote the visual appeal , character and value of the proposed subdivision and/or surrounding property ; to provide for the separation of spaces and provide for a sense of priva cy ; to promote the public health , safety and welfare through minimizing potential nuisances such as the transmission of noise , odor , dust , litter and glare of Lights ; and to provide screening between incompatible Land uses . except as otherwise ci fi rail!' provided in this Cr dirarce , the tyre oA qu4 yi buffer re red bsteen a � e proposed subdivision and adjacent streets , land uses or zoning designations shall be as specified in Article • IV-B-8-d-3 of ,this ordinance . V-B-8-d- 1 . t-.2c ; ,ic,n end Use of euj;fer ice- Z Required buffers shall be Located along the interior or street Lot Lines nearest the adjacent streets , Land uses and/or zoning designations . Suffers shall not be Located on any portion of an existing or p ropo-sod street right-of-way or utility easement . No building or structure of any type shall be erected , constructed or installed in a required buffer area . r-B_8-d-2 . Geri nnati on f Buffers A required buffer shall be designated as a part of platted Lots and shall have the following restriction Lettered on the face of both the preliminary and final plats of the subdivision : "Land Use Suffer : The use and maintenance of this buffer and the building of structures thereon is restricted pursuant to Article IV-B-8-d of the Orange County Subdivision ;eautaticns . " The nature cf the street , land use and/or zoning designation adjoining the subdivision and/or the required buffer shell also be noted on the plat . -B-8-d-j-. Schedule or penal red Suffers • • 161. The type of buffer required between a proposed subdivision and adjacent streets , Land uses and/or zoning designations shall be as specified in the following table . The type of buffer required is determined by the existing and/or proposed principle • usefsl in the subdivision for which approval is requested . To determine which type o•f buffer is required adjacent to an existing and/or proposed Land use , identify the existing and/or proposed principall use( sl in the subdivision , then identify the ' adjacent • existing and/or proposed land uses . The type of buffer required is identified at the intersection of the two columns . . • To determine which type of buffer is required adjacent to Land which is vacant and designated in a particular zoning district , identify the existing and/or proposed principle usets ) i-n the subdivision , than identify the adjacent vacant Land zoning design ticn . The •type of buffer required is Identified at the intersection of the two columns. If different land use types are proposed within the subdivision , the type of buffer required between such uses shall. be determined by employing the same procedures . For the purposes of this . Article , "adjacent" Land uses, and vacant Lands shall also include uses and - Lands across a street , other than an interstate highway , from the proposed subdivision . IV-B-8-d-4 . Standards for Required, Buffers The types of buffers as described in the following table are to be used as the basis for the schedule of Required Buffers set forth in Article IV-B-8-d-3 . An opaque screen is intended to exclude completely a l l visual contact between uses and to create a strong impression of spacial separation . A semi -opaque screen is intended to partially block visual contact between uses while maintaining a sense of spacial separation . Compliance of planted vegetative buffers will be judged on the basis of the average height and density of foliage of the subject species upon maturity . Compliance of existing vegetative buffers will be judged on the basis of field observation . Upon maturity , the semi -opaque or portion of intermittent visual obstructions should not contain any completely unobstructed openings more than ten ( 10 ) feet in width . Suggested planting patterns to achieve the buffer standards are provided in Appendix New plant (. •saSaAAa3•IAJnIrn3116 . I L 1.:.. u../l c 1 G] j `� �{ ' 1 t df ^ {rti^{ . — • 1apssnpus pouuow plan 'duiueCOSawaa �4wouo�� 1 • .0 pun r 'l IosJysnpul LJ.. 14.1 47 G C.� Ca ti+- w C ¢ � ! su014a,waasag 'IaIJJSnpul Suuyssx3 buauol r c7 ta'Jysnpul ( I = pun a. InrzisamuCo Ou'iiiz; IA1aJisJSwaO i 1`f pun !o} JS1uwao IoJaue•rj IJ0 La... LL1 G7 = e- C.? Lam. = r.,1 tan.. @. �I C7 .1o! ' WUlo'� Aiiwwjlo� ••+. zsz �.a . .m..' I IcgnJawwn 10 o pars 75 IOf?JJYltyQ.') pooaJ.ntl87itj LJ.t C.7 67 C 410 =I, 4V 1.Ir � . '1Auo14nlI{fill a3I}�Q " . + :�.' ..u� C1 IclJa+rl,+Itaa LJ0 LJ.a a I c7I r I ►� 1 � -� *-•.` L.1..1 LJw, 6e.... Gl C'-��. losyuepssi�l LJ.JI , C7` C�I �I �, LJ.. raCILJ,jI ;41m+I,a..4iC?�cI ! 9 194 unp!144 C=I C_7 = I - 1 C 1.�I C? C I C 1=1 La...I I.t..,Q =I f i slaDsda dusr� ' 7 l°411"113!")2 C� 1=I iI 0 c 14... C =I '. G �14.k. Ls.m11_S 1 4`jI G..i CD • I,,w,..�s ! C ia►dumPts11 a* = c « C= 1� t�l e a pI W..- c� (B .. ccZ lalduep!„.11 I..I .>. ... I CSI C3 u.. LJ� U.a t' I I I .-..�1 -...�.. LL 1 IL1ii! ..�,_ l irm1640pesev I ..:c co c._ '4= L.r-d 1.tm •- Lind I Ind I ="11 CZ 1 Lam.14A..1 1.41LS„ j la..i S..1,2,1 I1 IIS.t iorfi21•I"'IIrL 96'7 1'r=."'"''-....7-•=1 1 C=II CZ La. i.J.y CH c .; :1 u.4_..: J.! {,.j,. buyii>],7AJd/$u!J<iynD}nuDy. L .1 L+� L� L.1 1 4�d C.� G� �,+1 `4 I"�• µ• 1 D lat./4=1,41 uosyng1 i1priwwy}zJgrA <,W _. Ioprawaaaa} ip°+y I!c1' Lam . Lsa w..1^= = cs:1 aC I ""I I:771*..1 I U . o .= }oois44 td svn Dula icual il7 IaJny J5 v •i ` w . t• 1 111 YQS19PoWd •Datra aAdDJelp $a!ulw/1aorp I L� L` 1 ..LJ..., 61,.. I I I,...6.4 1 1.3...j y I. au�l u0!sslsvcuoj4 y silyiltyll Jarmoa Iesn.Jtnwi.pneunmo I =1 C- = C = — ▪ = =I=1= -G •.,I -1 -Kt .p...",... pnw}!c� I , 1.64 .ir - .� .cc -.w.� r dims Jada.Ilcr7 C I = Cp I a 4I d I•1 1'1 . 75::i ry I�- . —.. =1 � r=SAaw4Gq1, cz LJ.. = JieJds 1Sadds IotJiiJli L.1.J Lipl .® © - d• am". " I MI.,... 'c':::1 *. _ y .Ina.yA!µ a;a43+04u1 y 11.rr 1.1., 11.. �L.. 1.a` Lad I °" 1 I' `I I 1 ■ 0 .- . 4}'bs000'S u041 curl L.tr., U..1 c.7 _ +� ...•—a.. I i I Lc..1 sr.. 1 4) C?Q �j yf bs 66.7.L-OOD'S w -- ® 1•••, C "s1C Li.lIGl4.. . r._I 1 1.6,4 C., ...SI •.� I ylunssu+1laMp •i}"bs6666-min I—Ic] cm - C c I1� C. =I =I=IL.1. ; -.1 I=I I I C Jed isss 1a1 -'.. — _ .:. WnWlulw 8Jef1M d} DS 656'71 -000'07 I G7 C.'a -cG I I•eC = c.-.,! 1,J- - __ q I=I L.L.1 4:.. =i Ca 1 0.71 ..Jl yueuawolawaP ` I � 1 1 ❑ 1n11uepssov }'at666'4(-000'5. '`� +� , c.i I sa�I tia I c I t� Lrr I I ` J I L+..IC� :.1J1 W '1 As 666'60-a00-ooz I: Q I =I c_ =I u... LJ... L,L.1 c I C9 I 1,i„I 1 i�,.�`. -�. r�1�f L�l -'r° Jay o.J$Jo'y}'bs 000'07 1 I CZ I 1_ N.,1 L.. 1J.. u..J =1 1 I Li.,I Lb.t; La..I,,,-'I Ui i o a:-..' I -° 1 4IoE;-2 . 11 ! D p m c 3 °I i ou 11 1 T.-)•--� W a a a G 0 « 1 ° - 1 -- �� U`'S C CG i P a C. w e O V.I o a r ?, ! I °'� roCL.LJ,J a °.. °, c. u o- o �. v = 1 1 try n• a a .., r m _ " °oi n - I i � � e rn C 7. C- 1 r e 3'I c _ I. _ ■ tc"LJ,,,1 o o G . O r C c ° w n. ° I ` { 1 U O o o {7 G .. m c .' 1 Z. ?; I vi- CO0 1 1 I 1-Z C.) Q- G" :R o f - 1 1. h :sI nun 6u.1ipnlcJan sdpaiu4'H sa.lilI111 pol« IcIJasnou!E r1J L�L.1 ants JoI Wflu.Ilulll.ainU . Puo DUO CJ1(S' 1uat&a°1srAag ia.Huvatsat szaka..us spowleora7Jnvswtt 1asaJawuJa -0- fl • • materials ,installed. to satisfy the buffer requirements of Arti c le IV-B-8—d shall h installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article • IV—B-8—d.-4 Standards for Required Buffers Required • Buffer Buffer Buffer Description • Type Width • A buffer composed of. deciduous and/or evergreen vegetation , forming semi - . opaque intermittent visual obstruc- tions from the ground to a height of Type A 20 feet at Least thirty (30 ) feet . . A buffer composed of deciduous and/or evergreen vegetation that is opaque from the ground to a ' height of at least five C5J- feet , with semi —opaque. or intermittent visual obstructions from the opaque portion to a height of Type 5 30 feet at least thirty (30) feet . Same as for Type B except opaque portion shall extend from the ground to a height of at Least tan ( 10) feet , . and semi —opaque portion shall extend from the opaque portion to a height of Type C 40 feet at Least thirty (30 ) feet . Same as for Type S except opaque portion shall extend from the ground to a height of- at Least twenty ( 20 ) feet , and semi —opaque portion shall extend from the opaque portion to a Type 0 50 feet height of at Least thirty (30) feet . A buffer composed of predominantly evergreen vegetation that is opaque from the ground to a height of at Least twenty—five ( 25) feet , with semi -opaque or intermittent visual obstructions from the opaque portion to a height of at Least thirty (30 ) Type E 75 feet feet . A buffer composed predominantly of evergreen vegetations that is opaque • P 16 � in all seasons of the year from the ground to a height of at Least thirty (. Type F 100 feet ( 30 ] feet . • SFr a-a4-1-$6 i4 nay cry _16C This 9 amendment has some significant impacts on what will be set out for he other townships. He voiced opposition to the GC-4 exemption in calculating the amount of commercial land in a specific area. The design criteria describing a local commercial node were intend uses equivalent to a "Mom and Pop" store or a local service station. The problem with EC-5 is that, as was done in some areas, certain nodes were designated which include the GC-5 designation to try to take into account the fact that the existing businesses were already there. Some of the businesses can be quite large and, by the time you add those and if you raise the maximum again for LC-1, you have eighteen acres plus whatever was already there and the node is no longer a small commercial node in a rural area. By doing this, the intent of the nodes is changed. To . calculate all the commercial uses when assessing the character of the node and not allow to exemptions can result in quite a large commercial area. r. ARTICLE 4 -- PERMITTED USES - ASSEMBLY/PACKAGING OPERATIONS s. ARTICLE 8 -- SPECIAL USES - ASSEMBLY/PACKAGING OPERATIONS t. ARTICLE T - ARTICLE 20 - DEFINITIONS - ASSEMBLY/PACKAGING OPERATIONS Planner Susan Smith continued with items Sr through 5t as identified in the agenda. With reference to Article 4 - Establishment of Permitted Use Table, Article 8-Special Use Permits and Article 22- Definitions, Smith indicated these amendments would provide specifically for assembly and packaging operations, including mail order houses. Amendments to Article 4 would specify where those uses would be ('ernitted, the amendment to Article 8 would specify the standards to .._valuate those requests for a Special Use Permit, and Article 22 would define such uses. Steve Kizer indicated that some of the same comments he made above would apply to these proposed amendments. These amendments are in reaction to the fact that the Zoning Ordinance actually worked with respect to the request for P & S Sales. The problem is that a simple packaging plant has an awful lot of input that comes to it and is not a minor operation. The parking lot at P & S sales has about 100 cars and is a major operation. The whole point of these smaller nodes was to make sure that large enterprises that would be out of character with the surrounding community are not placed there. A commercial development in a rural node could be quite large and not in keeping with the idea that these are supposed to be small commercial operations. This adjustment should not be made until it is assured that the intent of the land use plan fits in very neatly with the development regulations. u. ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISMS -- PLANNING BOARD TENURE Planner Susan Smith referred to agenda item 5u -- Article 2 - Administrative Mechanisms for the Planning Board Tenure and indicated this amendments would clarify that new members appointed to fill unexpired terms will be eligible for two additional full terms and to specify that one-third of the Board membership will expire in February of each year. Chair Willhoit asked that "calendar year" be changed to read twelve 12) months. 0. ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS RECREATION ATION SPACE RATIO 6. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS (A copy of the complete narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk' s office) . a. SECTION 7V-B-7 SITES FOR PUBLIC USE - RECREATION/SCHOOL SITES b. SECTION V IMPROVEMENTS - HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Lwer --Aqa UTEZ) 7-1 PRESENTATION BY STAFF 10 Director of Planning Marvin Collins referred to agenda items So and ( 6a and 6b. Article 5. 1. 1 is the schedule for residential development and refers to the required minimum recreation space ratio. The proposed amendment to the Subdivision regulations would require the dedication (or provision) of recreation facilities or a payment in lieu. The proposed amendment contains a formula for the computation of required recreation and/or open space area. The reason for the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text is that in the AR, R-1, R-2, R '3 , and R-4 zoning districts there are no recreational space requirements. There are recreational space ratios for planned development. Recreational space ratios have also been added for non-residential uses in residential areas. These were based on the that already exist in the zoning ordinance. Marvin Collins summarized the propos�° ed changes that would provide for recreation space and school sites in new subdivisions, and establish guidelines for the creation of homeowners ' associations. The determination to accept payment-in-lieu would depend upon the existing recreation area in the area in which the subdivision is to be built. If there are already activities within an area, then the payment in lieu may be advisable. However, if the subdivision was of substantial size, then recreational improvements may be required within that development. If the development was not of substantial size, then the option of payment-in-lieu would be available. COMNE2.TTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Walker indicated he understood these amendments would only apply to multifamily dwellings. Steve Kizer noted that basically the amendment is to levy a recreational tax as a way to equally distribute between all new dwellings and indicated there must be an easier formula to apply. He asked if it had been considered for the tax office to determine the value and set the rate accordingly. Marvin Collins indicated this as a possibility. Commissioner Marshall asked for clarification on when the Board would be requested to make the decision on whether it would be payment in lieu or dedication or if the developer would always have that choice. Marvin Collins indicated the decision would be made by the Board of Commissioners. Planning Board member Carl Walters asked about the relationship in property values and Collins indicated if there are any at all it would be based on location. A person in Chapel Hill or Carrboro may be making a larger payment in lieu than someone in a rural area. Walters feels that mobile homes should be placed under the same regulations. Commissioner Marshall noted that the developer should be able to decide on the payment in lieu or dedication choice. Director of Recreation and Parks Mary Anne Black ask for additional time for the Recreation and Parks Council to consider these proposed amendments and have an opportunity for further comments. 7. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS a. ARTICLE 4 - FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION - FLOOR ELEVATIONS b. ARTICLE 4 -- FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION - NON--RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE CERTIFICATION c. ARTICLE 4 - FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION - ANCHORING AND ELEVATION REQUIREMENTS (A complete narrative of the proposed amendments is on file in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk' s office) . DRAFT 5-27-86 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES AGENDA ITEM C 2. Z-6-86 JAMES M. AND MYRA K I RKMAN The staff presentation was made by Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on a proposed rezoning request submitted by James and Myra Kirkman . James and Myra Kirkman are requesting a rezoning for 1 . 18 acres of land located on a state maintained unpaved access road leading to U.S. 70 at the southwest corner of the intersection of U .S . 70 and interstate 85 in Eno Township . - The property is known as Lot 77B of Tax Map 25 for Eno Township . The parcel contains 1 . 18 acres or 51 ,40-0; 8 square feet. The property is located within an area designated Twenty Year Transition and Commercial --Industrial Transition Activity Mode in the Orange County Land Use Plan . • The present zoning classification of the property is Rural Residential (R- 1 ) . The application is requesting the lot be rezoned to General Commercial - IV (GC-4) . - pproval of the request ' would allow development of the full range of -commercial uses at this location . Rezoning of the property would allow for the expansion of the commercial uses in the area as a single commercial development or, alternatively, through the subdivision of the property Into Individual lots for commercial development dependent on the provision of public water and sewer services . See Impacts Statement for further information . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the general rezoning . Commissioner Willhoit inquired about the annexation policy of the City of Durham. Smith responded that the City has no active annexation plans in the area . She added that the City does not require annexation for the extenson of public water and sewer service. Smith noted that an existing well and septic system serves the property . Planning Board member Kramer inquired about annexation proposals in the Durham 2005 Plan . Smith responded that no firm annexation proposals had been proposed by the City of Durham. Kramer noted that the Town Council had adopted the Plan . Planning Board member Best inquired how this request differed from the N .C. 751 rezoning case. Smith responded that this site utilizes an access road hich funnels traffic in the area to one point on U . S . 70, rather than resulting in individual drives and points of conflict. Best Inquired about the applicant' s statements of Justification . James Kirkman responded that they had reviewed as much information as they could in making the statements, including the Hillsborough 701 Plan. He noted that land adjacent to his property has been purchased, cleared, and has 1/= 171 been submitted for commercial rezoning . - • Best inquired if the site is vacant.. Smith responded that there Is an existing house. (- Best inquired about the statement on page 20 of the agenda.. Myra Kirkman responded that the Land Use Plan designates the. area as Eno-2 activity mode and states that commercial development of the area is appropriate. Planning Board member Pilkey inquired about adjacent land uses. Kirkman reponded that the adjoining property has been purchased by the equipment company which currently leases property down the road . Smith informed the Board that the adjoining site has been cited for an MTC violation . Commissioner Carey inquired about the sixty-foot accessway. Kirkman responded that it runs to the adjoin I rtg ;roperty and is I n use. Commissioner Marshall asked if the Kirkman ' s occupied the residence. Kirkman responded, "Yes," adding that It is an undesirable home site given the changes in the adjoining property . AGENDA ITEM 4 The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on proposed text amendments to the Subdivision regulations . Concerns have been identified by the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board and Planning Staff concerning cluster development provisions , recreation standards and landscaping and buffer provisions . The attached amendments address these concerns . Issue statements precede each amendment. The proposed ordinance amendments, if approved, would clarify and improve the administration of the Subdivision Regulations . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amendments . AGENDA ITEM 4a SECTION IV SUB--SECTION IV-B-5 LOT LAYOUT (CLUSTER DEVELOP- MENTS) The staff presentation was made by Smith . There was no discussion on this item. AGENDA ITEM 4b SECTION iI DEFINITIONS (CLUSTER DEVELOPMENTS ) The staff presentation was made by Smith . There was no discussion on this item . AGENDA ITEM 5 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. 174 Concerns have been •identified by the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board and Planning Staff concerning cluster development provisions, recreation/-- landscaping space ratios, mobile home skirting/screening requirements, time ' ieriod s for initiation of construction of Planned Development projects, application and pre--application review- periods, and the consolidation of Special Use and Planned Development provisions. The attached amendments address these concerns. Issue statements precede each amendment. The proposed ordiniance amendments, if approved, would clarify and improve the administration of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amendments. AGENDA ITEM 5a ARTICLE 6 SECTION 6 .2 (CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT) The staff presentation was made by Smith . There was no discussion on this item. AGENDA ITEM 5b ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS (CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT) The staff presentation was made by Smith . There was no discussion on this item. iGENDA ITEM 5c ARTICLE 5 SECTION 5 . 1 ,2 (MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL SPACE STAN- DARDS ) . The staff presentation was made by Collins . He noted that the objectives of this amendment are to increase recreation space ratios and to establish higher recreation space requirements for densities of R-5 and greater, the difference to be provided in private recreation facilities . AGENDA ITEM 5d ARTICLE 5 SECTION 5 . 1 .2 (MINIMUM NON—RESIDENTIAL • LANDSCAPING STANDARDS ) (ERROR -- NO PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM) AGENDA ITEM 5e ARTICLE 7 SECTION 7.2. 8 ( INITIATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY) The staff presentation was made by Smith . There was no discussion on this Item. Commissioner Walker left at 11 : 00 p .m. ►GENDA ITEM 5f ARTICLE 6 SECTION 6 . 21 .2 ( INDIVIDUAL MOBILE HOMES -- SCREEN-- iNG/SKIRTING) The staff presentation was made by Smith . Carey inquired if provisions regarding the crawl space also apply to the unenclosed areas . Smith responded that the cleaning out of natural debris wu l d app l y. Arnie Katz indicated that he resented the enforcement of aesthetic stan- dards on mobile homes . Roger Dale Stephens questioned the timing for inspection of mobile homes for compliance with the screening standard, noting that the mobile home needs to settle when placed on a site. Screening would have to be instal - led when the home settles. Commissioner Lloyd inquired who long it takes a mobile home to settle. Stephens responded that it takes sixty to ninety days . Underpinning before the home settles is useless and may result in damaged underpinning . Collins noted that a temporary certificate ( ninety day option) could be issued . if the screening were not installed, the power could be turned off . Stephens responded that that would solve the project but would increase the burden on the inspectors, AGENDA ITEM 5g ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS (SKIRTING) The staff presentation was made by Smith . There was no discussion on this item. AGENDA ITEM 5h ARTICLE 8 SECTION 8. 4.2 and 8.4 .6 (SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW PERIODS) - The staff presentation was made by Smith . Commissioner Marshall inquired why additional time was needed, noting that this added to the overall project time . Smith responded that the additional time was needed to assure adequate time for review of projects by the Board and staff . She noted that both the Board and staff process projects in a timely manner, but on occasion additional review time Is required and needs to be provided for In the ordinance. AGENDA ITEM 51 ARTICLE 8 SECTION 8. 4 (PRE-APPLICATION MEETING FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS) The staff presentation was made by Smith . Planning Board member Jacobs indicated that the need for this step was brought to light in the review and approval process for Scotswood . AGENDA ITEM 5J ARTICLE 7 and 8 (CONSOLIDATION OF PROVISIONS ) Jacobs distributed the letter received from Alice Gordon and dated May 27 , 1986 . He requested that the item be removed from the agenda for further review . The meeting adjourned at 11 : 30 p .m. DRAFT DRAFT PBM MINUTES 6-10-86 PAGE 4 AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 27, 1986 (SEE 5-27-86 AGENDA PACKET) a. Z-6-86 JAMES AND MYRA KIRKMAN The staff presentation was made by Collins . The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed rezoning request submitted by James and Myra Kirkman for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. James and Myra Kirkman are requesting a rezoning for 1 . 18 acres of land located on a State maintained unpaved access road leading to US 70 at the southwest corner of the US 70 - Interstate 85 intersection in Eno Township. The property is known as Lot 77B of Tax Map 25 for Eno Township. The parcel contains 1 . 18 acres or 51 ,400 square feet. The property is located within an area designated. Twenty Year Transition and Commercial - Industrial Transition Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan . The present zoning classification of the property is Rural Residential (R-1 ) . The applicant is requesting the lot be rezoned to General Commercial -IV (GC-4) . Approval of the request would allow development of the full range of commercial uses at this location . Rezoning of the property would allow for the expansion of the commercial uses in the area as a single commer- cial development or, alternatively, through the subdivi- sion of the property into individual lots for commercial development dependent on the provision of public water and sewer services . The Planning Staff recommended approval of the general rezoning . There was no discussion on this item. MOTION: Best moved approval of the general rezoning request and positive findings . Kramer seconded the motion . VOTE: Unanimous . ( Jacobs out of the room) b: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS Presentation by Collins This agenda item is to consider proposed text amendments to the Subdivision Regulations for recommendation. These proposed amendments were submitted to public • 17L DRIO DRAFT PBM MINUTES 6-10-86 PAGE 5 hearing on May 27, 1986 . Concerns have been identified by the Board of Comissloners, Planning Board and Planning Staff concerning cluster development provisions, recreation standards, and landscaping and buffer provisions . These amendments address those concerns. The proposed ordinance amendments, if approved, would clarify and improve the administration of the Subdivision Regulations. Planning Staff recommends approval of the amendments. 1 . __ly: B- 1 SEQ .lid arl s) MOTION: Best moved approval . Seconded by Pilkey. Lewis inquired where these amendments apply. Collins responded that the standards apply in all major subdivisions, (5 lots or more) . Collins continued explaining the payment in lieu option . VOTE: 5 in favor. 3 opposed (Yuhasz, Walters, Lewis) 2. Section I Y.1y b±JQ.0_1Yzil=B u b. sLal Collins reviewed the recommended changes from the public hearing, one being to measure trees in a primary tree protection area as measured 4-1/21 above ground level . This is the standard as used by forestry personnel . in the section on Exceptions, the Planning Director, not his/her designee, may approve the removal of trees . in the section on Prctective Measures, the last sentence should read "Except for sidewalks and curb and gutter, no paving with concrete, asphalt or other impervious material within the drip line of trees to be retained shall be allowed." In the section on Required Landscaping, Collins noted that the reference to one tree for every 225 square feet is to be changed to one tree for every 1000 square feet of land area and the reference to one tree for every 30 feet of frontage to one tree for every 35 feet. In the section on Installation and Maintenance, Collins recommended that this be placed at the end of the section and be labeled as Recommended Standards of Installation and Maintenance. A further recommendation is that rather than the emBer_or_developer being responsible for maintenance of landscaping materials, only the owner would be responsible for the continued proper maintenance of landscaping materials. DRAFT PBM MINUTES 6-10-86 MUT PAGE 6 MOTION: Best moved approval with the recommended revisions by Collins and a provision stating this would apply to all subdivisions submitted after the effective date of this ordinance. Seconded by Margison. Kramer inquired about enforcement. Collins responded that Erosion Control would be the first line of enforce- ment while construction is going on with follow-up being handled by Current Planning Staff. Lewis expressed a concern that this could be a very expensive undertaking which will be passed along to the owner . He felt it should be the owner's option as to whether or not he wants a wooded lot. Walters indicated he felt too much of the decision as to the type of house the owner wishes to build is being taken out of his hands with these types of requirements. This also reduces affordability for homeowners. Jacobs inquired about allowance for solar heating. Collins said there is none per se in that solar heating is not addressed in the Subdivision Regulations. He noted that one of the intents of the ordiance is to retain/restore landscaping in the environment. Collins continued that there is no attempt to control tree removal or installation after the subdivision is completed and the lots are sold. Jacobs inquired if the changes take in those on the chart on page 135 in the 5-27-86 public hearing agenda packet and Collins responded yes. VOTE; 5 in favor . 3 opposed (Walters, Yuhasz, Lewis) . 3 • aa,ci-19.0_1Y_S.IJb,SQSfj9D_I yztlz1_,.9 '_LAysnt_ C I u 5iBr_DRYSl9pmgBf Jacobs inquired if a mobile home park could be esablished under this cluster development. Collins responded that a mobile home subdivision could be created in that individual lots could be sold rather than a park arrangement with the entire mobile home park under one ownership . Jacobs noted that under the section, Approval of Preliminary Plan, Commissioner Marshall had indicated that the word "better" is subjective and should be replaced. Collins suggested the wording "A preliminary subdivision plan shall be reviewed in accordance with the following criteria" or "A preliminary subdivision plan shall conform to the following criteria" . Jacobs also noted that (c) under Approval of Preliminary Plan DRAFT DRAFT PBM MINUTES 6-10--86 PAGE 7 should begin "When applicable, cluster open space and (g) to read when such slopes do not otherwise adversely affect the design of the development. In (b) under the section Application Requirements, the word. detailed is to be replaced with "precise" . MOTION: Best moved approval with revisions. Seconded by Pilkey. Margison expressed concern with the setback require- ments . Collins explained the purpose of clustering is to allow smaller setbacks between houses with the difference being set aside in greater common open space areas. Discussion followed on zero lot lines vs. cluster development. Collins explained that cluster development provides for single-family detached housing units on smaller lots than the conventional lot requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. He also noted that Staff would be preparing a provision later which addresses zero lot lines which would allow the units to be brought together. Collins continued that this type development could be handled now through a planned development. VOTE: 7 in favor. 1 opposed (Margison) . .Lon Lclka tr_Dax2J..a4ament1 MOTION: Pilkey moved adoption of the Cluster Development definition . Seconded by Best. VOTE: Unanimous . c . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS 1 . Art i s1 g_L_SSst.I9s_5..2..S D1yStDr_BsY2igi nsnt/ 2. Article 2 er..DB MOTION: Best moved approval of 1 & 2. Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Margison moved to extend the meeting 15 minutes to complete the agenda. Seconded by Pilkey VOTE: Unanimous. 3 . Article Sect1 on 5 .1�1_1 jnlM10_Bs.51.11D2t i a_I Recrea- L1on Space £tan rs1_s_2 17 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date 911GU5 A.g__1986 Action nda SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS Item ..L____ DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X, No Attachment(s) Information CONTACT:MARVIN COLLINS SEE 5-27-86 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA PACKET PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DRAFT 5-27-86 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES 6-10-86 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 7-21 -86 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES COUNTY ATTORNEY COMMENTS Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for recommendation . These proposed amendments were submitted to public hearing on May 27, 1986. To receive the Planning Board 's recommendation . NEED: Concerns have been identified by the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board and Planning Staff concerning cluster development provisions, recreation/ landscaping space ratios, mobile home skirting/screening requirements, time periods for initiation of construction of planned development projects, and application and pre-application review periods and requirements . The attached amendments these concerns . Issue statements precede each amendment. IMPACT: The proposed ordinance amendments, if approved, would clarify and improve the administration of the Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of the amendments . Minor revisions as recommended by the County Attorney are also attached . • COUNTY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO ZONING/SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS zONI.NG ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Section 8.4.2 ZOLina MILD' ?LUAUS AnDI4.51a s ns Recommendations Within forty-five - (45 ) days of the receipt of the application, c QmRlgfg In .x.11. raaR_U , the Zoning Officer shall cause an analysis to be made of the - application . . . (This section would become Section 8.4.3 - see below) . Section 8.4. 1 Erg-AA L t1.Qa SQnfgrgn ee Er1Qr fQ thg . .Rk1. g.a±ls n k Lng rQS�1.�cgd Rrg. r.rita L ID iJ-Qa 1.3 •4.2, the applicant must request a pre--application meeting. . . (This section would be placed before the existing Section 8. 4 . 1 - AfzRlis_ajJ i iQ.i. i ZQIl.Li g D..:Ulcer and all subsequent sections renumbered accordingly) . S UBDI f1. 1DN BEOLAI10.5 ABEB.DBEBI5 I V-B-5-a Substitute for '!Qamal amgnt WEIDE ±b Rrsy.isIQ.fl la Qg t I Qn,al!. : "Ihig- Qrd1110nQ.g DQt tBLIN_ r4 s111 r ADYelQRmgnfn� N4 RYRrA_ g11 S._Lyglgr siQYg_l,RIURI.z If Qpt � fQr k.Y the .d?Yg1QJ eEA 1.1101L h.g LIDILa IR Q.Qr�� L1nrQe M1..t..h flag prpmla.LQtig wn.cl. LfgnsfDr rF,1.t A ID Dr r_efecr.in4. is . Ii sIP . LIQYgID.Rmgj Q.Q.njy_inlsi. In fills QrdIl1_an.c.gt. IV-B-5-b (c) Add z flag s..uL a DI Qran.s1g Con nj. n D1. x Qn. .L. ±JIQ m i_n1mn� 1o± g1.zg rgAnlrgmgrt ah_41.i hg ihQn asrnA S4Qz.Q00) gLngrg feet." IV-B-5-e Change in ..h.a11 ..g r?lc..L.e bcg. . gs c aln.g. ± ila f Q_LJ 9 g Qrltgr.LD" toad maa± magi tha IDIIDA 041 IV-B-5-e(g) Correct "typo" in last line from tlielt to j]ig. IV--B-7-b-1 The County Attorney raised a fairness issue related to the the exclusion granted to minor subdivisions . The basic concern is that the person ( s) creating the fifth lot must pay payments- in- lieu for all lots created previously through the minor subdivision process . A further concern is that land cannot be obtained from minor subdivision i 8 l approvals, and this will represent a lost opportunity to secure same. IV-B-7-b-5 Reword as follows: "Land dedicated for public recreation area as required by this Ordinance shall be designated on both the preliminary and final plat( s) of the subdivision and must be dedicated to an appropriate unit of local government. Determination of the appropriate unit of local government shall be made by the Board of Commissioners, upon recommendation from the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council and the Planning Board . Acceptance of the dedication may be one in trust if deemed appropriate by the Board of Commissioners . " IV-B-7-b-6 Revise last sentence in third paragraph to read: "All monies received by Orange County pursuant to these requirements shall be used only for the acquisition and/or development of recreation, park and/or open space sites to serve the development within the recreation area as designated in the Land Use Plan . " Revise fourth paragraph to read: "The Board of Commissioners shall also have the authority to sell land dedicated pursuant to these provisions with the proceeds of any such sale used solely for the acquisition and/or development of other recreation , park and/or open space sites for development within the same recreation service area ." IV-B-8-b--2 Delete subsections (a) and ( e) as they are too open-ended and leave too much ! attitude in terms of interpretation . J 8i PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE OREFERENCE: ARTICLE 6 SECTION 6 .2 AND ARTICLE 22 ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X STAFF PLANNING BD .� B000 X PUBLIC OTHER STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: HIGH MIDDLE LOW COMMENT: TO ADDRESS A FUNCTIONAL GAP IN ORDINANCE EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MAY 27, 1986 ********************** PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To provide cluster subdivision standards and to define 'cluster subdivision" in the Zoning Ordinance. ISSUES/ IMPACTS: Cluster provisions provide the development of the most suitable portions of a site, emphasize the protection and maintenance of environmentally critical areas and encourage innovative design solutions in . exchange for reductions in minimum dimensional requirements within given zoning districts . Currently clustering of dwelling units is permitted only through the planned development process . EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISION( S) : NONE PROPOSED AMENDMENT( S ) : ATTACHED ******************* ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: DATE -16- 86 DATE 4-30-86 PLANNING BOARD (PRELIMINARY REVIEW ) : DATE 5--19-86 BOCC (ADVERTISEMENT) : DATE 5-20-86 ( i n fQrjuj4n only) ( ommm DRAFT 3-21 -86 4-10-86 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENTS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLE XX DEFINITIONS ADD Cluster Development . A subdivision In which building lots are grouped together through a transfer of allowable density within the subdivided tract . Cluster development permits more efficient development by creating lots with gross land areas smaller than those required for conventional lot-by- lot develop- ment, yet maintains application of normal lot density standards to the subdivided tract as a whole by requiring that land area saved by lot size reductions be reserved as - permanent open and/or recreation space . (- ARTICLE VI APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS REVISE 6 .2 Hight LimItajjQns to read : 6 .2 Modification of Dimensional Requirements Except as provided in this ordinance all structures shall conform to the dimensional requirements established in Article 5 . 6 .2 . 1 Height Limitations 6 .2. 1 . a . (Paragraph #2 of Section 6 .2 . 1 of current ordinance) 6 . 2 . 1 . b ( Section 6 . 2 .2 of current ordinance) 6 .2 . 2 CJs D Minimum lot area, lot width and setback requirements as specified in Section 4 . 1 . 2 of this ordinance may be reduced for lots created as part of a cluster sudivision as provided in Section iV-B-5 Cluster Developments of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations . PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT emmm C. ORDiNANCE1: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 5 . 1 . 1 - Schedule For Residential Development ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X,_Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: Planning Board Chair/Planning Director STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION:__x_High Middle Low COMMENT: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 27, 1986 ******************************** PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To insure compatibility between recreation standards proposed for the Subdivision Regulations and those contained in Article 5 . 1 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. ISSUES/ IMPACTS: Section IV-B-7-b of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed for amendment, and new standards would require the dedication of recreation and/or open space facilities or a payment in lieu . The proposed amendment requires recreation and/or open space lands based on the application of a standard equivalent to 1/35th of an acre for each dwelling unit or lot in the proposed subdivision . A higher standard ( 1/20th) would apply for floodplains or steep slope areas . The amendment is worded such that the amount of land would be based on the standard or by application of Article 5 . 1 . 1 (Recreation Space Ratios) of the Zoning Ordinance, whichever results in the greater amount. Application of the two standards ( see attached comparison) indicates that the standard in the Subdivision Regulations will consistently result in the greater amount. An ame ndment to Article 5 . 1 . 1 is necessary to adjust the required minimum recreation space ratios to match the Subdivision Regulations standard . in addition to consistent standards, the Recreation Space Ratios have been revised to provide a higher standard for projects with a density of five (5) units per acre or greater. This was done to establish additional land for the greater •"private1° recreational needs of project residents. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Attached - Article 5 . 1 . 1 (Zoning Ordinance.) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Attached -- Revision to Article 5 . 1 . 1 . ************************************ Existing Ordinance Provisions 5.k.1 >f�YfF1Kll.li riiu ilY.9II,l<{}rlAf. lrltVKlr[11'Illxlry 4111 IS AND Im ridtlll.l+ , Ii„1.'rf1:AHlI.�l, ir1s811lisfrr;A:. I+�rIrl$� aucr�t�rs 1�r61l3wir li'1C1, Hill. lsrr AMA I'I:il lilff. f0'.W. li Ifig 6 (KlR1 m dr; l+rYr MAX. 1514m. MITI. RRt$ �• 1!311. YHANT ItFA11 11HICUT Lull) Alwa ItIY (41691 IJ�� H1N. lfif[T Nil,ltl 11RI-wW.'s R6i11ACiC RY.Q. 111!#, -~--------_ --_ _-_._.__ Vold 011m PAVIIIrl kl1ul. UV8A8#1.1'1'8 WC09ATIOU ftrr 4r1,11UO _ - - i'Ai1 Ri11iR $VAM PATIO 83'16C�t itATI4 (50 1 I'D-I 4a.mia _ ±Q 2Q 25 _ - - 411:0[i) - � � ' ?� ao.pnp .75 .1119 • CAW 4n,1wo l]if 23 .058 411 20 .84 i'IZ 1 4u,nrrn _ 2S - _ .. PD-2 40,nnu• _ - _ 2a5 5 00,0r1n Do o01 32 fill, 211.0111 �_ .058 Pill m.tluu _ ]r1 lS 35 w _ .114 .7S .t119 I'I,-2 30,olm _ ` - �a 4S,0A0 28 .Ib?b .81 ,70 - Ilrf Ih,lltln'.. _iu0- ]8 .b32 25� .83 _72 .033 25 10,0011 10 1UO 00 --- -- 25 30,0U0 31 .6S .112S ftil kr,,i11111 75 25, -- .107 .00 _ .63 .026 In 35 - _ - - _f'p-2 - _ _ 25 1 .OU0 15 _ _ _ 25 .343 7 ^7,51111 , 51 15,000 3L •.352 .79 .53� 1 20 14 25 .070 25 .174 .77 10,00D 40 , .200 ,76 .031 25 10,000 41 .214 .76 .62 ..036 fjrr 5,000 50 20 p .51 .010 vo-l _ 25 43 .246 ?5 25 7,noo 45 .203 .49 1019., 7,00Q .?4 .40.49 .042 f.rr },1,au 50 25 2U p 46 .3oD .�3 .46 ,4146 r1,-2_ - _ 25 5.000 5r1 .400 .77 .44 .749 .......................... _ ._. - 25 5,000 51 .429 .72 . .052 ' ['!r•I - - 35 _ 43 [155 5,000 30 .#00 .00 - - 35 5 uoq •6S .029 17,_2 - _ _ 5,000 40 .200 .76 .52 .036 ---- 35 5,r10Q 41 .214 .76 .53 .039 45 _ Po _ _ 5,000 5{i .1i1,3 .77 . - .._.._.._._..._.---•--•-• 4S 5,qu0 .44 ,QSZ fit► lirr 40.ima -7.10 - - .�-�1 .429 .72 �3 40 20 .43 ft 5'Goo 40 35 3.4!00 41 T ,2 4 ?6 •S1 .034 ,i3 .039 . - Proposed Anendmenta ti•1.i �i Iraaxdf,� Kr,lri r{I:S1lirrrlTlAi. IIY,Vl:Id11'Itl•rrl 41.411l.li AW TM FAllir.Vi rlial:d ir'ntlla.Y, artss11i1:rr1'�Aa. lulz�fS, 1(t)(1HTNi1 8%fAlJ1r3t3r 41r1;= Hill. r.al'1 nttlsrl f'i?ia 11i1a. 1D'. lU:�. ' I�tit:r.r.rMr; Q• l;ri+i� s ffinx, Isi.11c;, HT11. ailtr7 g i1B[�, KiH, fill i•'rlr+IiT Itr:nil trrit'i Silr�'tii uis9'iint:rt :i6:1'ilA{.yC ifaSlGtl'P i.Afata AUlS:t► d,11r fIl`�11 pY.(�; ifI11. N. OC }3A11. At'AC�► 'Q. irtrl. •-r-t-rc•----_.._ __... .-_._...__...._.�..____---•-•-�._-_. i6'f1*A 1>ilt4[b �.A,t11'!<Ii.i.1.��3-'A-lt; ittt4rF,nl0 I�I.VtAvC�X d RATIO 40 t aiii�;'IclC a �' ftATiQ rtt 1'a+-1 4r1,d1tna _ _ 20 25 r _ 60,0410 22 - - - .02 3 Ito 000_ '0�' •1i4 .75 a.rl' gll,iinu -' lU 40 ---- -- Z5 2a .031E .04 •Q ! Val 41+,01n1 tll 25 ....�.75 .( a n-2 40,Uiru _ - 25 _ _ sn,aD�r 22 .050 .a� - --- .7s fill' 2f1,linll-' -tt1f1 -.-..-- 2S_r,� OU,i)ilii $2 .G59 '�3�' 3fa 15 -._- .117 t I'D-I 20,nri,l - _ a'► _ .75 .034 0-56' 2i},alltl _ -' 25 iI3,I}AU --• _ 25 •02 .70 `059- 25 la},Ogq lt1 1011 V �_ - _ 25 .65 75 1QYOa10 31 .107 .>1U .52 iJYi' lll,tlt>u 25 -- 29 _ 25 35,OGQ 35 . 70 15,nIlU 36 •.141 .?a •211 53 2 5 _ 25 10 ODO 441 .ao4 .77 .s2 .197 - _ - 0 .76 .57 tJr1. s,ac10 50 ---.-.-�- _ 25 w 1t1,0ura 9L .?G .200 , . , 1 t•fi-1 _ _ 0 25 _ 43 .51 203 .246 .75 25 7,000 45 .ZJ13 .74 .4.3 .2ggcc}6 25 7,000 46 •413• 02 lerr ...._7,fsnu - 5D Zr1 -Ii .303 .73 .4 25 40 9340 -� "" _1'11.2 - ► ` 25 a,Una SR ecla •72 .45 firs,-~� ..... ---__-.._.»...-.-. - 25 J,Ui1U 61 .429 .72 .44 ;,119'j rr> 1 . 35 _ _ .50.0 1 i►•z - - 3� a,nno 2a ,iuQ .g - ,07�-----• r c ....'.f 1•t+....-...=....._......... ..... ,...'+..-......-w.wr.. --.w.. .n+....-.--_..,...-,.,.,..•_+.wr °�/+r {�If.w Z e�I�F 100 .66 •07/7 1.11.2 _ - ]5 ,UQri 9a .�3oq •?� s ,II1 , _..[Jr1, _._-------...��-T__,_-_-•--- 35 5,ri0ta 91 .2A4 - .7G 1 110-1 - - -45 .911ii .7a• � ' •'4 ,200 �- .....-�..�...-41 r.... .73 !'in q{ ' ~ 9s .243 2Q 23 1'ii 1 35 - .... lair 2 r _ ]5 5,000 40 d5 Soc .2 D ,?i '41 ,5i /b ❑ ,c IS .117 COMPARISON OF RErQEATI ON• STANDARDS ZONING DISTRICT Y �. _ AR, R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-8 R-13 MINIMUM LOT AREA PER 40,000 SF 20,000 SF 15,000 SF IQ,QQQ SF 7,500 SF DWELLING UNIT 5,000 SF 8,000 SF REQUIRED MINIMUM __ RECREATION SPACE RATIO - __ ;033 .039 .049 (LOT-BY-LOT DEVELOPMENT) .RSR (EXISTING) GROSS RESIDENTIAL LAND 100 AC 100 AC AREA (G.L.A.) 100 AC 100 AC 140 AC 100 AC lOD AC CONVENTIONAL LOT - REQUIRED MINIMUM RECREATION SPACE 3.3 AC 3.9 AC 4.9 AC• (RSP x GLA - LUI) REQUIRED MINIMUM RECREATION .019 .022 SPACE RATIO (PLANNED '02' •034 .036 042 .052 DEVELOPMENT) ._ RSR. (EXISTING) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - 1 .9 AC 2.2 AC REQUIRED MiNIMUM RECREATION 2.5 AC , 3.0 AC 3.6 AC 4.2 AC SPACE (RSR x GLA - LUI 5:2 AC., MAXIMUM N0. OF LOTS IN 92 185 246 SUBDIVISION 370 493 746 1 ,234 , . 1/35th STANDARD (.03 AC) 2.76 5.53 PROPOSED 7.3$ 11 . f0 14079 22.20 37.02 1/28th STANDARD (.44 AC) NA NA PROPOSED NA NA 19.72 29.60 49,36 ADJUSTED MINIMUM RECREATION , A56 q2$ 56 ' SPACE RATION (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) 0.74 .111 ,197 .296 ,494 RSR - BASED ON 1/35th STANDARD THROUGH R-4 AND 1/28th STANDARD R-5 A14D ABOVE , DIFFERENCE (PRIVATE f: t NA NA CIA 4.93 7.4 12,34 RECREATION REQUIRED) ' r., w E PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE ( 0 REFERENCE: ARTICLE 7 SECTION 7. 2 . 8 TIME LIMIT ON START OF CONSTRUCTION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT:._.,_.X STAFF X_PLANNING BD. X._BOCC PUBLIC OTHER STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: XHIGH MIDDLE LOW COMMENT: DIRECTIVE FROM BOARDS TO PREPARE AMENDMENT EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MAY 27, 1986 ********************** PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To extend the timeframe for initiation of construction activity following approval of a planned development rezoning. ISSUES/IMPACTS: The current six month provision is inadequate for the preparation of and receipt of detailed plans , easement and legal document and their approvals . Applicants are routinely . ( forced to request extensions . EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISION(S) : 7.2 . 8 T.ima.Lim i _o n EIS,L .Q$02ns t r.uc d o o f P 1 at Construction must start and proceed at a reasonable rate within six months of the approval of the permit . If no construction has started the permit becomes null and of no effect . The owner can request a six month extension from the Board of County Commissioners if the request is received before the permit expires . PROPOSED AMENDMENT(S) : 7.2 . 8 lima_Liwi _Q.a. ±,a .,.Q1.GQnziz],alisan of P 133nn DaYTtal1 tLt. Construction of the planned development must start and proceed at a reasonable rate within twel e ( 12), months of the approval of the permit . If no construction has started willin ( Ihg_zinl€ai time train the permit becomes null and of no effect . The owner can request Qrj Q,ge (i1 six month extension from the Board of County Commissioners UBQf the fainzable r esimmnndai i s u_sat Ilse__Blanning__Rsaar 1 if the request is .. 1a.�received .'� before the permit expires . T4g_aauliaa ` M _aub mi t a W r I t t a n r a n t,a c t f.-.... 188 extension irteludjrm a statemg,I,Qf i��tifioation g the regy� ..tom ******************* ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: DATE 4"1Szz„$.I PLANNING BOARD (PRELIMINARY REVIEW) DATE 4721715, BOCC (ADVERTISEMENT) : DATE Q.zu t i n f o r mail o& nJy.I PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE (- (n REFERENCE: ARTICLE 8 SECTIONS 8.4.2 AND 8.4.6 ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X STAFF X PLANNING BD . BOCC PUBLIC OTHER STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X HIGH MIDDLE LOW COMMENT: TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW TiME FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MAY 27, 1986 ********************** PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To provide for additional time for the Planning Staff and Planning Board to review special use permit applications . ISSUES/ IMPACTS: Additional time for review of special use permit applications by the Planning Staff and Planning Board would provide for more comprehensive and unhurried review of a development application . It would increase the maximum length of time for review of applications by advisory agencies before decision by the Board of Commissioners. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISiON( S) : Analysis and Recommendations The Zoning Officer shall within thirty days of the receipt of the application by the Zoning Officer, cause an analysis to be made of the application and , based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by, in the case of a Class A Special Uses, the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners and, In the case of Class B Special Uses, the Board of Adjustment. The thirty day period may be extended with ( the written consent of the applicant up to a maximum of sixty days . Section 8 . 4.5 P I anpJ ng Board Action on Class_A Spec i.a.l uLe • The Planning Board, within thirty (30) days 4-0L of the meeting at which the Zoning Officer 's recommendation is submitted, shall prepare and submit for the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation concerning the disposition of the application . Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered a favorable recommendation, without conditions . PROPOSED AMENDMENT(S) : Section 8.4.2 Analysis and Recommendation Within forty five (45) days of the receipt of the application, the Zoning Officer shall cause an analysis to be made of the application �d based upon that analysis . . . . The forty five C45) day period may be extended, with the written consent of the applicant, up to a maximum of sixty days. Section 8.4.5 Planning Board action on Class A Special D,ses The Planning Board, within sixty (60) days of the meeting . . . . ******************* ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: DATE 4-16-86 PLANNING BOARD (PRELIMINARY REVIEW) : DATE 5-19-86 BOCC (ADVERTISEMENT) : DATE 5-20-86 ( information only), 19 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 8 (NEW SECTION) !� ) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT:_X ^STAFF_X PLANNING BD . BOCC ___ PUBLIC OTHER STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION:.__X HIGH MIDDLE LOW COMMENT: TO ADDRESS AN ADMINISTRATIVE GAP IN THE ORDINANCE EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MAY 27, 1986 *****************- **** PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To require a pre-application conference for special use permit applications . ISSUES/ IMPACTS: A pre-application conference would allow staff and advisory agencies to review and comment on special use permit applications prior to the expenditure of considerable amounts of time, financial resources and design efforts in a proposed development. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISION( S) : NONE PROPOSED AMENDMENT( S ) : Pre-Application Conference The applicant must request a pre application meeting with the Orange County Planning Department to discuss the proposed development . A sketch plan illustrating the location, size and major design elements of the development of the site must be submitted five (5 ) working days prior to the pre--application meeting. The Planning Department may request that representatives of other public agencies be present at the pre-- application meeting . These agencies shall include, but not be limited to, the Orange County Planning Board , the Orange County Recreation Department, the Orange County Health Department, the municipalities of Chapel Hill , Carrboro, Hillsborough and Durham, the North Carolina Department of Transportation and OWASA . • ******************* 4 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: DATE 4-30--86 PLANNING BOARD (PRELIMINARY REVIEW) : DATE 1--19-86 BOCC (ADVERTISEMENT) :' DATE 5-20-86 ( Informaj-1Qn only) -w i9` DRAFT 5.,27.86 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES AGENDA ITEM C 2. Z-6-86 JAMES M. AND MYRA KIRKMAN The staff presentation was made by Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on a proposed rezoning request submitted by James and Myra Kirkman . James and Myra Kirkman are requesting a rezoning for 1 . 18 acres of land located on a state maintained unpaved access road leading to U.S. 70 at the southwest corner of th intersection of U .S . 70 and Interstate 85 in Eno Township . -. -The property is known as Lot 77B of Tax dap 25 for Eno Township . The parcel contains 1 . 18 acres or 51 , 400. 8 square feet. - The property is located within an area designated Twenty Year Transition and Commercial- Industrial . Transition Activity Mode in the Orange County Land Use Plan . The present zoning classification of the property is Rural Residential (R- I ) . The application is requesting the lot be rezoned to General Commercial-IV (GC-4) . Approval of the request would allow development of the full range ‘ commercial uses at this location . Rezoning of the property would allow fo, the expansion of the commercial uses In the area as a single commercial development or, alternatively, through the subdivision of the property into individual lots for commercial development dependent on the provision of public water and sewer services. See impacts Statement for further information . The Planning Staff recomr.;3nds approval of the general rezoning . Commissioner Willhoit InCuired about the annexation policy of the City of Durham. Smith responded that the City has no active annexation plans in the area . She added that the City does not require annexation for the extenson of public water and sewer service. Smith noted that an existing well and septic system serves the property . Planning Board member Kramer inquired about annexation proposals In the Durham 2005 Plan . Smith responded that no firm annexation proposals had been proposed by the City of Durham. Kramer noted that the Town Council had adopted the Plan . Planning Board member Best inquired how this request differed from the N .C , 751 rezoning case. Smitw responded that this site utilizes an access road which funnels traffic in the area to one point on U.S . 70, rather th( resulting in individual drives and points of conflict. Best inquired about the applicant ' s statements of justification . James Kirkman responded that t14y had reviewed as much information as they could in making the statements* including the Hillsborough 701 Plan . He noted that land adjacent to h +;fi property has been purchased, cleared, and has F been submitted for commercial rezoning. 19-1 • Best inquired if the site is vacant. Smith responded that there is an existing house. Best inquired about the statement on page 20 of the agenda. Myra Kirkman responded that the Land Use Plan designates the area as Eno-2 activity mode and states that commercial development of the area is .appropriate. Planning Board member Pilkey inquired about adjacent land uses. Kirkman reponded that the adjoining property has been purchased by the equipment company which currently leases property down the road . Smith informed the Board that the adjoining site has been cited for an MTC violation . Commissioner Carey inquired about the sixty-foot accessway, Kirkman responded that it runs to the adjoining property and is in use, Commissioner Marshall asked if the Kirkman 's occupied the residence. Kirkman responded, "Yes," adding that it is an undesirable home site given the changes in the adjoining property. AGENDA ITEM 4 The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on proposed text amendments to the Subdivision regulations , Concerns have been identified by the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board and Planning Staff concerning cluster development provisions, recreation standards and landscaping and buffer provisions. The attached amendments address these concerns . Issue statements precede each amendment, The proposed ordinance amendments, if approved, would clarify and improve the administration of the Subdivision Regulations . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amendments . • AGENDA ITEM 4a SECTION IV SUB-SECTION IV-B-5 LOT LAYOUT (CLUSTER DEVELOP- MENTS ) The staff presentation was made by Smith . There was no discussion on this item. AGENDA ITEM 4b SECTION 11 DEFINITIONS (CLUSTER DEVELOPMENTS) The staff presentation was made by Smith . There was no discussion on this item. AGENDA ITEM 5 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. • Concerns have been Identified by the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board . and Planning Staff concerning cluster development provisions, recreation/-- landscaping space ratios, mobile home skirting/screening requirements, time periods for initiation of construction of Planned Development projects, application and . pre-application review periods, and the consolidation Cf Special Use and Planned Development provisions. The attached amendments address these concerns. Issue statements precede each amendment. The proposed ordiniance amendments, if approved, would clarify and improve the administration of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amendments . . AGENDA ITEM 5a ARTICLE 6 SECTION 6.2 (CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT) The staff presentation was made by Smith . There was no discussion- on this item. • AGENDA ITEM 5b ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS (CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT) The staff presentation was made by Smith . There was no discussion on this item. AGENDA ITEM 5c ARTICLE 5 SECTION 5 . 1 .2 (MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL SPACE STAA DARDS ) • The staff presentation was made by Collins . He noted that the objectives of this amendment are to increase recreation space ratios and to establish higher recreation space requirements for densities of R-5 and greater, the difference to be provided in private- recreation facilities. AGENDA ITEM 5d ARTICLE 5 SECTION 5 . 1 .2 (MINIMUM NON-RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPING STANDARDS) - (ERROR -- NO PUBLiC HEARING ON. THIS ITEM) AGENDA ITEM 5e ARTICLE 7 SECTION 7. 2. 8 ( INITIATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY) The staff presentation was made by Smith . There was no discussion on this item. Commissioner Walker left at 11 : 00 p .m. AGENDA ITEM 5f ARTICLE 6 SECTION 6 . 21 .2 ( INDIVIDUAL MOBILE HOMES - SCREE( iNG/SKIRTING) The staff presentation was made by Smith . Carey inquired if provisions regarding the crawl space also apply to the unenclosed areas . Smith responded that the cleaning out of natural debris 1111 wuld apply . - 14C Arnie _ Katz indicated that he resented the enforcement of aesthetic stan- ards on mobile homes . - Roger Dale Stephens questioned the timing for inspection of mobile homes for compliance with the screening standard, noting that the mobile home needs to settle when placed on a site. Screening would have to be instal - led when the home settles. Commissioner Lloyd inquired who long it takes a mobile home to settle. Stephens responded that it takes sixty to ninety days . Underpinning before the home settles is useless and may result in damaged underpinning. Collins noted that a temporary certificate ( ninety day option) could be issued . If the screening were not ins lied, the power could be turned off . Stephens responded that that :, uld solve the project but would increase the burden on the inspectors. AGENDA ITEM 5g ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS (SKIRTING) The staff presentation was made by Smith . There was no discussion on this item. AGENDA ITEM 5h ARTICLE 8 SECTION 8. 4.2 and 8.4 .6 (SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW PERIODS) The staff presentation was made by Smith . Commissioner Marshall inquired why aVi -tionai time was needed, noting that this added to the overall project tim. : Smith responded that the additional 1- ' 1 ,, was needed to assure adequate time for review of projects by the Board and staff . She noted that both the Board and staff process projects H - timely manner, but on occasion additional review time is required G:. ' needs be provided for in the ordinance . AGENDA ITEM 51 ARTICLE 8 SECTION 8. i rd_--APPLICATION MEETING FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS ) The staff presentation was made by Sm" I . Planning Board member Jacobs indicate-7 that the need for this step was brought to light in the review and approval process for Scotswood . AGENDA ITEM 5j ARTICLE 7 and 8 (CONSOL ( DATION OF PROVISIONS) c Jacobs distributed the letter received from Alice Gordon and dated May 27 , 986 He requested that the item be removed from the agenda for further review . The meeting adjourned at 11 : 30 p .m. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 6 SECTION 6 . 21 .2D) AND E) ; 6.21 .3 ; AND ARTICLE 22 ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT:__„X__STAFF PLANNING BD. -____BOCC PUBLIC OTHER STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X__HIGH MIDDLE LOW COMMENT: TECHNICAL REVISIONS EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MAY 27, 1876 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To provide for screening and landscaping as an alternative to skirting requirements for individual mobile homes . To define the term "skirting. " ISSUES/IMPACTS: Either the skirting or appropriate landscaping/ screening option would address aesthetic concerns associated with mobile homes on individual .lots . EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISION(S) : Article 6 Section 6. 21 . 2d) 2 )a. and 6 . 21 . 2 e) 1 ) . "The mobile home must be skirted" . Article 6 Section 6 . 21 . 3 "Skirting is required �► Article 22 No provision. PROPOSED AMENDMENT(S) : Add to 6. 21 . 2 d)2)a. ; and 6. 21 . 2e)1) ; and 6 . 21 .3 If existing vegetation screens the mobile home from adjoining property lines and rights-of- way to a degree equivalent to or greater than a Class A screen as defined in Article 12 Section 12 . 8 of this ordinance, then no skirting is required. This screen must be in place at the time of final inspection of the mobile home unit . Add to Article 22 : Skirting. Panels, specifically designed for the purpose of screening the underside of a mobile home unit by forming an extension of the vertical exterior walls of the mobile home and covering the entire distance between the bottom of the exterior walls and the ground elevation below along the perimeter of the mobile home. Each unit shall be skirted by one of the following means : Aluminimum/vinyl siding/corrosion resistant metal Fiberglass/plastic Wood/wood siding (both must be protected from the elements by water resistant solution/substance) Decay resistant wood/pressure treated lumber Masonry/concrete/rock Material approved by Inspec- tions Division of the Planning Department The .enclosed crawl space underneath the mobile home must be ventilated in accordance with the North Carolina State Building Code , Volume I-B, Section 14. The crawl space shall be smooth and organic materials , debris, sod and tree stumps removed as required . by North Carolina State Building Code , Volume I--B, Section 11 . An accessible opening, minimum 18"x 24" , shall be provided to crawl space as stipulated by the North Carolina State Building Code, Volume I , Section 11 . ************** ** * ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE; DATE 4=31=88, PLANNING BOARD ' (PRELIMINARY REVIEW) DATE 57.j9- BOCC (ADVERTISEMENT) : DATE 5=20-$1_lini4maiiQl]_Sanlxl PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF 7--21 -86 1 9 C The • applicant, Charles Harris, purchaser, is requesting a subdivision of Lot 16 Tax Map 2, Chapel i Hill Township into a 7 acre and 10+ acre lot . • Board of Commissioners ' approval of Class A private road Is required before a minor subdivision served by this road can be approved for the Stones ' lot. Currently 9 lots are - served by the private road known as Scarlette Mountain Road . if a Class A road is approved by the Board of Commissioners . The Planning Staff recommends approval of a Class A road . . I f constructed to NCDOT the road would not • comply with NCDOT criteria ( length and housing unit density) for acceptance as a public road . MOTION: Margison moved approval of the Class A private road . Kramer seconded the motion . VOTE: Unanimous ZONiNG ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS The purpose of this item Is to consider a proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for approval . This proposed amendment was submitted to public hearing on May 27, 1986 . To receive the Planning Board ' s recommendation . Concerns have be,,:n identified by -;he Planningg Staff concerning moH l e home skirting/screening requiremenis -;.:; Individual r.:chi ! e homes individual lot -_ The attach ,d ,-Jrt nc1inent adc;:-r:.-: :s this concern . An issue s-i -;v vent precedes the amendment . The proposed ordinance amendment, if approved, would clarify and improve the administration of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Smith commented that the primary purpose of this amendment is aesthetic . MOTION: Margison moved approval of the amendment providing an option of appropriate landscaping in lieu of skirting . Kramer seconded the motion . • Smith clarified that the item as submitted to public hearing was not advertised in a manner which would allow the Board to delete the skirting prova(An entirely. Best commented that he thought- the skirting require- ment was included to address safety concerns with the spread of fire throughout a unit . Smith responded that the skirting materials permit- ted ranged from solid masonry block to open pressure treated lattice pane l s. Yuhasz noted that the provisions seemed inconsistent given that pole buildings are permitted in Orange County . Jacobs commented that there were two issues here: 1 ) is landscaping an acceptable alternative and 2) safety concerns . Yuhasz inquired what evidence had been presented to suggest that s k i r t i n g I s safer . Best responded that open areas allow fire to "run" . Yuhasz commented that he supported the revision to provide relief to mobile home owners on wooded lots but that the Board needs to reconsider the skirting provision . VOTE : Unanimous Walters noted that fax revisions are needed to encourage mobile home unit owners to make thair- homes more permanent . Lewis con'rnerited that if safely is the concerns then education , not regulation is needed . P (;TI ON Yuhasz ' mo',ed approval of -i he amendment to Ar`-i is ie 22 . Taylor s_: : :;::':ed the motion . Best inquired if the Board should recommend solid skirting . Yuhasz responded i-hat that would be better discussed in the context of the brooder discussion on skirting. VOTE : Unanimous . • WOODtS EDGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN MODIFICATION Smith presented the matter . She noted that the temporary office mobile home unit was well placed and landscaped, but was located within the buffer . Sho indicated that staff was concerned about maintaining the integrity of the buffer though they recognized that the unit as is is visually accept- able and relocation may cause substantial disrup- tion . She added • tie-I- the unit could be moved to a DRAFT DRAFT PBM MINUTES 6-10-86 PAGE 7 should begin "When applicable, cluster open space . . . and (g) to read . . . when such slopes do not otherwise adversely affect the design of the development. In (b) under the section Application Requirements, the word detailed is to be replaced with "precise" . MOTION: Best moved approval with revisions. Seconded by Pilkey. Margison expressed concern with the setback require- ments. Collins explained the purpose of clustering is to allow smaller setbacks between houses with the difference being set aside in greater common open space areas. Discussion followed on zero lot lines vs. cluster development. Collins explained that cluster development provides for single-family detached housing units on smaller lots than the conventional lot requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. He also noted that Staff would be preparing a provision later which addresses zero lot lines which would allow the units to be brought together. Collins continued that this type development could be handled now through a planned development. VOTE: 7 in favor. 1 opposed (Margison) . 1...IDs±Thn_1. Defin itiQna._kClus m.ent). MOTION: Pilkey moved adoption of the Cluster Development definition. Seconded by Best. VOTE: Unanimous. c. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS 1 . Atic_IB_L_SR .ti4 D_�_a_IC1u5±er_DDYPIsz.pmanfl 2. Article 22_De iniAtons 1 mzfer Developmenfl MOTION: Best moved approval of 1 & 2. Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Margison moved to extend the meeting 15 minutes to complete the agenda. Seconded by Pilkey VOTE: Unanimous . 3. kfl e_l_. S e c±I n.„ . 1:i f M j m!dM_Rs:A1sLO1]f aJ_R e c r.e a- 5±.a.osl ar I s.) DRAFT PBM MINUTES 6-10-86 DRAF 1 204 11 PAGE 8 MOTION: Best moved approval . Seconded by Pilkey Collins noted that this amendment increases the recrea- tion space ratio requirement for compatibility between the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations Recreation Standards and sets a higher recreation space ratio in developments of five units per acre and greater. The difference between this ratio and what is in the Subdivision Recreation is that land which would be earmarked specifically for private recreation in a development. VOTE: 6 in favor. 2 opposed (Lewis, Yuhasz) 4. 1g_ Lard o n 7.2_, _pi_EID nDA_Dgyalsal ent. Besgnl na Con stru ---�.-�".__--- 1j J. MOTION: Best moved approval . Seconded by Kramer. Yuhasz inquired why Just one extension. Collins responded that staff experience has been that 18 months is more than adequate time to get a project moving and under construction. VOTE: 6 in favor. 2 opposed (Lewis, Yuhasz) . 5 • Ards.lg..l��gsflsznr���1..��51��.lac.i�u,�.L�41z11g_1Qr�g��._� SCEDBI IngL.1sirtlna 6. Arfi slg_22_DB1J ni tt.9n.s_ taartJ_ngl Numbers 5 and 6 items were delayed at Chair's request. 7. gst1QD._f_J_.2._A.nAL j ._i S c i a i Vs_e_LerJDjf Ay p I i c.at i_on Y1gm FeripAsi Chair noted this gives staff additional time vithin which to consider special use applications. MOTION: Pilkey moved approval . Seconded by Best. VOTE: 6 in favor. 2 opposed (Lewis, Yuhasz) . 8. Ar t i c ii g_.. _9CIIDD__BA _._SPrg=a1/4z11cla±Lon__ koilD.g_._.f o r gciAl11gg_Earmlt_..flpl11cg 1 DRAFTAMMM DRAFT PBM MINUTES 6-10-86 PAGE 9 Chair noted that this places within the framework of planned development applications an opportunity for negotiation which could Include other public bodies that might have information to aid the developer. MOTION: Best moved approval . Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: 6 in favor. 2 opposed (Walters, Yuhasz) • i6, 2Cr1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date AUGUST 4, 1986 Action Agenda Item #212 SUBJECT: PROPOSED PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE/SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact: MARVIN COLLINS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations for submittal to public hearing on August 25, 1986. NEED: The proposed amendments would address recent changes in the General Statutes regarding plat size and would address a gap in the Zoning Ordinance regarding handicapped parking facility standards. IMPACT: The proposed ordinance amendments, if approved, would bring the Subdivision Ordinance into compliance with the General Statutes and would clarify and improve the administration of the Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: The Ordinance Review Committee recommends submittal of the proposed amendments to public hearing. • 20 L: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 e4 .d '..+ I a 1. 1.1* e•` NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ATLAS, ZONING ORDINANCE , SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, LAND USE PLAN AND SCHEDULE OF INSPECTION FEES FOR ORANGE COUNTY Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Sections 323 and 343, Article 20 Sections 20.5 and 20 .6 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Section VIII of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations and procedures for amending the Orange County Land Use Plan, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be hold in the Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina on Monday, August 25, 1986 at 7 : 30 p .m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the adoption of proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Atlas, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, Land Use. Plan and Schedule of Inspection Fees . 0EABDE CS)IINTY_LABD__.U-SE_PLAN The proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan under considera- tion is as follows: Amendment to the Orange County Land Use Plan entitled "An inventory of Sites of Cultural , Historical , Recreational , Biological , and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portion of Orange County ." The inventory is a list of those sites, including, but not limited to, churches, cemeteries, recreational and community centers, historically significant buildings, archeo- logical sites, and special flora and fauna sites, that are considered important to the history, environment, and quality of life of Orange County . QRFNGE DOBIY Z R I Nr_AILLS. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Atlas under consi- deration is as follows : A- 7-86 ALLEN AND DORIS TURNER The property in question Is located on (SR 1812) a state maintained access road leading to U .S . 70 at the southwest corner of the intersection of U. S . 70 and Interstate 85 . It is known as part of lot 77 on Orange County Tax Map 25 for Eno Township . It contains 652,093 .2 square feet or 14.97 acres. The present zoning of the property is Residential -1 (R-1 ) . The proposed zoning classification is General Commer--�(It cial IV (GC IV) . RANGE COUNTY ZONING_ORDINANCE The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance under consideration is as follows: Amend Article 10 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING to provide handicapped parking standards . This amendment would establish standards for handicapped parking facilities . DRAKE COUNTY 3.U221Y1S14N REQUAT I QNS The proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations under consideration is as follows: Amend Section III -E FINAL PLAT to replace the current specifications for map sheet dimensions . This amendment would bring the provisions into compli- ance with the North Carolina Uniform Plat Law . 2 ANGE COUNTY I NSPECTI..C.LRE ScflE2DLE The proposed amendments to the Inspection Fee Schedule. adopted July 8, 1986 are as follows: Add to ,$�, sJy1 - _ CelEa�eg�� Bui Id� 101 L on s, Moving Building $40 .00 Building Demolition $40 . 00 Change of Occupancy/Use $20 . 00 (Existing Building) Satellite Dish $20 .00 Curtain Wall $40 . 00 Radio/TV Tower $20 .00 Swimming Pool $20 .00 Re- issue Outdated Permit Same fees as for new permit Signs-Business identification $40 .00 signs and Bill boards involving construction of concrete footing(s) -all other signs. $20 . 00 Add to the uJ1?_C_- ResisiPnfii.01 Re Irs,_RenQYLI.IDn__._&ad L-l.feraf.i4L5 the following wording: "Additions and Accessory Structures . " Add to .Lh ►1_D_ CQf n erc i a_b_ Ln_d ._NQn- RaLIJD2 -1__Bmilslina the following wording: "Altera- tions and Additions . " Add to Sc h_eAJ f `-M Q_-L1QaaQSa.. _an ske,c t i on s, Load Control Device (LCD) $20 . 00/Dwelling 20 ,' Unit or Commercial Establishment Add to Sched.uleI -- Plumbing: Mobile Homes $20.00 Add to $s_13Ie J,-�Re� idential_. Multi-Family-exposed $40 .00 ductwork I er sl t ellln.g_j n i t) Multi-Family- $60.00 covered ductwork (paLAHRIlin.g unit) Amend all Schedules A-K by rounding off all fees ending in fifty cents ( $ .50) to the next highest dollar amount. As an example, a fee of $6 .50 would be rounded off to $7. 00 . Add a provision regarding Le± Dees to read as follows: Work performed without a permit shall be subject to a late fee equal in amount to the fees specified for the work and in addition thereto . All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard . Public comment on any item must be received during the public hearing . Those wishing to oppose a request must provide competent material and substantial evidence as to the specific manner in which the proposed use does not satisfy the ordinance. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence presented at public hearing will be examined by the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners for decision on the request. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussions at the hearing . Questions regarding the proposals should be directed to to the Orange County Planning Department. Copies of the proposed full amendments are available in the Planning Department for public review . The Planning Department is located in the New Courthouse, 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough . Office hours are from 8: 00 a .m. to 5 : 00 p .m. , Monday through Friday. MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR PUBLISH: August 13, 1986 August 20, 1986 WJ MIIMMEMEmmummir • 20c PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 10 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X_STAFF X PLANNING BD . BOCC PUBLIC OTHER. STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X HIGH MIDDLE LOW COMMENT: To address a functional gap in the ordinance . EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE : AUGUST 26 , 1986 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To provide design standards for handicapped parking facilities in the Zoning Ordinance . ISSUES/ IMPACTS : No requirement exists in 'the Zoning Ordinance for the provision of handicapped parking facilities .. Currently these facilities are provided through the attachment of conditions of approval on subdivisions , planned developments and special use permits . EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISION (S ) : Section 10 .3 b ) Each parking space shall contain a minimum area of one hundred eighty square feet and have a minimum width of 9 feet . However, where there are lots designed to accomodate more than ten vehicles, up to twenty-five percent of the spaces may contain a minimum area of one hundred twelve point five square feet and a minimum width of seven point five feet. The smaller spaces, if provided, shall be designated for use only by compact cars (Manufactureres ' frame classes four through eight . ) PROPOSED AMENDMENT( S ) : ADD TO Section 10 .3 b ) Handicapped parking spaces shall have a minimum width of 13 feet and length of 20 feet . ( NEW) Section 10 . 8 Hana c pp.ed 20;- A minimum of two (2) spaces per parking lot or at least one ( 1 ) handicapped parking space for every f twenty ( 20 ) standard parking spaces or fraction thereof, whichever is greater, shall be designed for use by the physically handicapped . Such spaces shall be clearly marked and reserved for the exclusive use by handicapped persons . A sign designating the space for the physically handicapped shall be placed at the head of the space . Handicapped spaces shall be placed within 100 feet of the major entrance of the building or function . Curb cut/ramp shall be provided for each space for access to adjoining walkways or paths . (Diagram to be added ) ******************* ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE : PLANNING BOARD (PRELIMINARY REVIEW) : BOCC (ADVERTISEMENT) : ji PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REFERENCE: SECTION III - E FINAL PLAT ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X STAFF PLANNING BD . _BOCC PUBLIC OTHER STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION : X HIGH MIDDLE LOW COMMENT: To bring the ordinance provisions into compliance with the General Statutes . EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: AUGUST 26, 1986 ********************** PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: The proposed amendment would bring the provisions of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations into compli- ance with the North Carolina Uniform Plat Law . ISSUES/ IMPACTS: The proposed amendment would replace the current provisions for plat dimensions with a minimum/maximum provision . The amendment would eliminate confusion between the regulations/requirements of the Planning Department and the Register of Deeds/Land Records departments . EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISiON (S) : SECTION III - E - 5 a . Final Plats shall be drawn in waterproof ink on satisfactory reproducable material on sheets of the following sizes: either ( a) 21 " x 30" , ( b ) 12" x 18" or (c) 18" x 24" . When more than one sheet is required to include the entire subdivision , all sheets shall be of the same size and shall show appro- priate match marks on each sheet and appropriate references to other sheets of the subdivision . The scale of the plat shall be at one ( 1 ) inch equals one-hundred ( 100 ) feet, or one ( 1 ) inch equals fifty (50 ) feet, whichever is most appropriate in the determination of the Planning Department . PROPOSED AMENDMENT ( S ) : • 211 REVISE SECTION III - E 5 a . to read : Final plats shall be drawn in water- proof ink on satisfactory reproduc- able material on sheets no sraa.11er greater than r'x n rr n — . When more than one sheet is required . . . ******************* ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD (PRELIMINARY REVIEW) : BOCC (ADVERTISEMENT) : AMEN 2< ORANGE COUNTY. Action. Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS it No...=13 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE August 4, 1986 Subject: -. HUMAN SERVICES TASK FORCE Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: Yes X no Attachments: Information Contact: Moses Carey Appendix I and II Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, Charge 227-0231 PURPOSE: The Board has been considering a revision in the composition and a redefinition of the charge of the current Human Services Advisory Commission (see attachment) to make it more responsive to the needs of the County and the Board of - • Commissioners. While the current Commission has been instrumental in assisting the Board of Commissioners in adopting worthwhile programs to - meet the needs of the citizens of Orange County, it has not been able to realize the full scope of its charge. Therefore, Changes are necessary to insure that the Commission is composed of the types of citizens and has the necessary support to more fully realize its charge as defined by the Board of Commissioners. RECOMMENDATION: Appoint a citizen task force knowledgeable of the history, composition and charge of the Human Services Advisory Commission to make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on the future composition, charge and resources necessary to support its activities by the end of November, 1986. Approve accompanying charge and policy direction. 2L. APPENDIX I HSAC CHARGE Section I. In order to plan for, evaluate, strengthen and coordinate the activities and functions of the many and varied human service efforts existing within Orange County, a need exists to establish the ORANGE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION. Section II. The COMMISSION shall function in an advisory capacity provid- ing counsel to the agencies, commissions, and other en a xis wx en the Cou which ro unding for uman services. I is hope that thzs a 'ce an counsel wel asses an encourag�effective delivery of these services to the people of Orange County in the most resource-efficient manner. Section III. There is hereby created and established the ORANGE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION. Section IV. The COMMISSION is charged with the continuing, responsibility to: A. Advise the Orange County Board of Commissioners and be available to provide advice to other local government units in the County and . - - ti 'es which provide human service fundin in Orange County in ,Manning, evaluating an. coordina 'n e_-.delivery of human serve o e Wes42EZIEMe7Gre n v. The COMMISSION s all period1Ca commenda- tions which are designed to improve human service delivery by: 1. maximizing County resources; 2. encouraging human service delivery organization to adopt cost effective measures; and 3. increasing inter-agency coordination. B. Study the human service needs and resources of Orange County and periodically report the results of the studies to the organiza- tions providing members to the COMMISSION. C. Facilitate communication among various components of the human services delivery and funding system. D. Be available for and prepared to undertake studies result- ing from special requests by the Board of Commissioners. E. Establish committees and subcommittees to provide technical or other advisory assistance to the COMMISSION when deemed necessary by the COMMISSION to carry out its responsibilities. • • APPENDIX II • HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION MODELS The Charge of the existing HSAC is somewhat consistent with the ideas, thoughts and sentiments expressed by local human services advo- cates. The mechanism (composition of HSAC) employed to carry out the charge was discussed with varying models. 1. AGENCY REPRESENTED HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION A. Composition Membership should be limited to county and municipal. human services agencies and agencies with county funding rela- tionships. 7 B. Officers A chairperson and vice chairperson. C. Term of Office As the Board of Commissioners decides. D. Appointment of Officers _ Officers appointed by the Board of Commissioners. E. Regular Meetings HSAC responsible for establishing meeting schedule. F. Subcommittees Ad hoc committees appointed by the HSAC leadership. G. Charge Modification of existing charge to be developed by Board of Commissioners. Information exchange would be the basis of the charge. 2. CITIZEN HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION A. Composition Eleven to fifteen members all appointed by the Board of Commissioners. Within the composition the state mandated board chairs (DSS, Mental Health and Health) should recommend a representative from their respective boards. Orange County United Way, Chapel Hill Carrboro United Way, Orange Congrega- tion In Mission, and Inter Faith Council for Social . y 21, Services should be represented with the remaining members appointed at- large. . B. Officers The officers should consist of a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson. C. Term of Office - HSAC members should be appointed for staggered three year terms. D. Appointment of Officers Officers should be appointed by the .Board of Commissioners annually. E. Regular Meetings A regular meeting schedule would be decided by the ISAC. F. Subcommittees (a) An executive committee acting on behalf of the• HSAC when the full HSAC can not meet. (b) Planning, Program and Evaluation Committee would assist in establishing human services delivery goals; evaluate funding proposals submitted by non-departmental agencies; serve as information and referral committee for the County's information and referral project; enhance coordination of service delivery through monitoring; ini- tiation of studies and identification of duplicative services. (c) Program Development Committee serving as the facilitator for program expansion; assist in the development of new pro grams as human service needs are identified by citizens, human service professionals and the Board of Commissioners. (d) Ad Hoc Committee would be project oriented. Appointed by the Chairperson of the HSAC; the ad hoc committees would report on specific problems, questions and issues affecting the human services system. G. Establishment of new charge by the Board of Commissioners and developed by staff. • 2_I 3. CITIZEN/AGENCY HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION A. Composition HSAC consisting of eleven to fifteen members appointed by the Board of Commissioners. Fifty percent of membership of the HSAC represented human services agencies with the remaining members appointed at-large. B. Officers A chairperson and a vice chairperson. C. Term of Office _ As the Board of Commissioners decides. D. Appointment of Officers Officers selected by the HSAC. E. Regular Meeting Meeting schedule decided by the HSAC. F. Subcommittees Same as all citizen appointed HSAC. G. Charge Established by the Board of Commissioners. 21 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TASK FORCE ON HUMAN SERVICES Charge: 1. To develop a proposal for renewing the charge and reconstituting the existing HSAC. The proposal should include but not be limited to the following: (a) Critiquing possible HSAC recomposition models submitted to the Board of Commissioners by the County Manager's Office. Recommend a model or alternative to the Board for consideration. (b) Determining the role of the HSAC (i.e. should the commission be an evaluative or information exchange body) and enumerate the issues HSAC should address. (c) Examining the authority/jurisdiction of the HSAC as it relates to the Board of Commissioners, non- departmental agencies, and mandated human services boards (Health, Social Services and Mental Health) . Outline organization chart indicating where HSAC should be placed in the County Human Services structure. (d) Suggesting an internal structure for the HSAC (e.g. appointment of officers, term of office, and sub- committees. Describe the role of the officers and subcommittees. (e) Recommending the level of staff support for the HSAC. (f) Suggesting a communication/reporting network for the HSAC which would insure a clear line of communica- tion between the HSAC and the Board of Commissioners, mandated human services board, non- departmental agencies and Manager's Office. 2 . Board of County Commissioners Policy direction: (a) New composition shall include a minimum of 3/4 citizen members (nonagency department heads) . (b) No agency or department head can serve as an officer. (c) Term of office shall be limited to two consecutive one-year terms for officers. (d) Term of membership shall be limited to two consecu- tive three-year terms for citizen members. Two consecutive one-year terms for agency/department head, if any. (e) The Board of County Commissioners must appoint all members. ORA'v 3E COUNTY BOARD CZ Ca• IIssi nas Action rIO a' A GA I'M ABSTRACT Item t TI DATE AUGUST 4, 1986 • Subject: Revised Pees for Dental Clinics [ Dcvartrent: Health J Public Rearing: yes _ Attacha;�ent(s) : Itr o�.tatioi Contact: Jerry Robinson • One - Listing of Proposed Pees • Phone N►zber: -732--8181, Ext. 311 Purpose: At its June 26, 1986 meeting the Board of Health and Health Director reviewed a June, 1986 usual and customary fee analysis that had been prepared by the Dental Director and dentist Board of Health member. The Board policy is to keep our 100% pay at the median of local usual and customary private practice charges. The attached recommended fees and base visit minimum charge would accomplish our policy goal. - 0 Need: Public clinic fees should not compete with private practice fees. Our fees should be revised to avoid such competition, • • Impact: Approximately 80% of all our clinic patients are sufficiently low income that they either pay at 20% of full charge or the minimum visit charge (recommended to go from $5 to $8). The- revised ,fees would increase our clinic fee income by up to $400 per month. This-,income was included in the dental revenue projections in the budget adopted by the Commissioners on Jury 23. _ Recommendation(s): Adopt the dental fees,,as recommended by the Board of Health and Health Director. . �M • • Attachment One 2 1 . PROPOSED DENTAL . PROGRAM FEES July 1, 1986 Present 1002 Recommended RecomMended Fee Procedure pay fee 100X pay fee at 20Z pay level Screening/Emergency Exam $5.00 $10.00 $2.00 Clinical Exam $15.00 20.00 4.00 Consultation 5.00 10.00 2.00 X-Ray, Panelipse ' 25.00 30.00 6.00 FMX - No BWX 25.00 40.00 8.00 BWX 1 6.00 7.00 1.40 BWX 2 . - 8.00 9.00 1.80 BWX 3 10.00 12.00 2.40 BWX 4 12.00 15.00 3.00 let Intraaral PAX 6.00 8.00 1.60 Additional PAX-Ray 3.00 4.00 80 Iatraoral 0ccl Film 8:00 10.00 2.00 Prophylaxis - Child 15.00 20.00 4.00 Adult 15.00 25.00 5.00 Gross Scaling 20.00 25.00 5.00 Topical Fluoride • 8.00 12.00 2.40 Dental Oral Hygiene 10.00 15.00 3.00 Amalgam, 1 Surface 15.00 20.00 4.00 2 Surface 25.00 35.00 . 7.00 3 Surface 30.00 40.00 8.00 4 Surface 40.00 45.00 9.00 5 Surface 50.00 55.00 11.00 Composite:l Surface 15.00 25.00 5.00 2 Surface 25.00 35.00 7.00 3 Surface 30.00 40.00 - 8.00 4 Surface 45.00 50.00 10.00 Treatment Restoration 15.00 25.00 5.00 Pin Build-up (each) 5.00 10.00 2.00 Para Post 60.00 75.00 15.00 St St Crown 50.00 65.00 13•.00 Sealant (per quadrant) 20.00 30.00 6.00 Palliative Treatment 10:00 15.00 3.00 Premedication 10.00 35.00 7.00 Recemeating 10.00 25.00 5.00 Study Models 20.00 30.00 6.00 Extraction (Prim) 15.00 25.00 5.00 Extraction (Perm) 25.00 35.00 7.00 Extraction (Surg) 50.00+ 65.00+ 13.00+ Post-op Visit N/A 10.00 2.00 I&D, Minor Surgery 10.00 25.00 5.00 Pulpotomy 45.00 50.00 = Fractured Tooth Treatment 10.00 ",r 50.00+ 10.00+ Endodontics - 1 Root 90.00 115.00 23.00 2 Roots 125.00 150.00 30.00 3 Roots 150.00 225.00 . 45.00 Occlusal Equilib 8.00 15.00 3.00 Periodontal Exam 15.00 25.00 5.00 Perio Surgery (per quad) 25.00 75.00 15.00 Perio Scaling & Root 25.00 40.00 8.00 Planing (per quad) Duplicating X-Rays 2.00 5.00." 1.00 PROCEDURES WITH ADDITIONAL FEE FOR LAB WORK Full Denture 225.00 275.00 55.00 Immed. Full Denture 250.00 300.00 60.00 Partial Denture 130.0t) 275.00 55.00 Cast Part Denture 250.00 350.00 70.00 Denture Reline 30.00 150.00 30.00 `Z: Denture Repairs 20.00+ 30.00+ 6.00+ • Biopsy Oral Tissue 20.00 30.00 6.00 `. Space Maintainers Band 5 Loop (per quad)30.00 60.00 12.00 Distal Shoe (perquad) 50.00 75.00 15.00 St St Crown Type 68.00 85.00 17.00 Lingual Arch 75.00 125.00 25.00 Removable 125.00 150.00 30.00 Removable Repairs 10.00 25.00 5.00 Habit Appliance 75.00 125.00 25.00 1 - No patient will be denied alleviation of pain due to inability to pay. 2 - The minimum fee per appointment is recommended to be increase from $5 to $8. . . _.. -.1..- TASK FORCE ON HUMAN SERVICES 1. KEITH ALDRIDGE Former HSAC Chair, IFC Representative 2 . DICK HILDEBRANDT Former HSAC Member, OCIM Representative 3 . RUTH ROYSTER Former HSAC Member, Former Commission for Women Member 4. PEGGY POLLITZER Former HSAC Chair, Present IFC Representative 5. BARBARA PAGE Current HSAC Member - Hillsborough Representative 6. HILLIARD CALDWELL Current HSAC Member - Carrboro Representative 7. CHRIS NUTTER Current DSS Member 8. BETTY COMPTON Current Youth Services Task Force Member 9. ARTHUR WHITTED Current Senior Citizens Board Member 10. ED CROWE Current Health and Medical Care Member 11. LANE COOK Social Services Department 12 . JOHN HARTWELL County Commissioner Elect 13 . JERRY ROBINSON Health Director V 14. JERRY PASSMORE Department on Aging Director 15. AL MEBANE Chapel Hill HSAC Chairman 16. LILLY ATWATER Carrboro HSAC Chairperson 17. DICK RICHARDSON United Way - Chapel Hill 18 . AL KITTRELL Assistant County Manager (Staff assistance) 9. BEVERLY BLYTHE Clerk to the Board (Secretary) TASK FORCE ON HUMAN SERVICES 1. KEITH ALDRIDGE Former HSAC Chair, IFC Representative 2 . DICK HILDEBRANDT Former HSAC Member, OCIM Representative 3. RUTH ROYSTER Former HSAC Member, Former Commission for Women Member 4. PEGGY POLLITZER Former HSAC Chair, Present IFC Representative 5. BARBARA PAGE Current HSAC Member - Hillsborough Representative 6. HILLIARD CALDWELL Current HSAC Member - Carrboro Representative 7. CHRIS NUTTER Current DSS Member 8. BETTY COMPTON Current Youth Services Task Force Member 9. ARTHUR WHITTED Current Senior Citizens Board Member 10. ED CROWE Current Health and Medical Care Member 11. LANE COOK Social Services Department 12 . JOHN HARTWELL County Commissioner Elect 13 . JERRY ROBINSON Health Director 14 . JERRY PASSMORE Department on Aging Director 15. AL MEBANE Chapel Hill HSAC Chairman 16. LILLY ATWATER Carrboro HSAC Chairperson 17. DICK RICHARDSON United Way -- Chapel Hill 18. AL KITTRELL Assistant County Manager (Staff assistance) 9 . BEVERLY BLYTHE Clerk to the Board (Secretary) Re.u/se-eL p raved l4,6 sic ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1986-1987 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 19Fi��-1987 #'60.34775-ad Secondary Allocation (Anticipated) x573,222.00 - Previous Years Balance Total 643,272.00 -6 75 -77g Priority SR ' N. No._._ No. Name andDezription >asti�at d Paved SecondE r Road I'up pvem.ent. 1 1009 Reconstruct Old 86 (Continue) 1.3 $185,000. 2 1005 improve Sight Distance in Northeast Quadrant of Intersection with SR 1942 5,000.1',11 Unpaved Secondary Road Improvement. -4 3 1950 Improve Sight Distance on Curve 10,OOD.0 Spot Stabilization c,f Unpaved Roads SR 1 ! 16, SR 1140, SR 1 14 1, SR 1144, SR 1175, SR 1194, SR 1195, SR 1306, SR 1340, SR 1343, :'::� M: : SR 1344, SR 1347, SR 1348, SR. 1510, SR 1512, SR 1523, SR 1525, Sn, 1526, SR 1533, SR 1536, SR 1550, SR 1552, SR. 1568, SR 1570, SR 1571, SR 1572, SR 1 ;73, SR 1575, Sri 1794, SR 1$84, SR 1914, SR 1941, SR 1950, SR 1973, SR 20020 SR 2003 rr r _2_ ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1986-1987 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM :ap Priority SR o. No. No. Name and Description Estimated Length Cost Paving Unpaved Roads 4 1 1538 New Sharon Church Road -- From SR 1003 to NC 57 1.9 (Complete Funding) $165,00O..�i 5 2 1130 Ode Turner Road - From SR 1006 to SR 1129 . (Partial Funding) 1 '6 ' �" ' �• 6 1195 Meadow Lane - From SR 1104 to a Dead End (P. O. P. Paving) 0.23 10,0001 7 1194 From SR 1195 to SR 1112 and 1198 From SR 1194 to a Dead End 0.47 20,000,0 (P. 0. P. Paving) 3 1895 Charlock Court -- Prow SR 1874 to a Dead End (P. 0. P. Paving) 0. 11 10fU0Q.0 Contingency to be Used for Overruns , Additions to System, Paving Rural Fire Department Drives, 463,272,01 and Property Owner Participation x-1 , Note: If right of way is not available on the above unpaved roads, the funds will be programmed on other roads in the order of priority or applied on property owner participation paving. ti . " I RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS COUNTY 50 PAGE 1 S/R." PRTY NAME LNGTH T/PTS • 1538 1 NEW SHARON CH 3.00 387.3 1130 2 ODE TURNER RO 1 .60 360.7 1943 3 SESAME ROAD .50 352.0 1335 4 KENION ROAD 1 .80 296.3 1730 5 TURKEY FARM R 1 .50 287.0 1137 6 BUSHY COOK RO 2.30 276 .7 1561 7 LAWRENCE ROAD .70 1568 8 WILLET ROAD 1 .20 276.0 1113 9 ROCKY RIDGE R 1 .60 274.3 1941 10 OLD SCHOOL RO .90 272.0 1312 11 RICHMOND ROAD 1. »70 267.4 1569 12 GAILBRAITH RO .90 267„0 267.0 1135 13 MOOREFIELDS R 1 .90 265. 1 1383 14 ENO CEMETERY 1 .00 265.0 1575 15 WALKER FARM R 1 .50 261 .0 1950 16 CARL. DURHAM R 2.20 259.6 1727 17 EUBANKS ROAD .92 2. 1955 18 DAWSON ROAD .90 222 .`x4.0 1572 19 EBENEZER CHRU 1. 10 0 1541 20 KIGAR ROAD 4.30 21 6 9 1563 21 YATES ROAD .60 21 .0 2:110 RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS COUNTY 50 PAGE 2 S/R PRTY NAME LNGTH T/PATS 1566 22 LINDEN ROAD .75 214.0 1552 23 MINCEY ROAD 1 .60 1346 24 SADDLE CLUB R 2.40 2115 1555 25 MILLER ROAD 1 .50 21 '.5 1351 26 GOVERNOR SCOT 2.60 24206.3 . 1 1712 27 UNIVERSITY ST 1 .20 5 1540 28 HUNT ROAD 2.Q0 20i�.0 1340B 29 HIGH ROCK ROA 2. 10 202;.0 1725 30 MILL HOUSE RO 1 .83 201,4 1128 31 KIMBRO ROAD .80 20100 136 2 32 ALLIE MAE ROA 1 .40 200 00 1.194 33 ROLLINGWOOD R .30 19800 1839 34 FREELAND HEIG .40 344 0 1395 35 HARPER ROAD .25 344,M0 1896 36 PUREFOY DRIVE .40 301 0 1162 37 LATIMER STREE .20 301.0 1564 38 GIBBS LANE .40 300.0 1705 39 TUSCABORA DRI .40 27400 1184 40 ORANGE HEIGHT . 10 2640 1591 41 GREEN PINE .20 250 +0 1313 42 TINNIN ROAD .40 240,0 215.0 - RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS COUNTY 50 PAGE ' S./R'' PRTY NAME LNGTH T/ITS ' 1794 43 TIMBERLY DRIV .60 203.0 1186 44 ORANGE HEIGHT .20 204.0 1824 45 WILKINS DRIVE .17 200.0 1557 46 CHAVIS FUNERA .20 195.0 1390 47 HOLIDAY PARK .25 195.0 1303 48 E WASHINGTON .56 1910 1315 49 FULLER ROAD .20 192.0 1791 50 MT. MORIAH RO .72 192.0 1131 51 CROSSROAD CH. .50 189.0 1195 52 MEADOW LANE .20 188.0 1573 53 BIVINS ROAD .60 187.0 1144 54 WEST TEN 2.75 186.0 1508 55 HAWKINS ROAD 3.40 183.4 1914 56 WHITE ROCK CH .20 183.0 1548 57 SCHLEY ROAD 1 .90 182.8 1204 58 REX DRIVE .26 18 .0 2002 59 WAVE ROAD .31 18 .0 1516A 60 BROWN ROAD WE 1 .90 17 .5 1396 61 LOCUST STREET .25 17 .0 1397 62 TULIP TREE RO .35 17 .0 1124 63 MARTIN ROAD .70 17 .0 RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS COUNTY 50 PAGE 4 ; S/R PRTY NAME LNGTH T/ ,TS 15208 64 MARY HALL ROA 2.00 17 .5 1715 65 DOVE CREEK RO .45 17 .0 1115 66 ARTHUR MINN'S 1 .60 17 .7 1957A 67 GOLD MINE LOO 1 .70 17 .0 1544 68 PEARSON ROAD 3.30 17 .7 1581 69 SNEED DRIVE 1 .00 17 .0 1361 70 PENECOST ROAD 2. 10 16 .2 1378 71 OAK STREET .16 16 .0 1515 72 BREEZE ROAD 1 .60 16 .6 1198 73 STALLINGS ROA . 10 16 .0 1344 74 HALEY ROAD .40 16 .0 13410 75 HARMONY CHRUC 1 .70 16 .8 1579 76 GREEN RILEY R 1 .20 16 .0 1360 77 LEES CHAPEL R 1 .30 16 .8 1366 78 ATKINS ROAD 2.70 16 .0 1140A 79 WILSON ROAD 1 .55 16 .1 1349 80 POTEAT ROAD 1 .20 161•.1 1526 81 GRAY ROAD 1 .90 161;.0 1947 82 IVEY ROAD .60 156.0 1959 83 MILLIKAN ROAD 1 .80 153.0 1338 84 BROOKHOLLOW R 2. 10 1512 1 I III i RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS COUNTY 50 PAGE $ . S/R PRTY NAME LNGTH T/PTS • 1938 85 RAY ROAD .40 150.0 1516B 86 BROWN ROAD EA 1 .60 159.0 1842 87 RUSCH ROAD . 10 140.0 1512 88 HESTER ROAD 2.70 147. 1 1817 89 STATION ROAD .20 144.0 1385 90 FOX TRAIL .21 144.0 1314 91 SCHOOL HOUSE .32 142.0 2005 92 EDGEWOOD SIRE .37 142.0 1522 93 WAGONER DAIRY 1 .00 142.0 1534 94 MCKEE ROAD 1 .90 141.8 1960 95 LLOYD TOWN RO 1.70 131.8 1341B 96 HARMONY CHURC 2.30 139.6 1306 97 LEBANON ROAD .80 1310 1325 98 N. OAK STREET .20 132.0 1949 99 FORD ROAD .50 132.0 1975 100 BROOKFIELD DR .30 13 .0 1116 101 APPLE MILL RO 1 . 10 129.5 1340A 102 HIGH ROCK ROA 1 .00 12 0 1359 103 OAKLEY ROAD 1 . 10 12 .0 1318 104 CENTER STREET .23 12 r0 1520A 105 MARY HALL ROA .80 12 .0 RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS COUNTY 50 PAGE 6 S/R PRTY NAME LNGTH T/ hS 1369 106 WADE DEAD END 1 .60 12 �.0 1586 107 CAROLINA LOOP .47 1240 1988 108 WOODCREST STR . 10 121.0 1594 109 SHAWNEE DRIVE .20 1250 1302 110 MCBANE STORE 2,2 125.0 1556 111 GOV. BURKES R 1 .40 1'21' 8 1363 112 DOC CORBETT R 1 .90 1215 1206 113 KING EDWARDS .20 12014 2042 114 PINEVIEW DRIV .20 120.0 1336 115 HALLS MILL RO 1 .90 119i„5 1140B 116 WILSON ROAD 1 . 10 119 1 1350A 117 LONESOME ROAD 1 .60 118 7 2001 118 MANGUM COURT .63 118 0 1550 119 EDMUND LATTA 2.00 118 0 1317 120 SOUTHERN DR I V .20 11610 1379 121 FRANK PERRY R 1 .35 11514 1823 122 WILKINS DRIVE .28 11.50 1503A 123 BAMA ROAD 1 .60 1147 1114 124 BUCKHORN ROAD 1 .60 1125 1536 125 BILL POOLE RO 1 .70 111 7 1533 126 BUNNY ROAD 1 .40 1085 r Ai. 1 I" RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS COUNTY 50 PAGE 1 ' S/R PRTY NAME LNGTH T/F'TS 1147 127 REX DRIVE . 11 10 .0 1132 128 SHAMROCK ROAD .20 10 .0 1721 129 RIGSBEE ROAD .40 10 .0 1722 130 I+UMPHUS ROAD .40 100.0 1519 131 GATES ROAD 1 .50 10/.0 1309 132 SHAMBLEY SER . 13 1016.0 1565 133 STRICKLAND RO .40 100.0 1501 134 ALLISON ROAD 2.20 105.5 1525 135 HALL DAIRY RO 1 .40 101.2 1211 136 HICKORY FORES .30 101 .0 1592 137 SHELTON COURT . 16 99.0 1141 138 WHITAKER ROAD 1 .00 9$.0 1165 139 ORANGE HEIGHT .05 96.0 1322 140 FORREST AVENU .20 96.0 2004 141 WILLIS ROAD .30 96.0 1343 142 TOM WARD ROAD .40 96.0 1728 143 LAKE HOGAN FA .42 96.0 1350B 144 HARMONY CHRUC .50 94.0 1355 145 ALLISON ROAD .90 94.0 1529 146 COUNTRY LANE .20 94,0 1973 147 MOONRIDGE ROA .40 94.0 RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS COUNTY 50 PAGE 8 S/R PRTY NAME LNGTH T/PTS 1337 148 BANE ROAD .80 94.0 1341A 149 IRA ROAD 1 .60 9 .7 1739 150 WEST LAKEVIEW . 18 9 .0 1510 151 ORMOND ROAD 1 .90 9 6 1353 152 COMPTON ROAD 2.20 9 .2 1175 153 MARIONS FORD .70 9 .0 1531A 154 BACON ROAD 1 .40 8 r2 1176 155 CAMP CHESTNUT .30 2043 156 PINEVIEW ROAD . 10 8 •0 1145 157 SQUIRES ROAD .20 84.0 1183 158 VIRGINIA CATE .25 841'•0 1944 159 HATCH ROAD .30 84.0 1610 160 BROMLEY ROAD .40 P4 0 1547 161 BRADSHER ROAD .50 84 0 1347 162 CHARLIES DEAD .70 84 0 1370 163 DOC CORBETT R 1 .00 84 0 1570 164 CABE FORD ROA .60 840 1584 165 BROOKS ROAD .20 83' 0 1523 166 BERRY ROAD .30 82 0 1916 167 PARKER ROAD .30 82 0 1368 168 WADE LOOP EAS 1 . 10 8108 8108 • RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS COUNTY 50 PAGE . ,9 8/R' PRTY NAME LNGTH TAIPTS ' 1319 169 FORREST ROAD .08 01 .0 1136 170 HOLMES ROAD .40 76.0 1559 171 FIRST STREET . 14 75.0 1840 172 WHISPERING PI .05 712.0 1797 173 SERVICE ROAD .15 72.0 1404 174 WOODLAND DRIV . 18 72.0 1978 175 STANSBURG ROA .20 72.0 1539 176 RICHARD LANE .50 72.0 1554 177 BALDWIN ROAD 1.70 72.0 1535 178 MCBROOM ROAD .60 71 .0 1881 179 MORIAH HILL R .20 70.0 1778 180 MURPHY SCHOOL .80 70.0 1521 181 BLAYLOCK ROAD .70 68.0 1148 182 ENO MOUNTAIN .88 66.0 15008 183 HENSLEY ROAD 1 .00 68.0 1212 184 HICKORY FORES .20 63.0 1380 185 JONES GROVE C . 10 62.0 1333 186 ORANGE CROSSR .20 61.0 1100 187 TEER ROAD 1 .70 60.5 1386 188 PONDEROSA IRA .06 60.0 15038 189 BAMA ROAD . 10 60.0 RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS COUNTY 50 PAGE 10 S/R PRTY NAME LNGTH T/ 'TS 1603 190 FOREST RIDGE .20 60.0 1913 191 BENNETT ROAD .28 60.0 1106 192 STROWD LANE .40 60.0 1518 193 TILLEY ROAD .60 6r .0 1199 194 TREE FARM ROA .70 64 .0 1582 195 LAUREL RIDGE .20 5 .0 1505 196 WHEELERS CH R .60 5I .0 1542 197 JACKSON ROAD .90 5; .0 1602 198 SPRINGVIEW TR .20 5 .0 1726 199 CLYDE HOGAN R .70 5 .0 1143 200 ROCK QUARRY R .50 5 .0 1835 201 OAK HILL ROAD .55 5 .0 1341D 202 LIB ROAD .90 5 .0 1126 203 BORLAND ROAD .40 51 .0 ' 1513 204 TAPP ROAD 1 .20 54 .0 , 1613 205 QUAIL HOLLOW . 10 A:� .O 1895 206 CHARLOCK COUR . 10 4- .0 1146 207 DEWEY ROAD .20 4: .O 1991 208 LACOCK ROAD .20 4^ .0 1917 209 MADISON WOMBL .30 4- .0 1576 210 STEWART FARM .60 4 .0 RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS COUNTY 50 PAGE 1 't/F' t/FC PRTY NAME LNGTH TOPTS `1587 211 CAROLINA LOOP . 14 44.0 1356 212 TOM POPE ROAD .40 46.0 1957B 213 GOLD MINE ROA 1 . 10 45.4 1500A 214 ALLISON ROAD 1 .50 4$".0 1597 215 NORMAN ROAD .70 44.0 1511 216 PRESTON GEORG .60 42.0 .1716 217 DUKE FOREST R .70 40.0 1549 218 WOODS LOOP .90 38.0 1401 219 MILDRED COURT .08 36.0 1316 220 GAINES CHAPEL . 10 34.0 1348 221 HENRY HAITH R .40 .. 3 .0 1527 222 GREEN ROAD . 10 3 .0 1502 223 BURTON ROAD .80 3 .0 1531B 224 BACON ROAD .30 27.0 1537 225 HOPKINS ROAD .40 26.0 1571 226 PLEASANT GREE .30 2q.O 2003 227 NO NAME .04 1377 228 THOMPSON ROAD .05 24.0 24w4//� 1188 229 SAMS ROAD . 10 24.0 1578 230 BEASLEY ROAD .20 24.0 1509 231 RALPHS DEAD E .40 24.0 RATING UNPAVED SECONDARY ROADS COUNTY 50 PAGE 12 S/R PRTY NAME LNGTH TOPTS 134 2 232 JAMES WARD RO .80 24.0 1514 233 JIMMY ED ROAD 1 .00 24.0 1105 234 HACKNEY ROAD .30 20.0 1311 235 REDMAN ROAD .25 12.0 1181 236 BEN JOHNSTON .30 12.0 1967 237 BF'W CLUB ROAD .30 10.0 1398 238 REDMAN ROAD . 10 .0 NUMBER ROADS: 238 TOTAL MILES: 199.24 1 ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 108 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CAREY BEN LLoyo sHERLEY E.MARSHALL NORMAN WALKER August 4, 1986 DON W0 LMO1T Donald P. Holloway Land Records Management Program Land Resources Division N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611 Dear Mr. Holloway: I have attached a copy of the resolution of participation in the State of North carolina's Land Records Management Program which was approved by the Board of Commissioners at their regular meeting on August 4, 1986. As I understand this resolution of-continuing participation is required by the State to support an application-for matching funds from the grant program fortmpr+ yiglancl-records ina=localµgovernment«- If you have an quest ons:please sure_arnd_contactRoscie'Reeve. Thank . ice. ` fi.: sir_ ;t� ��: �. - k Mrs. Beverly A. Blythe Clerk o5 BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners, that it recognizes and appreciates the Land Records Management Program of the State Department of Natural Resources and Community Development and its assistance to counties through matching grants , and desires to participate in the modernization program of land records for the 1986-1987 fiscal year. It further agrees to abide by the agreements and contracts with the program that are mutually adopted. FC-42 STATE OF WIRTf1 CAROLINA (i. 78) Department of Natural Resources and Community Development • $86,397.00 Total Cooperative Appropriation $51,838.00 60 State $34,559.00 40 , County AGREEMENT FOR THE PROTECTION, DEVELOPMENT AND IM2RO`JEMENT OF FOREST LANDS IN ORANGE COIm'r , NORTH CAROLINA THIS AGREEMENT, made under authority of "An act to authorize Counties to cooper- ate with State in Forest Protection,- Reforestation and promotion of Forest t':.:- - agement," (Section 113-59 of the General Statutes of North Carolina - 1943) :_ad also under authority of another Section of the General Statutes, namely Section 113-54, by the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Develop- cent (hereinafter called the Department), party of the first part, and the Board of Commissioners of ORANGE County in the State of North Carolina (hereinafter called the Board), party of the second part, witnesseth: That WHEREAS the said Board, recognizing the need for active forest protection, development, reforestation, management and improvement in ORANM County, has accepted the offer of the Department for cooperation in accomplish- ing this object: Now, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual convenants hereinafter set forth, the said parties contract and agree to maintain a legally appointed and equipped Forest Ranger organization in said county at the joint cost of the State and 'County, insofar as the joint funds will permit, as follows: Part I. THE DEPARTMENT AGREES: 1. To select, employ and appoint, after consultation with the Board, a County Forester or. County Forest Ranger for the purposes of controlling forest fires in said County; for detecting and extinguishing fires that break out; for investigating the origin of forest, woodland and field fires; for enforcing State forest fire laws; for taking such preventative measures, educational and other- wise, as shall seem necessary to prevent forest fires; for developing and improv- ing the forests through reforestation, promotion and practice of Forest Manage- ment practices; and for protection from insects and diseases. 2. To furnish to each Forester or Forest Ranger so employed a badge of office, stationery and report forms, instructionsl posters for use in the County, leaflets for distributing to landowners and others; to purchase necessary equipment, communication systems, and other Forestry improvements deemed neces- sary insofar as the joint funds will permit. 3. To pay the Forester or Forest Ranger for all official services rendered, at a fair rate of pay. Rates of pay are to be established by the Depart- ment in accord with existing State salary schedules. a , - 2 - . • 4. To direct supervise, instruct, and inspect, through its agents, the work and conduct of the Forester or Forest Ranger, to discipline and, when necessary, discharge such Forester or Forest Ranger. 5. To submit to the Board of Commissioners monthly (or at other mutually satisfactory intervals) an itemized statement of all monies to be paid by the County and those paid by.the Department for the proper conduct of the work within said County. • b. To rake a� b' a 1l �fro State, Federal, and other funds allotted to it, the sum ofhunc cd thirty thirty Eeicrht�q�collars ($ i , ) as its share of an annual budget of $86,397.00 for carrying on the work in said County. Part II. THE BOARD AGREES: I. To pay to the Department 40% of the total cost of the Forester or Forest Ranger salaries and expenses end of other proper expenditures made in connection with the over-all Forestry program in said County, upon receipt and consequent approval of the periodic statements submitted by the Department. 2. Thirty four thousand five To appropriate annually the sum of hundred fifty nine dollars ($34,559.00, which sum shall be available for expenditure under the terms of this Agreement, and shall represent the County's share of the annual budget. Fart III. IT IS EXPRESLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD BY BOTH PARTIES: 1. That this Agreement becomes effective July I ,19 86 . 2. That the annual appropriations as set forth above may be re- vised by mutual agreement between the Department and the Board, based on the amount of annual appropriation desirable for the proper conduct of the Forestry work, such revision to become effective at the beginning of a given Fiscal Year. Any unused balance of County funds remaining at the end of a Fiscal Year shall .revert to said County unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by both parties. 3. That the Board reimburse the Department as provided in Part II, - Item 1, by forwarding a county voucher drawn in favor of the Department for the amount of the County's share of expenditures as set forth in the Department's periodic statement to the Board. That such payments be made by the Board within thirty days following receipt of the Department's billing. 4. ' The title to all improvements and equipment purchased and/or constructed in connection with this agreement will rest. with the Department; such materials or their equivalent will remain in the County as long as this Agreement is in effect, or as long as they are needed by the Department for the proper conduct of the work therein. • • 5. That the Forester or Forest Ranger periodically or at the re- quest of the Board, shall present to the Board statements of the work being done within the County, so that said Board .may be fully informed at all times re- garding the Forestry finances and activities within the County. _ • 3 - ° 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties do hereunto affix their names and seals upon the date herein below specified. For the Board of County Commissioners of O (04 County. 4. l I/4 Chairman Provisions for the. payment of the monies to fall due under this Agreement. have been made by appropriation duly made or by bonds or notes duly authorized, as required by the "County Fiscal Control Act". Date f - 5- - F6 ' . County Finance Officer For the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Date August 19, 1986 rf :' .. )7+0.z Signature •. Director, Div. of Forest Resourcq Title Form 9-1366 • Department of the.Interior (Rev. 918$) Geological Survey 5'� Joint Funding Agreement ' 'FOR Water Resources Investigations THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 1st . day of July , 19 86by the GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,` UNiTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, party of the first part, and the Orange County party of the second part. 1. The parties hereto agree that subject to the availability of appropriations and in accordance with their respective authorities there shall be maintained in cooperation a gage on Eno River, North Carolina hereinafter called the program. 2. The following amounts shall be contributed to coverall of the cost of the necessary field and office work directly related. to this program, but excluding any general administrative or accounting work in the office of either party. (a $ 2,800.00 by the party of the first part during the period July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987 • {b) $ 2,800.00 by the party of the second part during the period July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987- (c) Additional amounts by each party during the above period or succeeding periods as may be determined by mutual agreement and set forth in an exchange of letters between the parties. 3. Expenses incurred in the performance of this program may be paid by either party in conformity with the laws and ._ . regulations respectively governing each party, provided that so far as may be mutually agreeable all expenses shall be paid in the first instance by the party of the first part with appropriate reimbursement thereafter by the party of the second part. Each party shall furnish to the other party such statements or reports of expenditures as may be needed to satisfy fiscal requirements. 4. The field and office work pertaining to this program shall be under the direction of or subject to periodic review by an authorized representative of the party of the first part. 5. The areas to be included in the program shall be determined by mutual agreement between the parties hereto or their authorized representatives. The methods employed in the field and office shall be those adopted by the party of the first part to insure the required standards of accuracy subject to modification by mutual agreement. 6. During the progress of the work all operations of either party pertaining to this program shall be open to the inspection of the other party, and if the work is not being carried on in a mutually satisfactory manner, either party,may terminate this agreement upon 60 days written notice to the other party. 7. The original records resulting from this program will be deposited in the office of origin of those records. Upon request, copies of the original records will be provided to the office of the other party_ 8. The maps, records or reports resulting from this program shall be made available to the public as promptly as possible. The maps, records or reports normally will be published by the party of the first part. However, the party of the second part reserves the right to publish the results of this program and, if already published by the party of the first part shall, upon request, be furnished by the party of the first part, at cost, impressions suitable for purposes of reproduction similar to that for which the original copy was prepared. The maps, records or reports published by either party shall contain a statement of the cooperative relations between the parties. 9. Billing for this agreement will be rendered annually . Payments of bills are due within 30 days after the billing date. If not paid by the due date, interest will be charged at the current Treasury rate for each 30-day period, or portion thereof, that the payment is delayed beyond the due date. (31 USC 3717; Comptroller General File B-212222, August 23, 1983.). - t GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ,� UNITED STATES Byo! DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ORANGE COUNTY �� � By By James F. putruleA,T leine.Pf By (USE REVERSE SIDE IF ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES ARE REQUIRED) GPO 919-244