Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 08-19-1986
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1986 7: 30 P.M. OLD POST OFFICE CHAPEL HILL, N.C. A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIE' CE COMMENTS 1. atters on the Printed Agenda 2 . atters not on the Printed Agenda C. APPOI I TMENTS D. MINUT. S E. RECOG ITION 1. ; mployee Recognition PAGE # F. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA 004 1. itle III-B Aging Services Contract 021 2 . ail Medical Services Contract 023 3 . indirect Cost Plan Contract G. ITEMS FOR DECISION 027 1. coning Ordinance--Mobile Home Standards 036 2 . oint Planning Area Land Use Plan 127 3 . Inspection Fees--Joint Planning Projects 134 4 . •Tanning Board Water Policy Resolution 138 5. -evere Road County Annex (Carr Building) ; rchitectural Services 144 6. -evere Road County Annex Renovation; A?proval of contracts H. REPOR 154 1. 986-87 Capital Projects Proposal I. ADJOU' MENT ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. Cl ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE August 19, 1986 • Subject: APPOIN7MENTS • I Department: BOARD OF COMIwIISSIONERS I Public Hearing: Yes % no l Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under Separate Cover Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-1+501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards. The following vacancy is announced for the first time only: B-6 - HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY BOARD - 1 vacancy (expiration of term for Danita Marie Thompson for lack of attendance). 1 resume is submitted for consideration. 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-13 - RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL - 2 vacancies; no recommendation has been received. B-5 DOMICILIARY HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - 1 vacancy; no recommendation has been received. B-14 - ARTS COMMISSION - 1 vacancy; no recommendation has been received. C-7 - ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - 2 vacancies; 3 resumes are submitted for your consideration. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. 002 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. 1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE August 19, 1986 I Subject: MINUTES Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: Yes X no Ci I Attachments Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under Separate Cover Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 4 227-0231 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: June 24, 1986 - Special Meeting July 7, 1986 - Regular Meeting NEED: Approval so the minutes may be entered into the official minute book in the Clerk's office. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. 003 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. ` ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: AUGUST 19, 1986 SUBJECT: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 CERTIFICATE TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To recognize Elizabeth Garrard, Assistant Director of Revenue, for receiving the certification of Assistant Tax Collector. Achievement of the certification requires extensive training in both the technical aspect of tax collection and general administration. Ms. Garrard completed 146 credit hours in the following courses: Management for Administrative Assistants, Fundamentals of Property Tax Collections, Fundamentals of Property Tax Listing and Assessing, Advance Enforcement Work- shop, and Management Skills. The certification is granted by the North Carolina Tax Collector's Association. Ms. Garrard has been employed with Orange County since August 10, 1970. IMPACT: Ms. Garrard is one of approximately 35 persons in the State of North Carolina that have successfully completed the certifica- tion process. NEED: RECOMMENDATION(S) : Recognize and express appreciation to Elizabeth Garrard for her most recent accomplishment. UIWNLi CuU • '" • 3QARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION A ~VCA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO MEETING DATE August 19, 1986 .004 SUBJEC: Title III-B Aging -Sdrvices Contract Approved • DEPARTMENTS Aging . PUBLIC. HEARING:. Y ES x NO ATTACHMENT(S) : • INFORMATION CONTACT:. Contracts • Jerry Passmore • PHONE NUMBERS:- HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 - HILLSBOROUG'rl - 732-9361 CHAPEL. HILL - 967-9251 MANE - 227-2031 T DURHAM - 688-7331 - PURPOSE: To request approval of contract for Title III-B Older Americans Act- funds with Triangle J Council of Governments effective July 1, 1986 through June 30 , 1987 for 'federal/state funds in the amount of • $83,669. . • NEED This is a yearly continuation contract covering aging services - which. are a part of the Department on Aging's current and approved - ' budget. • • • • fIMPACir Without the Title III--B contract funds , the Department on Aging's services would have to be reduced or local revenues appropriated. RECOMMENDATION(S) : The Department on Aging Director recommends approval. If approved, Chairman should sign both copies and return to Council of Governments. ORANGE COUNTY and u TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CONTRACT FOR SOCIAL AND SENIOR CENTER SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, entered into as this 1st day of July 1986, by and between Orange County s (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor" or "Agency") and the Triangle J Council of Governments, (herein-after referred to as "COG"). • WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, COG desires to engage the Agency to render certain social services hereinafter described in connection with an undertaking or project (hereinafter referred to as the "Project") which is to be wholly or partially financed by a grant from Administration on Aging through N. C. Division of Aging (hereinafter, along with the appropriate auditing agency of the entity making such grant, referred to as the "concerned Funding Agency or Agencies"), said grant being (hereinafter referred to as the "Grant Contract" and identified as Center Services Contract Social and Seninr . and WHEREAS, the Agency desires to render such services in connection with the Project: NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and the mutual convenants and agreements hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Employment of the Agency. COG hereby agrees to engage the Agency and the Agency hereby agrees to perform the services hereinafter set forth in accordance with the terms and conditions contained herein. 2. Local Support. In accepting this contract providing for $ 79,020 of federal funds and $4,649 of state funds, the Agency agrees to provide not less than $ 9,296 of acceptable non- federal cash and $ -0- acceptable in-kind contributions. -2- 3. Scope of Services. Agency shall do, perform and carry out in a satisfactory and proper manner the work and services described in Attachment "A" (or as described in 006 FY 87 Area Plan) which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 4. Time of. Performance. The services of the Agency . are to commence no later than fifteen (15) days after the execution of this contract and shall be undertaken and pursued in such sequence as to assure their expeditious completion and as may be required in Attachment "A" . All services required hereunder shall be completed on or before June 30, 1987 • 5. Compensation and Method of Payment. The Agency shall be compensated for the work and services to be performed under this contract as set forth in Attachment "A" which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. In no event, however, will the total compensation and reimbursement, if any, to be paid the Agency under this contract exceed the sum of Eighty-three thousand, six hundred sixty-nine dollars ($83,669) 6. Progress Payments. Unless otherwise provided in Attachment "A" , the Agency shall be entitled to receive progress payments on the following basis: As of the last day of each calendar month during the existence of this contract, the Agency shall submit to COG an invoice for payment based on the unit cost reimbursement rate per service (as identified in Attachment "A") through the invoice period. Subject to COG's right to verify the accuracy of the invoice and the satisfactory performance of the work evidenced thereby, COG will make payments to the Agency on a monthly basis as the work progresses but not more often than once a month. Invoices must cover a period ending with the end of a month and must be received within ten (10) days following the end of the invoice period. The Agency will be paid an amount which equates the agreed upon unit cost reimbursement rate to the units provided during the invoice period. r. -3_ 007 7. Documentation of Expenses. Agency shall maintain full and complete documentation of all expenses associated with performing the scope of work under this contract. Expense documentation shall include: timesheets for each employee, showing time spent on services for recipients; receipts for any supplies purchased for use on this contract; any applicable subcontract expenditures; all applicable overhead and indirect expenditures; and such other documentation necessary to substantiate overall costs of delivering the contracted service (including Agency contribution as well as amounts reimbursed by COG) . 8. Documentation of Service Recipients and Confidentiality. It is expressly understood and agreed that the report procedures established by COG may include, but not be limited to, the names and addresses of individuals receiving services under the terms of this contract, with the understanding that no personal information obtained from any individual will be disclosed by COG in a form which allows identification of the individual , without the written consent of the individual. It is understood and agreed that the report procedures established by COG may also include actual costs incurred per unit of service including both COG costs and Agency contributions. 9. Reprogramming of Funds. It is understood and agreed that, in the event that the amount of funds received from the North Carolina Division of Aging is reduced, COG may, in turn, decrease the total compensation and reimbursement to be paid hereunder and require corresponding changes in the Scope of Services as set out in Attachment "A" . It is further understood and agreed that, in the event at the end of each quarter, the Contractor 's rate of progress on this contract is leading to underspending at the end of the contract period, due to inability to provide services at planned levels, COG may decrease the total compensation and reimbursement to be paid hereunder in order to allocate funds to other contracts and services. 10. Change of Unit Cost Reimbursement Rates. COG may 008 renegotiate the reimbursement rates as set forth in Attachment "A The parties agree that COG will consider increasing the reimbursement rate only under two circumstances: (a) Upon a showing by Agency that actual costs have increased due to factors beyond Agency's control; or (b) Upon a showing by Agency that actual costs have increased due to a sudden increase in client load (e.g. , due to a disaster) . The parties further agree that COG shall have the right to decrease the reimbursement rate under any circumstances which show that actual costs are less than projected; including, but not limited to, circumstances in which: (a) Overall costs of providing service are shown to be less than forecast in the Agency's original bid for this service; or (b) The Agency fails to document the required local match such that the COG reimbursement rate exceeds ninety percent (90%) of service costs. In the event the reimbursement rates are decreased, COG may, at its option, increase the total number of units of service to be delivered. 11. Payments by Service Recipients. No individual receiving services under the terms of this Agreement shall be required to pay any part of the cost of the service. However, recipients shall be given the opportunity by the Agency to make some contribution for the service in .a manner approved by COG. Agency shall post a notice in a conspicuous place, stating that no charge is made for the service, but that contributions will be accepted. Agency shall furnish envelopes to all clients for confidential contributions. Agency shall offer a locked box in a convenient location for confidential deposit of envelopes. All envelopes shall be collected and -- - - _ .. -5- OAperated by the Project Manager or a person designated by the Project Manager. Envelopes shall be :opened in the presence of another person, the money shall be counted and the total recorded. The money shall be deposited in accordance, with the usual procedures of the Agency, with a separate receipt. Accumulation of contributions should not exceed fifty dollars ($50) between deposits. 12. Program Income. Program income is any money received by Agency as a direct result of contract activity. Agency shall maintain daily records of voluntary contributions by (or on behalf of) service recipients, interest received on COG advances before disbursement, and any other program income. Agency shall not withhold any program income as an offset to COG reimbursement. Program income shall be used in the same year it is received to provide additional services. Upon completion of the work, including the receipt of any final written submission of the Agency, COG shall pay the - Agency a sum equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the compensation to be paid under this contract, less the total of all previous payments made. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, COG will make diligent efforts to obtain advance funding from its funding source; and if it receives such advance funding then the Agency shall be entitled to advances once a month based upon requisitions of the estimated amounts of expected expenditures for such month. 13. Agency's Personnel. Agency represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing the services under this contract. Such personnel shall not be employees of COG, nor shall such personnel have been employees of COG during any time within the twelve- month period immediately prior to. the date of this contract, except with the express prior written consent of COG. Further, Agency agrees that no one employed by COG now, or within the twelve-month period immediately prior to the date of this contract, shall be involved in any way with the performance of this contract, without the express prior written approval of COG. • -6- 14. Approval of Subcontracts. None of the work of services to be performed under this contract by the Agency 010 shall be subcontracted without the prior written approval of COG. If such subcontracting is authorized as herein provided, all subcontract documents shall be submitted to COG for review and approval prior to the execution of such subcontract. Further, if requested by COG, the Agency shall provide COG with such documentation as it shall require, regarding the method the Agency used in selecting its subcontractor. The Agency knowledges that if the work or services to be performed under this contract is financed solely or partially through Federal funds, the selection of subcontractors is governed by regulations requiring competition between potential subcontractors or adequate justification for sole source selection. The Agency agrees to abide by such regulations in its selection procedure. 15. Review and Coordination. To insure adequate review and evaluation of the work, and proper coordination among interested parties, COG shall be kept fully informed concerning the progress of the work and services to be performed hereunder. COG may require the Agency to meet with designated officials of COG and the Concerned Funding Agency from time to time to review the work. Reasonable prior notice of such review meeting shall be given the Agency. 16. Reports. The Agency, shall furnish COG with a quarterly progress report, (the period for which COG is required to report to the funding agency) , in such form as may be specified by COG, outlining the work accomplished by • the Agency during the period of such report and the current status of the Project, including the percentage of the work which has been completed as of the end of the period covered by such report. Such report shall be furnished within fifteen (15) days of the end of the period covered by such report. (4.11". Inspections. Authorized representatives of COG and the Concerned Funding Agency may at all reasonable times review and inspect the Project activities and data collected pursuant to this contract. All reports, drawings, studies, specifications, estimates, maps and computation prepared by or for the Agency shall be made available to authorized representatives of COG and the Concerned Funding Agency for inspection and review at all reasonable times in the Agency's office where data are normally accumulated. Approval and acceptance of such material shall not relieve the Agency of its professional obligation to correct, at its expense, any errors found in the work. 19. Maintenance of Cost Records. The Agency shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred in the Project and shall make such material available at all reasonable times during the period of the contract, and for three years from the date of final payment under the contract, for inspection by COG, the Concerned Funding Agency, and if the work and services to be performed under this contract is wholly or partially funded with Federhl funds, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives. The Agency shall include the provisions of this paragraph in any subcontract executed in connection with this Project. 19. Compliance with Requirements of the Concerned Funding Agency. The Agency shall be bound by the applicable terms and conditions of the Grant Contract between COG and the Concerned Funding Agency, which said Grant Contract is on file in the offices of COG, a copy of which has been delivered to the Agency, and is hereby made apart of this Agreement as fully as if the same were attached hereto. 20. Data to be furnished Agency. All information, data, reports, records and maps which are existing, readily available and reasonably necessary, as determined by COG, -8- for the performance by the Agency of the work and services required by this contract shall be furnished to the Agency 012 without charge by COG. COG, its agents and employees, shall fully cooperate with the Agency in the performance of the • Agency's duties under this contract. 21. Rights in Documents, Materials and Data Produced.. Agency agrees that all reports, drawings, studies, speci- fications, estimates, maps, computations and other data prepared by or for it under the terms of this contract shall be delivered to, become and remain, the property of COG upon termination or completion of the work. Both COG and the • Agency shall have the right to use same without restriction or limitation and without compensation to the other. For the purposes of this contract, "data" includes writings, ' sound recordings, or other graphic representations, and works of a similar nature. No reports, maps or other documents produced in whole or part under this contract shall be the subject of an application for copyright by or on behalf of the Agency or its subcontractors. The work to be performed under this contract may be subject to certain regulations issued by the Concerned Funding Agency. Information regarding these relevant regulations may be obtained upon written request to COG. This contract does not provide for the development of systems analysis products, models, electronic data processing systems , software and related services. Any development of such methods, material, logic and systems. shall be paid for by the Agency from funds not allocated to this contract as local support and shall be the property of the Agency. 22. Identification of Documents. All reports, maps and other documents completed as a part of this contract_ shall bear on the title page of such report, map or document, the following legend: 'Prepared by (insert name of Agency) under Contract with the Triangle J COG". The date (month and year) in which the document was prepared shall also be shown. -9 23. Interest of Agency. The Agency -covenants that Oiler the Agency, nor anyone controlled by the Agency, controlling the Agency, or under common control with the Agency, nor their agents, employees or subcontractors, presently has an interest, nor shall acquire an interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of its service hereunder, or which would prevent, or tend to prevent, the satisfactory performance of the Agency's service hereunder in an impartial and unbiased manner. The Agency further covenants that in the performance of this contract if any person having any such interest and employed by the Agency contemplates taking some action which may constitute a violation of this paragraph, the Agency shall request in writing the advice of COG, and if COG shall notify the Agency in writing that the Agency's comtemplated action will not constitute a violation hereof, then the Agency shall be authorized to take such action without being in violation of this paragraph. 24 . Interest of Members of COG and Others. No officer, member or employee of COG, and no public official or any local government which is affected in any way by the Project, who exercises any function or responsibilities in the review or approval of the Project or any component part thereof, shall participate in any decision relating to this contract which affects his personal interest or the interest of any corporation, parnership or association in which he is, directly or indirectly interested; nor shall any such officer, member or employee of COG, or public official, of any local government affected by the Project, have any interest, direct or indirect, in this contract or the proceeds arising therefrom. 25. Officials not to Benefit. No member of or delegate to the Congress of. the United States of America, resident Commissioner or employee of the United States Government, shall be admitted to any share or part of this contract or to any benefits to arise herefrom. • • • 26. Equal Employment Opportunity. 014 (a) The Agency will not discriminate against any employee, applicant for employment or subcontractor because of race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin. The Agency shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and subcontractors Are selected, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotions, or transfers; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoffs or terminations; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; selection for training including apprenticeship; and participation in recreational and educational activities. The Agency. certifies that it presently has in effect such an affirmative action program which specifies goals and target dates to assure the implementation of such plan. The Agency agrees to post in a conspicuous place available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause. The Agency will in all solicitations or advertisements for subcontractors or employees placed by or on behalf of the Agency, state that all qualified applications will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin. The Agency will cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all subcontracts for any work covered by this contract so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor provided that the foregoing provisions shall not apply to subcontracts for less than $10,000. 00. (b) The Agency shall keep such records and submit such reports concerning the racial and ethnic origin of applicants for employment and employees as COG or the Concerned Funding Agency may require. -11- . 15 (c) The Agency agrees to comply with such rules, regulations or guidelines as COG or the Concerned Funding Agency may issue to implement the requirements of this paragraph. 27. Changes. COG may require changes in the work and services which the Agency is to perform hereunder. Such. changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of the Agency' s compensation which are mutually agreed upon by and between COG and the Agency, shall be incorporated in written amendments to this contract. 28. Assignability. The Agency shall not assign,. sublet or transfer all or any portion of its interest in this Agreement without the prior written approval by COG. 29. Licenses and Permits. Agency shall maintain all required licenses, permits, bonds, and insurance required for carrying out the services in Appendix A. The Agency shall notify COG immediately if any required licenses or other permits are cancelled, suspended, or otherwise ineffective. Failure to maintain proper licenses, permits, bonds and insurance shall be a basis for COG disallowing all or part of payments under this contract or for termination of this. agreement for cause. 30. Insurance. If Agency uses vehicle in fulfilling its duties under this Agreement, Agency shall also provide evidence of automobile insurance in the minimum amount of Twenty-five Thousand/Fifty Thousand Dollars ($25, 000/$50,000) liability insurance and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) property insurance. Failure to provide evidence of insurance shall be deemed an automatic violation of this Agreement and could therefore lead to termination of the Agreement by COG. The Agency shall hold COG harmless for any damages to the person or property of any individual or organization as the result of the execution of the scope of service to be performed. under this Agreement. 31. Termination of the Contract. If the Agency shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this contract; or if the Agency shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, representations or stipulations -12- of this contract; or if services do not meet standards as set forth by N.C. Division of Aging; or if for nutrition 916 service specifically, meals fail to follow the approved program menu and meet reasonable standards of nutrition, sanitation and palatability as determined by COG; COG shall give the Agency written notice specifying such failure or violation, and giving the Agency a specified reasonable time, not less than fifteen (15) days, within which to cure or remedy such failure or violation. If within such specified period the Agency shall cure or remedy such failure or violation, or shall take steps from which it is apparent that such failure or violation will be substantially cured or remedied within a reasonable time after such period, then this contract shall not be terminated. But if the Agency shall fail within such specified period to cure or remedy the same or to take such steps as aforesaid, then this contract shall be deemed to have terminated effective at the end of the period of such notice. In the event of such termination, all finished or unfinished documents and other materials collected or produced under this contract (as more fully described in paragraph 15 hereof) shall, at the option of COG, become its property (subject to full accessibility thereto by the Agency) and the Agency shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents or materials. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Agency shall not be relieved of liability to COG for damages sustained by COG by virtue of any breach of this contract by the Agency and COG may withhold any payments to the Agency for the purpose of set-off for damages caused by the Agency 's breach, until such time as the exact amount of damages to COG from the Agency is determined. 32. Termination for Lack of Funds. In the event of prospective termination due to non-receipt of funds with which to carry out the provisions of this contract the COG may terminate this Contract by giving written notice to the Agency of such termination and specifying the effective date -13- of such termination. In the event such written Notice is 017 given, all finished or unfinished documents- and other materials as described in paragraph 15 above shall, at the option of. the COG, become its property (subject to full accessibility thereto by the Agency) and the Agency will be paid for work satisfactorily completed by the termination date according to the agreed upon unit cost reimbursement. If this Contract is terminated due to the fault of the. Agency, paragraph 24 hereof relative to termination shall apply. 33. Applicable Law. This Contract shall be deemed to have been executed and performed in the State of. North Carolina, and all questions of interpretation and construction shall be construed by the laws of such State. IN WITNE::S WHEREOF, the Agency and COG have executed this Agreement as of the day first above written. AGENCY: BY: Chairman or Designated Official TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS: BY: _.....--5' -..f- ,,,./6_____.__ z Executive Director APPROVED AS TO LEGAL ORM: ,t;R/7/ v . 7 7 V/1 Counsel, Triangle J Council of Governments ATTACHMENT A TRANSPORTATION 018 1 . Location of Service. Provision. This service shall be carried out for older persons in Orange County. 2. Service Standards. The delivery of this service shall be in accordance with Standards as adopted by the N.C. Division of Aging. 3. Compensation. The Contractor and COG expressly understand and agree that in no event will the total compensation and reimbursement paid hereunder by COG exceed the maximum of $23,299 Federal funds, $1 ,370. State funds for the specified service and shall constitute full and complete compensation for the Contractor's service hereunder. Local match of $2 ,741 Cash and -o- In- kind resources shall be required under this contract. 4. Reimbursement Rate Per Unit of Service. A unit cost reimbursement rate of -0- Dollars and fifty-seven Cents ( $0. 57 ) is agreed upon for every unit of service delivered to eligible recipients. COG will reimburse Contractor 90 % of this rate with Federal and State funds, an amount equalling $0. 51 per unit. 5. Scope of Service Units. It is agreed that Contractor will work towards delivering 48,000 trips of acceptable units of service to eligible recipients by June 30, 1987. 6. Changes to Reimbursement Rate or Units of Service. Any changes shall be as set forth in Section 10 of this Contract. Changes shall be subject to review by COG Advisory Council on Aging, COG Board and Contractor' Board. 7. Personnel . It is understood and agreed that Jerry M. Passmore shall represent the Contractor or Project Manager in the performance of this Agreement. Any change in such Project Manager shall be subject to agreement with COG for continuation of contract. • 019 ATTACHMENT A • CASE MANAGEMENT 1. Location of Service Provision. This service shall be carried out for older persons in Orange - County. 2. Service Standards. The delivery of this service shall be in accordance with Standards as adopted by the N.C. Division of Aping. 3. Compensation. The Contractor and COG expressly understand and agree that in no event will the total compensation and reimbursement paid hereunder by COG exceed the maximum of $17,944 Federal funds, $1 ,056 State funds for the specified service and shall constitute full ,and complete compensation for the Contractor's service hereunder. Local match of $2,111 Cash. and -0- In- kind resources shall be required under this contract. 4. Reimbursement Rate Per Unit of Service. A unit cost reimbursement rate of twenty-four Dollars and eighty-three Cents ( $24.83 ) is agreed upon for every unit of service delivered to eligible recipients. COG will reimburse Contractor 90 % of this rate with Federal and State funds, an amount equalling $22. 35 per unit. 5. Scope of Service Units. It is agreed that Contractor will work towards delivering 85o case hours of acceptable units of service to eligible recipients by June 30, 1987. 6. Changes to Reimbursement Rate or Units of Service. Any changes shall be as set forth in Section 10 of this Contract. Changes shall be subject to review by COG Advisory Council on Aging, COG Board and Contractor Board. 7. Personnel . It is understood and agreed that Jerry M. Passmore shall represent the Contractor or Project Manager in the performance of this Agreement. Any change in such Project Manager shall be subject to agreement with COG for continuation of contract. • • ATTACHMENT A SENIOR CENTER OPERATIONS 020 1. Location of Service Provision. This service shall be carried out for older persons .in orange County. ' 2. Service Standards. The delivery of this service shall be in accordance with Standards as adopted by the N.C. Division of Aging. 3. Compensation. The Contractor and COG expressly understand and agree that in no event will the total compensation and reimbursement paid hereunder by COG exceed the maximum of $37,777 Federal funds, $2 ,223 State funds for the specified service and shall constitute full and complete compensation for the Contractor's service hereunder. Local match of $4,444 Cash and -0- In- kind resources shall be required under this contract. 4. Scope of Service Units. It is agreed that Contractor will work towards delivering a broad range of activities (as specified in the proposal for funds) at two multipurpose senior centers in the County. 5. Changes to Reimbursement Rate or Units of Service. Any changes shall be as set forth in Section 10 of this Contract. Changes shall be subject to review by COG Advisory Council on Aging, COG Board and Contractor Board. 6. Personnel . It is understood and agreed that Jerry M. P assmore shall represent the Contractor or Project Manager in the performance of this Agreement. Any change in such Project Manager shall be subject to agreement with COG for continuation of contract. __ ORANGE COUNTY 021 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. r-41_. MEETING DATE August 19, 1986 SUBJECT: Contract Renewal; Jail Medical Services *********************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SERVICES PUBLIC HEARING YES _X_NO;. ************************************************************************** ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES Renewal Agreement EXT 497 PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL 967-9251 MEBANE 227-2031 DURHAM 688-7331 ************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider renewal of an agreement with Orange Family Medical Center to provide medical care to inmates in the Orange County Jail. NEED: State law requires that the County provide medical care to inmates incarcerated at the County Jail. IMPACT: The renumeration to Orange Family Medical center will be $6,000 per year with additional labortory fees, x-rays, materials and after our emergency care to be invoiced separately. The County will begin this year to bill for medical services rendered to non-county (Federal) prisioners being held temporarily in Orange County Jail . RECOMMENDATION: Renew contract with Orange Family Medical Center to provide Medical Services for inmates at the Orange County Jail Facility for a sum of $6,000 per year through June 30, 1987; and to authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY OF ORANGE and • Li 022 ORANGE FAMILY MEDICAL CENTER RENEWAL NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY Of ORANGE WHEREAS, an agreement was made and entered into as of the 1st day of July, 1985 by and between Orange County, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and Orange Family Medical Center, hereinafter referred to as "Health Authority" for the provision of primary medical services for the Orange County Jail. WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the HEALTH AUTHORITY wish to renew the agreement as amended. NOW THEREFORE, the COUNTY and the HEALTH AUTHORITY mutually agree to the following: 1.) The agreement will be continued for a period of one year commencing July 1, 1986 and ending at 12:00 midnight on June 30, 1987. 2.) Section E, lA shall be amended to read "Six thousand dollars per annum to be -paid in equal. monthly installments of $500 each. This compensa- tion is for all services described in this agree- ment performed by the Health Authority during this normal business hours including the SZ sick calls and other visits to the jail , the office of the Health Authority or such other health care facility selected by the attending physician pursuant to Section A of this agreement. The Health Authority will not be responsible for billing any non-county agency for services rendered to non-county prisioners." FOR AND ON BEHALF OF FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH AUTHORITY Don Willhoit, Chairman Robert L. Ellis Orange County Orange Family Medical Center Board of Commissioners Date of Signature Date of Signature This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. Director of Fiannce Orange County ORANGE -COUNTY L;OARU OF COMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA. • ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO.��� MEETING DATE August 191986_ 023 - SUBJECT: Indirect Cost Plan Contract • •DEPARTMENT: Finance } { PUBLIC HEARING: YES x NO ATTACHMENTS} : INFORMATION .CONTACT: Gordon R. Baker Contract' Ext . 496 • PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732--8f81 HILLSBOROUGH -- 732-9361 • - CHAPEL HILL 967-9251 MEBANE - 2.27--2031 • DURHAM 633--7331 PURPOSE: To continue contracting with -David M. Griffith & Assoc . for the preparation of Orange .County ' s indirect cost plan . . • NEED: In order to receive reimbursement of County funds expended to administer federal programs , Orange County is required by OMB circular_ A-87 to have an indirect cost plan prepared and annually - updated . -Reimburse-ments ' per our plan have exceeded $150, 000 in • the past . This return would not have been possible without the plan. - • • IMPACT: Payment not to exceed $8, 000 is appropriated in the current - budget for this purpose . RECOi•i FNDATION(S) : Motion to approve entering a contract with David M. Griffith Associates for preparation of Orange County ' s indirect cost plan. - FY86 • • 024 • AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING SERVICES TO Orange County, North Carolina THIS AGREEMENT , entered into this day of , 19 and effective immediately by and between David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. (hereinafter called the "Consul- tant") and the County of Orange , State of North Carolina (hereinafter called the "County") , WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the ,County has programs which it operates with Federal funding , and WHEREAS , the County supports these programs with support services paid from the County appropriated funds, and WHEREAS, the Federal government and the State will pay a fair share of these costs if supported by an approved cost allocation plan, and WHEREAS , the Consultant is staffed with personnel knowledgeable and experienced in the requirements of developing and negotiating such governmental cost allocation plans , and . WHEREAS, the County desires to engage the Consultant to assist in developing a plan which conforms to Federal requirements and will be approved by their representatives NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. Employment of Consultant. The County agrees to engage the Consultant and the Consultant hereby agrees to perform the following services. 2. Scope; of Services. The Consultant shall do, perform and carry out in a good and professional manner . the following . , services : a. Development of a central services cost allocation plan which identified the various costs incurred by the County to support and administer Federal programs. This plan will contain a determination of the allowable costs of providing each - supporting service such as purchasing, legal counsel , disbursement processing , etc . b . Negotiation of the completed cost allocation plan with the representatives of the state or Federal government , whichever is applicable . - . c . Assistance in preparing the initial claims for recovery of funds due the County . d. Prepare indirect cost proposal for Social Services and CETA. Additionally , prepare indirect cost rates for EPA and HUD if necessary. A 025 3 . Time of Performance. The services to be performed hereunder by the Consultant shall be undertaken and completed in such sequence as to assure their expeditious completion and best carry out the purposes of the agreement. All services requried hereunder shall be completed by 4702,,c4_:4.1112_ . The cost allocation plan will be available by febeue.ry_37 /9S7 for your review and our negotiation with Federal and State representatives . 14 Compensation. The County agrees to pay the Consultant a sum not to exceed eight thousand dollars ($8 , 000) for all services required herein, which shall include reimbursement for expense incurred. Consultant agrees to complete the project and all services provided herein for said sum. 5. Method of Payment. The Consultant shall be entitled to payment in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. The Consultant agrees to undertake this engagement with the following advantages to the County. First, the Consultant will not require any compensation for services until a cost allocation plan has been prepared and is acceptable as a basis for filing claims. Second, Consultant's fees are to be paid from recoveries paid by Federal programs to the County as well as recoveries from Enter- prise Funds. Recoveries due solely from the plan will be shared equally by the County and the Consultant until Consultant's fees are paid in full. Then all additional funds are paid to the County. Payment to Consultant will be made within four weeks of receipt by the County of funds realized from the plan. 6. Changes. The County may, from time to time, require changes in the scope of the services of the Consultant to be performed hereunder.. Such changes , which are mutually agreed upon by and between the County and the Consultant , shall be incorporated in written amendment to this agreement. 7. Services and Materials to be Furnished y County. The County shall locally furnish the Consultant with all available necessary information , data , and material pertinent to the execution of this agreement. The County shall cooperate with the . Consultant in carrying out the work herein and shall provide adequate staff for liaison with. the Consultant and other agencies of County government . 8. Termination of Agreement for Cause. If, through any cause, the. Consultant shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner his obligations under this agreement , the County shall thereupon have the right to terminate this agreement by giving written notice to the Consultant of such termination and Page 2 of 3 specifying the effective date thereof, at least five (5) days ' . O26before the effective date of such termination. 9. Information and Reports. The Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as the County may require, furnish such periodic reports concerning the status of the project, such statements, certificates, approvals, and copies of proposed and executed plans and claims and other information relative to the project as may be requested by the County. The Consultant shall furnish the County, upon request, with copies of all documents and other materials prepared or developed in relation with or as part of the project. Copies of working papers prepared in conjunction with the cost allocation plan may be turned over to the County for safekeeping if requested. 10. Consultant Liability If Audited. The Consultant will assume all financial and statistical information provided to the Consultant by County employees or representatives is accurate and complete. Any subsequent disallowance of funds paid to the County under the plan is the sole responsibility of the County. However , where a disallowance had an impact on the fee computation, the computation will be recalculated and any unearned portion of the fee will be returned to the client.. Additionally, the Consultant will provide asistance to the County should an audit be undertaken of County indirect costs. 11 . Notices. Any notices , bills, invoices , or reports required by this agreement shall be sufficient if sent by the parties in the United States mail, postage paid, to the address noted below : County of6Ri9,I e _ David M. Griffith & Associates f � T 1100 Logger Court, Suite D-100 s� x7ff Raleigh , North Carolina 27609 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the Consultant have executed this agreement as of the date first written above . - County, /V. C . By : ( County Official) ATTEST : David M. G ' fi ,/& ,. .sociates _ By : rL D vid R . Maz4 Vice Preside wrhis instrument has been preausited in the manger required by the Local -Government Letd;,t a d Fiscal Control Act. os2 Page 3 of 3 Enna Officer of Oranze Comity" O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 02 r ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 19, 1986 Action Agenda Item �`1 SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE - MOBILE HOME STANDARDS �0 1 *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_X_No *************************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS: Article 6.21 . 1 of CONTACT: Marvin Collins Zoning Ordinance; Draft 8-5-86 Planning Board Minutes; TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Draft Notice of Public Hearing Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 *************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider a Planning Board recommendation that a special public hearing be held on September 16, 1986. The purpose is to consider removing Article 6.21 . 1 a) (2) of the Zoning Ordinance which requires all existing nonconforming mobile home parks to comply with park standards adopted 3-18-86 when units are replaced. NEED: The Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee conducted a public meeting on July 31 , 1986 for the purpose of receiving public comment on mobile home park standards adopted 3-18-86. The standards were placed under moratorium on 4-7-86, pending review by the Planning Board . Two issues emerged at the Committee meeting: ( 1 ) the "retro-active" nature of the ordinance; and (2) the standards . Spokesmen for the group asked that the retro-active provisions - Article 6.21 . 1 a) (2) - be taken to public hearing on August 25, 1986 for consideration for removal . The Planning Director suggested that a special hearing (September 16, 1986) be recommended to the Board of Commissioners with the schedule for processing as follows: 8-5-86 Planning Board approves Ordinance Review recommendation for public hearing 1 8-19-86 Commissioners set public hearing for September 16, 1986 1)28 9-16-86 Public hearing held 10-20-86 Planning Board recommendation 11-3-86 Commissioners decision The Ordinance Review Committee unanimously adopted the recommendation of the Planning Director. The recommendation was presented to the full Planning Board at it's August 5, 1986 long-range planning meeting . IMPACT: The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment, if approved, would provide a "grandfather situation" for existing nonconforming mobile home parks during a period in which mobile home park owner/operators would work with the Planning Department/Board in developing standards for new/existing parks . The standards would then be brought back to public hearing at a later date. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommended calling a special public hearing for September 16, 1986 for the purpose of considering deletion of Article 6 .21 . 1 a) (2) from the Zoning Ordinance. The recommendation was part of a four-part resolution for the Commissioners consideration presented by the Planning Board Chair. The Ordinance Review Committee only acted on item #1 at it ' s July 31 , 1986 meeting. The four parts of the resolution and the vote on each by the Planning Board are as follows: 1 . That a hearing be set for September 16, 1986 to reconsider the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which make the new design standards apply retro-actively to existing mobile home parks . 2. To investigate health and safety issues that relate to the layout and operation of existing mobile home parks in Orange County. 3. To establish an advisory board of mobile home park owner/operators to create and administer standards (with the Ordinance Review Committee) and to act as a conduit for complaints that reach the Planning Department and Planning Board regarding existing mobile home parks. To establish the advisory board for a period of two years initially, have it meet semi-annually and utilize it to work on the development of ordinances that affect mobile home parks . If the approach should prove unsuccessful , consider other methods of addressing such problems. C 029 ( VOTE ON ITEMS 1-3: UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR) 4. During consideration of the deletion of Article 6.21 . 1 a) (2) , consider placing a moratorium on the establishment of any new mobile home parks until such time as a recommendation is received from the Low and Moderate- Income Housing Task Force regarding whether or not the County should continue to promote mobile home parks. ( VOTE ON ITEM 4: 5 IN FAVOR; 5 OPPOSED/MOTION FAILED) wi • • • _ - 7- . : 030 ' - 6 .1.1 - RE3224E0' - = - - 1r -.20 . - . 4, 4 • • a . - . • 4 . . w - - •- -? " I f . •,o . . a _ - . Q ,•o r. • 4. ,; s 4 , 4 _ ; • ; . r i 6 .20 .1 . Ground absorption systems with . a design capacity- of - _ 3,000 gallons per- day or more and package treatment ' plants for sanitary sewage disposal are expressly prohibited id.. the AE districts and Rural Butfer- Distriets as shown in the Land Vse Plan except as may ,be-- r- . approved through a. Special. Use. Permit or a Planned- - Development District.. - - - - - - - 6.27 - Amended , • - - - - - - - ••. 3-18-56 - - _ • 6.21 .1 Existinz.4r 'rev xob i, 2,ara . . . - -" a) Existing mobile home parks that de not meet the _ standards set forth in Articles- 6, 6 and 7 shall - be . - • - considered. non-conforming. Such parrs shall not expand . izr any way ,. beyond- the existing developed portions, but- - shall be allowed to remove and replace units existing • within the existing park at the time of adoption- 6f this - • • - section. Only the replacement and location at units• on - an existing: mobile home space shall be permitted - . provided the total number- of units doe not exceed- the number- existing at the time that the mobile home park. became non conforming; and, provided - ( 1) that the. -, - existing waste treatment system is functioning properly. and (2) that the space be improved iu accordance with Subsection T .20 .La) or this ordnance . .ienovaa, and replacemenk or such units snail ndae be considered expansion of the non conforming use. b) New mobile hone parks or portions of existing mobile home parks that have been previously approved, but have not constructed substantial improvements or do not have • - sewage . disposal systems installed on - the date of adoption of this- section shall meet all applicable standards for new mobile home parks as set forth in Article 5, 6 and T and any other standards required for the zoning district in which it is located . - c) Substantial improvements shall include , but not be - limited to , sewage disposal systems , water systems, • roads , parking areas, recreational facilities and mobile home pads. - C .21 .2 Mobile Homes on Individual .Lots ` mended - - - 3•-48--86 a) Mobile homes , as principal residential buildings on individual lots , in existence at .the• time of the 031 DRAFT DRAFT MINUTES PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 5, 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT: Barry Jacobs (Chair) , Chris Best, Tim Hubbard, Steve Kizer, Peter Kramer, Mike Lewis, Sharlene Pilkey, David Shanklin, Prince Taylor, Steve Yuhasz. MEMBERS ABSENT: Betty Margison, Carl Walters STAFF PRESENT: Marvin Collins, Gene Bell AGENDA ITEM #3: Ordinance Review Committee Report (June 31 , 1986 Meeting) Chair Jacobs reported that there was a large turnout for the meeting and most of the public comments were in regard to the retroactive nature of the ordinance as it relates to existing mobile home parks. The public wished to be heard at a public hearing with the Board of Commissioners. The schedule for the August public hearing could not be met so a schedule was set up by the Planning Director for an acceptable meeting time in September. Jacobs indicated that the Ordinance Review Committee had adopted a recommendation regarding the retroactive nature of the standards as applied to existing mobile home parks. The recommendation was included as item #1 of a four—part resolution which Jacobs introduced for the Board's consideration. ( 1 ) That a hearing be set for September 16, 1986 to reconsider the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which make the new design standards apply retroactively to existing mobile home parks; (2) Investigate health and safety Issues that relate to the layout and operation of existing mobile home parks in Orange County; (3) Establish an advisory board of Mobile Home Park operators to create and administer standards (with the D32 DRAFT PBM MINUTES 8-5-86 DRAF ; PAGE A 3 Department will be short-staffed until at least the middle of September and even at that point new staff members will not be equipped to deal with these issues immediately. He noted that the moratorium would continue longer than November and the next public hearing would then be February. Shanklin reminded the Board of the moratorium on sub- divisions in Cheeks which continued longer than expected. Best indicated he felt the moratorium is an incentive to get things done. Collins responded that staff would be taking criticism for the moratorium. Best noted that he was not referring to staff . Collins stated that the Planning Department was to be staff to the Low Income Task Force. The pressure would again be on the Planning Department in a position of already being under-staffed. Shanklin inquired what the moratorium was to accomplish . Jacobs responded he felt one Issue is if the County wants mobile homes to be part of the answer to low income housing. • Shanklin felt there would be no gain but loss to the County by imposing the moratorium. Jacobs indicated he felt that some of the aspects of the ordinance that deal with new mobile home parks did not address the intent that the Planning Board had in adopting the ordinance. He continued that rather than try and perfect an ordinance which may not become policy, it would seem better to suspend it until all recommendations are available. MOTION: Kizer suggested a secondary motion to delete item 14 from the resolution which concerns the moratorium. Seconded by Shanklin. VOTE: In favor (Lewis, Yuhasz, Shanklin, Taylor, Kizer) . Opposed (Pilkey, Hubbard, Jacobs, Kramer, Best) . Motion failed . VOTE: Vote on items 11-3 was unanimous in favor. VOTE: Vote on item 14 moratorium. 5 in favor (Pilkey, Hubbard, Jacobs, Kramer, Best) . 5 opposed (Lewis, Yuhasz, Shanklin, Taylor, Kizer) . AGENDA ITEM 15: JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN The purpose of this agenda item is to formulate a (333 �� T DRAFT PBM MINUTES 8-5-86 F PAGE 2 Ordinance Review Committee) , and to act .as a conduit for complaints that reach the Planning Department and Planning Board regarding existing mobile home parks. The board would be established initially for two years, would meet semi--annually and have the opportunity to work on the development of ordinances that affect mobile home parks . Should the approach not be successful , the Planning Board would consider other methods of addressing such problems. (4) When considering elimination of the section which applies to existing mobile home parks, place a moratorium on the establishment of new mobile home parks, subject to a recommendation of the Task Force on Low and. Moderate Income Housing (appointed on August 4, 1986) . MOTION: Kramer moved adoption of the resolution. Seconded by Best. Shanklin expressed concern with items 2 and 4 of the resolution . Jacobs responded that safety questions had arisen previously. Shanklin continued that he did not see this investigation as a problem. He continued asking what sort of moratorium was being considered. Jacobs responded that the people were more concerned with existing mobile home parks . They were quite willing to have the more stringent standards on the new parks. He indicated he felt the Task Force is to look at whether or not the County wishes to continue to promote mobile home parks rather than trying to impose standards which would be very difficult to deal with in existing parks. Shanklin indicated he did not like the idea of having a moratorium on anything . He felt this could be a time consuming process. Yuhasz agreed with Shanklin on the idea of a moratorium. He felt the concerns could be addressed through planned development. He indicated a moratorium might be accept- able if a time limit were set. Jacobs noted that if the Task Force should decide to proceed in a different manner, it could create problems with rushes to meet deadlines. Shanklin noted one of the big problems with moratoriums is the fear of financial institutions to lend funds for new mobile homes. Jacobs responded that the Task Force was to report to the Board of Commissioners within 90 to 180 days. Shanklin noted that there should be no need for the moratorium after November 3 . Kizer noted he also had concerns with moratoriums. He felt that developers should not be penalized because the County has not adopted a policy. He indicated that part of the problem is that in the past mobile home parks have been allowed in any residential district. Collins indicated he is not opposed to a moratorium on new parks. He reminded the Board that the Planning fM • 034 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3 ILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA - 27278 6aada •r 0 4J 4114.-F Fr NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE 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, and Article 20, Sections 20.5 and 20.6, of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Courtroom of the Old Post Office, Franklin Streets Chapel Bill , North Carolina, on Tuesday, September 16, 1986. at 7:30 pa 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 Ordinance and Schedule of inspection Fees. QBANGE ommx ZON I N$ ORD 1 NA CE The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance under consideration is as follows: Amend Section 6.21 . 1 Ex.Lst1ng or III MighlIR Bin Bina PV-k . Subsection a) , by deleting the following: "and (2) that the space be improved in accordance with subsection 7,20.4 a) of this Ordinance" . The affect of the amendment would be to relieve existing mobile home parks from complying with new standards for mobile home parks and allowing them to continue as pre -existing nonconforming uses. • ORANGE COUNTY IHSPECTIQN FEE SCHEDILE The proposed amendment to the Inspections Fee Schedule adopted July 8, 1986 Is as follows: Add a new hDs)uJ L = Joint Planning Jn19Q11.oJ A. as follows: All projects approved under the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement between Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill shall pay the following fees prior to the recording a Special Use Permit or Final Plat of a major subdivision. V 035 Street and storm drainage One percent ( 1%) of the total improvements construction cost of those improvements to be constructed to Town of Chapel Hill standards Water and sewer Two percent (2%) of the total improvements construction cost of those improvements to be constructed to Town of Chapel Hill standards Where projects are to be built in phases, fees may be pro-rated based on the cost of improvements scheduled in each phase. 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 proposal must provide competent material and substantial evidence as to the specific manner in which they are opposed to the amendments . 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 requests . Changes may be made In the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals should be directed 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 am to 5: 00 pm, Monday through Friday. Marvin Collins, Planning Director ' PUBLISH: September 3, 1986 September 10, 1986 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT 06 Meeting Date: August 19, 1986 Action A ends Item # SUBJECT: JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN U *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_X_No *************************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS: Minutes of 4-17-86 CONTACT: Marvin Collins Hearing; Draft Minutes of 8-5-86 Planning Board Meeting; 5-8-86 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: and 7-30-86 CHTAC Summaries; Hillsborough 732-8181 Citizen Petitions; Chapel Hill Chapel Hill 967-9251 and Carrboro Recommendations; Durham 688-7331 EDC Comments; Duke University Mebane 227-2031 Comments . *************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider approval of the Draft Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area. To receive the recommendations of the Orange County Planning Board, and the governing boards of the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. NEED: Preparation of the Draft Land Use Plan commenced in the summer of 1985 . The first public information meeting was held on November 13, 1985, followed by public hearings on January 14, 1986 and April 17, 1986 . Neighborhood meetings were also held to explain Plan proposals and receive additional comment regarding citizen concerns . Neighborhoods represented included: the Calvander community, the New Hope Church Road area, Stoneridge and, Sedgefield subdivisions, the Eubanks Road-Homestead Road area, the New Hope Improvement Association, the League of Women Voters and the Chapel Hill Township Advisory Council . A recommendation on the Plan was made by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen on May 20, 1986 and by the Chapel Hill Town Council on July 14, 1986. IMPACT: Approval of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan would set in motion the second phase of the Joint Planning Agreement - the preparation of a zoning 4. 037 map and development standards for the Transition Areas . RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends adoption of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan with the following revisions ( Vote: 9 in favor; 1 opposed) : 1 . Retain Office/ Institutional node at Rogers Road/Homestead Road intersection . 2. Eliminate the industrial/commercial node between existing Homestead Road and the proposed Homestead Road extension. 3 . Retain existing "Rural Neighborhood" activity node at Homestead Road/Old NC 86 intersection . 4. Replace "Urban Residential " designations in Carrboro area with "Suburban Residential " classifications and extend "Rural Buffer" south to follow northern boundary of Homestead Highlands tract and UNC property, thence along Bolin Creek and Buckhorn Branch to Old NC 86, thence down NC 86 to incorporate the William E . Blackwood, Berry Roberson and J .V. Brockwell properties located on the west side of Old NC 86 . 5 . Change all area north and east of 1 -40 to "Rural Buffer", including area adjacent to 1-40 interchange. 6 . Make the following changes in the vicinity of the 1 -40/NC 86 interchange: a. Change all "Light Industrial" designations to "Office and Institutional" except for existing zoned area ( I -1 ) on Eubanks Road adjacent to railroad . B. Change designation of area between landfill sites to "Public/Private Open Space" to reflect Town of Chapel Hill acquisition and future development of site, including landfill tracts, for recreation purposes. C. Reduce "Office and Institutional " designation on triangular area south of Eubanks Road and adjacent to railroad to encourage "upgrading" of existing commercial use zoned Existing Commercial EC-5 . 7. Change designation of area on Homestead Road between Homestead Road and railroad, and east of railroad, from "Urban Residential" to "Suburban Residential " . 038 8. Retain designation of "Extractive/Disposal" on landfill site south of Eubanks Road and adjacent to railroad . Label site as "Potential Landfill - Pending Further Study" to alert people of potential for development as landfill . Actual use of site could not be commenced until acceptance of Class A Special Use Permit and following public hearing. 9 . Retain proposed "Urban" activity node designation at Star Point to reflect existing commercial uses only. 10. Designate the area bounded by US 15-501 , Chatham County line, Old Lystra Road, White Rock Church Road and Wave Road as "Rural Residential " instead of "Suburban Residential" . In addition to the above, the Planning Board also recommended that the allowable density in the Rural Residential (Rural Buffer) be retained at one dwelling unit per acre ( Vote: 6 in favor; 4 opposed) . The recommendation was adopted following denial of a previous motion to recommend a density of one dwelling unit per two acres ( Vote: 4 in favor; 6 opposed) . The Planning Board also adopted a five-part resolution regarding its commitment to joint planning . The parts and the Board 's vote on each was as follows: 1 . The Planning Board endorses the principles of cooperation embodied in joint planning as the most sensible response to pressing mutual planning concerns ( Vote: 9 in favor; 1 opposed) . 2. The Planning Board endorses the concept of rural buffers as a mechanism for rural neighborhood protection, for environmental protection and as an urban planning tool . The Board also supports expressed concerns of the Carrboro Planning Board regarding overall densities in the buffer and endorses minimum acreages per unit of no less than one unit per two acres as a starting point for future discussion . The Planning Board also endorses clustering of units though not exclusively ( Vote: 6 in favor; 4 opposed) . 3. The Planning Board finds it inappropriate for Carrboro to pursue unilateral policies affecting the University Lake watershed in ut 039 view of Mayor Porto 's statement that the Towns protect the watershed . The Planning Board expresses its interest in working cooperatively with Carrboro to establish a mutually beneficial resolution of policy differences (Vote: 6 in favor; 4 opposed) . 4. The Planning Board supports Duke University 's public commitment to the preservation of Duke Forest as a scientific and natural area ( Vote: Unanimous in favor) . 5 . The Planning Board recognizes the value of realistic long-range planning yet is alert to the dangers of over extending resources and creating self-fulfilling growth prophecies. The Planning Board respects the voice of an informed citizenry and endorses planning that is conservative in its approach to land use and in close harmony with the expressed desires of Joint planning area residents for environmentally sound, neighborhood compatible, controlled extension of growth ( Vote: 7 in favor; 3 opposed) . • DRAFT JPA HEARING MINUTES APRIL 17, 1986 BOCC PRESENT: ALL P/B MEMBERS PRESENT: Barry Jacobs (Chair) , Mike Lewis, Sharlene Pilkey, Carl Walters, Steve Yuhasz PLANNING STAFF PRESENT: Marvin Collins, Gene Bell, Susan Smith, Joanna Bradshaw Meeting began 7:45 p.m. Don Wilihoit, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners recognized the participants in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director, stated he would be briefly reviewing the overall Land Use Plan for Orange County, the Existing Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area, and the Proposed Land Use Plan. Collins indicated he wished to spend considerable time presenting the proposed revisions to the Draft Land Use Plan which was presented at public hearing January 14, 1986. Collins noted that these revisions involved many meetings between the three staffs, Planning Boards and numerous meetings with citizen groups. He expressed thanks to the League of Women Voters for conducting a forum on Joint Planning which he felt was very beneficial to the general public. Collins then reviewed the Land Use Plan that was adopted in September 1981 -using the Existing Land Use Plan Map. He noted the three watersheds for which the County has adopted standards designed to protect the quality of the water of existing and future reservoirs. He continued explaining the designations as shown on the map. He noted that there had been several amendments to the plan; the most important and largest that has been worked on to date is the amendment for the Joint Planning Area. He noted that Joint Planning was actually begun seven or eight years ago and has reached its culmination the last 12 to 18 months through the Joint Agreement between the County • 0I 041 JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 • PAGE 2 and the Town of Chapel Hill. The agreement calls primarily for the preparation of a plan for the Joint Planning Area. It also calls for joint approval of development projects which occur in a designated portion of the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Area. Collins , noted that the Town of Carrboro is also participating in Joint Planning and will take a more active role once the plan is adopted. He continued that Carrboro is currently considering a proposal which is similar to that which the County has with Chapel Hill for joint approval of projects within designated areas. Collins then reviewed the plan as presented at the public hearing January 14,• 1986 highlighting the different plan. designations and the assumptions behind each one. He presented the plan noting extension of the transition area into the Bolin Creek basin to reflect the ability of OWASA to serve the area with sewer. He noted the plan proposes some changes to the activity centers that were shown on the existing plan. Such changes include the designation of an activity node at the New Hope Church Road/I-40 Interchange, an expansion of the activity node at NC86/I 40, the designation of a commercial/ industrial center at- Calvander, an expansion of Blackwood Station, a reduction of a node centered on Homestead Road/NC86 and a deletion of a neighborhood type node at the intersection of Rogers Road and Homestead Road. Collins then presented the Strategy Map noting that included on it is the adopted Chapel Hill./Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan. The map shows a proposed greenway system and a system of neighborhood and community parks throughout the area. Collins continued explaining the activity node centered on New Hope Church Road/I--40 Interchange. The initial concept at the time the plan was presented at public hearing was that light industrial. would be more oriented toward research and development activity (high-tech industry) and not wide open. manufacturing or distributing centers. The Blackwood Station would be moderate expansion for retail and office establishments. At the interchange of NC 86/1-40 the proposal is for a mix of high density residential and office type uses close to the interchange but not directly on it. At the intersection of Homestead and Old NC 86 some expansion would be allowed for retail uses already located there. The activity node designated at Homestead Road and Rogers Road was deleted and it was felt that this area is more suited to residential uses. Collins explained the proposed greenways system connecting the parks. He explained the high density areas and moderate density areas. Several suggestions have been made for the rural buffer area such as 1 unit to two acres or 1 unit to five acres and some even lower densities have been suggested. The feeling is that the lower the density the • • JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-].7-86 PAGE 3 more rural buffer characteristics are observed. He explained the transition areas where urban development is expected to occur. These are areas which can be served by gravity sewer systems. One goal was protection of the Duke Forest holdings. Collins noted there is pressure for higher density development on Erwin Road due to, development of commercial centers in Durham County and those being proposed in the Durham Comprehensive Plan so the Transition Area was extended to address this situation. Collins noted that with the comments heard at public hearing, citizens group meetings comments and, other meetings held after the public hearing, several revisions have been prepared. One of the major changes has to do with the extension of the rural buffer area. The primary reason for extending the buffer outward is to continue to follow the drainage divide of the New Hope Creek basin. Land uses in this area are resource protection areas, low density residential development and agricultural preservation areas. The New Hope Church Road/I-40 Interchange is to go back to a rural buffer type area. At Blackwood Station it is now being recommended to delete the office . type uses, some moderate expansion of the retail use already there which would leave Blackwood Station much as it is now. At the NC 86/1-40 Interchange, it is being recommended for office uses nearest the interchange and high density residential uses farther from the interchange due to traffic noise. Because of a pending development application as well as the current plan, it is recommended that an office park type arrangement be at Homestead Road and Rogers Road. This would place equal distance between major activity nodes. He stated another change in the revised plan was the combination of the two nodes in the Calvander area. In the plan presented on January 14, 1986, a commercial/in dustrial node was shown east of Calvander on Homestead Road. The rural neighborhood node at Calvander which was designated in the 1981 plan was retained as a separate node. These two nodes were separated by high density residential. In the revised plan the high density residential was replaced with office/institutional and the two nodes combined into one. The other change was a breakdown of the urban growth boundary into 10 and 20 year periods to be consistent with the existing Land Use Plan. He indicated on the map the areas where gravity sewer service could be extended easily. Collins noted that a number of inquiries have already been received about development around the I-40/NC 86 Interchange and a great deal of development activity is occurring out Erwin Road. The feeling of staffs and Boards was that development would be increasing in this . area within the next ten years. He stated that the boundary of the ten year transition west of NC 86 paralleled Homestead Road 500 ' to the north. He stated 043 JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 PAGE 4 that the Planning Staffs of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro felt that high density uses should be within 500' of an arterial to provide access, reduce the length of trips and reduce traffic through lower density areas. He indicated the remainder of the transition area lay in the Bolin Creek basin and stated that this area was being designated Twenty Year Transition. While this area has been experiencing some growth pressures, they were not as intense as in the Ten Year Transition areas. He mentioned the County's current land use policy of clustering development in transition areas to reduce urban sprawl and stated the policy would probably be carried over into Joint Planning. He mentioned that the Ten Year Transition Area would be the focus of current development proposals and that only after the area had begun to fill up would development be channeled toward the Twenty Year Transition areas. He mentioned one means of implementing phased development in the transition areas was through the formulation of a Water and Sewer policy. Roger Weldon, Chapel Hill Planning Director, began his presentation noting that the Chapel Hill Planning Board would be considering the revised plan at their April 29th meeting. Weldon noted that the Chapel Hill Planning Board's main set of concerns deals with the rural buffer. One of the recommendations of the Chapel Hill Planning Board was for low density, the highest to be one unit to two acres, with wells and septic tanks; no extension of water and sewer and no package plants. He continued that the Board supports mixed use at the interchanges and the areas where there is to be new development. There is strong support for the protection of the University Lake Watershed and also support for the I-40/New Hope Church Road Interchange being considered part of the rural buffer. These were the preliminary recommendations from the Chapel Hill Planning Board from the first draft of the plan and hopefully by the end of April will be sending their recommendations forward to the Chapel Hill Town Council. Andy Dobelstein, representing the Carrboro Planning Board, noted the recommendations sent to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. The Planning Board did recommend that Carrboro join with Chapel Hill and Orange County in Joint Planning. He also noted that his Board gave consideration to the Calvander Industrial Node and recommended that the node be developed as a planned industrial development. He indicated that this meeting was his first awareness that the configuration of the node was going to be changed. He noted that there is lack of support or lack of agreement for the planning in that area from the residents. He continued stating that planned industrial development would have much better control than just industrial uses. • tY 04 4� JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 • PAGE 5 He expressed concern for the protection of the rural buffer as open space. His Board recommended that the ' rural buffer concept be developed in such a way as to provide for cluster housing. He felt this would make it possible to preserve the rural character and still allow residential development in the area. He also requested an inventory of the environmentally sensitive areas in the rural buffer and that an effort be made to protect these areas. He continued recommending that Duke Forest and UNC holdings be designated on the Land Use Map as conservation areas. His Board also recommended that water/sewer lines be permitted in the watershed noting that they felt the watershed could be better protected by extending water/sewer lines into a watershed and controlling the development in the watershed by ordinance. (Copy of these recommendations are an attachment to these minutes) . Statement presented by Pat Crawford representing Orange County Economic Development Commission attached to these minutes. Kirk Pelland, Chair of Chapel Hill TAC, presented the following statement. Pelland expressed support from the Chapel Hill TAC for Joint Planning. He continued presenting the unanimous recommendation that the New Hope Church Road Interchange be designated as suitable for limited office/institutional. use, but unsuitable for any type of industrial activity. He noted that a Ten and Twenty- Year Transition area is suitable for more than residential use and the concerns expressed by the citizens seemed to focus on the industrial uses and the demands this would make on water and water quality. The other recommendation from the TAC is that the County Planning Staff prepare for consideration a proposed description of lands which can be considered candidates for acquisition to form a system of recreation areas, parks and greenways. PUBLIC COMMENT Elizabeth Shoemaker, Calvander resident, presented the following statement: I know that the Joint Planning Commission has worked very hard to plan the next twenty years for us for this area in order to benefit its citizens. You all deserve congratulations for this effort. i am sure that you have had your differences but the desire to cooperate instead of planning at cross purposes is clear. As a resident of Orange County for the past seventeen years, I thank you. However, when I wanted information about what was being JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 • PAGE 6 planned for the Calvander node area in which I became a resident and homeowner last year, I found that the information i needed was in a hard to find box in the Carrboro Planning Department and it also cost $4.00. I _ talked to other landowners in Calvander, many of whom were unaware of this plan, of this meeting and of what we are discussing here tonight. A few residents received maps in the mail, small and difficult to read. Many of us received no notice at all. I 'm aware that you are under. no legal obligation to inform us of the plan. The Carrboro Planning Board has publicly stated its desire to communicate openly with the citizens affected by its plan. I speak for myself, my family and many of my neighbors when I earnestly ask you to grant a further public hearing on development plans for the Calvander node. In conclusion i wish to state for the record that I strongly object to any zoning for Calvander other than R-- 1. Anything else will destroy the quality of life Calvander's residents have worked so hard to retain. Ruby Blackwood, a resident of Calvander, statement attached to these minutes. Randy Danziger, resident of Calvander, began his presentation noting that he thought it was nice that the different municipalities and Boards were working together to come up with a plan. He continued that sometimes the homeowners in a given area are transitory and so the development pressures are real; but he felt, for the Calvander area, the development pressures are going to be created by this planning rather than being addressed by this planning. He stated he had called everyone in the immediate vicinity indicated by this industrial node as to their position relative to the notion of having a node here and having high density housing and he had put it down on a map. He presented the map noting that he had marked property of all those property owners who have no intention of doing anything other than what is being clone now with their land for the next thirty years. He indicated as well property of an owner who wishes to remain neutral because he is a farmer now and if the area is zoned as an industrial park he will have a profitable opportunity sometime within the next ten years to transfer out of farming in this area where it has become unprofitable and buy property further out in the County. None of these people have expressed any advocacy of having this industrial node here or any higher density residential use than currently exists. He asked that the map be submitted into the record noting that he felt it may give the very good planning that is being done in other parts of the County an opportunity to address the concerns of a significant portion of the land area here relative to this node. He stated the property owners quite JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17.86 PAGE 7 obviously do not want an industrial or higher density recommendation made in the planning of this area because that would bring about the pressures which this thing is attempting to address which do not exist in reality at this time or the foreseeable future. W. A. Scott-prepared statement attached to these minutes. Ellen Kepley-prepared statement attached to these minutes. Jeff Charles, president of the Property Owners Association of Stoneridge and Sedgefield, Inc. , gave a prepared statement and signed petition included in these minutes. John Hartley-Calvander resident presented the following statement: Mr. Hartley began his presentation noting that he would like to endorse the idea of joint planning and expressed thanks to the County Planning Staff for their excellent job. He asked that Mr. Collins and the Board of County Commissioners do not abandon the citizens of Calvander for the desires of the Town of Carrboro. He continued that there were several aspects of the plan which disturb him deeply and he proceeded to go over some of those. He noted that he felt planning starts with the desires of the people it is going to affect immediately. The community needs time to respond, to collect a consensus of what they feel that they need. He felt that the community of Calvander has not had time to respond to the Land Use Plan and asked for another public hearing. He continued that he realized Carrboro wishes to grow and widen its tax base and not to be swallowed up by Chapel Hill but it needs to go to the north. He felt Carrboro has other options that it could increase its tax base through 1) infill(they could increase the zonings within the Town to enhance the tax base) . He noted they do have an industrial area off Old Fayetteville Road already designated which has not been used and this would be the place to start an industrial park. This is within the Town limits. They also could go up instead of out. He felt the plan indicates a sprawl strategy instead of concentrating into an urban center. The ability of a Town to rezone and go up in multi-story _ institutional in the town's center help to strengthen a town's center, help to create more commercial use within the town and keep the towns from dying. What is often seen is peripheral commercial nodes outside of town which pull all the commercial activity and retail space out and the center of towns die. He noted he did not feel this was the way to go at this time. He had several questions about the plan itself. He asked about the extension of Homestead Road and noted that he felt this was not -sensible as it would eventually be a four- lane road with a commercial strip right through the center • 047 JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 • PAGE 8 of a high-residential area. Also, the industrial park proposed should be placed nearer I-40. He continued that high residential development would need considerable infrastructure and did not belong in this area. He stated it was hard for him to understand the rationale behind these types of densities noting that they did not seem to serve human needs of a plan of this size and he wondered if this would perhaps work into a formula for annexation to get unit counts high enough to be annexed. He felt this should be designed for the wants of the people and not as an economic base for a town to grow. John Sowder--Calvander resident made the following statement. Mr. Sowder noted that Calvander residents are not opposed • to growth and do like good roads; but from Calvander's standpoint, the plan is devised to do one thing only and that is to "put tax dollars into the coffers of a financially strapped community that lies to our southeast." Mr. Sowder continued "We can't export our main product, it's not obsolete, it's the rural residential way of life. If you will focus with me for a moment, on one salient feature of this plan, if you have doubts as to what the emphasis is for the plan, I think you will understand and that feature is the Homestead Road Thoroughfare ( a misnomer if there has ever been one) . It is going to be named after the homesteads that it thoroughly plows under. It meanders. It is not primarily designed to feed traffic but to break open the backwoods to development, the sort of development that up until now by natural forces we have largely been able to avoid. The fact that Carrboro now wishes to extend water and sewer into watershed areas is a matter of record, is it not, April 10. That is an interesting way to go about protecting this watershed that Carrboro and Chapel Hill spent an incredible amount of their political coin to enhance in the western regions of the County. No matter what you do in the western regions of the County, if you pollute this watershed by running a road diagonal across it two and one-half miles, if you run sewer and water into that area, what's the purpose? it meanders. The road goes as it will to break up the new property. There are alternatives to the present routing of the thoroughfare that are much more feasible in the movement of traffic and also cost effective in terms of the acquisition and the regrettable but foreseeable use of the power to condemn the property. That corridor is the Eubanks Road corridor. What more could be done to trash that corridor than has been done for the use of the landfill. If you begin at Hatch Road where the present thoroughfare is proposed to begin you are already on the Morgan Creek Watershed. You go diagonally across it two • 048 JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 • PAGE 9 and one-half miles, you come out still in the watershed just north of the suicide intersection of Old NC 86 and Old Fayetteville Road. Then you go down and across Bolin Creek to re-emerge on Homestead Road and put 6000 trips a day in front of the High School and Jr. High School. I would really like to hear from the School Board on this. They have plans to move Horace Williams Airport but we know that far more dangerous to the lives of young people, 6000 trips a day in front of the high school. There is an alternative. It is the Eubanks Road alternative. As it comes down it can come right straight down Old 86. You can prioritize Old Fayetteville Road. As Mr. Hartley suggested you can cross NC 54 above Plantation Acres. That's going to have to be controlled at some point at any rate. You can go from there on down Old Fayetteville Road and across Jones Ferry Road hooking up with the southern link. My question is "What does the School . Board say about the traffic problem at their end and what does NCDOT say about the environmental impact on the watershed end. I would like to hear some answers from the appropriate domain and I shall close by saying we don't want to vote in the Carrboro elections. Dave Rutter-Calvander resident made the following statement. Mr. Rutter began his presentation noting that he had been unintentionally misquoted by Jerry Davenport of the Carrboro Planning Department in a statement he had made at an April 3 Special Public Forum with Carrboro Planning Board. He continued that he must clarify that misunderstanding before his statement tonight. "I am only a citizen and a taxpayer living in the most heavily impacted area of this Land Use Plan and I am powerless in this situation except in speaking out in meetings of this type. The most unfortunate distortion of my remarks is the paragraph I read verbatim and say again tonight, "Ladies and Gentlemen the annexation statutes of North Carolina takes much of the annexation say so away from the people by proscribing the referendum. The law puts the burden of trust on the planners of communities to achieve growth reasonably, rationally and when necessary. Annexation solely for the sake of Carrboro's fiscal enhancement is a betrayal of that trust. i must say I feel the annexation law is a good law because in theory it puts cur community's growth in a status more reflective of real urbanization. Calvander is a rural area now and the 100 or so signers of the petition that we have circulated just since Monday night would like to have it remain so. I-40 or no, if growth comes we want its pace to reflect the character of the neighborhood but nobody asked us about that. Instead, though there are 2400 undeveloped acres within the County zoned or designated for industrial • 049 JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 PAGE 10 use, Carrboro has planned for us a hundred acre industrial park, a possible 100, 000 square foot shopping center and high density urban housing to raise this nodes population by 12,000 in the next twenty years. Roy Williford, Carrboro Council members and Planning Board members confirmed that this is an annexation strategy and why. Mr. Davenport's answer sheet states clearly that this is to 'anchor' Carrboro's tax base plus the notion of developing blue collar jobs. We've never had much of a blue collar climate here and I doubt we need one since a) we have the lowest unemployment rate by county in North Carolina and b) as the planners own answer sheet states 'the jobs in the Research Triangle Park area and Chapel Hill are creating the growth. So the job argument is weak meaning that pretty much for the purpose of Carrboro's fiscal enhancement, Calvander must undergo a devastating transformation. ' North Carrboro, yes the time has come for us to raise our voices. I like Mr. Davenport's assertion. that the planners advised the elected officials on the. effect of particular growth strategies or goals. But is there an elected official here, County or Carrboro, who claims personal sponsorship for this industrial park high density annexation package. The numerous Aldermen and Planning Board members I have spoken with identify this with Carrboro's Planning Staff alone. In no way am I critizing the diligence and creativity of Carrboro's Planning Staff. These maps are carefully detailed. Perhaps an industrial park is a good idea. But lets put it in a place where it does not devastate people's homes and heritage. This area has long been known as a pat of butter in a sea of grits. Let's not rashly turn our backs on the history of the community we cherish. Let's have I 40's impact on us be beneficial not just to developers and urban tax bases but to the great majority of those of us in southern Orange County who like where we live for what it is today not just for what we can get out of it tomorrow." Nat Smith, resident on Pine Street in Carrboro began his statement noting that he felt the residents of Carrboro do have a stake in what is being proposed for the Calvander area. He noted that he enjoyed bicycling in the Calvander area and that many other residents of Carrboro derive much pleasure out of Calvander remaining as it is. He continued noting there was retail space available at Willow Creek and Plantation Plaza and he could not see the need to create more office and retail space. Jerry Koontz, resident of Barrington Hills, Carrboro, noting he is speaking in opposition to the rezoning • rmmm • • JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 P4501 proposed for the Calvander area and also in opposition to the routing of the northern loop arterial. "I don't want an industrial park in my back yard. And that's literally where it is going to be. Two of my property lines are Carrboro city limits. It will be exactly in my backyard. The proposed buffers around the industrial area are inadequate and inappropriate because they allow for high density development which I guess is consistent with that proposed industrial use and use as a retail center. One of my big concerns is just what uses are permitted in an industrial park. The Carrboro Planning Staff has said, according to Carrboro definitions this would include assembly, wholesale distribution, mail order and other uses of similar character. The problem is that I don't know who to believe; whose guidelines are we. going to use to control the use of this area; will it be Carrboro's, Chapel Hill 's or Orange County's. We don't know and until we know what the proposed uses are going to be I don't see how anyone can make a decision on whether or not to adopt this plan. Many people have already commented on the inadequacy of the roads in the area and I will not dwell on that, but what I don't want to happen is I do not want Homestead Road and Old 86 to become another Highway 54 By-Pass. One question which has already been raised and I'll raise it again, I want to know who is proposing this. Just who is it that wants an industrial park there and if anyone will admit to wanting an industrial park there, I want to know why they want an industrial park there. No one that I have heard speak today or before, wants an industrial park there. We have already addressed the fallacy of creating jobs for people in the area and I think that argument can be dismissed very quickly. But, one other reason for having an industrial park in this area, I think needs further attention. That is the idea of shifting the tax burden from the residential homeowner in Carrboro to an industrial client in the area. The Carrboro Planning Staff says, 'We have no proposal to annex this area' . Now, quite frankly, I find it very inconsistent to say that we are going to have an industrial park in this area to enhance our tax base and yet not intend to annex the area, otherwise you can't increase the tax base. I think this needs to be considered very carefully. I think that what people will find if they study carefully newly annexed areas is that most often they do not even generate enough revenue to pay for the costs of providing services to them. Well, I know what is going to happen whether or not Carrboro tax base is increased by an industrial node at Calvander, my taxes are going to go up one way or another. So it makes no difference really. I don't think that anyone can propose any plausible argument to show how building an industrial park at Calvander is going to decrease my taxes. Now there have been mentioned before • 051 JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 PAGE 12 alternates to the northern loop and I just want to say that I would strongly recommend that all the judicial bodies present this evening to reconsider the location of the northern loop, to not put that near or on Homestead Road. I also support fully. calling another public hearing to specifically discuss the Calvander Industrial Node. I am not opposed to planning for growth. I am not opposed to joint planning but I am opposed to planning which encourages growth that nobody wants. " Richard Ellington, citizen of Carrboro made the following statement: "As a citizen of Carrboro I look forward to the day when we will indeed have joint planning between Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County. The Calvander Industrial Node as depicted on the map beside me, cuts off the normal northern growth pattern for the Town of Carrboro. It also is, incidently, the only industrial node left on the map, which I highly disapprove of. Carrboro has already sacrificed its western boundary for growth to a watershed. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen recently passed a resolution to agree to go along with the North Carolina Conservation Council, I believe, which would declare this land as a water conservation area and decrease and even strengthen the residential restrictions on the area immediately west of the Old Fayetteville Road area and west of the Old Hillsborough Road area. So, Carrboro has cut off its own nose in a sense as far as western growth is concerned. So, we only have as a town, basically one way that is vital to grow and that is north. i personally do not approve of the idea of an industrial commercial node parked directly in the middle of that natural growth pattern economically. Aesthetically, I disapprove of it even more. I live in this area annexed by Carrboro approximately five years ago. Dumping your industry and your garbage on the Homestead . Road neighborhood is a travesty of justice. I don't have facts to substantiate it, but I cannot help but believe industry provides only short term tax benefit to any organization, be it a town or be it a county. As Carrboro or if Carrboro absorbs this industrial complex, it can't expand without either going around it and I don't know . many people who want to build their house across the street from a factory, and the area immediately north becomes a drain on Carrboro as opposed to an advantage. We're much too short sighted on our arterial plan. 15-501 By-Pass around the south of Chapel Hill is a prime example. The By-Pass was no more in place until roads were being run off the by-pass and it opened up more residential areas.. Why do we talk about having an artery that is going to bisect a large area that we say is going to be high density within twenty years. If the road is not even being planned, just thought about then let's put it somewhere way out that makes sense. Let's put it rmmm t DS JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 PAGE 13 way out on Old Hillsborough Road. Factories and assembly plants come and go but homes and families stay." 1 Ruth Miller, Billabong Lane resident, expressed concern with the proposed landfill which she noted would be in her backyard and would affect three hundred families. She continued expressing concerns with the effects the landfill will have on the environment, the schools, land values and quality of life. She expressed concern that it is located only three miles from downtown Chapel Hill. She inquired about traffic safety on Homestead Road, Eubanks Road and the road which will run adjacent to the proposed landfill. She stated it is a known fact that landfills are one of the greatest health hazards and polluting hazards to families and the environment. She further inquired about water quality and pollution noting there are resource protection areas indicated on the maps which go into Bolin Creek and New Hope Creek. The residents in the area depend on wells; the extension of water lines does not answer the question of water pollution. All of Carrboro and Chapel Hill is affected by the proposed landfill. Ms. Miller concluded with the thought that the dreams of passing land for homes on to her children has been shattered by the devastating effect of the landfill on the land and quality of life. Steve Halkiotis began his presentation noting that his property adjoins the Calvander area. He was distressed with the thought that this was to be a commercial area and noted that two school buses could not pass each other on the bridge on Homestead Road. He continued expressing distress with the bureaucracy of Carrboro and the fact that annexation was not the improvement which was promised. He cited increased taxes and poor garbage pickup service as other problems from annexation. He continued relating other problems with Carrboro ranging from purchase of city stickers to problems in the receipt of his mail. He cautioned Calvander residents against allowing the industrial node as he felt this was only going to lead to annexation of the Calvander area into Carrboro. Halkiotis closed noting that when asked where he lives he does not answer Carrboro, he answers Calvander. Sally Nussbaumer stated that she was concerned about the proposed Draft Land Use Plan for all the previously stated reasons and an additional reason as well. She noted that she felt sure a lot of time and effort had gone into the proposal but she had questions about the care with which the plan was drawn up. "I live on approximately five acres of land in Calvander. There are restrictive covenants on my land which preclude more than one dwelling on the entire parcel of land and Co 053 JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 PAGE 14 yet the proposed plan designates the area where I live as suburban residential which would permit two to five residences per acre; that's absolutely impossible, the restrictive covenants preclude that. I know personally of. five other tracts of land in the Calvander area which have similar restrictive covenants. Therefore, the land does not adequately reflect the covenants of the neighborhood. This will be entirely misleading for anyone moving into the area or plans to develop. They would think they could put more on the property than they actually can. I propose that before any future land use plan is adopted, the deeds of all the property to be affected by the land . use category changes be examined to determine if any land use restrictions are contained in the body of the deeds and that those restrictions in land use be reflected in the land use category designations on any future land use map. " Curtis McLaughlin, Calvander resident, made the following statement: "I live in Calvander in the Homestead Hills Subdivision. and I have a number of very specific requests. Most of them help to throw some questions on the accuracy of the map and the quality of the plan. I'm addressing the County Commissioners; I don't believe in addressing anyone else I. can't vote for. So, to the County Commissioners: first of all, I would like the word North Carrboro removed from the map; secondly, the plan itself contains a very interesting element-it now has the one industrial area that remains at the greatest possible distance from 1-40. It calls for a very expensive road to bring all of those people from 1-40 into Carrboro. If you are not in a good location the only way you'll get a plan in N.C. is to give major tax concession. You've got to buy your plan. You have to get down on your knees in competition with other towns when you are that far from an interstate and give away the sewer to get the plan so why do you want it in the first place when you've got a lousy location. You don't have much labor. Why do you want to spend money to help unemployed textile workers from Mebane and further west. Then there is a residential area of high density which is at a position where it will take the most in the way of sewers and the most in the way of water and the most in the way of road construction. My property which is on Homestead Road at the corner of Drew Lane is classified on this map as urban residential. That whole subdivision is classified as one-acre zoning. With the covenants on the land, it can never be developed that way. If you look at that area from Lake Hogan Farm Road almost to the Calvander intersection, all of that property is already developed along the road so the only way you can get more density in that area is by breaking up the existing home pattern. Therefore, I would request that 054 JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 PAGE 15 1 all of the land from Lake Hogan Farm west until you reach the potential commercial properties at the corner of Old 86 and Homestead Road be left under the existing zoning because that breaks up the character of the entire neighborhood. The plan calls for multiple retail areas which to me is 'strip city' . If you are going to have to have any retail areas they should be kept close to the intersection and not spread out over several different areas. We're not after the Durham/Chapel Hill Highway. With all of these, what I think, are careless and thoughtless parts of the plan, I would request that the County Commissioners a) not grant extra-territorial rights to the Carrboro Planning Board at this time and hopefully not until hell freezes over and that the Commissioners require that the map be more carefully drawn to represent the existing nature of the existing residential areas and that means more hearings. " Judson Edeburn, Duke Forest Resource Manager, presented prepared statement attached to these minutes. John Mackowiak, spoke representing the small community located on New Hope Church Road between the 1-40 Interchange and Old 86. He noted that the families in this area were unanimously opposed to the previously drawn light industrial zone indicating a petition was to be presented by a later speaker. He felt that these people would favor the revised plan which has this zone removed. Hugh Wilson spoke expressing concerns with traffic safety around the Calvander area noting that industrial uses would only create more traffic hazards. He noted that he felt industrial uses do not belong in such an area to create jobs that are not needed for the immediate area. He felt this would increase tax problems as well as the increased need for services, noting that Northern Orange County is the area where employment is needed. He felt that the benefits to Carrboro would be far less than the problems which would be created. Jeff Collins spoke as a resident and homeowner in Northwood Subdivision as well as a representative of the Northwood Homeowners Association noting that Northwood is located in the middle of the activity node at Eubanks Road and 1-40. He expressed concerns with the types of industry included in light industrial noting that he is still unclear as to what. these involve. He continued that he had not seen evidence that the infrastructure needed. for such an industrial park is going to be available in the forseeable future. He indicated there were already grave concerns with traffic at the intersection of 1-40 and NC 86 and neither Eubanks Road nor Whitfield Road can handle the increase in traffic that such development would bring into the area. He expressed the desire to support Of 05u JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 • PAGE 16 the statement by the Stoneridge/Sedgefield Property Owners Association calling for continued zoning for lower density residential areas. He expressed concern that before the Joint Land Use Plan has been accepted by the appropriate bodies, there was a hearing two weeks previously before the Chapel Hill Planning Board for a 137-unit development in the activity node north of Eubanks Road, west of NC 86, and this rezoning was approved by Chapel Hill with nineteen stipulations. He stated this was a major concern that large developments are being approved before the adoption of the Land Use Plan and before verifying that the area can support this type of development. He noted that Timberlyne is in this activity node and already expanding and the residents feel they are surrounded by major new development that cannot be supported by the area. Perry Miller stated that his is one of the 300 families which will be critically and adversely affected by the proposed landfill. He noted this takes in residents on Billabong Lane, Homestead Road, Northwoods and the Rogers Road Community. He noted the feeling of the residents is that "We were the unnecessary victims of a hasty, insensitive, expedient closed door and even sneaky political process to acquire this land as a proposed garbage dump site. This is not some land that is distant or faraway out in some rural area but this is right in the midst of neighborhoods of people, of children of a way of life. " Mr. Miller continued referencing the virgin trees and flowing streams which would be affected. He noted he felt there was no evidence that thoughtful planning had taken place. He continued noting that after the first joint planning hearing he asked several planners how it made good professional planning sense for a landfill to be. located so near schools and downtown Chapel Hill. "The response from one planner was 'we took that as a given, that the garbage dump had to be placed there and our responsibility was to simply plan around that given' . Ladies and Gentlemen, that is not adequate, far-sighted, envisionary planning for the lives of people in this community. Interesting enough, in the introduction tonight about the various components of the planning, not one word was ever mentioned to you, the public, about the garbage dump, not one word. What do you make of that? What a community does with its garbage and its impact upon the environment and its people is a major concern. You don't read the paper each week without that somehow being highlighted for us. But have our planners helped us to highlight this as a concern? No. In fact I think it's not only a major concern it borders on being a moral issue that deserves adequate attention. So we call for a public Joint Planning Meeting to solely consider the proposed garbage dump site and its impact upon the environment and its people. It's that important, that crucial and should • . 105E JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 PAGE 17 not be lumped and approved together in some kind of joint package without we the citizens knowing what we're buying into. " "We are very sensitive to you who also feel that your neighborhood, that your homes, that your way of life is being adversely affected by various components of this plan. We know where you are and we would like to join with you if you would join also with us. In fact there are those of us who have even considered that we would welcome a high density development in our neighborhood, we would take that away from your neighborhood if that were to occur in your neighborhood if you will help us fight against a garbage dump in our backyard. " Sue Kay stated she was an absentee property owner in the Calvander area and asked that her neighbors requests and concerns be considered for more public hearings on the plan for the Calvander area. Joicey Hurth, Calvander resident: "I too, want to, for the record, add my voice to those in the Calvander area opposed to an industrial park and I too want to request that further hearings on this matter be held since I was not privy to or informed of any previous planning activity. I also just want to mention that in the high population density planned and accompanying industrial plan, the impact on schools has not been mentioned. The schools are already using trailers. I think that such future planning bringing more traffic and higher density population is not well advised for this area. " Robert Lagemann stated that he did not like the plans for the Calvander area. He noted there are some states which are now banning landfills and he continued that landfills do pollute and there is no way to prevent it once it hits the ground. He stated that there are such things as "liners" but indicated these last approximately twenty years. John Stewart stated that he lived outside the "node" but in the Joint Planning Area and presented the following statement: "What is Joint Planning? I trust my County Commissioners to do this. This goes against my democratic rights which I have as an American. I have a right to vote for who represents me and we need to not forget about that. Some people here have endorsed the Joint Planning; I do not in the least. Just think back three or four generations. Folks from England came over here and tried to tell us how to live our life and what we could do with our land. At that time, we took some tea and dumped it in the harbor at Boston. If I go to Bill Thorpe or Jim and tell them I • 057 JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 PAGE 18 don't like what's going on, they may say 'you don't vote for me' . If I go to Don Willhoit, I say I don't like it, he says I'm going to do it anyway, then I am going to talk to my friends and the next time he is not going to be Chairman of the County Board. Let's leave it in the County's hands. Let them make the decision. " Robert Markunas, resident of Hideaway Estates just north of the Blackwood Station node and south of the New Hope Church Road/I-40 Interchange. Mr. Markunas noted he was pleased to see the revised Land Use Plan and hoped some of it was due to the input from citizens at some of the more informal meetings. He expressed some of the objections from residents of Hideaway Estates to the New Hope node as follows and did present a petition. "The New Hope node as originally configured on the Joint Planning Area Map nearly bisects Hideaway Estates. The idea of a subdivision with one acre land use per residential occupancy being included in an industrial node and being called Hideaway seems to sum up the overall objection the people had. In addition, if we look at the rural buffers projected on that map, we see that we are in effect making a strip by putting, not a node, but I'd like to think of them as seeds, a seed at New Hope, a seed at Blackwood and a seed at Whitfield and although they are drawn as nicely defined circles there will be enormous pressure for those so-called nodes to link as time goes on. For sure you will have strip development going north from Chapel Hill and remember at the same time that Hillsborough is coming south so that these concepts of transition zones spreading out or well-defined activity nodes are more likely to lead to a disappearing buffer rather than a transitioning buffer. The idea of an industrial node centered at an interstate interchange at first examination seems to make a lot of sense; however, when you look at the services that are available at that node and you realize there is no sewer available, no water available and that the secondary roads that are serving it both in terms of New Hope and 86, are inadequate to support any major traffic flow, you begin to see the irrationality in our view of taking what is effectively a rural buffer that is adequately serving residential needs and turning it into an industrial node that will probably attract one or two isolated occupants that will be just enough to destroy the land for residential use and not enough to provide the real impetus to the node for which it is designed. " George Woodgates, a resident of Barrington Hills, noted he wished to go on record as being "opposed to the industrial park at Calvander and a great deal of the planning that has taken place, including the garbage dump. " 058 JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 PAGE 19 Mr. Woodgates continued, "I 'd like to call attention to one or two things in terms of planning. The first that was raised, 'who is behind this planning and the need for this industrial park? ' We have Food Lion, we have the new Plantation Acres which was put in; somebody must have conned the planning commission into development of those two areas. They are not full, they are not fully occupied and used; the Food Lion that is up on Weaver Dairy Lane has lots of property around it that hasn't been used, but somebody, somehow has told the planning commission that we need more industrial land to be used and it is coming at a high price. Now there was a planning commission in 1977 and I want to quote to you from the records from this Land Use Plan of Carrboro for 1977 to the year 2000. They have about four alternate plans for the development of Carrboro. Rather than talk toward Calvander, I'd like to talk to you people who make up Carrboro environs. They had four plans. The wildest one of these was to expand the plan which they have in here in which they thought they could consider thirty-eight acres for commercial and sixty acres for industrial. There's 155 acres planned at Calvander to say nothing about some of the other planning that is there and that which was included in Plantation Acres and also Food Lion, etc. Somebody is able to really: to talk this Planning Board or whoever the people who are concerned into it, that industry is more important than the citizens rights, and the homes and families and the things that they have here. Number 2, in terms of employment, we don't have an employment need here; I think it is 3% here in Carrboro. To say that we have to provide employment to bring these people in here for employment is begging the question. We're going to draw people in here who then of course add more things and more things to it. That's not an argument that is valid. The third one, which I think is the biggest one to consider is, in terms of taxes, any increase in the tax base and I'm quoting, 'would be eaten up by the rising cost of supplying services to the residents of the Town. The Planning Committee of 1977 understood that; the one of today does not. Let me read you their vision of this, ' the unlimited growth alternative which this group of whoever is responsible, would require a significantly higher level of services than is required by the presence of urban areas. It would require extensions of water and sewer lines, 183 acres of additional roadways and I don't believe that this one that was talking about on Homestead was included at that time. Increased police protection, increased fire protection, including a new sub-station to be located in the northwestern portion of town (None of these subjects have been discussed in all of this) , increased park and recreation staff in order to maintain the parkland required, an increased Town Staff to manage the every day functions of a town of 21, 000 residents, one additional elementary school located in the northern part 059 JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 PAGE 20 of the town adjacent to the recreation center to provide for the multiple use for both facilities. Implementation of this Plan would radically alter the character and scale of Carrboro. ' That is what we are dealing with in having this industrial park in here and all that goes with it; 'the sprawling nature of development would eclipse the human scale and neighborhood ambience which exists today. The market would shape the future of Carrboro largely according to economic criteria" that is what this Planning Board is allowing this community to do. " Clint Burklin, President of the Stoney Creek Neighborhood Association, presented a prepared statement which is attached to these minutes. Chair Willihot stated he had received a petition from the Borland Road residents signed by 39 people opposing the creation of an industrial zone at the I--40/New Hope Church Road interchange. Henry Whitfield began his statement saying that he felt the rural buffer was a misnomer. "I think what we are talking about is what part of the land we're going to maintain as residential and what part we are going to develop as commercial and industrial. And I think that should be definitely specified. " Mr. Whitfield continued indicating the location of his property, (23 + acres) between Carol Woods and New Hope Fire Station, and the plans he had for this property at the time of purchase approximately fifteen years ago. He noted he had always intended for his land to remain residential and now he did not know whether he would be able to develop this land even in the next twenty years. Whitfield noted that his. land was adjacent to land that had been developed with one acre lots and he felt that anything other than one acre lots would be unfair to him. Whitfield indicated that in order to underwrite sewers in these areas there must be high enough density to pay for the 'sewer. Whitfield expressed a concern that lower density than one acre lots would increase cost of property and with water and sewer make it unaffordable for many people. Mr. Whitfield referenced studies made by Triangle J in the 1960s which indicated how sewer service could be provided for the area and noted that these plans apparently have never been considered. He expressed a desire for residential one acre lots rather than a rural buffer to help create more affordable homes. Marie Bristol spoke about the Eubanks Road/I-40 interchange expressing concern with the design of the node and the way it goes through Duke Forest. Ms. Bristol continued expressing concern for those property owners pGQ . JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 PAGE 21 whose families had for generations lived in the area and wished to keep it residential. Using the maps, Ms. Bristol indicated locations of individual properties and explained the need for preservation of the forest lands and homelands. She expressed concern that property owners like herself wished to leave the homes to their families and have the community remain as residential. Larry Reid noted that he had the same serious concerns regarding the landfill which had already been expressed by previous speakers. He stated that he would like for the public to note that alternative methods of handling garbage, rather than use of landfills, need to be found. Mr. Reid continued, "The second item I would like to speak on is the possibility or the proposal that Carrboro and the Town of Chapel Hill has had about dividing my community by using Rogers Road as a dividing line for the municipalities to create their jurisdictional range. I wish that that line be drawn through an area that would not break a community in half. " Mr. Reid expressed a concern that plans were being made for properties without input from the owners and that "officials were elected to represent, not dictate". Bob Sonar, resident of New Hope Church Road community, stated that he wished to present a petition with 19 names to add to those previously entered, and noted that he was pleased that the rural buffer is to be retained for the I- 40/New Hope Church Road interchange. Mr. Sonar noted that with the substantial amount of environmentally sensitive areas and lack of water and sewer, it is hard to understand why this area was chosen for office/institutional and industrial uses. "it appears that the only reason it was chosen is because 1-40 is there." He stated he felt it is very important "now and in future years that the County consider other aspects of the appropriateness of the land around I-40 and its interchanges, that we not automatically assume that because DOT put the highway through this particular point, we must therefore have non-residential uses. You do not expand improved tax base by designating an area for non- residential use when it is not really suited for that purpose. " Gary Saleeby stated he felt it is clear that light industrial use that allows such things as rock quarries at New Hope Church Road interchange would be inappropriate. He also felt that a rural buffer around this interchange is inappropriate as well. He felt this was a reaction based on fear. He felt a balance of uses would be appropriate such as office/institutional, light industrial (specify carefully what this could be) for the convenience • • 061 'IPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 PAGE 22 of residents traveling 1-40 to places of employment such as the Research Triangle Area. Carmine Prioli, a Stoneycreek resident, note that Stoneycreek residents wished to keep the New Hope Church Road interchange as a rural buffer area. He indicated he had a list of many facts to prove the reasons for keeping this as a rural buffer. He expressed thanks that this industrial node had been removed from the plan and wished it to remain so. Steven Garfunkel, a resident of Barrington Hills noted he had two concerns about the Calvander Industrial node. 1) He expressed the concern that he lives near where the road dead-ends and pressure would sometime in the future be such to carry this road on through into another residential area. This would severely change the character of the neighborhood. 2) He was also concerned with the implications of placing an industrial node in an area so out of character. It is particularly troublesome since none of the property owners in the . Calvander area have expressed a desire to develop their property. It seems only those in favor of the industrial node are professional planners. He expressed the thought that he believes in planning but it has to be justified and he noted he did not feel this could be justified. Robert Oakes, a resident of Calvander, noted that he has been in favor of joint planning between Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro for many years. He referenced the Governor's Community of Excellence program and the fact that to participate in that program there had to be six industrial sites available to offer those coming into the community. He stated that this was really the beginning of the industrial node concept and the present planning staffs were not involved in this. He felt it would be better to move the industrial site to the buffer zone. John Peraza, Stoney Creek resident, presented a prepared statement attched to these minutes. Dan Marnell, Stoney Creek resident, presented a prepared statement attached to these minutes. Willhoit was asked about further public hearings. He stated this matter was being referred back to the respective Planning Boards and Staffs for study and recommendation. Willhoit asked that careful consideration be given to the timing of the implementation of the accommodating ordinances. He also asked that consideration be given to the ratio of the road frontage at Blackwood Station node. at2 JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 PAGE 23 Meeting adjourned 11:15 P.M. Er 064 DRAFT PBM MINUTES 8-5-86 PAGE 6 Motion was seconded by Best. DRAFT VOTE: 9 in favor . 1 opposed (Shanklin) . AGENDA ITEM #5 : JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN The purpose of this agenda item is to formulate a recommendation to the BOCC on the revised draft of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan . County policy requires a recommendation from the Planning Board on Land Use Plan amendments prior to final action by the Board of Commissioners. A recommendation for approval and subsequent positive action by the Board of Commissioners would set in motion the second phase of the Joint Planning Agreement - the preparation of a zoning map and development standards for the Transition areas . Chair Jacobs noted that the Planning Board had never officially committed itself one way or the other regard- ing Joint planning and proposed the following five-part resolution: ( 1 ) The Orange County Planning Board endorses the principles of cooperation embodied in Joint planning as the most sensible response to pressing mutual planning concerns . (2) The Orange County Planning Board endorses the concept of rural buffers as a mechanism for rural neighborhood protection, for environmental protection and as an urban planning tool . The Board supports expressed concerns of the Carrboro Board and overall densities in the buffer and endorses minimum acreages per unit of no less than one per two acres as a starting point for future discus- sion . We endorse clustering of units though perhaps not exclusively . (3) At the January 14, 1986 Joint Planning Area Public Hearing, Carrboro Mayor, James Porto, advised the Towns and Townships to protect the watershed for everybody. We find it inappropriate, therefore, that Carrboro pursue 064 DRAFT DRAFT PBM MINUTES 8-5-86 PAGE 7 unilateral policies affecting the watershed and express our interest in working in cooperation with Carrboro to establish a mutually beneficial resolution to our differences. (4) We support Duke University 's public commitment to preservation of Duke Forest as a scientific natural area. (5) We recognize the value of realistic long range planning yet are alert to the dangers of over extending resources and creating self-fulfilling growth prophecies . Equally important, we respect the voice of an informed citizenry; therefore we endorse planning that is conservative in its approach to land use and in close harmony with the expressed desires of Joint planning area residents for environmentally sound, neighborhood compatible controlled extension of growth . Kizer stated that he felt a rural buffer is not a good idea because if you subscribe to the idea of infill development what you are actually doing is promoting leap-frog development out beyond where development is one unit per two acres . He felt he could not support such a blanket statement until he knew for sure what kind of spirit of cooperation was had and until he was sure of the ingredients of the plan that was being discussed . He asked that specific recommendations be made. He ques- tioned the efficiency of the process. Yuhasz stated that cooperation among the Jurisdictions is a good idea but that he felt this kind of cooperation was too bulky a process and thus he could not accept joint planning . Pilkey expressed the concern that development pressures would become too great for one Jurisdiction alone to control . Kizer noted that he was certainly in favor of cooperation but he felt there were still many reservations about the process and most people are waiting to see Just what happens before they endorse it. He felt the process is overly cumbersome and inefficient and really serves no more purpose if the County retains control . Kramer inquired of Collins what is the mandate for Joint Planning. Collins responded that the mandate comes from the Joint Planning Agreement itself as signed by Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill . He noted there is no formal agreement with Carrboro. Kizer noted that he is in agreement with the concept but that Joint Planning should be workable and efficient and not obstruct the planning . 065 DRAFT DRAFT PBM MINUTES 8-5-86 PAGE 8 MOTION: Jacobs moved to accept part ( 1 ) Endorse principles of cooperation . . . Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed (Shanklin) . MOTION: Jacobs moved to accept part (2) Endorse concept of rural buffer and support minimal acreage/unit and clustering. Seconded by Best. Kizer expressed the concern again that development was being forced outside the rural buffer. VOTE: 6 in favor (Pilkey, Hubbard, Jacobs, Kramer, Best, Taylor) . 4 opposed (Yuhasz, Lewis, Shanklin, Kizer) . MOTION: Jacobs moved to accept /3 Inappropriate for Carrboro to pursue unilateral . . . Seconded by Best. VOTE: 6 in favor (Pilkey, Hubbard, Jacobs, Kramer, Best, Taylor) 4 opposed (Yuhasz, Lewis, Shanklin, Kizer) . MOTION: Jacobs moved to accept 04 Support Duke University public commitment. . . Seconded by Best. Kizer noted he would like to see a formal commitment from Duke University although he did not think such would be forthcoming . VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Jacobs moved to accept /5 (Endorse policy of neighborhood cooperation and conservative approval . . . ) Seconded by Best. VOTE: 7 in favor (Jacobs, Best, Pilkey, Hubbard, Taylor, Shanklin) . 3 against (Lewis, Kizer, Yuhasz) . At this point Hubbard introduced a package of materials from Maryland regarding acquisition of land and compensa- tion of landowners . He said he would like for the Planning Board to consider it at a later date and hopefully see enabling legislation to be endorsed by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. Collins indicated all the maps were set up . Map /1 was presented at the January public hearing. Collins gave an overview of features - Rural Buffer, existing and DRAFT 066 DRAFT PBM MINUTES 8-5-86 PAGE 9 proposed Nodes, Thoroughfares, Starpoint area, defini- tions and distribution of Urban, Suburban and Rural Areas. Collins continued that based on comments received, Staff came back in April with the following revisions: 1 . Deletion of New Hope Church Road/ I-40 Interchange and making part of Rural Buffer. 2. Extending Rural Buffer into remainder of Upper New Hope Creek basin . 3. Recommended changes at I-40/Eubanks Road Interchange: -Pulling back on Industrial area -Changing some office areas to High Density Residen- tial and vice versa. 4. Changes in Industrial Node at Calvander; tying together Industrial with existing Calvander commercial area with office in between 5 . Office node at Homestead Road/Rogers Road . 6 . Also recommended defining 10 & 20 Year Transition Areas so that most of 10 year growth would be north of Chapel Hill and around 1-40 and 20 year growth north of Carrboro in Bolin Creek Basin . Pr nsdPILL Q1aeS. ions_at Piib115_tlearIng 1 . Calvander Node 2. Proposed landfill site 3. Objections to office/high density at interchange 4. Duke University opposed to development next to Duke Forest Neighborhood meetings were also held; in particular, Calvander and Sedgefiedl /Stoneridge. Chapel Hill began work on their Interim Land Use Plan at about the same time and since have adopted their version of Joint Planning Land Use Plan . Collins referenced Chapel Hill Plan: - North and East of 1 -40 - Rural Residential - Area originally proposed for Industrial now be classified as mixed use - Area north of Carol Woods higher density than origi- nally proposed - Urban residential for Eubanks Road down the railroad 067 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT PBM MINUTES 8-5-86 PAGE 10 to UNC property and back out to Duke Power on NC 86. - Suburban residential west of railroad over to Rogers Road - Existing landfill stay as is . Property purchased for landfill be labeled "Potential future landfill pending further study" . Class A Special Use Permit required before it could be used for such - Southern Triangle West of Old Lystra Road - Suburban East of Old Lystra Road - Rural Buffer Collins enumerated the following points in reference to Carrboro: 1 . That the proposal for a commercial and industrial transitional node on Homestead Road be withdrawn and that the area be proposed for residential development. 2. That the proposal for an office- institutional node at Rogers Road be withdrawn and that the area be proposed for residential development. 3. That the constraint system proposed for determining permissible intensity of development be modified by limiting the constraint for vegetated areas to only areas whose vegetation is ( a) mature and wooded, or ( b) indicative of a wetland area. Also, that relief from the constraint system be allowed for land within 500 feet of the Northern Loop to allow additional densities to Justify mass transit and that a wooded buffer be retained along all arterials. 4 . That sewer lines be allowed in the University Lake Watershed; that government continue the present practice of having developers pay for and construct their systems and that developments within the transition area be required to be served by public water and sewer service. 5 . That a rural buffer be created around the Towns; that the buffer be characterized and attained through the retention of large tracts developed at low densities with cluster development, together with the preserva- tion of the Duke Forest Lands with conservation uses . 6 . That the local governments inventory lands which have aesthetic value or are environmentally sensitive; that lands that are particularly aesthetically pleasing and particularly environmentall sensitive be preserved . 7 . That the surburban and urban residential designation on the Land Use Plan be merged into one classification called "transitional residential " with the density to be determined on a tract-by-tract basis by applying DRAFT t. DRAFT PBM MINUTES 8-5-86 PAGE 11 capacity densities as worked out in the natural constraint system, with a maximum density of six (6) units per acre. Collins then asked Bell to present the TAC recommenda- tions . Bell referred Planning Board members to pages 86-92 in the agenda and emphasized that the minutes were DRAFT. He stated that the TAC had taken the resolutions adopted by Chapel HiII and Carrboro and considered them on a point-by-point basis. He said he would only highlight those points on which the TAC differed from the Towns . Item #2 on the Chapel Hill resolution calls for Rural Buffer north and east of 1-40 . The TAC wanted to see suburban and urban residential retained in the area in the northeast ( nearer the Durham County line) as shown on the plan presented at the January Public Hearing. Also wanted to see Blackwood Station remain as a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. For item #3 ( b) " . . .public acquisition of area between landfill sites; " the TAC wanted to see the results of the Study on landfills before calling for public acquisition . In reference to Carrboro's resolution , Bell noted that the TAC had agreed with Carrboro in recommending deletion of the Office Node at Rogers Road/Homestead Road . He said it was still shown on the map as a staff recommenda- tion because it was recognized as a node in the 1981 Plan and the proposed node along Homestead Road which would have taken its place had been deleted . Item 13 generated quite a bit of discussion . Item #3 states "That the constraint system proposed for determin- ing permissible intensity of development be modified by limiting the constraint for vegetated areas to only areas whose vegetation is (a) mature and wooded, or (b) indicative of a wetland area . Also, that relief from the constraint system be allowed for land within 500 feet of the Northern Loop to allow additional densities to Justify mass transit and that a wooded buffer be retained along all arterials ." The TAC position was: "That we disagree with all of point 3 because ( 1 ) mature and wooded is insufficiently defined and (2) we do not believe the area within 500 feet of the Northern Loop should be exempt from the constraint system." With regard to point 4, sewer lines in the University Lake Watershed, all TAC members agreed that higher densities in the watershed was a problem, but could not u: osu DRAFT DRAFT PBM MINUTES 8-5-86 PAGE 12 agree as to which was potentially the most harmful ; continued reliance on septic tanks or extension of sewer lines . Collins then proceeded to enumerate the staff position on the Plan: 1 . Retain Office/ Institutional node at intersection of Rogers Road and Homestead Road . Collins reiterated what Bell said in regard to staff position . 2. Eliminate the industrial /commercial node between existing Homestead Road and the proposed Homestead Road Extension . He referenced the neighborhood meetings with Calvander and Stoneridge residents . 3 . Retain existing "Rural Neighborhood" activity node at Homestead Road/Old NC 86 intersection . 4 . Replace "Urban Residential " designations in Carrboro area with "Surburban Residential " classifications and extend "Rural Buffer" south to follow northern boundary of Homestead Highlands tract and UNC prop- erty, thence along Bolin Creek and Buckhorn Branch to Old NC 86, thence down Old NC 86 to incorporate the Wiilliam E . Blackwood, Berry Roberson and J .V. Brockwell properties located on the west side of Old NC 86. He mentioned the 45% high density, 55% low density mix proposed by Carrboro in their planning efforts currently underway. Yuhasz asked why the remained of the New Hope Creek Basin was added to the JPA . Collins referenced the desire to maintain and enhance the integrity of Duke Forest which New Hope Creek flows through . He said that what happens in the upper reaches of the New Hope basin would have a direct effect on research and educational activity taking place in Duke Forest. Yuhasz stated that the Joint Planning Agreement specified a northern boundary and he didn 't think it proper to add additional area during the planning process . He said he felt that people living in the area might not be aware of the implications for their property since they had not been involved from the beginning . Collins stated that he didn 't see any problem with including the additional area. He stated that it was clearly pointed out in April that the additional area was being added and that it had been to public hearing . 5 . Change all area north and east of 1-40 to "Rural Buffer", including area adjacent to 1-40 interchange. '..AFT Q I �J DRAFT PBM MINUTES 8-5-86 PAGE 13 6. Make the following changes in the vicinity of the I- 40/NC 86 interchange: a. Change all "Light Industrial " designations to "Office and Institutional " except for existing zoned area on Eubanks Road adjacent to railroad . b . Change designation of area between landfill sites to "Public/Private Open Space" to reflect Town of Chapel Hill acquisition and future development of site, including landfill tracts, for recreation purposes . c. Reduce "Office/ Institutional " designation on triangular are south of Eubanks Road and adjacent to railroad to encourage "upgrading" of existing commer- cial use zoned Existing Commercial EC-5 . 7 . Change designation of area on Homestead Road between Homestead Road and railroad, and east of railroad, from "Urban Residential " to "Suburban Residential " . 8. Retain designation of "Extractive/Disposal " on landfill site south of Eubanks Road and adjacent to railroad . Label site as "Potential Landfill - Pending Further Study" to alert people of potential for development as a landfill . Actual use of site could not be commenced until issuance of Class A Special Use Permit and following public hearing . Collins stated that it was not included in the agenda materials, but that the staff was also recommending that the triangular shaped piece of property south of CHIP and adjacent to the railroad be designated Office and Institutional . He said the property currently contained a non-conforming, sub-standard commercial use. It was felt that the 01 designation would provide an opportunity for upgrading to a better type of non-residential use. 9. Retain proposed "Urban" activity node designation at Star Point to reflect existing commercial uses . Collins stated that in retaining the node at Star Point we were not calling for an expansion of commercial uses, but rather a recognition of existing uses. Jacobs said there seemed to be some confusion as to what was recommended here and asked what the TAC had recom- mended . Bell referred members to page 95, point 5 (May 8 TAC minutes) for the TAC position which was reaffirmed at the TAC meeting on July 30 . The position was that the area be designated as shown in the January 14 Draft of 071 DrOtr7i DRAFT PBM MINUTES 8-5-86 PAGE 14 the Plan . Hubbard inquired as to the designation of the area bordered by US 15-501 , Old Lystra Road, White Rock Church Road and Wave Road . Bell stated that the Chapel Hill Planning Board had called for this area to be Rural Buffer, but that the Chapel Hill Town Manager 's recommen- dation had been for suburban residential and this was what the Town Council ultimately adopted . This was confirmed by Arthur Jackson of the Chapel Hill Planning Department. Chair Jacobs noted time as 10:29 . MOTION: Kizer moved to extend the meeting for Items 1 & 2. Seconded by Shanklin . VOTE: Unanimous. After consideration of Agenda Item #6, Development Requests, discussion on Joint Planning resumed . Kizer stated that he felt the plan had been refined as much as possible by debate and said there was no way of knowing whether or not it would work until it was tried . MOTION: Kizer moved to recommend for approval the staff recommen- dations on the Plan . Seconded by Kramer. Kizer stated that the proposed plan was not that differ- ent from the 1981 plan; in fact, it was more conserva- tive. Discussion ensued in which Pilkey, Kizer and Shanklin expressed concerns with Joint Planning, especially the administration of the Joint Planning Area . Kizer stated that if the plan wasn 't workable, it wouldn 't last a year. Hubbard said he would like to see the suburban residen- tial portion of the southern triangle designated rural residential . Collins clarified why it was designated suburban; that being the drainage pattern and relative ease of extending gravity sewer. Hubbard offered a friendly amendment that the area bordered by US 15-501 , Chatham County Line, Old Lystra Road, White Rock Church Road and Wave Road, be classified as rural residential . Jacobs asked for any further comments. Collins stated that in the recommendation to Board of 072 1 DRAFT PBM MINUTES 8-5-86 DR AFT PAGE 15 County Commissioners the Planning Board needed to address density in the Rural Buffer . Chapel Hill had proposed 1 unit per 2 acres and the staff recommended 1 unit per acre. Bell mentioned Chapel Hill annexation of property east of NC 86 and south of 1 -40 along Weaver Dairy Road . Collins referenced the effective dates and the fact that the area would soon be exclusively under Chapel Hill 's planning and zoning jurisdiction . At this point, Shanklin called the question on the friendly amendment offered by Hubbard . Jacobs stated that the friendly amendment was retired and the motion was to approve the current draft of the Plan with staff recommendations . VOTE: 9 in favor . 1 opposed (Yuhasz) . Kramer then made the motion that density in the Rural Buffer be restricted to 1 dwelling per 2 acres . Pilkey seconded . Kizer said he thought it was too restrictive. Best said he had no problem with being more restrictive but he felt such a designation would promote "jump-over" into areas where the density was 1 unit per acre. He felt the densities would have to be the same in and adjacent to the buffer . VOTE: 4 in favor (Kreamer, Best, Jacobs, Hubbard) . 6 opposed (Yuhasz, Lewis, Shanklin, Kizer, Pilkey, Taylor) . MOTION: Shanklin moved 1 unit per acre as the Rural Buffer density . Seconded by Kizer. VOTE: 6 in favor (Yuhasz, Lewis, Shanklin, Kizer, Pilkey, Taylor) . 4 opposed (Kramer, Best, Jacobs, Hubbard) . MOTION: Best moved to adjourn . Seconded by Shanklin . VOTE: Unanimous . Adjournment at 11 : 11 p .m. 1;y E{I\J E1L'� 1, 4? • -,s-% G8 L'� 07i.4 MEMORANDUM AGENDA #5b TO: Mayor and Council • FROM: David R. Taylor, Manager SUBJECT: Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area DATE: July 14, 1986 This memorandum reviews the process that has been followed to prepare a draft Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area. The memorandum discusses the relationship between the Joint Planning Area plan and the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan, and recommends adoption of a Joint Area Plan. If adopted, this will be for- warded to the Orange County Board of Commissioners for action along with the recommendation that the Board also adopt this plan. Background Orange County and Chapel Hill signed a Joint Planning Agreement in 1984. The agreement calls for joint preparation of a Land Use Plan in an area known as the Joint Planning Area. Adminis- trative mechanisms were established for joint review of develop- ment applications. The agreement calls for a sequence of events: 1) Preparation of a Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area, to be adopted by both the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners. 2) Revision of Orange County's Zoning Atlas to reflect the new Land Use Plan. 3) Incorporation of Chapel Hill' s development standards into Orange County's development regulations, for application in transition areas. We are approaching completion of the first of these items. The Land Use Plan that is adopted by both the Town Council and the County Commissioners will form the conceptual basis for the zoning map revisions noted above as a second step. Three Public Hearings have been held on the draft plan being considered tonight: November, 1985 (Culbreth Junior High) , January, 1986 (Chapel Hill High School) , and April, 1986 (Carrboro Elementary) . On May 12, the Town Council reviewed a revised draft, and conducted work sessions on the draft on June 10 and July 1. • u F -2- 074 Relationship of JPA to Chapel Hill Plan At the July 1 Work Session, it was pointed out that the areas included in the draft Chapel Hill Land Use, Plan extend beyond Chapel Hill's Planning Jurisdiction, and overlap with most of the critical portions of the Joint Planning Area. Once direc- tion was given on the Chapel Hill plan, attention turned to the few areas left on the Joint Planning Area map that had not been considered in the Chapel Hill plan. These areas are basically the Blackwood Station area on NC86, and the 1-40/New Hope Church Road intersection. Discussion Overall, we recommend that whatever action the Council takes on the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan (Please see agenda item 5a ) , those designations be transferred to the Joint Planning Area plan. Southern Triangle: We recommend that the plan show mostly rural buffer in this area. We recommend that east of Old Lystra. Road, the area be designated as suburban residential. 1-40 Corridor: We recommend that all areas north and east of 1-40 be designated rural buffer. We recommend that other land around the interchange be designated as office- institutional , with an emphasis on mixed use, with no industry. West of NC86: We recommend that the area be suburban residen- tial. We recommend that the future landfill site be labeled "Potential Landfill, Pending Further Study. " We recommend that the tract of land between the existing landfill site and the • future landfill site be designated "public/private open space, " and consideration be given to its acquisition. North: We concur with the latest recommendations on the Land Use Plan (presented at the April Public Hearing) , which call for modest commercial designations in the vicinity of Blackwood Station, and rural buffer elsewhere (including rural buffer at the I-40/New Hope Church Road intersection) . Duke Forest: We concur with the designation of all Duke Forest lands as "Public/Private Open Space. " Recommendations Planning Board's Recommendation: The Planning Board recommends that the Council adopt the draft Land Use Plan, as presented at the April Public Hearing, with a set of revisions listed as conditions of approval. The recommendation of the Planning Board and its suggested conditions is attached. Vote on April 29: 6-0. -3- Manager's Recommendation: We concur with the Planning Board's recommendation, with the following exceptions: 1. The area around Star Point should be shown as suburban residential, instead of rural buffer. 2. At the 1-40/NC 86 interchange, all areas north and east of I--40 should be a part of the rural buffer. 3. The area north of Eubanks Road, between the existing landfill and I-40, should be shown as office-institutional, with an emphasis on mixed use, excluding industrial use. 4. The future landfill site should be labeled "potential landfill -- pending further study." The Manager's recommendation is illustrated on the attached maps. 4 X076 RESOLUTION B MANAGER'S RESOLUTION RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A LAND USE PLAN FOR THE JOINT PLANNING AREA (86-7-14/R-2b) WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill and the Orange County Board of Commissioners have adopted a Joint Planning Agreement to establish a method of coordinated and comprehensive planning; and WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Agreement provides for the develop- ment of a land use plan in the Joint Planning Area; and WHEREAS, the staffs and governing bodies of both the Town of Chapel-- Hill and -Orange County' have sought public input at many points during the process of developing the plan. BE IT RESOLVED by the . Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it hereby adopts a Land Use Plan for the Chapel Hill/Orange County Joint Planning Area, such being comprised of a set of maps and narratives contained in the document "Draft Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Land Use Plan, " dated April, 1986. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this adoption refers only to those portions of the draft Land Use Plan lying east of the line shown on Joint Planning Area maps , such line indicating the distinc- tion between Chapel Hill 's area of interest and Carrboro's are of interest, such line being part of the Joint Planning Agree- ment signed by Chapel Hill and Orange County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following specific changes be made conditions of the Town Council 's approval of this plan. Revisions to Map and Narrative: 1. In the Star Point area, along 15-501 at the Chatham County line, no expansion of the existing commercial uses should be permitted. The area that is not now developed for commercial uses should be designated. "suburban residential. " 2. Change all area north and east of I-40 to Rural Buff- er. 3. Make the following changes in the vicinity of the I--40/NC 86 Interchange, to reflect the designations on the draft Chapel Hill Land Use Plan: a. Delete all light industrial; make all areas "office, " with emphasis on mixed use. b. Call for public acquisition of area between landfill sites (public/private open space") . • or c. Change small triangle of 0-I. on south. side of Eubanks Road, near railroad, to residential. 4. Change designation of area on. Homestead Road, between school and railroad, and east of railroad, from urban residential to suburban residential. 5. Change designation of future landfill site to "Poten- tial Landfill -- Pending Further Study. " BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council respectfully recommends that the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopt the Land Use Plan for the Chapel Hill/Orange County Joint Planning Area in the same form. This the 14th day of July, 1986. .. ... ..... ......._....._ . % i 07e • :>'A'I0A AREA -7::.,: :'I • .I. A �► ,.... NIING •'•:> :d'•: :1r'%{,i. •,,-..„ •r - � i: rr T� �. 41.4'1• '111111 79:1 • / 1111 ,......• �•.- :�:�{<:. :>::; ,. 1 /•� - �1�,, ``ARTIWA MIMI'S IID.. r T '•KI•5� '- :t::::::: 4 '� ,�j,•'����{, ,yf',t`'•. _ •;• p, Nk,.41;mi.:iii:.:00::::.m::::: 11.1:::.,:::„.•-ii.:j:1".;:i::: , :I ,i,„. J.;al:�;: ... ::i:;::;::{:::::L.{.':: 111: 1.j.`}',:•4. d� v-C.e...:' 2T et v, S$-•r YHITFIELD�.i:' ........... .. ..... .. • Ft - �+ •. i's6n............. .. . .... ..■ ° . 111111p lila Ir. -,.. Ct0 L.-•J�� •LJ 4�! i......4 ,I.. i: ii t /1 . t. V .". . II k 1 I / • I r pC•54 '", CHAPEL HILL a CARRBORO i It 1\ v f• `% • UNI SITT LAKE �j • ..4, . 1 { e /� ORANGE 4.12:47' r .� GE CO. d` `': CHATHAM CO A JULY 14, 1986 N DRAFT PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS r71 AGRICULTURAL AREAS JOINT PLANNING AREA i`:<> ==> RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE PLAN • Ao WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREA CONCEPT MAP 1 RURAL AREA • • n • J • 9 n co • • 0 I 0 0 .--�� SIw,T R0. I at -.- • ill:lip . Mill 0 ;. w1,pYfIEI.O �lab- IL Ors . .h. ..9...-..v......,:-,,, BANKS A.III lirlikh, ............_ , i ,A I%1 . II: Ill.- , _ .$ -, , ' -0 '' AIL 0. r 01 /I�%//. r Sr: a2 n ESZE�lO qp 1,1 III,III. 1l 1 MOw► �I i..... ddd 1i1%I.......�a IL 1 i ■ 6##.. - . 1 .� • • i j 6.1= -z , lilt M: CHAPEL HILL i CARREORO VA 4.. I i +w ; , - y�y �� �-g4_'tY,-••�„°'�1 A N �1lh MAY 2 7 1986 M e, • ,4 t, j - O.sot 337 oat • .301 Man Sties!•a: • `1 3 ,t Box x 33y 9 • •: O `, P.O.e 3J1 West Man Street ., fit a r r b o 1 • Cant=.�a. r Carolina 275u) :x:9194245 1 The following resolution was Antroduced by Alderman Tom Gurganus and seconded by Alderman Zona Norwood . . A RESOLUTION STATING THE TOWN OF CARRBORO'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE JOINT PLANNING AREA DRAFT LAND USE PLAN Resolution No. 51•/85-86 WHEREAS, the Town of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County _ intend • to Jointly plan for and regulate the land use activities in the "Joint .Planning Area"; and WHEREAS, the Town of Carrboro, as a participant In the joint planning process, intends to mutually adopt a "Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan"; and . WHEREAS, the Town has jointly conducted two public hearings . to receive comments on the joint planning area draft land use . - . plan. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE TOWN OF CARRBORO RESOLVES that the Town is receptive to the mutual adoption of a Joint planning area land use plan which - incorporates the following: ' ' 1 . That the proposal for a commercial and industrial transitional node on Homestead Road be withdrawn and that the area be proposed for residential - development. . 2. That the proposal for an • office--institutional node at . Rogers Road be withdrawn and that the area be proposed for residential development. -. 3. That the constraint system proposed for determining permissible intensity of- development be modified by limiting - the constraint for vegetated areas to only areas whose vegetation is (a) mature and wooded, or (b) indicative of a ` = wetland area.. Also, that relief from the constraint system be -allowed for land within 500 feet of the Northern Loop to allow additional densities to Justify mass transit and that a wooded buffer be retained. along all arterials. F. 4. That sewer lines be allowed in the University Lake Watershed; that government continue the present practice of having developers pay for and construct their own systems and that developments within the transition area be required to be served by public water and sewer service. 5. That a rural buffer be created around the Towns; that the buffer be characterized and attained through the • retention of large tracts developed at low densities with cluster development, together with the preservation of the Duke Forest Lands with conservation uses. . • 4 • .° Ui Q$� overnments inventory lands which have 6. That the local governments that lands aesthetic value or are environmentally sensitive; lands that are particuar. ly aesthetically pleasing and particularly environmentally sensitive be preserved . 7. That the surburban and urban residential designation on the Land Use Map be merged into one classification called "transitional residential" with the density to be determined on a tract-by-tract basis by applying capacity densitites as worked out in the naturual constraint system, with a maximnum density of six (6) units per acre. The foregoing resolution having been submitted to a vote, was duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1986: • • • • 4 . { t • _ • r 084 POSITION PAPER ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON MAY 15, 1986 IN SUPPORT OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE JOINT LAND USE PLAN. • The Planning Board met on seven occassions to formally review the second draft of the Proposed Joint Land Use Plan. . • The Board held a public forum and received public comment on the . proposals for commercial and industrial development nodes in the • • Calvander and Homestead Road areas. - As a result of these Meetings the Board prepared several motions concerning the Plan. :. This paper attempts to coordinate those recommendations, explain apparent ambiguities 'in the- language, and set out other positiona • • ' which were assumed and not the aub3ect of a motion. Planning Agreement - - - The Board recommended that the Board of Aldemmen accept -the April 1, 1986 draft of the Joint Planning Agreement and - forward that to Orange County for their approval. - • • Industrial Park/Commercial Node at Homestead Road • The Board originally proposed a commercial and industrial park for the northern area. The Board selected the use because - it .seemed to have local support--preliminary findings of 2000 Task Force, Economic Development Commission for Orange County, and statements of prior Town Boards. The Board selected the area because it was the beat site on Carrboro's side. The Board listened to the comments of the residents in the northern area and decided to withdraw any recommendations for commercial and - industrial development in the northern area. The Board expressed reservations about even a neighborhood commercial node at Calvander in light of the size of the node, its potential uses and its partial location in the University Lake watershed. Office Park at Rogers Road The Board supported the proposed office park for Rogers Road. Residential Development The Board recommended that the proposed constraint system which is used to determine density be revised. The Board desired that the constraint system which treated all wooded areas as a constraint be limited to only those wooded or vegetated areas that have mature trees, bottomland hardwoods or • wetlands. The Board also requested that the top density be . reduced from 13 units per acre to 6 units per acre. Also, that 1 - - } • • • • 3 •t - - • Q$`' • the land use map not divide areas into two densities--e high or urban, and low, or suburban--hut leave all residential areas that are likely to be part of Carrboro in the future in one zone. The density in that zone--the transitional residential zone--will be determined on a case by case basis by applying the natural constraint system to each tract. • The Board also requested that a policy be adopted to allow relief from the natural constraint system for land within 500 feet of arterials. The Board's intention was to increase the density above the natural system limitation in this corridor in order to make masa transit feasible. - -• The Board is working with the understanding that they • - _ -.will have the ma3or responsibility for preparing the land use - ordinance amendments to effectuate any policy adopted. The Board has assumed that other policies in the existing ordinance would be applied, such as incentives for a mix of housing styles in developments, and for clustering. . • - - • _ • Rural Buffer The Board supported the concept of a greenbelt or -buffer around the transitional areas. The Board desired that the buffer be a meaningful one with very low densities developed with clustering so that one has a sense of substantial wooded areas. (The reference to tract in the Board's motion does not mean large minimum lot size, -such as one acre, but rather large presubdivision tract sizes, such as ten or twenty acres.) The Board concluded that one and two acre minimum lot sizes would not achieve a sense of separation of urban areas, which is what is ultimately being sought. The Board recommended that an inventory of lands in the rural buffer having aesthetic value or environmental sensitivity be prepared, and that those which are particularly pleasing or sensitive be preserved by the local governments. The Board considered purchase and TDRs as methods most likely to achieve preservation. The Board supported the classification of the Duke Forest lands as Resource Protection, understanding that the purpose of the classification is Conservation. Water and Sewer Extension • The Board recommended the continuation of the existing system of having developers pay for and construct their own water and sewer systems. The Board did not support extending water and sewer at public expense into neighboring areas to steer growth. However, they also indicated that they intend to reexamine this policy. The Board recommended that developers be allowed to have water and sewer. (forced mains) service in the watershed. The Board recommended that the public sector extend lines if neceaaary to alleviate septic system failures. The Board would probably support limiting newer service in the rural • • V - 2 - • a 086 buffer outside the watershed. The watershed policies are those adopted by the Waterqual.ity Teak Farce in 1983. • M • - . - • - t .q 3 • • • It i O8 i D R A F T - SUMMARY OF CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING HELD IN HILLSBOROUGH ON JULY 30, 1986 ATTENDANCE TAC MEMBERS: Kirk P. Pelland, Chair Dr. H. Stanley Bennett Abbie Dickinson Dr. Alice Gordon Prof . Robert J . Gwyn Frances Shetley - PLANNING STAFF: Gene Bell . Brad Torgan VISITORS: Mrs. Bennett Agenda items discussed and major comments related to them were as follows: 1 ) DALLIDARDER - A quorum was established at 7:37 and Kirk Pelland called the meeting to order. 2) CONJJDE L.IQ AGENDA -- None 3) CHAIR COMMENTS - None 4) IAIJON - Kirk Pelland recognized Brad Torgan, Planning Intern, for a presentation on "An Inventory of Sites of Cultural , Historical , Recreational , Biological , and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County." It was explained that the inventory would be going to public hearing on August 25 as an amendment to the Land Use Plan . Torgan began by stating that the inventory differed somewhat from traditional land use planning studies in that the recommendations were site-specific as opposed to area specific. He mentioned some of the benefits in officially recognizing these sites; in particular, he mentioned the importance of cemeteries as a link to the past since there was no vital records law prior to 1910. He said his purpose in coming before the TAC was to ask: - Had he focused on the right things? - Had he missed anything? - Were there errors in the inventory? Professor Gwyn asked if there wasn 't a state law that • tit 08G C/H TAC MINUTES PAGE 3 beginning with the Chapel Hill resolution which contained the following: 1 ) In the Star Point area, along 15-501 at the Chatham County line, no expansion of the existing commercial uses should be permitted. The area that is not now developed for commercial uses should be designated "suburban residential ." 2) Change all area north and east of 1-40 to Rural Buffer . 3) Make the following changes in the vicinity of the 1-40/NC 86 Interchange, to reflect the designations on the draft Chapel Hill Land Use Plan: a) Delete all light industrial ; make all areas "office" , with emphasis on mixed use. • b) Call for public acquisition of area between landfill sites (public/private open space) . c) Change small triangle of 0- I on south side of Eubanks Road, near railroad, to residential . 4) Change designation of area on Homestead Road, between school and railroad, and east of railroad, from urban residential to suburban residential . 5) Change designation of future landfill site to "Potential Landfill -- Pending Further Study." General discussion of the five points followed . in reference to point 2, the question was raised, "Would this do away with Blackwood Station as a neighborhood commercial area?" Bell stated that Blackwood Station would remain as a Rural Neigh- borhood Activity Node. He said that the expansion depicted in the January draft of the plan would not be permitted, that essentially, it would remain in its current form. Also in reference to point 2, Dr. Gordon expressed concern that she felt it was short-sighted not to allow suburban and urban residential development north of 1-40 in the Erwin Road area as shown on the January draft of the plan. She felt this was a good area for such development and felt that the large lot subdivisions to the north would limit further expansion of the higher density areas. In reference to point 2, Dr . Gordon made the following motion which was seconded by Dr. Bennett: For the area north of 1 -40, the area in the north- east ( nearer the Durham County line) should remain urban and suburban residential as shown on the map presented at the January public hearing, but that the area adjacent to Duke Forest be designated as • • C/H TAC MINUTES PAGE 4 1 rural buffer . 09€ Pelland, Bennett, Dickinson, Gordon, and Gwyn voted in favor of the motion. Shetley was opposed . Gordon then made the following motion with reference to points 1 , 2, and 3 which was seconded by Dickinson: Point 1 - No comment Point 2 - Include the statement "Leave Blackwood Station as a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node." Point 3a- Agree Point 3b- Do not call for public acquisition until we have results of the further study on the proposed landfill . Point 3c- No comment- The vote was unanimous . Gordon then made the following motion in reference to points 4 and 5 which was seconded by Pelland: Point 4 -- No comment Point 5 - Agree The vote was unanimous. The resolution adopted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen contained the following points which were also considered individually: 1 ) That the proposal for a commercial and industrial transitional node on Homestead Road be withdrawn and that the area be proposed for residential development. 2) That the proposal for an office- institutional node at Rogers Road be withdrawn and that the area be proposed for residential development. 3) That the constraint system proposed for determining permissible intensity of development be modified by limiting the constraint for vegetated areas to only areas whose vegetation is (a) mature and wooded, or (b) indicative of a wetland area. Also, that relief from the constraint system be allowed for land within 500 feet of the Northern Loop to allow additional densities to Justify mass transit and that a wooded buffer be retained along all ar- terials . 4) That sewer lines be allowed in the University Lake Watershed; that government continue the present • C/Il TAC MINUTES PAGE 5 practice of having developers pay for and construct their own 'systems and that developments within the transition area be required to be served by public water and sewer service. 5) That a rural buffer be created around the Towns; that the buffer be characterized and attained through the retention of large tracts developed at low densities with cluster development, together with the preservation of the Duke Forest Lands with conservation uses. 6) That the local governments inventory lands which have aesthetic value or are environmentally sensi- tive; that lands that are particularly aestheti- cally pleasing and particularly environmentally sensitive be preserved . 7) That the suburban and urban residential designation on the Land Use Map be merged into one classifica- tion called "transitional residential " with the density to be determined on a tract-by-tract basis by applying capacity densities as worked out in the natural constraint system, with a maximum density of six (6) units per acre. With reference to point 1 , Pelland stated that the TAC had dealt with it on May 8 and referenced the minutes of that meeting. In reference to point 1 Gordon made the following motion which was seconded by Pelland: That we agree and note with approval . We made a recommendation concerning this node on May 8 (see bottom of page 2 of the TAC meeting summary) . The vote was unanimous . On point 2 Gordon made a .motion for agreement which was seconded by Dickinson . The vote was unanimous. Gordon made the following motion on point 3 which was se- conded by Shetley: That we disagree with all of point 3 because ( 1 ) "mature and wooded" is insufficiently defined and because (2) we do not believe the area within 500 feet of the Northern Loop should be exempt from the constraint system. The vote was unanimous . With respect to point 4, considerable discussion ensued. Dr. Gordon felt that water lines should not be allowed in the watershed. Dr. Bennett felt the argument should be based on C/N TAC MINUTES PAGE 6 ,- 09� density and Frances Shetley echoed this sentiment by stating that she felt the main threat to water quality was runoff from development and road construction . Dr. Gordon made the following motion which was seconded by Dr. Bennett: Members of the TAC have two comments about allowing sewer lines in the University Lake Watershed . a) All agreed that a major problem was any encouragement of high densities of develop- ment in the watershed . The TAC members believe that densities should not exceed densities currently specified In the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. b) In addition, three members (Dickinson, Gordon, Gwyn) do not believe that sewer lines should be allowed in the University Lake Watershed because sewer lines tend to increase the density of development with a . resulting detrimental effect on water quality. The other three members believed that the statement in (a) above concerning • density was sufficient. The TAC members agree with the other statements in point 4 concerning developer payments and the requirement for water and sewer in transition areas. The vote was unanimous . Prof . Gwyn and Frances Shetley left at this point and there was no longer a quorum. Gordon made the following motion, seconded by Pelland, on points 5, 6, and 7: Point 5 - No comment Point 6 - Agree Point 7 - No Comment The vote of the remaining members was unanimous. Gordon commented concerning point 7 that she believed that there should continue to - be a differentiation between the categories of suburban residential and urban residential . Concerning point 5, she commented that the major point of a rural buffer should be that it is developed only at low densities and that whether the development is clustered is not an essential distinction . - Attention then shifted to the recommendations sent to the Orange County Planning Board on May 19. Recommendations 10 o9 C/N TAC MINUTES PAGE 7 and 11 , which follow, were the subject of discussion. 10) Designate area bounded by US 15-501 , Chatham County line, Old Lystra Road, White Rock Church Road and Wave Road as "Rural Residential" instead of "Subur- ban Residential ." 11 ) Change designation of Hunter 's Ridge Road area from "Rural Residential" to reflect area in corporate limits. Gordon made the following motion regarding recommendations 10 and 11 which was seconded by Pelland: Recommendation 11 - Do not change designation of Hunter 's Ridge area. It should be left as rural residential as shown on the map presented at the January public hearing. Recommendations 10 8 11 - The TAC reaffirms its recommendation made on May 8 to recommend approval of the Southern Triangle portion of the land use plan as given on the map presented at the January hearing (see page 3 of May 8 meeting summary) . The vote of the remaining members was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 10:40. WJ • 1• Summary of Chapel Hill Township Advisory Council Meeting 094 Held in Chapel Hill on May 8, 1986 ATTENDANCE TAC MEMBERS: Kirk P. Pelland, Chair Dr. H. Stanley Bennett Abbie Dickinson Dr. Alice Gordon Shade K. Little Planning Staff: Gene Bell Visitors: Mrs. Bennett Randy Danziger Elizabeth Shoemaker Agenda items discussed and major comments related to them were as follows: 1) Call to Order - A quorum was established at 7:50 and the meeting was called to order. The Chair had several items to comment on., First, he asked members for suggestions on how the TAC could be more effective. He expressed frustration at seeing TAC recommendations seemingly stop at the staff level . Dr. Gordon suggested that the TAC become more active at both the staff and Planning Board level . Dr. Bennett mentioned that when he was TAC Chair he found it useful to always present TAC recommendations in a formal statement. He emphasized that the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners were faced with numerous issues and that whatever the TAC submitted to them needed to be succinct and well reasoned. The second item the Chair had was the presentation of a petition from the Stoneycreek Neighborhood Association regarding preservation of the Rural Buffer in the I-40/New Hope Church Road area. Next, Dr. Gordon asked about the TAC recommendation to the Planning Board on the Joint Planning Land Use Plan. Kirk Pelland responded that the TAC had already made a recommendation and that he felt it was counterproductive to keep making recommendations when the matter doesn' t seem to be settled, e.g. , on-going neighborhood meetings. Abbie Dickinson stated that she shared some of the same concerns. Dr. Gordon said she understood the frustration, but emphasized that the TAC needed to go on record as taking a position. 2) Additions to the Agenda - TAC consensus was to add a discussion of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan as a whole after Resource Protection Areas on the agenda. Following the discussion of the Calvander Node, the order of items was rearranged as follows: -Resource Protection Areas -JPA Land Use Plan as a Whole -Master Park Plan -1-40 Corridor Study • 09` 3) Calvander Node - Gene Bell gave a brief history of the Calvander Node and events-to-date including the public meeting •on May 7. Dr. Gordon stated that she felt the TAC had enough information from the Public Hearing on which to make a recommendation to the Planning Board. Kirk Pelland asked if the visitors from the Calvander area had any comments. Randy Danziger said he- felt a more cooperative effort at discussing the future of the Calvander area with the residents needed to be devised. Elizabeth Shoemaker asked for cla r-ification on comments she had heard about a Carrboro Joint Planning Area. Gene Bell stated that Carrboro was not a .formal party to the Joint Planning Agreement because they had problems with certain provisions of the agreement. He stated that his understanding was that Carrboro had drafted an alternative agreement that addressed, in particular, the boundary line between Chapel Hill and Carrboro and eliminated Joint Approval provisions. Dr. Bennett stated that he didn't think Carrboro really had any say and thought we should go back to the 1981 Plan for the Calvander area. Dr. Gordon stated that she didn't think Carrboro should be excluded because they were asked to participate in Joint Planning by the County Commissioners. Randy Danziger stated that he felt the maximum density of 8 units per acre as contained in the Carrboro Planning Board's May 1 position was excessive. The question of maximum density in county transition areas was raised. Gene Bell stated that under the current Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance, densities of up to 13 units per acre were permissible if infrastructure was addressed adequately and rezoning tests related to the public health, safety, and welfare were met. Dr. Gordon stated that she had attended many Joint Planning meetings and had the distinct impression that no one wanted anything in their area but low-density residential . She asked where and when does the public good override private interests. Randy Danziger stated that usually you have absentee property owners who want to develop property against the wishes of resident owners. He stated that this was not the case in Calvander. All owners of the affected properties were local residents and were opposed to any type of urban development. Abbie Dickinson stated that she thought the TAC was at a point where it could make a recommendation on the Calvander Node. Dr. Gordon asked if anyone on the TAC thought there should be industry at Calvander. The consensus was no. Kirk Pelland stated that the current Rural Neighborhood node seemed sufficient. Dr. Bennett stated that the TAC seemed to be in agreement on deleting the Commercial-Industrial node. He also stated he didn't feel urban densities outside of Carrboro's ETA were appropriate. He said that he would not oppose suburban densities in the Bolin Creek basin. Abbie Dickinson stated that she had no problem with densities up to 5 units per acre. Kirk Pelland asked if someone was prepared to make a motion on the Calvander Node. Dr. Gordon made the following motion which was seconded by Dr. Bennett: The Chapel Hill Township Advisory Council recommends that the Industrial-Commercial node labeled "North Carrboro" on page 80 of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan of April 1986 be eliminated; and that the "Calvander node" shown on that page be returned as a Rural Neighbor- hood activity node as defined on page 54 of the April 1986 plan. The vote was unanimous. • • O9 4) Resource Protection Areas - Gene Bell gave a quick listing of the sections of the plan addressing resource protection areas. In particular, he referred to pages 8, 35, 49, 51 , 64, 89, 103, and 104. Dr. Gordon stated that she felt the TAC should reaffirm its position of January 2, 1986 and made the following motion which was seconded by Dr. Bennett: The Chapel Hill Township Advisory Council reaffirms its January 2, 1986 motion pertaining to recreation areas, parks, and greenways; "Recommend that the County Planning Staff prepare for consideration a proposed description of lands which can be considered candidates for acquisition to form a system of recreation areas, parks, and greenways." The vote was unanimous. 5) Joint Planning Land Use Plan as a Whole - Kirk Pelland stated that there were still portions of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan he was uncomfortable with and wanted to see discussed in more detail. Dr. Gordon suggested that since time was short the TAC address those portions of the plan on which it could agree. A brief discussion of the Southern Triangle and University Lake portions of the plan followed with general agreement of the TAC members as to the provisions for those areas. Dr. Gordon made the following motion which was seconded by Dr. Bennett: The Chapel Hill Township Advisory Council recommends approval of the Southern Triangle and University Lake Watershed sections of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as presented at the January 14, 1986 and April 17, 1986 Public Hearings and as shown on page 71 of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan of April 1986. In reference to the University Lake Watershed, the TAC explicitly endorses the sewer policy shown under "University Lake Watershed" on page 49. The vote was unanimous. Dr. Gordon stated that the chronology of Joint Planning decisions related to the Town of Carrboro had been most helpful and asked Gene Bell if he could procure similar documents from the Town of Chapel Hill . Bell said he thought he could and would pursue the matter. It was noted at this point that the allotted meeting time had passed and it was necessary to adjourn. Setting a date for the next meeting was put off pending action on Joint Planning by the Planning Board on May 19 and the County Commissioners on June 2. The meeting adjourned at 10:05. t • • ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION P.O. Box 712 0 117 N. CHi,-RTOrr aILLSBOROUGB. N.C. 27278 • (919) 732-8181 ExT. 279 (919) 968-4501 • STATEMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE • REVISED JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN, 17 APRIL 1586 The Economic Development Commission at its regular meeting on 10 April 1986 heard a presentation from Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director, on the Revised Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, • • 1. By unanimous vote the Economic Development Commission passed the following motion: That the Economic Development Commission endorses the Revised Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as presented on • this date by Marvin Collins. 2. The Economic Development Commission also passed by unanimous vote the second following motion: That the Economic Development Commission believes the Plan should have a clear and specific statement, of . what the nodes can be used for, and that the Plan should therefore contain both a clear definition of each of the permitted activities or uses, and a specific apportionment of the permitted uses at each node. • Pat Craw-ford Orange County Representative • • puke ?Ruh/et-sit DURHAM 0 9 E NORTH CAROLINA 27706 • SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES. TELEPHONE(919)684-2421 OFFICE OF THE DUKE FOREST April 17, 1986 - Comments on Orange .County Land Use Plan Duke University, the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and I as manager of the Duke Forest, appreciate this opportunity to provide input and comments on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. We compliment Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro in their efforts to protect the natural resources in this planning area. - First, I would like to provide some background on the Duke Forest. Since 1931 , the lands known as the Duke Forest have provided continuous educational and research opportunities for the students and faculty of the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Duke University. During that time, the Duke Forest has also developed as a natural outdoor laboratory for the Botany and Zoology Departments at Duke and the University of North Carolina, the U.S. Forest Service, EPA, North Carolina State University and other institutions. Current research projects funded on the Duke Forest amount to more than $1.1 million annually and total almost $5 million for projects ranging from a two-year duration to an indefinite time period. Duke University will maintain the Duke Forest in a condition to continue to provide research and educational resources. Through ongoing planning efforts at Duke University, all University lands are evaluated with respect to the mission and purpose of the University. ' Several important forest management criteria should be taken into consideration in the planning process. Teaching, research and demonstration require both undisturbed areas of vegetation and areas that are actively managed to provide a diversity of stand types and conditions. Increasing development around the Forest, greater traffic flow on roads beside it, and recreational pressures including foot traffic, horseback riding, and the intrusion of motorcycles and' 4-wheel drive vehicles make our management job increasingly complex. Not only is it difficult to protect sensitive areas, of vegetation and expensive scientific equipment, but there also may be adverse public reaction to management activities. These activities include timber harvesting, site preparation and prescribed burning, each of which is an integral part of the Forest's operation. We offer the following specific comments to the proposed plan: I. The Henry J. posting Natural Area at the intersection of N.C. 86 and Whitfield Road has been reserved for non-manipulative research since 1941 , was formally dedicated as a natural area by the Duke University Trustees in 1959, and was recognized by the Orange County Commissioners in a 1977 resolution. *In order to protect this area, development in the Activity Node at this intersection should be limited to south of Whitfield Road and west of 1-40. Other surrounding land should remain in the Rural Buffer designation. *The stream on the north side of the Natural Area must be protected from deterioration. • • 2 - . O9 II. Changes in water quality--including sedimentation, •pesticides and reduction in dissolved oxygen content--would have a major impact on research in streams of the New Hope Creek drainage. *There should be strict compliance and inspection of all applicable sedimentation and erosion control ordinances during any construction in the entire New Hope drainage. *We recommend a 75' undisturbed buffer along all permanent streams in the drainage area. III. Construction activity and dense development in the Activity Nodes will likely be a major source of water quality problems. *Adequate sedimentation and erosion control practices must be enforced. *Impervious surfaces--including roof area, parking lots, use of curb and gutter--should be.minimized. IV. The Duke Forest is best able to operate as a natural outdoor laboratory in a completely rural setting. Development of land surrounding the Forest is, however, inevitable. *In that the Rural Residential, Agricultural Residential and Rural Buffer categories seem the most compatible with Duke Forest uses, all - lands surrounding the Duke Forest should receive one of these designations. This would require a change in the proposed plan south of Eubanks Road and west of old N.C. 86 near Bald Mountain. V. The R-1 zone, which permits one dwelling unit per acre, may be too dense to allow for a true "rural buffer." *A density of fewer than one dwelling per acre may be more appropriate for the Rural Buffer. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the value of the Duke Forest for the teaching and research opportunities it provides for many organizations and institutions in the Research Triangle area and also the value of this natural resource for the surrounding communities. A carefully designed land use planning framework is essential to protect these values of the Duke Forest. Judson Edeburn Duke Forest Resource Manager yin • 1986-17 • • CD erz Jeff Mr)"!inseam Jot Maki. Preitions Bab tae Pmt Presider g e�� 1oc i Carolyn Baguio.TITCOWIT Kasai Robertson.Secretary •Nail Minoan,Dbeemr - Raw Rumor.Dbeeeer - - Stalin Mamma.Obecor Property Owners Association Ran McCracken,Director of Stoneridge and Sedgefield,Inc. 191346 P.O. Box 3188 t Cbaziaa,Pneisiew Chapel Hill,North Carolina 21515-3188 Juk Skenkle.Y.P./Teas Monis Mao,Stormy Rama .D April .. 19$6 StAa Maiagaq Dinesor . . David z ''D"` Mr. Don Wilhoit Orange County Board of Commissioners East Margaret Lane C a r l sobz4mAesidow .yp„ Hillsborough, NC rias Mare's bean,Secirmty David Martars.Dfroraor Dear Mr. Wilhoit t . BdlrPsae.Dirmas su°*Di "' The Stoneridge and Sedgefield Property Owners Association (about 200-households) supports the concept of joint land use planning between Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill. We stress how important it is for the planners to have input from local citizens at every step of the process. This letter gives our response to the plans that you presented on March 11 at the New Hope Community Center, for the activity node centered around the intersection of 1-40 and NC 86, near Stoneridge and Sedgefield. We are pleased that plans for this activity node call for a minimum of light industrial development and no further commercial activity. We approve of prohibiting retail trade in the. node. We support suburban and urban residential zoning south of 1-40. We support the planned resource protection areas (green areas) . We object, however, to the northeast section of the activity node's being designated for urban, suburban, and office/ institutional use. Such development would have a negative impact on the current residential character of this area. We recommend . that this area remain as rural residential. We are also concerned about the inadequate capacity of existing roads to accommodate present traffic as well as future traffic created by the intersection, and by the proposed activity node. NC 86 must be widened from I-40 to Homestead Road. Eubanks and Whitfield Roads will not accommodate the envisioned future ._ traffic. We do not want Eubanks and Whitfield to become four-lane roads, but they could be significantly improved as two-lane roads. Improvements to NC 86 and to Eubanks and Whitfield Roads must be made before any major development of the activity node. We look forward to working with you in this most important project concerning the future planning of our area. Sincer ly yours, Cay-Q.12-!9 J f 'C areas, President I N. i • v in .ii ) name is fir. Ruby Blackwood. . I live in Calvander. have lived there for 46 years. My family .1.1' ‘ 'y • owns the properties in Orange County designated with the tax map reference numbers 7. 109. . 29, 32, 33, 34, and 35. 1 _- IN We live on this property. The Joint Land Use A .ffi:i Revised Plan presented here tonight proposes to zone our A land for retail, office and institutional uses, in-:› keeping with the "non-residential" character of the .' 14 industrial node for the Calvander area proposed by the town of Carrboro. VWe plan to continue residing on this property, and eQ t.ilS have no plans for developing our land for retail, office i 1 or institutional uses'. Furthermore . I resent the fact that the planning :1 ''';' staff of Carrboro, a town of which I am not a resident, and in which I have '� � no elected representation, has seen fit to propose an industrial development on m R property, 'till: c7-~' I hope that elected representatives, the Orange -ti & I =..) County Commissioners, will heed my request as: ''''l L I move that the joint land, J d use proposal reflect the •,J _ for fact that this land will, for the next 30 years, be used � residential purposes at the density which it currently possesses, which is approximately 1 unit per 5 --) 4 acres. I also request that a verbatim copy of this proposal be included in the minutes of this meeting. d • IIJ • G • Joint Meeting of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen • 102 and Orange County Commissioners . We are writing this letter to express our concerns over the proposed industrial area for the Homestead Road areas just west of Bolin Creek. We are the owners of approximately 170 acres which is within and adjacent to the proposed industrial area. Our property has been in our families since it was granted to our ancestors by virtue of an English Land Grant. We are residents of the property, not absentee owners or speculators. While we understand that development will inevitably come to this area, we hope to make sure that any development will be compatible with our best interests, our neighbor's best interests, and the community's best interests. The first of our interests is our desire to remain living on our land in the same manner that we do now. The proposed industrial zoning will severely impact our ability to remain on the land. In our opinion, the proposed zoning is also not in the community's best interests. Our specific reasons and explanations for opposing this proposed zone are: 1. Planning for a community is a difficult and multi-faceted ,process. There are several factors that must be given consideration. It appears that topography was the only factor considered in the planning for this area. There does not appear to have been any consideration given to existing land uses, traffic systems, water/sewer availability, and economic need or feasibility. 2. Homestead Road is a two-lane secondary road built the "old way" - blind curves, abrupt changes in elevation, low shoulders, and a narrow bridge. It is totally inadequate for increased traffic or large truck traffic that industrial development brings. It is no more than a county connector road between N.C. 86 and old N.C. 86. Given the present and anticipated funds for highway development and improvement, it is unlikely that Homestead Road could be improved to a necessary standard over the next 30 years. 3. The existing land uses in the area are primarily farming, large tract residential uses, and schools, none of which are compatible with industrial use. Farmers lose incomes, but more importantly. lose their ability to do the job they have chosen and love. Residential users lose exactly what they own the land for -- privacy, peace, and enjoyment. Schools are no longer a part of a community. but only another institutional plant within a multitude of of itutional plants. 4. At a public hearing on April 2, we heard a Carrboro planning board member say that he could envision a MacGregor type industrial park on this property. For clarification, MacGregor Park is located off of U.S. 1-64 in Cary, N. C. It is a very good development. However, MacGregor type developments do not happen in locations like Homestead Road. Those type developments occur only near major four lane thoroughfares that can provide easy and quick access to other sections of the county and state. The Homestead Road location • Tyy 2 1 Aanot provide this type of access. Quality industrial developments go in only quality industrial locations. If any of you want to see what type industrial development will come to a Homestead Road type location, drive to Durham and look at Eno Industrial Park on Hamlin Road. You cannot just say we will have quality industrial development without understanding the economic feasibility of the location. The Homestead Road location is a secondary type industrial location and will attract only secondary type industrial development. Homestead Road, however, is suited for suburban residential growth. The area is a natural extension of the residential subdivisions on the north side of Carrboro. Suburban residential growth can be compatible with existing land uses and we urge you to consider such residential growth to be the most appropriate land use for the area. We hope that all of you will recognize that Homestead Road is an inappropriate location for industrial zoning. It fails the test in almost all regards. While, of course, we hold the rights to our land, our rights are now in your hands and we hope you act appropriately and responsibly. Sincerely, Alice Hogan 1 ../2e.146 Preston Hogan itieri Veins Hogan John Kepley Ellen Kepley U Wayne Hutchins Patsy utchins r T . . • . 104 We, the 'undersigned, who are all residents of the Calvander Community and Orange County taxpayers, do hereby strongly oppose . the proposed rezoning of the land in Calvander to "Industrial Park" and "Urban Residential" and we propose that 1) the land zoning remain as it currently stands 2) the already approved thoroughfare known as the Homestead Road Extension be moved northward' to utilize Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road and Eubanks Road • 3) that the "Industrial Park" be relocated farther to the North, . closer to 1-40 and 1-85, to make better use of transportation ' access and to take t..V6 traffic pattern off of the more residential roads ' 4) due to the lack of public information, we call for another public hearing on the issue of the proposed "Calvander Node" at which time we may make many more concrete proposals for the future development of our land. t4•ti dux a7-oo 4"24117 cp A-N o•■.. e...103.1 rh',t "-IL.. 3 7 i"%4 ' I 'rr 4t If SOX 913 c_N4961- /4/e4...1.4/G.. .77Vf- n Ad g./Pt . 9� gist lJ 44 tl dog ,190 41.14PG-4.. /4.ii.L Nc 2.7S"ii CI 5 �'` r ,. b . a. i3ox 7'#4,L CbtFr l. H(4.,.. T r 4g 4.A1-3'411 7, �l 4 . . $ • ,djCsIa C f4 . AJ;c , 275/9, , a 5--;,a. C G.o,. ,k % -A- 0i)-C-. '2 S,t( 04 (")- .i,L, R UA- 2�� Nor,,:a. .3 .A_i "`3 -ter,-J W.II,,u� 0 '4‘1"c_,,-"-,-,LL1v 3.-_-fix si ',3Le- -2.45.. C. E_t , (-- o .S ,2 4eG /40,1"8- C111.- 0 i `"i�1 K `a '— \� � —C. � �\ 6 � �. X5,_ Air 38K guy hi , ti G Z ?-2P ' .ten 471 -A ��-r*'P"'�✓.c , L-�Q/t,.. -4� ( - V / k. d CL.apet Rag /\.).0. 7 1-5.1V /G IDwA I , ,‘C' F1A-LkttGL0 � �JXX� '�\CL-A\t -•1 yf L4 . adr /S7 C6tw(, (N;'t /U-C 7 � 5( (c. '0'0 te.3"4.1 44 -P-1-ff( -6G%-f• .20-, eiv-TJe-e 42e k'e Lo-75-7/ L f Coc7,c 714- Li et- i , 77 L i ,'/ . 514 /1.71 [�" rGC( / c ,i �G J S t�, tt_C[. r-4/ . / 1q Ps' &LI LL 4.ELt.s Ri.i 1 Gz 1t.zik.Am. i-1w,41 1-4iC,C.0 a5(4 ej, rifilinsr -..p. • • • S7cale.." 4,4 - lob '4? c " - - , . • - • 41, 39 ,o-rticttz p 117 J6/ &4 *;1 (3&.4 '5I CiCialfa I• " 4•14 ape( ne/c/tv 3 iforl RA- 14 cot 3S C._NA . 1:1-519 g9 /Y7 )164/ R4 6-8* o . .ThL kc1 go-A• r 41. 101 e.dzi oi • ;-( 40.• yis le 441; 'L-fr V'7 45, DAVI V/ Ar/i' iee 3 ilfe67f\-5-654/e. • “. 3,1) Or - 412 /12_rigx,e- Xs/ Wi3/19, 6742 1 )61 ff igaa< Z28,0 .2„.„2,1e4s7Z.z-- el( . --- ;"1:7drIL 1714,, '77! &ox 167 40.e41,14,41. 511 o 1,0Lt4.,•4" ,‘ V--44 I 1 024)#7 a re v • 5, 247_ec--2 .-_Arz R? 0)7 . 55- L"A■ \%4 tAkIKQ Fr 3 SIst,-Nc 660 gi.934.612.444) 34- /c.,-,-4-eldle-----442.,774 le.e 4 AvCa.P 5-7- Ce,•:;,. . ox ietUc. fel-T si /j4,t. ,a6 171 (1,4144 HICC z.7 j-/‘7! ). 4 fc 7.37 316iscrawad, ire 5 a.kv- k -t - L - CO-ett7n ,f6/ j e V 2 0 Lit e / /1 , • • •, • [J V/i5 10t . 233 Hideaway Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27514 April 13, 1986 Mr. Donald G. Willhoit, Chairman Orange County Commissioners Orange County Courthouse Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Willhoit: The purpose of this letter is to present to you a copy a petition by the residents of the 200 block of Hideaway Drive concerning the proposed light industrial node at the intersection of 1-40 and New Hope Church Road. Twenty-seven homes are on the 200 block of Hideaway Drive, 11 of which are inside the one-mile radius of the proposed node. Enclosure 1 highlights the 200 block of Hideaway Drive. As you can see from the petition, of the homeowners we were able to contact, all oppose the proposed light industrial node and urge that the area remain designated as R-1. We do not believe that any benefits have been demonstrated to offset the damage inflicted by the land use designation change. Sincerely, The Residents of 200 -236 Hideaway D rive Rural Route 2 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 cc: Orange County Planning Department Chapel Hill Planning Department • We, the undersigned Orange County Residents, strictly oppose any change in the current rural/residential land use designation at the 1-40, New Hope Church Road interchange. Any land use designation other than rural/residential will destroy the integrity of the rural buffer and threaten the pastoral beauty of central Orange County. - No true benefits have been demonstrated to offset the damage that will be inflicted by a land use designation change. Number Printed Name 5i•n..ture Address . 2. _,., A L A ,r - _i .11 3. a•'^/-0r &i-( .41.►��/ ' • - ( /%'.& a-, r,-l" 4. riff./, - i t=/ / If 5. . % �� Inc � / \ rL .1_ �;✓4 ' r2 �idd c-H . 6. A ./*- _� �` 1 � F - i1 1r -2 36 H ui r ` w,y . .lid a 7. i os e_,.. g ,6., , gay ft/De-404- C2 tt. 8. �,_..w�r_ ., e l .. . C ,rya 5 , < t ' < f . 9. G / ,..•t / rd 2r C(_e;¢lv'& / ' &(S-o`: r ' `t, 10. . _ ro _ t 1 , AI lc tw , , ► , is 12. �J 4l� ./ / `r „ •' 13. �� v� o ;.r`fay. �l _ MIUMINLY t - resa.0 Lid. 1,-.T be- 14. 1�` K aul/ • 4'7 1Q6lc =( ._ 15. LI L{-1A5 N . ii g6 oe 41 "w l/I.-_\ 231 HotilwA\-- D g• 16. SEewA YAI,Cror 2. ii 17. kilt„L L7? 14..kkik y'1P-Gtoi , i5. 1-1-NICE `-)?4 tHckaCtuJ , - 18. ;�.,,�� .r� . .&-?_ . , r-; .. - f.. /-Y :/ j• 19. --12711.14/ // 'C"�:.i J _5- -/ :r t..-;.r•3 i.=t 0 I:C,.r'lcetvtr(.:eiry . 20. / G�,, - � , .` , ,�_ �rv, 21. _.,,.1 - .r. '. ..0 , L c.., n 2-toe. -IA►ac-A., T> �2 22. _ �� •-• 14.' , c-\ ) 71r,��,fe4 23. , „• o f D- I- . . of Lase-i- INT ie - c ee)--h a24. '1-v1" 3KuzMinl ,K., - -- - ri'wv � t., . • .2-6S #haez a.y DI 25. .112 óOLO&L(_/I/Iota-A a. It 'E4 x a/ I I- 4a 26. /f,ct( 4I%i-__ 'Zir W104:7)t,, ),- 109 • . Number _ Printed Name • Si!n ure Address r r 27. i 160 kL vm -4 Is-i-h 412.C OA /tru- 28. �Lr�_� �k� • 1*,%s!_ A V Lea .P9-4(0 1-tJdl9e, t tL a. - • trio - �s�.. .,,. ZI ' (+f MAWAy' L') . .H. 29. ,,ll � - w� 30. ,k) t . S^67'c-G. ,� Gi 6441 �-I r�� w Y Ae c. 31. 4 t4: ' ti t� a • ', ' t A D ,�.>S 45g ..)ft. 4/Ai- 32. ,� ... 7r i . .� l/ J 33. , . Cf r-12- ( 14ii?(Rcckc /)k. 34. � 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 59. 60. 1 • ECEIVE • RTZ'L- � Q • Route 8, Box 111 1 1 C Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514 RP April 18, 1986 Mr. Marvin Collins, Director Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 - 4 Dear Mr. Collins: It is my understanding that when the proposed land use plan has been approved by the governing bodies of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County it will be the basis for making changes in the zoning ordinance to bring it in compliance with the approved land use plan. Apparently those areas in the respective jurisdictions that are presently zoned differently than the approved plan will be rezoned to comply with the approved plan without further 'Lublic Hearing on the individual changes. If the above stated process is correct and causes a change in the R-1 zoning of the proposed landfill site between Homestead Road and Eubanks Road this will be a gross violation of a solemn promise, made on several occasions by Don Willhoit, Chairman, Board of Orange County Commissioners, that the rezoning process for this site as a landfill would start approxi- mately one year prior to its need as a landfill and the affected residents would be given a public hearing. To sandwich the "use as a landfill" of this land in the land use plan and subsequent rezoning is morally and per haps criminally unfair.Although the property was purchased with public monies from the landfill fund, it is not presently a landfill, but simply public owned land held in trust by Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County. Therefore, I earnestly request that the "use as a landfill" of this property be deleted from the land use maps and that the property be shown simply as public land zoned R-1 without zoning changes. You and your staff have worked very diligently to put this plan together. Thank you sincerely for your efforts: Sincerely, , Margaret R. Scott RECEIVER • . . ,Ae. .47, 4.,,_474, , /, I Lnj%nag" 613 LL.)-1 111 Crils—e■ 9b4 —e-,, X . C. • . • r- 1 /9'.., 1 4' .k 4 Y7(a4.4,-frk rie-ge 04)14.44-t- A . ---- . .4.1....cL,R__. ... .„.ep....i.._ r, .T. Le_ , ..e...t...,0_9_. ....". _...., , i e.c.)--0L...1.) 4...-d --- ,.:vx_t_;2 , . 90--g-;--te-. , ix:24-----A--=7---"0--e-4----&--4-:7 ,/. , . --) _ e.0 7„.62.x... ..,.. ..t...,v ,t...", 12 ,,de.,/._,_7„..e_ orr,k.,-/1 ".R. ,, % ..6ize_ _,t _ ci.al--7-/-04-4-dite. / ei,,,, , :, , -- sii... L...). - zgi4 ./.. ..0_ ...._ _. ,_ - _.....7.7 ,, „--11,414___) - _ - / , . , -- ' .AllWe it 41 d/ )1,z._ ■/- 41",- ' , 1 - . i ) /4.44___. . , .__ : ..,..,...„,...._„.. /Le...4._tr...._, ,et.-).L, . _ ca-ezi_oc.- "/I •- - 4.-t.eLe.... ...0-Z6:. "..-----) eir_e_R__ /. . .-/t_e.. , i' 1 .6 ■Xx--- s /1 - 1 ._. / / / ./ / / /1 1 J-411-1-■/ / ;/ ‘0 / 1 ■-dC't-ieZI- a77 ,.._... . . . ' . • . . .. , . . • . ..: . DECEIVE •, . . - I 1114-Lz.-% Gg D , 112 -2 • . ,4 4/.4. ,-•.4.i 6, .0). .4'. ,.:1 P S',5i . . a/ / 9 S,4. •. ,_ ....: . -- . • . . .. • f`;'.:"'-fi:.'Vt 'fc'1..t' .41.---,--p- e-..- (,a.,..,..:74 44. ; , Algio4.4.2044yr-V.44'!'r '''‘e. •:S2 '7,2 7 r .i:K.S'v*: ,' 4-4-10-",!2; ..4-1.,..a... , ce...e.-a- GI a.4.-1 .e.z......./-- , ...t...4. . , ' J-•••74 •44"-P-..---4"L , 'W'2' d246147'.41 .11t4L7fLo. Ci2k.el jijti-"•'• . ' , . t4)2.-• (. 4 -tr' 0.-..0.-Z.. '1.21,--,P4 -..46-- '''77"e-f"-a■ 7-0-i0X-4 ''',:7Z-174 eZ4-e, (L.24--d-a-•• -t 746'7 17--A''Z'Pg . _ . r 1/,./e,,, 62.- ....- ..1.-44°41-4-0-*-t-4"-. -1-..ez-J C-e....4.2., 46.1-7---i 6-7,-, "2,-A2.1.-44-1-e-py ,pele , • . ...1,.. . 4 4 _if_ . # • ,,L.C.-•-•2-• 4".1--d• • X -...e.-r--..--e-plbz••.- Te‘-w-- 47•40711,-.6-.St":144## • . / L- ---Zel----1/4-4-' -/-4-' 1----i'-' 5;------- • 1_,--.-' __ r Z,'_..,.. .,,,-,"..^ -1 L.1_,,,1 J •Q—e.'1.-' '-,--74- 1- . • .) y v... . Iti 441.40/ (1-41L'Iti ' .7/11.7 _.,.44W41•4'4'. # 74■#-/-• . ."'-'e'',4••fdj • -1r--'114" a"414-'' lig -. ..p,:i-;'vyi•:.:_: , ea.-4-0 ci.x4E-e,17. _.."1„iii,./ ZYe,-,v—,-e4--e--ter-,-,---. , ii ..-7-4—. ,.i Y -■-_... ":11ri.•1 • %i "I`,.2,_;•, ,c, 70.4 __,,,....74 Ke...„,..„.., e....6.. ..i....,...;&.„......a.., ..e.:,.... , C2-t'--d- ' . : -'. . •: ?':';.;:'j;;11!.1 f-: - '(.c••44,.‘ . -t (114/Le-L. ) --;1-4--"44,4 i .-i-- --,‘--7 ' -I'Ll'IT,!..7±e■u■,,,..L. , ....... 11, ew • • • e_ ..a { ' 1 •s) 4 400t,7iii, 631d4;litej , 1 ._.-_;, • . (9 ,r 'i Col/n& ''.--.4.C t I-1.:1 4(1 5-LAIL. la i ' MP I f 1/--e041C9g:tei !,. a , . wouez a 4-6,}ariv--i t ,,,4(11., „it 06441 81,--.' '-- i g 766)cetei it a e 4,/).,i„a f tn 664' (9. :. -,k,i.bi.)),/- reco,,,,,,e_. N • . git•-iji 6/.4 Y1 k�f h /44. 1 a kf . . Mrs.Thelma H.Duncan ' Mr.J.Crudup Duncan Rt.8,Box 141,Homestead Rd. i Chapel Hill, .NC 27514 , I ' R, ski t , ;,.• 010._ 5 �._ >�/J, _c: 73,;',.. x ii• f:vY Am, r .; is A.i .1 . .a • 114 Fib Rt. 8, •Billabong Lane Chapel Hill , NC '27514 2� April 18, 1986 86 Mr. Marvin Collins, Director Orange County Planning Dept. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Collins: I attended last night's public hearing on Joint Planning, and was again appalled to find that the landfill expansion was still included in the Proposed Land Use Plan. My property is adjacent to this proposed garbage dump. As members of the 300 affected families stated, (and as a number of you planners have agreed) , inclusion of this in your Plan does not represent any planning in the sense of examination of effects on residents, the environment, or the quality of life, nor has there been any attempt to identify, examine, and rank alternative landfill sites to minimize harm to the county's citizens. You were simple told to include this as a given. My wife and I are hereby requesting that: • (1) This property remain zoned R-1 until a planning process is conducted which takes the above factors into consideration, including the examination of alternative sites. (2) If you will not or cannot change this proposed zoning without additional information, then we request an additional public hearing concerning this proposed land use before the Plan is approved. Thank you for your consideration. We would also like a response to these requests in writing from you, the Planning Board, or the County Commissioners. Sincerely, 674'--;::14-0(44-1,c1-•("4 Forrest M. and Sally C. Council • 115 414/14 Rt. 8, Billabong Lane Chapel Hill, NC 27514 April 18, 1986 Marvin Collins, Director Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr, Collins, I am a resident of Billabong Lane and naturally am concerned about the proposed expansion of the Regional Landfill to the property near our residence. By this letter, I am requesting that alternative sites less disruptive to the community be thoroughly explored before any action is taken to approve a land use plan that would permit rezoning that land from R-1. am confident that that is the course of action you will follow. However, should there be a movement to approve the plan before such a study, I request that a public hearing be held which focuses its attention exclusively on that issue before any such approval is granted. Thank you very much for considering this request. Sincerely, c.ririn' . L ce Y RECEIVE • 5-12-86 GB lie . Route 8, Box 114-A Chapel Hill, NC 27514 1 May 1986 Mr. Marvin Collins, Director Orange County Planning Dept. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Collins: As a graduate of UNC-School of Public Health with courses taken in Environmental Sciences, I am very concerned about the proposed landfill near the Chapel Hill High School. - There is no current technology to clean-up ground water once it has_ been contaminated and landfills are a major threat to our underground water supplies. While a task force looks into the possibilty of incineration as an alternative to landfill, I request that the "use as a landfill" title placed on this land be deleted and the property be shown simply as public land zoned R-l. 1 The future of our water sources is at stake as well as future. development of neighboring land for residental use. Thanks for your consideration of this issue. Sincerely, Janice P. Scroggs, R.D., M.P.H. • • • 11 APRIL 17, 1986 SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND USE PLAN REPRESENT: I am speaking on behalf of approximately 300 families living near the property shown on the Land Use Maps as Landfill site. Many of these families live adjacent to the landfill site. All of the families in this area have wells and septic tanks. LOCATE: This site is less than 1700 feet north of Homestead Road and less than 2000 feet from Chapel Hill -Carrboro High School which has a deep well for shop and emergency purposes . This site is the highest point of land for miles around in every direction, being 550 feet above sea level . Many springs and streams originate on this site and run into Bolin Creek, Booker Creek, Old Field Creek and New Hope Creek . MOST of these streams were still active from underground springs during the infamous drought of the 70s. ZONED R-1 : This property is currently zoned R-1 , one acre minimum lot size. These maps show it will be zoned Landfill when this Land Use Plan is adopted by the governing bodies of Chapel Hill , Carrboro and Orange County. REMAIN R-1 : We the people affected by this re-zoning vigorously object to the rezoning by this method . We earnestly and urgently request that this site remain zoned R-1 until it becomes necessary to use the site for purposes other than R-1 . Please remove "Landfill Site" from the Land Use Plan maps . Thank you, W. A. Scott _ ,t ...,.- -,-........r.-- _1•,-..?,-.1-_,-.4:.•.,t.,•••••••i;.,:•.,;;;A,.•..'-{":;',..-Z,...7 ,....;-'pr-,44.•,,-'4;,-...L.t,-4.:.............m-41„,v,. .,,...._..4.t'•,'''''.•„4.-.V.,, ..--- 01..--,_.--;4.„'::•-.:g,.... ---.i'Ll'.' ...-.. .--;'.-.--;..:7,-;Z.,:',.$•-•• ••?",w---1-:%f:N..-••••:;-%1-6 .,,,,,,N,--.,„-r•-•§4_11:0,F--,-,•.;::,.r'..74- ;„..,--;,,l'ir--'i-:::k .':'..."?-"C.' 41- , -•._-,„:.,-.t,:",_..:,.;":.::.1:.',"'•:.-,'..:,•--„,.• --.:.'...r.;..4,...:,.":.-:-.--1-._,.•;::',,,.,•,-';,1•`;-V-.;•,;;-:":..f::,,1.,:"..V f.',",t4,..,,,:,:-,,'7.t....v7-,t514.,,.--1;-...,.„).i.-4.,--.;Y-.,-r4ey.•...,..-.!'..0':4 7e1.•1.,•'4-.k.-.:'..f'-..:.."..•,..,■.,..fr',.7,•..,.,.,,..-,-"7,-.i;--.:-'...„:;.,r'1.,':'.',.,,...4,N..-•:1-6.7-.:.:_••'..•.._.•"-.o•_•-_-... .-.:."-".'..c..'..,..„'.".'::...:‘-.2,.:••,.;•.:`1.'.,-4,'-•;--.'•„ri6-°,:;;-'1-9,*•;;%,'-'".,44,,.,41„,:I,-3,,r;4,r„,,,•:t,‘,'-..;i,..,',,..*„7,••'.0',•:;•.-...,';.-,1,.••,.'-'..."F-;:<'.,-''"4'--':-"'.7.,.•-.':I,--,.,'.;..z'.''-."-..'.,'."'.7..'1ft.:.',::T1.--....:,0'.k,?-:-,"'.',i•:.-l.•..•!.,•.'0-.-..'i..'::.t'-.--.iF27l':_4--1..;;•-:•;.-4.''•,.'.1-•.--k;-7:'4r4-':...:„'-'• :i....•.....-:.-.'::t•::••..•,•.!..•c••.:-,i.„-.-7..•.-•.,•t•4.•\:...,:-:.:.-.. .-.-.4..,-.::'-:"..--F.-,.-.-:_-"•k.„•:7.:.-:7 2--.•".:,..„..„-.4%.'.A'-.-,--..v:....-:..,;6:-.'.-f"'.,,-,,5e.,',",,•4.z.;v.:-:,:.',.••••±.,,7•-7..•.'4::''•,:::-'t•i-•A•'•-.34.'!k'1-i.•07N•:7'.,--.-TA,:.4r;'"..:.:.',-7.-•e,'.i.-„4.!•.•-"i4-°•-f--i,.''A•'I---''..L-,,:,7'--,.......'t-0-",:,--t•'-L5I•'..•.P4.i'F..t-.•)-ke'•=l 4''-',.,5•..:•.1-1,''---..-",e.•';-:•'"i'.i-i,.',-.e'2.''*c•.f..tr•...."..v..'.,.r"i.:,.?4,-':-..%r.4 L;-..•"•--;:••:-:,•".'..•:-:-.i-.;--l•..-.-.•4.,3U4-,"'.1......,...r31.A...--`4"!---1i.,'.:-•",":.4 4z.,-i..'.0.,.....-."s,,i-.A z t.•'s t.-.''i--•5''a■7-''..'W.:•:'':-.Y'••4'. •1.'•1L•-.•;-•:rLri-O'-P'$:A.---'r, 4i ; - : 4 . ' '? z, *.A4 ; ' ,.i e ;Q 9 6 -•,.L,'•i-•'..•'.-.--..1 -i- ''.•-•. -:: • :.-: ..•':::;.:11.::::"•''.:•-''' -' • - "- :'--::...-:.-':.- .1''.......--• . ' '-' '' •...-'.1''.:-.. •::::;'-- '.4-7 -• • .. ••'''':C•.• - :,•• .• .,, ,....,,;.,..4,-.4 is.,,,, •••••/4,1•;4 ,.••,--,r•C's*Ii!,":".:.'ieiir..!;•,•4i..,''''•'•' •••':" "A ••. -. "-.rjoi■;44CL;--X?i '-' -:-.'"My ' a"-le141/ --.''--' . ...''.. • : • '''''''••''''''''''''';45.'Te.'.-- "''1.i:E.s2.'•'':••••• ;1'''....-7.--A••M5-'7;;:-: -'•••-;..;;--,. ''''2• '',..•C-.7' ••,'‘ :'• •."...2.-••••'' .,:4:„ .,.. • : ,, .,.. , .,:... , .444.;', ,-ir75-fL7.-C7-rtk.,-;:l I ,_,•001 :••''''''''''"'";-'"''''iir'k0 ''.4k4•'• ::.:-T.;'..•*ii'...t.-tLL-1- 7:-.--."-•, -.•;,,•;.,::•'''''.'::::;T•rit..7:,,--,.-.L.J.--7...;•-••:•-','-: ---',::..-Tz.-•:- W.:::-.... '- -.--;'-' :-;.--''-'----':'.•:-,:L-L.L:i..,;•.:•'•''''..--.-,'L:...L.--:..f.'..-••.':-...i.,•••'==.-: ._.-•'-••L •;'y;',',Z;','.',..-'.1.,t-',.'s•r4"--'0' ,.c.,.-- .r. •‘•;-•-•....:--'4'' '',..."-."::•'.... I-..,'..... 2i.:A.-: ':,'5,--•'-'--•- •.-.,, r,-----I--r-,.---,s'4'... :t--'•i.--;.-t'f-,- ;7'''''••• '-:.' •7.:,F':- •'!-.7..-'. ,.%';' ....'•:- r% 6 •'.:',.:•-,:- '--7's ='' :."..:. ..; '--..' r-7-i....•.•if 7--1C------..- .t-..L.F--,"7::'72....'...17,:: :::::,.r.z.rt .:::::-'-',-...."` • .. -.L.L.:.A.:"7-..-. .-1.'r'r:.--.. :.:.:Z _, ,5- - .,..i.., - . ''-, 200k ij •.1, .:...-1..-L -iA:el'''. -1",-'-''' L'.4 .. .'-'• • • 6 I r..., ..:4%..r.-4.til‹" '.. . -...' .-,-.-i-44-261 •-•*7 .-..- #1-6.1_ :-• :•:, . •"-T-:- , .. . A^:::-:,-,-;. ''-'4.0,4,.ACL•6 `.' ..'-'-''''17'-' '' ''''.. . ' ':-''''''..::.:'''' ...... '.--- "--:- . ..A1'''''' ..` i ' . ''''. .' - . .' . . .. /1 .•••'-.'•.-61-..':'-`liy.•4..e.vt74.-,t-,.s.'-,?, .'....,....4,•,:.:;• ,-..4,-,•:,...-r, -2--. ....„.:,- -•,• :: .. ...:.. . • -,;'-. diatie_• ' •-•• . -- "N.••tt'!'',:?4-b-47:2:7_ .,56± ;':,::-..,-,:.,.124.:..:-...74.:.., -;. 71'4';'' .,r_ ....,..••■ •-••:iL.-•-:--,..•'. ::'•-•-;•.'•-'7 •-.••-•'' '',-t•L''''''..-.•--S....•;• •• ''•- " • •:••••.• • -••••••• • I:. '••''' ..4:-. ''./4_,:/.1.!; • 1.'7r47401.•:.",•,41•A_df.''':•• •''•:-Vf:it• - •::' '..."'7'•:•••:'-:•••- •':/•7PP,1_,:,.. .:•: ':•" ;7- ' '''''''a...a . '1 ..'- •'... / ' '. e;"' ai' ''.. •• ' ';•;: -..:••ni.:.;'•AAili,St•-• ;:::1:‘•'42-4;i'Ltill•-,V.:1?Yf ''''',::', 6:e''' •::'4' i'", ,. ,...:-.-e .,......'•;,.. . 41.'...i •.•,;•••:.:•,•:- .. -•-.7•-•T ', 'Y.': _..,.......",•-•:•.•••:?• ••:.., •-;-''.!'•'.;•-••••••:, : *•.,' .1 V••••••4V. :•••!'re3T-T3----.7":-.------ .11,1i'.:a; ;Z:r.:- •'*U-?-.'-'1'"-$,: ir-.'-...' '''• ""--1.'-'-•••';';•-•:•;;; :-.••;4::: :..'---- . .,,,teert,Z77:::,-- . -,1.4, 0.:-.f..„,r••. ..1,:is,--:i •!4,"---.:i•-•.i'-':.•,, :1,:•.N..4.....,....,,,oc P...-'• ---. .,.:.-.': -. ' .• ' '• •••-•• • •' • '. ',..'• : ..•-!::14",'',.■.;Allja.„Z`L .4....-..V,:ii"V::t.••••.•:•'-4 v,,,,-..`-'''.0■LiVi,:p.,:-.;?": ---,fr_ .:,._TC.;,..:•-;.14:6.: .e.".. .. .,-. - -..- .....- ..1.7,r.74.-."#7 ..-- r •yr',•':.',..-,::7-,,••• .-.. .-.,,•--..."-e,- -,_.....-,;:„...-:_,.._,.„.,-.....-.7:- ,,: '',.- . 4,4striStA.,.._1.;*v:e--•37'.'"i5A:,..::4••••••t:.- -;',4r•-"ir•#:---.i'.'z'''''-': .----,,l'ot::-.T, .../.:...... . •• 4-47 L.'72,14-i-r.• •Ak:•:',i'j,..-Head..-..''',.'7••':.....--.i....'',•" s,'''••• - ..---• 'e•-t,:-•••-":;;;:••:•••;•-p"::'•'•:,--:j lit 0 .44•44,4,"".',1,-'•11.49.,":.,-,N4'4:,,,-0...7r;:- L:i,;.:.--?..-,..--,,,,,,.....A-L.i.,.•L.-. .:L• ....,--::KL-....-.-,-...-.: ....4 1:-.,-.., L.-• • , - .• -..c. .., .ct..o.rp,• . 0.4-1,0'--- ;.H'.L... - L',';'tj-ti:WaLk.-..sqL.,-LATit'' ,-;'-'•=1.';',,;-,:r-,„::,;..L.:,-;r.k.-,., ....J-.-$01--.,-_ .,. ...yste,..c,:.,i-..,-.. -:.,,,. . .:- --. -..-- -7.,".-.• L.-:,-..,,...- . ., -4.4...A.c,-;..i,- , ' . ... _._. 4,,,,.::.,, ,..,,,..,7_,..,.....„ .•::-,:ffZ.-',N;li.'Lq*-.4 ,,7f4.•44,..,.."--;•:- . ,,.,..-...-- •;i.--. '''.-......:7.L.••:-L,,•'."-1,----!--',L-2"-. . -7'.:,'.'...:•-•,.r,'.• ;::=.,.. .---"•:".-- •'.•..:•-•'-;' '...:'-€1-0-i,-.11:64%.-4;L---.47-.=';::•/t ::-L- •- •••-... .;:::'.4". :},2,4.7, w-..i,,-0,--L,c,..z.-- --•%-i-...,-.. .!.t.1....i.r.1:..'i-TitLIY.!•:LF: .41.t--i.4% t. -.-/---.--,---'•''''.-)--.':.'-'5*-f4-^-ncle-'.',.: •'.--•'-`);:i''.--' .-I'. •.--•' - . .--'..-,Z ''''•, . .-;;.t6.:4-41L-Fe-.41,1z.'".-.'.f:. •*4,,.--.. 'Ll;ftr,-,.•tJA.,,..ii*7 v,iti',4•3„.- ••,..•.,...-„,;;;:,. -_:. .• -, - .44.4). ... - , ' •'-:''...:.kk,-t-7.?-,.-,,.,... .....,,..7-,i, •. .-: ...,- -... -f ....,..:- -• --• •- . A''-'.f.:..°!,:'-4""'!'..il.e.Z:;:7,.147- -:1'47;77 - -•''.27.;,_:-., 4-171:4-VA-4-f-'F'-'_;-1.:* j'.'/.': .., .n0".'•-:-._-'.'1.-"t4,-Ici......w.-44%"0.-....- 1.17.4-rke;-1.--77-:,=-5..;,-3:,,T.e..4.-',:ite.,[4f.::".-;-:'-'-'"'',..-j-.::-:i•••..;,,7,-F-`•;•::-.7.,,......;:.....,'...T-----....;.''.' 'i:,..q,,-,:,;:. ..-:'‘..''..j,.i::,..., ' ...-. . •-•---4';:f*4.;',','2-'1-'.!■1:--.^.'1'.1,'Yf'-i-,-..tr: :47: '''-'s.•.■... -•.'..r.;'" ::''.tr--•-41,. .&"&11:1,?..1.0:iqX...7144V--:."-_,,,,,4:1''' '',-.." ...a.;:,7 -:I..T/Z41#41;c-r.• .."...,,..-L;'AV . ".. .., 'N-4. ,•-.-: :1,..':',...45,-1,-,1.414,4', ...ti44.-22.-rii.-114t--.' %' .- -.,.-'' '''' ••#-'-,:•^'!7...'''-',-.••7'...i,'41 ,,,,•, ::-.-..- .. 7:••• •Thr--.:,-.--:::- ..,..7;.7-.77.7,:-.4•7,47•4:•-.7-.:"--.',-7?-:•.7r.‘-:•-_-.;,,w,7.:;.a--.3.414•2•:".:',"'...1 • -:.•,-.,,.- - ,. ..,.:,,r,vi,•]:=._:,-;,.......: --._ --,imi . .-:.,,,......rolv.,..... :-.......r.:4:::„..:i.:4:-.:r.4‘,• -••..241)::::.?••2' •`-':, :;,,l'"L ...;y;,':;,,i',4,2_,.,:-.'-,:ZS:4'Al:-.'•.••.•;•:;1,17_ 04 ,: ..' "'.-.,ic:7:--:::-. .:- :.1::•'6,-.-4..t,?'. •'-,, ..,•,;•,,,,,, ,,,...f.,4,F.::: „-',,. .ie:.:1,,z.,,,s-'-,,,._! ...41?_,,L,--. ..,p,..,,e, • 1.6,:.,:t4 Tf..---`f. - ,-'.--• ..• '''' .,' -7?"-awi.f.;,111, -;.-6° .•-2..c4.4ie- -._ •, .4(.1 .. . . . • •"-: • , 1,.4.44:14,43i; , .._. ?.ity. i."1-.,.,,-.,,„. .,,‘,...,..,,-.4.-. -,_. • - ... , ,, ,,,__.,._. ..,,,,,. .., ._.. _ .,.,.._,,,....,, ._4.::,, 4.. .,,. ..,,.. ,.„..4;,...,,,_. ,,,_,_,,.c.;,,, ',•:••••:. • 2,--;;;;'.'•;^..:L:,-,1:44",.;iit* •t-kt,,,_•:,:-rlte6a,e4,,,ErkElt, - .--_..,- ,-..--.•:::;•••• •,0.-.3i..-..,..-:•-•...,:_-;.:- .---- ,-)0•Ai.e.00..;-..--- --';',-- -Ler••::--". -44.4.jiii....i.-4-itrie''.fo- 4 • '''.• • • ''•;: -..'''-'•:;W:" 'a'' ''-14V'41'rii-'4":.(-41. 4' •1-400'.4., ..'•''. - ••• ••.• ..,-... .' ,'''."•'••• -• ' ' ' ' • ' .-.:::,,, -'''• •• -' '• _. '•,;.7i,.,L.4)t,4 '''•'. :. :.".:e-,•5!5±1;,i1,,'i;if .,?7,..,'r.--: ,;■--. .''';-,s.:",,':"Lftle.,,,A1.-&-, ••-^;•:7P'' -•.-..;•:•-,...:,---,..-- - .N.,. . ", •.-,.,-.:---;-7--. .;,..:..,-,17.ri-':-.---;.,..:.-,T..,-.:..-.:'.-•;'.•:±-;• ,:-.4;,•,::,......- :.,-•.,:r,0-.-ig,,'• '...,?:.,,-;. --'?"r,V7'4311:. • -..'..• -: •:•:;.•.1-.„..,k0;,•'X'•71.1.'.4T;..,.. ..„ 4.,,,!:4,,(i.1.•,61‹.71:-. Ft-isit;.,77, -,:t::Ti..7.!.,..'-.... a...,::::4:'': :r.';'.''-',-...-3 -6.-L'.':::'...4.-4:)-'-'.4&•.:.:-.'"•.'- '.'-;..'..17."- ......' .1.:''.',,-c.. .:.;;;,..:.,...--,:.*2-:t.,.;41E: .,--.•. .....L.i..,..-,5..:.;,,,.11.41.K...'.., - -,,,.:-..f.r7.',4':',:rt4,:,..t...,t„:04,•!'....;-:,-t ...:•:,..--.:-,'..• :''...,.....,--,,,,,..,..;:.-..-,,!. ---:•, -----.1v.-.-. • . . ;40....v ,,,:,. ....,.%. , ., .. _•:... „.,..,..,..,...:::,4;,-,13-:-_,), ,,-' - -•.:,,,,:',....44m32,,L'...i--..tt'-'....,"..,,,r 7.......,..,:,.:!--7.c.t.....,:-.7.,..--,-.. .,....:L,--.:: :.,,,,.?..i-d:c,,,;•.:,.-i4, ...0;.,t'..-t.•,-;-_,,9:'-etir,1-?,--,.-4-t....1.-4•._•.. .i.:f.,-,.:-:.: .4..,.,:-e.,,-;4•04Z.,...;••.•:.„r.t.r.-' -. e_.,...p.-. .,:, •, .--- . .• •..:...... :..........,,,,,ilvi..1.t.- .A.,,,,,y,t.,....,,,-.•.:-,t ..y:.1.:.4.41..-......,--';..... ...z:0,4.;... .,:,,,,:•;(.4415...•-•*'..,,P,,,--7,.,.:.=-,'..----,-.----':.- •:e.'-,--..--..-.':•-r!....'.."---i4-.6....60-j.• . '....;4-0..d.4evc...-. ' ---21' got ...'. ,-•-... ..;.,:...1.4.'.'41.-.",\-,.e.4.41,t6m,:0- .1'`..,,'.:3:4,"''::8.4c.....,..4,.....,'''''';''i..4"...-,..„47::',, ::,::-....-.7.,...,,.:._::....,.,_..„,.,..,..i-iq,,„.,.•.,.- --.,_--...-7..T. :,.,... ,.... .._.f.'....-,,,,,,,,....7..,..,..:;;.-.,4::"..--,.,...;•?.....:?:-,:-...?..,......"7-••;_ ,:.--.*.....'-',..:...-.C.,",:;.r..,.-.`.-!•!-....'',....,:,.-',1-4'...,..-'?.:....,.....,-,..,::.'-',:-.......`;...'.5.:11; - .,,..i7,...,t.,,.:37.,izi.!.c-y.,.,,,...„,,.0,-.;51-.45..,,,...,..:;,..d.,..,;:+f-.,-4-...,.,.-.,. --,'.:...,..-...',.:-,,,..t,..Qt:,,.. .--,:.,.,---. . ..,,,,-,:..,44;."4,.,-..' ,'''6--; :g.e.&,,„•• .._... ...., ..40(...1 .44t.,, .` ''j". ' " .. --• - :44..17''!....X.,..,• •..• . -:.-.,.!.-.:,,..,,, -v?„-,..--'6_' A..0...--•:4.•,.z.:..il-:-.,:lz... .xy.i.-,.': --,::-.,..F.--0,--. -.,,.- .:,.. ,:..,-,-- :.-,:..-..• -- • __:. _ ,...._ ____.......:.__„...,......,,.,.......„.....,,,,......,......_,47*....4.., .._ ..,....-., =i7z. ..i.:4,41;.:41-1,;•,•:,,,_•-• ,,i,...r.:- ',,ig••-'.:-•'•1•7--. ..f57.-rC- •;-.r.-•:...-;.•i f."-:•77.1,77,, ..-7,75:t;•:•:.;.t.F,:;;-71r-._!,:,•7:.:--;,...'. 7;1:-'''''4,-; •,-'. .ii;• • •■•-hwr•:'- ...•:.•-•':. ...----.:''''.•• .. '-•'''••••''''-••••--•••-'''-••'-4;;;L :.'' y iie044,_ ''• ..".•te•r-L;;;; •°••■■).,;1:1I4S2.'ZA're,,,i7•.••:•;'2: -it37:.:-'X7 ,I...'; ;,''''- .:7.1 .•••• :- -•-••-:'-r?'- - - ..----. -•• •••••:L-4Pit itP.• . ...,-,:: . •- ','.-•-.',-'1•'•,',..-- J; .7.--•••C''''.•-••-:'-••• • '''.• ' • :'•'-"•'•-=-'.'k-■5',':- :•;::1 V.,•,•.''..--L'''',IFO•'''''Y•:';.•4"i'i^.:•.74.,•,•-.. .... "'1=-•-..:7:•,-.-,. •.:.4•r-,; ,;•••: '-. ....7..--.T•77--...---qi:4-',4;-.17. 4.,: ;•!.._:.::.;-:,1.-, ,•-:•=5,.31i4,•, •::.';:-:'-.-,;L:.,ri=,•:j1.....i.••-..,,'-.•7-,..,•!''-•'--:...-':-.7-,•-•;`-.tr,-.,..-: , .•. .,:•....!..7'..:.■•,.....i4e,,,..6;•;:-.2-' t.ti-_-! ;.1,-.;.-7::.?5, •-....---.?r,-;;•41-..,-..--• 1;-ir,to..,:•4*--..kl:t).-.::••••••••-.'-=.--.'"?".•:.-•''.'41sc.• ......'.:4 '.- .-.."' :a.,••/;42.,„.„..„9„, _..---.:'''''''-:-','''•- ' •--- '' -• • •:;12._,'-:•:;• .--:• :-,...!;!.,,- f2r,..:117,:-_. ..,-,..:L-:::: - '-"rr •:,.,;:•• . r_r__. ,....-,..-: z.•:..,_, ..:.?:- •„,....--77.77, -.-.-.T....-:. .,..4.■.1-f.,..: a74.- ... :. . :i:T.:.-;',.'':.•:-;;.,W.L.,,,„-;#..1,:J7 4,44,7•7ilt.,- -.--..--,.,;::•.•:. -..:-.,:_-_,,-.4.7.,,,,,:-.-4, ••••••::- .,..::,..::-,,,,-'4. • ... -.:.-1.?..Y.-7.'..V..',.ii;',.'•;!..._..r ..._,...". ,:-...-:r.•::-V'T.C-':.. ;'..4 .f.-.. ' ' •'kr '.....'' .;-.-Vf., I, ''.^.-''''.7.i,;:--':',-,14;'"Irkl-' .::','-,•,,..',-.16-4,.*LiL ••;:.w-..0-7 ,z,-•'''f''.i•• . •.--‘,. ." ;•'''-'''''''''••''''''' '''44'.- -t; ..414'''''''ef •-';''''';'-':.•'''''.;eirb-kik •-•-r0,r; ' .'••'•- . '. • ..-:•'. -'.•-.V. .-5 *:.-knrit-'*"a..-: : '''''t...-:„ -,...,,-),'...•..:-.....'''._;-,f.....4.;;.--- f:',7::::-i '''''Pkr•--fl'.*-t',.rit'-,'-'. L--`9L-P-..-tt-7------ ••-•••- -•-.r' •-•.:::• : ••-•.,-,-,r--...;.-.....-:;,,-?•,,,-.,.....-.,-;,L,,..;,;..--._?:..-..,:.-- i.•..,:- ,.. ,...-,..,,,,,,„ : /....„.. , ;........,...,... ....,._..__:„._ .....,......„, -- ... •••:•-:;',',..';74:-.:iik-1;-4.1-17,fref-,.4'',,, ... ,:i., ,,.-ti-1..1?--• --ai.;--/-.. • -.4..'......- :• _Lre~..:.. .. -......L__ ... ',':'.', _.,-2ficatir•_ - ..... -• -, .-.•.:•:::',..'jw':4•t:' •4':;:*il 4i-leit74:1Y&VH -'.,.- ,-.7.7,-.: t ..!-.,-i.., - ..-.:,. -.,47,_ -;:.--1.),;:,6•T.,'.--. 1,;.."::::::...f.i..,,'!.;......6:::-.: ::::-,;_.'-.yr:. ,.:,..-,,.::5..,:. , .27,...-=,..?...q.,6z-,2-,..,;:,-‘. :4,.-...:;.•,.: I . -....• ---:::,,,,:t-;.:::,11,14„,.--**:;-,-4.4V-:-.3':it,N,+,,:- -1_.-i..rai•44u.s..).K.; :-:-14e:Lt..•''.141:i.•- .ritlil•--' -. _ . :... .._. ,,IteF0,1:4:Wzre4W*-.46W47?.r7..-4i-'•.'- • . '-",•••.--.,••.:(''..--,...4•.„.-1sT;lics:!• •;...:-,4;••::.::-;•-:_--- ••:.'.i;. -.-.:.=1:-",--'.;:•••••:i•'.• •••4411-•:•?e-• --=.;:',6-2•- t•.:".•: ....•.':•-•:•,,•- •.•:•,•.-4:-•'.,•• -.-..-•••. . • -..•,•- . • - .--• . • - '. •:::.;,-.....,:;;•,,-.9.. ,:',,e-k-,?&3•13t.:,-:•-•,:::::7-..;•..,•-1,-. ..,:-,,.,,...Ff..V: ...;,..;...,-...,._.-,...iiez.,a44;..e.....a,::...... .,. ._, .„ ..z...,....,, . . . . i,. .,e,. -,., . ;,..:,..s.!.,k...,,-.,.....: .,.,:y..d.:• -.7.,•-•.-...,-„,.. _.:.•.;.,....,...-.,..-_--1,7.677-7- . .,..,''7. '-':•''.11.1':•..'''.--''.e.,:•••:`''':,-r.''''.2 .':.,'-'•%;;.:--` • •-•••`'::'.•:''''•••'•:-''''''''''l'•'''' -•;-;•-•-•••.'••. .' :`'•'''':-•''''• •'''''s.k. .. . ':'L,:',-1'..-:•;..:t:_;3::- 4:,:::•,:i4:,e..,1k;,..nTayf."..,,,;:t..-..,,g,:r....'...;.-:.,.',4.-ct:..;•_5,,t 1..:. ::,-1.:,;.. ...-?6,-..', :7',.''.):fs-,17,,?".,-,...-'1.•••*,tiLis.:1",. .-:-,•. :'"?''''.."'.....••••••• • 'ri,,, --'. .' ••• ••:,,,,s, -..:•,,..--.....,L.-__..,,,.:,......,-. e(40.17.t. ,__... _..,...__ -..-„,c-• --,•:1,,,-..:_:-..-.•:--,:.. .,..:r '••••-•-;-,-, -,--IiI.:4,-,....4-.. -,,.--,.-,4,.---,.•;;',--.4- _2-,. :,• ,.-.:,--."........ ..- ::. '.: •-.. •:•,---.t;••. .':::-:,.........2,,,.,' '..; -i 7::-..;'...- ',7'.'y,;•■ ... '.•••'.:,..; ...•-:.:.... 1....1-,-,•-_.''''-,:'-i.. 1-,r,-i.Y-.1,g..'••k)1?:. '-‘...1''.' : ".,-;72..,•'.::.;*-••''•,- '.:--.•,,,■-,.:-. .." .•,;-:..tr..:;...;.:.Q. ...,.,,.). '. =,..,•:_:-.7.::::-"-... .:. ....,• •••: . •• :.,: :-_ . ..•••••:!, „._.,...,..:;,....,. . ._ .. , ,:,. .j,•,,....,_,...,-4.....,. '.7•::2::-.',..:.:''''...,7.2-.,'.1•.•;'•':;fit .',' t4,- . -':•,:::_..:.:. . .:.:g_._. .-2,;.:-.-_-;-,;;4:';',;2:-,•:••-,'••••:.•;2•_ .•:,, _:... . ,._ •__...-.2,1 . ...._ ... .:.::. ,,..1. ---.., • . ,- • 't.;.•..••:-.■::•',. ..,',.‘ i'4;.:if..7:::?::14;',.•-,•=•:•.'.....::-.-.- .' , ': . ''• "H. ."/ . • - - '• • ' 0 e.ilfr •Z40-4.-4...444•-: &-t---'• /A ........"....,.." --,.: L'-',..]:..'..'..,',;.'-'•.-.:-."'.'0';,&%:. ' ..,..4"... 3 - .. "Z--.02.4.-.... „... .. .:.5.L:ef-LI..: 44-4-44-4-.,,. ...- - .--' -- ----- ...• -. .,.-"..r . '7 '-.:''' .. . . . . .. ,..':7,-:-" ...i(-.....4'. -..:,....',.....--:;..-W, -1,....L. '7.,,T.-•!••=:''.2.- ,:::•.::' -,..-..;-;-..--• _,.,•-'l•• ' e --:':-.... .t.,T•' • ••... '' . '. ••-•.-.•. .. • ::•:::••.;.: -;:;',• ,,--.....,._.,.::::.---:,..:-.,; •• .:*•-t1:;.'7.:'.'f.:i..,.,`,1'•:*4:P.Oftt.-`:`' r :;4.'.--.'••••'-'. •••t12- -. ,, ,•--•d-rs.ga;-‘,..A ......:-•:)27-44,104'-`eA'&•4-4 -r. 7"..4=•, -•• ' -••--.1...4.t" :"•-'1'-'74-'''''';'''•;‘!...• ., .- ...-_-.. -.... .. ' • I.'- '-'n- Sij;4;Zt;i:eir:/ibr'''s'•' . p.,..4.4.6.4..; . .... _.,, .- ' ,:-.,--r1.,i..P,",•4.4),,Kfl, ,;:"Ps. .:,--',,,-.A, ,-.•1,i;i-';:'-,.•::: - - .2;_, ..i.4. ,-- ..,,,;‘-0.-',.....--,-:• •- .,': ',,'' "-...?-,-,:::?2,14;•--A;',.. . .-' „•.-• , • ., ...1.,. . . - . , --, .-• ..• • .:••-•-,-„-_,,.. .. • ;---• ,:-...'i.-',,?-;.j.1443;i14:01', '•.•..i....g ...:4;..44,4.,:::*1 . .--'4. .".=:r.t....:, 71..„t7,y,: s--1-7t...--...-.-... ,,.- -.,.-.-.7.7.:.,t5-7. :•,.-:.:.,-L,.-,,'-.-:•:.-:.'.....,„.. ,,...' ...-...........,-,',.:''? .;;--.-,.'-'...in: ..,::-,.;.--!.,,...=' ..'- ....:::,..';',....-,....',.7,;.i...:,, ,14..-„,i.e .,.,,,.;*:.. . ...,..,... -,-....,..-.,:::- ."):'/"...?e.=..•:;i:i.i4,,m..,.::,..,.9 ,7;,•::'...-,,,,-4 ...v...;?....4•44.4 .../::._ .....e.F...... :;..x„..,Ez....r4.;.-...:7-, . .. .::.;..1.?:. ..:.-,-;•,T.r....Vit,;./4`..0.1.-:.-.1.•i••2J.4.-4.:-TZ.-4.:J.T.,-1--, --.--Vt.7..-rr .' 7-!,-.•.•,..-L.--,-.;.-----77---7-":7-'7"7`-;'•,,•••••,., . ..:.±- .-.';;,.;:.3:---.::::44.077,,.: 1-:.: -::••=_•.,-..•-••; -•:.:i-:•;:::•:::.•.••••••..,:::::' Aee' • •,t••:,-,:••i.•;.•'•,•k••-..-...-„x.- . j,.. ,_;!: ../.. --„--,-:•.,.•,.:• -.....,„. ,_ . • .,,.. _.. __tel.:L.,' of-U-erw-n-i..• , • • 6 • -::-..- ••.,-,;,,,,•:?•-:'•'.,o'il•!Vvf-Tr'02 f,!t--.«.:•-:•7'il'• : .-•-•:t•-7-t '"--••.--••••- ,- -:,•k--•••-,,•---lj: ' -----7--, •,-,'-'-:-...--.-:::' ..•'''..:•-•'::=•-.---•.• '••-..•-•'-'.*::- -Hi•••:.-•••'''.;h-.:-•::::'::::-*,--:••':.•,-.':7• . •t::..::--;•-;:-:',%,:,:.-:,----'..---:',:-.-••Ii:•-:7.. .; . :--• •;:',-!.,... ',:-.,V'iC4;4.-Ani.4- .et v;-• ;, :'.'4',.-.--.:::.--: •-••;.&1-,ey--•':.;:e2-... .n'-'4.0...-04,e'-••:':419 •" ' • - .-...i.7_...::: .: .. .....:::.4..-;,:...:,- , ' '• ..f..:c:'.,--=4-..";41L.4'.'...*Zi, -.114.-.2.•,-..„' .7.4,.5... ...:-N7f.,,,....4:-.., :....., :r.:..:_,...!5.„,_... :.,.:„;...,,..::,,,,,.,;.-..,. .„4,...--::,:.[:"::-...:;-•i:::-.;... :-!,::-..',*_, ',"..--•1;...',3.. ".1,....--..1:-...r.',.:,..,•:•..,•,,' -; -• -.-••-•t'.-vf--:4;."..',,,:.:e'l„ ,r..",4& -.-,..1...-'2.-;V-q. -":1:'•4--''--••.-'.2.,• •--,•-''--- -1,=-2'-','----t,:,",•::•,':;-:.:;"----...,'-.'..•r--'•••-t'!-'1-:-::.;,-.4:'1,6-,:';''''-r,rP2•24-•:',`••:-'-',',.....:- 7' ..7-•'• .•'''''''•:•''''''. ..'-••• •'-';''t-'-','-. " -••_:._ ,.',L,- -• ;:::r.A--,....1:-.7'.1;,,,,,;',.$'10111,M--.4;,..,A•••:'•"-•,.•.';`, .•'• -''',-• '‘...::- ..'..•'.:^:‘!•••-.4ir,f...-,L:T.••,,...;'.:-..- •-!-••;'-'',....-- i'••••'..c."; •=11:,-,,....,",.- '-•, ,,,, ' :-- '• '''':-'i''',.;r,•••:•-.0 :•'': L--. -:-....-.-- Z.'”•°214,1•4, . s.' • ..'':::: ?.,i-'.:eW';'1..4`•.J.;ee»?■,--':::'. '-7. -13.-;tr'" .•' • ii>i .r-•:•:;,-,er: jed'r ' . .. .. . 'At • - . * -' elf 0.0.04, . .. ..'. '.''''•''''''.".'“Ur.,Air'-ft - _, -,-•-..:..•• .- , 'ee-.•. LA.-194?"-. ..,...,;,,•,.;-..-..•,-,'.-• .. _. '••- ., :,•,,r.. ... .:- ....i: .,- i.•-•z- . • .f.,••,;-.%-.7-. ;-" ,-;::-.iiiiA,,..,1-1-.,,,'--.: .,........,-;:r::.-.‘,:-:'72.;•.•:-..•• . ,r'•-.- -•'-',:•-•-•: . . . • - ' '• ' • •••; •:"•'''''' --:••' /':04.."--4:4-- •'''' •.... ,:•--.- -;•• -•-•••■••: ;.1 • •'s'-'--':•-c.'''-'''':■'''.5-•'-.4.''l'*/,'-'3"4."'.*-i''..45*t :'..-',.'":"..1.4.4'•'''-'!•.:.,..f..:1'--,,i'.--,1:-i_ ...'• - 1... 47.4 r.A.Z.-4,...4..t,..--. ....._ ,.....,7i• . . . . .=......:...,. .:5,:......„..,.:......-„... •. : ••••:.:,•:-„z_7•,.....!-0-?. .,:-,c+g,lz,. ,.-•,,•:-,,..;,:•-:•.,,,,,;.-4-„,,,,--:.,.. •_.....• _ .......„,_......•. ...._ .•_.- -7; . . ' 'E'''"■:,..;;;:::44.7":-Z.S.f.':.:7..'.4.. -:.....";•:,....;.•:,:.•:.-,44::::;•..,: .. . .;.,..„,,,..,......,:„..... .. . , .. . . . d,.. , 0_6/ ..:.•.s..-:...:.--:•, •. .':,••:"?'••.11::1:"-.-.f'k":;.,,`;;::•2:='44•,-'•,..'"::?:.'•-,'•."1;1.r..,?-....-•.;:ti''1."4:"',;,Ti'':.'-1,';!:e:•.f,.:::::'i:•S.-'.q-:S•,.'S.‘'.-;ff1.6-,•t4.:0ld.i,-,4,;i;•7;;`?:1fr K'•!Ie,4v-t9,-'-,4,1-:;..'F--'4I4;-f i.;ge.s"1/2,..A.,,•1.6"v.,.,..,.,:3.a2,.;;t7...-.'1..••-'•...'•...:..7-.•....-.:..•;;-•7.-:..i->'-;:!;":,:,.;:•::-:-:.:-::•'-';'':••:::,:•::•.7-,"::•--;T::,,':.-.'.-J••.'••-•;•r"T;i-:••`:•-•i-•---•:••:,--,.•-":• l'•--•:A-:•..-.1.6.<•-I.r:;•4 v••-:'rco--t.r:.-:•.:.. 4•.4.4-•...4-2. 4.'• .-7'.,'•-1;1.?-.:41:..-._e':':..-...:;-'."..._-.;•.-.''f''-:e':''•-•••:•- . 4.-^..-... -..-.:---A•.--!i.-ir:si r.gi.S•..4••-".e,:••...-.....,.-...-.-•..-t-s4r*-•..:',i:..-•.4-.'-.'.''.--7-•_,-d:7-c•..•P-..•.4.tr•.-1-i- 4 LTZ 70e 'i) 2 4 2Z 2A4 . .. . . .. . . ' -• ‘• --. .-•,,t...„..,;•.-:.7,,x ..,,fp:2.,i-1,PA, ..,.:-..':L.,:,:;..'.!:-,:, ":".. :-:N1 ..--Al-r,....' .-.• • ed.t.....tz.,_;,...4.4046,-/-4-L. 1.• , •-,..:...i,..:.•,1':-::-,,•;',A••-.e.,-,7 - ••.. '.-..-4-,-•:••••-•• • -.. .. .. . •.-:::-.,:-7.•-•,,,...:•....-,;.-.•••• ••5•A,:i0;,, •ci• ••''''-+-`'S .•" ' :•'-' . '• • - ' • ." •.:': i";••-.J.'.-i•jjj';'''',:trYt•';S:,,,':X•e7,,,ii7...• .:!'.•:.:.-.:•-,..-:. .,:,..,. it:iirr..1,44(...e.f...4.4. IffZie....7.„1..cy„.L , , . .. . . ..• . . .11,... . . ' •.'''. ' .. :,..„,......,.;.■.',',;...:`,-,,,,,',1y17,1,L,;...'-'.t.;.‘,.;,•'••: . .'.....' • • •-- • . ; - • •;.,,••'.:',•-''),'"•"'"'"';',;, .. , ..;1•. 4...,,,:., - • .. . .. - .,.-, ...vrm=lrz,rT"..cr.rr,r7-7.7r7rr...-n7.7r-r.-r,..--.,,•..,7...-,,,'.,.•:.:.[.,.-,,...•......,•,_:-.:.,...-.:.rt.,..,..:..t....„:i,,,•.:..,,..:.--..-:L..,..7.....,.i....-•;;:',-•• ; ',:r .,_,,__4/4. . . -A'. .• ....;:-.-.... ..:: ',.• -•6ti•,:-•••••,-.:r.A.. .':'7-"•:'•5 ',.. .•• .z:',•,'•••-----411,-;:_',••t'.1=._ ,..-.••,-..;;,/';:•• •,4-ri....••••••'!•- •-.---1,-,--yz,_:,:-.1-•••:-..]-t.:;;:•,'F,:::l,:•,:r4•....,'.4:.--.r.'..-.'7'••':-,-. ',:.'••-...-7'"• •••-•:;:7' •)'_•:__:47...;-- ;:•.:`:::::•::-....3:;:::‘,.-f,.---.i....•.••.:::.::..,-•:.:..:7,-.;y. _,...,...._„:„.L.r, ...,,,,-::-.:::,--::::.‘-::,,;:-4-i,",....;„2 .- .. . _-_ ..-•_ , , . ,,,, ,,,,- . . ..,_.,.:...,......,....,...., ;.:....,-.: .. ...,„,..,....,., . •• A,,,,...,„1.,.;,.,,,.., : . ,,..-..,,,-,„-. : 77 . , :::..-.- -z....:-..;:.,;,.J......,-...t..",...7-!:•. .--1;•":::::,--..-.,,:f•-',. ...--.--..-.,5,:C.,;:•.:!...-.;---,-.V."-l6..".. -.....• ,• 7.ig,,,4.i.-5:',i.,.:-.7/..;;.:".;.-:-a;•.2:,4,4.4:7.?.i.W..7,--•.--.*T..r.z..1.:-c! • r;,-:;.:-=1T'"-- 74.'':•".?..7 ..:', --- .-: 't,:,-1:-•,,::::.:-::•:,•'.,,.'..-:..;•::::4•,;,•,.5.,•,:, :i--•••1,..-4 .:; •.---;:'-,-:'-'•:.":' :',';':-...-.•;::'-•:/:!•4:-.•11.0...---4; •::'•q!■.::..". --i.'•....1:7't't ,4;ii •••:'.....-.'•4•;....:.,--,:....,...0„.• .4 N.,,•:;.........0-. 4.4,-...4.,-::,4c.,i.tac,...,...._..;,.., ,,,,r,._-.:,....„--w,t.--..,-,,,,-,..... ..-A-....za.„-:.-.....,...,t--,- -,..- ?.27-„:%,•-„--'r,.■;...;,w,,,,‘"2,-;_i-L-4-,-. -4;•_ .-;.‹.-.-_--12,_ t:.-..:4:..-...2..!--..);-.-..,I,ra...et-t•h,.:....me..\_..- -,_ • • •i1 STONEYCREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT • VICE-PRESJTREAS. SECRETARY Clinton Burklin Marcia Koth Carmine Prioli 113 Stoneycreek 114 Stoneycreek 107 Stoneycreek 732-4379 732-4641 732-8650 • May 8, 1986. Mr. Kirk Pelland Chapel Hill Township Advisory Committee • Chapel Hill , N. C. 27514 Regarding: The New Hope Church Road portion of the Joint Land Use Plan Dear Kirk: I appreciate the opportunity to present the following information to the Chapel Hill Township Advisory Committee in clarification of views which have been expressed by the New Hope area residents. On behalf of the several hundred residents who have signed the attached statement, I want to say that we fully support the Joint Land Use Plan which was presented at the April 17th public hearing. A critical component of the plan is the rural buffer. It preserves the rural beauty of central Orange County, it preserves the individuality of Chapel Hill , Carrboro, and Hillsborough, and it provides for low density growth in the absence of supporting municipal infrastructure. You were wise to expand as well as preserve the rural buffer in the proposed Land Use Plan. Some have thought that we were only concerned with the possibility of a rock quarry in the rural buffer.. Not so. We would all be just as concerned with the creation of a "commercial " hole in the rural buffer as we would be with an "industrial" hole in the rural buffer. The rural buffer cannot handle high employee densities regardless of their employer. We foresee severe problems with water, sewage, east-west traffic, pollution, and conflicting land uses from commercial and industrial development in the rural buffer. We appreciate your support of the currently proposed Joint Land Use Plan which preserves and expands the rural buffer through the New Hope Church Road area. Sincerely, - Clinton E. Burklin President • -, - v • We, the undersigned Orange County Residents, strictly oppose any change in the current rural/residential land use designation at the 1-40, New Hope Church Road interchange. Any land use designation other than rural/residential will destroy the integrity of the rural buffer and threaten the pastoral beauty of central Orange County. No true benefits have been demonstrated to offset the damage that will be inflicted by a land use designation change. Number Printed Name Signature Address . 1• 11, ..',,AY. 114 5'4nnyrrep4 Rai 2. D14. 'so L.444-14 jI_A... .. 1/1 Sibil tea- a(,_ 4. ♦,\ Q..f. ' , .. , ■ In Slau2.'(CQt£.K Kt, 5. C/4/ , E`&e Ask Z e /- /i3 'Art Pa 6. ��-p- .,c,.,,S t XB u rI<1 i v... i1 3 S'Arta .vy . 7. W;k_v4-kalA, ■n" f I? - i 8'. ...VA n,E5 R. ApsD c,, ._,,,_. 1 ``" . 130 nl's l tot3 Ade. • - 9. v`), 4-- '4'. &Mar . • LAS CPlai` W ts1)rr`,ve, 10. _- ., - .�rr� Apr 1� - •�� c! dn�- p o�-4 c r` 11. 7Z hi. , M •l - i 4wma .v.., 11 trM7HiA pnz.ve 12. /.y...!.._ .' • -1/1 f/ l,Q�iGi /0? J .u�y 13. IN., n r _'s'. ) /OR J'�o.x Creel Ai 14. Y qi 'f - /' cr/ 15. E,'�R 6 tt : � / /ae i i 16. g 5c_►u.,e.4Q,4--- ( /o6_ 5. C; ,.-ar- 17. Bc -�� m 18. iT 5r_h."-- -.` 'kg., :fthou1.: _ _..2.2 3 `/.f1,1' ed. AVIIIIAIIIIMIr 21. I 0 • *. // _A i it s. Pe. cool . 3 i . :*ill5hora . 22. rf�o�rt G•(=ar tom/ „„4 .„„ . 106 604.4ar CI-1 aced 1 't 23. it .. ne Le - - fi P-6 111i/7cd/ r; eCkr6orr 24. I/7 , C(- / Ielti;/, j L' _c't-\ .( L:1,,. C .a, (3,5( /7?-/-virL (/A.C.0 25. ; . . ? P /vi a h/t .1 ,-.,____ c,/ / , ••• 26. 62/ _ / _,1 /61! €- --. • El 6-1- 94 GQ D 121 • Marcia 011is • Liz Peters 'Amy Wong 2 Foxridge Rd. 35 Wedgewood Rd. 102 Fieldstone Ct. Chapel Hill Chapel Hill ' Chapel Hill 968-4020 929-2402 942-7731 Orange County Planning Board members Orange County Planning Department June 5, 1986 To All Concerned: Re: Proposed Joint Land Use Plan at 140/NC86 intersection Purpose On behalf of residents in. the Stoneridge/Sedgefield subdivision, we would like to reiterate our deepest concerns regarding the current Joint Land Use Proposal . We feel that the proposed use is contrary to the stated objectives of preserving existing neighborhood character, minimizing traffic impact, and maintaining a buffer zone for Chapel Hill . However, we strongly support the recommendations made by Gene Bell ( planning department ) at the May 19 planning board . meeting to keep Whitfield Road rural—residential and remove the proposed light industrial development along Eubanks Road. We would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you for a fine job in reaching out to all communities and being receptive to our concerns. Discussion 1 . The "triangle shaped" area west of NC86 and north east of 140 should not be developed. Mr. Judson Edeburn of Duke Forestry has stated that the development of this area would destroy the adjacent section of Duke Forest to the point where research will no longer be possible. 2. The proposed 136 acres ( includes the previously proposed • • 122 light industrial area ) designated Office/Mixed-Use in the NW sector of the 140/NC86 node needs additional consideration. A. Due to a slowing trend in the economic growth and the already over-supply of. office space in both the RTP and Chapel Hill vicinity, we strongly urge you to re- evaluate the "projected growth" figures for our community. We. would also like to point out that the already zoned business and industrial areas along Eubanks Road and the office and commercial area at Timberlyne ( which remains half empty and in need of shoppers ) may be more than sufficent to meet the growth of the community. B. Traffic is already extremely hazardous at the Whitfield & NC86 intersection. Mr. Herbert Justice, Traffic Engineer at DOT in Fayetteville, is currently investigating increased accidents at said intersection. C. Our understanding of "mixed-use" zoning is that it allows for fast food restaurants and gas stations. We . strongly oppose because these will be inconsistant with the existing character of the area and potential gas tank leaks will destroy our ground water. 2. Proposed Landfill site south of Eubanks Road should be removed from current plan. A. Landfills are acknowledged primary culprits of ground water contamination. B. The proposed site is situated on a ridge with S streams originating in the area; one of these runs into Bolin Creek, which inturn empties into Jordan Lake. C. Chapel Hill High School and Seawell Elementary school will be across the street from the proposed dumpsite and downtown Chapel Hill is less than 2 miles away. D. One well was found contaminated and subsequently sealed at the current dumpsite in 1985. E. Residents near current dumpsite have witnessed illegal dumping; how can we monitor and be assured that toxic materials are not being dumped? F. We strongly urge you to give serious consideration to environmentally sound methods ( e.g. , recyling or incineration ) for solid waste disposal. Otherwise, a serious study of alternate landfill sites should be made giving primary consideration to less populated areas and minimun negative impact on the environment. G 7 . • 0)3 • • Summary • 1 . The only reason given for the proposed use is that it is an interstate intersection. That is NO reason. We recommend an open space adjacent to the roads with low to • medium density residential further removed to give interstate and intrastate visitors a first good impression of the Chapel Hill community as they enter it from 140. 2. From your stated "Goals and Objectives", we are pleased that all of us are working toward the same goal : a well managed growth that preserves the. environment and quality of life that we have come to love. Let us not become just another "over developed" community. 3. Water resources are very limited and delicate in nature.. Industrialization, indiscriminate waste management, leaking underground gasoline tanks, etc. are destroying this natural resource on a national. scale. Closer to home, every year during drought season, be it underground water or OWASA's water supply, we all experience shortages and low water pressure. We urge you to keep the adequacy and protection of the water resources utmost in your minds when planning for the future. Sincerely Yours, (147 (r✓ Tha'i O • rn} 00( 14 7-10-S42 BUZ - r� LLOYD . AND ASSOCIATES _+ luq . , ' REAL ESTATE BROKERS �- July 29, 1986 IF; Marvin Collins, Director Orange County Planning Department Orange County Offices Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Collins: I am writing as secretary of Piedmont Atlantic, Inc. which 1s the owner of a tract of land on the northwest corner of the in- tersection of Homestead and Rogers roads north of Chapel Hill - and located in the Orange County Joint Planning area. Piedmont Atlantic, Inc. appreciates the support that the planning department has provided for the inclusion of an Office-Institution- al zoning node which would include fifteen acres of the tract described above. Piedmont Atlantic, Inc. believes that inclusion of an Office Institutional zoning node which would govern rezoning and development of this tract is in the best interest of Orange County for a number of reasons. First, because the land is not heavily wooded it. is. less` than ideal for a residential use. Se- cond, rezoning and development of this land for Office .lnstitutoinal uses would allow the development of more economical office space because the land is not located in a "high visibility" area; this would be an appropriate location for non-profit and other insti- tutions for which economics outweighs visibility. Given the cost of real estate around Chapel Hill the importance of the availabil- ity of less expensive Office-Institional property is substantial . Thirdly, the tract is a logical location just off (and sheltered from view from) Homestead Road which will become one of the more significant thoroughfares in the years ahead when 1-40 is opened. The tract is also in the vicinity of Chapel Hill High School , con- venient to students and staff (for doctors' offices and so forth) and yet would be the only Office-Institutional node on Homestead Road west of Airport Road aside from the tract occupied by the High;School and Seawell Elementary School . Your continued support of this node is appreciated. if I can pro- vide any further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Post Office Drawer J Carrboro, North Carolina, 27510 919/967- 948 AMMEM• 124 STONEYCREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT VICE-PRES./TREAS. SECRETARY Clinton Burklin Marcia Koth Carmine Prioli _A _/ 113 Stoneycreek 114 Stoneycreek 107 Stoneycreek• ['j%fs� 732-4379 732-4641 732-8650 July 17, 1986 2.7cise Mr. Barry Jacobs Chairman, Orange County - Planning Board Orange County Courthouse Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Mr. Jacobs: Y am writing on behalf of the residents of Stoneycreek to say that we fully endorse the concept of a rural buffer between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough. Moreover, we can think of no better way to indicate our unqualified support for this concept than to request that the buffer be extended to include our neighborhood. The present proposed land use plan shows that the buffer has already been extended north of New Hope Church Road and east of Route 86. So it makes sense for us to move it farther eastward and join it with the southern border of Duke University property already designated as a public interest area. (Please see the attached map.) We believe that such an extension will enhance and further protect the rural quality of central Orange County. Our association appreciates the past advice and support the Planning Board has given us and we will be happy to discuss this matter at any time. Sin rely, 6 (;) * Carmine Prioli ^' ryry °;fir''. 4 xo t *y,� 12 E 0) /lir wv to A.LNI-103 Bei ,.,,,,,,,,„„,,.- . §1*? far ati ,„ th' - rit— ,--w-,..:,,v-7,-,...-7,. , .1 .•tiry `'Y''�,�vy,.�;, •SEA' 4 r4 L -\' .dy Vin. >`:;i; 'y..:,ti•.. ''. 1. f .I r1:' - 1'..`1\‘'01 1 - - - ^` #S.r j,' ;( •.M1y:)f"<>,.. ?r l,S ; 'b_1?= �' I 1I 1 1111 I yn,' 4 / - ''�`;:!':'UtiT0j:.1. W.ti. �te. II,11111111'111'IIIII'1' 'i11111 •p..AI+ •. ' •�i Lr `,'`yy-'�`'� 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 t 11 1,' } 5... I: N,;`'- �'/,:ft".;.. -.*:! ,-� : 1111 1 III'11'1'111',1 ' {.,h.,;'�^i, .. --• MZ.'.0-'..F 4:7.v �,-1,4- ."'1�1 ,.1:111�.I.1 .1.11,1 .11 1111111 ' .fir •. y ' �• • •... 4'' "�ti. ~ " •,f. �?, ..ya.A I I..I 1 I I! ' 1 1 !I,I ,. a I 1.1 I .'110 �; • • . •`. ! • 10 . i . tir • —t ReO/POLS a • --� _ ocwE' ▪ oi .NEVHOPECHURCH 1 • ,{ if�k �d ., . RoAD ii._ 4O 4 - tlo f two _ __________ in P*4 --'..av2':,- - 4 _I 1r••...11...wwr.w••v.1.••....•• • • • .6666•• rNw••oo11•woo6ow•oo11 '_. -_;. `"; •1�•r1.6•.1•w••1..1w.6.16•..•1• .6666 r .•. ..• \-104 c- rte .•••141•..1 _y.. . •oftlitp �~ h-•••.161w.•▪ rr••6.w1.• 661.w.6 14.: •.5,._..:..•••11 a.•r/111•..6614• 114.6.60••••�• } .1r•-rat i_. -. :14••6611 _ _ _ � '..•r..wa...:�•ai....ww.•••r...1•.661. (�r.•..w1•.•1...am ••w•...w•ww�•���••"""••• i_,;„r ;::, \ ate_ . �▪ �-4_•.. ........... ...4,' Gr .• •w••....ww 66...14•• wwww.•r.•w•. _ _ .••••e w•w•1 _ r •`_• ", 4 •::.��::i•66w�:.i::� :61111••x::::: _ _ _ -_ ••:i:::. A •6.6.1 yj� 4 �•' •1141 rs•.• :i1v1.••.•1q .::i��i.:..1.. �_`a:'.t" _. ._a,; •611 �d e. _ __ & . s--.;.-y:::-;.;'';:,. .•••11.114. •r .`-tee+ -c.,•,,;•1, a,- icy. , ; 6661•.6::ii::: ,, 66/1.**e:: • - + �, ; - • •N1NM.000•• - �'W'"j: ,'+ o..w• "11•:%�'" ���ry"r.?�3✓1 .-•s.7'. •••1111.••▪6 w1••▪..6M*******************7---.7--;�' •• •6 1: J.r.{' __.-_,;,6,4-4; , .1 •.•6114.1. 1611.•61.+1•r6 `6141:=' ..,6„.4:.-4-....„-31.4v....? y� Yj 1••66/6 •••••11N•• ..6M wcti�. \ 11.a•••.w•� e • V74/ . •N 61NN6• -.+ --_ �'. 1.14.:..•1114r.6••61•w•.• 1r6: Wit .•114• - i - •. .•+•��s: ' •C ��''+���,t, �J`" ��'�� 1••`', a6lww.r•611w.• .__ •• : . ... ,i'q.,•- . .6• •14 • - rlil:::wa.1▪1•.661• �. •`:-- ==r'�kr-"-='f.`,Y�-;;,`�r M cs,�;1i.S�`� . - •mss•:6••.140` . �)Y •�j,, _ r � •▪6 •kk -f " ., w. ... 1.6.. p6.• v� :y i; J!,F Y Tom _ ....6.....▪.... : .�:.,r.;, 6. _mow ,._•*:i r•_▪ ``r..r_: - Y•"w*i1::: _�� �Yr -i�_••a sa ri:oN•�'.da�.`•�...� . •a.`da ""`A•. '•'°,. :.+Ly a.� - : _ - - 114.6 141...1:.14 /. .1• • 1. 4 ']r +�t . .A9Ask ...... -„,-.. `,A• *.**111414• f ��`— %-:; -1i. "�—`l'-,...a 7.4 �""_ ,1 0 A CA V 141.•6 '� .f .��. ."C�.��J /��/j„''�-•. ' KKY� Y 1414... r� ,.3:" i._-' :1. t'• r r1.-.-- 661 .] :^':"',', L-y - J,s,..._,_ .\+ 4.14 •• 6. `\ �� S S'� J_ 1_ �•>t'.i •.•w w• ". �- c_ ''• -'�a'1` .i'•w p�7�.} •„6-;•-•••-•...„,04-4::),,1” r"`"• ?S{ti'7 =r: •.•• \ ■ fir. ,�^•. � . te � ▪ .-r kr. w N• _ - ,-,.!,* % ._ ,. ............._ ,...., ******-\\ / -,::.140:6\\. ` ::d:- ^7 ''•-*9Y !k.f,'w.. 114 ' .}� _ ._ _' 6666• 6V•`.iR 'l - J , .0•.11 •3. �' � r. ` •: �•:� •' \ Y-'_- - _ yam- � � ._ _ - .;'� •••-mac_ - 7 ?4 i'- _ - _ - ; , _ V.1!," ,' ., _ y r. i r A - - _ _ - - - - _ - - 41, 0 ,e,4,_: ... , 1 . — A . , . ..,.. . .. __. , \ ., ,,,,.. .... __,_.,_rir_ ":_4‘,_1::: / .4,4•- - ',■ ,,- _ .. -••••■.......\ .\‘‘ 1:16ii:7., 1: .*J'':V:-.. " * ,• ,1,711,, 1 _ O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT 127 Meeting Date: August 19, 1986 Action Irtda Item # SUBJECT: INSPECTION FEES - JOINT PLANNING PROJECTS *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_X_No *************************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS: Joint Planning CONTACT: Marvin Collins Agreement Provisions; Proposed Legal Advertisement TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 *************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider calling a special public hearing on September 16, 1986. The purpose is to receive public comment regarding a proposed inspections fee schedule for projects approved under the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement with Chapel Hill . NEED: Section 2.3 of the Joint Planning Agreement requires that Orange County be responsible for making the necessary on-site inspections to insure that the developer complies with the applicable ordinance requirements and the terms and conditions of any permit issued by the County. The enforcement Procedures far Joint Planning Agreement llrl,plaag.l t i on, Item C, requires the County to secure the help of the Town when appropriate or secure additional staff or consultants for the purpose of administering the provisions of the agreement and any development standards adopted pursuant thereto. The fee schedule for administration of development requests is to be adjusted where necessary to compensate the Towns for the use of Town staff . Since the adoption of the Joint Planning Agreement, one project has been approved - Chandler's Green Planned Development. A Special Use Permit has not been issued, pending approval of construction plans by Chapel Hill and NCDOT. The Town of Chapel Hill wishes to insure that facilities to be installed meet Town standards . Town personnel can make on-site inspections but 128 must be reimbursed under the provisions of the agreement. To provide such services, the Town currently charges one percent ( 1%) of the construction cost for streets and storm drainage improvements, and two percent (2%) of the cost for water and sewer facilities . The proposed ordinance amendment would provide for similar fees with which to reimburse the Town . IMPACT: Setting a public hearing date for September 16 would enable staff to advertise the proposal in accordance with General Statute requirements and insure compliance with the provisions of the Joint Planning Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Set Tuesday, September 16, 1986 as the public hearing date for proposed amendments to the Inspections Fee Schedule regarding Joint Planning projects. . • • 122 B. Under the ordinances referenced in Section 2.1, a public hearing must be held before the Orange County Board of Commissioners or the Orange County Board of Adjustment may issue a development permit (a special use permit, conditional use permit, or subdivision preliminary - plat approval upon amendment to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations providing therefore). When an application for a development permit related to land located within the ten and -twenty year transition zones shown on Exhibit A is filed, the members of the corresponding town board, board of aldermen, counsel or board of adjustment shall be notified in advance of such public hearing to attend and participate in this hearing. The "corresponding town board" shall mean a Carrboro board if the land is located on the Carrboro Side, and a Chapel Hill. board if the land is located on the Chapel Hill Side. A quorum of each board, as defined in the respective county and town land use ordinances and as otherwise prescribed by law, shall be in attendance at any such public hearing in order for the hearing to occur. Every effort shall be made to schedule such hearings not more than four times per year. C. In" the case of development proposals located within the ten and twenty year transition zones, shown on Exhibit A, the county board before which the development application is pending may not vote to issue or deny the permit until it has received the written recommendations of the corresponding town board, or until the expiration of thirty days after the joint hearing, whichever occurs first D. In the case of development proposals located within the ten and twenty year transition zones, shown on Exhibit A, the county board may not issue a development permit if the corresponding town board recommends denial. In such a case, the recommendations of the town board shall include proposed findings or reasons justifying the denial, and these findings or reasons shall be incorporated into the county board's decision. E. In the case of development proposals located within the ten and twenty year transition zones, shown on Exhibit A, if the applicable town board recommends issuance of the permit subject to conditions, those conditions must be included in any permit issued by the county board unless the applicant has modified the application to comply with the proposed conditions. F. Whenever the county receives an application for a development permit relating to land located within the ten and twenty year transition zones shown on Exhibit A of the joint planning area it - - shall forward a copy of the application and plans to the applicable town planning department. In processing an application under this section, the _ county planning staff shall cooperate with and consider the recommendations of the town planning staff. Section 2.3 Inspection of Compliance With Development Permits. 130 Within all of the joint planning area, Orange County shall be responsible for making the necessary on-site inspections to ensure that the developer complies with the applicable ordinance requirement and the terms and conditions. of any permit issued by the county. All other enforcement efforts shall be initiated by Orange County. • 1 Section 2.4 Land Use Plan, Text and Map Amendments. A. Proposed amendments to the land use plan and any of the ordinances referenced in subsections 2.1A, 2.15, 2.1C and 2.1D, applicable to the =joint planning area shall be referred to the Orange County - Planning Board for its comments and recommendations before being acted upon by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Any such amendments to the land use regulations applicable in the ten and twenty year transition zones shall be developed cooperatively by the parties to this agreement and shall not become effective until approved by the parties to this agreement. - B. Proposed amendments to the text of this agreement as well as the joint planning area boundary, the jurisdictional boundary between the Carrboro Side and the Chapel Hill Side, and the land classification districts shown on Exhibit A (the ten and twenty year transition zones, rural buffer zones., etc.) shall also be referred to the Orange County Planning Board for its comments and recommendations. _Any such amendments shall not become effective until approved by the parties to this .agreement. Section 2.5 C ourtesy Review in the Rural Buffer Zones of the Joint Planning Area and in the Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction of the Towns. • A. Whenever the county receives an application for a . development permit relating to land located within the rural buffer zones . of the joint planning area shown on Exhibit A it shall forward a copy of the application and plans to the Carrboro planning department when the land is on the Carrboro side and to the Chapel Hill planning department, when the land is on the Chapel Hill side for a "courtesy" review by applicable planning department. • In processing an application under this section, the county planning staff shall cooperate and consider the recommendations of-the applicable town planning staff. B. The county board before which the development application is pending may not vote to issue or deny the permit until it has received the recommendations of the applicable town planning staff or until the expiration of thirty days after the applicable town planning staff has received the application, whichever occurs first. C. Whenever either of the towns receives an application for a development permit relating to land located within its extraterritorial C planning jurisdiction it shall forward a copy of the application and plans to the county planning department for a "courtesy" review by the • 131 ENFORCEMENT A. Orange County will be responsible for the issuance of all. permits, building and otherwise, for an approved application. Orange County will forward a copy of permits issued as well as the approved site plan to the Town on whose side the . development is located. B. Orange County will also be responsible for inspecting each site to insure compliance with applicable regulations and any other conditions attached to the approval. C. Orange County will secure the help of the Town staff when appropriate or secure additional- staff or consultants for the purpose of administering the provisions of the agreement and any development standards adopted pursuant thereto. The fee schedule for administration of development requests will be adjusted where necessary to compensate the Towns for the use of Town staff. D. The Town staff may enter development sites and properties under consideration for development in the Joint Planning (Li Agreement for the purpose of making inspections and collecting data for site evaluations. Revised 9-24-84 • 4:: • • ORANGE COTTNTY PLANNLNG DEPARTMENT IHLLSBOROUGH 132 NORTH CAROLINA - • 27278• vr4- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE 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, and Article 20, Sections. 20.5 and 20 .6, of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Courtroom of the Old Post Office, Franklin Street, Chapel Hill , North Carolina, on Tuesday, September 16, 1986, at 7:30 pm 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 Ordinance and Schedule of Inspection Fees. ORANGE COUNTY ZONINB ORDINANCE The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance ender consideration is as follows: Amend Section 6.21 . 1 Existing Q[ New Mobile Jig P sks,, Subsection a) , by deleting the following: "and (2) that the space be improved in accordance with subsection 7.20.4 a) of this Ordinance" . The affect of the amendment would be to relieve existing mobile home parks from complying with new standards for mobile home parks and allowing them to continue as pre-existing nonconforming uses. • ORANGE COUNTY INSPECTION FEE SCHEDULE The proposed amendment to the inspections Fee Schedule adopted July 8, 1986 is as follows: Add a new Schedule Joint Planning inzaeg.ilea Ee as follows: All projects approved under the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement between Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill shall pay the following fees prior to the recording a Special Use Permit or Final Plat of a major subdivision. • 133 Street and storm drainage One percent ( 1%) of the total. improvements construction cost of those improvements to be constructed to Town of Chapel Hill standards Water and sewer Two percent (2%) of the total improvements construction cost of those improvements to be constructed to Town of Chapel Hill standards Where projects are to be built in phases, fees may be pro-rated based on the cost of improvements scheduled In each phase. 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 proposal must provide competent material and substantial evidence as to the specific manner in which they are opposed to the amendments. 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 requests. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debates objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals should be directed 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 tours are from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Marvin Collins, Planning Director PUBLISH: September 3, 1986 September 10, 1986 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 134 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 19 , 1986 Action Agenda Item I SUBJECT: PLANNING BOARD WATER POLICY RESOLUTION (-,7 'l *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_X_No *************************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS: 8-5-86 Planning Board CONTACT: Marvin Collins Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732--8181 Chapel Hill 967 -9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 *************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider a resolution of the Orange County Planning Board regarding various aspects of the County 's water policy. NEED: Orange County as well as other parts of the nation have been confronted with a prolonged drought situation . During this period, concerns have been expressed about maintaining instream flows in the Eno River, the primary source of water for northern Orange County. In addition to instream flow concerns, work involving the preparation of the Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area has been underway for over a year . The recommendation of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen regarding the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan contains a statement to the effect that water and sewer extensions should be permitted in University Lake watershed . Finally, an Environmental Affairs Board has been appointed by the Board of Commissioners. Though the list of tasks to be accomplished is not fully known at this time, a function of the group may be to conduct assessments of projects which could have negative impacts on the environment of the County, particularly as related to water supply issues . IMPACT: Consideration and support of the Planning Board resolution will help establish a clear water 13 E policy for the County . RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends that the Board of Commissioners support the following resolution: 1 . Recognizing that the Eno River is one of Orange County ' s most valuable unrenewable resources , the Planning Board supports the 7Q10 instream flow recommended by the State Environmental Management Commission and the Eno River Association during times of normal rainfall . The Planning Board also requests that the Board of County Commissioners recommend that a 7Q10 instream flow be maintained during times of normal rainfall . 2. The Planning Board endorses the formation of the Environmental Affairs Board and requests that as one of its earliest tasks it begin an environmental assessment of the two proposed dam sites on Seven-Mile Creek and the Upper Eno River in accordance with State laws in order to assess threatened ecosystems and insure the least possible environmental damage as a result of the proposed impoundments . 3 . The Planning Board reaffirms its commitment to the County ' s adopted watershed regulations and goes on record urging that more stringent watershed regulations be adopted in order to protect the most valuable resource in Orange County, our water supply watersheds . WJ DRAFT PBM MINUTES 8-5-86 PAGE 143 c . 1-40 Study Update DRAFT d . 1st Quarter Work Plan e. Water Policy The following recommendation was read by Pilkey, Chair of the Natural Resources Committee: 1 . Recognizing that the Eno River is one of Orange County' s most valuable unrenewable resources, the Planning Board supports the 7Q10 instream flow recommended by the State Environmental Management Commission and the Eno River Association. during times of normal rainfall . The Planning Board also requests that the Board of County Commissioners recommend that a 7Q10 instream flow be maintained during times of normal rainfall . 2. The Planning Board endorses the formation of the Environmental Affairs Board and requests that as one of its earliest tasks it begin an environmental assessment of the two proposed dam sites on Seven-Mile Creek and the Upper Eno River in accordance with State laws in order to assess threatened ecosystems and insure the least possible environmental damage as a resit of the proposed impoundments . 3. The Planning Board reaffirms its commitment to the County 's adopted watershed regulations be adopted in the Joint Land Use Plan in order to protect the most valuable resource in Orange County, our water supply watersheds . Judith Weyser, Carrboro Board of Aldermen , presented Board members with a copy of the Carrboro Water Quality Task Force Report . She noted the time and effort which had been put into the report and asked that the Planning Board be as thorough before taking a position on the report . Kizer inquired what effect 7Q10 will have on storage capacity . Pilkey responded none - it will come through the bottom of the dam by-way-of installation of a bypass 137 DRAFT PBM MINUTES D A UTES PAGE 5 line. This would enable water to be released when necessary rather than flowing over the spillway. MOTION: Pilkey moved approval of recommendation ( 1 ) on 7Q10 . Seconded by Kizer. Yuhasz commented it would be nice is the Board could encourage the development of water resources so that 7Q10 would not be a problem at any time. He continued that perhaps larger storage capacity could be an answer. Hubbard noted that one way to create excess capacity would be to make water more expensive and this would possibly cause voluntary conservation . Kizer commented that a similar problem had occurred in other areas and the voluntary conservation had caused an increase in cost to the consumer. VOTE: Unanimous . MOTION: Pilkey moved approval of recommendation (2) on formation of Environmental Affairs Board . Seconded by Hubbard . VOTE: Unanimous . MOTION: Pilkey moved approval of recommendation (3) on Reaffirm- ing commitment to watershed regulations . After discussion, Jacobs recommended that the reference to Joint Planning be removed and the recommendation would read as follows: The Planning Board reaffirms its commitment to the County 's adopted watershed regulations and goes on record urging that more stringent watershed regulations be adopted in order to protect the most valuable resource in Orange County, our water supply watersheds . Motion was seconded by Best. VOTE: 9 in favor . 1 opposed ( Shanklin) . wmm. 138 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: AUGUST 19, 1986 SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES, REVERE ROAD COUNTY ANNEX (CARR BUILDING) DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 LIST OF CHANGES TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXCERPT FROM CopermT Hillsborough - 732- 8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider a request from the architectural firm for the County to amend the existing contract to allow compensation for additional work performed. NEED: The firm of CHR Associates earlier received the contract on the basis of proposing to perform a specific work plan at a not-to-exceed fee of $15,460. During the course of plan pre- paration various modifications were affected that were outside of the original scope of the project. These additions, enumerated in the attached list can be explained as follows: 1. It was decided to utilize the leased space in order to provide enough space for the six departments. While they could have been fitted within the building without the addition there would have been no room for expansion. 2. Plans to abandon cabinetry were abandoned when it was realized that they could not be disassembled without major damage. Walls and kitchen cabinets had to be added to the scope of work in their place. 3 . Planning and Environmental Health were to have had some portions of their areas divided by partitions of six feet high. This was changed in order to provide more electri- cal wiring and greater privacy between public area and work areas. 4. Forestry was added at the request of the agricultural departments. 5. Plumbing fixtures within the ASCS office were added to permit a means to clean a memograph machine used by that office. EmmEmmmommr 13Q 6. The substitution of heat versus the originally planned electric heat pump was substituted to reduce long range utility costs. While CHR has requested an additional $6, 000, County staff recommends an additional $2,500 for this work, bringing the total architectural fee to $17,960. IMPACT: Funds are available under the project fund with no amendment required. RECOMMENDATION(S) : To approve an additional $2,500 to CHR Associates for archi- tectural services associated with the renovation of the County Annex. 140 OWNER INITIATED ADDITIONS TO THE SCOPE OF WORK CARR BUILDING RENOVATION 1 . Incorporating the plumbing store space into the plan after the initial space plan was completed generated changes to the entire floorplan including modifications to the plumbing facilities. 2. Originally the cabinets existing in Agricultural Extension were to be used to subdivide that department in the new space. The cabinets were inventoried and incorporated into the plan. It was then decided not to reuse the cabinets and a new plan had to be drawn showing full height walls. Similarly, the existing kitchen cabinets were to be reused and when that plan was changed details for the new kitchen had to be drawn. 3. Partition walls were added to the Planning Department and the Environmental Health Department when originally they were to be open offices. 4. The Forestry Department was added to the program. 5. An additional sink and water fountain were added in a remote location requiring changes to the plumbing plan. 6. Alternate using gas HVAC was added. 7. The above listed changes precipitated continual revisionsto tie cost estimate. Because of the tight budget on this project extra time was spent working closely with local contractors to facilitate bringing the bids in within the budget. • BASIS OF COMPENSATION - The Owner s,�all compensate the Architect for the Scope of Services provided, • in accordance with Artide6„Payments to the Architect, and the other Terms and Conditions of this Agreement,as follows: 14.1 AN INITIAL.PAYMENT of zero dollarsa 0 ) shall be made upon execution of this Agreement and credited to the Owner's account as follow - r 14.2 BASIC COMPENSATION • 14.2.1 FOR BASIC SERVICES,as described in Paragraphs 1.1 through 1.5,and any other services inctuded in Article is - as part of Basic Services, Basic Compensation shall he computed as follows: Itirrr in•rrt ba,is of campemation.including lard ammonia.multiples or l.rreentagcs,and idrntily Main to w•btct•pangarat=AM*at•,rnpC/as� ' U•,n apply,ii necessary.) All work shall be performed on an hourly rate utilizing the following staff members and associated hourly rates. Senior Architects, Space' Planners, Engineers $55.00 • •Associate Architects, Space Planners, Engineers 45.00 Staff Architects, Space Planners, Engineers 35.00 Draftspersons 20.00 Secretaries 20.00 Computer charges To be established for each assignment - Compensation to the Architect for all services to be performed by Architect as described in this section and as described in the proposal of Architect dated June 25, 1985 shall not exceed $15,460. - 14.2.2 Where compensation is based on a Stipulated Sum or Percentage of Construction Cost, payments for Basic Services shall be made as provided in Subparagraph 6.1.2, so that Basic Compensation for each Phase shalt equal the following percentages of the total Basic Compensation payable: lrnctude any add,e,anal Phases as apprapris:C.t Schematic Design Phase: percent f Design Development.Phase: - percent( 1.4 Construction Documents Phase: (NOT APPLICABLE) percent( °s) Bidding or Negotiation Phase: - percent( °4 Construction Phase: percent( ,'t.) • 14.3 FOR PROJECT REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC SERVICES,as described in Paragraph 1.J.Cempensstron shaft be computed separately in accordance with Subparagraph 1.6.2. AIA t7OCUMNE'sT Brit • Uw.rR•ARCIIITECT At;ktrmiNT• TIIIFILtNTII EDITION • iiltY 1,1:7 • ALAS• Q1077 T•fE A+tEFICAq INSTITUTE OF Ai:CsIiTECTS. 1:3S HON YOt.K AVENUE, N.W.. WASIIINGION, D.C. _'W. B141-11977 9' • • • • 14.4 COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES X42 • 14.4.1 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF THE ARCHITECT,-as described in Paragraph 1.7, and any other services in- cluded in Article 15 as part of Additional Services, but excluding Additional Services of consultants,Compen- sation shall be computed as follows: Mere ter.•.n.ert basis nl renomination.inehkfng rat's an Lnr multiples of purl persr.rox•1 Everitt.fur Ptincipats and rmpriner•.and peen •Pe..w ys.ar. reel.Ir.sds rnrptuyers..1 wtluired. Identify specific services hi Which p.ut.iular wawa,td rump(47431,n 41111y.it nete.ury•.1 All additional services shall be approved in writing by the Owner and shall be - performed on an hourly basis as listed in Article 14.2.1 These services shall be items other than those listed in our proposal dated . July 25, 1985 and could include items such as exterior renovation drawings, revised parking and landscaping design drawings. • • 14.4.2 FOR ADDITIONAL-SERVICES OF CONSULTANTS, including additional structural, mechanical and electrical . engineering services and those provided under Subparagraph 1.7.21 or identified in Article 15 as part of Addi- tional Services,a multiple of 1 times the amounts hilled to the Architect•for such services. lldentily specific ewes of Consultants in Article 15.it requital.I • 14.5 . FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES,as described in Article 5, and any other items included in Article 15 as Reim- bursable Expenses,a multiple of one ( 1 ) limes the amount.. ex- pended by the Architect. the Architect's employees and consultants in the interest of the Project. 14.6 Payments due the Architect and unpaid under this Agreement shall bear interest from the date payment is due at the rate entered below, or in the absence thereof,at the legal rate prevailing at the principal place of business of the Architect. •elves invert any use of interest agreed upon.! 14urs law. anJ rtKlvstements under the federal Truth in Lending Act. similar •talc and meal tan•unr.v teethe lost and other tegulat...rr: if the °naves anal ArtbiMtr%principal pliers of business, the Inratitan of the Prujets and rbrn•hrte may affect the vrhdrty sal this prnvr.aa.n •pr.,hr feat arhicr Jruuld lrr obtained with to•pett its deletion.nuxbfitation.ar other t qu.mmentr Will.11 written disclosures in wanrat 14.7 The Owner and the Architect agree in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement that: 14.7.1 IF THE SCOPE of the Project or of the Architect's Services is changed materially,the amounts of compensation shall be equitably adjusted. 14.7.2 IF THE SERVICES covered by this Agreement have not been completed within eighteen (18 months of the date hereof, through no fault of the Architect, the amounts of compensation, rates and multiples set forth herein shall be equitably adjuster!. AIA DOCUMENT 8141 • OWNLK•ARCIIIICC/AGKr.LMtNr• ft11aTELN111 toil ION • IUI. 1`.': • At..0 • C t'r:l 10 B141-1977 DIE AMERICAN INS111UlL or ARCIIIlCCTS, 1735 NEW 1C1KK AVENUE. N.W., WASIII.ClON. O.C. 10X6 • ARTICLE 15 14�` OTHER CONDITIONS OR SERVICES , : . . J i Revise 1.7.1 "Providing analyses of the Owner's needs, and programming the requirements of the project." Revise 1.7.5 "Providing services to investigate existing conditions or i facilities or to make measured drawings thereof, or to verify the accuracy of drawings or other information furnished by the Owner." • Revise 1.7.10 "Provide interior design and other similar services required for or in connection with the selection, procurement or installation of furniture,- furnishings and related equipment. The above listed services are to be provided for within the terms of this contract and for purposes of compensation shall be considered basic services. Other conditions and services shall be as listed in our proposal dated July 25, 1985. 14.2.1 Contract is to provide architectural services on an hourly basis with a price of total service not to exceed $15,460 (see item F.9 Orange County Board of Commissioners Agenda August 20, 1985) . . • . . 1 MA DOCUMENT$1m1 •OWNCR•ARCHITECT AGREEMENT• 1IIIRTECNTII EDITION• jULY 1977• AIAs• 01977 111E AMERICAN INSIITUIC Of ARCIIITECIS. 17)5 HEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASIIINGioN, D.C. 20:05 B141-7977 11 • 144 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGGNDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. (o MEETING DATE AUGUST 19, 1986 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CONTRACTS; REVERE ROAD COUNTY ANNEX RENOVATION *********************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SERVICES PUBLIC HEARING YES _X_NO ************************************************************************** ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES Form of Construction Contracts: EXT 497 D. W. Ward Construction Mebane Heating & A/C, Inc. O'Dell Electric Process Plumbing & Piping PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL 967-9251 MEBANE 227-2031 DURHAM 688-7331 ************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider approval of contracts associated with the renovation of the Revere Road County Annex (Carr Building) . NEED: G.S. 143-129 requires that all construction or repair work requiring funds in excess of $30,000 be formally bid and applicable contracts be executed in writing. IMPACT: Approval of contracts will enable the project to move forward. Completion of the project will alleviate some of the County' s critical space needs and should ultimately allow better service to Orange County citizenry. RECOMMENDATION: Approve contracts for Revere Road County Annex Renovation to D. W. Ward Construction Company, General Contractor for a sum of $221,856; to O'Dell Electric, Electrical contractor for a sum of $26 ,125; to Mebane Heating and Air-Conditioning, mechanical contractor for a sum of $19,000; to Process Plumbing and Piping, Inc. , plumbing contractor for a sum of $15,900; and authorize the chairman to sign on behalf of the Board. SECTION 0021 FORM OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DI 151 (ALL PRIME CONTRACTS) a THIS AGREEMENT, made the t 9th day of a,iguct in the year of 19 86 by and between O'Dell Electric Company, 1117- Spruce Street, Durham, North Carolina hereinafter called the Party of the First Part and the Orange County Board of Commissioners; through the Orange County Manager ' s office hereinafter called the Party of the Second Part. WITNESSETH: That the Party of the First Part and the Party of the Second Part for the consideration herein named agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work: The Party of the First Part shall furnish and deliver all the materials , and perform all of the work in the manner and form as provided by the following enumerated plans , specifications and documents , which are attached hereto and made a part thereof as if fully contained herein: Advertisement, Instructions to Bidders , General Conditions , Supplementary General Conditions , Specifications , Accepted Proposal , Contract, Performance Bond, Payment Bond, Power of Attorney, Workmen ' s Compensation, Public Liability, Property Damage and Builder ' s Risk Insurance Certificates , and Drawings, entitled: Carr Building Renova ion Consisting of the following sheets AL I ,, A9_1 . A9_2. A3.1, A4.1, A5.1, M1, P1, ,SWl, TW3, SW4. SW5 Dated: and the following addenda-: Addendum No. 1 Dated 6.19-86 Addendum No . Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No . Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No . Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated 2 . That the Party of the First Part shall commence work to be performed under this Agreement on a date to be specified in a written order of the Party of the Second Part and shall fully complete all work hereunder within 180 (One hiincb- Fight-y) consecutive calendar days from said date . For each day in excess thereof, liquidated damages shall be as stated in Supplementary General Conditions . The Party of the First Part, as one of the consider- ations for awarding of this Contract , has furnished to the Party of the Second Part a construction schedule setting forth planned progress of the building broken down by the various divisions or part of the work and by calendar days . In the event. that the progress of the work is not 152 maintained on schedule by the Party of the First Part, or in the event the work is not completed within the time above specified , the Party of the Second Part may upon fifteen (15 ) days notice, sent by Registered Mail , to the Party of the First Part and his Surety, declare this Contract in default , and, thereupon, such Surety shall promptly take over the said work and complete the performance of this Contract in the manner and within the time above specified, and all funds due or to become due to the Party of the First Part shall be paid to the Surety. In the event the Surety shall fail to take over the work to be done under this Contract within fifteen (15) days after being so notified and notify the Party of the Second Part in writing, sent by Registered Mail , that he is taking the same over and stating that he will diligently pursue and complete the same , the Party of the Second Part shall have the right to let the work remaining to be done to some other Contractor , either by public letting or negotiation, and thereupon the Party of the First Part, the Contractor, and the Surety on his Bond shall forthwith pay the Party of the Second Part all increase in cost or loss and damage which it may sustain on account of such default on the part of the Party of the First Part. 3,. The Party of the Second Party hereby agrees to pay to the Party of the First Part for the faithful performance of this Agreement, subject to additions and deductions as provided in the specifications or proposal , in lawful money of the United States as follows: _ Twenty-six thousand one hundred twenty-five dollars ( $ 26,125. Summary of Contract Award: 4 . On or before the 20th day of each calendar month, the Party of the Second Part shall make payments to the Party of the First Part on the on the basis of a duly certified and approved estimate of work performed during the preceding calendar month by the First Party, less five percent (5%) of the amount of -such estimate which is to be retained by the Second Party until all work has been performed strictly in accordance with this Agreement and until such work has been accepted by the Second Party. The Second Party may elect to waive retainage requirements after 50% of the work has been satisfactorily completed on schedule as referred to in Article 30 of the General Conditions . 5 . Upon submission by the First Party of evidence satisfactory to the Second Party that all payrolls , material bills and other costs incurred by the First Party in connection with the construction of the work has been within thirty (30 ) days after the cmmml At inn _ by {-hp X"i rc+- Par-v , F m 1 1 ..,....v __� ]_53 by this Agreement and the acceptance of such work by the Second Party. 6. It is further mutually agreed between the parties hereto that if at any time after the execution of this Agreement and the Surety Bond hereto attached for its faithful performance , the Second Party shall deem the Surety or Sureties upon such Bond to be unsatisfactory, or if, for any reason, such Bond ceases to be adequate to cover the performance of the work , the First Party shall , at its expense, within five (5) days after the receipt of notice from the Second Party so to do , furnish an additional Bond or Bonds in such form and amount, and with such Surety or Sureties as shall be satisfactor to the Second Party. In such event no further payment to the First Party shall be deemed to be due under this Agreement until such new or additional security for the faithful performance of the work shall be furnished in manner and form satisfactory to the Second Party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day an0 date first above written in counterparts , each of which shall without proof or accounting for other counterparts , be deemed an original Contract. Witness: • Contractor: (Trade or Corporate Name) / BY: — 1�/ (Proprietorship or Partnership) Attest: (Corporation) Title: ./z�, (Owner, Partner , or Corp. Pres . or / ` 40e Vice Pres . only) By: if ii ' - . � '� F _ y Title:, (Corp. Sec . or Ass ' t. Sec . only) (CORPORATE SEAL) ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Witness: By: Title: 1986-'87 CAPITAL PROJECTS PROPOSAL 154 The following report presents a brief synopsis of new capital projects being funded for the first time in this budget, as well as a brief status report on multi-year projects likewise being funded in the 1986-87 budget. RENOVATIONS/MAINTENANCE 1. AGRICULTURE BUILDING AND NEW COURTHOUSE BASEMENT Appropriation Amount: $25,000 This project is necessitated to make the space suitable for the offices being moved following completion of the County Annex Renovation Project (Carr Building) . Although plans are by no means final, it is the intent to move Data Processing, the Court Counselor, Probation and Community Development offices to the Agriculture Building. The basement of the New Courthouse will require space currently occupied by the Planning staff to be arranged more appropriately for use by Courts personnel. This project's target date for completion is July 1, 1987. It is estimated this project will require only 90 days construction time, but must begin after offices have been moved to the Renovated County Annex, targeted for March, 1987. 2. COUNTY ANNEX Appropriation Amount: $230 ,000 in 1985-86 budget, $214,116 in 1986-87 budget bringing to date a total appropriation to $338,866 for renovation and $106,250 for lease purchase. The 1986-'87 appropriation provides the funds necessary to complete the renovation of the County Annex, as well as provides funds to cover the $106,250 for the first two years lease purchase payments. The balance remaining on the lease/purchase agreement is $112 ,500 to be appropriated in equal increments in the 1987 and the 1988 fiscal year budgets . Bids on this project have been taken and construction is due to start by September 1, with a February 27 targeted completion date. Upon completion of this project the Planning, Environmental Health, Soil and Water, Agriculture Extension, Forestry and FmHA departments will be moved to occupy the renovated space. The consolidation of this .3.55 RENOVATIONS/MAINTENANCE PAGE 2 particular configuration of departments into one building will make acquisition of permits considerably less cumbersome to the public. 3. ROOF REPAIRS AT HUMAN SERVICES BUILDING Appropriation Amount: $7 ,000. These funds are provided to repair flashing around the parapet at the Human Services Building. Although the roof itself remains in good repair, the flashing material has deteriorated badly and without replacement may allow leaks to develop causing further expense. 4. HOMESTEAD COMMUNITY CENTER Appropriation Amount $21,500 in 1985-86 budget; $22,040 in 1986-87 budget bringing total to $43,540 . The Homestead Community Center was donated in December, 1984 by area citizens functioning as the Homestead Community Center, Inc. The Manager recommends using this building for dual purposes: 1. Recreation Center; and 2. To house the County Sponsored Driver' s License Bureau currently located at Town Hall in Carrboro. The request to house the Driver' s License Bureau at Homestead comes after much deliberation and searching for alternative sites. As you are aware, in the 70 's the County saw fit to request a second Driver's Examining Center in Orange County since the office in Hillsborough was not geographically located to serve the population centers of the County. Although the State would provide staffing and equipment for the second center, it was left to the County to find suitable housing for the facility. Since that time, the Center has been moved from rented space to rented space finally coming to rest in Carrboro Town Hall three years ago. The Town has advised us however, they have need of the space and therefore desire the Drivers License Bureau to be moved no later than October 31, 1986. The Town's desire was made known to us some months ago, but neither County nor Town staff was able to locate rental property that was both suitable and affordable. (The County had renovated the space at Town Hall and had been operating under a renovation-for-rent agreement so there were no funds budgeted to cover rent costs. After consulting with the Recreation Director, the idea to house the Driver's License Bureau as part of the Recreation Center was deemed a suitable alternative. Although locating the Bureau at Homestead requires more extensive renovation work , through not paying rent, the renovation expense will be recouped in approximately 18 RENOVATIONS/MAINTENANCE PAGE 3 months. 15€ Since there has been no feasibility review of the County sponsored Driver 's License Bureau since its inception in approximately 1975, and since the availability of funds for discretionary programs is considerably more limited now than during that time, review of this capital project will also allow the Commissioners an opportunity to reassess the function. If the Commissioners have a desire to see the Driver's License program continue, the renovation would be scheduled to begin as quickly as bids can be obtained and approved. 5. REWIRING OF THE COUNTY JAIL. Appropriation Amount: $5,500 . This project includes wiring in the jail to allow the cell doors to operate off the emergency generator. Currently, the emergency generator allows operation of the lights only with the manual operation of the cell doors being required. The procedure to manually open the cells doors is too time consuming and during an emergency evacuation, such as for fire, lives could be lost. Funds are also included for installation of a natural gas line to the jail 's kitchen in order to allow usage of a gas stove during a power outage. The kitchen normally uses an electric stove, which the emergency generator could not support. 6. SHERIFF DEPARTMENT OFFICES Appropriation Amount: $18,025 budgeted in 1985- '86 $ 1,200 budgeted in 1986-87 bringing total to $19,225 . These funds provide for the completion of the upstairs renovation at the Sheriff's Department. Project is currently underway and is scheduled for completion within one month. MEMEMEmmor ►► PAGE 4 1 5, r. WATER PROJECTS 1. WATER STUDY PROJECT Appropriation Amount: $11,600 These funds provide for the engineering services related to the more immediate water problems, such as transferring water between jurisdictions. 2. COUNTY RESERVOIR PROJECT Appropriation Amount: $60,000 This project is the conclusion of a study and verifi- cation of certain non-correlative data that came as a result of that study. The intended result is the determination of the reservoir site, testing required by the State and to obtain engineering data from which to prepare preliminary construction design and cost estimates. Project is targeted to begin within sixty (60) days. 3. LAR ORANGE IMPROVEMENTS Appropriation Amount: $90,000 The intent of this project is to raise the water level of Lake Orange by using flashboards and making piers, boathouses and roads accessible at new water level. Project is targeted to begin within thirty (30) days. PAGE 5 OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS t SP 1. NEW COURTHOUSE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Appropriation Amount: $25,000 is budgeted in 1986-97 $25,000 is anticipated to be . included in 1987-88 budget bringing the total project cost to $50,000. Negotiations have not begun. The $50,000 is an estimate only of the amount necessary to purchase the approximate 2.09 acres southeast of the courthouse at 106 E. Margaret Lane. The property owners had previously indicated they would sell the property at tax value. The $25,000 is the first of two years funding. 2. MAPPING PROJECT Appropriation Amount $179,892 budgeted in 1985-86. $ 72,701 budgeted in 1986-87 ($16,000 State Grant, $7,840 transfer from County Capital reserve, $18,861 from charges to participating jurisdictions and $30,000 added in mark-up) bringing the total to $252,593. These funds provided for Phase II of a Multi-year, Multi-phased remapping of the County. Development of Orthophotos and topography maps for the Chapel Hill Township are the intended result of this on-going project. 3. PURCHASE OF SOUND SYSTEM AT THE ART SCHOOL Appropriation Amount: $5,000 The Art School in Carrboro is in the process of purchasing and renovating a building in which the County intends to lease space for a portion of its Department on Aging function. The set-up of the facility also makes it an ideal place for meetings held by various County Boards and Commissioners. Funds have been set aside in this project to provide a sound system for the meeting area that would be utilized. 4. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROJECT Appropriation Amount: $20,000 This project includes funds for training, equipment and various start-up costs associated with the formation of a Hazardous Materials Response Team in Orange County. V FY86 r 1 AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING SERVICES TO Orange County, North Carolina THIS AGREEMENT , entered into this 142_ day of Aigus4 , l9g6 and effective immediately by and between David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. (hereinafter called the "Consul- tant") and the County of Orange , State of North Carolina (hereinafter called the "County") , WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the County has programs which it operates with Federal funding , and WHEREAS , the County supports these programs with support services paid from the County appropriated funds , and WHEREAS, the Federal government and the State will pay a fair share of these costs if supported by an approved cost allocation plan, and WHEREAS , the Consultant is staffed with personnel knowledgeable and experienced in the requirements of developing and negotiating such governmental cost allocation plans , and WHEREAS, the County desires to engage the Consultant to assist in developing a plan which conforms to Federal requirements and will be approved by their representatives NOW THEREFORE , the parties hereto mutually agree as follows : 1 . Employment of Consultant. The County agrees to engage the Consultant and the Consultant hereby agrees to perform the following services. 2. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall do, perform and carry out in a good and professional manner the following services : a . Development of a central services cost allocation plan which identified the various costs incurred by the County to support and administer Federal programs. This plan will contain a determination of the allowable costs of providing each supporting service such as purchasing , legal counsel , disbursement processing , etc . b . Negotiation of the completed cost allocation plan with the representatives of the state or Federal government , whichever is applicable . c . Assistance in preparing the initial claims for recovery of funds due the County . ;, d. Prepare indirect cost proposal for Social Services and CETA. Additionally , prepare indirect cost rates for EPA and HUD if necessary . 3 . Time of Performance. The services to be performed hereunder by the Consultant shall be undertaken and completed in such sequence as to assure their expeditious completion and best carry out the purposes of the agreement. All services requried hereunder shall be completed by Aec4_,_34 /q1Z___ . The cost allocation plan will be available by A ketia.,.t/ 37 /787 _ for your review and our negotiation with Federal* and State representatives . 4. Compensation. The County agrees to pay the Consultant a sum not to exceed eight thousand dollars ($8 , 000 ) for all services required herein, which shall include reimbursement for expense incurred. Consultant agrees to complete the project and all services provided herein for said sum. 5. Method of Payment. The Consultant shall be entitled to payment in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. The Consultant agrees to undertake this engagement with the following advantages to the County. First, the Consultant will not require any compensation for services until a cost allocation plan has been prepared and is acceptable as a basis for filing claims. Second, Consultant's fees are to be paid from recoveries paid by Federal programs to the County as well as recoveries from Enter- prise Funds. Recoveries due solely from the plan will be shared equally by the County and the Consultant until Consultant's fees are paid in full. Then all additional funds are paid to the County. Payment to Consultant will be made within four weeks of receipt by the County of funds realized from the plan. 6. Changes. The County may, from time to time, require changes in the scope of the services of the Consultant to be performed hereunder. Such changes , which are mutually agreed upon by and between the County and the Consultant , shall be incorporated in written amendment to this agreement. 7. Services and Materials to be Furnished kx County. The County shall locally furnish the Consultant with all available necessary information , data , and material pertinent to the execution of this agreement. The County shall cooperate with the Consultant in carrying out the work herein and shall provide adequate staff for liaison with. the Consultant and other agencies of County government . 8. Termination of Agreement for Cause. If, through any cause, the. Consultant shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner his obligations under this agreement , the County shall thereupon have the right to terminate this agreement by giving written notice to the Consultant of such termination and Page 2 of 3 r specifying the effective date thereof, at least five ( 5 ) days before the effective date of such termination . 9. Information and Reports. The Consultant shall , at such time and in such form as the County may require , furnish such periodic reports concerning the status of the project, such statements, certificates, approvals, and copies of proposed and executed plans and claims and other information relative to the project as may be requested by the County. The Consultant shall furnish the County, upon request, with copies of all documents and other materials prepared or developed in relation with or as part of the project. Copies of working papers prepared in conjunction with the cost allocation plan may be turned over to the County for safekeeping if requested. 10. Consultant Liability If Audited. The Consultant will assume all financial and statistical information provided to the Consultant by County employees or representatives is accurate and complete. Any subsequent disallowance of funds paid to the County under the plan is the sole responsibility of the County. However , where a disallowance had an impact on the fee computation , the computation will be recalculated and any unearned portion of the fee will be returned to the client. Additionally, the Consultant will provide asistance to the County should an audit be undertaken of County indirect costs. 11 . Notices. Any notices , bills , invoices , or reports required by this agreement shall be sufficient if sent by the parties in the United States mail, postage paid, to the address noted below : County ofeMAase David M. Griffith & Associates f iNl4arf !JG ----- _1 �'19��T 1100 Logger Court , Suite D- 100 sea 49 u6�sFn/ c• ,t727f� Raleigh , North Carolina 27609 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the Consultant have executed this agreement as of the date first written above . ,County , /, C �% `(county Official ) �r ATTEST : David M. G ' fi / & sociates By = Mi D vid R . Maz Vice Preside "This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local -Government Budget a d Fiscal Control Act. Page 3 of 3 es? ier„,4:24"-77— finance Officer of Orange County Id ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CAREY BEN LLOYD SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL NORMAN WALKER DON WILLIIOIT August 25, 1986 Triangle J Council of Governments 100 Park Drive P.O. Box 12276 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Dear Sir/Madam: The Orange County Board ';f Commissioners approved the attached agreement between Or. ' '•e County and . . he Triangle J Council of Governments Contra . for Social ' !. enior Center Services at theig the' regular mee on Aug t. = :-'-86. 4 i = ;= " MF r'A If Y ,n „- eµstic $ ' pease . . 41 ','hesitate to contact me. t m �; -__.:• ..: ':-_ - — "^Ya - ; :[" ;.,F L. n rqe / " -°' mo, t 44 " ,, r ,,.Bever.i T. _ ;,:i,''',4'3-."t f�., Clerk --� �. .. . ._. /bab File Attachments V NOTICE TO PROCEED \J TO Mebane Heating & A/C/ Co. , Inc. P. 0. Box 756 Mebane, N. C. 27302 PROJECT/CONTRACT Carr Building Renovation You are hereby notified to commence WORK in accordance with the Agreement dated August 19,, 1986, on or before September 1 1986, and you are to complete the WORK within 180 consecutive calendar days thereafter. The date of completion of all WORK is therefore February 27 ,1986. You are required to return an acknowledged copy of this Notice to the Owner. Dated this _ 19th ay of August ,1986. OWNER: 4 _A-4 • BY: "sL _UMW._. RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED this 2( day of A 6m/1 , 1986. BY: c2Oesl , /; TITLE: i/11. 4.11 0025-1/1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS v�_. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT 036 Meeting Date: August 19, 1986 Action Agenda Item I 10 SUBJECT: JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_X_No *************************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS: Minutes of 4-17-86 CONTACT: Marvin Collins Hearing; Draft Minutes of 8-5-86 Planning Board Meeting; 5-8-86 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: and 7-30-86 CHTAC Summaries; Hillsborough 732-8181 Citizen Petitions; Chapel Hill Chapel Hill 967-9251 and Carrboro Recommendations; Durham 688-7331 EDC Comments; Duke University Mebane 227-2031 Comments . *************************************************************************** P POSE: To consider approval of the Draft Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area . To receive the recommendations of the Orange County Planning Board, and the governing boards of the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. NEED: Preparation of the Draft Land Use Plan commenced in the summer of 1985 . The first public information meeting was held on November 13, 1985 , followed by public hearings on January 14, 1986 and April 17, 1985. Neighborhood meetings were also held to explain Plan proposals and receive additional comment regarding citizen concerns . Neighborhoods represented included: the Calvander community, the New Hope Church Road area, Stoneridge and. Sedgefield subdivisions, the Eubanks Road-Homestead Road area, the New Hope Improvement Association, the League of Women Voters and the Chapel Hill Township Advisory Council . A recommendation on the Plan was made by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen on May 20, 1986 and by the Chapel Hill Town Council on July 14, 1986 . IMPACT: Approval of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan would set in motion the second phase of the Joint Planning Agreement - the preparation of a zoning A. 037 map and development standards for the Transition Areas . . tip RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends adoption of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan with the 411 following revisions ( Vote: 9 in favor; 1 opposed ) : 1 . Retain Office/ Institutional node at Rogers Road/Homestead Road intersection . 2 . Eliminate the industrial/commercial node between existing Homestead Road and the proposed Homestead Road extension . ;cam . Retain existing "Rural Neighborhood" activity ( 7'/� node at Homestead Road/Old NC 86 intersection . ,fi'l - e'- 4. Replace "Urban Residential designations nations in r'/� Carrboro area with "Suburban Residential " classifications and extend "Rural Buffer" /1 south to follow northern boundary of SO/ Homestead Highlands tract and UNC property, thence along Bolin Creek and Buckhorn Branch to Old NC 86, thence down NC 86 to incorporate the William E . Blackwood , Berry Roberson and J . V. Brockwell properties. located on the west side of Old NC 86 . 410 5 . Change all area north and east of .1 -40 to "Rural Buffer" , including area adjacent to 1 -40 interchange. 6 . Make the following changes in the vicinity of the 1 -40/NC 86 interchange: a . Change all "Light Industrial " , / designations to "Office and ( �J / Institutional" except for existing zoned , area ( I -1 ) on Eubanks Road adjacent to railroad . B. Change designation of area between landfill sites to "Public/Private Open Space" to reflect Town of Chapel Hill / acquisition and future development of v�- site, including landfill tracts, for recreation purposes . C. Reduce "Office and Institutional " designation on triangular area south of i�1 r, �� Eubanks Road and adjacent to railroad to 1.,� , encourage "upgrading" of existing L./ / �`� commercial use zoned Existing Commercial EC-5 . jy 07 1 7 . Change designation of area on Homestead Road between Homestead Road and railroad, and east of railroad, from "Urban Residential " to "Suburban Residential " . 038 8. Retain designation of "Extractive/Disposal " on landfill site south of Eubanks Road and 00 adjacent to railroad . Label site as "Potential Landfill - Pending Further Study" 5r1;5/4 to alert people of potential for development as landfill . Actual use of site could not be commenced until acceptance of Class A Special Use Permit and following public hearing. , p. Retain proposed "Urban" activity node - designation at Star Point to reflect existing tiF commercial uses only. 10. Designate the area bounded by US 15-501 , Chatham County line, Old Lystra Road, White Rock Church Road and Wave Road R tiaT"� instead of � "Suburban sidential In addition to the above, the Planning Board also recommended that the allowable density in the Rural Residential (Rural Buffer) be retained at one dwelling unit per acre ( Vote: 6 in favor; 4 opposed) . The recommendation was adopted following denial of a previous motion to recommend a density of one dwelling unit per two acres ( Vote: 4 in favor; 6 opposed ) . The Planning Board also adopted a five-part resolution regarding its commitment to Joint planning . The parts and the Board 's vote on each was as follows: 1 . The Planning Board endorses the principles of cooperation embodied in Joint planning as the most sensible response to pressing mutual planning concerns ( Vote: 9 in favor; 1 opposed ) . 2. The Planning Board endorses the concept of rural buffers as a mechanism for rural neighborhood protection, for environmental protection and as an urban planning tool . The Board also supports expressed concerns of the Carrboro Planning Board regarding overall densities in the buffer and endorses minimum acreages per unit of no less than one unit per two acres as a starting point for future discussion . The Planning Board also endorses clustering of units though not exclusively ( Vote: 6 in favor; 4 opposed ) . • 3 . The Planning Board finds it inappropriate for Carrboro to pursue unilateral policies affecting the University Lake watershed in ' t 039 view of Mayor Porto ' s statement that the Towns protect the watershed . The Planning Board expresses its interest in working cooperatively with Carrboro to establish a mutually beneficial resolution of policy differences ( Vote: 6 in favor; 4 opposed) . 411 4. The Planning Board supports Duke University ' s public commitment to the preservation of Duke Forest as a scientific and natural area ( Vote: Unanimous in favor) . 5 . The Planning Board recognizes the value of realistic long-range planning yet is alert to the dangers of over extending resources and creating self-fulfilling growth prophecies . The Planning Board respects the voice of an informed citizenry and endorses planning that is conservative in its approach to land use and in close harmony with the expressed desires of Joint planning area residents for environmentally sound, neighborhood compatible, controlled extension of growth ( Vote: 7 in favor; 3 opposed) . 411 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1986 7: 30 P.M. OLD POST OFFICE CHAPEL HILL, N.C. A. BOARD COMMENTS ADD A PROCLAMATION FOR WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY TO THE AGENDA AS G7 (COPIES HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD AND PRESS) B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda 2 . Matters not on the Printed Agenda A MAN BY THE NAME OF BOB SNYDER MAY BE ADDRESSING THE BOARD. HE LIVES NEXT TO COOK'S GARAGE AND THEY WORK MOSTLY ON RACE CARS. THESE CARS HAVE NO MUFFLERS AND MAKE QUITE A NOISE WHEN MOVING THEM IN AND OUT OF THE GARAGE. HE WILL PRESENT YOU WITH A PETITION AND ASK THAT THE NOISE ORDINANCE BE REVIEWED FOR REVISIONS. I INDICATED TO MR. SNYDER THAT YOU WOULD ACCEPT THE PETITION AND DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER TO STUDY THE SITUATION AND BRING BACK A RECOMMENDATION AT A SPECIFIED MEETING. HOWEVER, YOU MAY WANT THE COUNTY MANAGER AND/OR MARVIN COLLINS TO RESPOND AT THIS TIME. (I BELIEVE MR. SNYDER MAY BE SLOW IN UNDERSTANDING SO IT MAY BE BETTER TO PROVIDE HIM SOMETHING IN WRITING) . C. APPOINTMENTS B-6 - HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY BOARD - FOR INFORMATION ONLY - HOWEVER IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND APPOINT BOB ELLIS PLEASE DO SO. A-4 - COMMISSION FOR WOMEN - NO RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL - I AM READVISTISING THESE VACANCIES. DOMICILIARY HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - NO RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED ARTS COMMISSION - NO RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED - THEY ARE STILL REVIEWING APPLICANTS ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - 2 VACANCIES -NO JURISDICTIONAL GUIDELINES - MUST BE A RESIDENT OF ORANGE COUNTY. THREE RESUMES ARE SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION D. MINUTES 2 SETS - JUNE 24 - SPECIAL MEETING (RESUBMITTED WITH CORRECTIONS AS INDICATED BY THE ATTORNEY) JULY 7, 1986 - REGULAR MEETING. E. RECOGNITION 1. Employee Recognition ELIZABETH GARRETT HAS BEEN WITH THE COUNTY FOR SIXTEEN YEARS - ANNOUNCE SHOWING THE CERTIFICATE THAT ELIZABETH W. GARRARD RECEIVED FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA TAX COLLECTORS ' ASSOCIATION THIS CERTIFICATE FOR THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF 146 HOURS OF CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION. SHE IS THE FIRST WOMEN IN THIS AREA TO ACHIEVE SUCH AN HONOR. THERE ARE ONLY ABOUT 40 IN THE ASSOCIATION THAT HAVE RECEIVED SUCH A PRESTIGIOUS AWARD. READ THE CERTIFICATE AND OFFER YOUR CONGRATULATIONS. YOU MAY WANT TO POINT OUT THE PIN (SHE WILL BE WEARING IT) THAT SHE ALSO RECEIVED AS AS RESULT OF HER ACHIEVEMENT. F. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA KEN THOMPAON 1. Title III-B Aging Services Contract 2 . Jail Medical Services Contract 3 . Indirect Cost Plan Contract G. ITEMS FOR DECISION 1. Zoning Ordinance--Mobile Home Standards MARVIN COLLINS - MOTION AS STATED ON PAGE 28 2 . Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan MARVIN COLLINS AND GENE BELL - MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLAN AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD (IF DESIRED) . 3 . Inspection Fees--Joint Planning Projects MARVIN COLLINS - MOTION TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 16. 4. Planning Board Water Policy Resolution MARVIN COLLINS - MOTION FOR THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE RESOLUTION 5. Revere Road County Annex (Carr Building) ; Architectural Services Contract Amount Increase BILL LAWS - MOTION TO APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED. 6. Revere Road County Annex Renovation; Approval of Contracts PAM JONES - (THERE MAY BE A PROBLEM WITH THE PLUMBING CONTRACT) MOTION AS ON PAGE 144 ADDED ITEM 7. PROCLAMATION FOR WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY YOU MAY WANT TO READ SINCE IT IS VERY SHORT AND APPROVE. H. REPORT 1. 1986-87 Capital Projects Proposal KEN THOMPSON PAM JONES - FOR INFORMATION - ANY QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED. I. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE TO PROCEED C L(-j D TO O'Dell Electric Company 1117 Spruce Street Durham, N. C. PROJECT/CONTRACT Carr Building Renovation You are hereby notified to commence WORK in accordance with the Agreement dated August 19 , 1986, on or before September L 1986, and you - are to complete the WORK within 180 consecutive calendar days thereafter. The date of completion of all WORK is therefore February 27 ,1986. You are required to return an acknowledged copy of this Notice to the Owner. Dated this 19th day of August .1986. OWNER: 0■AA.111, BY: / y1•-�_. CA . i'4 RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED this 2/ pay Y of Vic/`i 1�, 1986. BY: L : air ' •r.L� / TITLE: v (L 0025-1/1 NOTICE To PROCEED CO PY TO D. W. Ward Construction Co., Inc. P.O. Box 15157 Durham, N.C. 27704 PROTECT/CONTRACT Carr Building Renovation You are hereby notified to commence WORK in accordance with the Agreement dated August 19 , 1986, on or before September k 1986, and you are to complete the WORK within . 180 consecutive calendar days thereafter. The date of completion of all WORK is therefore February 27 ,1986. You are required to return an acknowledged copy of this Notice to the Owner. Dated this 19th day of August ,1986. OWNER: etc L 11 • BY: &4_, /�/ I/� RECEIPT OF. THIS NOTICE IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED this 2P¢ day of 11001_, 1986. BY: Arntg 0 aii4L7 TITLE: Vet AvIl A 0025-1/1 ORANGE COUNTY and TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CONTRACT FOR SOCIAL AND SENIOR CENTER SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, entered into as this 1st day of „ Jul • 1986, by and between Orange County , (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor" or "Agency") and the Triangle J Council of Governments, (herein-after referred to as "COG"). WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, COG desires to engage the Agency to render certain social services hereinafter described in connection with an undertaking or project (hereinafter referred to as the "Project") which is to be wholly or partially financed by a grant from Administration on Aging through N. C. Division of Aging (hereinafter, along with the appropriate auditing agency of the entity making such grant, referred to as the "concerned Funding Agency or Agencies") , said grant being (hereinafter referred to as the "Grant Contract" and identified as contract tefor Social and Seni_or_ and WHEREAS, the Agency desires to render such services in connection with the Project: NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and the mutual convenants and agreements hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1 . Employment of the Agency. COG hereby agrees to engage the Agency and the Agency hereby agrees to perform the services hereinafter set forth in accordance with the terms and conditions contained herein. 2. Local Support. In accepting this contract providing for $ 79,020 of federal funds and $4,649 of state funds, the Agency agrees to provide not less than $ 9.296 _ of acceptable non- federal cash and $ -0- acceptable In-kind contributions. 3. Scope of Services. Agency shall do, perform and carry out in a satisfactory and proper manner the work and services described in Attachment "A" (or as described in FY 87 Area Plan) which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 4. Time of Performance. The services of the Agency are to commence no later than fifteen (15) days after the execution of this contract and shall be undertaken and pursued in such sequence as to assure their expeditious completion and as may be required in Attachment A . All services required hereunder shall be completed on or before June 30, 1987 • 5. Compensation and Method of Payment. The Agency shall be compensated for the work and services to be performed under this contract as set forth in Attachment "A" which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. In no event, however, will the total compensation and reimbursement, if any, to be paid the Agency under this contract exceed the sum of Eighty-three thousand, six hundred sixty-nine dollars (S83,669) • 6 . Progress Payments . Unless otherwise provided in Attachment "A" , the Agency shall be entitled to receive progress payments on the following basis : As of the last day of each calendar month during the existence of this contract, the Agency shall submit to COG an invoice for payment based on the unit cost reimbursement rate per service (as identified in Attachment "A") through the invoice period. Subject to COG's right to verify the accuracy of the invoice and the satisfactory performance of the work evidenced thereby, COG will make payments to the Agency on a monthly basis as the work progresses but not more often than once a month. Invoices must cover a period ending with the end of a month and must be received within ten (10) days following the end of the invoice period. The Agency will be paid an amount which equates the agreed upon unit cost reimbursement rate to the units provided during the invoice period. _3_ 7. Documentation of Ex enses . Agency shall maintain full and complete documentation of all expenses associated with performing the scope of work under �$heetscontract. each Expense documentation shall include: ti m employee, showing time spent on services forrecipients; contract; receipts for any supplies purchased for use on this any applicable subcontract expenditures; all applicable overhead and indirect expenditures; and such other documentation necessary to substantiate overall costs of delivering the contracted service (including Agency contribution as well as amounts reimbursed by COG) . 8 . Documentation of Service Recipients and Confidentiality. It is expressly understood and agreed that the report procedures established by COG may include, but not be limited to, the names and addresses of individuals receiving services under the terms of this contract, with the understanding that no personal information obtained from any individual will be disclosed by COG in a form which allows identification of the individual , without the written consent of the individual. It is understood and agreed that the report procedures established by COG may also include actual costs incurred per unit of service including both COG costs and Agency contributions. 9 . Reprogramming of Funds. It is understood and agreed that, in the event that the amount of funds received from the North Carolina Division of Aging is reduced, COG may, in turn, decrease the total compensation and reimbursement to be paid hereunder and require corresponding changes in the Scope of Services as set out in Attachment "A" . It is further understood and agreed that, in the event at the end of each quarter , the Contractor 's rate of progress on this contract is leading to underspending at the end of the contract period, due to inability to provide services at planned levels, COG may decrease the total compensation and reimbursement to be paid hereunder in order to allocate funds to other contracts and services. .4- 10. Change of Unit Cost Reimbursement Rates. COG may renegotiate the reimbursement rates as set forth in Attachment "A" . The parties agree that COG will consider increasing the reimbursement rate only under two circumstances: (a) Upon a showing by Agency that actual costs have increased due to factors beyond Agency's control; or (b) Upon a showing by Agency that actual costs have increased due to a sudden increase in client load (e.g. , due to a disaster) . The parties further agree that COG shall have the right to decrease the reimbursement rate under any circumstances which show that actual costs are less than projected; including, . but not limited to, circumstances in which: (a) Overall costs of providing service are shown Lobel less than forecast in the Agency's original bid for this service; or (b) The Agency fails to document the required local match such that the COG reimbursement rate exceeds ninety percent (90%) of service costs. In the event the reimbursement rates are decreased, COG may, at its option, increase the total number of units of service to be delivered. 11 . Payments by Service Recipients. No individual receiving services under the terms of this Agreement shall be required to pay any part of the cost of the service. However, recipients shall be given the opportunity by the Agency to make some contribution for the service in a manner approved by COG. Agency shall post a notice in a conspicuous place, stating that no charge is made for the service, but that contributions will be accepted. Agency shall furnish envelopes to all clients for confidential contributions. Agency shall offer a locked box in a convenient location for confidential deposit of envelopes. All envelopes shall be collected and -5- operated by the Project Manager or a person designated by the Project Manager. Envelopes shall be opened shall be counted and presence of another person, the money deposited in accordance the total recorded. The money shall be depo with the usual procedures of the Agency, with a separate receipt. Accumulation of contributions should not exceed fifty dollars ($50) between deposits. is any money 12. Program Income. Program income Y received by Agency as a direct result of contract activity. Agency shall maintain daily records of voluntary contributions by (or on behalf of) service recipients, interest received on COG advances before disbursement, and any other program income. Agency shall not withhold any program income as an offset to COG reimbursement. Program income shall be used in the same year it is received to provide additional services. Upon completion of the work, including the receipt of any final written submission of the Agency. COG shall ofpay hthe Agency a sum equal to one hundred percent compensation to be paid under this contract, less the total of all previous payments made. paragraph, Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this p COG will make diligent efforts to obtain advance funding from its funding source; and if it receives such advance then the Agency shall be entitled to advances once a month based upon requisitions of the estimated amounts of expected expenditures for such month. 13. Agency' s Personnel. Agency represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing the services under this contract. Such personnel shall not be employees of COG, nor shall such personnel have been employees of COG during any time within the twelve- month period immediately prior to the date of this contract, except with the express prior written consent of COG. Further, Agency agrees that no one employed by COG now, or within the twelve-month period immediately prior to the date of this contract, shall be involved in any way with the performance of this contract, without the express prior written approval of COG. -6- 14 . Approval of Subcontracts. None of the work of services to be performed under this contract by the Agency shall be subcontracted without the prior written approval of COG. If such subcontracting is authorized as herein provided, all subcontract documents shall be submitted to COG for review and approval prior to the execution of such subcontract. Further, if requested by COG, the Agency shall provide COG with such documentation as it shall require, regarding the method the Agency used in selecting its subcontractor. The Agency knowledges that if the work or services to be performed under this contract is financed solely or partially through Federal funds, the selection of subcontractors is governed by regulations requiring competition between potential subcontractors or adequate justification for sole source selection. The Agency agrees to abide by such regulations in its selection procedure. 15. Review and Coordination. To insure adequate review and evaluation of the work, and proper coordination among interested parties, COG shall be kept fully informed concerning the progress of the work and services to be performed hereunder. COG may require the Agency to meet with designated officials of COG and the Concerned Funding Agency from time to time to review the work. Reasonable prior notice of such review meeting shall be given the Agency. 16. Reports. The Agency shall furnish COG with a quarterly progress report, (the period for which COG is required to report to the funding agency) , in such form as may be specified by COG, outlining the work accomplished by the Agency during the period of such report and the current status of the Project, including the percentage of the work which has been completed as of the end of the period covered by such report. Such report shall be furnished within fifteen (15) days of the end of the period covered by such report. • -7- 17. Inspections. Authorized representatives of COG and the Concerned Funding Agency may at all reasonable times review and inspect the Project activities and data collected pursuant to this contract. All reports, drawings, studies, specifications, estimates, maps and computation prepared by or for the Agency shall be made available to authorized representatives of COG and the Concerned Funding Agency for inspection and review at all reasonable times in the Agency's office where data are normally accumulated. Approval and acceptance of such material shall not relieve the Agency of its professional obligation to correct, at its expense, any errors found in the work. 18. Maintenance of Cost Records. The Agency shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred in the Project and shall make such material available at all reasonable times during the period of the contract, and for three years from the date of final payment under the contract, for inspection by COG, the Concerned Funding Agency, and if . the work and services to be performed under this contract is wholly or partially funded with Federhl funds, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives. The Agency shall include the provisions of this paragraph in any subcontract executed in connection with this Project. 19. Compliance with Requirements of the Concerned Funding Agency. The Agency shall be bound by the applicable terms and conditions of the Grant Contract between COG and the Concerned Funding Agency, which said Grant Contract is on file in the offices of COG, a copy of which has been delivered to the Agency, and is hereby made a part of this Agreement as fully as if the same were attached hereto. 20. Data to be furnished Agency. All information, data, reports , records and maps which are existing, readily available and reasonably necessary, as determined by COG, -8- for the performance by the Agency of the work and services required by this contract shall be furnished to the Agency without charge by COG. COG, its agents and employees, shall fully cooperate with the Agency in the performance of the Agency's duties under this contract. 21. Rights in Documents , Materials and Data Produced. Agency agrees that all reports, drawings, studies, speci- fications, estimates, maps, computations and other data prepared by or for it under the terms of this contract shall be delivered to., become and remain, the property of COG upon termination or completion of the work. Both COG and the Agency shall have the right to use same without restriction or limitation and without compensation to the other. For the purposes of this contract, "data" includes writings, sound recordings , or other graphic representations, and works of a similar nature. No reports, maps or other documents produced in whole or part under this contract shall be the subject of an application for copyright by or on behalf of the Agency or its subcontractors. The work to be performed under this contract may be subject to certain regulations issued by the Concerned Funding Agency. Information regarding these relevant regulations may be obtained upon written request to COG. This contract does not provide for the development of systems analysis products, models, electronic data processing systems , software and related services. Any development of such methods, material, logic and systems shall be paid for by the Agency from funds not allocated to this contract as local support and shall be the property of the Agency. 22. Identification of Documents. All reports, maps and other documents completed as a part of this contract shall bear on the title page of such report, map or document, the following legend: "Prepared by (insert name of Agency) under Contract with the Triangle J COG" . The date (month and year) in which the document was prepared shall also be shown. -9- 23. Interest of Agency. The Agency covenants that neither the Agency, nor anyone controlled by the Agency, controlling the Agency, or under common control with the Agency, nor their agents, employees or subcontractors, presently has an interest, nor shall acquire an interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of its service hereunder, or which would prevent, or tend to prevent, the satisfactory performance of the Agency's service hereunder in an impartial and unbiased manner. The Agency further covenants that in the performance of this contract if any person having any such interest and employed by the Agency contemplates taking some action which may constitute a violation of this paragraph, the Agency shall request in writing the advice of COG, and if COG shall notify the Agency in writing that the Agency' s comtemplated action will not constitute a violation hereof , then the Agency shall be authorized to take such action without being in violation of this paragraph. 24 . Interest of Members of COG and Others. No officer, member or employee of COG, and no public official or any local government which is affected in any way by the Project, who exercises any function or responsibilities in the review or approval of the Project or any component part thereof, shall participate in any decision relating to this contract which affects his personal interest or the interest of any corporation, parnership or association in which he is, directly or indirectly interested; nor shall any such officer, member or employee of COG, or public official, of any local government affected by the Project, have any interest, direct or indirect, in this contract or the proceeds arising therefrom. 25. Officials not to Benefit. No member of or delegate to the Congress of the United States of America, resident Commissioner or employee of the United States Government, shall be admitted to any share or part of this contract or to any benefits to arise herefrom. -10- 26 . Equal Employment Opportunity. (a) The Agency will not discriminate against any employee, applicant for employment or subcontractor because of race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin. The Agency shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and subcontractors Are selected, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotions, or transfers; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoffs or terminations; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; selection for training including apprenticeship; and participation in recreational and educational activities. The Agency certifies that it presently has in effect such an affirmative action program which specifies goals and target dates to assure the implementation of such plan. The Agency agrees to post in a conspicuous place available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause. The Agency will in all solicitations or advertisements for subcontractors or employees placed by or on behalf of' the Agency, state that all qualified applications will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color , religion, sex, age, or national origin. The Agency will cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all subcontracts for any work covered by this contract so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor provided that the foregoing provisions shall not apply to subcontracts for less than $10, 000. 00. (b) The Agency shall keep such records and submit such reports concerning the racial and ethnic origin of applicants for employment and employees as COG or the Concerned Funding Agency may require. -11- (c) The Agency agrees to comply with such rules, regulations or guidelines as COG or the Concerned Funding Agency may issue to implement the requirements of this paragraph. 27. Changes. COG may require changes in the work and services which the Agency is to perform hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of the Agency' s compensation which are mutually agreed upon by and between COG and the Agency, shall be incorporated in written amendments to this contract. 28. Assignability. The Agency shall not assign, sublet or transfer all or any portion of its interest in this Agreement without the prior written approval by COG. 29. Licenses and Permits. Agency shall maintain all required licenses, permits , bonds, and insurance required for carrying out the services in Appendix A. The Agency shall notify COG immediately if any required licenses or other permits are cancelled, suspended, or otherwise ineffective. Failure to maintain proper licenses, permits, bonds and insurance shall be a basis for COG disallowing all or part of payments under this contract or for termination of this agreement for cause. 30. Insurance. If Agency uses vehicle in fulfilling its duties under this Agreement, Agency shall also provide evidence of automobile insurance in the minimum amount of Twenty-five Thousand/Fifty Thousand Dollars ($25, 000/$50, 000) liability insurance and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50, 000) property insurance. Failure to provide evidence of insurance shall be deemed an automatic violation of this Agreement and could therefore lead to termination of the Agreement by COG. The Agency shall hold COG harmless for any damages to the person or property of any individual or organization as the result of the execution of the scope of service to be performed under this Agreement. 31. Termination of the Contract. If the Agency shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this contract; or if the Agency shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, representations or stipulations -12- of this contract; or if services do not meet standards as set forth by N.C. Division of Aging; or if for nutrition service specifically, meals fail to follow the approved program menu and meet reasonable standards of nutrition, sanitation and palatability as determined by COG; COG shall give the Agency written notice specifying such failure or violation, and giving the Agency a specified reasonable time, not less than fifteen (15) days, within which to cure or remedy such failure or violation. If within such specified period the Agency shall cure or remedy such failure or violation, or shall take steps from which it is apparent that such failure or violation will be substantially cured or remedied within a reasonable time after such period, then this contract shall not be terminated. But if the Agency shall fail within such specified period to cure or remedy the same or to take such steps as aforesaid, then this contract shall be deemed to have terminated effective at the end of the period of such notice. In the event ,of such termination, all finished or unfinished documents and other materials collected or produced under this contract (as more fully described in paragraph 15 hereof) shall, at the option of COG, become its property (subject to full accessibility thereto by the Agency) and the Agency shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents or materials. Notwithstanding the foregoing , the Agency shall not be relieved of liability to COG for damages sustained by COG by virtue of any breach of this contract by the Agency and COG may withhold any payments to the Agency for the purpose of set-off for damages caused by the Agency ' s breach, until such time as the exact amount of damages to COG from the Agency is determined. 32. Termination for Lack of Funds. In the event of prospective termination due to non-receipt of funds with which to carry out the provisions of this contract the COG may terminate this Contract by giving written notice to the Agency of such termination and specifying the effective date -13- of such termination. In the event such written notice is given, all finished or unfinished documents and other materials as described in paragraph 15 above shall, at the option of the COG, become its property (subject to full accessibility thereto by the Agency) and the Agency will be paid for work satisfactorily completed by the termination date according to the agreed upon unit cost reimbursement. If this Contract is terminated due to the fault of the Agency, paragraph 24 hereof relative to termination shall apply. 33 . Applicable Law. This Contract shall be deemed to have been executed and performed in the State of North Carolina, and all questions of interpretation and construction shall be construed by the laws of such State . IN WITNELS WHEREOF, the Agency and COG have executed this Agreement: as of the day first above written. AGENCY: Orange County • BY : A /�'� airman or 'esigna e- Official TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS : "This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government / Budget aiid Fiscal Control Act. BY Executive Director F nanc ©fi;cer of Osage County" APPROVED AS TO LEGA40° /1 /4/16i 61)1/111/4 Counsel , Triangle J Council of Governments • ATTACHMENT A • TRANSPORTATION 1 . Location of Service Provision. This service shall be carried out for older persons in Orange County. 2. Service Standards. The delivery of this service shall be in accordance with Standards as adopted by the N.C. Division of Aging. 3. Compensation. The Contractor and COG expressly understand and agree that in no event will the total compensation and reimbursement paid hereunder by COG exceed the maximum of $23,299 Federal funds, $1 ,370 State funds for the specified service and shall constitute full and complete compensation for the Contractor's service hereunder. Local match of $2 ,741 Cash and -0- In- kind resources shall be required under this contract. 4. Reimbursement Rate Per Unit of Service. A unit cost reimbursement rate of -o- Dollars and fifty-seven Cents ( $0. 57 ) is agreed upon for every unit of service delivered to eligible recipients. COG will reimburse Contractor _ 90 % of this rate with Federal and State funds, an amount equalling $0. 51 per unit. 5. Scope of Service Units. It is agreed that Contractor will work towards delivering 48,000 trips of acceptable units of service to eligible recipients by June 30, 1987. 6. Changes to Reimbursement Rate or Units of Service. Any changes shall be as set forth in Section 10 of this Contract. Changes shall be subject to review by COG Advisory Council on Aging, COG Board and Contractor Board. 7. Personnel . It is understood and agreed that Jerry M. Passmore shall represent the Contractor or Project Manager in the performance of this Agreement. Any change in such Project Manager shall be subject to agreement with COG for continuation of contract. ATTACHMENT A CASE MANAGEMENT 1 . Location of Service Provision. This service shall be carried out for older persons in Orange County. 2. Service Standards. The delivery of this service shall be in accordance with Standards as adopted by the N.C. Division of Aping. 3. Compensation. The Contractor and COG expressly understand and agree that in no event will the total compensation and reimbursement paid hereunder by COG exceed the maximum of $17,944 Federal funds, $1 ,056 State funds for the specified service and shall constitute full and complete compensation for the Contractor's service hereunder. Local match of $2, 111 Cash and -0- In- kind resources shall be required under this contract. 4. Reimbursement Rate Per Unit of Service. A unit cost reimbursement rate of twenty-four _ Dollars and eighty-three Cents $24. 83 ) is agreed upon for every unit of service delivered to eligible recipients. COG will reimburse Contractor 90 % of this rate with Federal and State funds, an amount equalling $22. 35 per unit. 5. Scope of Service Units. It is agreed that Contractor will work towards delivering 850 case hours of acceptable units of service to eligible recipients by June 30, 1987. 6. Changes to Reimbursement Rate or Units of Service. Any changes shall be as set forth in Section 10 of this Contract. Changes shall be subject to review by COG Advisory Council on Aging, COG Board and Contractor Board. 7. personnel . It is understood and agreed that Jerry M. Passmore shall represent the Contractor or Project Manager in the performance of this Agreement. Any change in such Project Manager shall be subject to agreement with COG for continuation of contract. AMMEM ATTACHMENT A SENIOR CENTER OPERATIONS 1 . Location of Service Provision. This service shall be carried out for older persons in Orange County: ' 2. Service Standards. The delivery of this service shall be in accordance with Standards as adopted by the N.C. Division of Aging. 3. Compensation. The Contractor and COG expressly understand and agree that in no event will the total compensation and reimbursement paid hereunder by COG exceed the maximum of $37,777 Federal funds, $2 ,223 State funds for the specified service and shall constitute full and complete compensation for the Contractor's service hereunder. Local match of $4,444 Cash and -o- In- kind resources shall be required under this contract. 4. Scope of Service Units. It is agreed that Contractor will work towards delivering a broad range of activities (as specified in the proposal for funds) at two multipurpose senior centers in the County. 5. Changes to Reimbursement Rate or Units of Service. Any changes shall be as set forth in Section 10 of this Contract. Changes shall be subject to review by COG Advisory Council on Aging, COG Board and Contractor Board. 6. Personnel . It is understood and agreed that Jerry M. Passmore shall represent the Contractor or Project Manager in the performance of this Agreement. Any change in such Project Manager shall be subject to agreement with COG for continuation of contract. y :M SECTION 0021 FORM OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - -' j 1U 14 (ALL PRIME CONTRACTS) THIS AGREEMENT, made the 19th day of August in the year of 1986' by and between D. W. Ward Construction Company, D 0 Pox 15157, Durham, N_C_ hereinafter called the Party of the First Part and the Orange County Board of Commissioners; through the Orange County Manager' s office hereinafter called the Party of the Second Part. WITNESSETH: That the Party of the First Part and the Party of the Second Part for the consideration herein named agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work : The Party of the First Part shall furnish and deliver all the materials , and perform all of the work in the manner and form as provided by the following enumerated plans , specifications and documents , which are attached hereto and made a part thereof as if fully contained herein: Advertisement, Instructions to Bidders , General Conditions , Supplementary General Conditions , Specifications , Accepted Proposal , Contract, Performance Bond, Payment Bond, Power of Attorney, Workmen' s Compensation, Public Liability, Property Damage and Builder ' s Risk Insurance Certificates , and Drawings, entitled: Carr Building Renovation Consisting of the following sheets A1.1, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A4.1, A5.1, Ml, Pl, SW1, SW3, SW4, SW5 Dated: and the following addenda: Addendum No. . 1 Dated 6-19-86 Addendum No . Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated 2. That the Party of the First Part shall commence work to be performed under this Agreement on a date to be specified in a written order of the Party of the Second Part and shall fully complete all work hereunder within 180 (One hundred eighty) consecutive calendar days from said date . For each day in excess thereof, liquidated damages shall be as stated in Supplementary General Conditions . The Party of the First Part, as one of the consider- ations for awarding of this Contract , has furnished to the Party of the Second Part a construction schedule setting forth planned progress of the building broken down by the various divisions or part of the work and by calendar days . In the event that the progress of the work is not maintained on schedule by the Party of the Fist Part, or in the event the work is not completed within the time above specified , the Party of the Second Part may upon fifteen (15) days notice, sent by Registered Mail , to the Party of the First Part and his Surety, declare this Contract in default , and, thereupon, such Surety shall promptly take over the said work and complete the performance of this Contract in the manner and within the time above specified, and all funds due or to become due to the Party of the First Part shall be paid to the Surety. In the event the Surety shall fail to take over the work to be done under this Contract within fifteen (15) days after being so notified and notify the Party of the Second Part in writing , sent by Registered Mail, that he is taking the same over and stating that he will diligently pursue and complete the same , the Party of the Second Part shall have the right to let the work remaining to be done to some other Contractor, either by public letting or negotiation, and thereupon the Party of the First Part, the Contractor, and the Surety on his Bond shall forthwith pay the Party of the Second Part all increase in cost or loss and damage which it may sustain on account of such default on the part of the Party of the First Part. 3 . The Party of the Second Party hereby agrees to pay to the Party of the First Part for the faithful performance of this Agreement , subject to additions and deductions as provided in the specifications or proposal , in lawful money of the United States as follows: two hundred twenty-one thousand eight hundred fifty-six dollars ( $ 221,856. ) Summary of Contract Award: 4. On or before the 20th day of each calendar month, the Party of the Second Part shall make payments to the Party of the First Part on the on the basis of a duly certified and approved estimate of work performed during the preceding calendar month by the First Party, less five percent (5%) of the amount of such estimate which is to be retained by the Second Party until all work has been performed strictly in accordance with this Agreement and until such work has been accepted by the Second Party. The Second Party may elect to waive retainage requirements after 50% of the work has been satisfactorily completed on schedule as referred to in Article 30 of the General Conditions . 5 . Upon submission by the First Party of evidence satisfactory to the Second Party that all payrolls , material bills and other costs incurred by the First Party in connection with the construction of the work has been within thirty (30) days after the completion by the First Party of all work covered 14, 1 by this Agreement and the acceptance of such work by the Second Party. 6. It is further mutually agreed between the parties hereto that if at any time after the execution of this Agreement and the Surety Bond hereto attached for its faithful performance, the Second Party shall deem the Surety or Sureties upon such Bond to be unsatisfactory, or if, for any reason, such Bond ceases to be adequate to cover the performance of the work , the First Party shall , at its expense , within five (5) days after the receipt of notice from the Second Party so to do, furnish an additional Bond or Bonds in such form and amount, and with such Surety or Sureties as shall be satisfactor to the Second Party. In such event no further payment to the First Party shall be deemed to be due under this Agreement until such new or additional security for the faithful performance of the work shall be furnished in manner and form satisfactory to the Second Party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and date first above written in three (3) counterparts , each of which shall without proof or accounting for other counterparts , be deemed an original Contract. Witness: • D.W. Ward Construction Company, Inc. Contractor: (Trade or Corporate Name) � l /� ll l l ri BY• ') ° "1< , ; J !< .".r4.4 (Proprietorship or Partnership) Attest: (Corporation) Title: President (Owner, Partner, or Corp. Pres . or ' Vice Pres . only) By: X,_/_..L.�! . - vl "ACAC L 14,.: Title: Carpornto Secrotar..i (Corp. Sec. or Ass ' t. Sec . only) (CORPORATE SEAL) ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Witness : By: Title: f r' 72-7)s: ,�r. SECTION 0021 FORM OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (ALL PRIME CONTRACTS) 148 THIS AGREEMENT, made the 19th day of August in the year of 19 86 by and between Mebane Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., P.O. Box 756, Mebane, North Carolina hereinafter called the Party of the First Part and the Orange County Board of Commissioners; through the Orange County Manager' s office hereinafter called the Party of the Second Part. WITNESSETH: That the Party of the First Part and the Party of the Second Part for the consideration herein named agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work: The Party of the First Part shall furnish and deliver all the materials , and perform all of the work in the manner and form as provided by the following enumerated plans , specifications and documents , which are attached hereto and made a part thereof as if fully contained herein: Advertisement, Instructions to Bidders, General Conditions , Supplementary General Conditions , Specifications , Accepted Proposal , Contract, Performance Bond, Payment Bond, Power of Attorney, Workmen' s Compensation, Public Liability, Property Damage and Builder ' s Risk Insurance Certificates , and Drawings, entitled: Carr Building Renovation Consisting of the following sheets A1.1, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A4.1, A5.1, Ml, P1, SW1, SW3, SW4, SW5 Dated: and the following addenda: Addendum No. 1 Dated 6-19-86 Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No . Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated 2. That the Party of the First Part shall commence work to be performed under this Agreement on a date to be specified in a written order of the Party of the Second Part and shall fully complete all work hereunder within 180 (One hundred eighty) consecutive calendar days from said date . For each day in excess thereof, liquidated damages shall be as stated in Supplementary General Conditions . The Party of the First Part, as one of the consider- ations for awarding of this Contract, has furnished to the Party of the Second Part a construction schedule setting forth planned progress of the building broken down by the various divisions or part of the work and by calendar days . In the event that the progress of the work is not 1441 maintained on schedule by the Party of the First Part, or in the event the work is not completed within the time above specified, the Party of the Second Part may upon fifteen (15 ) days notice, sent by Registered Mail , to the Party of the First Part and his Surety, declare this Contract in default , and, thereupon, such Surety shall promptly take over the said work and complete the performance of this Contract in the manner and within the time above specified, and all funds due or to become due to the Party of the First Part shall be paid to the Surety. In the event the Surety shall fail to take over the work to be done under this Contract within fifteen (15) days after being so notified and notify the Party of the Second Part in writing, sent by Registered Mail , that he is taking the same over and stating that he will diligently pursue and complete the same , the Party of the Second Part shall have the right to let the work remaining to be done to some other Contractor, either by public letting or negotiation, and thereupon the Party of the First Part, the Contractor, and the Surety on his Bond shall forthwith pay the Party of the Second Part all increase in cost or loss and damage which it may sustain on account of such default on the part of the Party of the First Part. 3 . The Party of the Second Party hereby agrees to pay to the Party of the First Part for the faithful performance of this Agreement , subject to additions and deductions as provided in the specifications or proposal , in lawful money of the United States as follows: Ninteen thousand dollars ( $19,000 Summary of Contract Award : 4. On or before the 20th day of each calendar month, the Party of the Second Part shall make payments to the Party of the First Part on the on the basis of a duly certified and approved estimate of work performed during the preceding calendar month by the First Party, less five percent (5%) of the amount of such estimate which is to be retained by the Second Party until all work has been performed strictly in accordance with this Agreement and until such work has been accepted by the Second Party. The Second Party may elect to waive retainage requirements after 50% of the work has been satisfactorily completed on schedule as referred to in Article 30 of the General Conditions . 5 . Upon submission by the First Party of evidence satisfactory to the Second Party that all payrolls , material bills and other costs incurred by the First Party in connection with the construction of the work has been within thirty (30 ) days after the completion by the First Party of all work covered 15C. by this Agreement and the acceptance of such work by the Second Party. 6. It is further mutually agreed between the parties hereto that if at any time after the execution of this Agreement and the Surety Bond hereto attached for its faithful performance, the Second Party shall deem the Surety or Sureties upon such Bond to be unsatisfactory, or if, for any reason, such Bond ceases to be adequate to cover the performance of the work, the First Party shall , at its expense, within five (5) days after the receipt of notice from the Second Party so to do, furnish an additional Bond or Bonds in such form and amount, and with such Surety or Sureties as shall be satisfactor to the Second Party. In such event no further payment to the First Party shall be deemed to be due under this Agreement until such new or additional security for the faithful performance of the work shall be furnished in manner and form satisfactory to the Second Party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and date first above written in counterparts , each of which shall without proof or accounting for other counterparts , be deemed an original Contract. Witness: I i � Contractor: (Trade or Corporate Name) (Proprietorship or Partnership) Attest: (Corporation) Title: (Owner, Partner, or Corp. Pres. or �`/y r- "`. `� Vice Pres. only) y/1" . /- dn�-.'fir����� , u :aY ``�'(Co p�! Sec. or Ass ' t. Sec . only) 1CORRPORATE SEAL) ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Witness : By: Title: ORANGE COUNTY The Orange County Commission for Women submits the following proclamation to the Orange County Board of Commissioners: WHEREAS, August 26 is the anniversary of the passage of the 19th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution; and WHEREAS, this commemoration of the inclusion of women into the political life of America is worthy of note to all citizens; and WHEREAS, women continue to be integral to the leadership, well-being, and quality of life of Orange County; now THEREFORE, do we, the Commissioners of Orange County, proclaim August 26, 1986 as WOMEN'S EQUALITY.DAY and commend this observance to Orange County citizens. Orange County Commission for Women • 131 Court Street • Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough: 732-8181 • Chapel Hill: 967-9251 • Mebane: 227-2031 • Durham: 688-7331 a c •e- GOC LLeZ4Lai 7_ .Cgs- •i.•L•) a a. .�.� . pe,L. .r x�e.ce/ a.�" 8 �e • . ., e .. - e05 77 -G �e�.u• � ' 7 /9.Pc perrCi C : $ - 89 /943) ,rta.e. c24.e 7 /q77 . waTom' mac- z4777 .�.� 4. uet.4- c,r)-Ac.. .- ftconyzr. A44. ae olZiC.c. 4ot G 07�v �NaiZse� mgt c.aG4. CLZ- .a,Ga.Lc..,+i Gu"-Ze-G -deliLv Gs,sa. AG ae4-O cEe�-%cuG ,4 a.e.E. icy" lyavasa. , zz Tiwx 7 CZ.y.t-c �..�..�c.. cetya4.44 )44-/ v Cr�,�e. fz�rw GAG .c4_7 Gic''oC' dift zfeL 7ier-ZZi •-wv "e?ec"... oiGe . ..otGu.Eyt. AiZc-i. GG dliLZsc.e..L.Gc� '/� O ��xG Ihtc.E� �fctc�..e.rvr, env-.cam er444. 1GC0-r�-.H�i„�r'c` eLC44, /1z444L A.,* e4.tee r�� . � j� o� e �c.e .,cam __.. ���....�. .M a . I • c � - • • s ' a-�.cs. et-41 (g41-.6 Ase- Ager 4 f- 7 ®oa c.• ta , [Q . ...c 1. . . a . Cam. a. . •G `...c'— .4;0 e.i-.a,.- Ica.' /000 • zg 7� + • Ge"`TceG n"C'aZciry cyts' "' tie c4;, Get QiLe.t�J Y•Ce. O f_ c.4'ya'' R6`""`,'C�",r �iQ�t� Diu aex r ais�Ge.o...e. .i.y�i�7" I+is�.�Ce.� tc�.e. �G eoL.GC �ic .O4-e■ Gt„ P74..34.� 4 �Gu, cu z ,,,ze„„z„ 4tz, craf_t_ 64t.2t:Zate•coe `9X.tu.ts Ut.eiy .au,.'a.,,T .64„f74 ,G,p4z4„ 4-c-e€4.4 4L.7,4;c CtAA Avzo C2t.•Ga4be x.-!`-.ews- 7.7.-t ftGeoT.vc�es.. ez z'2u Zdee■aza reg. eiffea-74 (;;A■!,,, 3•€ C;o&nai44A;x4i, /47. /fr6 .4(2. or•-g.i e,44.&y, tateAt ex., �iuliCs�.r/f . AGREEMENT BETWEEN Q PIII7 COUNTY OF ORANGE and ORANGE FAMILY MEDICAL CENTER RENEWAL NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY Of ORANGE WHEREAS, an agreement was made and entered into as of the 1st day of July, 1985 by and between Orange County, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and Orange Family Medical Center, hereinafter referred to as "Health Authority" for the provision of primary medical services for the Orange County Jail. WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the HEALTH AUTHORITY wish to renew the agreement as amended. NOW THEREFORE, the COUNTY and the HEALTH AUTHORITY mutually agree to the following: 1. ) The agreement will be continued for a period of one year commencing July 1, 1986 and ending at 12: 00 midnight on June 30 , 1987. 2. ) Section E, lA shall be amended to read "Six thousand dollars per annum to be paid in equal monthly installments of $500 each. This compensa- tion is for all services described in this agree- ment performed by the Health Authority during this normal business hours including the SZ sick calls and other visits to the jail , the office of the Health Authority or such other health care facility selected by the attending physician pursuant to Section A of this agreement. The Health Authority will not be responsible for billing any non-county agency for services rendered to non-county prisioners. " FOR AND ON BEHALF OF FOR AND ON BEHALF OF 01P, GE COUNT HEALTH AUTHORITY Don Willhoit, Chairman Robert L. Ellis Orange County Orange Family Medical Center Board of Commissioners Date of Signature Date of Signature This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. alli-or(41 ifr-■/<----- Director of Fiannce Orange County ORANGE FAMILY MEDICAL CENTER FEE SCHEDULE REFERENCE LABORATORY PROCEDURES THE FOLLOWING LABORATORY PROCEDURES ARE PERFORMED BY A REFERENCE LABORA TORY. THE ORANGE FAMILY MEDICAL CENTER CHARGES A $10. 00 FEE FOR COLLECTION AND HANDLING IN ADDITION TO THE PROCEDURAL FEES LISTEN BELOW: PROCEDURE PANEL 1249 80019 12. 50 DIGOXIN 82643 24. 00 PANEL 1 144 80019 15. 00 D I LANT I N 84045 26. 50 L I VER PANEL 80010 19. 30 GLUCOSE TOLERANCE 82951 25. 00 PANEL 1039 80018 13. 00 FSH SERUM 83001 42. 70 PRENATAL PROFILE 80055 15. 15 FOLIC ACID 82746 29. 40 ELECTROLYTE PANEL 80004 11. 00 HEPATITIS PANEL 80059 68. 10 ANEMIA PROFILE I I 80086 23. 20 IRON BINDING CAP. 83550 13. 00 ARTHRITIS PANEL (RA) 80072 27. 40 PINWORM PREP 87208 3. 00 LIPID PANEL I 80061 20. 10 OVA & PARASITES 87211 14. 80 CBC & DIFFERENTIAL 85022 6. 95 RH ANTIBODY TITER 86025 12. 80 THYROID PANEL 80070 37. 00 URIC ACID 84550 6. 30 CHOLESTEROL 82465 8. 00 VITAMIN 8- 12 82607 38. 00 TR I GL YCER I DES 84478 11. 20 ALPHA FETOPROTE I N 86244 35. 00 SEROLOGY (RPR) 86592 8. 00 STREP TEST 86045 8. 00 PRO THROMB I N (PT) 85610 8. 00 BLOOD GROUP & RH 86082 9. 90 PART. THROMBOPLAST I N CULTURE & SENS I T I V. 87086 20. 00 TIME (PTT) 85730 11. 90 FUNGUS CULTURE 87102 32. 10 LITHIUM 83725 17. 00 HERPES CULTURE 87250 31. 20 THEOPHYLLINE 84420 31. 00 CHLAMYDIA CULTURE 87206 10. 80 PLATELET COUNT 85580 8. 00 ROUTINE CULTURE PHENOBARBITAL 82210 32. 00 (STOOL, SPUTUM) 87082 20. 00 Effective 311 /85 ORANGE FAMILY MEDICAL CENTER FEE SCHEDULE LABORATORY PROCEDURES PROCEDURE CPT CODE AMOUNT GC CULTURE 87070 8, 00 GLUCOSE 82947 6. 00 GRAM STAIN 87205 10. 00 HEMA TOCR I T 85014 5. 00 MONO TEST 86300 10. 00 OCCULT BLOOD 82270 2. 00 each PAP SMEAR 88150 12. 00 PREGNANCY TEST 84139 6. 00 SED. RATE 85650 8. 00 KOH PREP. 87220 7. 00 THROAT CULTURE 87060 6. 00 UA COMPLETE 81000 10. 00 UA DIPSTICK ONLY 81005 4. 00 VAGINAL DROP ( WET PREP) 87210 6. 00 WBC 85048 7. 00 DIFFERENTIAL 85009 12. 00 • t Effective 9/1/86 SECTION 0021 FORM OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CO PY (ALL PRIME CONTRACTS) THIS AGREEMENT, made the 19th day of August in the year of 19 .at by and between D. W. Ward construction Company, P n Box 15157, Durham, N_C_ hereinafter called the Party of the First Part and the Orange County Board of Commissioners; through the Orange County Manager' s office hereinafter called the Party of the Second Part. WITNESSETH: That the Party of the First Part and the Party of the Second Part for the consideration herein named agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work : The Party of the First Part shall furnish and deliver all the materials, and perform all of the work in the manner and form as provided by the following enumerated plans , specifications and documents , which are attached hereto and made a part thereof as if fully contained herein: Advertisement, Instructions to Bidders, General Conditions, Supplementary General Conditions , Specifications , Accepted Proposal , Contract, Performance Bond, Payment Bond, Power of Attorney, Workmen ' s Compensation, Public Liability, Property Damage and Builder' s Risk Insurance Certificates , and Drawings , entitled: Carr Building Renovation Consisting of the following sheets A1.1, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A4.1, A5.1, Ml, P1, SW1, SW3, SW4, SW5 Dated: and the following addenda: Addendum No. 1 Dated .6-19-86 Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated 2. That the Party of the First Part shall commence work to be performed under this Agreement on a date to be specified in a written order of the Party of the Second Part and shall fully complete all work hereunder within 180 (One hundred eighty) consecutive calendar days from said date . For each day in excess thereof, liquidated damages shall be as stated in Supplementary General Conditions . The Party of the First Part, as one of the consider- ations for awarding of this Contract, has furnished to the Party of the Second Part a construction schedule setting forth planned progress of th building broken down by the various divisions o part of the work and by calendar days . In th event that the progress of the work is not maintained on schedule by the Party of the First Part, or in the event the work is not completed within the time above specified, the Party of the Second Part may upon fifteen (15) days notice, sent by Registered Mail , to the Party of the First Part and his Surety, declare this Contract in default, and, thereupon, such Surety shall promptly take over the said work and complete the performance of this Contract in the manner and within the time above specified, and all funds due or to become due to the Party of the First Part shall be paid to the Surety. In the event the Surety shall fail to take over the work to be done under this Contract within fifteen (15) days after being so notified and notify the Party of the Second Part in writing, sent by Registered Mail, that he is taking the same over and stating that he will diligently pursue and complete the same, the Party of the Second Part shall have the right to let the work remaining to be done to some other Contractor, either by public letting or negotiation, and thereupon the Party of the First Part, the Contractor, and the Surety on his Bond shall forthwith pay the Party of the Second Part all increase in cost or loss and damage which it may sustain on account of such default on the part of the Party of the First Part. 3 . The Party of the Second Party hereby agrees to pay to the Party of the First Part for the faithful performance of this Agreement, subject to additions and deductions as provided in the specifications or proposal , in lawful money of the United States as follows: two hundred twenty-one thousand eight hundred fifty-six dollars ( $ 221,856. Summary of Contract Award: 4. On or before the 20th day of each calendar month, the Party of the Second Part shall make payments to the Party of the First Part on the on the basis of a duly certified and approved estimate of work performed during the preceding calendar month by the First Party, less five percent (5%) of the amount of such estimate which is to be retained by the Second Party until all work has been performed strictly in accordance with this Agreement and until such work has been accepted by the Second Party. The Second Party may elect to waive retainage requirements after 50% of the work has been satisfactorily completed on schedule as referred to in Article 30 of the General Conditions . 5 . Upon submission by the First Party of evidence satisfactory to the Second Party that all payrolls , material bills and other costs incurred by the First Party in connection with the construction of the work has been within thirty (30) days after the completion by the First Party of all work covered by this Agreement and the acceptance of such work by the Second Party. 6. It is further mutually agreed between the parties hereto that if at any time after the execution of this Agreement and the Surety Bond hereto attached for its faithful performance, the Second Party shall deem the Surety or Sureties upon such Bond to be unsatisfactory, or if, for any reason, such Bond ceases to be adequate to cover the performance of the work , the First Party shall , at its expense, within five (5) days after the receipt of notice from the Second Party so to do, furnish an additional Bond or Bonds in such form and amount, and with such Surety or Sureties as shall be satisfactor to the Second Party. In such event no further payment to the First Party shall be deemed to be due under this Agreement until such new or additional security for the faithful performance of the work shall be furnished in manner and form satisfactory to the Second Party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and date first above written in three 131 counterparts , each of which shall without proof or accounting for other counterparts , be deemed an original Contract. Witness: D,W. Ward Construction Company, Inc. Contrac r: (Trad%L142 or Corporate Name) BY: (Proprietorship or Partnership) Attest: (Corporation) Title: President (Owner , Partner, or Corp. Pres. or Vice Pres . only) By: .IiiL.. 01, A Ili Title: Corporate Secretary (Corp. Sec. or Ass ' t. Sec. only) (CORPORATE SEAL) ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Witnes : By: 1�.. .. A LA _ Title: a. Ir SECTION 0022 FORM OF PERFORMANCE BOND Ii):c;1:J? Date of Contract: August, 19, 1986 Date of Execution: August 19. 1986 Name of Principal: D. W. Ward Construction Co., Inc. (Contractor) P.o. Box 15157 Durham, North Carolina Name of Surety: United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company Baltimore, Maryland Name of Contracting Body: County of Orange Amount of Bond: $221,856 Project: Carr Building Renovation KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, the PRINCIPAL and SURETY above named, are held and firmly bound unto the above named Contracting Body, hereinafter called the Contracting Body, in the penal sum of the amount stated above for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind, ourselves , our heirs , executors , administrators, and successors , jointly and severally, firmly by these presents . THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that whereas the principal entered into a certain contract with the Contracting Body, identified as shown above and hereto attached: NOW THEREFORE, if the principal shall well and truly perform and fulfill all the undertakings , covenants , terms, conditions , and agreements of said contract during the original term of said contract and any extensions thereof that may be granted by the Contracting Body, with or without notice to the Surety, and during the life of any guaranty required under the contract, and shall also well and truly perform and fulfill all the undertakings , covenants , terms , conditions , and agreements of any and all duly authorized modifications of said contract that may hereafter be made, notice of which modifications to the surety being hereby waived, then this obligation to be void; other- wise to remain in full force and virtue. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above-bounden parties have executed this instrument under their several seals on the date indicated above, the name and corporate seal of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative , pursuant to authority of its governing body. Executed in Three (3) counterparts . Witness: Contr• , or. ( ra• e o Co •orate Name a By: . / .�/�.� AP/. .� i (Proprietorship or Partnership) Attest: (Corporation) Title: Pre6ident (Owner, Partner , or Corp. Pres . or Vice Pres . only) By: ..,, ,Qattif224)24fACALitip2... Title: Corporate .SecrataI _ (Corp. Sec. or Ass ' t Sec. only) (Corporate Seal) UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY (Surety Company)-- Witne B • A / / •`4 x_ '+ / ' Gihh ( ( Title: Lillian H. Cold 1/ UU (Attorney in-Jact): C.unte - gv;d: A7_,4, ' (Surety Corporate Seal) Lillian . Coleman (N.C. Licensed Resident Agent) Les Stocks & Associates, Inc. P. 0. Box 3006, Durham, N. C. 27705 Name and Address-Surety Agency United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company P. 0. Box .17300, Raleigh, N. C. 27619 Surety Company Name and N.C. Regional or Branch Office Address Executed in Three (3) counterparts . Witness: ctx22 (Tra ame) (Proprietorship or Partnership) Attest: (Corporation) Title: President (Owner, Partner, or Corp. Pres . or Vice. Pres. only) By: /0Yikith G alit/4 OCAtt", Title: Corporate Secretary (Corp. Sec. or Ass ' t Sec. only) - (Corporate Seal) UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY (Surety Company). Witness. By: / / . - Title: Lillias, H. Coleman. dr ,. (Attorney in Fa.it) Coin_jdi / , (Surety Corporate Seal) Lillias H. Coleman (N.C. Licensed Resident Agent) Les Stocks & Associates, Inc. P. 0. Box 3006, Durham, N. C. 27705 Name and Address-Surety Agency United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company P. 0. Box 17300, Raleigh, N. C. 27619 Surety Company Name and N.C. Regional or Branch Office Address SECTION 0021 FORM OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CO pyi (ALL PRIME CONTRACTS) THIS AGREEMENT, made the 19th day -of _ August in the year of 19 86 byy and between Mebane Heating and Air Conditioning, • Inc., P.O. Box 756, Mebane, North Carolina hereinafter called the Party of the First Part and the Orange County Board of Commissioners; through the Orange County Manager's office hereinafter called the Party of the Second Part. • WITNESSETH: That the Party of the First Part and the .Party of the Second Part for the consideration herein named agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work: The Party of the First Part shall furnish and deliver all the materials, and perform all , of the work in the manner and form as provided by the following enumerated plans, specifications and documents, which .are attached hereto and made a part thereof as if fully contained herein: - Advertisement, Instructions to Bidders, General. Conditions, Supplementary General Conditions, Specifications, .Accepted Proposal, Contract, Performance Bond, Payment Bond. Power of Attorney, Workmen's Compensation, Public Liability, Property Damage and Builder's Risk Insurance Certificates, and Drawings, entitled: Carr Building Renovation . Consisting of the following sheets . A2.1, P.2. •, A3.1, A4.1, A5.1, Ml, Pl, SWI, SW3, SW4, SW5 . Dated: _ _ and the following addenda Addendum No. 1 Dated 6-19-86 Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. __.. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated .,,.__� Addendum No.- Dated • 2. That the Party of the First Part shall commence work to be performed under this Agreement on a date to be specified in a written order of the Party of the Second Part and shall fully. com lete all work hereunder within 180 (One hundred eighty consecutive calendar days from said date. For each day in excess thereof, liquidated damages shall be as stated in Supplementary General Conditions. The Party of the First Part, as one of the consider- ations for awarding of this Contract, has furnished to the Party of the Second Part a construction schedule setting forth planned progress of the building broken down by the various divisions or • part of the work and . by calendar days. In the event that the progress of the work is. not Imwwwwrommom maintained on schedule by the Party of the First Part, or in the event the work is not completed within the time above specified, the Party of the - Second Part- may upon fifteen (15) days notice, sent by Registered Mail, to the Party of the First Part and his Surety, declare this Contract in default, and, thereupon, such Surety shall promptly take over the said work and complete the performance of this Contract in the manner and within the time above specified, and all funds due or to become due to the Party of the First Part shall -be paid to the Surety. In the event the Surety shall fail to take over the work to be done under this Contract within fifteen (15) days after being so - notified and notify the Party of the Second Part in writing, sent by Registered Mail, that he is taking the same over and stating that he will diligently pursue and complete the same, the Party of the Second Part shall have the right to let the work remaining to be done to some other Contractor, either by public _ letting or negotiation, and thereupon the Party of the First Part, the Contractor, and the Surety on his Bond shall forthwith pay the Party of the Second Part all increase in cost or loss and damage - - which it may sustain on account of such default on the .part of the Party of the First Part. 3. The Party of the Second Party hereby agrees to pay to the Party of the First Part for the faithful performance of this Agreement, subject to additions and deductions as provided in the specifications or proposal, in lawful money of the United States as follows: Ninteen thousand dollars Summary of Contract Award : 4. On or before the 20th day of each calendar month, the Party of the Second Part shall make payments to the Party of the First Part on the on the basis of - a duly certified and approved estimate of work performed during the preceding calendar month by the First Party, less five percent (5%) of the amount of such estimate which is to be retained by the Second Party . until all work has been performed strictly in accordance with this Agreement and until such work has been accepted by the Second Party. The Second Party may elect to waive retainage requirements after 50% of the work has been satisfactorily completed on . schedule as referred to in Article 30 of the General Conditions. . 5. Upon submission by the First Party of evidence satisfactory to the Second Party that all payrolls, material bills and other costs incurred by the First Party in connection with the construction of the work has been within thirty (30) days after the completion by the First Party of all , work covered by this Agreement and the acceptance of such work by the Second Party. 6. It is further mutually agreed between the parties hereto that if at any time after the execution of . this Agreement and the Surety Bond hereto attached for its faithful performance, the Second Party , :shall deem the Surety or Sureties upon such Bond to be unsatisfactory, or if, for any reason, such Bond ceases to be adequate to cover the performance of the work, the First Party shall , at its expense, within five (5) day$ after the receipt of notice from the Second Party so to do, furnish an additional Bond or Bonds in such form and amount, - and with such Surety or Sureties as shall be satisfactor to the Second Party. In such event no further payment to the First Party shall be deemed to be due under this Agreement until such new or additional security for the faithful performance of the work shall be furnished in manner and form satisfactory to the Second Party. • IN WITNESS WSEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this . Agreement on the day and date first above written in counterparts, each of which shall without proof or accounting for other counterparts, be deemed an original Contract. . Witness: ft el) 'i c I rc ,. �c _An Ix f l 1 w4a_. — t c . . Contractor: (Tra.e or Corpor- e Name) . a BY: ,e 1 Aw (Proprietorship or Partnership) �� • Attest: (Corporation) Title: �-'-.0-' (Owner, Partner, or Corp. Pres. c J Vice Pres. only) Ti. Ca. . ' /4 : . - i , ) ia...ti-, . . ki ,PB 11, E ilk.�, • ?•A (Co ., Sec- or Ass 't. Sec. only) 'C R ORATE SEAL) ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OP COMMISSIONS Witness: r _0‘4.4a#4_4:LA,&___. By: lc L'. I,1 /. I/ A) ' Title: eAeut p- SECTION 0021 FORM OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IVY (ALL PRIME CONTRACTS) THIS AGREEMENT, made the 1 qth day of n„goat in the year of 19. 86 , by and between O'Dell Electric Company, the _ year Street, Durham, North Carolina hereinafter called the Party of the First Part and the Orange County Board of Commissioners ; through the Orange County Manager ' s office hereinafter called the Party of the Second Part. WITNESSETH: That the Party of the First Part and the Party of the Second Part for the consideration herein named agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work : The Party of the First Part shall furnish and deliver all the materials , and perform all of the work in the manner and form as provided by the following enumerated plans , specifications and documents , which are attached hereto and made a part thereof as if fully contained herein: Advertisement, Instructions to Bidders , General Conditions , Supplementary General Conditions , Specifications , Accepted Proposal , Contract, Performance Bond, Payment Bond, Power of Attorney, Workmen ' s Compensation, Public Liability, Property Damage and Builder ' s Risk Insurance Certificates , and Drawings , entitled: Carr Building Renovation Consisting of the following sheets A1.1 , A9_1 , A9_2. • A3.1 A4.1 A5. Ml W Dated: and the following addenda: Addendum No. 1 Dated 6-19-86 Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated 2 . That the Party of the First Part shall commence work to be performed under this Agreement on a date to be specified in a written order of the Party of the Second Part and shall fully complete all work hereunder within 180 (one hundr_wd Aight-y) consecutive calendar days from said date . For each day in excess thereof, liquidated damages shall be as stated in Supplementary General Conditions . The Party of the First Part, as one of the consider- ations for awarding of this Contract , has furnished to the Party of the Second Part a construction schedule setting forth planned progress of the building broken down by the various divisions or part of the work and by calendar days . In the event, that the progress of the work is not maintained on schedule by the Party of the First Part, or in the event the work is not completed within the time above specified , the Party of the Second Part may upon fifteen (15 ) days notice , sent by Registered Mail , to the Party of the First Part and his Surety, declare this Contract in default , and, thereupon, such Surety shall promptly take over the said work and complete the performance of this Contract in the manner and within the time above- specified, and all funds due or to become due to the Party of the First Part shall be paid to the Surety. In the event the Surety shall fail to take over the work to be done under this Contract within fifteen (15) days after being so notified and notify the Party of the Second Part in writing, sent by Registered Mail , that he is taking the same over and stating that he will diligently pursue and complete the same , the Party of the Second Part shall have the right to let the work remaining to be done to some other Contractor , either by public letting or negotiation, and thereupon the Party of the First Part, the Contractor , and the Surety on his Bond shall forthwith pay the Party of the Second Part all increase in cost or loss and damage which it may sustain on account of such default on the part of the Party of the First Part. 3, The Party of the Second Party hereby agrees to pay to the Party of the First Part for the faithful • performance of this Agreement, subject to additions and deductions as provided in the specifications or proposal , in lawful money of the United States as follows: Twenty-six thousand one hundred twenty-five dollars ( $ 26,125. Summary of Contract Award : 4 . On or before the 20th day of each calendar month, the Party of the Second Part shall make payments to the Party of the First Part on the on the basis of a duly certified and approved estimate of work performed during the preceding calendar month by the First Party, less five percent (5%) of the amount of 'such estimate which is to be retained by the Second Party until all work has been performed strictly in accordance with this Agreement and until such work has been accepted by the Second Party. The Second Party may elect to waive retainage requirements after 50% of the work has been satisfactorily completed on schedule as referred to in Article 30 of the General Conditions . 5 . Upon submission by the First Party of evidence satisfactory to the Second Party that all payrolls , material bills and other costs incurred by the First Party in connection with the construction of the work has been within thirty (30) days after the completion by the First Party of all work covered by this Agreement and the acceptance of such work by the Second Party. 6. It is further mutually agreed between the parties hereto that if at any time after the execution of this Agreement and the Surety Bond hereto attached for its faithful performance, the Second Party shall deem the Surety or Sureties upon such Bond to be unsatisfactory, or if, for any reason, such Bond ceases to be adequate to cover the performance of the work , the First Party shall , at its expense , within five (5) days after the receipt of notice from the Second Party so to do, furnish an additional Bond or Bonds in such form and amount, and with such Surety or Sureties as shall be satisfactor to the Second Party. In such event no further payment to the First Party shall be deemed to be due under this Agreement until such new or additional security for the faithful performance of the work shall be furnished in manner and form satisfactory to the Second Party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and date first above written in • counterparts , each of which shall - without proof or accounting for other counterparts , be deemed an original Contract. Witness: Contractor: (Trade or Corporate Name) BY: ,; (Proprietorship or Partnership) Attest: (Corporation) Title: 46;', (Owner, Partner, or Corp. Pres . or Vice Pres . only) By: 7/32- Title: (Corp. Sec . or Ass ' t. Sec. only) (CORPORATE SEAL) ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Witness : ^` By: ,`. / —: Title: SECTION 0022 FORM OF PERFORMANCE BOND O Date of pyj Contract: August 19 1986 Date of Execution: August 20, 1986 Name of Principal: O'Dell Electric Company (Contractor) 1117 Spruce Street Durham, North Carolina Name of Surety: United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company Name of Contracting Body: County of Orange Amount of Bond: $26,125 Project: Carr Building Renovation KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, the PRINCIPAL and SURETY above named, are held and firmly bound unto the above named Contracting Body, hereinafter called the Contracting Body, in the sum of the amount stated" above for the penal payment of which sum well and truly to be made, - we bind, ourselves , our heirs, executors , administrators, and successors, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents . THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that 'whereas the principal entered into a certain contract with the Contracting Body, identified as shown above and hereto attached: NOW THEREFORE, if the principal shall well and truly perform and fulfill all the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions , and agreements of said contract during the original term of said contract and any extensions thereof that may be granted by the Contracting Body, with or without notice to the Surety, and during the life of any guaranty required under the contract, and shall also well and truly perform and fulfill all the undertakings , covenants , terms , conditions , and agreements of any and all duly authorized modifications of said contract that may hereafter be made, notice of which modifications to the surety being hereby waived, then this obligation to be void; other- wise to remain in full force and virtue. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above-bounden parties have instrument under their several seals on the pdate indicatedcabove,tthe name and corporate seal of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative, pursuant to authority of its governing body. Executed in Three counterparts . Witness: O'DELL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Inc. Contractor: Trade or Corporate Name) By: Z/ Z1122 !7.___or Partnership) (Proprietorship Attest: (Corporation) Title: 427--- (Owner , Partner, or Corp. Pres. or Vice Pres . only)Ader,By: � - Title: -� (Corp. Sec. -'or Ass 't Sec. only) (Corporate Seal) UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY (Surety Company) Witness: By: IL III J ' / ' ' le_r1 . .//1%.",_ eA / Title: attorney in Fact) = ountersigned: / (Surety Corporate Seal) ( .C. Licensed Resident Agent) Name and Address-Surety Agency SOUTHLAND ASSOCIATES P 0 Box 890, Durham, N. C . Surety Company Name and N.C. I. Regional or Branch Office Address USF&G, Raleigh , N. C. Executed in Three counterparts. Witness: O'DELL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Inc. Contracttor: (Tradeor Corpo ate ame) By: �/� 7--057" (Proprietorship or Partnership) Attest: (Corporation) Title: 1/g-0� (Owner, Partner, or Corp. Pres. ����jj or Vice Pres. only) By: /C._∎.� Title: Soc . (Corp. Sec. or Ass ' t Sec. only) (Corporate Seal) • UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY GOMpA (Surety Company) Wit ess: By: 4 `*e4 r / I� �. .� O. . (Air _�� Title: (Attorney in Fact) Countersigned: �'; �" ? , - (Surety Corporate Seal) �� ` YIt MC. Licensed Resident Agent) Name and Address-Surety Agency SOUTHLAND ASSOCIATES P 0 Box 890, Durham, N. C. Surety Company Name and N.C. Regional or Branch Office Address USF&G, Raleigh, N.C. • Coy. SECTION 0021 FORM OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT, made the 19th day of August in the year of 1986 by and between Process Plumbing and Piping, Inc. , P.O. Box 25188, Raleigh, North Carolina, hereinafter called the Contractor and the Orange County hereinafter called the Owner. WITNESSETH: That the Contractor and the Owner for the consideration herein named agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work: The Contractor shall furnish and deliver all the materials , and perform all of the work in the manner and form as provided by the following enumerated plans , specifications and documents , which are attached hereto and made a part thereof as if fully Y contained herein: Advertisement, Instructions to Bidders, General Conditions, Supplementary General Conditions, Specifications, Accepted Proposal , Contract, Worker's Compensation, Public Liability, Property Damage and Builder ' s Risk Insurance Certificates, and Drawings , entitled: Carr Building Renovation Consisting of the following sheets: A1.1, A2.1, A2,2, A3 .1, A4.1, A5.1, Ml, P1, SW1, SW3 , SW4 , SW5 Dated: and the following addenda: Addendum No. _l, Dated 6-19-86 Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. Dated 2. That the Contractor shall commence work to be performed under this Agreement on a date to be specified in a written order of the Owner and shall fully complete all work hereunder within 180 (One Hundred Eighty) consecutive calendar days from said date. For each day in excess thereof, liquidated damages shall be as stated in Supplementary General Conditions . The Contractor, as one of the consider- ations for awarding of this Contract, has furnished to the Owner a construction schedule setting forth planned progress of the building broken down by the various divisions or part of the work and by calendar days. In the event that the progress of the work is not maintained on schedule by the Contractor, or in the event the work is not completed within the time above specified, the Owner may upon fifteen (15) days notice, sent by Registered Mail , to the Contractor declare this Contract in default, and, thereupon, the Owner shall have the right to let the work remaining to be done to some other Contractor, either by public letting or negotiation, and thereupon the 1 3 further payment to the Contractor shall be deemed to be due under this Agreement until such new or additional security for the faithful performance of the work shall be furnished in manner and form satisfactory to the Owner. 7. The bonding and payment terms set forth in this Agreement are in lieu of bonding and payment requirements as stipulated in the specifications. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and date first above written in counterparts, each of which shall without proof or accounting for other counterparts, be deemed an original Contract. Witness: CS L clN� !U" ✓/ /(/"ci /i'9eS ntractor: (Trade or C r orate Xame.) .� BY: 07t14.4„gas„ ___--L. (Proprietorship or Partnership) Attest: (Corporation) Title: (Owner, Partner, or Corp. or_ Vice Pres. only) By: Title: (Corp. Sec. or Ass 't. Sec. only) _, (CORP_ORATE SEAL) ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Y Witne-s: _ _ , . _ _ By: JIL ...... Title: 0,dt.6. 1 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 2 , 1986 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 1986 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on August 19, 1986 at 7: 30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the old Post Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Assistant County Manager Albert Kittrell, Finance Director Gordon Baker, Planner Gene Bell, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Purchasing Director Pam Jones and Public Works Director Wilbur McAdoo. A. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Carey would like to add a name to the list of individuals to be considered for appointment to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Task Force. Chair Wilihoit added to the agenda a proclamation for Women's Equality Day. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA None. 2 . MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Lois Herring, Secretary of the Southwest Preservation Alliance, made a prepared statement to the Board. She expressed concern about the amount of lead in University Lake. The Carrboro Planning Board voted to study protection of the University Lake Water quality and make a recommendation to the Aldermen for adoption. She asked that the Board of Commissioners cooperate with Carrboro and assist with any financial support needed for the study. (A copy of Lois Herring's 4 complete statement is in the permanent agenda file) Chair Wilihoit requested that the concern expressed by Lois Herring be forwarded to the Environmental Affairs Board and that they determine if this is something they will address. Arthur Dodd, member of the Coventry Homeowners Association, expressed concern about potential flooding that exists in Coventry. He stated that as Sedgewood is developed there may be additional runoff between that area of Carol Woods and Coventry. He asked for complete cooperation by the County and the Town to protect the citizens who live in that area from possible flooding. Chair Willhoit requested that Ken Thompson direct the Planning Staff to review Mr. Dodd's concern with the Town to determine what steps can be taken to prevent further aggravation of the situation. PROCLAMATION - WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the proclamation as presented by the Commission for Women. 2 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, August 26 is the anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and WHEREAS, this commemoration of the inclusion of women into the political life of America is worthy of note to all citizens; and WHEREAS, women continue to be integral to the leadership, well-being, and quality of life of Orange County; now THEREFORE, do we, the Commissioners of Orange County, proclaim August 26, 1986 as WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY and commend this observance to Orange County citizens. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. C. APPOINTMENTS LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING TASK FORCE Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to appoint Ron Wells to this Task Force. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Walker to appoint Ed Latta as a full-time member on this Board. (moved from alternate member to full member) VOTE: UNANIMOUS. HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY BOARD Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to appoint Robert Ellis to the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. D. MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the minutes for June 24, 1986 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the minutes for July 7, 1986 as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E. RECOGNITION County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson recognized Elizabeth Garrard, Assistant Director of Revenue, for receiving the certification of Assistant Tax Collector. Chair Willhoit offered his congratulations commending Ms. Garrard on her achievement. F. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA The County Manager recommended the following action by the Board: 1. TITLE III-B AGING SERVICES CONTRACT To approve the contract for Title III-B Older Americans Act funds with Triangle J Council of Governments effective July 1, 1986 through June 30, 1987 for federal/state funds in the amount of $83, 669 and authorize the Chairman to sign both copies and return to Council of Governments. 2 . JAIL MEDICAL SERVICES CONTRACT To renew the contract with Orange Family Medical Center to provide medical services for inmates at the Orange County Jail Facility for a sum of $6,000 per year through June 30, 1987 and to authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. This was contingent upon a fee schedule being made as part of the contract. 3 3 . INDIRECT COST PLAN CONTRACT To approve entering into a contract with David M. Griffith Associates for a sum not to exceed $8, 000 for preparation of Orange County's indirect cost plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Marshall that the forgoing action be taken by the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. G. ITEMS FOR DECISION 1. ZONING ORDINANCE - MOBILE HOME STANDARDS Planning Director Marvin Collins presented for consideration a recommendation from the Planning Board that a special hearing be held on September 16, 1986. The purpose would be to consider removing Article 6.21. 1 a) (2) of the Zoning Ordinance which requires all existing non- conforming mobile home parks to comply with park standards adopted 3/18/86 when units are replaced. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Walker to hold a special public hearing for September 16, 1986 for the purpose of considering deletion of Article 6.21. 1 a) (2) from the Zoning Ordinance. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2 . JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN Marvin Collins gave background information on Joint Planning and reviewed the major recommendations for each of the draft Land Use Plans. He outlined the revisions as a result of the first public I hearing. These include: (1) Expansion of the rural buffer area to follow the boundaries of the New Hope Creek Drainage Basin. (2) Deletion of the proposed Industrial-Commercial Activity Center at the New Hope Church/I40 Interchange. (3) The combining of the larger Commercial-Industrial node and a smaller one proposed in the Calvander area into one larger activity center. (4) Reinstitute a smaller activity node limited to office uses in the Homestead Road/Rogers Road Intersection. (5) Revisions recommended to the Eubanks Road/I40 Interchange area in terms of location of office and high density areas in relation to that interchange. At the second public hearing, the two major areas of concern identified were the Activity Center proposed at Calvander and the designation of a future landfill site south of the Eubanks Road area near the railroad. Collins noted that Chapel Hill adopted the Joint Planning Land Use Map on July 14. They recommended adoption of the Land Use Plan that went to public hearing in April with the following changes: (1) Allow existing commercial uses at Starpoint but permit no further commercial expansion in that area. The area which is not commercial should be designated suburban residential. (2) Designate the area north and east of I-40 rural buffer. (3) With regard to the I-40/NC86 Interchange, change all light industrial designations to office use with emphasis on mixed use development (office-residential-limited retail) . (4) With regard to a small area located south of Eubanks Road and adjacent to the railroad - change the designation to 4 residential. (5) With regard to the area bounded by Homestead Road, Chapel Hill High School, the railroad and the area east of the railroad - change from suburban residential to urban residential. (6) Designate the future landfill site as "potential landfill site - pending further study". The Carrboro recommendations include: (1) That the proposed Commercial-Industrial node in the Calvander area along Homestead road be designated for residential development. (2) That the proposed small Office-Institutional node at the intersection of Homestead Road and Rogers Road be changed back to residential. (3) With regard to the constraint system, that it be changed to allow determination of permissible intensity of development. (4) That based on environmental features, relief from the constraint system be provided along the Homestead Road corridor, forming the northern link of the Chapel Hill Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan for a distance of 500 feet to encourage higher residential densities adjacent to mass transit routes. (5) Permit sewer lines to be extended into University watershed. (6) That developments within the transition areas be required N to be served by public water and sewer. (7) That a Rural Buffer be developed around the Towns. (8) That an inventory of the environmentally affected areas be performed. (9) That the suburban and urban residential category proposed by the Orange County Planning staff be combined into one classification called "transitional residential" and that the density be determined on a tract by tract basis based on the natural constraint system with a maximum of six (6) units per acre. The Planning Board recommended adoption of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan with revisions. They also adopted a five-part resolution regarding its commitment to joint planning. Collins reviewed in detail all the revisions and the differences (if any) between the Planning Board recommendation and the recommendations of Carrboro and Chapel Hill. He answered questions to clarify any area of concern expressed by the Board. Planning Board Chair Barry Jacobs commented that the recommendations of the Orange County Planning Board, where possible, reflect the wishes of Carrboro and Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill Planning Director Roger Walton remarked that the moment is a historic one. He offered praise for the cooperative spirit displayed by Orange County. He pointed out two differences that still remain and explained these in detail: (1) the area on Eubanks Road and (2) density in the rural buffer. Chair Willhoit asked if the plan could be adopted with amendments so that further discussion could be held between Orange County and the Towns on items not agreed upon and Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill indicated the plan could be adopted with "holes" to be filled in later. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by 5 Commissioner Carey, to approve the Joint Planning Area Land use Plan as recommended by the Planning Board. (The recommendation is listed on page of these minutes) . With reference to revision #1, motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to adopt a Suburban Residential designation at the Rogers Road/Homestead Road Intersection. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. With reference to revisions #6a and #6c, motion was made by Chair Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to defer decision on these two items. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. With reference to revision #7, Motion was made by Chair Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to defer decision on all of #7. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. With reference to revision #10, motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to defer decision on this item. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Chair Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve a density of one dwelling unit per two acres in the rural buffer. VOTE: AYES, 4 ; NOES, 0. NOTE: COMMISSIONER WALKER WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. All deferred items were referred to the County Manager with a request 1 that he meet with the Towns to resolve any conflict. The County Manager was requested to work with the Town Managers to formulate the procedures for implementation of Joint Planning. VOTE ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN AS AMENDED VOTE: AYES, 4; NOES, 0. NOTE: COMMISSIONER WALKER WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to reaffirm the County's policy on extension of water and sewer into the watershed area. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 13 . INSPECTION FEES - JOINT PLANNING PROJECTS Marvin Collins presented for consideration a request to schedule a public hearing on September 16, 1986 to receive public comment regarding a proposed inspections fee schedule for projects approved under the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement with Chapel Hill. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to set Tuesday, September 16, 1986 as the public hearing date for proposed amendments to the Inspections Fee Schedule regarding Joint Planning projects. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4. PLANNING BOARD WATER POLICY RESOLUTION Marvin Collins presented for consideration of approval a 6 resolution of the Orange County Planning Board regarding various aspects of the County's water policy. After ensued discussion, no action was taken on this request. The Water Conservation Ordinance and the question of instream flow had been referred to NRCD for their review and response. An environment assessment of the two proposed dam sites on Seven-Mile Creek and the Upper Eno River will be included in an engineering assessment study to be done later this year which will be done in conjunction with the Town of Hillsborough. The commitment to the County's adopted watershed regulations was addressed with the adoption of Joint Planning. 5. REVERE ROAD COUNTY ANNEX (CARR BUILDING) ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES Assistant County Manager Bill Laws presented for consideration of approval a request from CHR Associates for additional compensation for additional architectural work performed. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to amend the existing contract with CHR Associates in the amount of $2,500 for architectural services associated with the renovation of the County Annex. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 6. REVERE ROAD COUNTY ANNEX RENOVATION - APPROVAL OF CONTRACTS Purchasing Director Pam Jones presented for approval the contracts for the renovation of the Revere Road county Annex. After a brief discussion the plumbing contract was tabled. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by 1 Commissioner Carey to approve the contracts for the Revere Road County Annex renovation to D.W. Ward Construction Company as the general contractor for a sum of $221,856, O'Dell Electric for a sum of $26, 125 and to Mebane Heating and Air Conditioning for a sum of $19, 000 and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board and subject to final approval by the County Attorney. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. H. REPORT 1. 1986-87 CAPITAL PROJECTS PROPOSAL Ken Thompson presented a brief synopsis of new capital projects being funded for the first time in this budget as well as a brief status report of multi-year projects likewise being funded in the nd asked if the Department Heads had approved such a move. Betty June Hayes, Register of Deeds, summarized several areas of concern if Data Processing is relocated and indicated she had not been contacted for her input. Keith Brooks, Data Processing Director, expressed concern about running the underground cable for the equipment and the associated costs. The County Manager was directed to meet with the Department Heads to further discuss the relocation of Data Processing and the implications of such a move. The rewiring of the County Jail was discussed and the County Manager was directed to meet with the Sheriff and get joint approval before the project is scheduled. I. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 2, 1986, 7:30 p.m. Commissioners' Room, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. 7 Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk