Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 12-01-1986
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1986 7:30 P.M. COMMISSIONERS ROOM HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES B. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION 1. Tom Ward, Social Services Director C. OATHS OF OFFICE FOR BOARD MEMBERS 1. Stephen Halkiotis 2. John Hartwell 3 . Shirley Marshall D. BOARD ORGANIZATION E. APPOINTMENTS 1. Manager 2. Clerk to the Board 3. County Attorney 4. Board Member Appointments a) OPC Mental Health Board b) Recreation and Parks Advisory Commission c) Social Services Board d) Triangle J COG Alternate Delegate 5. Other Appointments F. BOARD COMMENTS G. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda 2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda PAGE # H. REPORTS 006 1. Environmental Affairs Board Status Report (OVER) PAGE # I. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) 009 1. Cable TV Franchise Transfer--Alert Cable 011 2. Budget Amendments 013 3 . Examination of Bonds 018 4. Economic Development Funding by the General Assembly 021, 5. Contract Agreement--Hazen and Sawyer 026 6. Respite Care Block Grant Application 027 7 . Change Order for Revere Road Office Complex 029 8. Transportation Board Operational By-Laws 035 9. Re-mapping Project Workplan J. ITEMS FOR DECISION 038 1. PD-1-86 Eubanks Road Townhouses 086 2. Revisions to Joint Planning Agreement 093 3. Country Manor Subdivision 104- 4. Carolina Forest Subdivision 117 5. Request to Delay Legal Proceedings 125 6. Moratorium on Landscaping Standards 128 7. Discussion of Water Conservation Ordinance K. ADJOURNMENT L. EXECUTIVE SESSION--LEGAL MATTER 001 ORANGE COUNTY • Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS it Bo. A ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT /OWING DATE December 1 , 1986 Subject: MINUTES • I Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1Public Hearing: Yes X no I Attachments;. Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under Separate Cover Phone Numbers: 732-8184 966-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: November 3, 1986 - Regular Meeting November 18, 1986 - Regular Meeting November 24, 1986 - Joint Quarterly Meeting NEED: Approval so the minutes maybe entered into the official minute book in the Clerk's office. RECOMMENDATION; As the Board decides. 41ffing 002 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS it No. B ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE December 1 , 1986 Subject: Resolution of Appreciation Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I Public Hearing: Yes I no Attachments: Information Contact: Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPCISE: To recognize the contributions of Tom Ward through a Resolution of Appreciation. NEED: RECOMMENDATION: Present to Tom Ward the Resolution of Appreciation. 003 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR THOMAS M. WARD WHEREAS, on September 15, 1965, Thomas M. Ward became Director of the Orange County Social Services Department, and WHEREAS, Thomas M. Ward has served conscientiously Orange County and its citizens, and WHEREAS, Thomas M. Ward has given freely of his time, talents and energy in the administration of the Social Service programs, and for the concerns of Orange County citizens, and WHEREAS, Thomas M. Ward through his efforts has earned the respect and appreciation of the government officials, his peers and coworkers, and the citizens of Orange County, and WHEREAS, Thomas M. Ward has determined that it is now time for him to retire and channel his efforts toward new endeavors, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners takes action through its members on behalf of the citizens of Orange County to express to Thomas M. Ward its sincere appreciation and gratitude for his years of service and contributions to Orange County and the Department of Social Services, and further wish to him happiness and good health in the future. Let a copy of this resolution be presented to Thomas M. Ward and a copy of this resolution be included in the minutes of this meeting, this the 1st day of December, 1986. Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member ORANGE COUNTY 004 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. 3 Meeting Date: DECEMBER 1, 1986 SUBJECT: OATH OF OFFICE, BOARD ORGANIZATION AND STAFF APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X Na ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE, X505 NO TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 PURPOSE: Following the oaths the Board should elect a Chair and Vice Chair for December, 1986 through December, 1987 and appoint Manager, Attorney, Clerk to the Board, and Board Member assignments. NEED: Clerk of Court Shirley James will administer the oath of office to Shirley Marshall for her second term. Charlotte Cole will administer the oath of office to Commissioner-elect Stephen Halkiotis. Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe will administer the oath of office to Commissioner-elect John Hartwell. According to statute, the Board elects a member to serve a Chair and Vice Chair for the following year. This is to be s done at the first regular meeting in December. The Board also traditionally considers its individual repre- sentation on various Boards and Commissions and appoints or reappoints the County Manager, County Attorney and Clerk to the Board. { The Clerk will provide ballots for the election of Board officers. IMPACT: To organize the Board for the following year. RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. . 005 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. E.: 5 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE December 1 , 1986 Subject: APPOINTMENTS Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I Public Hearing: Yes I no , - Attachments; Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under Separate Cover Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 • PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards. The following vacancies are announced together with the indication of the status of securing candidates for possible appointment consideration: A-12 - PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL -; 1 vacancy; no resumes have been received. A-13 - RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL - 2 vacancies; no recommendation has been received. C-7 - ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. - 1 vacancy; Five (5) resumes are submitted for consideration. C-8 - ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - 1 vacancy (Bingham Township);. 3 resumes • have been submitted for consideration. LOW/MODERATE INCOME HOUSING TASK FORCE - Martha Branscombe has been recommended to serve on this task force. LONG RANGE WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY COMMITTEE - Recommendations have been received. C-5 - HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - A letter of recommendation has been received. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. • P ORANGE COUNTY 006 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: DECEMBER 1, 1986 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS BOARD REPORT DEPARTMENT:COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) :C - INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 REPORT TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To acquaint the Orange County Board of Commissioners with the progress made by the Environmental Affairs Board committees. NEED: To obtain the pleasure of the Board of Commissioners as to holding an Environmental Affairs Board conference in January or February. Participation by members of the Board of Commissioners will be requested. IMPACT: To increase Orange County citizens knowledge and concerns of local environmental health issues. RECOMMENDATION(S) : To receive report and encourage the Environmental Affairs Board to proceed with conference planning. 007 300 W.Tryon Street range county liiesborooph, N.C. 27278 732-8181 732-9361 ext.305 HEALTH DEPARTMENT M,a� 967-4551 Mebane tine 227 96B-4 203502 1 Durham line 688-7333 688-7331 Carr Mill Mall, Suite 225 100 N. Greensboro Street Carrboro, N.C.27510 942-4168 Jerry Robinson, M.P.A. Director SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY EAB ACCOMPLISHMENTS The Orange County EAB is a volunteer advisory board constituted by the Commission in July, 1986 as a central forum for the county's citizens to channel their concerns about local environmental issues. The members are: Dr. Carl Shy (UNC Epidemiology Department), Dr. Richard Andrews (UNC Institute for Environmental Studies), Mr. Francis deFriess (UNC Radiologic Hygiene) , Dr. Norman Weatherly (UNC Parasitology), Dr. Carole Crumley (UNC Anthropology), Dr. Leila Moustafa (Research Triangle Institute), Mr. Don Cox (Electrical Engineering), Mr. Frank Sheffield (Radian Corporation), Mr. George Johnson (Duke Power), Mr. Larry Reid (Landscaping Company), Mr. Ted Latta (Latta Automotive), Mr. Jerry Taylor (farmer), Mr. Tim Hubbard (North Carolina Nature Conservancy), Mr. Victor Germino (Duke Medical School), Bob Peck and Dave Moreau (UNC Planning). Ex Officio members are Jerry Robinson, Health Director and Bill Laws, Assistant County Manager. Jon Naimon, Masters student in environmental health, provides staff support. The EAB has held six full board meetings. On the basis of discussions at these board meetings and reports from members on existing policies and resources, the EAB has prioritized five environmental areas from over twenty that were initially suggested. On the basis of this prioritization, the EAB has split into five committees. These committees are given below along with contacts in each: 1. watershed protection - Don Cox, Dave Moreau 2. hazardous substances - Carl Shy, Vic Germino, Ted Latta 3. solid waste management - Carole Crumley, Larry Reid, Ted Latta 4. natural resources protection - Leila Moustafa, Tim Hubbard, Jerry Taylor 5. environmental information systems - Pete Andrews, Carole Crumley, Jerry Robinson These committees have gathered extensive information on county, state, and federal policies and programs related to their focus. In addition, members of the committees have begun to identify policy alternatives for EAB consideration. j? In the next phase of its work, the EAB plans to elicit more citizen input on environmental issues and potential solution options by holding a conference in early February, 1987. Plans for this conference are described on the next attachment. Using the additional input from the conference and information compiled by the committees, the EAB will work to develop a set of specific recommendations for the County in the spring. 008 ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS CONFERENCE GOAL: Provide a forum for obtaining direct input from citizens on local environmental problems. OBJECTIVES: Increase awareness of EAB among county residents. Obtain a better understanding of citizen views of alternative approaches to problems EAB is considering. Make EAB information resources available to public. Broaden support for future local environmental programs. TIME: One day conference (including lunch) Last Saturday in January PLACE: Orange High School AGENDA: Opening Plenary System (tent. ) Work groups organized by EAB Committees Lunch Reports of Workgroups Closing Plenary Session PARTICIPANTS: Commissioners Planning, Health Department Representatives and Boards Environmental Organization Members Chamber of Commerce Other Interested Parties 009 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: DECEMBER 1, 1986 SUBJECT: CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE TRANSFER DEPARTMENT: COUN'T'Y MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 RESOLUTION TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough -- 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider adopting a resolution approving the transfer of Wometco Cable TV, Inc. , the corporation which owns Alert Cable TV Franchise, to BT Cable. NEED: On October 20, 1986, BT Cable, Inc. contracted to purchase the stock of Wometco Cable. BT Cable will be owned by the Robert M. Bass Group, Inc. of Fort Worth, Texas, Taft Broadcasting Company and certain members of Wometco Cable TV, Inc. 's pre- sent management. There will be no change in the operations or operating personnel of Wometco Cable TV, Inc. or Alert Cable TV of North Carolina, Inc. as a result of this transaction. Financial information has been reviewed by the County Attorney. IMPACT: Resolution requires two readings of the Board. y4[ RECOMMENDATION(S) : Adopt resolution approving transfer of Wometco Cable TV Franchise to BT Cable. i 010 A Resolution Granting Municipal Approval to the Acquisition of the Stock of Wometco Cable TV, Inc. by • BT Cable, Inc. - WHEREAS, Alert Cable TV of North Carolina, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Wometco Cable TV, Inc. , is a cable television franchisee: in' the County of Orange; and WHEREAS; the outstanding stock of Wometco Cable TV, Inc. is presently controlled by members of its management and investors • organized by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. ; and • WHEREAS, BT Cable, Inc. proposes to acquire 100% of the outstanding stock of Wometco Cable TV; Inc. , all as set forth in the letter application dated October 21, 1986; and • WHEREAS, approval has been requested as to the foregoing transaction; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the County of Orange hereby grants its approval, as requested, to the change in control of Wometco Cable TV, Inc. , all as set forth in the letter application dated October 21; 1986. Passed this day of , 1986, effective miry•••• Approved: Attest: Cler IMMEMMIlmm■ ..--_______ • ORANGE .COU H T Y • BOARD. OF COMMISSIO NERS N RS - AC T TO AGENDA. ACTION E�Gct<(;Ii ITEM. ABSTRACT Fftri NO;X:a. . MEETING DATE December 1, 1986 - . . SUBJECT:' Budget Amendment . _ _ . DEPARTMENT:i i��P�"i: Finance. ; MIMIC. Hi=A€ZIRG_ ` y $ x NO . ----,.. . :ATTACE3;'EN (S) : INFORMATION CONTACT Donna Wagner • Proposed Budget Amendment PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH --£�l Ei .• HILLSBOROUGH — 732--9353 . • • ' ' - ' CHAPEL HILL -- 967-9251 . ••" • DURHAM -- G8377331 PURPOSE: Consideration of proposed budget amendment. . - ' - - . _ • GENERAL FUND _ = • 1- To budget. for funds to aid the. "laid-off" Saratoga workers. ':These funds- . unds - will be allocated to' the Department of, Social Services'General Assistance Fund (as approved' by' the Board of Commi si®fters on.November 18, .1986)-- 2, • To budget for' funds that will be required for a deposit, the monthly lease NEED: payments and the partition instal]ation for locating the-Dri'ver's License, ' 'Bureau and a satel_zte Sheriff',office at Plantation Plaza. (as approved.by •,the Board of Commissioners on November 18, 1986) , - • . COUNTY CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND - To transfer funds to•the General Fund for funding the relocation-of the • • Driver's License Bureau and a satelite Sheriff's office. • GENERAL FUND _• • 1. This amendment will transfer funds from the touristy" . G•ontingency - to the General Assistance account in Social Services_ °_ . 2, This amendment will transfer funds froni the County Capital Projects Fund IMPACT: to the Public Works'budget.•• • . COUNTY CAPITAL PROTECTS FUND • This amendment wial transfer funds from- the County"Capital -_ - • Projects Fund to the ,General. Fund; - _ � • • • • • • . f`i;(R' N1JA IONS} : Approve motion to amend the 1986;-87 Budget Ordinance by the * -proposed amendments. • -. • . ' 012 ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1986-87 BUDGET AMENDMENT The 1986-87 Budget Ordinance as adopted on July 23, 1986, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows: BEFORE AFTER AMENDMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT GENERAL FUND 1. Appropriation: Social Services $3,126,773 $8,000 $3,134,773 Source: Contingency 49,050 8,000 41,050 To budget for additional General Assistance funds. 2. Appropriation: Public Works $1,581,356 $9,900 $1,591,256 Source: Transfer from County Capital ' - Projects Fund 8,000 9,900 17,900 To budget for the relocation of the Driver's License Bureau. COUNTY CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Appropriation: Transfer to General Fund 8,000 $9,900 $ 17,900 Source: Fund Balance Appropriated 112,523 9,900 122,423 To transfer funds to the General Fund Approved this 1 day of December, 1986. 013 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO4 3 MEETING DATE DECEMBER 1, 1986 SUBJECT; EXAMINATION OF BONDS *********************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SERVICES PUBLIC HEARING YES X NO ************************************************************************** ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES BONDS FOR: EXT 497 1. ) SHERIFF 2. ) REGISTER OF DEEDS 3 . ) FINANCE OFFICER 4. ) TAX COLLECTOR 5. ) BLANKET EMPLOYEE PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL 967-9251 MEBANE 227-2031 URHAM 688-7331 *************************************************D** ******************* PURPOSE: To examine bonds for officials as prescribed in G.S. 109-5. NEED: G.S. 109-5 reads as follows: "The bonds of the officers named in G.S. 109-5 shall be carefully examined on the first Monday in December of every year, and if it appears that the security has been impaired, or for any cause become insufficient to cover the amount of money or property or to secure the faithful performance of the duties of the office, then the bond shall be renewed or strengthened, the insufficient security shall be made good; but no renewal, or strengthening, or additional security shall increase the penalty of said bond beyond the limits prescribed for the term of office. " Bonds are written for $25,000 - Sheriff; $25, 000 -- Register of Deeds; $250,000 - Finance Office; $30, 000 - Tax Collector; $10,000 - All County Employees for faithful performance. Documentation on the Sheriff's bond has not been received as yet but will be according to the same terms as presently exist. RECOMMENDATION: Approve bonds at present level. • PUBLIC OFFICIAL BOND - THE /ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY FOR DEFINITE TERM Hartford, Connecticut 06115 UFE&CASUALTY BOND NO. 25 S 25044856 BCA 014 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we BETTY JUNE HAYES of HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA as Principal, and THE /ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a corporation of Hartford, Connecticut, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA in the penal sum of TWENTY—FIVE THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($ 25,000.00------ ) Dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which well and truly to be made, said Principal binds himself/herself, his/her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and said Surety binds itself, its suc- cessors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. SEALED and dated this 1ST day of DECEMBER , 19 86 WHEREAS, the said Principal has been ELECTED to the office of REGISTERED OF DEEDS for a definite term beginning Di. nd ending DA •-is required to furnish a bond for the faitgr Per ormance o the duties of the said office or position. NOW, THEREFORE THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that if the above bounden Principal shall (except as hereinafter provided) faithfully perform the duties of his/her said office or position during the said term, and • shall pay over to the persons authorized by law to receive the same all moneys that may come into his/her hands during the said term without fraud or delay, and at the expiration of said term, or in case of his/her resignation or removal from office, shall turn over to his/her successor all records and property which have come into his/her hands, then this obligation to be null and void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the above named Surety shall not be liable hereunder for any loss of any public funds resulting from the insolvency of any bank or banks in which said funds are deposited; and, if this provision shall be held void, this entire bond shall be void. AND PROVIDED FURTHER, that the Surety may cancel this bond at any time during the said term by giving to the Obligee a writ-ten notice of its desire so to cancel and at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the receipt of such notice by the Obligee the Surety shall be completely released as to all liability thereafter accruing. If this provision shall be held void, this entire bond shall be void. BETTY HAYES WITNESS: BY 4 f. (Prin l) .(SEAL) THE AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY Countersigned: 4 IAL■4-- By A 0.."1 . ii Licensed Resident Agent NANCY M. C :LIN Attorney-in-Fact CAT. 409960 .(S-719.MI 1-76 MINTED N U.S.A PUBLIC EMPLOYEES BLANKET BOND 015 Revised to May, 1958 • • • Air THE / jypitp,,MT Cincinnati, Ohio A Stock Company, herein called Surety DECLARATIONS Bond No. 80- 247096 Item 1. Name of Obligee:Orange County Board of Commissioners Item 2. Name of Insured: Orange County Board of Commissioners Item 3. Bond Period: from the beginning of February 1, 1986 to 12 o'clock night on the effective date of the cancelation or termination of this Bond as an entirety. Itern 4. Table of Limits of Liability Insuring Agreement 1 Honesty Blanket Bond Coverage $Not Covered Insuring Agreement 2 Honesty Blanket Position Bond Coverage $Not Covered Insuring Agreement 3 Faithful Performance Blanket Bond Coverage $biPt COVQ Insuring Agreement 4 Faithful Performance Blanket Position Bond Coveragg $ 10,000 Item 5. The liability of the Surety is subject to the terms of the following riders attached hereto: Sole Benefit Rider Item The Obligee and the Insured by the acceptance of this Bond give notice to Surety termi- nating or canceling prior bond(s) No.(s) such termination or cancelation to be effective as of the time this Bond becomes effective. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY has caused this Bond to be signed by its Chairman of the Board and President and its Secretary at Cincinnati, Oh io, this day of , 19 , but the same shall not be binding upon the Company unless countersigned by an authorized representative of the Company. Secretary & Treasurer President Countersigned by Authorized Representative 8 12/58 F 638 . `15�t '1 PUBLIC OFFICIAL BOND —' ls FOR INDEFINITE TERM LIFE F. Fiorltord, Connecticut 06115 CASUSeLTY TES IS TO CERT/py TEAT IBIS IS' A TRUE AND ACT COPY OF TIE 0; BOND NO. 25 S 3845th' BY: V, Nancy N. 0 .-_:;•lix, Resident Secretary KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we ..t{ ! a•+ fie+r .0.4A-/(;•''''':''.1;' of HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA , as Prin •ipal. and THE &TNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a corporation of Hartford,Connecticut. as Surety,are 1101 and firmly bound unto ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS in the penal sum of THIRTY THOUSAND AND 00/100 lawful money of the United Slates of America, for the payment of which, well and truly Inbe made. said Principal oll himself/herself, his''her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and said Surety hinds itself, its snecessol.. and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents, the liability of the Surety, however, being limited to the penal amount above named regardless of the numher of years this bond remaina in force or the number of premiums raid. SEALED and dated this 1ST day of JULY . 19 78 . WHEREAS. the said Principal has been AppOINTED to the office of TAX COIJ.ECTOR for an .>; .::.r. . JULY 1� 1978 r , .• :_•, .�- and is required to furnish a bond for the fail` u i. rmance of the duties of the said office or position. NOW, THEREFORE•THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that if the al>,tve bounden Principal shall (except as hereinafter provided) faithfully perform the duties of his, her said office or position during the [init.' this bond remains in force. and shall pay over to the persons authorised by law to receive the same .111 moneys that may come into his 'her hand, during the said rime without fraud or delay,and at the expiration of said time, shall turn over to his.'her successor all records and property- which have theretofore come into his her hands, then this obligation to be null and void; other- wise to remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED, HOWEVER. that the :above named Surety shall not he liable hereunder for any loss of any public funds re- sulting from the insolvency,of any bank or hanks in which said funds are deposited: and, if this provision shall he held void, this entire bond shall be void. • AND PROVIDED FURTHER, that any party to this instrument may cancel the same at any lime, with or without cause, by notifying. both of the others by certified mail of an intention thereby to cancel, in which .rent such cancellation shall be fully effective at the expiration of thirty (3O1 days froth the maltin of such native. notice, and if there should be no cancellation by agreement between all of the parti. hereto. thetbondlshaalleretn:nnta on_a Iinue.:sly in full force and effect, in the penal amount :'bi't'e named, as long as the I',incipal holds the said office or position. 1a;1"p1fSS: JOHN THOMAS HORN BY: Principal "L' ` THE /ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY CON1PA11' OP 2.0.....,, ....., ? By , IS �H. MOMS DAkfN ; " Altornrt an I .act CONTINUOUS THE If TNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL BOND Hartford, Connecticut 06115 FOR INDEFINITE TERM UFE&CASUALTY BOND NO. 100159135 017 . _ KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we I ., of 228 WEST QUEEN STREET, P.0, BOX 1004, HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA , as Principal, 1 and THE /ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a corporation of Hartford,Connecticut,as Surety,are held and firmly bound unto ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA in the penal sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND AND 00/100----(8 250,000.00---)Dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which, well and truly to be made, said Principal binds himself/herself, his/her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and said Surety binds itself, its successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents, the liability of the Surety, however, being limited to the penal amount above named regardless of the number of years this bond remains in force or the number of premiums paid. SEALED and dated this 16TH day of APRIL , 19 85 WHEREAS, the said Principal has been -A. POINT ED to the office of FINANCE DIRECTOR for - APRIL 16, 1985 and is required to furnish - - a bond for the aithful performance of the duties of the said office or position, NOW, THEREFORE THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that if the above bounden Principal shall (except as hereinafter provided) faithfully perform the duties of his/her said office or position during the time this bond remains in force, and shall pay over to the persons authorized by law to receive the same all moneys that may come into his/her hands during the said time without fraud or delay,and at the expiration of said time, shall turn over to hisiher successor all records and property which have theretofore come into his/her hands, then this obligation to be null and void; other- wise to remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the above named Surety shall not be liable hereunder for any loss of any public funds re- sulting from the insolvency of any bank or banks in which said funds are deposited; and, if this provision shall be held void, this entire bond shall be void. AND PROVIDED FURTHER, that any party to this instrument may cancel the same at any time, with or without cause, by notifying both of the others by certified mail of an intention thereby to cancel, in which event such cancellation shall be fully effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the mailing of such notice. In the absence of such a notice, and if there should be no cancellation by agreement between all of the parties hereto, the bond shall remain con- tinuously in full force and effect, in the penal amount above named, as long as the Principal holds the said office or position. CORDON RAY BAKER WITNESS: BY: 4g - (SEAL) Principal Countersigned: THE /ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY 13Y: .21-04/1 icensed,liesidet Agent By C ri-ISTOPRER H. NOI3Afi Attorney-in-Fact CAT. 401994 018 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A ends Item No. . ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: DECEMBER 1, 1986 SUBJECT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDING BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 RESOLUTION TELEPHONE NUMBER: WORK PLAN Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider taking action to authorize the release of funds that were appropriated to councils of government by the General Assembly. NEED: A sum of $55,000 was appropriated to each COG to assist local governments in their economic development activities. Of the amount $7,594.82 is due the COG based on Orange County's popu- lation. The funds, however could not be released until the procedures for financial distribution, work planning and reporting could be developed. Attached to this abstract is a seven point plan of work pro- posed by the Triangle J Council of Governments which can be carried out through the funding. It is open to comment and suggestion from member counties and cities before being acti- vated. Orange County's Economic Development Commission will discuss the plan at the next regular meeting in order to iden- tify specific ways in which the COG can increase and stengthen support for Economic Development activities in Orange County. The EDC recommendations will be submitted to the Board of Commissioners for their approval and then forwarded to the COG. The EDC Director will coordinate implementation of agreed areas of work with the COG staff. Meanwhile Board action is needed on the attached resolution to facilitate the release of the monies to the COG. IMPACT: Use of the funds will aid the County's on-going efforts to improve economic conditions. With the most recent Saratoga Plant closing extra efforts will be mounted for which COG assistance will be needed. Failure to act would cause the monies to revert to the State's General Fund. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve attached resolution. • RESOLUTION - 019. • Orange County WHEREAS, in North Carolina the Lead Regional Organizations, as voluntary organizations serving municipal and county governments, have established productive working relationships with the cities and counties acrow. this state; and . . WHEREAS, many counties and cities need assistance in pursuing economic and community development opportunities, but federal assistance in the form of - intergovermental revenues has been severely curtailed in recent years; and WHEREAS, the . 1986 Short Session of the 1985 General Assembly • recognized this need through the appropriation of $990,000 to help the Lead Regional Organizations PAqi-St" local governments with grant applications, economic development, community development, support of local industrial development and other activities as deemed appropriate by their local governments; and WHEREAS, these funds are not intended to be used for payment of - member dues or amessments to a Lead Regional Organization or to supplant • funds appropriated by the member governments; and • • WHEREAS, in the event that a request is not made by a unit. of government for release of these funds to our Regional Council, the available funds will revert to the state's General Fund; and WHEREAS, in Region ' 3 funds in the amount of $55,000 will be used to - • carry out the economic development plan approved by the COG Board of , Delegates and especially to improve the economy of the counties and towns. of the Region by strengthening ties to and consequently benefits of the. Research Triangle Park. • • * • NOW, THEREFORE BE TT RESOLVED, that Orange County requests • the release of its $ 7.594.82 share of these funds to the Triangle 3 Council of Governments at the earliest passage time in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1014 of the 1986 Session Laws (NB 2055).- • Adopted this the * day of 1986 at by 0 . (signature) O Witness • (signature) • • TRIANGLE a COUNCIL OF c;OVLRNMI1.NTS 1(►ll I':1RK I,ItI\'1 {'.(1- B()\ 1:27i Itl SI :1H( II11{1\ti(.l 1-!':1ltti 1l ..1►, 14I'+04+4+ ;I 020 r - WORK PLAN ' October 7, 1986 - . $55,000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FROM - • THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY k.' 1. Increase or strengthen sip port to each irxiividual county . Economic • Development office. . ,assistance on high ' 2. Provide svpprut to c cities � towns requesting - priority development issues. . in the Region to begin or increase I 3. Provide as^si�stance to companies international trade. . . 4. Seek to connect the Region with a wide area local one serve• am of helping 5. .Continue and improve the COG 1s Avg Itle towns of the . Region to revitalize their downtown areas. international flights and L . 6. Continue to promote the Raleigh-Durham •Airport, interns nal the U.S. Customs Service' as vehicles for Economic Development in the Region. . 7. Strengthen the ties and consequently the benefits of the Research Triangle Park to the entire Region. . t + . { . • • 11%11 1 U C 1 .1.1N. • 141 \�I 1\ • h11 '' th11 411 44 III • Ills• IR11'I ill 11 11\I:1\1 • 4.\1•\1 I. 1 1 11 111\ • I/r 1111\11 • I 1.111 t1lr►• •\111_IIII:Il's II II i.la, •1'I\I'II1I\I\I'hl•.% III 1%1.111:11 •• A PI'tS.• 4 I r''. Ilftipo , . It 1 1 • • 1 . • %\I 111 I1 • '1 I '1\ • ...II 41- . 4i . Y0111111 • • 11I �\II I1 .0 ;Fs 11 \1111111 II 1 Ir • 11 \11 111141 \I • 141 %1'411 4111111111 140 \11 • III 1411%11 4 411111 • 11111\.I.Iti . 4.!%11 III 4 ill \I1 " • 4 1I'1\1.1 4111 \I1 • 1. 0.4 • ,• '.11 . it Fr; ORANGE COUNTY 02.1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Aunda Item No. .L S ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: DECEMBER 1, 1986 SUBJECT: CONTRACT AMENDMENT--HAZEN AND SAWYER DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 AGREEMENT Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider raising the ceiling as per section D of the agree- ment. NEED: The present ceiling for additional service to be provided is $30,000 as amended January 6, 1986. The relocation of two man- holes (#14 and #16) in order to avoid a condemnation will necessitate increasing the ceiling to $32, 000. IMPACT: Raising the ceiling $2,000 will allow for surveying and a re- designof the 12" sewer line along the creek. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve raising the ceiling $2, 000 by a contract amendment. . .................. . . RECT NOV 21 A198 H 6 ' HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. . CONSULTING ENGINEERS . 022 • . • . . . . . • . . November 20, 1986 • . - • . . • . . . • , . _ . . . . ' . Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson , County Manager . . . . • , . . • County of Orange , • , . 106 E. Margaret Lane . S • • Hillsborough , North Carolina 27278 . . . Re: Cheeks Township Sewer Improvements • Phase 1 • - H&S Job No.. 3600 ' . - . . . - . . , . . • . Dear Mr . Thompson : , •• • • .. . . .. • Recently Mr. Laws requested that Hazen and Sawyer redesign -. the gravity sewer line, between Manhole Nos. 14 and 16 in ' . . • . • Hillsborough to accommodate easement acquisition ' in that vicinity • and also to provide a sewer service to the Sherman Greene property in Efland . : . . • . . . . Section 0 of our Agreement with Orange County provides that redesign efforts after approval of final drawings are eligible - * for payment as an Additional -Service. The Scope of Service, for the proposed revisions consist of the following :. ' . - .. • • 1) Resurveying and easement Map revisions for the gravity sewer between Manhole Nos . 14 and 16. ., . . • . • . 2) Property survey and easement map preparation for a sewer ' service to the Sherman Greene Property. : *- . . 3) Redesign of the sewer section between Manhole Nos . 14 and 16. • . Compensation for the engineering surveys and design of the sewer service to the Greene property are provided for under the percentage fee provisions of our Agreement . . . . . We propose to provide the above services under a salary cost • times a multiplier fee reimbursement arrangement as outlined in the attached Statement of Standard Charges with a cost ceiling established at $2,000, unless mutually modified by the County of ' . Orange and Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. The proposed ceiling assumes that redesign of the gravity sewer between Manhole Nos. 14 and 16 . will not require revisions to the current design downstream of . . . . .4300 GLEN WOOD AVENUE • P.O.BOX 30428 • RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27622 - (919)782-8333 - RALEIGH,NC • CHARLOTTE,NC . HOLLYWOOD,FL * NEW YORK.NY -• 023 Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson November 20, 1986 Page 2 • Manhole No. 14. If field surveys indicate that revisions are necessary below Manhole No. 14, then additional design costs would be incurred provided you still wish to proceed with the design changes . If you are in agreement with this proposal , please indicate by signing in the space provided and forwarding to the Farmers • Home Administration for their approval . Please contact, us if you have any questions . Very truly yours , .• HAZER AND SAWYER, P.C. •• ti" C ordon C. Rui/4 , P.E. Vice Presid-'t • GCR/dve Enclosures cc : Kevin F. Carter, P.E . 024 Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson November 20, 1986 Page 3 I hereby authorize Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. to proceed with the Additional Services described herein. (Date) enne ompson, Coun y Tanager County of Orange, North Carolina WITNESS : igna ure ' ae - APPROVAL BY FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION igna ure . (Title) late 0 • HAZEN AND SAWYER 02 • 5 ENGINEMRS. . STATEMENT OF STANDARD, CHARGES • TIME CHARGEABLE TO PROJECT • Work is billed at 2.25 times payroll costs for time of principals • and employees of Hazen and Sawyer and associated design professional • firms directly 'chargeable to the project. Payroll costs include base salary, vacations, sick leave, holidays, payroll taxes and insurance • • • - and pension plan. These rates apply to time actually devoted to-the • job and to travel required during normal working hours and on week- ends to suit the clients' convenience. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS • • • • Higher rates will apply to appearances and testimony in court and commission proceedings, and to other assignments where warranted by • special circumstances. • • ' • EXPENSES CHARGEABLE TO PROJECT • Expenses such as costs for travel and subsistence, long-distance . telephone, telegraph, use of computer, reproduction costs, soil • borings, laboratory work, and fees for special consultants and • • surveyors authorized by the client, will be billed at actual cost plus 15 percent handling charge. BILLING • Invoices are rendered monthly unless otherwise stipulated. Invoices not paid within forty-five (45) days are considered past due and • subject to a late payment fee of 1-1/2 percent per month (18% annually). • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS • ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITV ABSTRACT ITO NO-.XC MEETING DATE December 1 , 1986 026 5143'47: Respite Care Block Grant Application ......, EDAR• M •: Social Services PUBLIC HEARING• Y x NO VirTACHMIT(S) : INFORMATION cama: Ann Gent , Ext. 546 Jerry M. Passmore, Ext. 280 PHONE mati °Rom 731.1-SB 2-.8181 — HILLSBOROUGH .w 732-.9361 NONE VAPEL HILL, - 987-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM 688-733 T - PURPOSE: To request approval to submit an application for Respite Care assistance funds with the Triangle J Council of Governments effective January 1, 1987 through June 30 , 1987 in the amount of $4,all.00. NEED: The County Departments of Social Services and Aging have identified a need for short-term relief for caregivers of patients they presently do not have funds to help.These are family situations where the -older/impaired member cannot be left alone because of mental or physical problems and whose income precludes coverage under North Carolina Medicaid eligibility standards. The respite care service, if funded, would be coordinated by the inter-depart- -mental Case Management Team (Social Service/Aging) and provided by the existing DSS Chore Program and Home Health Agency Aides. IMPACT: If approved, there would be a $510.00 local match requirement from Department of Social Services. RECOMMENDATION(S) : In-Home Care Board recommended approval on November 19 , 1986 Social Services Board recommended approval on November 21, 1986 027 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: DECEMBER 1, 1986 SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER FOR REVERE ROAD OFFICE COMPLEX DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 CHANGE ORDER TELEPHONE NUMBER; Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider a change order to Mebane Heating and Air Conditioning. NEED: There is a need to alter the supply duct work in the ceiling of the existing building. The ceiling was changed from sheet- rock to suspended ceiling. IMPACT; The total cost to change duct work is $300. 00. This will not require a budget amendment as funding is available within the project contingency account. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve change order. CHANGE .028 . . Distribution to: . ORDER - owN1:R • . ' . lJ /1M DOCUMENT 0701 . . • •. ' ' • ARCI-111[CT- ( . CONTRACTOR f. •. HUD UD 0 . . •• (a - - I'ROIECT: Carr Building Renovation CHANCE ORDER NUMBER: 2 In.Imc•,address) Corbin Street Hillsborough; NC - INITIATION DATE: November 21, 1986: TO (Contractor): • - - • • Mebane Heating & Air Cotiditiont g ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 5568' P.O. Box 756 CONTRACT FOR: Mechanical Construction • Mebane, NC 27302 . • , •- ' .1 - CONTRACT DATE: August 13, 1986 You are direcied to make the following changrs in this Contract: • . • • Item One • • HVAC conditions requiring -repaii where . • . - - exposed after- demolition. . Extra $360.00 • • • - - Resultant Change Order Amount - . . Extra • $300.00 . . • • • • • • • • • • • N.t ,,slid unlit•ignrd by Isdh Ihr(Miler and Arehih.rl- Sil;n.iturr ul Air(•unlrat tor indil"alr. hi% agrrruuvnl hire n iiti. Ilk Iudiul;any aclju.rnw.nt in the Contralti Silo or Contra,' 'Turf.' ' .1 hp origin.11 I('nnlrati Sum) CCXIAY►Y1aGHIIOXI1XNHXXXIMawas „ • $ 19,000 Ni change by previously authorized Change Orders S' 750 The (Contract Sum)XrdWO lKilidOWIROMNNX)if}(M prior to this Change Order was $ - 21,700 lhu. ICunit.ui Stool XCitK3FX c lirf:)SXNaiNDI 6 EGX,Y) will be (increased)] alfiXIMPi Mila, - by This Change Order $ 30.0 The new ICunlr,u-t SumiX9(CLHXo}nietiiKa iXINHXXtXt(including This Change Order will he ... $ •- 22,000 The Contract Time will be J(D(Ciri X NKRXX> l( (unchanged) by ( -0- )Oa. . The Rile of Substantial Completion as•ot the dale of Ihi;Change Ortkr therefore is - CHR Associates, PA Aulhrrrizt:cl:. , - Mebane Heating & Air Cond. County of Orange 131(311Airport Road c hAB oUx 756 (1► 6 E. Mar:aret Lane At I lrr•• Arldnh. Addre.s Chapel Hill, NC 27514 _ Mebane, NC 27302 Hillsborough, NC 27278 L'1' -- - IiY IllY I)•∎1(.18'1/ eZ J E� IMF. �,:.'—. i DATE AIA DoCUAtrNi Caul • (IIANt;r t)on1.: • APBIp Mill IDIluit • ,ur • ...Tim 1111 An11 Klt AN 1`x111(111 t)I AR(11111 t•IN, 171:NI W 1't)R):.wr.•N-►1•..%%AMI11\(.lc(N.IU .JriN. - G701--19 , A ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGEWA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM MEETING DATE December 1, 1986 029 susjEcT: Transportation Board Operational By-Laws OEPARTMBIT: Aging PUBLIC HEARING: •■• =■END x AtiACHMEIT(S) : Transportation Board romeilmoN CONTACT:Jerry M. Passmore Operational By-Laws PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 722-6181 HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9257 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 668-731 • PURPOSE: To approve the Orange County Transportation Advisory Board Operational By-Laws as developed by the Transportation Board. NEED: The updated County Transportation Development Plan approved June 17 , 1986 requires County Transportation Committee to oversee the development of the plan. An established set of By-Laws is • needed to clarify the change and responsibilities of this Board to the County Commissioners, the participating agencies and general public. • IMPACT: If approved, the By-Laws would serve as an effective operational tool in better coordinating human service transpotation. The adoption will require County Commissioners appointment of at- large members to this board. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Transportation Board members approved of the By-Laws on October 14 , 1986. MEMMENOMmommimmr 030 .- . ORANGE COUNTY - . TRANSPORTATION BOARD • ouerational By-Laws • ARTICLE I - NAME - • The name .of the board established by 'the Orange County- Commissioners is the Orange County Transportation Board. ARTICLE II - POWERS. AND DUTIES . The Transportation Board shall be responsible for the following _duties; (1) Serve as a liaison between the residents of Orange C©unty and the- County Government - concerning transportation issues_ - . , _ (2) . Serve as the advisory body to. Orange County. Department on Aging, as lead agency, in the operation of the Coordinated -Agency Transportation . (CAT) Program. (3) Recommend policy to the Board of County Commissioners,. particularly with respect to a comprehensive, coordinated, cost effective approach to the delivery of transportation services both 'public and human services_ • (4) . Work to stimulate and promote- needed transportation services 'and . programs for Orange County .residents. . . 15) Assist' public and voluntary agencies in. providing transportation services to .their clients. • (6) Assist in developing and updating- the Orange County Transportation Portativn Development Plan (TDP) . (7) Perform other functions and duties •as may from time to time be . requested and prescribed by the Board of County Commissioners. . • • • 031 ARTICLE III - COMPOSITION • 1. Number and •ualifications The Orange County Transportation Board is composed of nine citizens of Orange County. Of the nine Board members, the following agencies will have automatic appointments*: Orange COunty Department on Aging, Joint : . Orange-Chatham Community Action, -0.P.C- Mental Health Center, Orange Chatham • ComprehensiVe Health Service6, andc_Oragge,COunty' Manager'sr.,Office. The remaining four non-agency members shall be chosen at large by the Orange County Board of Commissioners with priority being given to one private tran- sit0 operator. Agencies may also select an Official Alternate. _ . 2. Terms and Replacements - . Non-agency members of the Transportation Board shall serve two year terms but no. board member may serve more than two consecutive two• year terms. - • . 3. _Marmillg0U1241., • All _vacancies on the Transportation. Board occurring from any cause shall be filled by appointment by the County Board of Commissioners, or the Agency appointee. The person appointed shall serve for the unexpired portion of the term. • • 4. Attendance Any member of the Board who misses more than three consecutive meetings shall lose his/her status as a member of the Board and shall be replaced by the Orange County Board of commissioners or Agency appointing them. * Following the second absence, the Secretary will notify the member in writing of the attendance policy. . . ' ge o U . 032 -• 5 . A.enc A• .ointments and A ternates • - - An officially appointed alternate .may represents the agency and . shall have full. voting privileges. ARTICLE IV - REGULAR MEETINGS . - 1. Dates and Location - Regular meetings of the. Orange County Transportation Board wili • be conducted on the second (2nd) Tuesday of each month, and will begun at . . 9;60 A.M. 'All .meetings will-be- conducted with a maximum time limit of two (2) hours. ' Location' of meetings will be rotated between a northern ..and • southern Orange County location as established by'the Board. _ • • 2. Quorum -- • A majority of. the Board then. in office •shall constitute, a quorum for the .transaction. of business for any meeting of the Board. . •� 2. Voting • Each member of the Transportation Board shall have one •vote. In . the absence of an agency appointed member, the official agency alternate registered with the Chairperson of the Transportation Board, •may excerise - that vote.. . • . - ARTICLE V = OFFICERS . ' - ' .. • 1. Number and Title The principal officers of the Board shall be a chairperson, vice-- chairperson and secretary. 2. ' Election _ .• The chairperson, vice-chairperson and secretary shall be elected by the board for a term of one year- at its -first meeting in the County fiscal year or until. his/her successor shall be dully elected and qualified, • . - --- paciml...1" • . . . . . . 033 . . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . • 3. Vacancies • . . . . . . . --.. -. Any vacancy in any office elected by the board may be filled by -i- - the board for the unexpired portion of the term. . . . 4. Chairperson . . • . . . .. . , . . - - The chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the board and . - . • Shall represent the board in approved activities on its behalf. 5, : Vice-Chairperson • . . . . • - .. . . . . . In the absence of the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson shall per- form the duties of' the Chairperson. • - . . . . . . . . . 6. Secretary • • . . . . • • • . . . . .. . . . . , . - . . . • : The Secretary shall:. , . . . _ . . . , . . • . • (a) record and keep a file of the minutes Of the meetings of the - .board. - . . , . . .. . • . . • (b) see that all notices of meetings are duly given and . . . _ .- - .- .(c) in general, perform all duties incident to the office of. - -- _ secretary. - . . , • . - . . • . . . . . . . . • ARTICLE VI - COMMITTEES ' -. - . • . . . . . , . . . . . . . - • . • The Board may designate one or more Committees as it shall determine. • • . . Persons not Board members may be named to committees, but they may' riot serve•as chairperson of that committee. . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . ARTICLE VII - RULES OF ORDER . . . . ' At .all meetings of the Board and of such committes as may be established • by it, parliamentary procedure shall be governed by the latest edition of ' Roberts Rules of Order, and as modified by rules of the Board. . 1 • • . . : - • , . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.. ' , • • F Page 5 of 5 034 ARTICLE VIII -- AMENDMENTS , . AMENDMENTS These by-laws may be adopted, altered or appealed by the affirmative votes of a mojority of the members in office at any regular or special . meeting of the Board, but only if the written notice of such meeting shall have contained a copy or an accurate summary and explanation of the-pro- posed by-laws amendment, alteration, or repeal as the case may be.. The , written notice of the proposed by-law change must be mailed' at least 7 days prior to the meeting. Amended by-laws shall then be submitted to the Orange County Board of Commissioners for final approval, - Adopted by Transportation Committee October 14, 1986 Adopted by County Commissioners . • ORANGE COUNTY 035 • BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA Aft ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO:M1 MEETING DATE . DWEMBER 1, 1986 SUBJECT: Approval of 1986-87 Workplan for Re-mapping Project, completion of Phase 2 and part of Phase 3 . DEPARTMENT: Central Land Records I PUBLIC HEARING: YES )c NO • ATTACHMENT(S): Memorandum INFORMATION CONTACT: Roscoe Reeve PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181--- HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 Ext 547 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 • DURHAM - 688-7331 • PURPOSE: to approve the 1986-87 workplan for the re-mapping project , and to issue a workplan letter to. L Robert Kimball & AssoCiates completing ' Phase 2 and- a part of Phase 3, and storage and reproduction equipment for base maps already received. NEED: Phase 2 completion will provide the base .and topographic 'orthophoto ' s for Chapel Hill- Township, Phase 3 (modified) will provide aerial photography of the other Townships in the County, and the equipment for storing and reproducing the new base maps . i This s an on-going process of the Agreement between L Robert Kimball & Associates and County for a multi-year, multi-phase remapping of County to provide more accurate base and cadstral maps for all • County land offices and citizens . • IMPACT: the total cost of the workplan is* $63, 306., with funds to be provided by the County ($38,467) , State Matching Grant ($8,000) , and partici- . , pating "fair-share" agencies [Engineering Department, Town of Chapel Hill ; Planning Department, Town of Carrboro; UNC-CH] ($16,839) . The plan will complete Phase 2 topographic orthophoto ' s of Chapel Hill Township, provide ground control and aerial photography in Phase 3, and purchase map storage cabinet -and copier to store and reproduce base maps of Chapel Hill Township already received as a part of Phase 2 . This will require an additional $627 of County funds and a budget amendment will follow. RECOMMENDATION(S) : that the Commissioners approve the workplan to complete Phase 2, the control and aerial photography portion of Phase 3, and the purchasing of necessary equipment . _ . 036 CENTRAL LAND TITLE RECORDS PROJECT ORANGE COUNTY ROSCOE E. REEVE 208 South Cameron Street HILLSBOROUGH. N. C.27278 LAND RECORDS MGR. GERALDINE H.WEATHERS ASST. REGISTER OF DEEDS MEMORANDUM To : Orange County Board of Commissioners From: Roscoe E. Reeve, Land Records Manager 40*. Date : November 25, 1986 Subject: Approval of Workplan for Re-mapping Project, 198,6;-1987, Remainder of Phase 2 and part of Phase 3 . In the budget for this fiscal year you approved $37,840 within the' cavital funds for the mapping;Trdlect and supporting equipment. This amount represents 24% of a phase completion amount . that would keep the County on a current contract schedule, . $157,859 . 'That schedule for 1986-87 would have been: Item' . Phase 2 Phase 3 Available Funds Finish Topo maps $35,701 $6,062 (Chapel Hill) of Chapel Hill ' 2,357 (Carrboro) 8, 0.9 (UNC) Aerial Photography of $12,878 8,400 (State) otter Townships,pre-panneling • Ground Control (Horizontal) 7 , 727 37 ,840 (County) Analytical - 27 , 618 , Ortho'photo Base Mapa, of 65,408 other Townships,, Bond 1 ,527 ; Vacuum-frame:'Copier 5,300 — Vertical Map Cabinet 1, 700 Total $35,701 $115, 158 $62 , 679 In cooperation with the Contractor, we propose the following workplan and costs for this year, completing Phase 2 and a part of Phase 3 of the Agreement : • 037 • MEMORANDUM to the Board of Commissioners - Page 2 Item Cost County Cost Complete Phase 2 Topo ' s $35, 701 $18,862 Aerial Photo' s 12,878 12,878 Ground Control 7 , 727 7,727 Vaccum Copier 5,300 5,300 Vertical Map Cabinet 1 ,700 1 ,700 Sub-Total $63,306 $46,467 Less State Grant ($8,000) Total: $38,467 This plan leaves a balance of $94,553 for Phase 3 for next year (1987-88) , while Phase 4 that is scheduled for 1987-88 totals $145, 183 . 50 and begins the property mapping, or cadastral , phases . O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT 038 Meeting Date December li 1986 Action Agenda SUBJECT: PD-1-86 EUBANKS ROAD TOWNHOUSES Item #�' �. DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact: Greg Szymik Vicinity Map; Planning Staff Memo of 11-17-86; Memo from John Loving dated 10-23-86; Minutes of 10-13-86 Public Hearing; Chapel Hill Town Council Minutes and Resolution of 11-10-86; 11-17-86 Planning Board Findings; 11-17-86 Planning Board Minutes. (See also 10-13-86 agenda packet.) Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider for approval the proposed planned development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit request submitted by John Loving for the project known as Eubanks Road Town- houses. This item was considered at public hearings on April 3, 1986. May, 5. 1986. and October 13. 1986. The project is in the Joint Planning Area. To receive the Chapel Hill Town Council and Orange County Planning Board recommendations. NEED: John Loving is requesting a planned development rezoning of property located on the north side of Eubanks Road (SR 1727) west of the I-40/NC86 Interchange in Chapel Hill Township. The property is known as Tax Map 18 Lot 8 for Chapel Hill Township. The parcel contains 19.2 acres or 837.059 square feet. The property is located within an area designated Twenty Year Transition in the adopted Orange County Land Use Plan. A Land Use Plan amendment redesignating the property from Rural Buffer to Twenty Year Transition was approved June 4. 1984. MEMMOMEmmommEmmEmmy 039 The Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan indicates that the site as well as surrounding properties to the north and east are to be used for Office/Institutional purposes. Residential uses such as that proposed would be permitted. The present zoning of the property is Residential-1 (R-1) . The property is also subject to the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) overlay zoning district standards. The applicant is requesting a planned development rezoning to Planned Development-Housing-Residential-8 (PD-H-R-8) . IMPACT: Rezoning of the property would allow the clustered develop- ment of the property for townhouses for sale. The applicant has submitted a memorandum indicating that he will reduce the number of units from 137 to 120. He has further indicated his willingness to provide a left turn lane on Eubanks Road at its intersection with N.G. 86. (See attached memorandum.) RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends that the Planned Development- Housing-Residential 8 (PD-H--R--8) rezoning be approved and the Special Use Permit be issued subject to the following conditions: 1. That the private loop road serving the development be constructed in compliance with NCDOT pavement standards as specified on page 7 of the NCDOT manual on Minimum Construction Standards for Subdivision Roads. The loop road shall be constructed to serve each phase prior to the occupancy of any unit in the phase. (The unpaved portion of the loop road is to be used as a construction entrance.) 2. That Eubanks Road be improved to 1/2 of a 47-foot cross section with curb. gutter and sidewalk with dedication of 1/2 of an 80-foot right-of-way. 3. That final plans for all proposed improvements to Eubanks Road be according to Town standards with corresponding right-of-way widths as required under the Town Design Manual and approved by the Town Manager, County Manager and NCDOT prior to issuance of a Special Use Permit and that final plans for construction of the loop road be approved by the County Manager and NCDOT prior to issuance of a Special Use Permit. 4. That the central recreation area include a picnic facility. The location and design of the tot lot shown on the site plan and the picnic facility shall be reviewed and approved by the Orange County and Town of Chapel Hill Recreation Advisory Commissions. Recreation facilities shall be handicapped accessible and include handicapped parking areas. 5. That additional plantings be provided between buildings. 6. That final utility plans be approved by OWASA. Duke 040 Power, Southern Bell, and Village Cable before issuance of the Special Use Permit. All lines shall be . underground. Sewer lines and facilities shall be sized in a manner consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area. 7. That all required easement documents be recorded prior to initiation of construction activity. 8. That a stormwater management plan with hydrologic calculations be approved by the Orange County Manager and the Town Manager prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit. 9. That a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer before issuance of the Special Use Permit, 10. That a detailed landscaping plan be approved by the County Manager and Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Special Use Permit. Construction fences, protecting areas of the site that are to remain undisturbed, shall be erected and maintained during all construction activity. 11. That all structures be erected in compliance with applicable building codes following application for and issuance of building permits. 12. That the phasing of the project be revised as follows: PROPOSED-Phase 5 RECOMMENDED-Phase 7 Phase 6 Phase 5 Phase 7 Phase 6 13. That the final site plan and narrative of the project, incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project, be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to remain on file with the Orange County Planning Department and Chapel Hill Planning Department. Grading and building permits, upon application, will be issued after approval and recordation of the. Special Use Permit. 14. That a final boundary survey of the Planned Development including public improvements and utility easements be recorded by the developer upon issuance of the Special Use Permit. 15. That the grantee of this Special Use Permit post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all public improvements plus 10% . The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. Security for construction of the improvements in this project may follow phasing in the 041 project. Specifically, as improvements are completed in each phase, a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements. 16. That the development be built and operating according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions. 17 . That roads, parking areas, walkways, street signs, utilities, recreation facilities and sites, and landscaping be maintained as constructed. All such improvements and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. 18. That a revised site plan be submitted showing construction - of 120 townhouse units phased for construction in a sequence equivalent to that conatained in condition # 12. 19. That a left turn lane be constructed on Eubanks Road at its intersection with N.C. 86 in accordance with NCDOT specifications, with final plans approved by the County Manager and NCDOT prior to construction. 20. That a payment-in-lieu of recreation area in the amount of $10.702 be made at the time of final subdivision plan approval or within one year of approval of the preliminary plat, whichever comes first, and that 2.42 acres of private recreation area be provided on-site for use by townhouse residents. 21. That the continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned upon compliance with or fulfillment of these conditions, and upon compliance with applicable provisions of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance and regulations thereunder. 22. That if any of the above conditions shall be held invalid or void, then this approval shall be void and of no effect. The Planning Board also recommends that the Commissioners contact NCDOT and request them to evaluate the speed limit on Eubanks Road and Northwood Drive and the possibility of installing a traffic light at the intersection of Eubanks Road and N.C. 86. Article 8.2.2 states that where a preponderance of evidence indicates compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use. and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless it is found, in some specific manner that; 1. The use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare if located where 042 proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; 2. The use will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; 3. The use is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the county as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The burden of proving one or more of the above findings is on those opposing the application. The proof must also be in the form of competent material and substantial evidence. The Planning Board reviewed the application, the site plan and all supporting documentation and found that no information was received which would establish grounds for making one or more of the above findings. The Chapel Hill Town Council considered the request at its November 10, 1986 meeting and recommended denial. Reasons cited for the recommendation included the following: 1. Site plan fails to provide adequate on-site recreation facilities as required by Orange County regulations. (Testimony presented that Orange County regulations required 1.74 acres of recreation space for 137 units; Chapel Hill regulations required 0.64 acres. Reduction in number to units to 120 would require 2.42 acres of on- site recreation by applicant. Comments made by Town Council indicated lack of understanding of how Orange County standards are applied. Council Member Smith indicated concern that residents would be using Chapel Hill facilities, since no County facilities are available for residents use. Purpose of payment-in-lieu is to use funds to develop park sites as they are acquired through acquisition or dedication. One principal site proposed for recreational purposes is landfill area. Additional land was incorporated into Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan for this purpose at Chapel Hill' s request. Council members were under the impression that total recreation area required for dedication was 5.85 acres (based on 137 units) and that County was requiring 1.74 acres private and payment-in-lieu on remainder-4.11 acres. County provisions required that 1.74 acres be private recreational facilities on-site and that difference be dedicated or payment-in-lieu made. Since no park site or greenway was shown on JPA Land Use Plan, payment-in-lieu required.) 2. Payment-in-lieu of recreational facilities is not t 043 appropriate for this project. (Payment-in-lieu recommended was initially $12.823, now $10,702, based on 120 units. Payment-in-lieu based on 1987 assessed valuation as required by ordinance. County considered method used by Chapel Hill in determining payment-in-lieu at time ordinance was under consideration for adoption but elected to use "assessed valuation" method. JPA Agreement indicates that Orange County standards will be followed.) 3 . Proposed development is inappropriately located with respect to pattern and timing of existing and proposed development in the Comprehensive Plan, and with repsect to public and private facilities existing or clearly to be available by the time the development reaches the stage where they will be needed. (JPA Land Use Plan adopted 10-13-86 designates area as Office-Institutional. Chapel Hill plan designates Mixed- Use, a similar designation. Orange County Zoning Ordinance permits single-family and multi-family development in 0-I district. Chapel Hill "Mixed-Use" designation permits similar uses. Area south of Eubanks Road is designated "Suburban Residential", permitting 1-5 units per acre. Chapel Hill Interim Land Use Plan recommends "Medium Density" residential, permitting 4-8 units per acre. Proposed density of 6.25 units per acre, based on 120 units, is in keeping with pattern of development. Council Member Preston indicated a preference of 33% site coverage. The applicant, by reducing the number of units, had reduced site coverage to 45% from 48%. The MTC District requires 25% of site to be left in open space. The 55% open space area proposed by the applicant through buffers and recreation areas is more than double that required by ordinance. Concerns about timing and the availability of public facilities are met either through assurances of service by OWASA or through the phasing of the project with respect to 1-40 completion. The applicant testified at the public hearing that the project phasing completion dates were off by as much as six months. With the reduction in number of units, traffic generation would be reduced from 1068 trips per day to 936 trips. If reductions in units were made in Phase 5, 26 units, and Phase 6, 23 units, and project phasing were moved back six months, total traffic from the project using 1-40 prior to its opening in the summer of 1989 would be 468 trips. This would represent 50% of total project traffic. The Staff report also indicated that 40% of all trips would be during peak hours or travel-to-work periods. The remaining 60% of trips for shopping and entertainment- 562-would be during non-peak hours. Based on the revised phasing referenced above, 187 trips per day would be during peak hour periods prior to the opening of 1-40. 044 The remaining 281 trips would be during off-peak hours.) FINDINGS RELATED TO PD-1-86 EUBANKS ROAD TOWNHOUSES 01 Planned developments must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article 8 set forth in Article 7 for Planned Developments. Article 8.2.1 b)' requires written findings certifying for Special uses as well as thosf following: y g compliance with the (1) Specific regulations governing individual Special Uses as set forth in Article #i.8 These divided into two (2) sections which include: s regulations are (a) Application components; and (b) Specific standards for Planned Developments {Article 8.8.23 refers to Article ] standards) and Special Uses (Article 8.2.4) , (2) Other requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, Including the provisions of A Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements), rticle (Dimensional Listed below are .tire findings of the Orange County Planning Board in have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board of Comm s o regarding rs ein pipts deliberations.question. The findings s ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 -. APPLICATION COMPONENTS ('EYES" indicates compliance- "NO" Indicates noncom liance) Planning Board findings Based Ordinance Re ul�ements on Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Support Findings BOCO • �- - — 8.6 - Application submitted on X Yes No Findinac forms providing full and accurate --- Application submitted. Yes No description of proposed use, Including location, appearance and operational characteristics 8.8 a)•Twenty-six (26) cnnlps of the X Yes No site plan prepared by a reglsteved '�- Copies submitted. N.C, land surveyor or engineer containing: "Mesa 1. North point, scale and date X Yes N fl . . Shawn on site plan. • 2. Extent of area 'to be developed X Yes NA Shown an silo plan. Yes ;o --... ,._. 3. Location and width of all ease- Yes No ments and rights-of-way within or $djacetlt 'to the site �Yes .K.No Location and..wJdth of a l l easements and rights'- Of-way shown, except width of power' lure easement, Yes �No __ ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 APPLICATION COMPONENTS (Continued) Planning Board Findings Based Ordinance- Requlremenls on Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Su BOCC 2��ns Findings 4. Location of all existing or pro- posed structures on the site _ _Y es No Shown on site plan. Yes No S. Location of ail areas on ,the site Yes NO subject to flood hazard or inunda- Not applicable. tion as Shown on flood maps or .__2es No soil maps 6. Location of all water- courses Yes No on the site, including the Not app7l:cable. direction of flow --Yes No 7. Existing topography at a contour -A—Ve s No Shown on site plan. interval of five (5) feet based on mean sea level datum Yes No 8. Proposed or existing fencing, Yes No screening, gates, parking, Shown on site plan. Yes No service and storage 'areas 9. Access to site fnicluding .sIte Yes No distances on all roads used for Shown on site plan, Yes N o access 10. Elevations of all structures X Yes Na. Shown on site plan. ' proposed to be used In the Yes No development, 11 , Names and addresses of owners and applicants _X_Yes No. Shown on site plan. Yes No 12. A Fee, as set by the Board of X Yes No Fee received upon appli County, COmmi.ssloners Catlon, Yes No ARTICLE 8.2,4 SE'CCiFIC STANDA;,. `fA,LL SPECIAL USES {"Ves" .Incllrates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) K3 Ordinance Re uirements Planning Board Findings Based . nn Sithmittarl 4, 1;.--tionEvidence 'Submitted to Support 'Findings' Fin] ings Article 8.2.4 requires the applicant � . to address the following: a} Method and adequacy provision fa far sewage disposal facilities, X Yes No OWASA' indicated that the proposed Yes' No solid waste and water service internal and utility layout is adequate and that the off-site extension-proposals are acceptable (Oral comment received 3-3-$6 from John Greene, Asst. Chief Engineer) OWASA has indicated need for minimum 6" water and $" sewer lines. bj Method and adequacy of police, X Yes No Service agencies have indicated -No fire and rescue squad protec- willingness and ability to serve Yes tian the site . (see attached letters) , c} Method and adequacy of vehicle X Yes �No -Loop road system satisfies Chapel Hill Yes access to the site and traffic staff -concerns with fire protection :.. —No conditions around the site service accessibility, to site. NCDOT expressed concerns with sight distance looking east from easternmost entrance and indicated a preference for a single versus a dual access {oral comments received 3-4-86 from- Dwight Kelly, Division Traffic inglneer), Chapel Hill Transportation Planner -04assifies Eubanks Road as ultimately t. - ng as a minor �rterlal- (See Cond' h ARTICLE 8.8.23 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Article 8.8.23 indicates that the application shall comply with the applicable sections of Article 7 - Planned Development ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED' DEVELOPMENTS ("Yes" indicates com fiance; "No" Indicates noncompliance) Planning Board Findings Based BOCC Ordlnance. Requirements On .Submitted ApplicatiorEvidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 7.4 indicates the applica- tion must first comply with all requirements specified in Article 20 - Amendments. Those requirements include: 20.3.2 a) flap showing affected X Yes No Provided by applicant. Yes No ,property at scale of not less than 1" o 100' nor more than I" - 20'. 20.3.2 bj Legal description of X Yes No Provided by applicant. Yes No property 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged Yes No No error alleged. Yes No error, if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, if X Yes No Applicant cites growth in area Yes No any, which make amendment rpasona• '" " 1-40 impacts and the proposed provision ably necessary to promote-public of the full range of urban. services to the health, safety and generat*welfare site. (See Statement of Justification). 20,3.2 e) Mariner in which proposed X Yes ...No Applicant cites Transition Area Yes No amendment will carry out purpose designation of the property In the and 'Intent of adopted Comprehensive adopted Land Use Plan and the adopted 0-I Plan designation in the proposed Joint Planning Area Plan. 00 ARTICLE 7 SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Ordinance Requi rements Planning Board Findings Based BOCC on Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Artltle' 7.4 then indicates the C) . -application must comply with certain specific requirements common to all Planned Develop- ments. These include: 7.4.1 so located with respect to X Yes No Access to site is from Eubanks Road, • major streets and mass transit classified as a minor arterial. 1-40 Yes No facilities and designed so as not interchange is located 1700' east of site. to create traffic on minor streets No minor residential streets will be In residential districts affected by development of the site. 7.4.2 so located with respect to X Yes —No. Applicant bears cost of improvements Yes No water, sewer, and storm drainage and extension of facilities to serve facilities that enlargement or site. extension will not result in higher net public cost or earlier Incursion of public cost and So located with respect to Yes No Service provided and school/park Yes No policeiftre and rescue services, facilities provided at same level as and schools and parks so as to to site under current zoning. have access In the same manner as permitted under the existing zoning 7.4.3 Site -suitable for develop- _.)LYes No ment without hazard from flooding, No physical constraints (steep slopes, Yes No erosion, and soil subsidence or flood plains, poor soils) are present slipping on site, ARTICLE 7 SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS {Continued) on Planning Board Findings Based BOCC Ordinance Requirements on Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 7.14.3 sets forth "site planning" standards with which an applicant must comply. Standards regarding "external relationships" are as follows: a)1. Access points provided to X Yes- No encourage smooth traffic Dual access satisfies Chapel Hill fire '__yes No flow with controlled turn- protection service accessibility standards, ing movements and minimum NCDOT indicated preference for single entrance hazard to vehicular or - to site. Applicant provides turning lanes pedestrian traffic. Use of along Eubanks Road. minor streets by substan- tial traffic is discouraged. a)2. Safe and convenient routes _.X_Yes No Pedestrian routes provided on site plan. Yes No provided for pedestrians Crossings to be marked on site. and motorcyclists. Crossings safely marked, located and Sight distances along Eubanks Road meets controlled. Chapel Hill design standards. Oral a)3. Visibility provided at Inter- X Yes No comments received from NCDOT indicate sections (pedestrian and vehicular) Inadequate sight distance east of —Yes No In accordance with Article 6.8, easternmost exit (5501 required on 55 mph road) on Eubanks Road, a)11- 100-foot open space provided X Yes No 100-foot open space provided along Yes No along perlim'eter of PD-It district. residentially zoned northern,. southern Recreational use and off-street and eastern property boundaries. 50-foot parking set back at least 75 feet open space provided adjacent to of district boundary. industrially zoned property (zoned light 05. Yards, fences, walks or Industrial). "' 'Yes NO vegetation provided to screen _ Screening and landsciping provided Yes Yo off undesirable views, light- along property boundaries- and dumpsters. Lng, noise, etc. Parking/ Additlonal plantings suggested adjacent to loading areas and refuse collec- power line easement and Western property line. tion/storage areas screened. (See Condition M. 01 ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS {Continued} CR Planning Board Findings Based Bocc I-" . Ordinance Requirements on Submitted A rnn Evidence Submitted To Support Pport Findings . _EindinJa Article 7.14.3 standards continued: a)b. Maximum building Yes No height compiles with Building details indicate building mean L Yes No standards set forth height of 22 feet. in Article 6,12,3 and Article 5. 1. 1 a)7. Signs' to be erected in Yes No Sign details provided on site plan yes No accordance with Article g, satisfy standards limiting signage to Standards regarding "internal 16 square feet and one double faced or two relationships" are as follows: single faced signs per entrance. W. Streets, drives and parking X Yes No Loop road provides safe and convenient Yes . No areas provide safe and con- access to dwelling units, — venient access for dwellings and emergency vehicles, and do not create small black sizes. b)2. Vehicular access controlled as follows: a) Streets serving 50 or Yes No less dwellings provide Not applicable, Yes a direct access to parking/ service areas, b}2, b) Streets serving greater X Yes _No Off-street parking facilities are Yes No than 50 dwellings provide provided, access to parking areas so located, designed and controlled as to channel traffic without interruption, � V 03. Walkways form safe, con- LYes No Walkway details provided on site plan Yes No venient system of access to provide a safe and convenient access for dwellings, facilities and dwelling units and community facilities, off-site designations, � Maximum walking distance Crossings are to be marked on site between dwellings and parking, delivery and refuse collection areas does not exceed 100 feet, ARTICLE .7 SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS '(Continued} Planning Board Findings Based 30CC Ordinance Requirements on Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 7.14.3 standards continued: Walkways used as play -A—Yes —No Walkway system on site plan No areas or school routes Yes by. children located and minimizes contact with vehicular traffic. designed to minimize Crossings to be marked on-site. contact with vehicular traffic. Crossings appropriately marked and safeguarded. 04. Protection of visib'itity- See a)3.- and b)3, above. b)5. Open space and spacing between buildings See Article 6 standards. 07 ARTICLE 6 APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) Planning Board Findings Based Ordinance Requirements on Submitted Application " Evidence Submitted To Support Fi'!d BOCC ! 1 gs n Fi Md i Article 6.24 Standards (ContTnudd) e) 3. No more than 10 L� _Yes N o Site plan 'Includes landscaped parking Yes No parking spaces medians In compliance with the standard. allowed in a con- tinuous row without division by land-scaped median strip. 4. Type A 'Screen is x Yes No Site plan indicates the provision of Type A Yes No required. Standards for screen along property lines adjacent to that type include the residentially zoned property, in compliance following: with the standard provided in the Table An opaque screen composed of Screening Requirements in the Orange of intermittent visual County Zoning Ordinance. obstructions reaching a height of 20 feet and a continuous screen reaching a height of 6 feet. Screen is intended to create strong impression of spacial separation and to exclude visual contact between uses. ARTICLE b - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ( "Yes;" indicates com d ance- '.INc0 indicates noncompilance) Planning "Board Findings Based Ordinance Requirements On Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To'Support Findings Findings Article 6 lists specific standards. which apply to .various types of development applications. Article 6.12 contains those development intensity standards which apply to .. group developments controlled by the Land Use Intensity (LUi) system. a) Minimum gross land Yes No area 00(1 sq. ft. Gross land area for project is 868,264.4 Yes No square feet. �' b) Maximum gross' land yes No area - NIA sq. ft. . Yes No C) Maximum floor area ratio - X Yes No Floor area proposed is 206,375 square yes Na =x-.283 =.,,_.• feet or 84% of the permitted floor .area. Maximum floor area (Proposed reduction from 137 to 120 units N1 .+�I - would reduce floor area by approximately sq. ft. 2,380 sq.ft.) d) Required minimum open X Yes No Open space proposed is 753.919 square Yes „_ No space ratio feet: or 15% more than the required Required minimum open minimum-open space. Space - "���+ +. sq. ft, (Open space would be increased by approximately 2,380 sq.ft. by reduction in number of units.) CD CAI . rA ARTICLE 5 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (*'Yes" indicates cone fiance; "Noll Indicates noncompliance) cri Planning Board Findings Based BOCC W Ordinance Requirements . * an Submi tted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 5 lists standards for minimum lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building height and lot coverage., and development intensity. The applicant has applied for a PD-H-R-8 designation. The sta—nFa—rds for that district are set forth in Article 5.1. 1 and are as follows: a) Minimum lot area per Yes NO dwelling unit - _N/A —Yes No sq.ft. b) Minimum lot width Yes No NIA sq. ft. Yes No C) Required front setback Yes- No N/A ft. Yes No d) Required side and rear Yes No Yes No setbacks N ft, 0 Maximum-building height X Yes No Building elevations Indicate compliance Yes No 25 ft. with standard, Butlding height is deffne*d as mean height between eave. fine and ridge line. Eave line Ts 181 , Compliance with lot coverage ridge line Is 261 . and development intensity Mean height Is 22' . standards' Is addressed in Article 6. ARTICLE .6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) Planning Board Findings Based 'BOCC Ordinance Requirements on Submitted Evidence Submitted To Su Findings" � port s- is .. '�_ _ Findings .. Article 6. 12 standards (continued) . f) Required minimum live- Yes - No Livability space' proposed is 604 4 square Yes No ability4�pace ratio - Y P P P 39 q Required feet or 4$% more than the required livability minimum liveability space - space. 416.766.91 sq. ft. (Reduction in number of units will increase liveability space by approximately- 13,430 sq.ft. ) . g) Required minimum recreatlon Yes. x No (Planning Board finds required private Yes do space ratio - ,{}� .. ._, recreation space 'iS 2.42 acres. Applicant has Required minimum recreation shown 1.08 -acres on site plan. An additional ' space - _36 ,,fiZ:_104 -sq., ft. 1.34 acres is required.) SEE CONDITION #20. h) Required minimum open Y,--Yes No Building details provided by applicant Yes _ No space adjacent to bui ld have been reviewed by staff to determine Wing walls ($ unit building) compliance with building to building setback requirements. Applicant has Primary walls 22,$ ft. indicated minimum building to Secondary walls ft. building setbacks of 25 feet. C11 ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) Planning Board .Findings Based Ordinance Requirements on Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Fin—ndi-�..'qs -BOCC Article 6.24 contains those standards applicable in the MTC-Major Transportation 01 Corridor district. These standards include the Following: a) Minimum of 25' of total • Yes No No lot area shall remain More than 25% of the .total Tot area will remain uncovered. uncovered as indicated on the site plan. (Applicant's reduction in number of units will' renit in 48% of- lot area remaining b) 1tlO-#oot buffer uncovere Yes No Not applicable. Yes No required adjacent to edge of Interstate highway right-of-way. Kept in natural state or landscaped in I accordance with approved landscape plan. c) -Front, rear, and X Yes No Applicant provides 1©0-foot setback along Yes No redo yard setbacks the northern, southern and eastern property lines required as follows( and a 50-foot setback .along the western property line. . 1. 100 feet adjacent; to Interstate right- or-way. 2. 5l} rest adjacent to other property lines. ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATIbN'O F 0IMENSIONAI_,11EQUIREMENTS (Continued} Planning Board Findings Based B©CC Ord I nan ce. Re qu I re men ts On Submitted Application Evidence Subn►ittec: To Ssspport Findincl, Findings , Article 6.24 standards (continued) d) Off-street parking and loading shat l conform w 1 th the requirements of Article 10. The off- X Yes Na Parking spaces are indicated on site plan. ,_,_Yes , No street parking standard �` for the proposed use is 2R6 spaces are proposed (276-dwelling units; as follows- 8-pool; 2-tennis courts). " 2 spaces per dwelling unit 2 spaces per tennis court 1 space per 140 square feet of pool Application of the standard results in a requirement of 284 137 dwelling units - 274 spaces 1 tennis court - 2 spaces 1400 sq. -ft. pool - 8 spaces e} Signage shall conform Yes _—No Slgn-age standard limits subdlvisionldevelopment Yes No with the requirements of sign to 16 square feet and l double-faced or 2 Article 9. single-faced signs.. Applicant satlsfies size and Q face standards: CJ"1 ART; UE 6 - A,, Planning ,J�oard findings Based a Ordinance Requirements on Submitted Application BOX VW Evidence S ubmitted To* Support Find in s Findings CD Article .6.24 standards (Con t i nued) f) The development shall conform with the requirements of Article .12 - Landscaping and Screening. These standards are as follows: 1. Street frontage, land- X Yes No Standard requires compliance along Eubanks Yes No a 10- g must include Road. Twenty-three (23) trees are required. a 10-foot landscaped area planted with one Existing vegetation and proposed screening will - tree per Ito feet, a satisfy the standard. A detailed landscaping hedge or other durable plan must be submitted for review and approval. landscape material at (See Condition #10) least 3 feet in height, and and grass or ground cover. 2. Peripheral landscaping . Yes No Standard must be satisfied along eastern must include a 10-foot g property Yes No landscap,ing area planted fine. Fourteen (14) trees are required. Existing with one tree per 60 feet, vegetation and proposed screening will satisfy the a hedge or other durable standard, A detailed landscaping plan must be landscape material at submitted for review and approval . ($ee Condition least 3 feet in height, #10) and grass of ground cover. 3, Interior landscaping must Yes F to Site plan provides landscaping details In Yes No Provide coverage of at `... least 5% of any other compliance with standards. (see 0gn4f tlon #10) vehicular use area. 060 8 $291.00. (Per acre value based on 1987 valuations. ) • • Carl Walters asked why the 200 foot setback from the road was requested. Garrett noted the setback was proposed by the DRAFT applicant. • Steve Yuhasz expressed a concern for the method of enforcement of condition #1. Jane Garrett explained this was based on the speed limit. She indicated that the staff would ensure enforcement • through inspections. Yuhasz indicated this should not be a' condition of approval, since he felt there was no mechanism for- enforcement. He recommended that condition #1 should be deleted. After further . discussion, it was decided that condition #1 should be deleted. MOTION: Motion was made by David Shanklin, seconded by Steve Yuhasz, to approve the Preliminary Plan with the deletion of condition 11 and subject only to condition #2. VOTE: 7 in favor. 1 opposed. (Barry Jacobs) (Peter Kramer was out of the room) AGENDA ITEM #7: MATTERS HEARD AT JOINT PUBLIC HEARING. 10/13/86, • a. Eubanks Road Townhouses The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. This agenda item is to consider for- approval the proposed planned development rezoning and Class • Special Use Permit request submitted by John Loving for the project known as Eubanks Road Townhouses. This item was considered at public' hearings on April 3, 1986, May 5, 1986 and October 13, 1986. The project is in the Joint Planning Area. The . Planning Staff is recommending approval with three additional conditions in addition to the 19 that were recommended at the October 13, 1986 public hearing: 1. That a revised site plan be submitted showing construction of 120 townhouse units phased for construction in a sequence equivalent to that contained in condition #12. 2. That a left turn lane be constructed on Eubanks Road at its intersection with N.C. 86 in accordance with NCDOT specifications, with final plans approved by the County Manager and NCDOT prior to construction. 3. That a payment-in-lieu of recreation area in the amount of $10,702 be made at the time of 061 final subdivision plan a 9 pproval or. within one year of approval of the preliminary 'subdivision plat, whichever comes first, and that 2.42 acres of private recreation area be provided on-site for use by townhouse residents. (Approval of a Planned Development Housing/Special use Permit . constitutes ' preliminary subdivision plat approval.) Marvin Collins pointed ' out that these three . changes were brought about by proposals from the applicant to make changes in the project+. The applicant is reducing the number of units from 137 to 120 which reduces the impervious surface from .48% of the site to 45% of the site. He also indicated their willingness to ( provide a left turn lane on Eubanks Road at • its intersection with NC 86. Additions recommended to conditions presented at the October 13, 1986 public hearing ,include the following:. - 1. Add to Condition #6 - Sewer lines and. facilities shall be sized in a manner consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan for . the Joint Planning Area. , . 2. Add to Condition #10 . -- Construction fences, protecting areas of the site that are to remain undisturbed, shall be erected and maintained during all construction activity. • In answer to a-question from Carl •Walters, Marvin Collins indicated the fencing as referenced in #2 above refers to a temporary type of fencing which is better than the survey- flags or tape. to protect areas that are to remain undisturbed. In response to a question about plan revisions, Collins explained that once the Special Use Permit is approved, a detailed site plan will be submitted simultaneously to both staffs. They will review the plan and meet to determine if there are any main points of disagreement. If there are, they will meet with the applicant to revise the plan. In response to a question about the size of the sewer lines, Collins indicated that the project is so located that there is a drainage swale that crosses I- 40 and runs to the north. Pointing to a map, Collins followed the sever line and noted that the pump station should be sized to serve only the transition area. It should not be so large as to provide service out into the Rural Buffer. OWASA has already put sewer pipes under i- 40 to accommodate any sewer lines installed in the future. 111 • O '2 10 Betty Margison asked about installation of the lines in a timely manner to serve the project, and Collins indicated they may install a pump station to serve one portion of the project at a time and change it out as the project is expanded. Sharlene Pilkey questioned a comment made by the Chapel Hill Town Council in which they indicate • VAY 1 that proposed development is inappropriately located with respect to pattern and timing of existing and proposed development in the Comprehensive Plan. . Pilkey indicated they are calling , for Mixed-Use development in the area and asked the difference in the timing and pattern in the Chapel Hill proposal and the County 0-1•designation which will also need sewer and water service. Collins indicated that there is not that much distinction in terms of the pattern of development because the Countyls 0-I designation and the Town's Mixed Use designation are similar. Collins further explained the phasing as related to the traffic patterns and the completion of 1-40. FINDINGS OF FACT MOTION; Motion was made by Sharlene Pilkey, seconded by David Shanklin to approve a positive finding of fact on Section 8.6, 8.8A - 1-12 with the exception of 3. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Motion was made by Steve Yuhasz, seconded by David Shanklin to approve the findings of fact related to Article 20.3 the same as those approved by the Staff. VOTE: Unanimous. Barry Jacobs questioned the findings of fact of Section 7.4.1 indicating he recalled the concerns that were expressed by citizens in Northwood. Steve Yuhasz indicated that what was heard was conjecture. There cannot be a development of this size anywhere that would not have a traffic impact on the neighborhood. Betty Margison indicated there is a problem now and this development will only compound the situation. MOTION: Motion was made by David Shanklin, seconded by Steve Yuhasz • to approve positive findings of Article 7.4, 7.4.1, 7.4.2, and 7.4.3. 063 2.1 VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Motion was made by David Shanklin, seconded by Steve Yuhasz to approve positive findings for all of Article 8.2.4. VOTE: Unanimous, MOTION: Motion was made by David Shanklin, seconded by Steve Yuhasz to approve positive findings for all of Article 7.14 items. Barry Jacobs questioned a finding of "yes' on Article 7.14.3a)3) relating to visibility in C)9‘1\l ' 1 accordance with Article 6.8 but an inadequate site distance is mentioned. Marvin Collins indicated that the site distance is inadequate according to the DOT standards. If the • speed limit was decreased to 45 mph it would increase the site distance to comply with DOT standards. Collins also noted that Article 6.8 referred to sight distance standards in the Zoning Ordinance with which the applicant complies. • Barry Jacobs suggested adding this as a condition. VOTE: Unanimous, MOTION: Motion was made by David Shanklin, seconded by • Sharlene Pilkey to approve positive findings of Article 6.24 and 6.12. Note: Peter Kramer left the meeting at 9:45. • VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Motion was made by Steve Yuhasz, seconded by David • Shanklin to approve findings in agreement with the Staff on Article 5. Dimensional requirements and recreational space ratios were discussed. Section 6.12 deals with supplementary regulations for planned developments, The minimum required recreational space ratio as shown is as based on the old standard. It was subsequently amended in accordance with the new standard. The recreational space requirement is .299. The payment-in-lieu requirement will satisfy this minimum standard, VOTE: Unanimous. - Note: Carl Walters left the meeting at 10:00. • MOTION: Motion was made by Sharlene Pilkey, seconded by Steve Yuhasz to approve Staff recommendations for Article 6.24 a, c, d, e and f. 1. 064 12 VOTE: Unanimous. NOTION: Motion was made by David Shanklin, seconded by Sharlene Pilkey to approve the three general findings as stipulated in Article which indicates that the Use will promote the public health, safety and general welfare, will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property and is in compliance with the general plan, VOTE: Unanimous. • MOTION: Motion was made by David Shanklin, seconded by Sharlene Pilkey to approve the Planned Development with the attachment of conditions. MOTION: Motion was made by Betty Margison, seconded by Sharlene Pilkey to recommend to the Board of • Commissioners to request that there be a 45mph speed limit established in order to support the DOT O c findings. Barry Jacobs noted that one thing that was mentioned at the public hearing was the possibility of reducing the speed limit through Northwood to 25mph in order •to discourage this as a shortcut. After discussion, it was decided that this would not be a condition of approval but rather a O recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. Along with this request, the Board will be asked to request DOT evaluate the need for a traffic light at NC 86 and Eubanks Road. The Board was in agreement that condition #6 is included in condition #8 about the sizing of the sewer line and that condition #10 is included in condition #18. The three conditions as recommended by the Staff will become conditions #18, 19, and 20. Condition #18 will become #21 and condition #19 will become condition #22. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Motion was made by Betty Margison, seconded by- David shanklin that the Board of Commissioners be requested to write DOT and request them to evaluate the speed limit on Eubanks Road and Northwood Drive • and the possibility of installing a traffic light at the intersection of Eubanks Road and NC 86. VOTE: Unanimous.• AGENDA ITEM #8: MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING 11-18-86 a. Joint Planning Agreement No discussion. x.53 S, U326 r M4 AC 1 a 1 C16 At i j .. Ian i EUBANKS ROAD TOWNHOUSES APPLICANT: JOHN LOVING f t { LUP Designation: 20-yr.Transition ,/��+ ti Existing Zoning. Residential`] 1.4p r 1 ` -. . Proposed Zoning: PD-hi-R8 �zIt, _ 'r,•nu ` \ 19 WIN; I � 19?SAC -r�s � •••� . 22.5 AIC. �1 �;,�" � 0669 1}„ "�64`J /4 n�� F• la3.0 MAC. z, • '?���t7 Esc .// 1 _-- — ( 1 A} 1ti 6 3.31AC 1.68 �L,2497. - ri !16 2'3t r#(,. Y, J rfiEl i 8� t t y3 ?2 r#(,. .i r1C t 64j ti _ t 2.11AC SAC 228 — UL K 7flF9 Oise 3G,.34 AC I "WILL� 2 371t1:'flS� asafl . , 4 $ a►r .x� �c� C, IAA , j'11t' .., 4739 a ... t* ; — _,. •. SAC �L�8AI4KS�� M4 06A 4 94i3` w w� .�t3G,t': Mai l MOM HWQ0 F-A ' r, 03ci6 $92+1 p 1+(� @ I i w♦ .r AG ?5 OA n rp`. I 2.311x",. Yt . 19 ,„ '• • . ` ' F 066 MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 1986 SUBJECT: PD-1-86 EUBANKS ROAD TOWNHOUSES (Staff Recommendation) On April 3, 1986 a public hearing was held to consider the above mentioned project. The public hearing was continued to May 5, 1986 and, at the applicants request, was continued again. As a result of this continuation, the public hearing process was begun anew. Additional information developed by Staff and amendments to County ordinances pertinent to this project were considered at the third public hearing held on October 13, 1986. Since the proposed townhouse project is located within the Joint Planning Area, review of this project is being con- ducted under the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement. It must be approved by both Chapel Hill Town Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The Orange County Planning Board must now make a recommendation to the Orange County Board of Commissioners concerning the project. This memo updates the Planning Staff recommendation to the Planning Board dated March 4, 1986 (See 10-13-86 agenda packet) . PROJECT BACKGROUND The applicant, John Loving, has applied for rezoning to Planned Development-Housing-Residential 8 (PD-H-R-8) on a 19.2 acre tract of land on the north side of Eubanks Road. The tract is located approximately 1700 feet west of NC 86. The proposed zoning would allow up to eight (8) dwelling IL/ 067 MEMORANDUM ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 11. 1986 PAGE 2 units per acre. The tract is presently zoned Residential 1. one (1) dwelling unit per acre. It is located in the twenty year transition area in the Land Use Plan. In the revised Joint Land Use Plan that was adopted on October 13, 1986w the proposed land use classification for the area in which this tract is located was designated as "Office and Institu- tional" . The proposed zoning? PD-H-R-8, would be consistent with the revised Joint Land Use Plan classification. A number of changes have been made in the applicant's proposal since it was first submitted. Perhaps the most significant change was a reduction in the number of dwelling units being proposed. The original proposal called for construction of 152 dwelling units. This was subsequently reduced to 137 dwelling units. Material contained in the 10/13/86 agenda packet accounts for this and other changes that have occurred since the project was originally proposed. Following the October 13, 1986 public hearingi by way of a memorandum dated October 23 , 1986 (See copy attached) , the applicant made further changes in his proposal. These include a further reduction in the number of dwelling units from 137 to 120 and construction of a turn lane on Eubanks Road at its intersection with NC 86. These changes affect certain evaluation criteria. The extent of the affects are evaluated below. RECREATION STANDARDS Recreation standards contained in Article 5.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance when applied to this project require a minimum recreation space of 5.85 acres. Section IV-B-7-b-2 of the Subdivision Regulations also require that 1/35th of an acre of land be dedicated for each dwelling unit proposed. Application of this standard to the now proposed 120 dwelling units results in an acreage requirement of 3.43 acres of public recreation area. If the acreage derived from applica- tion of Article 5.1.1 is greater. the difference (2.42 acres) , must be developed for private recreation purposes. Section IV-B-7-b-2 further requires that where no recreation or open space is shown on the Land Use Plan, payment in lieu of dedication may be accepted. based on the fair market value of the property. No recreation/open space areas have been designated on the tract in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The 1987 assessed valuation of the property is $3.120 per acre. Based on the dedication re- quirement of 3.43 acres, the payment in lieu would amount to 068 MEMORANDUM ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 11, 1986 PAGE 3 $10.702. The applicant has designated recreation areas, including a swimming poole cabana house and tennis court, for the use of the residents. The area occupied by these facilities is approximately 1.08 acres, including adjacent landscaped areas. There is additional land area in the required 100 foot buffer along the northern property line and adjacent to the tennis court which could be utilized for passive recrea- tion purposes and satisfy the need for another 1.33 acres of recreation area. The applicant can also provide additional recreational space through the redesign of the site plan necessitated by the reduction in number of units. TRAFFIC CONCERNS, The changes included in the October 23. 1986 memorandum significantly affect some traffic concerns related to the project. Reduction of dwelling units from 137 to 120 reduces the anticipated traffic generation from 11068 trips per day to 936 trips per day. Perhaps more significant is the developer's proposal to add a turn lane to Eubanks Road at its intersection with NC 86 . This will create separate left and right turn lanes for Eubanks Road traffic entering NC 86 . The primary benefit realized from having separate turn lanes on Eubanks Road will be during the morning rush hour. With separate lanes. Eubanks Road traffic waiting for the left turn onto NC 86 will not block right turn traffic. This will reduce any tendancy to use Northwood Drive as an alternative to Eubanks Road for access to NC 86 . The changes in the project do not have a significant effect on our concerns about traffic volumes on NC 86. The increased traffic demands on NC 86 will result from the opening of 1-40 and the general development of the NC 86 corridor. This project comprises a relatively small portion of the total increase in traffic that will occur in the future. So the reduction in the number of dwelling units to 120 units will not significantly change the need for improve- ments on NC 86. ADDIMNAb POPULATION/SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN, Based on a population of 2.6 persons per household (1980 Census) , the estimated number of persons expected to reside in the 120 townhouses in this project is 312. The total number of school age children would be 41 (13% of 312) . RECOMMENDATION 069 MEMORANDUM ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 11, 1986 PAGE 4 Based on the supplementary information above, staff recommends addition of the following conditions of approval: 1. Submit a revised plan showing construction of 120 townhouse units phased for construction in a sequence equivalent to that contained in condition 12. 2. That an additional turn lane be constructed on Eubanks Road at its intersection with NC 86 in accordance with NCDOT specifications, with final plans approved by the County Manager and NCDOT prior to construction. 3. That a payment in lieu of dedication of recreation area in the amount of $10.702 be made at the time of final subdivision plan approval or within one year of approval of the preliminary subdivision plan, whichever comes first (Approval of a Planned Development Housing/Special Use Permit would constitute preliminary subdivision plan approval. ) . and that 2.41 acres of private recreation space be provided for the use of townhouse residents. 0 7 0' MEMORANDUM NEC Ell...18471E • TO: Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director Roger Walden, Chapel Hill Planning Director FROM; John Loving .• DATE:. October 23, 1986 . I SUBJECT: PD .1- 86 Eubanks Road Townhouses • In response to comments made or questions raised at the October 13, 1986, public • hearing the applicants offer the following information: 1. Based on an analysis done by Dana Staats with CHR Associates, the total • impervious surface on the site with 137 units developed would be 401,188 square feet, or 48% of the site. With 120 units developed the total impervious surface would be 377,898 or 45% of the site. • 2. Dana Staats also did a tree survey of the site and reports that the site is predominately Loblolly Pine of 6 to 8" caliper with some deciduous understory vegetation. There are 10-12 large Oaks of a 24" to 30" caliper located near the Northern boundary of the site near the Tennis Court in an area proposed for green space and a picnic area. Placement of the buildings can be adjusted somewhat . to avoid the specimen trees where possible. The 100 foot buffer will remain untouched • except for road access, utilities and recreation. Green areas will be fenced during construction. 3. In an effort to reduce the impact of traffic entering Airport Road we propo to widen Eubanks Rod where it enters Airport to provide a left turn lane. Dana Staats, will give you a sketch map and specifications for this work. We feel that other developers who own larger tracts which actually front on Airport Road and potentially • - have more intensive uses should be required to do the actual widening of Airport Road as we have been required to widen Eubanks Road along our frontage. • 4. The author of the traffic study, Dexter Smith, will write you regarding the . • question raised by councilman R.D. Smith regarding traffic on NC 86 and 1-40. to points o Briefly, hftelte sthoauttph side or East idrsene of town via N.C.from the North side of towns • 86 will choose to use: • I-40 for this purpose once it is opened. 5. In order to further reduce the impact of this development on the neighborhood and the road network, we hereby propose to.redUce the number of townhomes.to 120, (6 units to the acre). As you know, our initial application was ' for 152, ( 8 units to the acre ). • • • 1 071 1 MINUTES OF A JOINT .MEETING O F THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL `HIT•T, AND THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, HELD IN THE CHAPEL HILL MUNICIPAL 4 BUILDING, MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1986, 7;30 P.M. 5 ' . ' . - - 6 7 8 Mayor Pro-tem Bill Thorpe called the meeting to order.. Council Members present were:. . 10 • Julie Andresen _ .. _. U David Godschalk ' 12 Jonathan Howes a _ 13 :a:. .David Pasquina..' - ,=_ Nancy Preston 15. R. D. Smith . 16 ;:;_, .` . ' Arthur Werner - .-.. � - -; ' 18. Mayor-James C. Wallace 'arrived• late. - . 20 County Commissioners present were: - ' . : 22 Don Willhoit, Chair 23 Moses Carey, Jr. 24 :.. Ben Lloyd 25 .' -. ' Shirley Marshall . 26 27 • . Also ' present were Town Manager David R. Taylor, County Manager 2 Kenneth Thompson, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, County Attorney 29 Geoff Gledhill, Town Planning Director Roger' Waldon and County. 30 : . ... . Planning Director Marvin Collins . and the Orange County:: Planning 31 Board. = 32 :• _ 33 " ' ' Land. Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area - 34 - . • 35 Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director, gave a presenta-. 36 - ' - . tion on the different recommendations of the Orange County and 37 • ' '.Chapel'-Hill governing bodies for the Joint Land Use Plan and. the 38 ' - ' 'proposed resolutions 'to address the differences. He said the 39 . proposal included •removing the southeast quadrant' of 1--40/NC 86 40 from joint planning .since the Town had annexed 'the'.area effective 41 September. 30, 1986, In the area between .Eubanks Road and I-40, �t2 . _ designate the land zoned• industrial as -light industry and all 43 • • . other land Office-Institutional, up to the stream north of Clyde 4% Road. ' He said the stream was - a better boundary •to define ' the 45 ' , ' ' rural buffer than Clyde Road; the land zoned for industrial use 46 ' should be reflected in the plan; and the office-institutional 47 designation was consistent with the concept of mixed use. For 48 . the area south of Eubanks, Mr. Collins said the proposed re.sol.u- 49 .' . ' tion was to designate the area as suburban ' residential, except 50 for the south side of Eubanks Road, across from land zoned 51 industrial, where the office-institutional designation should be 52 ' , made. The proposal also suggests removal of the office-- 5 institutional designation along N.C. 86. Mr_. Collins stated that - 5 the area along Homestead Road and N.C. 86 was proposed to be . . 55 . 6 S • 57 • 58 59 . 60. • ' -5- - } , 0'72 ' • 1 Public Hearing on Planned Development Rezoning Request - Eubanks . 2 - Road Townhouses (PD-1-86) . - - 3 . 4 Citizens wishing to speak at hearing were sworn in by the - - g 5 . Orange County Chair of the Board of Commissioners. - 6 . 7 Marvin Collins, Orange County- Planning Director, asked that 8 agenda item #3, Action Agenda Item Abstract, dated October 13, _ • 9 4 1986, PD-1-86 Eubanks Road Townhouses be entered into the record ,Q of the meeting. -_ . •' . 11 - 1 . . 12 Mr.. Collins made a presentation ' on the ' project' saying- this .' 13 hearing was the third public hearing on the proposed Eubanks Road 14 Townhouse project. He said the proposal was for 137 ..townhouse - 15 .-' units, grouped in clusters, on a 19.2..acre site on the north .side 16 ;::: :., of , Eubanks Road, 1700 ; .feet west=; of the ' intersection of '17 -._;:_, `. - interstate-40 -"and' N.C. :86. ' There -'is a requirement of a ' 100' i8 ' buffer ' surrounding' the site -except for the .side.' adjacent to the - 19 • - * industrial development which - requires a, 50' . buffer. .: '.Sewer , - 20 -• service, according to 'Mr. Collins, would be. provided by_.construe-- . 21 - - -- •tion and installation . .of a . pump station to serve the entire 22 drainage basin. . . 23 . .' - 24 . " ' Mr. Collins stated. that the current 'recreation standards (Article �5 - .5.1.1) require a minimum recreation space ratio of .299. There- , 26 fore the applicant needed to provide a - minimum recreation space 27 - of 5.85 acres for a 19.2 acre site. However, section IV-B-7-b-2 2 - ' also requires that 1/35th of an acre of land be - dedicated for - 29 each dwelling unit proposed. This results in an acreage require-- 30 _ ment of . 4.11 acres of public recreation area. - If the-- figure' 31 - derived by application• of Article 5. 1. 1 is greater, the differ- 32 . . ' ence (1.74 acres) must - be - developed _ for private. recreation 33 - ' purposes. The internal recreation space e - provided totaled 1.08 34' - . ' acres; therefore an additional' .66 acres of private' recreation 35 area and a payment-in-lieu of recreation in the amount of $12,8 23 36 .for the 4.11 acres ' of public recreation was •required., to meet - 37 current standards. . . ' .. • ' - - ' 38 . . _ 39 Planning Director -Collins said the project, was to be developed in - 40 phases with a completed project date in December, - 1991. - He - 41 further stated that the project would have 'a measurable affect on 42 . ' ' the traffic intersection of Eubanks Road and N.C. 86. He .com- 43 - . .merited that at present the County- had not required off--site 44 ' traffic improvements feeling the road improvements should be 45 addressed by NCDOT, but that this was something the County needed 46 to review in light of needed road improvements to the intersec-- 47 tion of N.C. 86 and Eubanks Road and the lack of State funding.- - 48 49 Commissioners Marshall and Carey asked about the size of the pump - 50 - station and who would pay for its construction. Mr. Collins 51 replied that the size of the pump station would be agreed with . 52 OWASA and that the applicant would pay for having it built. . 5mi. ouncil Member Pasquini' questioned the basis upon which the - land 55 was valued for payment-in-lieu of recreation space. - He felt the 56 . - amount was too low. _ Mr. Collins answered that the 1987 tax - 57 appraisal was used. - 58 _ 59 - -60 - - .„...- - . . . . . . • ....-- . „ • .- . __ • . . • . . . .. . • . _ . . • 073 - • - , . . . . . . • .- _ • . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. • . 1 • Council Member Werner: _asked if the commercial development and - • 7 . this proposed residential development was consistent with the .4:. 3 ' adopted land use plan. Messrs. ' Collins and. Weldon, 'said that . 4 0 • these types of development were consistent and were examples of _ . the kind of. balance expected to be acheived in mixed-use- designa- ' 6 tions. , . . . _•. - - . • . . _ • . • . '8 -• .- Council Member Andresen asked if office-institutional development' 9 ' would generate more traffic than residential . deve•lopment. .Mr. - . 10 ' . Weldon replied yes. . . . . - . .• . 11 . • . :, .• . - - . - • - - •-• • . , . , . • - . . • . . 12 • Council Member Preston asked abou.t. the topography of the site and 1:-. - 13 .• • the amount of impervious surface. She '• suggested there: be. a " i 14 • ". requirement that .protective fences , •lae. put.- around the trees •to . - • 15 • •••., - . • remain. r-,•; -,•:.-- -...- •-._::: :.•::,'•:::;.:::• -.•••:. • : ... •••• ;,,' ,• •.: - -. '.S..-..••.:-,•:-• .•.., .. . , .,' ..., • .,-. - •i _ .1. ,: ..••:,. - •. . •:__, _, . .. , , ,. 17 . - • Council: Member Thorpe" 'asked for •the reason. -why the County was .. .. -:. 18 requesting a payment-in-lieu of recreation space. Mr. Collins . i 19 ' • responded that the County had established specific areas where - i20 : they wished to develop recreational and greenway systems.. The . .. . * 21 • proposal's site was not adjacent to any of the designated. recrea- i 22 tional areas therefore the County had decided. to ask . for a . 23 . payment-in-lieu of recreation space. . . _ • . I 24. • . . . . . , .. ' . ,- . . • -. - • • . _ . . 25 Council Member Smith •questioned -the . statement of 'justification: :- • 26 regarding the traffic impact of the opening of .1-40 .to traffic on : • . I 27 , . N.C. 86. • • • • . • - • • • - -•' . . 28 . . . . . . - _ . . . . . . - . - • . . 29 . . Dana •.Staats, a landscape architect representing' the 'applicant, 30 • said they had worked ' with the Orange County and Chapel Hill - ' . 31 ' Planning Departments in an effort to make the proposal acceptable • 32 to both entities and he thanked the Planning staffs for their . 33 assistance. He gave a brief summary of the proposal and said he 34 . • would answer questions from the Board and Council. • _ - [ 35' . - . - • • . ... i .36 . Commissioner Carey asked if the change in the .expected. completion ! 37 ' date from December 1990 to December, 1991 would affect the number • 1 38 . of units to be built. Mr. Staats said no, that it would just -. 39 affect, to timing of the units. . _ , . ' 40 ' . • . _ .- . . ...,. . ._ . 41 % - .Council Member Pasquini asked if the applicant were required -Ca ' 42 provide on-site public recreation space how, that -would be accom- : 43 plished: Mr. Staats replied that. he did not know, but that it 44 . would' require a major redesign of the -site as that requirement -_ 45 would mean approximately 60% of the site used for recreation. ' 46 . purposes. ' _ . .... . - . 47 . . . • . . • 48 . Ms. Gerrie Nunn, a resident of Eubanks Road,_ spoke in support of ' 49 . the the proposal. . . - - 50 • . . _. . . . 51 . Ms. Eliza Liptzin,- a resident of Eubanks Road, spoke in support 52 . 58 . - _ _ , . r . . . . _ . . 54 . .• • - • • • • ' _ ' . • - 55 of the proposal . . . • • - „ 56 . . . . . . . . _ . . . • - • 57 . . . - • • . . - . . - *- . • . . • . • - - • - 59 .0., . . • --. . . • -• . . . . . . . • . . , . • . . - • . 074 . . . . . • . .. • . . . .. 1 . john Carne, a resident, spoke against the proposal. 'due to -the. 2imp, ' 311i expected increase in traffic ' on 'Eubanks Road, . and Northwoods • . Drive. He said he . would ' prefer to see approval of the ' project , . - - 4 include . conditions for improvements to the intersection of '5 • Eubanks Road and N.C. 86. . _ . 6 ' . . , 7 Mr. Harry Poole, a resident, spoke against the proposal because . • '8 of the expected increase of traffic on Northwoods Drive. Be 9 ' stated that ' the current condition of the intersection of Eubanks. . , 10 , Road and N.C.. 86 already had people cutting. through Northwoods ..1 - 11 - subdivision in order to avoid the intersection. - He also rom- I 12 . - mented . that he would prefer to see more green' . space in the . _ . 13 • . .. . proposal. ' . . . . . . 14 , -, . . . - - • • . • - . . . . ., , . . • . - . . 15 • : '..-. ' Council Member Andresen asked if the County- did not require- - - 16 • ::? off-site' improvements,.: how would the improvements get done and ] 1. ....,. 17 C. .- . . who would paid for them. - _ - . . - • -. • -. . -- . .:. . . % 18 .. , . . _ . 19 . . , Chair Willhoit responded that the County did not have a policy . . 20 - not to require off-site improvements, they bad just not -required 21 . such improvements tO date. He said this was something the County . , - -- . 22 . - - needed to review . and examine, especially when the . applicant :. - 23 • ' pointed out in his application that- the intersection of Eubanks - 24 ' , and N.C. 86 was already at or over capacity-. . ' . . * . . . . 25 ' . . * . . . . 26 . COUNCIL MEMBER HOWES MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL- MEMBER PRESTON TO : • 27 -. - - REFER' TO THE MANAGER AND PLANNING STAFF. ' THE MOTION . PASSED - - 28( UNANIMOUSLY, (9-0) . . . . 29 . , , . .. ' . ' V . . • 30 • .„COMMISSIONER CAREY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARSHALL TO . 31 . REFER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED TO THE COUNTY MANAGER, PLANNING. 32 . ' STAFF,' AND PLANNING BOARD AND TO ADJOURN THE HEARING• TO'DECEMBER 33 1, 1986 WHEN IT WOULD RECEIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING 34 . .BOARD AND CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUS- ' 35 ,. LY, (4-0) . . . . 36 . .. . . . . • • • . 37 • 'Joint Planning Agreement . . . . • . . . . . . . 38 . . ' . . . 39 - Ken Thompson, Orange County Manager, gave a presentation on the ' 40 . . proposed amendments to 'the joint planning agreement between — 41 Chapel Hill and Orange County. He said, in. essence the proposal 42 . . , ' would grant Chapel Hill the authority over development . applica 43 . tions in the transition areas. Orange County would present - a 44 . recommendation on the applications but. the approval would come 45 from the Town. He said the proposal would give the County the. ' 46 approval authority for the joint land use plan and amendments 47 thereto,. as well as approval for development applications in the - 48 rural buffer. Mr. Thompson stated the proposal called for Chapel • . 49 ' Hill to recommend zoning classifications for the -transition area 50 .. • and that the County would grant approval of the zoning based on 5U Chapel Hill's recommendation. Chapel . Hill - HWould. also .make . . 52 recommendations to Orange County for development applications in ' • 53(54 the rural buffer areas. He. said the, 'agreement would be- a two party agreement between Chapel Hill and Orange _County and would 55 • . supercede the existing joint planning agreement ' upon its adop- ' 56 tion. . . . , . . • • 58 . . . . v . . 59 v v . . . . . . . . , . . v . 50 - . - ..., . - • : . mmeimmw 075 DRAFT MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1986 Mayor James C. Wallace called the meeting to order. Council Members present were: Julie Andresen David Godschalk Jonathan Howes David Pasquini Nancy Preston R. D. Smith Bill Thorpe Arthur Werner Also present was Town Manager David R. Taylor, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Ron Secrist, and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos. Public Forum for Citizen Comments on Preparing 1987-88 Operating and Capital Budget Manager Taylor said this public forum, part of the budget pro- cess, was to hear citizen comments on the upcoming budget year. There were no citizen comments. Council Member Preston asked the Manager if he had received any telephone calls or written comments on the budget. Manager Taylor replied no. Petitions Peter and Desiree Denton, speaking as residents of Colony Woods Drive, petitioned the Council to make necessary improvements to the storm drainage pipe on under Colony Woods Drive in order to rectify the flooding problems associated with storm water run-off through this pipe. They commented that the Manager had previous- ly recommended no improvements be made to the storm drainage system because of a pending lawsuit and the expected cost for repairs of $75,000. They said these reasons were no longer valid as they nor the Town were not involved in the lawsuit and they expected the cost for replacing the 15 inch drainage pipe with a 30 inch pipe to cost much less than $75, 000. They urged the Council to review the situation and make the necessary improve- ments. Council Member Preston commented that she had understood replace- ment of the 15" pipe with a larger pipe would have an adverse affect on the storm water run-off further downstream. Manager Taylor responded that the staff report had indicated that a -6- DRAFT Q76 looking for alternatives to a landfill for disposal of solid waste. Council Member Pasquini asked to see the guidelines for the requests for proposals saying he was unsure of the scope of the study. Council Member Andresen asked to see a copy of the study that Durham had recently had conducted. Council Member Godschalk asked for clarification of the waste-to- energy alternative suggested in the memorandum. Mr. Taylor said the Durham study had indicated that the waste-to-energy option would be 5 times more expensive than traditional methods. He said however, that the long term affects of the landfill were not know and the Task Force felt every option should be reviewed. Transportation Advisory Committee Council Member Thorpe said that there was nothing new to report since his last report. He commented that he would not be able to attend the next TAC meeting but that a staff member would attend in his stead. Staff Quarterly Report Manager Taylor said the staff' s quarterly report was included in the agenda packet and he would be glad to answer any questions. Affirmative Action Update Manager Taylor said this was the annual report on the Town' s affirmative action status. Council Member Thorpe stated that he was pleased the Town was continuing with its affirmative action plan. He said that he felt there were still areas which needed to be addressed, espe- cially having Blacks in upper management in the Police Depart- ment. Eubanks Townhouses Roger Waldon, Planning Director, stated that the applicant was attempting to get approval from NCDOT for improvements to the intersection of NC 86 and Eubanks Road as required in stipulation #4 of the Manager' s recommendation. He said that since the approval had not as yet been granted, stipulation #4 should be amended to qualify that this stipulation would be required if NCDOT approval could be secured. Council Member Preston asked if this meant approval from NCDOT might not be granted. Mr. Waldon replied yes. He said NCDOT had some reservations on the site distance. Mr. Waldon commented that what the staff would like is an additional lane so that cars 077 -7- DRAFT waiting to turn left on NC 86 would be left stacked up while cars wanting to turn right would not have to wait for those turning left. He said there was concern that the cars waiting to turn left might block the site distance for the cars wanting to turn right onto NC 86. Council Member Andresen asked what was the arrangement for recreation and open space in the development. Mr. Waldon said that the issue brought out in the public hearing was that Orange County regulations dealing with recreation requirements had changed from the time the application was first submitted to the present. More recreation area was required as a result. The County recommended that the deficiency that exists on the current site plan for recreation space be made up with a payment-in-lieu of recreation area. Applying Orange County' s formula for calcu- lating payment-in-lieu would result in a payment of about $12,000 for four acres. He said there were differences between the way Orange County and Chapel Hill calculate payments-in-lieu and requiring recreation space. Mr. Waldon stated that both entities required improved recreation space as a part of a multi-family development and both have provisions for payments-in-lieu if space is not provided on site. Orange County's requirements with regard to the acres of recreation space required are significant- ly higher than Chapel Hill' s, while their formula for calculating payment-in-lieu was much lower than Chapel Hill' s. Council Member Andresen asked if the arrangement had been for recreational area within the project, what would have been the requirement. Mr. Waldon said that under Orange County' s regula- tions it would result in 1. 75 acres of improved recreation space with amenities and approximately 4 acres of additional land dedicated for public recreation purposes. Council Member Pasquini asked how this would change the site plan. Mr. Waldon said it would change it radically. The total recreation area would be five acres. The original application had the recreation space as about 1 .06 acres. With the change in Orange County' s regulations, the amount of proposed on-site recreation space was 1.75 acres with an additional 4 acres being provided through payment-in-lieu. Council Member Pasquini said if the Council recommended requiring on-site dedication instead of payment-in-lieu then stipulation #7 would be changed as indicated in the memorandum. Mr. Waldon replied yes. Council Member Andresen asked what was the Town' s requirement for recreation space and whose regulations should be used to review the application. Mr. Waldon replied that the Town should follow the County' s regulations. He said the Town' s requirements would be . 64 acres of recreation space. Council Member Smith asked for clarification of where the im- provements to Eubanks Road to 1/2 of a 47 foot cross-section with -8- DRAFT 07$ curb, gutter, etc. was to occur. Mr. Waldon said this require- ment was for the part of Eubanks Road along the site' s frontage. Council Member Smith expressed concern about not requiring open space on the site when the payment-in-lieu would go to Orange County and the residents of the proposed development would use Chapel Hill's recreation facilities. He said that on that basis he could not support the project as recommended. Mr. Waldon responded that there was recreation space provided on the site but it was not sufficient to meet the new Orange County requirements. He said that what was being proposed on-site was a swimming pool with club house and tennis court. Council Member Godschalk asked what was the difference between the County' s and the Town' s recreation space requirements. Mr. Waldon said the County's regulations for improved recreation space for this site would be 1.75 acres while Chapel Hill' s regulations would be . 64 acres. Mr. Godschalk asked how much was currently being proposed by the applicant. Mr. Waldon said that it was 1 . 08 acres. Mr. Godschalk stated that this meant they actually had proposed more on-site recreation space than Chapel Hill 's regulations would require. Mr. Waldon replied yes. Council Member Godschalk said that in terms of Mr. Smith's concerns it seemed to him that there was quite a bit of recrea- tion space being provided that was in excess of the Town' s standards. He also pointed out that there was a large open space buffer around the site. He said he found the site plan to be a competent, well worked out site plan. Mr. Godschalk commended the Town staff for their negotiations on density and road im- provements. COUNCIL MEMBER GODSCHALK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 86-11-10/R-2A AS AMENDED TO REFLECT THE DEPENDENCY or NCDOT APPROVAL FOR STIPULATION #4 TO BE VALID. Council Member Preston said she was not pleased with the project, feeling it consisted of pavements and roof tops. She said they had reduced the impervious surfaces to 45% but she would prefer they be approximately 33%. Ms. Preston also said she would prefer to see more recreation area provided on the site. She asked Mr. Waldon that since the site was now in a mixed use zone, would the project integrated with other projects that might be developed nearby. Mr. Waldon responded that the site was in an area where it was hoped to encourage mixed use development but that the site was not zoned mixed use. It was designated as such in the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan, but in the Joint Land Use Plan it was designated as Office/Institutional with the intention to encourage mixed use development. Currently the site was zoned residential. He said the site was not in Chapel Hill' s jurisdiction at present. Mr. Waldon said that one of the reasons for the stipulation regarding a sidewalk along Eubanks Road was in an effort to integrate this development with other potential developments. -9- 079 DRAFT Council Member Andresen said she shared Ms. Preston's concerns about the impervious surface and traffic on NC 86. She commented that several residents had expressed concern about the potential for cut-through traffic through the Northwoods subdivision. Ms. Andresen also stated she would prefer to see more open areas and recreation space, saying she felt it was a densely packed devel- opment. Council Member Pasquini agreed with the comments of Council Members Preston and Andresen. He had questions about off-site improvements, especially the need for a stop light. COUNCIL MEMBER PASQUINI MOVED A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER TO REFER THE ITEM BACK TO THE MANAGER AND STAFF FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MADE TO- NIGHT. Council Member Pasquini said he would prefer to see a site plan taking into consideration that all the recreation space would be on-site. Council Member Howes said to refer it back to the Manager meant that the Council expected some changes to be made. He said a list of the concerns should be made, like on and off-site improvements, recreation, and the amount of impervious surface, which he said he did not think they could deal with that without drastically reducing the number of units. Council Member Godschalk commented that the way to change the amount of impervious surface and still keep the same number of units was to build up higher. He said this was the kind of trade-off to be expected if they asked for standards that were even higher than the Chapel Hill recreation space requirements. Council Member Werner said the key issue was the recreation space dedication on-site supersedes the rest of the problems. He said that there was not a good analogy for this site elsewhere in Chapel Hill. Mr. Werner said this site was pretty far from any other active recreation area with Cedar Falls Park being the closest and it was approximately four to five miles away. He said what bothered him was that the payment-in-lieu of $12,000 was not going to buy any useful recreation space that the residents of the proposed development would use. So basically, Mr. Werner said it was a question of whether or not the tenants would receive 4.5 to 5 acres or 1 acre of recreation space on site. Council Member Howes said he was not enthusiastic about the project and hadn't been from the beginning due to the location at the far edge of existing development and that developing the area in this manner was premature. He said the Council had attempted to mediate this type of problem with the designation of mixed use. He said he felt the area was one which needed some maturing prior to a development of this magnitude and scope was built. He _10_ DRcT • 080 said he would vote in favor of the substitute motion but that his concerns would still unanswered. Mayor Wallace said that if the expected revisions entailed quite a bit of work and when brought back it was still defeated it might be better to turn down the substitute. COUNCIL MEMBERS PASQUINI AND WERNER WITHDREW THEIR SUBSTITUTE MOTION. THE MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 86-11-10/R-2A FAILED TO PASS, ( 2-7) WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS GODSCHALK AND THORPE VOTING IN FAVOR. COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 86-11-10/R-2B TO DENY THE APPLICATION. Council Member Howes said the motion should include the addition- al problems raised in the discussion that evening. Council Member Smith said he also questioned the statement of traffic analysis in the application which states that most of the traffic coming into town from the north would use I-40 to travel south once it was opened. Council Member Howes suggested that in lieu of rewriting the resolution, that if it passed, the minutes of this meeting on the Council' s discussion of this issue be forwarded to the Commis- sioners for their review. COUNCIL MEMBERS ANDRESEN AND SMITH AGREED TO AMEND THEIR MOTION TO HAVE THE MINUTES ON THIS DISCUSSION BE FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THEIR REVIEW. Council Member Godschalk said that in reading the proposed resolution as grounds for the denial the fact that the proposed development is not appropriately located with respect to pattern and timing of existing proposed development in the Comprehensive Plan and yet the Comprehensive Plan does indicate that this area would be an urbanized area and would be developed in this Transi- tion Zone. He also said the developer was proposing to improve the public and private facilities that exist especially with the roadway. He said he was not sure what the minutes of the meeting would show would be conclusive to deny. He said the Council might need to be more specific. Attorney Karpinos responded that the addition of two paragraphs after the third paragraph which would state: . . . and WHEREAS, the Site Plan fails to provide adequate on-site recreation facilities as provided by the Orange County regulations; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds payment-in-lieu of recreation facilities to not be appropriate for this project; . . . Mr. Karpinos said the addition of these two paragraphs would address some of the concerns expressed by the Council. 081 _11_ DRAFT COUNCIL MEMBERS ANDRESEN AND SMITH AGREED TO AMEND THEIR MOTION TO ADD THE TWO PARAGRAPH SUGGESTED BY THE ATTORNEY. THE MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED, (7-2) WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS GODS- CHALK AND THORPE VOTING AGAINST. The resolution, as adopted, reads as follows: A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (86-11-10/R-2b) WHEREAS, an application has been submitted for a Planned Development-Housing/Rezoning in the Joint Planning Area (property known as Lot 8 on Orange County Tax Map Number 18 for Chapel Hill Township) ; and WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the terms of the Chapel Hill-Orange County Joint Planning Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council fails to find that the proposed development is appropriately located with respect to the pattern and timing of existing and proposed development in the Comprehensive Plan, and with respect to public and private facilities existing or clearly to be available by the time the development reaches the stage where they will be needed; and WHEREAS, the Site Plan fails to provide adequate on-site recrea- tion facilities as required by the Orange County regulations; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds payment-in-lieu of recreational facilities to not be appropriate for this project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the application as represented by a Site Plan, Utilities Plan, Erosion Control Plan, and Phasing Plan dated March 6, 1986, is not approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council recommends that the Orange County Board of Commissioners deny the application accord- ingly for the reasons stated in this motion and due to the concerns raised during the Council's deliberations as reflected in the minutes. This the 10th day of November, 1986. Joint Planning Agreement Update Council Member Godschalk said they had met with Carrboro and Orange County on November 4th and had a frank and productive discussion of the issues. He said there were three main sets of issues which were discussed; 1) regulating development in the watershed prior to recommendations that might come from a study on the carrying capacity of the watershed; 2) expansion of the RESOLUTION A MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION " ` .. 082 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN THE JOINT PLANNING AREA (86-11-10/R- ) ' WHEREAS, an application has been submitted for a Planned Development-Housing/Rezoning in the Joint Planning Area (property known as Lot 8 on Orange County Tax Map Number 18 for Chapel Hill Township) ; and • WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the terms of the Chapel Hill-Orange County Joint Planning Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the application, as represented by a Site Plan, Utilities Plan, Erosion Control Plan, and Phasing Plan dated March 6, 1986, is hereby approved with the following conditions: • 1. That a maximum of 120 dwelling units be constructed on this site. 2. That a private loop road serving the development be con- structed in compliance with NCDOT pavement standards as specified on page 7 of the NCDOT manual on Minimum "Construc-- tions Standards for Subdivision Roads. The loop road shall. be constructed to serve each phase prior to the occupancy. of any unit in the phase. (The unpaved portion of the loop road . is to be used as a construction entrance.) 3. That Eubanks Road be improved to 1/2 of a 47 foot cross-section with curb, gutter and sidewalk, with .dedica- tion of 1/2 of an 80 foot right-of-way; and that a turn lase . be provided on Eubanks Road, at its intersection with N.C. 86, with final plans approved by the County Manager and NCDOT prior to construction. ' . • 4. That final plans for all proposed improvements to Eubanks • Road along the site's frontage be according to Town stan- dards with corresponding right-of-way widths as required under 'the Town Design Manual and approved by the Town , Manager, County Manager and NCDOT prior to issuance of a Special Use Permit and that final plans for construction of the loop road be approved by the County Manager and NCDOT prior to issuance of a Special. Use Permit. 5. That the central recreation area include a picnic facility.. The location and design of the tot lot shown on the site plan and the picnic facility shall be reviewed and approved by the Orange County and Town of Chapel Hill Recreation Advisory Commissions. Recreation facilities shall be handi- capped accessible and include handicapped parking areas. Private recreation area provided on-site shall be at least 1 .74 acres in size. " - " 2 083 6. That a payment-in-lieu of dedication of recreation area in the amount of $12,623 be made. to Orange County at the time of final subdivision plan approval, or within one year of approval of the preliminary subdivision plan, whichever comes first. (Approval of a Planning Development Sous- ing/Special Use. Permit would constitute preliminary subdivi- sion plan approval.) . 7 That additional plantings be provided between buildings. 8. ' That final utility plans be approved. by OWASA, Duke Power, 'Southern Bell, and Village Cable before issuance of the Special Use Permit. All lines shall be underground. Sewer lines and facilities shall be sized in a manner consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan. 9. That all required easement documents be recorded prior to initiation of construction activity. ' 10. ' That a stormwater management plan with hydrologic calcula- tions be approved by the Orange County Manager and the Town Manager prior to issuance of the Special. Use Permit. 11. . That a . soil erosion and sedimentation control plan - be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer before issuance of the Special Use Permit. 12. That a detailed landscaping plan be approved by the County: Manager and Town Manager prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit. 13. That all structures be erected in compliance with applicable building codes following application for and issuance of building permits. 14. That the phasing of the project be revised as follows: PROPOSED RECOMMENDED . Phase 5 Phase 7 Phase 6 Phase 5 Phase 7 Phase 6' 15. That the final site plan and narrative of the project, incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through • the final approval of the project, be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to remain on file with the Orange County Planning Department and Chapel hill Planning Department. Grading and building permits, upon application, will be issued after approval and. recordation of the Special Use Permit. f... 3 • 084 16. That a final boundary survey , of the Planned Development including public ' improvements and utility easements- be recorded by the developer upon issuance of the Special Use Permit. • 17.. That the grantee of this Special Use Permit post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond. • or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost .of all public improvements plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. Security for construc- tion of the improvements in this project may follow phasing • in the project. Specifically, as improvements are completed - in each phase, a corresponding amount of Money may be released from the security instruments or the security instructions may be ,renegotiated based on the • "yet to do" portion of the improvements. 18. That construction fences, protecting areas of the site that are to remain undisturbed, be maintained during all con- struction activity. - 19. . That the development be built •and. operated according to the • site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions. 20. That roads, parking areas, walkways, street. - signs, utili- ties, recreation facilities and sites and landscaping be maintained as constructed. All such improvements and facili ties shall further be 'maintained and operated in a safe - manner. 21.- . That the continued validity and effectiveness - of this. approval is expressly conditioned- upon compliance with or fulfillment of these conditions, and upon compliance with applicable provisions of the Orange County toning Ordinance and the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance and regulations. thereunder.' ' 22. That is any of the above conditions shall be held• invalid or void, then this approval shall be void and of no effect. • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council recommends that the Orange County Board of Commissioners also approve this applica- tion, with this set of conditions. This the 10th day of November, 1986. • • 1 • RESOLUTION B 085 A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A PLANKED DEVELOPMENT • (86-11-10/R- ) WHEREAS, an application has been submitted for a Planned Development-Housing/Rezoning in the Joint Planning Area (property known as Lot 8 on Orange County Tax Map Number. 18 for Chapel Hill Township) ; and . . . .: WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the terms of the Chapel Hill-Orange' County Joint Planning Agreement; and • WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council fails to _find that the proposed development is appropriately located with respect to the • pattern and timing of existing and proposed development in the Comprehensive Plan, and with respect to public. and private facilities existing or clearly to be available by the time the development reaches the stage where they will be needed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of. the Town of Chapel Hill that the application as represented -by, .a • Sitte Plan, Utilities Plan, Erosion Control Plan, and Phasing Plan dated . ' March 6, 1986, is not approved. . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the. Town Council recommends that the . ' Orange County Board of Commissioners deny the application accord- . ingly. This the 10th day of November, 1986. . • • • ORANGE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Y O S ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date; December 1. 1986 Action A nda Item 40- SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT - CHAPEL HILL *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING; Yes_X_No *************************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS: Revised Joint CONTACT: Marvin Collins Planning Agreement. TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 *************************************************************************** PURPOSE; To consider approval of proposed revisions to the Joint Planning Agreement between Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill. To receive the Planning Board' s recommendation. NEED: In 1984. Orange County and Chapel Hill entered into a Joint Planning Agreement. Under the terms of the present agreement, the County and Town have been cooperatively developing a Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area and jointly approving development requests within 10 and 20-Year Transition Areas outside the Town' s planning jurisdiction. The Agreement has worked well overall, but there have been awkward situations and administrative problems in implementation. Over the past six months. discussion has occurred about possible revisions to address the difficulties. On October 13► a draft revision of the Joint Planning Agreement was presented at a joint meeting of the Board of County Commissioners and the Town Council. A public hearing on the revised Agreement was held November 18. 1986. IMPACT: The revised Agreement proposes a new distribution of responsibility between the County and Chapel Hill. 1. Chapel Hill is to prepare a Zoning Map for the Transition Area using its zoning district 087 classifications and recommend its adoption to Orange County. Classifications will be assigned in accordance with the land use designations shown on the adopted Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. (Under the existing agreement. Orange County's zoning district designations apply.) 2. Upon amendment of the County's Zoning Map (including Zoning Atlas) to incorporate the Zoning Map and Town Land Development Ordinances. the Towns will be responsible for the processing of applications, permits issuance and conducting necessary inspections within the Transition Areas. (Under the existing agreement. Orange County and Chapel Hill jointly approve development applications. Orange County is also responsible for permits issuance and conducting inspections.) 3. Orange County will continue to administer its Zoning Ordinance and Atlas. and Subdivision Regulations within the Rural Buffer, The County will also process applications, issue permits and conduct inspections within the Rural Buffer. (No change is proposed from the existing agreement.) 4. Orange County will review and comment on development applications within the Transition Areas. Each Town will review and comment on applications within the Rural Buffer depending upon the portion of the Rural Buffer which applies. (Under the existing agreement, Orange County and Chapel Hill jointly approve projects in the Transition Area. Chapel Hill reviews and comments on projects in the Rural Buffer.) 5. Any amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (including Atlas) applicable to the Joint Planning Area require County approval but will be referred to the Towns for review and comment before a final decision. (Under the existing agreement. joint approval is required for Zoning Atlas changes in the Transition Area. Orange County may amend its Zoning Ordinance without comment from the Towns. 0 6. Amendments to either Town' s Land 88 Development Ordinance will be referred to the County for adoption. (Not applicable under the existing agreement. ) RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of the proposed revisions with one change - revise the first sentence of Section 1.2 C to read as follows: C. Rural Buffer. The area designated on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map as such and designated in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as Rural Residential, Agricultural, Public/Private Open Space, Resource Conservation, Extractive/Disposal Use and the overlay district designated Water Quality Critical Area. The Planning Board also recommended that the Commissioners consider the following provisions for inclusion in any administrative procedures drafted to accompany the Agreement: 1. The Chapel Hill Town Council should appoint a resident of the Transition Area as a representative to its Planning Board. 2. Amendments to the Agreement should be referred to the Orange County Planning Board for recommendation prior to action by the Board of Commissioners. 3. The review procedures for projects in the Transition Area should include the Orange County Planning Department, Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. 4. The Town of Chapel Hill should include as part of any public hearing notification to affected property owners that they have the right to appear before the Orange County Planning Board during any project review and speak for or against said project. 089. JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT DRAFT September 16, 1986 September 19, 1986 September 22, 1986 October 8, 1986 November 13. 1986 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 198 by and between the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a• political subdivision of the State of North Carolina, and THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, a municipal corporation duly created and existing under the laws of North Carolina. WITNESSETH: In consideration of the public benefits expected to flow from the cooperative efforts of the parties in establishing a coordinated and comprehensive system of planning within their respective areas of public concern, the parties to this Agreement hereby mutually agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE, DEFINITIONS, EFFECTIVE DATE Section 1.1 Purpose of the Agreement The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a method of coordinated and comprehensive planning in the Orange County-Chapel Hill Joint Planning Area, as defined herein. Section 1.2 Definitions A. Joint Planning Area. The area lying outside the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction of Chapel Hill but within the joint planning boundary designated on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map, as it now exists and as it may be amended from time to time. B. Chapel pill J9 .nt Development !ilea (CFJDA) . The area lying generally east of a division of the Joint Planning Area and shown as such on the copy of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map attached to this Agreement, labeled Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference. C. RI:Lai Buffer. The area designated on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map as such and designated in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as Rural Residential. This area is further defined as being a low-density area consisting of single-family homes situated on large lots having a minimum size of two (2) acres. The Rural Buffer is further defined as land which, although adjacent to an Urban or Transition area, is rural in character and which will remain rural, contain low-density residential uses and not require urban services (public utilities and other Town services) . D. Transit 'on. The area designated on the Joint immmw Planning Area Land Use Map as such. This area is further defined 090 as being in transition from rural to urban or already urban in density. Urban services (public utilities and other Town services) are now provided to this area or are projected to be provided to this area. Section 1 .3 Effective Date and Duration A. This Agreement shall become effective on the effective date of an Orange County ordinance adopting this Agreement after it has been approved by Chapel Hill and an ordinance that amends Orange County's Zoning Ordinance (including Zoning Atlas) and Subdivision Regulations as prescribed in Section 2.1 of this Agreement. Any previously adopted Agreements shall become null and void upon this date. B. This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by mutual agreement or by withdrawal of Orange County or Chapel Hill. A party may not withdraw until it holds a public hearing on the proposed withdrawal followed by written notice to the other party within thirty (30) days of the public hearing. The withdrawal shall be effective one (1) year following receipt by the other party of the written notice. ARTICLE 2. ADOPTION, ADMINISTRATION AND AMENDMENT OF STANDARDS Section 2 .1 Standards Within the Transition Area A. Chapel Hill shall prepare a Zoning Map for the Transition area and shall recommend its adoption by Orange County which, upon approval and adoption as prescribed in Subsection B of this Section, shall become part of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Map shall be prepared using zoning districts which correspond to the text of the Chapel Hill Land Development Ordinance and which correspond with the density designations and plan classifications as prescribed in the adopted Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan for the CHJDA. B. Upon completion of the Zoning Map referred to in Section 2.1 A above, Orange County shall amend its Zoning Atlas in accordance with said Map. Orange County shall also adopt by reference the Chapel Hill Land Development Ordinance and make its provisions applicable to that portion of the Transition area located within the CHJDA. Section 2.2 Standards Within the Rural Buffer Within the Rural Buffer, the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (including Zoning Atlas) and Subdivision Regulations that are in effect on the effective date of this Agreement shall remain in effect unless amended in accordance with Section 2.6 of this Agreement. Section 2.3 Permit Administration Within The Transition Area and Chapel Hill Extraterritorial Jurisdiction A. Except as otherwise provided in Section 2.5 and 2.6r the Town of Chapel Hill shall perform all functions related to 091 the administration of the ordinances referenced in Section 2.1 B. Subject to the remainder of this Section. Chapel Hill shall administer the referenced ordinances just as if the land were located within the Town' s planning jurisdiction. Administration shall include but not be limited to the following: 1. Receipt and processing of applications; 2. Issuance of any required permits and certificates; 3. Review and approval of required site/construction plans; 4. Conducting necessary site/building inspections; 5. Enforcement of all standards; 6. Any other acts or things necessary to administer the Ordinances; and shall be carried out in manner so as to insure that a developer complies with all applicable ordinance requirements and the terms and conditions of any permit issued by Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill may also charge fees for processing of applications. conducting site/construction plan reviews and carrying out site/building inspections in accordance with fee schedules applicable within it' s extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. B. Whenever Chapel Hill receives an application for a development permit relating to land within the Transition area or within its extraterritorial planning jurisdiction, it shall forward copies of the application to Orange County for review. The Town shall establish timetables to insure that Orange County has an opportunity to make recommendations regarding such applications within the framework of the County's regularly scheduled meeting dates. To the extent possible, the timetables of the County and Town shall provide for simultaneous review to expedite application processing; provided, however. the Town may not vote to issue or deny a permit until it has received the recommendations of Orange County or until the expiration of forty-five (45) days after Orange County has received the application. whichever comes first. Section 2.4 Permit Administration in the Rural Buffer A. Except as otherwise provided in Section 2.6 and the remaining provisions of this Section. Orange County shall perform all functions related to the administration of the ordinances referenced in Section 2.2 in the same manner as if the land were located outside the Joint Planning Area. B. Whenever Orange County receives an application for a development permit relating to land located within the CHJDA Rural Buffer, it shall forward copies of the application to Chapel Hill for review. The County shall establish timetables to insure that Chapel Hill has an opportunity to make recommendations regarding such applications within the framework of the Town' s regularly scheduled meeting dates. To the extent possible, the timetables of the Town and County shall provide for simultaneous review to expedite application processing; provided, however, Orange County may not vote to issue or deny a permit until it has received the recommendations of Chapel Hill or until the expiration of forty-five (45) days after Chapel Hill has received the application. whichever occurs first. --- - - -- 092 Section 2.5 Enforcement Remedies A. Permit revocation, if necessary and authorized by ordinance, shall be handled by the individual or board authorized to issue the original permit. B. Within those portions of the Joint Planning Area where the ordinances specified in Section 2.1 B are administered by Chapel Hill, enforcement efforts through the use of civil penalties, criminal penalties or injunctive relief shall be initiated by the Town. The Town shall have the duty to defend at its own expense and shall indemnify and hold harmless, to the extent it can legally do so. Orange County. its Board of Commissioners, its advisory boards, its staff and all members of its boards and staffs, in their official and individual capacities. from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, expenses, damages or liabilities, including attorneys fees and court costs, resulting from the Town administration of the ordinances specified in Section 2.1 B. C. Orange County shall notify the Town and the Town shall notify Orange County as soon as practicable thereafter, of any such claim, action or proceeding. Section 2.6 Text and Map Amendments A. Any proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Plan and Orange County Zoning Ordinance (including Atlas) applicable to the Joint Planning Area shall require County approval. All such proposed amendments shall be referred to Chapel Hill for review and recommendation. Such review and recommendation on proposed amendments shall occur before Orange County makes a final decision. B. Whenever Chapel Hill amends the its Land Development Ordinance, it shall refer such amendments to Orange County with a request that the County make corresponding changes as expeditiously as reasonably possible so that the Town may continue to enforce within the CHJDA of the Transition area the same standards that it enforces within its own planning jurisdiction. C. Proposed amendments to the text of this Agreement shall not become effective until approved by Chapel Hill and an Orange County ordinance adopting the amendment is adopted by Orange County. THIS AGREEMENT entered into this day of 198... . Mayor. Town of Chair. Orange County Chapel Hill Board of Commissioners ATTEST: ATTEST: Town Clerk Clerk to Board of Commissioners 093 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date pecember 19$6 Action Agenda Item 1 .71%1 SUBJECT: Country Manor Subdivision - Preliminary Plan DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _X Attachment(s) Information Contact: Jane Garrett Application Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Preliminary Plan Certification Agency Comments Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Country Manor Subdivision, property of A. E. Morgan. To receive the Planning Board' s recommendation. NEED: The property in question is located in Little River Township on the north side of McKee Road (SR 1534) . It is referenced as Lot 3 of Tax Map 12. The tract has direct access on McKee. It is bordered by residential development and vacant land. There are four (4) lots proposed out of 11.4 acres, the lot sizes are 3.73 acres. 5.65 acres. 3 acres and 1 .99 acres. No zoning has been adopted in Little River Township. How- ever. the Subdivision Regulations (Section IV-B-1A) require a minimum lot size of 40.000 square feet where the lots are to be served by on-site sewage disposal and water systems as is the case in this development. The Land Use Plan designa- tion is Agricultural Residential. The Health Department has granted approval to all lots in the subdivision. Police protection would be provided by the Orange County Sheriff ' s Department. while fire protection would be provided by the Little River Fire District. There was a one (1) lot minor subdivision approved for this 094 tract on August 25, 1986. The tract size was 2.75 acres which also has direct access on McKee Road. This tract is shown as the A.E. Morgan tract on the plat. IMPACT: The 1984 traffic count on McKee Road was 60 trips per day as determined from the intersection with NC 57. An additional 38 trips per day would be generated by the subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan on November 17. 1986. TPLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY) • • • -0955 . 11/85 . • PP'. CATTON ill SU-p V S,. A•PROV� C11iANCzCQUN?�L • SUBDIVISION NAME: - _ - • r NA0... • • ' LOCATION s *}CL . Ck, I S'4* _ . ._ OWNER/DEVELOPER:. / , M.4 r`ei Ca. ' ' . ' ADDRESS:: C+fit .C. _ TELEPHONE NQ. : Z�'. 2Ii .. 'AGENT/CONTACT: . . - . - . •. TELEPHONE NO. : ^ • • A. SUMMARY INFORMATION:. ' ' ' • ' . ' Grange County Ta Map ./.. . . Stock �._..._. Lot{al I _ Tolhn9hia k___ _ r : x Zoning Districts] : . E _-._ „ • To•taL Number -at Acres: .y 7 Phases: • Tote l : Number of Lots: Average Lot. Size:: .3•Z5 •. inimum. Lot Si ze �cr, Numbe,i•/Type of- Structures:: taxi sting] _ /Y'°Mg � ,Cproposedl, £ LineeL Feet in Streets:. . • , Acres in Open Space• .•Hater Supply:. PubLictepecffy7 Calemunity ' Individual • • Wastewater Disposal.: _ Public(apecify) Community jI ndridueL. Schao L District: 0 o - - Pi e• District: / / . Gener a I. Land Usea in Ar-f r ' i 'A-- i :� Ii iifi / GriticaL Areas: stream/dreinageways flood prone areas ,watershedfsp.icifyl - historic sites. athert exp le i rl 7 S . ALL p Late must be submitted on sheet no• sma L Ler than one inch equa Le twos • hundred feet C1'"=200 f ] and. no Larger than one inch aqua la fifty feet: (1 "=50' ] and must. canta.in• the fo LLowing information : . , S . • . aabdivisloa nu.• : '4 but!ding semisof lines • - ' mesa of osmep(el '- c by. notation sr typical lot 'ck 1 tems •-•. ` Here. of surveyor. anglnaar or b Layout • ' Land planner •{z• @stating end paaposed es■a-• mpleted) - — ' at Itittal Prl,ttolnery Plan manta (drsinsga, oilLittse, , •• ' loafs, north arrow INorti et roadie. ete.1 . '; top of seal g p pss•d and date (including revision datesi— , :'. adjoining rigia.-of-iay ' d,•.,� :""'. tasaablp, tan •op-block-led ¢ including dlssasions and ' • ` '{, .. refaisaaey atreet•ner•s snd @tats road . . boundary described wltb nu■berw - •f Doering' and dfetanea. r - �.•• existing and prapasad ^. total sare•ge of ebr arses ail!ilia•, lneladiag " and sore• s of tots. inalading t :±;x 0 ype. tit tee, :,•." sad sadLadlnq are. rltbin , '• hydrants, velas* and fs:} rIgP$41-sf-asy ,, sanho Las • ;` control corner :.'` - eafating and proposed. outwore proposed tot !Ines with Inoludlag .Izme and trades• is dioensiwa• $1:>:• typical street crass-eeatian. - lot naabore end fnterims: ton' dotal Ls g`? phasing lines S including design and width•. a- < topography at ten foot (101 '`' of :meals»y and ■houldera • ' ; intervals horizontat •lignaant and - : h : aster bodia'. streams, flood- } ganaraL cart's dots Ipoolta ••• way sod floodpLeine .' ?1€ roads' stream buffers and notation . : par■nnant !.attars. such as Indloating restricted "•`, •ulLdings, oa.»tsriss, • '•i' development potential }.r, historic Landmarks, _ ?z township. corporate and loser..., i 4 adjoining tat Loyout tarrltari•L pl■mning newel, of ■djotaiag proper# jurisdiction tingle which 7 :, orrnl,rs cad aubgivt.ioa■ - crown the property • ,y!' tooation and size of psraala dudiomel,d for public use or rewerard .,•x in common _ ,. . Locstian and size of lots. of rvetriotad dev.lapmenrs potential ■nd S .<7 notation on plat rsperding cue atorswstar management plan indisecing provision for contrail of the . 096 - .•• 7. . OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: • - . 1 . Twenty—six (28) copies of the preliminary plat 2. Two full size copies• of an Orange County Tax map (one copy with ta: parceLs involved cLearty marked] . ' • 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not • aver( Lab Le; a tatter from the Or•angi County Health Department certifying -the , proposed wastewetar system . Vol each lot. . . _ • C , the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing -application is complete on accurate . I understand that. a. $210.00 'fee (subdivisions of 15 Lots or Lees: 3r a $370.00 fee (subdivisions of 1S Lots - or morel is due at the time o app Li cation . A $5.00 per lot fee is due at the time the final - plat ii areeented far recordation . - 0 - • 1111. r APPLICANT'S SI TURE OW ER'S- 518/ TORE ]ATE . - DATE - • FEES: Amount #/05� Date Paid q-219-e(0 Receipt /PO • (klpf I4,5 • • • • MA 'JOR. ARVUUUZ : A.E. MaaGa+l Qes+o�una� mab Use RA4 DE`.46.4 10,1= IUtA L, '22) . , . • AC. . -• ± • • ' . ;-892-'•-s• :• ' . . 8- TRJ TR2 E',pfi X — "--*'-''''''NNN%::„...*....... \ 4 . C) . . , ...,......_„....„.../7- • ��bb ,�99 ,3807 0 • .3798 C;E) ..*80 • 20.02 AC. 'x•.66 AC, 20.03AG• 52.09 AC. f • : ofr4r4.#1..-1,012 ir . :„ 7— - —. AWAVA0 **Ai I , . ,.......„....„..„..... ...„..„...,..„,,?-11e,c __, . ." .38 4 ' ill r 441tAk. A .,„cilz."-..-------- '.,,,/ ' • OPAi. 0 4111 0 . - 0 - r',.----,---- 708 1O ` li.{ 6.5 AC. 5.97 QC�c„�f r - Q 7864 •276I -NI 1 ( � .4507 1 r 11)• 4 fir' • _,,- 3D • , I . (�y 3A 15.93 AC, I I • 3Fi '•� 0• -' s.� 1 - 7059 1 0 - t15AC. , I 4;1)1, 5953 . {5 1 3914 2810 AC. . 7 .. ` Q.523AC. 5 4AC• 8859 �' • 4.917 !. 1 COML.:t A o'00 33-1E 3 p AG - - - 9 ! z , • . 8 II • Country Manor • • 098 , 1/135 ORANGE COUNTY CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS - PRE- IMINARY PLAT • STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Jane Garrett SKETCH PLAN: Received 9-4-86 • Reviewed - 9-3-86; 9-17-86 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Recei ved 9-26-86 Reviewed 10-1-86 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT : Received 10-10-86 Reviewed TO-1246 - - !MOOT: DATE 10-22-86 CERTIFICATION Joe B. Haynes, Highway Maintenance Engineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel. Hi L -Carrboro) : DATE1"5786Certification N/A UTLITTES (OWASA/Hi Lebo roul3h/Mebane/Orange A LemancefOu r-ham.) DATE , NiA Certification OTHER : Recreation Advisors, Counci 11-7-86 MAR1 AO( (Date) Carrboro Fire Department (Date)• • Chapel Hill (Date) Ca rrboro _ (Date) - Hi Lsbo rough (Date) Durham (Date) Other S & E 10-2-16 WFa ilaLosh (Date) • Heal th Department 9-267_5_6 Dile oh t (Date) PLANNING BOARD : Data II-11-elP Approve .)( Approval with Conditions Denial BCARD OF COMMISSIONERS : Date Apo rove I Approval. with Conditions -Denia • • • i- • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING.DEPARTMENT • ICILLSBOROUGH ' NORTH CAROLINA 27278 099 • voti •f at.. • 1'4 C00% MEMORANDUM TO: Jane A. Garrett, Planner FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Officer SUBJECT: A. E. Morgan Subdivision Stormwater Management Plan DATE: October 2, 1986 The plan for this subdivision utilizes large tots (3.5 acres) , limited Impervious surface on each lot, and retention of the existing vegetation around the impervious surfaces as •• a buffer for filtering and infiltration of runoff to meet the Ordinance requirements . The plan and subdivision meet the Ordinance requirements. . • "arren Faircloth • • RECEI1VIE 10-2-91, . . ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 musBoRouGri NOR= CAROLINA, 27278 04- gegs October 15, .1986 Joe Haynes, Highway Maintenance Engineer N.C. Department of Transportation .% Route 3, Box 3 Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Country Manor Subdivision Dear Mr. Haynes: Enclosed is the Preliminary Plan of the abovereferenced subdivision for your review. The property is referenced as Tax Map 12 Lot 3 in Little River Township. it is located on the north side of SR 1534 (McKee Road) approximately 960 feet west of SR 1535 (McBroom Road). The applicant is proposing four (4) lots, to be used for single family units.. All lots have direct road frontage on SR 1534- Please provide your comments by November 7, 1386. It will be greatly appreciated. Yours truly, - . Jane A. Garrett Planner JAG/jg Enclosure ****REPLY ON REVERSE SIDE* 4111.11111111.111111111111111.11111111.1111" • O -:tt?ge Cuunt Rerre 6e .f`l `i 4V:) • 300 West Tryon S.t°.C` s' ;R`.!. HlLLSBCRCUGH, N.C-.-t:'�I8 $.ife.Beir _ MEtiORANDUM _ TO: Jane Garrett, Planner . . _ ` FROM: Mary Anne Black - . -. . " • _ DATE: November 4, 1986 ..- - RE: Courtesy Reviews — Country Manor, Stacey Heights. (Section Twp)., __ _ - Carolina Forest (Tract 6,• Phase II) and Spring - - Crest Meadows (Phase. III) Subdivisions - Upon review of the preliminary plans for the above-mentioned svbdivisions, I - " - find no elements warranting comment from a recreation and park perspective. ecrspective. In . - terms of my recommendation as it pertains to Dedication of Mien Space as . outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, I offer the following:. ` COUNTRY MANOR - Not affected . - - _ _ . -- • - ' STACEY HEIGHTS (Section Two) - - . - - In that no recreation and/or open space sites have been designated on the - Land Use Plan -for the• Property in question, I 'recommend that the County approve the payment-in-lieu of dedication for the property. - . - CAROLINA FOREST (Tract 6, Phase II) . - - . I recommend that the County. approve payment-in-lieu of dedication for the property. _ * SPRING CREST MEADOWS (Phase III) Not affected • • • _ Thank you for the opportunity to offer these staff comments- I will present 8ry 'recotoraendations to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council at - . . • their next monthly meeting (November) and will forward to you - any • changes/additions they may have. . MAB/vcw - - - - - • hECEIVE .• Hdlsbor^tl.- 732-9361 a Durham, 688-7333 • Chap- ►:pit. ��� :��: Q `.::?`,+ '�ti.- ��!-f:.�, Area Code 91'i . : . 102 October.21,. 1986. Dear Jane: Sight distance is adequate. No driveway periit will be required. Yours very truly., Joe B. Haynes Highway Maintenance Engineer ECEIVEL) 7 VOTE: Unanimous. 103 f. Country Manor Preliminary Plat Presentation was made by Jane Garrett. This agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Country Manor Subdivision, property of A. E. Morgan. The property is located in Little River Township on j the north side of McKee Road. It is bordered by residential development and vacant land. Four lots are proposed out of 11.4 acres. No zoning has been adopted in Little River Township. The Land Use Plan designation is Agricultural Residential. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan. Barry Jacobs requested that the verbiage be changed in reference to the land bordering this subdivision as "vacant" noting it it is actually "undeveloped" land. MOTION: Motion was made by David Shanklin, seconded by Steve Yuhasz, to approve the Preliminary Plat as recommended by the Planning Staff. VOTE: Unanimous (Mike Lewis was out of the room) . g. Carolina Forest: Division of Tract #6 of Phase II - Preliminary Plat Presentation was made by Jane Garrett. This agenda item is to consider approval of the preliminary Plan for the division of Tract #6 - Carolina Forest Phase II, property of Edward and Lita Pascarella. The property is located in Chapel Hill Township on the west side of Damascus Church Road. The tract is bordered by residential development and wooded land. Two lots are proposed out of 11.59 acres. The zoning of the property is Rural Residential with an overlay zoning designation of University Lake Protected Watershed. The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential (Rural Buffer) and University Lake Watershed. The Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan requires a minimum lot size per dwelling unit of 2.0 acres in the Rural Residential (Rural Buffer) area. The Planning staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan contingent upon the following conditions: 1. Position the driveway on the north lot to obtain maximum sight distance (see NCDOT's comment) . ORANGE COUNTY 104 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS `# ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date 'December 1, 1986 Action A enda SUBJECT: Carolina Forest: Division of Tract #6 of Phase II Item #�' . Preliminary Plan DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact: Jane Garrett Application Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Agency Comments Preliminary Plat Certification Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham -- 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for the divi- sion of Tract #6 - Carolina Forest Phase II. property of Edward and Lita Pascarella. To receive the Planning Board' s recommendation. NEED: The property in question is located in Chapel Hill Township on the west side of Damascus Church Road (SR 1940) . It is referenced as Lot 28 of Tax Map 118. The tract is bordered by residential development and wooded land. The tract has direct access on Damascus Church Road. There are two (2) lots proposed out of 11.59 acres. The lot sizes are 5.753 acres and 5.731 acres. The zoning of the property is Rural Residential (R-1) with an overlay zoning designation of University Lake Protected Watershed (PW--II) . The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential (Rural Buffer) and University Lake Watershed. The R-1, PW-II zoning district classification requires a minimum lot size of 40.000 square feet or 0.92 acre. The Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan requires a minimum lot size per dwelling unit of 2.0 acres in the Rural Residential (Buffer) area. The Health Department granted approval of the proposed lots. /MN Police protection would be provided by the Orange County 105 Sheriff's Department, while fire protection would be pro- vided by the Damascus Fire District. IMPACT: The 1985 traffic count on Damascus Church Road (SR 1940) was 800 trips per day as determined from the intersection with SR 1942. An additional 19 trips per day would be generated by the subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan on November 17. 1986 contingent upon the following condition: - Submission of payment-in-lieu for two (2) lots based on recommendation of the Recreaation Director. Payment-in- lieu would be equal to 2/35th or 0.057 acres x $5,115 per acre = $291.00. (Per acre value based on 1987 valua- tions.) ri..--m t 1YP5 OR PRINT LINK ONLY)' ,...:., •_:;. =. . . • ... . I. • 0.:,?t>r 4:71".;, . _ =- 11 r I / 5• A-P _ CA ON . OR S D V S O - PPROV•• ORANGE OUNTY. i „�, i �.Vii:' '`' - • ± .. ;,.. I • �; :: "'DATE: `�u6Nr``'� 3 r�� ` � -•• SUED/VISION MANE; '5U: j-' Q` r'F • T 1 % # ` T P: ,; :4- . ,r- a a4r 1 Ad j- w. A Si y 1: c ; �— LO CATI ON: h �+♦ - r.+ti. "'4.+. - � ' -r T'.�is��.� ' f�•�+: '� .c= am it •w!-'� :a.tr orb .�.YF.- - ©WNER/DEVELOPER f., .,. .) • ,:ors. p,_ L1 ` r -t*- • • .ADDRESS::.;. : • c'. ; - — i.1 D - TELEPHONE Nu..: 3d/-- ?1.•.7- 741' ,,- • - �:-,,, :: . ,4r.5,8uR�I/ -I erlb • . /,is./ , .-;..1:::::;_,;...-. . - :_ • _---s:..,: ,_ - i' -- '.. •''--..:++ Z.t*', :4-i ii-:•r.�..t :a; ' - -i'll r t. area._ GENT/CONTACT 7"I t'► '`' 100/4 L; ";' 4 Tr'1': .TELE HONE. NO- �` - 6 �':s :;:":xx ;:P. LII AiPPI' : SP A' 4:#081P EL- /f(!L _ ;: s—,,. 4.: '.;:. .' �_• !. ,ter �Y ..'4_ i• ,J.. "'0. j' iR A/tyl!!..1• ti. :,-�',:•11.. a ..rteaK'' ;4lk;.1stii ;4j:Y •'o ..:.q.�,b'T.F •.-`S, A. SUMMARY INFORMATION:: ;= •_ : :. = __ _ -' }yam 4:: �� _ `:. %" -__-:_:;r•._y. .. ..-- •':.-.c.:�, ,Sl� ' y,♦•r.I:� '.-° a '�'�.ccitefrS4- �T' Orange County Tex Nap Stook- Latta) 2 g`s°, Township-'•7'--= G#tV'4 e�//4 .. • Zoning Distriat[s) s•_. R- . . • Total Number of Aaron: �G �� Phases: / Tata L Number or Lots: Average Lo Size: �S•a .Minimuar Lot Size. AL 2,11d • Number/Type of Structures.:(existing): DA) (proposed), A/r,N Lineal.. Feet in Strastag- Are in Open Space. - Water Supp Ly: •' . 1J /, =•' • Pub Li at opeai fy) Commnni ty Indi vi due L 3.-- • ' Weatewater Dispose L:.s ? -ubLi of specs fy) .Community .,Indi Yi dua L. • School Districts A 24,Q,0' Fire. District; '&- �; nR.► .S�L,CS ' General.' Land Uses in •Area: - .l a i c-S IbER7 /'L. __. Critical Areas; streela/drainegeweys _...��flood- prone areas • 14177 A4htC.,wetershedf specs fy) 4.historic sites. other(expLain) •• D. ALL .p lets must be submitted on sheet • no sme L Ler- than one inch- equals two ° • • hundred . feet (.4"=21:10/1 and. no Larger than one inch .eque Ls fifty feint: (1 "=501 ) and nuet •contain the following information: • ' • 4.•• -4 ssbdislrias bees b.$/ding •esbrak tines • - mane ,t o.nerie1 • •�< by nosaat•n et t neck. Items :('-a° a•m•r Of Surveyor, impinges* o �'' Layout yPtwl los 1 +�; lase/ ■la■ner �� ela m sets:* c. ' �;x •tt-aslnq lad proposed masse• - P ) ' - � • im isitle/ Preliminary Platt- • i� wens' tdrsin.ge..utt litl•s■ _ mute. nwrtb ■rims (Norte a; _ / - ro■dr,, *gaol - :=;'.: sop of sap/ . . • existing, proposed and • 7��� �� dais ilralydie; roe-Islam Oases/ adjoining rigbt■.-of.. •y - /,r �� -' teems/tip, 111131 ■sp—Moak—lot % including • dimensions and 4'1...4'- rrtar.aara �" aurae' oases and state road . beaadary desorlb•d wish - ' numbers :•:} leering, ride disservice - , i. sal sting and Proposed • sod acreage of the treat ail titles. including • iy;y, •f to te, laoludiag ,•,, : typ•, size•, • ; .. rod ateLodtag ores within ••••:..' hydrants, v.E0.■ and ".1.-..„,- rlghs.• sf—.sy �, -; ■onbaLeo - • a•ntrsl earner . . .;`.c existing and proposed maim,* ' ' lraprssd lac tiara with -inolmdiag firms and grudge dt.nwsiewa syp/eel straw aro•■+sstt'sien• ' '''' let *webers-g a sad insere.estgn dotal le • • phasing liner • two{ ineleding assign and widsb • •� snoops-spiel as meet foe; lid/ • . .�1 of erevetwey • and •hautd.r• ,',{, Immerge le,..... + _ f.�. ho ri zonsa l a l l gnment and ,'` mover bodies, •tr.MS, flood-. ;;;..:,c: general peeve dots Ipoblies osy end floodptsie• roads) sterns* buffers and actati.• i. ' Indiaasi.; reetrlesed t - bus Wings.fr■t4ref .rats a• Poi tdings. ehaw•esare■a. - derotememrt pastelist 4-'C hi■serif lenosierka torwabip• '•anarrar and ■scar ' :• adjoining - serriterisl planning J g late Layout .jar/.*laden time .nleb erase of adjoining iene property -•' sinners asq euOeltri■Iona ,�pAjj 6-f/4, � ;`.;� mimes the mrve■rtf - - - t....s.r and etz■ of peraa/s Mediae/lied for mobile wee or ressr,tad _ "'?':V IC oleo.. laaat•a and else of toed of restricted deveLoi■aw; pesanei•l end- ' �"nnbsetisn on plat regarding .}!v y M -.,.- *tor...v.- ••$u' ... - -he- eg,'.--w- --- ''-4..... rte► . -.. • . OTHER. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: • , ^^'' ... 1 . Twenty—six (28) copies of the preLiminary pLat - __,: `•..ri, „` .' - - ._.. s_ , w. :... ..:'.:... a .•,,,., ::k:. ..- •; : `: - 2. Twa• fu L L size copies:. of an Orange,. County Tax map - Ions copy with - tax parcels invoLvod a Lea rLy oprkeed3 . ' - - -- -.�. --..:::: :,,. .,�,.-.., :,,.. . • ,•. ,....,',. .•3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not"eval labtd :ii-- from` tha Orange - County Health Department_ certifying,•the proposed: wastawate 4 ,e stem'„for eachLot'."" :- ---� , . . ..z•-----_...w,-_ — -., .-...,�......,.,:..,.,.�...,�..:.�.. - ' ` y ........-�....�.,, - •may`.::;.... g�_a,"-;,i...�µ� -_ _ .1F-•.._. -� r:..a...,..,e .±:[- �.'... '.L•F 7 .Y'�Lmtramt .+fr_ the •app Li cent;; hereby" certify that" th � #"� +t :..__. �.�,-�,-::: =`: Y e'•faragaInd. appt•iCationl is comp Leta nd • acurete.:,••-. ,I understand , that; a $210.00 'fee (subdivisions- of 3S. Lots- oru Le a2 r •a 3370.00 fee isubdiviaiana aft 18 Lots=.or, moaeL`is� ` dee`- ate~ then time=• of pp Licaticn ::.-, A $8,.00 per 'Lot- fedi- i e. . due,.. at the;.; tie. the _fina Li' p Let Is resented for recordation -- : - = '�, .,�.� - f t y„"f ...:.^F �= _ ._-"w5:� .:tiY.bp_•+�i-i��4':C'A'rt`Y'r�R..'.�.�4Tit-'!.��/r .a..:y.,ww�.e t, •� 'V• �at ___ -_.Sly. -.�,17 .:.L ..�. ' `� i' -.',= '•�'-'r _ 'f� y 't}':'; - . • - '.s ,,��.fyy - r � a.. �y� spy . aD�J7G' - !G.t..!+.-ti 1�+�•�'?.: „,,,, ,„,e.,:,,-r-.4 e��M.,�7,”11��y.•`���Y_'7 ;7::,-.i1},'"-'?„-. ��y;�}�'.^.e q•�.w+i .., ♦ j... �.C�w !'•. 4+wFY++µ.ms �f...,.*..s"ww..wiW.-1, ' :: '-SFG 6"' r'.✓.�+ -, j �Y. .`. 'J .- - „..,•,..,.. -,„.....;•;,,,,,,,;:„.. ..�,. . r `i a..• -+i.ti r.....� w�.r.. .. aSS Si:Z_ .o-...� f . • • y=Pi CA T- SIG TU ` ._.. .. OWNER 'SSIONATUIE- , - • a* . . . t . .•• _ _ . �►TE �/J . ... •_ . ..4;e4 - - . . . • . . . DATE: __ .-. .. :.::::_.--yr • ' •• - . • • • • • FEES: Amount 47067° Date Patel -1.1-20- 7 Receipt 1//,1 - • • • • - Carolina Forest: Division of Tract #6 - Phase li • ft * . . 11/SZ-.7 DRANGECOUMT`, CERT/EICATION AND APPROVALS - PR5LI■41.NARY . - STAFF ASSIGNMENT: J-ne Garrett . . - I SKETCH PLAN: Received 8-29-86 .Reviewed -9-3-86;9-17-86 ..—. .,......--................., .....-____..........._ PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 16-±1§_____1,..101,..,.....40. Reviewed 10-2-86 . . REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received Reviewed NCOOT: DATE_11- 9-2 16 CERTIFICATION Joe B. Haynes, Highway MaintenanCe Engineer ...111111111.immEl.............. ..........1•■•■......w.■.....,......... ..„„, 4i..1..m..1.1. •SCHOOL SCARD (Drange/Chape 1. Hi 1. 1.-Carrboro) : DATE 10.72.-86Certification N/A UTLITIES (OWASA/Hi 1. isberough/Nebene/Drange A Lemence/Gurttami DATE 1O_2860 Subdivision proposal to Pat Davis of OWASA Certification -W/A-------- OTHER: Recreation Advisory Counci I. 11-7-86 MA Bilack Mate, . ' Carrboro Fire Department _-________ fDate) _ t Chapel. Hi t t . ae) r Carrboro 70,7"6:176—AParkei M(Date) ,,, Hi t i.sbo rough Durham ii — 0 (Date) %hr S & E 10-2-86 WFaircloth (Date] . e --.}1th Department 5-26-86 VPBurns -----tDatei . . P LA NH:'; 7 0.,*. :10 : Data il-11-840 App ro va I. I.'. App rove t with Conditions ')4- Den i a - - 0., BOARD CF CL'i!ilISSIONERS : Date A 1 pprova '',:: Approval with Conditions ____, Denie t ... - . . ..z. ; '-- . . 1 . - - . ..... :.: ,_ , . .... .___ _ . 5USDlvI5IoU. . oF TZACT4 , PHASE Two . AN eA /IOU hi- + -Pm 2010∎J : 2 A2u2A1.PP A1,/ f 4H NOTE NO. 7 ONITTED 4325 14B •• �.09 zo •• RuP yes. 471oN= Qua , . AIIV•u►. . , rZ s � � s.e! 1 24 r 14© W4 } ' 27A `s 5.13 AC. 2.28- I 2 40 11 C(/>. 5 SAC. s`^Dq, AC. 11 _ r '2 mar I .4106 �B �-� N. ' 2 , I� 5.02 AC. wry`A 46 C 1∎ 43 s a .. , `�Q� 7 \ / 14 (1.-4i" • ` 2 5 \, AI AC' .9 14C SCG�� 4703 \-e. P 5.0/I AC, 4G14 S RG 1 146 11.59 AC. �; 56$ � AC- Ij'4` �` • SEE MAP 1180 ' c 1 $400 B . �\ C. ■\ (.1.L. WIL SON ESTATE 30 27 – • \\ '-- . _. PH l 8� PH 2) efj 2 9 —~� \` 1979 . --- f R- 60':. \\o .5I AC. � ' 1 r 0 I5O2 AC , \\I - — r s V` — r 1 SASEMFNT — 06' 6771 • \\ ENPT ■∎ \6Ac- \9693 /o 4 ! \ °QIURCU s , 0 Alk'1-':\ 8422 \ • \•\ 5.36 AC. s O \\\SG _ FU• \\ z 4 AC. \\��, _ 1221 . 38.24 AC. I". .3323\ \\f. \ \ . _LI__ _ IO.04 AC. 7087 0 / \\ g. .• cnvn 6.178 AC- ,. / \FO 5913 % s 9.179 AC. 0 fie' 274A / .9706 \\\Q --- a C. \, 5.29 AC. 2a \\ . $T 153 !� \, 0 I A 1 2a a \\ 3.98 AG , 13k5 w e4 ��,__k OA 2A 4 04 AC. P =�_,_________________,9 •19 - 0 . 377 4 AC. ~ '• 5 ` 45 622i 2� zAC- o \ ' e 4AC zo 10 7074 \� 0 7093 C4 h2 \\ 4 AC. 41 51 AC. •.-gip 1$33 �0 / \` . 89835 ,y , �--_ 0\A 0 4 AC /�' \ 4 01 AC 77 0 5l'A1. :1 ynat �� • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT . • rULLSBOROUGH 110 NORTH CAROLINA 27278 oki • = -;t71! 4‘:fr • .6•Fat • • MEMORANDUM TO: jane A. Garrett, Planner • - • FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Officer . • SUBJECT: Pascarella Subdivision Stormwater Management Plan Chapel . Hill Township, Map 118, Cot 28 - DATE: October 2, 1986 The plan for this subdivision utilizes the large lots (5.5 • acres) , limited impervious surface, and retention of the . • existing vegetation as a buffer for filtering, and . infiltration of runoff to meet the Ordinance requirements. • The plan and subdivision meet the Ordinance requirements. • I 1144( 441A., • _ Warren Faircloth • • --6ECE1111ET-1) _1-9 • • 13:A P.0 Bon 337 301 West Main Street arrboro Caftans.Morth Carolina 27510 (919)942-85iett 1,A October 14, 1986 Jane Garrett Orange County Planning Department 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Courtesy Subdivision Review Carolina Forest,Tract 6 Phase 2 • Pascarella Property • Dear Ms. Garrett: A review of the referenced subdivision has been completed. The proposed subdivision would likely be in an R-40 district if under our jurisdiciton. • Lot size and setbacks indicated on the plan would be acceptable for that districts The Town would recommend approval of the subdivision request. Si erely,/, /7 Amy Parker Development Coordinator AMP:sgm • 17) )51(.7:!7':n -q ctili 9 7-17' J -I ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ITILLSBOROUGEI S Al2 . NORTE CAROLINA 27278 ec. 10106 e (4, October 2, 1986 Joe Haynes, Highway Maintenance Engineer • N.C. Department of Transportation Route 3, Box 3 14w4 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subdivision of Tract 6. Phase Two. Carolina - property of Edward Pasdarella DeAr wr, Haynes:• is the Preliminary Plan of the abovereferencedsubdiuisioN for your ro T.- . -pperty is referenced as Tax Map 118 lot‘28 in Chapet—iirilITownship ' :ated on the west side of SR 1940 (Damascus Church Road). The tract •r . ci approximately 750 feet north of Damascus Church. The applicant ; • ,cing two (2) lots to be used for single family dwellings. Both lots -oct access onto SR 1940. r : -Dyide your comments by November 7, 1986. It wilt be greatly appreciated. Yours truly, • @AL. Jane A.• Garrett Planner 444 3.42 • •"11. 113 October 21, 1986 Dear Jane: We recommend the following: 1. Position drive on North lot to obtain maximum sight distance. 2. No driveway permit required. 'Yours very truly, Alt Joe B. Haynes Highway Maintenance Engineer ECEIVE 1-211-100 i-)s (tattntu Merreation unb ' r .t Dep -artment - AN-3-15-*4-c 300 West Tryon HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. i.'27C - qr./ • . 0:rector 114 MEMORANDUM SO: Jane Garrett, Planner FROM.. Mary Anne Black 71793 . • • DATE: tkmnanter 4, 1986 RE: Courtesy Reviews — Country Manor, Stacey, Heights., (Section Two), Carolina Forest (Tract 6, /team II) and Spring CrestMeadows (Phase /II) Subdivisions . ' Upon review of the preliminary plans for the above-mentioned subdivisions* I find no elements warranting comment from a recreation and park perspective. In ' terms of my recommendation as it pertains to Dedication of Open Space as - outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, I offer the following: COUNTRY MANOR Not affected - STACEY HE/GHTS (Section Two) - In that no recreation and/or open space sites have been designated on the Land Use Plan for the Property in question, I reminmend that the County ' approve the payment-in-lieu of dedication for the property. CAROLINA FOREST (Tract 6, Phase II) ' • • I recommend that the County approve payment-in-lieu of dedication for the . property. SPRING CREST MEADOWS (Phase III) Not affected • Thank you for the opportunity to offer these staff comments. I will present iny recommendations to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council at their next monthly meeting (November) and will forward to you any • changes/additions they may have. - MAD/yew 113)E C I 4?4 D) • in) 11- 1- wisboroti-;-, 7 .".:',361 DUrhaln, 683-7333 * Area Code 91c.r . 7 VOTE: Unanimous. - 115 • f. 'Country Manor Preliminary Plat • , Presentation was made by Jane Garrett. This agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Country Manor Subdivision, property of A. E. Morgan. The property is located in Little River Township on the north side of McKee Road. It is bordered b residential development and vacant land. Four lot are proposed out of 11.4 acres. No zoning has been • adopted in Little River Township. The Land Use Plan designation is Agricultural Residential. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the • - Preliminary Plan. • Barry Jacobs requested that the verbiage be changed in reference to the land bordering this subdivision as "vacant" noting it it is actually "undeveloped" - land. MOTION: Unanimous (Mike Lewis was out of the room) . g. Carolina Forest: Division of Tract #6 of • Phase II - Preliminary Plat• Presentation was made by Jane Garrett. This agenda item is to consider approval of the • ' preliminary Plan for the division of Tract #6 - • - Carolina Forest Phase II, property of Edward and Lita Pascarella. The property is located in Chapel Hill Township on the west side of Damascus Church Road. The tract is bordered by residential development and wooded land. Two lots are proposed out of 11.59 acres. The zoning of the property is • Rural Residential with an overlay zoning designation of University Lake Protected Watershed. The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential (Rural Buffer) and University Lake Watershed. The Joint Planning Area. Land Use Plan requires a minimum lot size per dwelling unit of 2.0 acres in the Rural Residential (Rural Buffer) area. The Planning staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan contingent upon the following conditions: • 1. Position the driveway on the north lot to obtain maximum sight distance (see NCDOT's comment) . 2. Submission of payment-in-lieu for two (2) lots based on recommendation of the Recreation Director. Payment-in-lieu would be equal to 2/35th or 0.057 acres x $5,005 per acre _ 116 8 - $291.00. (Per acre, value based on 1987 valuations.) Carl Walters asked why the 200 foot setback from the road was requested. Garrett noted the setback was proposed by the applicant. Steve Yuhasz expressed a concern for the method of enforcement of condition #1. Jane Garrett explained this was based on the speed limit. She indicated that the staff would ensure enforcement through inspections. Yuhasz indicated this should - not be a. condition of approval, since he felt there was no mechanism for enforcement. He recommended • that condition #1 should be deleted. After further discussion, it was decided that condition #1 should ' be deleted. MOTION: Motion was made by David Shanklin, seconded by Steve Yuhasz, to approve the Preliminary Plan with the deletion of condition #1 and subject only to condition #2. VOTE:' 7 in favor. - I opposed. (Barry Jacobs) (Peter Kramer was out of the room) AGENDA ITEM #7: MATTERS HEARD AT JOINT PUBLIC HEARING 10/13/86. - a. Eubanks Road Townhouses - The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. This agenda item is to consider for approval the proposed planned development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit request submitted by John Loving , for the project known as Eubanks Road Townhouses. This item was considered at public hearings on April 3, 1986, May 5, 1986 and October 13, 1986. The project is in the Joint Planning Area. The Planning Staff is recommending approval with three additional conditions in addition to the 19 that were recommended at the October 13, 1986 public hearing: 1. That a revised site plan be submitted showing construction of. 120 townhouse units phased for construction in a sequence equivalent to that contained in condition #12. 2. That a left turn lane be constructed on Eubanks Road at its intersection with N.C. 86 in accordance with NCDOT specifications, with final plans approved by the County Manager and NCDOT prior to construction. 3. That a payment-in-lieu of recreation area in the amount of $10,702 be made at the time of ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 117 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 1, 1986 Actioulleenda Item#'J SUBJECT: REQUEST TO DELAY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS (CAROLINA SPORT ART CENTER - HOMESTEAD ROAD) *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_X_No *************************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS: McCormick Letter CONTACT: Marvin Collins of 11-19-86; Zoning Ordinance Provisions- TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Non-Profit Recreational Hillsborough 732-8181 Facilities; Vicinity Chapel Hill 967-9251 Map. Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 *************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider a request to delay legal action against Mr. Benjamin Edkins, owner-operator of Carolina Sport Art Center, until such time as the Board of Adjustment has an opportunity to review his application for a Class B Special Use Permit at its January 12, 1987 meeting. NEED: On September 16. 1986. the Board of County Commissioners authorized the County Attorney to initiate legal proceedings against Mr. Ben Edkins for operating a gymnastics center in an R-1 Residential district without a valid zoning permit. Mr. Edkins and his attorney. Mr. John McCormick, desire to apply for a Class B Special Use Permit as a Non-Profit Recreational Facility. Class B Special Use Permits are issued by the Board of Adjustment, and the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting is January 12, 1987. The application deadline is December 8, 1986. Mr. McCormick is requesting that Orange County delay any legal action against Mr. Edkins until such time as the Board of Adjustment has an opportunity to review the application for a Class B Special Use Permit. IMPACT: Delaying legal action against Mr. Edkins would afford him the opportunity of pursuing one avenue 118 of correcting the violation - approval of a Class B Special Use Permit. RECOMMENDATION: If the Board decides to delay legal action, it is recommended that such action be delayed until January 13, 1987 . At that time, legal proceedings could be dropped if the application is approved. Otherwise, legal action could be initiated again without further Board action. Ej nr•Irj. 13 JOHN G. McGoRmicK agrWea ttba . ATTORNEY AT LAW BOLIN CREEK CENTER,SUITE 200 vaO AIRPORT ROAD CHAPEL RILX.NOTE- GAROLIN.A. 27514 919 929 7171 November 19, 1986 Mr. Ken Thompson County Manager Orange County Offices fl 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Meeting of County Commissioners, December 1, 1986 Dear Mr. Thompson: ' I represent Mr. Benjamin Edkins, the owner and operator of Carolina Sport Art located on Homestead Road in Chapel Hill. At a previous meeting of the County Commissioners, direction was given to _the County Attorney to begin legal proceedings to eliminate a violation of the • zoning ordinance, that violation being Carolina Sport Art located on Homestead Road. It is my information that in 1976, the owners of this property obtained permission from the county to build this facility to train a team of gymnasts to compete in the Olympics. ' It was operated at that time by a non-profit corporation. At some point in its history the operation was taken over by a for-profit corporation. Mr. Edkins is now the owner and operator of a for-profit corporation doing • business in the facility. Having become aware of the requirement' that recreational facilities in residential areas must be operated by non- profit corporations and then only upon the granting of a special use permit, Mr. Edkins is now in the process of forming such a non-profit corporation and making application for the required special use permit. I am requesting that this matter be placed on the agenda for the December 1, 1986 meeting of the County Commissioners for purposes of . asking the County Commissioners to delay any legal action against Mr. Edkins until such time as the Board of Adjustment may have an . opportunity to review his application at its January 12, 1987 meeting. If you have questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call me. Please let me know if this matter will be on the agenda and where on the agenda so that I may make my plans to attend. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, / John G. McCormick JGM:mjf r 4 f,. • 1 r, 0 • • • • " AM RI R3IR3I94 951 PS RL3I94C1 C2ICC31GC3 £C-5 • rl:L ID !� 22tr3rAS11BID1 ', - 534 Recreational•Pagi)4,ago ' 1 (Non-Profit) B B B >3i 3 $ ! 535 Recreational Facilities I I I (Co1�eCZt>b a,add t)Ciula j - i i ; t ./ 1 i • CtxlnbryGl.elb sr' , •! • .1 .! r( s( ti s *I i i 538-Retreat/. asC+eationaL FaetlleiQS • I - i i I t ' . #• i ' l i i (Profit)1 I I 1 i [ i t • r ! s0 ei [ ' . _ • i 637 Sepal= Seralca i 1 `. f t ! • -•-- Rec atr3r& Appliance -, , ' • • •• 1 4 C 4 i Research !r*acility t •* •I 4 t r • • $39 Reieaurantas Carry out I .1 si - +� i I• • 540 Restaurants: Drive la • j !! i ) j �. 541. Restaurants: General k I I ( ' i. w . # 1 f i ..: + •1 t ; i _ I . • 54Z Wean trade, $*.l fence i t I _ •, • 1 , i E tt - ! ! i r• ) 1 • • i Rental of I i • F I i • • Goods. Merchandise a . •• ! t • I I ! 1 ' 1 • i 1 • j . 1 t • Vfiitpecnt :There No ; ! ) I ; : e ; i I . E . . Adverse �tnpaets Occur f i �- t • •Bepefnd Zsediate•space • : ; t F • ` ) _ ,. OaCUplkd By The Building i I. +1 s i s t € . • r • • 'A) operations Are ' I. • ! 0 1 r i a - Designed To Attract ' - k r ' i t • r i Qr Create Customers 'I i t - I• E 1 lo, • t E r i ° ; r 1: i [ 1• i• Other Than Employes* I E . -Of 1'de Principle Bee. 11 i ! 1 • . • . 3) Gov Volu m* Traffic i 1 k 1 i 1 i _• r Cease anon 0-zoo Trips I• ' i 6 E I. € e a � ) 1 I r = C i ! E t C) All Operations I f • I .: 1 =,. I ! 5. E Ent3eely Within A • • , II ` • • Puny Enclosed Building, t I 1 I .' ' F -1 i • * i 1 g E 1 ; r With We Outside storage i 1 - I '' ii •' I i, • j G . AR]&1)R2t R'1 R4 95 43' I •t 1 ` t r-- a) rc_l icr'�i c -3)ox a��Iik z z:z3i;,si EDf pED • ' , - . •• - • • 4.17 - • - *• • • • onnea - .„aer Recreation Use, Non-Profit An indoor or outdoor recreatic� L. 121 ttse� owned by a not-for• rofit corporation, according to the laws of North Carolina., Recreation rise, Profit An indoor or outdoor recreation use owned by ear entity other- than a. not-for-profit corporations Recreation Soace Ratio Recreation space ratio is the minimum s footage of open space in residential- areas, suitab ea by lcca ton, size,. shape, access and improvements, required for each square foot of moor area. This -. - area is a public or private exterior area improved • for recreation of all residents, having a;least dimension of fifty y feet, and average di tensie , of one hundred feet and a mxnimtZia area of ten thousand- square feet.. Recreation Vehicle .A self-propelled or towed 'vehicle,- uali:fi ed to be licensed by the appropriate State. Agency, designed to provide short term recreational living acc oa apt s_. These vehicles are distinguished from mobile ho , dwelling units and temporary buildings. P.ehabilitative Care Facility A facility licensed. by the aPprogr%ats state agency, as a group care facility for individuals ' who are handicapped, aged disabled, youthful offenders, addicted to alcohol or drugs,.,reflo5zit ug. - •: professional health care, adult supervision, or - j rehabilitation. . . 0 • • SUlar • 224026 -' ------------- , 1/4, •• _ - • buildings, parking, acqess, service, recreation, land ed scap • 122 and screened areas. - - • . - . ' 6) Other criteria as set forth _in Subsection 6.12. S . : d) A statement concerning the provision of public services which shall include fire, police and rescue protection. . . . 8.8.20.2 ' Standards For Evaluation . - - • . , a) Adequate parking, access and service areas are provided for the . site. . ' . _. . . _ . . 14. Parking, service areas and buildings are adequately screened . -' - ' . * from adjacent residential uses. . . .c) Improved recreational facilities are provided for cccupants. - d) Other criteria as setforth in Subsection 6.12., S - . e) Letters from public service agencies attesting to the adequacy of the provision of public services such as fire,' pcaice and rescue. . . -08.8.21 Recreational Facilities (5-34) (Class B Special Ute) . - - - - • _ . _ _ . _ 8.8.21.1 Additional Information. . _ . - -. - • ' In addition to the information required by Subsections 8.2 and - •• ..... , ' 8.8 •%, the following shall be supplied as, part of the . , application: • - - . - - a) A description of the exact type facility planned, the amount of area, including and number of members or participants expected, • •' . a site plan showing siting and size of existing and proposed building. . • • • b) Access, parking, service and recreation areas for all planned -- : facilities or existing facilities. ' • - - . . ' c) Plans, and elevation for all proposed and existiing . - . structures and descriptions of the color and nature of all exterior materials, . . _ . . d) A landscape plan showing, at the same scale as the site plan, existing and proposed trees, shrubs, ground cover and any other _ landscape materials. • . . * . _ e) A signed statement from the owners Or operators that there shall be no activity allowed that will have adverse effects on adjacent • property. The statement shall also include a complete list of i 1 all recreational activities that will take place on the site. - 1 • ' k 8.8.21.2 Standards of Evaluation - - i The following specific standards shall be used in deciding on an• . . application for this use. , . - - - V . . .. • , _ - - , . a) Lot size shall be adequate for the method of sewage disposal proposed, and for the proposed recreational uses. .. . . . _ . b) The site plan should show the boundaries of the site, the distances to the nearest residential structures, proposed or existing access points, parking and service areas, location of outdoor recreational, facilities, and location of existing or proposed buildings. 0 , . • • . -- -.. c) The landscape plan shall be at the same wale as the site plan and should show how the facilities will be screened from the ' • , adjacent properties, in addition to proposed or existing treesi .1 Shrubs and ground cover. . ...- d) Elevations of all structures and buildings. The structure -' - . . shall, be of such a nature as to preserve the residential - - - . . - character, of the area. . . . . . . , } ' There are no adverse impacts on the adjacent roads or -residential' . . . ' property.. _ . - . - . . . . . , 8 a 22 _ Waste Management Facility, Hazardous And Toxic (Class A -- - gal - . Use) 0 . . . . _ _. . 8.8.22.1 - .Additional Information . -- .- . . • .- - - . In addition to the information required in Subsections 8.2 and - - - ' 8-.8 ' • the following shall be supplied as part of the _ • " . - _ , application: ' . - . . ' . . . _ _. a). A, copy of the application filed with the Wirth cagroliiia Depar_tment . ' of Human Resources, Division of Health Services for a hazardous waste management facility. . . .. ,. . . . _ b) A detailed description of the type facility planned. • Included - . . in this description will be the size of the project, 'Si2e of the- • site, the type storage involved, and the method of: permenent disposal anticipated. _ . c) Letters from the appropriate agencies that the facility has adequate- , . protection against fire, vandalism and persona/ injury. . ' . d) Surveyof floodplain and floodway locaton on the site plan. e) An emergency management plan that has been submitted to the . appropriate North Carolina State agency, and approved. - , - - 8.8. 22.2 Standards Of Evaluation . . ._ . The following standards shall be used in deciding on an applica- tion for this use: _ a) All necessary State permits have been applied for and granted to the applicant. • • b) The description of the type facility planned, including a detailed . . description of the type wastes to be stored or disposed of on 8-23-. • • • `' ._. • -Mimi. •. •• - 124 ' 327! - ' •• •• •- ii . - :.• t, t7A iI - 1/ '168.74 AC. q Ii t I - rr '1 f • - • a 11 �� 11 _ - ' ,".1°'ii„17( 'En)-1-8 4-15 / • l► '�f - -xw� _ wt l ;_ 91&9 V..' - -- . ` • .4...11.7 .6', t is �.• . .. 444:4\‘\ _ . . ' .. ,..-5, Tb..... _ . . . r\--\s, . . - . • &.: : -- ' • - ' . -. I '` • , • . • r=4.- - f j .96 , .. .- 1 , . --- -_ [..,...X..\ . . Pt:- *. ' 0 4eos r IRE biletELS -, .4 4 Ai.. . , . 0 • - I (... - . - .t., --- ..;- , , . I f - , . • �_ 174 AC. - 7320 - 31_...A-a a -4 ;; . . 40.5 AG. _ _ • S 1' .r •`Y` I - a/ e f „.4G%.6444.511c :-? ' g . , - 55 AC... -�- �� !�i ' 4 43 AC. "3586 ` ECM- qp 4489 0417 e j = 3i " -g° t ROAD ., r - : 50..•1777 - ACS Ll6l�A. -8 4—* CA1t/}1 1 269. ' 1~:�3�3.g`��_1$D -- �-^��'" "` V.:'...-.. i i 22-11 A a lb `' a ���1 L 11t 144 • I _ -- - ".` ---`.`. _0 1 • p,.:..„ 3 h -, - e `4G 1� X5.75 ACt f-35 _.'. i CAL *_ {.2718 8981 2 = ■ _ . 5.255AC r 1 I - 0680 I �(' `-; - .r , '�. 1 7646 i ::. t 1 1:\:7S 19:62,AC. 11455 - ...--- - -- ! t di°`-1 �, - t 1 15.943 AC. _. ° e �y ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 125 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 1, 1986 Action Agenda Itemtlio SUBJECT: MORATORIUM ON APPLICATION OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS (SECTION IV-B-8-c-1 OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS) *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_X_No *************************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS: Section IV-B-8-c-1 CONTACT: Marvin Collins of Subdivision Regulations TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 *************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider placing a moratorium on the enforcement of Section IV-B-8-c-1 of the Subdivision Regulations until a study is completed by the Planning Board of the standards contained therein. NEED; On August 4, 1986. the Board of Commissioners adopted Section IV-B-8 of the Subdivision Regulations, establishing landscaping and buffer requirements for new subdivisions. Since adoption of the provisions, a particular problem area has been identified - application of the standards of Section IV-B-8-c-1 . The standards contained in Section IV-B-8-c-1 require that trees be planted in front, side and rear yard setback areas if no trees existed there previously. Trees must be spaced 35 feet on center in the front yard area along proposed streets. Similar spacing is required in side and rear yards but overall coverage is limited to one tree per 1.000 square feet of ground area. Similar requirements also apply to proposed recreation/open space areas. Problems identified include the cost of installation of plant materials, particularly when including side and rear yard areas. spacing requirements for plant materials, and the type of plant materials to be installed. 126 IMPACT: A public hearing was scheduled for November 24. 1986 to consider proposed amendments addressing concerns with Section IV-B-8-c-1. However/ the matter was withdrawn from hearing at the request of the Planning Board. Placing a moratorium on the Section IV-B-8-c-1 would permit the Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee to study the provisions and relieve property owners and developers of complying with standards which may be changed. The Planning Board Chair has secured the services of a Landscape Architect. the UNC Forester, and a developer for assistance in reviewing the landscaping standards. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that moratorium be placed on Section IV-B-8-c-1 of the Subdivision Regulations pending further study of the standards and a recommendation of the Planning Board. • 127 • well to allow the -tree'- to breathe . and to allow • water to reach the roots. . Vehicular traffic, storage of • heavy equipment and stockpiling of soil or other materials shall not be • permitted within- the drip lines of trees to be .retained•. Except for sidewalks and curb and gutter, no paving with concrete, asphalt or other impervious material within the drip • line of trees to be retained shall be allowed, ,r IV-B-B-c , j • Where a subdivision is proposed either on isnd which has - - • been previously cleared, or trees have been approved for removal under one or more of the exceptions _listed in ''. • Article 1V=0-8-b-2 ' above, new trees shall be planted in accordance with the provisions of this. Article. t. • IV-B-$-c-1 As a requirement of a subdiv_is'ion 'approval , the s•ubdivld er shall plant ' sufficient "trees so that there is' ' at "• - least - one ( 1 ) 'tree for every thirty-five. (35) feet of - ' frontage along both sides of all proposed • streets In the :• - _ subdivision. . In addition, there - shall be at least one -x - • ( 1 ) tree for every one thousand ( 1 ,000) square feet of ' • . land area designed for required recreation or. open space area, and side and rear yard setback areas as required . by _ this Ordinance . or the Orange County Zoning' ' • Ordinance. Approved open play fields, building• sites. and other similar recreational facilities- are exempted from Landscaping requirements. ' - Trees to be planted in required recreation' and/onside : and rear yard areas sha l I be . spaced' thirty-five (35) _ feet on center. Trees to be • planted in required buffer T areas shall be installed in accordance with the ' • . • ' provisions of Article I V-B-8-d 'of this Ord i nance. - = . •IV-B-8-d B11ffer Rea r, • Buffers shall be required to separate a proposed subdivi . sion from adjacent major streets and different land uses - or zoning designations in order to - protect, preserve and • promote the visual appeal , character' and value of the • proposed subdivision and/or surrounding property; to provide for the separation of spaces and provide for a sense of privacy; to ' promote the public health, safety and welfare through minimizing potential nuisances• such as the transmission of noise,' odor, dust, litter and glare of lights; and to provide- screening between • incompatible land uses. • • • • _50' . . •• • . • •. 128 • REQUIRED LANDSCAPING 7"'"7,% \�� �`'.�,NW BUILDING �17r`�r't '� �� .,'-�. 1'f�I:i• SITE 1 � % . RECREATION '��� ����► Y� *tP X , �I ,4%0 ..ko.r sT, 3 •�/,, 1/ #��l, :r . SITE ,r,43 13 li . .%� Jar F� .<,--, PI r';r �/?1� T �,� V'`11,,. %),114: 10' �,, ter i �' 4,�'• :`;t r ., ti '�`'`a,.. • *r1we & 4% 40]� OPEN ��' v.'4 i �• �Il��:�' �1 C �� t PLAY . •r. /1.1�� ' : '7 • • % 1-�`�� s mss. F t+ 44_iv. " :elf+�i ,� ' � j, �.. %/�,'' . ;-.� �,��1 �� - BUILDING • '' 1 ��- r�1 . . , ilia-=. '� j ! as - . SITE • . `f,* t � �a ..: Ii i �o 17 7.1t . 1 :- �l-� `f I, .r:. :. ,0 . ti 1� �jlt•.. �.� ff is :�i Tom1'�!'/_ - . ,, .'IN. . :. i ij7\'iSA ,/ '7eC— f'-lk • BUILDING ` ,�� .__..__ • `. ••.-��r.`∎1� �f, 4��tT 9 .''�i1\. ‘ --. SITE• ' 4��M1'!.A. _' .. -. • • Legend:. . --- . STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE/PROPERTY LINE • • ; ----- SETBACK LINE ' ; • . • •• RECREATION/OPEN SPACE BOUNDARY • '• . . - .. • TREE SYMBOL ' • . . • R -51- . .., ,...mml . . • • . . . ' • • . . . . . . : , • BOARD. OF COMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM A1 MEETING DATE DeCember l, -1986 . . . . SUBJECT: water ConservationOtdinanceimpact . . . .....__ ___ . after mill closing • - • •. - HO • . • . . . . - :. : 'It . - , T • County Manager I . • DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: YES x NO . : • - ATTACHMENT(S).: - . .. INFORMATION CONTACT: • - . . • • • . .- NO'. . - PHONE NUMBERS: - HILLSBOROUGH -' 732-8181 . i • . . . . • . ...- • HILLSBOROUGH - 7329351 , . . . . . . • •• • . CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 • . . • . . • . . , • • . • , : . • • MEBANE - 227-2031 . • . . . . . . , . . . WHAM - 688-7331 , • . . , - . . . , . . , . . ... - , • " • PURPOSE: Consider the impact on the Water Conservation Ordinance with- the reduction in • :- •waterfluse with the -Closing of Saratoga Mills - . . . . . . , . . . , . . . - • • ' . .. . . . . . . . . . . •-• . •• -.• • • • . - ... . :, , - . . . . • . . . . .• . .• . , .. .. . . . , . . . -- . . . . * , . . . . . .. - -.. . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . • - . . . . • • . . . • . . . . . . - • - NEED: The Water Ordinance was adopted with certain facts in place with regard to use • • ' by Orange/Alamance, OWASA and Towm of Hillsborough. . WhereLake Orange is the , - triggeringk;oint' for implempntation'of the stages on the northern portion and ' •- • . .. , ' . University take for the southern portion of the -COUpty, there is now condition -. • where thelakee, of Ben Johnston and Corporation -Lake are spilling over. The . . amount of in stream flow is above 1.1 million gallons per day. Lake Orange . . . . is down by 56". but rising at the rate of l/ " .per day. There would need to be a 16" rise in Lake Orange before we go off the mandatory restriction, • . . . . . . . . • . . . . ' . • , • • . . . , • . . . • . • . . . . • . . . . , • . . . . . . . . . . • • . . .. • . . . . . • . . . , • . • . • • . . • • • • . . . . . . . . . IMPACT: : ' 1'1: • . . . • . . . • • . • . . . . . - • . . • • . . . . . . • • . . , . . . . - . . • . . . . • . . . • . • . •• - . . RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. . - - • . . . • . - - *, Later information-will be provided at the December 1, 1986 meeting. • , • • . . • . . . . . • . • . .., _ -... • • WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCE IMPACT . AS OF DECEMBER 1, 1986 This information is on the agenda as a report only. We updated the Chairman last week and wished to pass on the information to the full Board. . • The conditions we are experiencing do not fit our • Ordinance. Our ordinance sets forth 'a management plan for County action in times when water supply is being depleted. It is a downside Ordinance. It does not address what' to do when water supply is rapidly increasing. As of today Lake Orange is 51-1/2u below full. We would ' normally still be under mandatory control (until back to 32") . However, both Ben Johnston and Orange/Alamance Lakes • are spilling over the dams, and the flow today at the Eno gage is 3.70 CFS or 3 million gallons per day. This is over four times the minimum amount called for in our Ordinance; The average use for Orange/Alamance water systems is • 548,000 per day for the month of November. The Town of Hillsborough's average daily use is approximately 950,000 per day. This is below the normal demand. There has been no release of water from Lake Orange since November 5. Lake Orange water level is increasing 1/2” per day. If we did not get another drop of water there is enough water in Lake Orange- with the reduced demand - to supply to late March. The facts stated above is for your information as to , conditions as they exist today. There does not seem to be - ' any conditions under the Water Conservation Ordinance - to provide for reducing the mandatory restrictions to voluntary restrictions. We need some means to recognize the other conditions. The suggestion is the Ordinance could be amended by a footnote which would allow for voluntary restrictions when the instream flow would be above the 1. 1 million gallons per day with no release from Lake Orange. If it is the desire of the Board to amend the present Ordinance, staff will prepare,a proposal. .... ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 108 Easy iViARGARNT LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CAREY,JR. STEPHEN H.HALIOOTIS JOHN HART WELL SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL DON WILLHOIT December 5, 1986 Triangle J Council of Governments Bradley S. Barker, Executive Director 100 Park Drive P.O. Box 12276 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Dear Mr. Barker: The attached resolution was approved by the Orange County Board of Commissioners at their meeting held on December 1, 1986. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Thank you. Sincerely, Mrs. Beverly A, Blythe -._ . Clerk /bab File Attachment RESOLUTION BY Orange County WHEREAS, in North Carolina the Lead Regional Organizations, as voluntary organizations serving municipal and county governments, have establis' hed productive working relationships with the* cities and counti es across this state; and WHEREAS, many counties and cities need amistance in pursuing economic and community development opportunities, but federal assistance in the form of intergovermental revenues has been severely curtailed in recent years; and WHEREAS, the 1986 Short Session of the 1985 General Assembly recognized this need through the appropriation of $990,000 to help the Lead Regional Organizations assist local governments with grant applications, economic development, community development, support of local industrial development and other activities as deemed appropriate by their local governments; and WHEREAS, these funds are not intended to be used for payment of member dues or cements to a Lead Regional Organization or to supplant - funds appropriated by the member governments; and • WHEREAS, in the event that a request is not made by a unit of government for release of these funds to our Regional Council, the available funds will revert to the state's General Fund; and WHEREAS, in Region 3 funds in the amount of $55,000 will be used to carry out the economic development plan approved by the COG Board of Delegates and especially to improve the economy of the counties and towns of • the Region by strengthening ties to and consequently benefits of the Research Triangle Park. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Orange County requests the release of its $ 7.594.82 share of these funds to the Triangle J Council of Governments at the earliest prerdhle time in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1.014 of the 1986 Session Laws (HB 2055). Adopted this the 1st . .y of December , 1986 at 8:45 p.m. by: 21-44-ersignature) Witns - 411, .10111 , • ature) •. TRIANGLE • J COUNCIL OF - GOVERNMENTS - . • 100 PARK 1)RIVI: : .P.O. 13OX 12276 1t1.S1 AR(111 itt:ttit,t 1 PAR!`_S.0: .'.-7il't: vita) +3'►4.):,5t• October 9, 1986 . • Don Wfl.hait, Chairman - • Orange County'Board of Commimi nners - . • '203 Lexington Road - . - - - Chapel. Ell,, N.C. 27514 " . . . Dear Charlatan Wialhsait: - i .. • . This' year the North Carolina General Assembly.appropriated $55,000 for each COG or Lead ,regional orrganization. This is to enable the Council. of Governments to assist . local, governments in •• their ec�cnoflic development ! • : • activities. . ' These funds are to be , used for economic development activities " as ' . • determined by each Council of Governments and member governments. -The . - . . Of---ice,. of State Budget and Management will be sending each local government - • • •materials regarding financial procedures. . . . As' soon details as all detas have been finalized, Triangle S Count of: "• , Governments will send you a copy of a standard resolution jointly developed by' . . • . . the• Joint Regional Forum, the North Carolina League of Municipalities, the " . . • . North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, and the. Office of State . • " • " Budget and Management. Release of the funds requires board action cn the ,. . r�caution. Meanwhile the Triangle J Council of Governments Board of Delegates has • a p p r o v e d a g e n e r a l plan o f work. P l e a s e review the enclosed copy and provide . " • '' your reaction arxl/or suggestions to me or Pamela Davison, Director of Economic .- , -Development Programs. . " . . If you have any questions or comments, please do not ate to write the COG office. -Sho ld you wish to have e3met7ne from the Council of • . Governments attend a meeting of your governing board at which the resolution is considered plea qt* advise us the time and date. , . ' - . • ' Sx Sincerely, , . " - Brady S. Barker - Executive Director . ' , r Efl..osure d . BSB/PD/nw • API X • MASON • Iikt►AInt A1' • ("Milt Holm • t Akl • (II All I llti I Ilii...t 1 AY'K1ti • 11t'k1IA11 • 1 t►t'k t1AAti • t t 1Pt Al ' • Kii•1 '® l.rtl:11 K t.01 0sIt•►N • 1111 I SIcuk{ti-(,11 • 1101 11' S1'K1rt.ti ► k1 1t 1 • k k.4IIIf 111 " Mk kU • slim?ktti111 I I • _ PINI 1 1 1•I 1 • 111 1'0101(0 • 1'Kt1l I lt,% - K II I I I I I • •UI 1",1"II 1 1 • 1Ah1 ttlr • OI t 111 • • SIt t K 1 1 1 1 tilitl111ittl� • NAF�1 1{►Kltil • 111 ':1111) • iIMIft►1 tIIA•IIL111 (•11!'X11' • 111 KIIA11 (UI'NIY • )0111sttt1 trill \I1 ,/ III ((N'NIY • , t)kA1t.1 t'UI'Nll' . • %11,,1 tttlN1l • `'�r • ■1111MMM • • t r4, ----- State of North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management James G. Martin C. C.Cameron Governor and Director Executive Assistant to the Governor of the Budget November 10, 1986 for Budget and Management Mr. Don Willhoit Chairman Orange County Commissioner 203 Lexington Road Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514 Dear Mr. Don Willhoit: As you may know, the 1986 session of the North Carolina General Assembly enacted legislation (attached) appropriating $990,000 to Councils of Government (and Lead Regional Organizations) to assist local governments in certain designated activities. The funds were placed in the budget of the state Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD) for distribution to the COGs. In order for the COGs to receive the funds, it will be necessary for the governing board of each town and county to pass a resolution requesting its share. An allocation is available to the COG for each active town, regardless of its membership in the COG. The purpose of this letter is to acquaint you with the law and the procedures which will be used to implement it. Each COG is eligible for a maximum of $55,000, based on population formulas which calculate a share for each county and for each town under 50,000 population (smaller city) . The formula for counties is: the count 's •o.ulation less lar:er cities' •o■ulation COG's population less larger cities' population plus smaller cities' population plus 1985 population of incorporations since 1980 Based on population of 77,070, the share of your town is $ 7,594.82. Federal 1980 census figures were used to determine population of units, except that official current (1985) estimates of the Demographic Section of this office (which has been designated the state census agency by the United States Census Bureau) have been used for towns incorporated since the 1980 census. The share of any unit which does not submit an appropriate resolution to this office by June 30, 1987 will revert to the state's general fund and not be available to the COG. It is important to note that the checks will be payable directly to the COGs and they will be responsible for expenditure of the funds as specified in the act. 116 WEST JONES STREET—RALEIGH 27611 (919) 733-7061 iro■mory .- TRIANGLE J. . COUNCIL ' • . O (;OV '. LRN11I:NTS 100 PARK DRIVE 11.0. BOX 1_227(1 RI SI AR(•I1-I RI \u,1.1 PARK.\.(•_ :-'77(Y) ebt.•►5-i+4)�51 • • November' 20, 1986 • . • Don Wi'llhoit, Chairman • • . Orange County Board of Commiseioners - - 203 Lexington Road Chapel. Hill, N.C. 27514 - -• •• ' Re: Letter from TJC OG-October 9, 1986 . • Dear Chairman Wi7lhoit: ' - . - - .' ' • .. ,. .' . On-'_behalf on the Board of Delegates of Triangle -3 Council. of Governments, I am requesting that your governing board take action on the . enclosed resolution at the earliest pomible date.. It. was jointly developed by the Joint Regional Forum, The North 'Carolina League of Municipalities, The 'North- • • • . Carolina Association of County Commissioners, and the Offer of Budget and -. . . _ Management. The resolution will serve to release funds from the- Nor h Carolina. - .State Budget office that were appropriated to lead regional organizations by the • - . General Amembly in their June 1986 session. • . • ' . During July the Council of Goverments approved 'a general plan of'work ' • . for economic development activities utilizing a total of $55,000 of the . appropriated funds; a'copy is attached. This was described in otir letter to you • dated October 9, 1986. By now, you should also have received correspondance • . from the Office of Budget and Management indicating the amounty' of monies - ' • that • your Orange County board may • release to. Triangle • J Council of . Governments.. . .• P1 contact the staff if you have any questions or wish someone from' ' ' the Council. of Goverments to be present at a board meeting when the remotion . is considered. Thank you for your corporation. • - . Sincerely, • - . Avery C. Upchurch Chairman Enclosures .•Resolution . General Plan of Work • • Letter dated October 9. 1986 . • . cc: Kenneth R. Thompson - . • Shirley Marshall •- . •• :\I'I \ • 1 I.tiS(1N • 1(1(0.11)11:11 • t .11■!(Ic4)R4) • ( llc\ • (II►1'l I Hit I (.1 .1'11)1 • 1)1'RII,111 • l01 lc (1.1h1/4, • 114)1 1„1 \--11(1\1 • 1.\1'.\1 I. '` • 0,0)111tiION • 1111ISlllliwl 1.11 • 11411 I 1 11'1(1\4,'. • 10 \I1 • 6.\14.111I'%I i \111 I( 0 • N11114 I<IS\II I I • I'I\l I1 V 1 I • PI I\I:411;4) • 11,1\4 1 I1)\ .----. - 1<.\1 1 11,11 • RI Ill.111 1 I • 11\1 lid • NI I VI '1 • hI 11: t III - ! • • 1\11 1111 11 1 11 • \1 AF.1 1 411:1 \l • 111 \141 I 1 • 11 1:1 1 11\ 4 111.'\Ill111 ( (11'111 • 1)1 lill:111 t01 \I) • 141!1♦ 144\ 4P■O '.IS 11,1 ('(!l'NI}' • 111(.1\1,1 4111 \11 • It 11.1 t11: NI) CENTRAL LAND RECORDS OFFICE 12/1/86 PHASE REVIEW OF RE-MAPPING PROJECT I . Phase I (1984-1985) : For Chapel Hill Township, Aerial Photography Ground Control Analytical $28,064,35 [Phase Completed] II . Phase II (1985-1986) - Revised (Original Budget = $179,892) For Chapel Hill Township, Bond Analytical Orthophoto Base Maps Topographic Base Maps $142,912 [Phase Incomplete] III. Phase II & III -Revised (Original Budget of Phase III = $115,158.39) (1986-1987) For Chapel Hill Township, remainder of Phase II ($35,701) Topographic Base Maps For other Townships, Aerial Photography Ground Control ($20,605) Vacuum Frame Copier ($7,000) Vertical Map Storage Cabinet $63,306 ,T o? ' 7 Ma , Pro'ect Revenue 1984-86 County $118,010.35 State $20,000 Fair-Share Agreements $36,966 Chapel Hill. Carrboro UNC-CH OWASA 1986-87 County $37 ,840 State $8,000 Fair-Share Agreements $16,838 Chapel Hill Carrboro UNC CH spi We, the parents of children attending classes at Carolina Sport Art, recognizing the benefits of these classes to the health and well-being of our children, respectfully request the Orange County Board of Commissioners to allow Carolina Sport Art to remain in operation while its applications for non-profit status and a special use permit are under consideration. Name Address EP.A-Ax1-1-a4 , Pi_cticA,... eiLicylek 441.1k, r ICti \ /14-41 104, 60e404 Us-1-4- kijkl c. .14. .weiy 1 A.).44._. ILD/v• , c-/--/ 27.s / z 4.,_ e-t_4_p-k-, / e_bl .P-26-I 04.----.4" _."2•71 .---.." 2,17)1. kA"e fQ4 "A ei-e-x1A-zeL6' / e Of ,R at , / . "Lc, , -----2 -7,.. /02 i rb 0 16 --,/ goirma. rio-rfit A.4, 1 6(4 ou.5 r Da frka..14,_ &)c a7 7O or edit(Y-LAeLjege44:„.__C Ki-, t 7 3 x . ..,5n A- r 04(Ard■ c-°.'41. Cy ( /.41 of-A-■ ,i) , /3°"/"- - /dn.?, c-3., r eivo-71-, _Xto4V —CA;t1, )741 AO / 011.4"2 ":4-44fr42 / :1 41-63 elok,.. a v Nood 1 4 I 4 (.27-1 atet-de 31Y-74. '2,b2., (55-rna44,2)19-. A CO 4 / 0)44 - -6 60 ( °:1,1,(Att eid ,4 alteikl/ -Af i r r ( -.emir 7 /7/9 13Z-f-a-dk.- 14 Z12,2, r4" 44 ,64:k All 27z..v 3_, ,,, We, the parents of children attending classes at Carolina Sport Art, recognizing the benefits of these classes to the health and well-being of our children, respectfully request the Orange County Board of Commissioners to allow Carolina Sport Art to remain in operation while its applications for non-profit status and a special use permit are under consideration. Name Address o )41P P427 ' /1 S' VGA.1 i JR Delv,R„ ay,e i 11(1I "\NA_cx,c,_Q 1„(?. \ A9,,_ k1 S.- S_ko.N72AA:ca.a_ ./, e-LP-VA k-via kalai.,...,., 714,0,,,__Q*,.._ 1 O.? 13-a.44-wzrad CALu,tk-, 070-Wit /714.1p 04 3,,,,, N. cconta-ov 'w_ 1-(i'llAporOucth AA-- 4, /./.„, , 5 /47,,,,a4,-,_ /0,4„,_e_ e i i i m-1 d(--e:-; (idet,e,74 gt2e.e_44._etzt_ 6 PA -2,_ RxQ( Yr/ /14' jAtA 0, he,I1 10 (2)4 5. -, 6A4401.0 Om, 07 c, 6,0 I ' ; ifc, i) ataxs..I_pu . Cheyari 11-ti-G ty(.414,40)1/43‘- 1 C L' c erS11814A:k lifiirtm bi, 461 »2- Iii:11.46e 1,4,Lit.2 auttot 1--rut - jAci/L. :2,LD T1, /0 :-.0-- - ii,oa et/ 7 ", / ad v: ‘ -S0265--3 676 ' e/ , ,..e..zzerrva_, / - - i2014/v-to(A.- A_i__ 10 8 og6 0,ietctia 4\ II it-f. _1 J/0-10./y- i ii 1 G ('4 . 7 1/// 410 101/- Towitil48 2 fe / i - , fe LA4, 10 : v CL4--- chtiut:c„ aivot CfrcL, P_oulfiA-, Y6o-v.583, Chapte, `lc 1 t.u), -7,i- .C,, &t, •'",,,- , - l' if / " 0 .5- / c/49'24 AIM J We, the parents of children attending classes at Carolina Sport Art, recognizing the benefits of these classes to the health and well-being of our children, respectfully request the Orange County Board of Commissioners to allow Carolina Sport Art to remain in operation while its applications for non-profit status and a special use permit are under consideration. Name Address i Cli1441 — M 3 t51- C:(1‘ •i, ' . 1/ Or / r di vy-ic30x0.2. rais.v.,iubjfp 4,19,1,414, )01 cx.,fnt,t.oloot C-1-- 6. H. 44 & 4 (41/II& 60-N (4_1 Pis Lamdw, e-H . Iittitu Aityyini ,2„1, 7170/7-4aao AE dir-x4c„, • , / //7 daz.61.6tert e/-: e__zitiatz Mr; 01 laLlice 16 1d42. C4V-44 Ci" - ill°'/ ' / / ,--Ecil'e 4rePiir f , ' 2:705 aiwoost-ry -De, - -cyAtzlipro, Aix-, 4,uriOu,..r.Q V--6LA)sto, z-ri o f-esma GA a, ct 0145e- V. 7Yr4-1A4 ' v 0219 A.k., eous qk igcn, 1 1 i c-1-41-3 3-'11 ..„ ,, , _„ . ILI( 2 75/k 6 3 Z.au rel- F-"rf "/- r-1-6-1vs .-Forlk HOY/ / /0 V Wks \64-zk_ eill NC Q--n / V / 40 , 162, a ,/ >1/get C61. /76. phi-a, la iso- goo ,,, ,,aa, , &/thAke- ) 1 - C-66' / 0 ,,o(k .29 _, CN 02-9.57 6/-3 6.2x, 573 th..., 1 4Id/ 1911.10N- ' 1 113 eLt It4 CA-446 ' / e4:114A' balAitIPTU A ,ilcorsd 0,)1 Ne a-7 )q 4,1324A, *IteitA,Noko,-- N1C Q??0) Qatb , &dank/IL, cq-) ScLt_ i-ct - We, the parents of children attending classes at Carolina Sport Art, recognizing the benefits of these classes to the health and well-being of our children, respectfully request the Orange County Board of Commissioners to allow Carolina Sport Art to remain in operation while its applications for non-profit status and a special use permit are under consideration, Name Address . 0444;u) 114641" 41'k/ i dYCPALtt 11111IA.Amot 0_1105 - , 4 2.770- . 1111 9 4o cAttc,, (Ld C2,4 actf ??1)--/ 41-- ' 1 .. J . , cz/volevi 47430_3 /19PL Ap. rszc/3---s-5.9S) 0 f i . 6-an/war cE•ift0 .c. gi>oody , Atec,__ 1, , *71, Fe.ccr r..,-,3.14,1 Pop,f, P■lf s bar-a • ,C1 11 '. .17 5-91". OW ' 'u. - 6 Xliti'tl'i Aole 4". • fi 5--,,,-- / , . Cff .0 <9-77 if , ill I • °W 2- 6 7 41g-el - ■el---44.".4,,--- 0. 3 o 6 7 Paitigultop7 ' 14 0 I-1 P y I 1 e A•6-• r‘n (t") -‘'N i)- 1 b- 4 tit- .4Rit-.44140c1L--294 , % 111 cH 76.-i/ k ,,i. 1.PL.Ade. 1/11-eA, Vf r-e), esci)&p C.(-f /4-4 A.•‘4__-.A11011--4 4-- 1 2- 7/1„._ oc,„ , 2z4-Ai4 ,6 r-r-r..,, jita_e47 e.4A-n, /1 / 15 442-P-7'117-e /e-eti./ C-a rrhor-0, P e d°?2,(16 ,(4•%.0 Ho 4i4/61/4 Za4te, (ayLaiii-?-1, 1 / i 41010 d# .d .Vitz, 4.9-aiix.4) I , • ,,- / , , /.2or ci,,,,n., k_,Q, . „\,c,,,Tif),C. 071,4,3 e.- , _ • , 7- e ( h, lex. qf eaterxx - e ‘e, actt - .., . • , i ........mmimmommi We, the parents of children attending classes at Carolina Sport Art, recognizing the benefits of these classes to the health and well-being of our children, respectfully request the Orange County Board of Commissioners to allow Carolina Sport Art to remain in operation while its applications for non-profit status and a special use permit are under consideration. Name Address ' a 2('S.14--e.e.-L) 4'-'7 /7.--6‘1-47 /0. e•'11' e-63u.ta "sli 4 di (0. ti/itAliAt6 3)CIJI:Ak:1449,4e1414_,CCIf 90111 Ste1i-no43 q.kienci) R7.6- Zax,3308 e. 4.7 /PrIlko- ,10 -C-171-41-4:11- c/It-,-_ ,/,—,j, ?,0_ oci„, .,,,39J, ,„ , ,.. co.A. 0,0 Or \ 0L\ C.,40 .14ew,Irt,4-4., c 'Ve.4,2-. 4.‘,4A , ,2 yi,--3 14/pc,,pe. .P....13 I 8,..LA±LEAA,4,1-11- - 4- .,/,, Rf ...? B-016 54,7 'N4-.C. -41"1- 14-6-4 0, /9/5- iaa '7'Q/so-a/At) Ae, 1 v. ...., , .?:#5- E, 6.. .5,--2) aø : afiir V 0‘ " 1 A51(„ jtefrort/e-6/, -.1 •F- r, ..._ , -- ' 21)] Aiort,thajdork„ Or Ilt / I ' d1062e --"j 441101_ ,,,1 V` k-t-( V--N,..-,u..,r •r.3( (/ S*44tALA,01-44-• Lk-h-ks.--14-s, J.- 4, a-IA-al-, -e,,t. ci-e,tre,/ti-ttt_ w.t.-3-iciv 3// _ . We, the parents of children attending classes at Carolina Sport Art, recognizing the benefits of these classes to the health and well-being of our children, respectfully request the Orange County Board of Commissioners to allow Carolina Sport Art to remain in operation while its applications for non-profit status and a special use permit are under consideration. Address LLA-- 1/44 7/ fr:e AAA •-■/ ro 9)6./le/K.-, 00 &64106,20)02.1Zjd C-15 46--aZ 3S). CLIZiu-- 2.0 '12-6*-Z C-te"p"-1 g/ 626/-eicc.0 4). C, R I -69-4 TA- Pills100—ey.lkW 7c1 e 444e_py ,,,40044100 • .,0_000000 , • . _ O A T H I, Stephen Halkiotis, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States; so help me, God. I, Stephen Halkiotis, do further solemnly and sincerely swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof; and that I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State, not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, to the best of my knowledge and ability; so help me, God. I, Stephen Halkiotis, do further swear (or affirm) that I will well and truly execute the duties of the office of Orange County Commissioner, according to the best of my skill and ability, according to law; so help me, God. A' I Stephen Halkiotis Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of December, 1986. �Lea, Not-ry Public My Commission Expires:'SG//.f r MI r� 1 O A T H I, JOHN HARTWELL, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Orange County Commissioner, so help me, God. John Hartwell Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of December, 1986. Aor /' - Notary Publ '• My Commission Expires: &4 • BALLOT FOR BOARD CHAIR " Moses Carey, Jr. Stephen Halkiotis John Hartwell �Xk~! -Shirley Marshall Don,Willhoit Signature BALLOT FOR BOARD CHAIR Moses Carey, Jr. Stephen Halkiotis T John. Hartwell Shirley Marshall Don Willhoit Signature " BALLOT FOR BOARD CHAIR Moses Carey, Jr: Stephen Halkiotis John. Hartwell Shirley Marshall. Don W i 1-1 ho i t =y j Signatur f BALLOT FOR BOARD CHAIR Moses Carey, Jr. ; Stephen Nalkiotis John Hartwell . 11 /'Shirley Marshall Don Willhoit Sig natar BALLOT FOR BOARD CHAIR Moses Carey, Jr. Stephen Ha1kiofis : John. Hartwell Shirley Marshall Oon Wi l lhol t • Signature ■ BALLOT FOR BOARD VICE-CHAIR Moses. Carey, Jr._ • Stephen Halkiotis John Hartwell . - Shirley Marshall , __ Don Wilihoit . 4 (AIJ Signature - BALLOT FOR BOARD VICE-C HAIR Moses Carey, ,Jr. Stephen Halkiotis John Hartwell - - Shirley Marshall Don Wilthoit • Signature • • i w , • BALLOT FOR BOARD VICE-CHAIR - Moses Carey, Jr. Stephen Halkiotis John Hartwell • Shirley Marshall Don Wi l lhoit • • .,.- Signature . • •BAL LOT FOR BOARD V CC : • . ir'''''.-Moses Carey, Jr. • . Stephen Halkiotis John Hartwell . . Shirley Marshall . • Don Willhoit .. 4 _ : . . . . . . . . , . . . . . • Fr : ' . /./(./ • • ✓ Signature , BALLOT FOR BOARDyICE-CHAIR Moses. Carey, Jr. Stephen Halkiotis . John Hartwell Shirley Marshall __,� -Don W i 1 1 ho i t . V q114 . 1 iii'llr - Signature. - R NO Ili • V 2/ - 1986 State of North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management James C.Martin C.C.Cameron Governor and Director Executive Assistant to the Governor of the Budget November 10, 1986 for Budget and Management Mr. Ken R. Thompson Orange County Manager 106 E. Margaret Ln. Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Mr. Ken R. Thompson: As you may know, the 1986 session of the North Carolina General Assembly enacted legislation (attached) appropriating $990,000 to Councils of Government (and Lead Regional Organizations) to assist local governments in certain designated activities. The funds were placed in the budget of the state Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD) for distribution to the COGs. In order for the COGs to receive the funds, it will be necessary for the governing board of each town and county to pass a resolution requesting its share. An allocation is available to the COG for each active town, regardless of its membership in the COG. The purpose of this letter is to acquaint you with the law and the procedures which will be used to implement it Each COG is eligible for a maximum of $55,000, based on population formulas which calculate a share for each county and for each town under 50,000 population (smaller city) . The formula for counties is Ats2unt ,sotyilatxer cities' population COG's population less larger cities' population plus smaller cities' population plus 1985 population of incorporations since 1980 Based on population of 77,070, the share of your town is $ 7,594.82. - Federal 1980 census figures were used to determine population of units, except that official current (1985) estimates of the Demographic Section of this office (which has been designated the state census agency by the United States Census Bureau) have been used for towns incorporated since the 1980 census. The share of any unit which does not submit an appropriate resolution to this office by June 30, 1987 will revert to the state's general fund and not be available to the COG. It is important to note that the checks will be payable directly to the COGs and they will be responsible for expenditure of the funds as specified in the act. 116 WEST JONES STREET—RALEIGH 27611 (919) 733-7061 11111111. Subsections (c) and (d) of the act set out permissible and prohibited uses of the funds. Expenditures may be incurred against the work programs of the COGs effective July 1, 1986. The procedures for distribution of the appropriation are: 1) Your COG will send you a copy of the resolution you should adopt to release funds to the COG. This resolution will specify how the funds will be used. 2) You should send the enacted resolution to your COG 3) The COG will send a batch of resolutions to the Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM) approximately monthly, with a request for payment. 4) The OSBM will verify the amounts and documentation and forward the batch to NRCD with instructions for payment. 5) NRCD will send a check for the total amount of the resolutions in the batch to the COG. 6) Funds unexpended by the COG at June 30, 1987 may be carried forward to the following year for expenditure under the act. 7) Reporting requirements are a) Each COG will prepare a work program for use of the funds in accordance with the act, and submit an information copy to the OSBM b) Each COG will submit to OSBM within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year a performance report listing accomplishments resulting from the expenditure of the funds. A follow-up report will be submitted within 30 days of the final expenditure of any funds carried-forward. c) Each COG will have prepared an independent audit and submit a copy to the OSBM. d) The performance report and a summary of the audit will be submitted to each local government in the region. If you have any questions, your COG will be able to help you. Yours Very Truly, Viahatil Marvin K. Dorman, Jr. Deputy State Budget Officer COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FUNDING Sec. 151. . (a) Of the funds appropriated by Section 2 of this act to the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, nine hundred ninety thousand dollars ($990,000) . ,shall only be used as provided by this section. Each regional council of government is allocated an amount up to fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000) with the actual amount calculated as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) The funds shall be allocated as follows: A share of the maximum fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000) shall be allocated to each county and smaller city based on the 1980 Federal Census population of that county (less the ,population of any larger city within that county) or smaller city, divided by the sum of the total population of the region (less the population of larger cities within that region) and the total population of the region living in smaller cities. Population totals shall be according to the 1980 Federal Census, except to account for cities incorporated since the return of that census, and in such case, the most recent annual estimate of the Office of State Budget and management shall be used. . Those funds shall be paid to the regional council of government to which that county or city belongs upon receipt by the Office of a resolution of the governing board of the county or city requesting release of the funds. If any city or county does not so request payment of funds by June 30, 1987, that share of the allocation shall revert to the General Fund. . (c) A council of governments may use funds appropriated by this section only to assist local governments in grant applications, economic development, community development, support of local, industrial development activities, and other activities as deemed appropriate by the member governments. . (d) Funds appropriated by this section may not be used for payment of dues or assessments by the member governments, and may not supplant funds appropriated by the member governments. (e) As used in this section "Larger City" means an incorporated city with a population of 50,000 or over. _ "Smaller City" means any other incorporated city. . OATH I, SHIRLEY E. MARSHALL, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States; so help me, God. I, SHIRLEY E. MARSHALL, do further solemnly and sincerely swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof; and that I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State, not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, to the best of my knowledge and ability; so help me, God. I, SHIRLEY E. MARSHALL, do further swear (or affirm) that I will well and truly execute the duties of the office of Orange County Commissioner, according to the best of my skill and ability, according to law; so help me, God. giVetex■4te Shirley . Marshall Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of December, 1986. r • t � . .4 _ aC'- CLERK- OF- PERI 1007 COURT My Commission Expires: NOVEMBER 30 , 1990 S E A L . . . . , . .. . , . . . . • . . cc! „wev.5.4-4 ,i'ritrz.:°0. 40ttit, ' . - . ''='.' . . . . • :1 ' 1 . . . . . . . . . i . - i,-• .. . . . . . . . . , . 1 : ',... • - . - • P_O.Box 337 . . . 307 West Main Skeet • carroty°.Moth Carolina 27510 ,4 '., arrboro . . . ,.. . . ... 0(919)942-8541 .. . . . . - November 26, 1986 , . . Mr.. Ken Thompson . . 0 .. . . .. Orange County Manager . - . . - • . . Orange County Offices • • 106 Margaret Lane - Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 • . . . . . , . . '. RE: November 13, 1986 Joint .. . . . . - . Planning Agreement . . , . . ' . - - . - . , •. , Dear Mr. Thompson: • • . . . • The Carrboro Board of Aldermen, on November 25, 1986, • „ reviewed Chapel Hill 's November 13, 1986 Joint Planning Agreement • and had the following comments: . - . 1) Area Definitions listed 'A,' through 'D' under Section 1 .2 • . "Definitions" are defined by the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map (Exhibit A) . These areas should be defined by a . • 0 map similar to the Exhibit A attached to the Carrboro Agreement dated November 3, 1986; since this is a matter . ' ' • . of jurisdictional definition ' rather than land use • . .. . definition encompassed in a related but separate, land use . planning process. - . . . . . . • . . . . • . . 2) The "Rural Buffer" is defined for the first time (Section . . 1.2C) in the Agreement with specific density regulations . • „ . which should be a function of the Land Use Ordinance or '. . . . . • . Plan provided for by the Agreement. •0 - • • . . . . -. . . . . • • 3) The term "Development . Permit" defined • under Section • 1 . 2 (d) of the November 3, 1986 Carrboro Agreement should . be included under Section 1 .2 of Chapel Hill 's: November • . 13 , 1986 Agreement . . • _ - . • . 4) The Board of Aldermen requested deferment of agreement • . approval with Chapel Hill until such time that all thrbe . •. . jurisdictions are in agreement or until mid-January. • 1 . . • . . Please forward our comments to the Orange County Board of 1 . Commissioners for their consideration at their December 1, 1986 meeting. if you have any questions concerning our comments; please give me a call. ' • . . . . . . . . . • Sinc rely, . . • . a.-Ze_a>lrVif-- . • Robe W. Marga , —_-- . . rt . . . . . Town Manager - • • . . , . • . . . . . • • • .. .. . . . . • . • . . . , . , . . . , . ' . . • . . . , . w r- r---____ • : -- • • Illig - PUBLIC OFFICIAL BOND - THE 'ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY l FOR DEFINITE TERM Hartford, Connecticut 06115 u:E&r.ASUAU Y • BOND NO. 25 S 25044872 BCA - - • , - . • KNOW ALL MEN,BY THESE PRESENTS, That we ALBERT LINDY PENDERGRASS • - of CHAPEL HILL, NORM CAROLINA Principal, • and THE (ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a corporation of Hartford, Connecticut. as Surety, are held . and firmly bound unto .THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ' • • -in the penal sum of TWENTY—FIVE THOUSAND 'AND 00/100------ (525,©00.Q0--_-----) Dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which well and truly to be made, said Principal - . binds hirnself/herself, his/her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns. and said Surety binds itself, its sue cessors and assigns, jointly and severally; firmly by these presents.- • - SEALED and dated this 1ST day of DECEMBER . i986 - • WHEREAS, the said Principal- has been ELECTED . . to the'office of SHERIFF.OF ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. - for a definite term beginning DECEMBER 1, 1986 and ending DECEMBER I, 1990 and is required to furnish a bond for the faithful Wince of the duties of the. said office or position. _ . . - NOW, THEREFORE THE CONDITION OF THiS OBLIGATION is such that if-the above bounden Principal shall (except , as hereinafter provided) faithfully perform the duties of his/her said•office or position during the said term, and , . • shall pay over to:the persons authorized by law to receive the same all moneys that may come into his/her trends 1• . during the said term without fraud or delay,.and at the expiration of said term,or in case of his/her resignation or removal from office, shall turn over to his/her successor all records and property which have come into his/her' hands, then this obligation to be null and void; otherwise to remain in full-force and effect. . • PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the above named Surety shall not be liable hereunder for any loss of any public funds . • resulting from the insolvency of any bank or banks in which said funds are deposited; and, if this provision shall be . • held void, this entire bond shall be void. . ' AND PROVIDED FURTHER, that the Surety.may cancel this bond at any time during the said term by giving to the Obligee a written notice of its desire so to cancel and at the expiration of thirty(30) days from the receipt of such - notice by the Obligee the Surety shall be completely released as to all liability thereafter accruing. If this provision . shall be held void, this entire bond shall be void. • WITNESS: . ' . • ALBERT LINDY -PENDERGRASS BY: SEAL) ' • (Principal) . Countersigned; _ - THE "ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY -"�'• — By / \ yr icJi.L . . _..c... . .w ?_: -' - .,{ $, NANCY __. CH.41.1N, 0,, Attorney-in-Fact CAT. 40•L-:d • RESPITE CARE APPLICANT INFORMATION Agency: Orange County Department of Social Services ,fir=t;':ess: 300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC 27278 Telephone Number: (919) 732-8181 Project Director: Ann Gent - Agency is: (check appropriate response) al Public Agency 0 Private Non-profit 0 Proprietary 0 Other (Specify) : • I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have rte, understatxl, and will abide by all terms of the Triangle J Council of Governments Request for Prcp za1 for Recritig, Care Servize, Agency u in, or Authorized Rep. Shirl•y E. Marshall Chairr2Oriar{ County Board of Commissioners - Date • 13 • • PROPOSAL Part A - Project Description and Implementation 1. The applicant will provide 856 hours of Respite Care Service (units of service) to 17 Caretakers of older adults during January 1, 1987 - June 30, 1987 in ()ranee county(ies) . 2. The approximate number of hours to be provided to each Caretaker is: 50 3. Please provide brief and succinct evidence that your agency has the capacity to provide the service. (i.e. , experience, trained staff, volunteers, etc. ) The Orange County Dept. of Social Services have been providing in-home care services for approximately 20 years, and for the past two years lead agency for the Long Term Screening Program. Staff has trained aides to provide this type of care and professional staff to handle the administration. 4. Explain how respite care services will be integrated with existing program operations. The Respite Care service would be administered under the Dept. of Social Services Long Term Care Screening and coordinated with the Dept. on Aging's Community Case Manage- ment service. The Respite Care Aides would be drawn from the DSS Chore Program and from the Home Health Agency's Private Aide Service. 5. Please list the specific steps your organizations will take to target and promote respite care services to unpaid caregivers caring for persons 60 years of age, or their spouse, not medicaid eligible. The Orange County In-Home Board,who has endorsed the need - for this service,has participating agencies - Health Dept. , Aging, Home Health Agency - with waiting lists of potential respite care clients. The DSS Chore waiting list would be reviewed for potential clients. The Dept. on Aging Newsletter and the DoA Case Management Service would publicize the service Local support groups would be contacted. 6. Please specifically identify how respite care workers will be recruited and trained. There would not be additional respite care workers recruited and trained for this grant. The existing trained DSS Chore Aides , Home Health and Home Assister Aides would be utilized for this service. If it becomes necessary, the DSS Chore Training tapes would be used with nursing instructors verifying the skills and competency. - 14 Proposal Part A 7. Please specify how ve60-twers will be incorporated into program operations. PreFekence will be given to applicants with a signi.ficaht volunteer effort and generally to those applicants who show a potential to become self-sustaining. The Interfaith Council and Orange Congregations in Mission have already been involved with recruitment of church volun- teers to help care for family members in the home. These volunteers , as well as University students from health services (medical , nursing, etc.) would be contacted as to volunteer assistance. 8. Please describe the mechanism your organization will use to evaluate the quality of respite care services and workers. The mechanism should include elements . which will measure the degree and nature of volunteer involvement. Both the patient as well as the family caregivers will be surveyed (telephone/in person) by Department of Social Services staff as to their evaluation - quality and benefit of the respite care service. - 9. What days and hours will respite care services be provided? Minimum hours of Respite Care availability would be 9:00 a.m. - 9 :00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. 10. To what area (i.e. , county, city) will services be provided? Orange County only. 11. Please describe how you will insure that program fees will be collected and how program fees will be utilized to expand respite care services. A written agreement in advance and signed by primary care- giver would indicate the service plan and the program fee. Billing- would be done on a monthly basis. Revenues gerierated would be re-budgeted to pay for additional direct aide • service. 12. Please describe how workers will be supervised. Please . attach a job description for the supervisor of respite care workers. The Department of Social Services Chore Program Supervisor would be in charge of placement of the respite case workers , quarterly monitoring of the service done by Department on Aging Case Manager. (See attached job description) 11 • Proposal ' Part A 13. :1" se,,,ntify the target group you plan to serve, „:..minately a sitter service, some requiring , 4• 1rp.maker, or RN level care) . The target group to be served would require sitter, chore , and homemaker services. 14. At-,:ach a copy of the sliding scale fee which you 'propnse to utilize to establish fees for this project. See attached sliding scale fee. 15. Please describe the staffing pattern for your agency for current or planned staff who will be directly or indirectly involved with this project. The inter-departmental Case Management Team (DSS/DoA) would be responsible for administrative tasks. The Long Term Care Screening Coordinator would handle the grant and financial arrangements , while the DOA Case Manager would do assessment/ monitoring visits. The DSS Chore Supervisor would be assign- ing aides or an outside agency. Home Health/Home Assister would be utilized it a DSS aide is not available.. 16. Please describe how the proposed service may prevent abuse. Include information on how a complaint will be handled. It is hoped that the temporary relief of caregivers would improve their mental health, thus reduce potential abuse situations. However, if a complaint was received concerning abuse, the Department of Social Services Protective Service staff would be contacted and requested to do a thorough investigation. 16 SECTION II . PROPOSAL - Applicant Information • Part A - Project Description and Implementation - Part B - Assurances • I?' 12 ' f. PROPOSAL Part B - Assurances YES NO 1. The Respite Care Service will be provided X in a setting other than the home. If "yes" , specify the location: 2. The applicant is currently providing and x has had years of experience in pro- viding in-home services, and is an existing public, private or proprietary agency. 3. The applicant assures that only respite X care services will be provided with project funds. 4. The applicant assures that services will be X coordinated with other agencies as appro- priate. Please describe coordination efforts: Department of Social Services will coordinate the respite care with Department on Aging through an interdepartmental Case Management Team. The Home Health Agency, Health Depart- ment would be utilized for identifying potential respite case clients and HHA as an aide provider. IFC and OCIM would be utilized as to coordinating volunteer efforts to respite care. 5. The applicant assures that the service X standards for respite care services as established by the Division of Aging and all applicable laws and regulations will, be adhered to. X 6. The applicant assures the availability of 12 1/2% cash match. 7. The applicant assures that program fees collected will be used to expand respite care services. Program fees may not be used for the required cash match. X 6. The applicant assures that some type of volunteer component will be incorporated into program operations. 17 Proposal ' Part B YES NO 9. The applicant is a Family C:? a Home or Domiciliary Facility. If "y4 ", the applicant assures that 75% of the uo5.;:s of service delivered will be pci vi%,:ad' ..n the clients' homes. 10. The applicant assures that it i 4i . ;al opportunity employer. 11. The applicant assures that mont ..ly And X quarterly program and fiscal r4:n"•. s, provided by the Area Agency on : :rig, will be submitted in compliance with the time frame established by the North Carolina Division of Aging and/or Area Agency on Aging. 12. The applicant hereby assures that it has read, fully understands, and will abide by all the provisions stated in the infor- mation concerning Respite Care Service. OR - • The applicant hereby assures that it has read, fully understands, and will abide - by all provisions stated in the information concerning Respite Care Services, except for the following for which we will seek a waiver(s) . Item Number: Reason for seeking waiver: 18 • :SEC'T I ON I I I APPENDIX (Each form is to be completed by oil applicants and executed by the appropriate person. ) - Assurance of Compliance With the Department of Health and Human Services Regulation Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Assurance of Compliance With Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 - Equal Opportunity Employment statement - Commitment of Non-Federal Matching Support For Social Services Block Grant 10 IOW Appendix COMMITMENT nV WoN-FauEPAL MATCHING SUPPORT FOR SOCIAL SERVICE BLOCK GRANT PROJECT A separate copy of this agr.: ment should be completed for each commitment of support axcept volunteer in-kind match. • Agency: County Dept. of Social Services State Agency Address: 300 West Tryon Street ❑ Local Agency Hillsborough, NC 27278 • El Public Agency ❑ Private Agency ❑ Individual Type of support or activity (give brief description) : A) If support is in the form of staff, describe duties and relation- ship to the project, B) if space, attach two appraisals of rental value. Space, equipment and staff contributions which are pro- • posed as match for SSBG funds cannot have been derived from Federal funds. $500 - Indirect cost. (Tel, ,Space, Adm.-calculated at • 1100 •er full time equivalent em-lo ee) _ - = o a o a_ree county prof. sta££_ _ • - 510 - Cash contribution Type of Commitment: ❑ Tentative NI Final ® Cash 5 Inkind Value to this Budget Year (if applicable) : S 3 ,292 Certification by official authorized to make Commitment: It is understood that these committed non-Federal resources will be used to match Social Service Block Grant Federal funds, and will not be used to match any other Federal funds during the period of the SSBG project. Shirley E. Marshall Date: 12-1-86 Typewritten Name Chair, Orange County Board of. Commissioners Tit e Signature 20 • ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF Arpendix HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE REGULATION UNDER TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 Orange County Dept.oZ Social Services (hereinafter called the .'ApCI scar; ) (Name of Applicant ) HEREBY AGREES THAT it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1.964 (P.L. BB-352) and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Regr'at:on of the Department of- Health, Education , and Welfare (45 CFR Part BO) issued ' pursuant to that title, to the end that in accordance with Title VI of that Act and the Regulation , no person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation, in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any progra- or activity for which the Applicant receives Federal financial assistance fro- the _Department; and HEREBY GIVES ASSURANCE THAT it will immediately taire an' measures necessary to effectuate this agreement. If any real property or structure thereon is provided or improved with the aid of Federal -financial assistance extended to the Applicant by the Department , this assurance shall obligate the Applicant , or in the case of any transfer of such property, any transferee, for the period during which the real property or structure iS used fora purpose for which the Federal financial assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits. If any personal property is so provided, this assurance shall obligate the Applicant for the period during which it retains ownership or possession of the property. In all other cases, this assurance shall obligate the Applicant for the period during which the Federal financial assistance is extended to it by the Department. THIS ASSURANCE is given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all Federal grants, loans , contracts , property, discounts or other Federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to the Applicar: by the Department, including installment payments after such date on accourt of applications- for Federal financial assistance which were approved before such date. The Applicant recognizes and agrees that such Federal financial assistance will be extended in reliance on the representations and agreements mace in th: s assurance, and that the United States shall have' the right to seek judicial enforcement of this assurance. This assurance is binding on the Applicant, its successors, transferees , and assignees , and the person or persons whose Sigratures appear below are authorized to sign this assurance on behalf of the Applicar... DATED 12-1-86 Orange County (Applicant ) / ; BY Presi .- W Chairman of Boara , or comparable authorized official ) Shirley E. Marshall ' Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners 300 West Tryon Street • Hi1].sborouah, NC 27278 (Applicanc1s mailing address ) -HEW-44i 21 • {ln.r.,n4117 • ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, AS Ai'IENOE The undersigned (hereafter, "we") agrees to comply with Section 5:: Of the Renabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. (29 G.S.C. 794) , and w;tr, requirements contained in applicable HEW regulations (45 C.F.R. 84). Though we will not make a survey of identifiable barriers to the handicapped in the programs listed below, we do promise to follow a policy of "nondiscrimination against the handicapped" in providing or contractire for these services, If we find that present services or facilities pro:=:ed by this agency or of those with when we contract do discriminate against the handicapped, we promise, (1 ) first, to try to remedy the situation; (2) second, to contract with another provider that does not discrin.tnate; or (3) third, if,an alternative provider is not available or feasible. to find a comparable service for the handicapped person. If the last course (3) is chosen, we shall take steps to ensure that no additional costs ere incurred by the handicapped person and that the service is both equally effective, affords equal opportunity, and does not segregate the hap. icap:et such that they are in a more restrictive setting than nonhandicaoper the same service. The purpose of this agreement is to ensure that all services and facilities obtained from contracts made through local service agencies are readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons. • Sigma and Title of Authorized Shirley E. Marshall Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners • Programs Covered by This Statement (List each contractor by nar.e ) Respite Care • • _ r • 22 Appendix - . EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LMPLOYMENT STATEKENT Name of Applicant: Oran••a County Department of Social Services In harrying out the work of this Proposal, this Agency will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, - national origin, physical handicap. The Agency will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed. and that employees are treated during a - me ploy •nte without regard to their race, creed, color, national origin, or physical handicap. Such action will include, but not be limited to, the following: employment upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment adver- tising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms compensation s to nd selection for training, including This ng apprenticeship. Agency B pe post in conspicuous places, available to all employees and applicants for employment. notice to be provided by the Government setting forth the provisions of this non- diJscrimination clause. This Agency will. in all solicitations or advertisements for employees, placed by or on behalf of the Agency, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race. creed, color, national origin, or physical handicap. The Agency will incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all subcontracts for services, should this Proposal become a Project and be included in the Area Plan. 12-1-86 Date Author zed Signature Shirley E. Marshall Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN .Name of Applicant: Orange County Department of Social Services Total number of full-time and part-time Project Positions Proposed to be funded with 'Project funds for•all Service 75 Components. Number of Project Positions filled by Minorities 63 Number of Project Positions filled by 6D+ Persons 6 Number of Project Positions filled by Women 74 Do you have an Affirmative Action Plan and a copy availab NO 12-1-86 T Date Authorized Signature Shirley E. Marshall Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners 23 Attachment IV-A • • RESPME CARE PROGRAM • SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SERVICES BIDFORR Appl icant: Orange County DSS Area to be-Served: Orange Co. 411•1■111•1111.0■iniim,o........■ds Unduplicated Proposed Net Service Net Servic • County Persons to be Served Service Units Cost per Unit Cost Orange 17 856 4.77 4,081 • • • • • • • • Total Net Sztr",rief:, 4 ,081 • Budget: Signature and Title of • Authorized Official .// Shirley‘k: .arshall Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners DatF: Address and Phone: • . ■ = — - rallsborough, NC • • 27278 • 11111111111116■Iir Rf!;P3'F CAM. PROMAM PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET ' AHD Attachment N—$ CAPITAL REQUEST FORM Contractor: Change County DSS Contract Period: Jan. 1;1987—June 30, 1f1 Service Expense Respite l irre ' t 'IL1ne Item Ex ense AdmIn. Coianfy County Cour3ty Count County County ' ` total A. Expenses. 1. Personnel 1 . 7,182 2. Rent and Utilities 3. Rent and Utilities - In-Kind i. Equipment (,C $300) S. Travel 6. Comn»unI cat[on s 7. Maintenance Z Repair 8. Insurance/Bonding 9. Print. L Supplies 12. Indirect 13. Capital Equipment 14. Total Line Item 15. Admin. Allocation 16. Total Service Exp. lT. Estimated Units 1$. Service unit Costs 19. Estimated Clients B. Resource Requirements 24. Total Service Expenses 21. Program Income 23. Non-Match Cash $ 24. Non-Match In-Kind S00 25. Net Servit+e Cost 4,081 26. 11ou t Cost per Un i t 4.77 21. Minimum Match: Cash 514 28. Minimum Match: In-Kind 29. AAA Share (Feel. 6 State) 3,5 71 0. AA 4.17 31. Description of Capital Equipment Items. az Rff;SPTTr CAJ7 PR(rRAM Attachment TV-C . Budget Proposal Page _ of C. STAFF LABOR COST Ibe percent of time to be alloc.ited' Contractor: arange nGfi to a servtce ALLOCATION FOAM P . Patti Staff V - Volunteer Staff , Contract Period: T.3r� 1 �_1 X1$7-.Ttinr� �(���g8� C.- {•tontribut6d Staff 1, 2. 3. 1 4. 5. f,, 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12, 13. Staff Positfffm Salary Friree Total A&dn. Respit • 20% 2 N�;Ann Gent 19 ,836. 3,967 Posit vn: flSS-STr7II $ $ $ $ $ 476 $ $ $ $ $ 5 $ ticxsrslMc: 4a — PYC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC pVCt ? VC Nar+e: Gwen Phillips 7,136 3 ,427 Posit on: DSS-SWI S $ $ $ $ 616 $ S $ S $ $ S HoLas3/ c: 40 PYC PVC PYC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PYC 2 x 5 t x 1 x x 2 l X Naw: Dee Turner_ 9 ,836 3,967 $ $ $ Posit on:DOA-Case__t�+a $ $ $ $ $1,190 $ $ $ $ HaLws/W: 40 PVC PVC PV PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC IiA Aides-350 hrs 2,450 T 1001 x x x Z l Z +� Naee DSS- Char a Wkr 2,277 173 Position- $ $ $ $ $4,900 $ $ $ $ S $ $ Rata/Hr: 4,50 +, 14..gS. lio=/Wlc:_ - 41727 173 PVC PV' G tVVC PYC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC Sst,tot.�ile c Coa volunteer Staff t: 4 ,90 $ $ $ S S $ S Paid Staff Corte 1! Contributed Staff Cost: $ $ $2,2'8 $ S 5 S 1 $ $ $ $7 ,182 $ 5 S S $ $ $ GRAND IUM -- DSS Chore Supervisor ?:imary Purpose _ The primary purpose of this position is to imuplement and facilitate the Chore Service Program, which serves the aged/disabled population of our county . The worker acts as client ' s social worker and provide: case management for Chore Service Cases , Coordinates the Chore Train- ing Program, Supervises all Chore Providers , and works in conjunction with the Long Term Care Screening (LTCS) Program Social Worker in im- plementing the LTCS Program. The worker acts as lead worker providin: training and consultation to the other social worker in this program k area. Worker acts as back-up Protective Services Worker. II . Duties and Responsibilities A. Chore Service Program - 40% • This program is designed to provide in-home care to the elderly or disabled clients who would not otherwise be able to remain in their home , or whose health or quality of life would deteriorate without this service . Funding for this program is through Block Grant and LTCS Program (Medicaid) . - At present there are approximately 45 clients who receive services funded by Block Grant monies , and approximately 30 who receive Chore Services funded through Medicaid. Cases are assigned to worker based on the service being offered (Chore) . The worker is case manager and assures delivery of services for all Chore funded by Block Grant Funds . Responsiblitities in these cases t involve : I) Receiving and evaluating requests for services . Worker receives phone calls and office visits by individuals requesting services . Requests may also be received from other agencies such as Rome Health 1 Dept. on Aging, or from hospitals . 2) Making a home visit to gather information about client concerning financial, environmental , physical needs , in order to determine appli cant' s eligibility for services . .3) Assessing client and family need based on information acquired fr client , family and other agencies . 4) Developing a Plan of Care/Service plan in order to assure client ' needs are being met. Goals are clearly set , worker decides what specific services will be provided , by whom and how often. Implementing the plan of care by directing and controlling the way in which designated services are carried out. 5) Communicating with other professionals regarding plan of care in order to assure consistent services for the client. 6) Reassessing plan of care periodically to ensure appropriate modi- fications when necessary . Worker makes quarterly home visits and yea redecerminations of eligibility for services . Termination of services when no longer needed by client. 7) Referrals and follow-up calls to other agencies to assure provisi 3 ------ - _V -2- • of services not offered by our agency . Agencies that worker may con- - tact include local Home Health Agency , Hospice , Department on Aging , meals on Wheels , Home Assister Service , Orange Congregation in Mission . ti Inter-Faith Council . ,..----Worker also directly supervises. all Chore Providers who provide direct in-home care . Duties and Responsibilities in this area include : 1 ) Recruiting through newspaper adds , County Personnel office , Employment Security Commission and word of mouth. 2) Hiring qualified Chore Providers after interviewing, checking references , . 3) Ensuring the provider has initial Chore Orientation, verifying Provider' s previous training , or receives training in accordance with state requirements . 4) Providing monthly supervision and evaluation of job performance of untrained Providers and quarterly supervision of trained providers by home visits , reports from other professionals , and reports from the client. 5) Recommending promotion , new assignment , or termination of job based on provider' s performance . Worker schedules hours/days of serv- ice for each provider based on Plan of Care, worker' s capabilities . 6) Assuring training of providers in agency by developing course con- tent , contacting instructors , arranging for training facility, main- taining training logs atsd attendance records . Worker evaluates the training and makes appropriate efforts to improve skills and knowledge f of providers through course content. Worker arranges in-service train- i ing and advises workers of other training opportunities . 7) Maintaining Personnel Records of all Chore Providers , verifying necessary information such as references , training, work experience. 8) Checking all time sheets , and assist in completing payroll infor- mation. - Provision of this service is carried out by worker independently. Supervisor is available for consultation during individual advisory time and staff meetings . Guides used in the provision of the Chore Services Manual , Title XX Eligibility Regulations , Services Adminis- tration Manual , Chore Provider Handbook , SIS Manual , PDR. S . Coordination of Long Term Care Screening Program and Chore Services - Aged/Disabled clients in this area suffer from physical problems whit: would necessitate .placement in an Intermediate Care Facility should they not be able to receive care in their homes . Worker receives referrals from LTCS Program Social Worker. Home visit is made to assess need for Chore SErvices . Assessment based on infor- nation provided by LTCS social worker , client , family , other agencies , such as Home Health. Worker collaborates with LTCS social worker in order to assure con- tuinuity of services for clients . • 1r 1. x. ..Worker implements proceedures for hiring ,supervision , training of Chor Providers as described in Section A. t.' k. ;tome visits are made on a quarterly basis to evaluate client' s needs , providers , and to assure unlit of services provid to supervise Chore p quality P C . Back up for Protective Services Workers - 5% s a r. Worker assists full-time protective services worker with emergency Fit client assessment as needed . Referrals are made to P. S . staff. :, Worker also received P .S . calls on rotating basis with other workers , -- this involves nights , weekends , holidays . D. Community Cases - 5% ` ' The worker is case manager and assures delivery of services to clients . who request through phone calls , office visits , or referrals from othe . agencies. Various services, worker makes home visit to evaluate client need based on economics , health , environment. Worker strives to inl-- tate services that will assist client and family members in attempts t (:;- restructure or solidify the client' s environment. Worker councils ;_. family and client regarding needs in order to help individuals utilire =__ community resources , take advantage of natural support systems , and L achive adequate level of functioning within the family or community. Referral may be made to other community agencies to assist in this - process . Worker strives to assure continuity of services by coordi- nation with other community agencies . R . General Intake - 5% _ Worker determines eligibility of clients for emergency/crisis services -= based upon their request. Requests from clients come by phone call or ,- office visits . Worker provides Information and Referral to other agencies ; coordinates with other 'community resources in order to pro- vide needed services . Worker maintains records on general assistance clients . P. Case Management , Record Keeping - 5% Worker promptly documents requests for services , and completes case '. I recording on a timely basis . Worker assures timely , accurate complet: of agency required reports such as Time Sheets , Day Sheets , Mileage reports , In house reports , and Individual Client Card system. Worker completed all eligibility forms required for services on a timely bas: ensuring all guidelines for eligibility have been met by client . S r' Respite Care Sliding Fee Scale The income levels outlined below, based upon the combined income of the: p a_lent A,O.d caregiver pnly,, provide a reemmrnsndeg percentage to be applied to. service fees . Each provider needs to apply their own unit cost into the formula . In order to keep the tC.t?mmended sliding fee scale as sicple as possible, we have not factored in formulas for : number of dependents, medical expenses, loss of caregiver income, Etc . Therefore, we are providing the sliding fee scale with the following' implementation philosophy . The legislation requires that a mi.nirurs of 20: of the cost of the service (unit. cost X number of units received in a given month) be charged to the caregiver . The income levels with their respective percentages above the 20% level are s.;rvested feel for service. The caregiver should be informed of the suggested fee . The actual fee paid, however, should be negotiated between the provider agency and the caregiver based upon the caregivers ability to pay ; taking into account number of dependents , medical expenses, other financial obligations, etc . tut not less than the required 20% . . . Income. Levels RIttmEliam.d Pereer_t3;C.°,s 0 10 ,000 1 20% • • I 10,001 - 12,000 I 30% 12,001 - 15 ,000 40% • . I 15 ,001 - 18 ,000 I 50S 18 ,001 - 22,000 1 60% 22,001 25 ,000 i 80% 1 25 ,001 - I 100% • • 4 • • • • ii L - RESPITE CARE APPLICANT INFORMATION Agency: Orange County Department of Social Services • 300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC 27278 Telephone Number: 0191 732-8181 Project Director: Ann Gent Agency is: (check appropriate response) 51 Public Agency 0 Private Non-profit 0 Proprietary 0 Other (Specify) : I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have read, tuderstand, and will abUktbyall terms of the Triangle J Council of Governments Regtmmt for Propcsalfor Req$te Care SersAce. • Agency 'sr. arA . ed Rep. shall Chairt2Orna County Board of Commissioners Date , PROPOSAL Part A - Project Description and Implementation - 1. The applicant will provide 856 hours of Respite Care Service (units of service) to 17 Caretakers of older adults during January 1, 1987 - June 30, 1987 in Orange county(ies) . 2. The approximate number of hours to be provided to each Caretaker is: 50 • 3. Please provide brief and succinct evidence that your agency has the capacity to provide, the service. • (i.e. , experience, trained staff, volunteers, etc. ) The Orange County Dept. of Social Services have been providing in-home care services for approximately 20 years, and for the past two years lead agency for the Long Term Screening Program. Staff has trained aides to provide this type of care and professional staff to handle the administration. 4. Explain how respite care services will be integrated with existing program operations. The Respite Care service would be administered under the Dept. of Social Services Long Term Care Screening and coordinated with the Dept. on Aging's Community Case Manage- ment service. The Respite Care Aides would be drawn from • the DSS. Chore Program and from the Home Health Agency's Private Aide Service. 5. Please list the specific steps your organizations will take to target and promote respite care services to unpaid caregivers caring for persons 60 years of age, or their spouse, not medicaid eligible. The Orange County In-Home Board,who has endorsed the need for this service,has participating agencies - Health Dept. , Aging, Home Health Agency - with waiting lists of potential respite care clients. The DSS Chore waiting list would be reviewed for potential clients. The Dept. on Aging Newsletter and the DoA Case Management Service would publicize the service Local support groups would be contacted. 6. Please specifically identify how respite care workers will be recruited and trained. - There would not be additional respite care workers recruited and trained for this grant. The existing trained DSS Chore Aides , Home Health and Home Assister Aides would be utilized • for this service. If it becomes necessary, the DSS Chore Training tapes would be used with nursing instructors verifying the skills and competency. Proposal • Part A 7. Please specify how vetbo-teerz will be incorporated into program operations. prePerence will be given to applicants with a significant volunteer effort and generally to those applicants who show a potential to become self-sustaining. . The Interfaith Council and Orange Congregations in Mission have already been involved with recruitment of church volun- teers to help care for family members in the home. These volunteers, as well as University students from health services • (medical, nursing, etc.) would be contacted as to volunteer assistance. 8. Please describe the mechanism your organization will use to evaluate the quality of respite care services and workers. The mechanism should include elements which will measure the degree and nature of volunteer involvement. • • • Both the patient as well as the family caregivers will be surveyed (telephone/in person) by Department of Social Services staff as to their evaluation - quality and benefit. of the respite care service. • 9. What days and hours will respite care services be provided? • Minimum hours of Respite Care availability would be 9:00 a.m. - 9 :00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. • • 10. To what area (i.e. , county, city) will services be provided? Orange County only. 11. Please describe how you will insure that program fees will be collected and how program fees will be utilized to expand respite care services. A written agreement in advance and signed by primary care- • . giver would indicate the service plan and the program fee. Billing would be done on a monthly basis. Revenues generated would be re-budgeted to pay for additional. direct aide service. • • 12. Please describe how workers will be supervised. Please • - attach a job description for the supervisor of respite care workers. The Department of Social Services Chore Program Supervisor would-be in charge of placement of the respite case workers , quarterly monitoring of the service done by Department on • Aging Case Manager. (See attached job description) 17 • , . • Proposal Part A • 13. :1' , c.n iltify the target group you' plan to serve, a sitter service, some requiring Ivwr. maker, or RN level care) . The target group to be served would require sitter, chore, and homemaker services. • . 14. At.,:och a copy of the sliding scale fee which you -.?ropnse to utilize to establish fees for this project. • See attached sliding scale fee. • 15. Please describe the staffing pattern for your agency • for current or planned staff who will be directly or . indirectly involved with this project. • The inter-departmental Case Management Team (DSS/DoW would be responsible for administrative tasks. The Long Term Care Screening Coordinator would handle the grant and financial arrangements , while the DoA Case Manager would do assessment/ • monitoring visits. The DSS Chore Supervisor would be assign- • ing aides or an outside agency. Home Health/Home Assister • would be utilized it a DSS aide is not available.. 16. Please describe how the proposed service may prevent. abuse. Include information on how a complaint will be . • handled. It is hoped that the temporary relief of caregivers would improve their mental health, thus reduce potential abuse situations. However, if a complaint was received concerning Abuse, the Department of Social Services Protective Service • staff would be contacted and requested to do a thorough investigation. • • • • • • 16 • SECTION I I PROPOSAL - Applicant Information - Part A - Project Description and Implementation Part B - Assurances 12 PROPOSAL Part B - Assurances YES NO 1. The Respite Care Service will be provided X in a setting other than the home. If "yes" , specify the location: 2. The applicant is currently providing and has had years of experience in pro- viding in-home services, and is an existing public, private or proprietary agency. 3. The applicant assures that only respite X care services will be provided with projeCt funds. 4. The applicant assures that services will be X coordinated with other agencies as appro- • priate. Please describe coordination efforts: Department of Social Services will coordinate the respite care with Department on Aging through an interdepartmental Case Management Team. The Home Health Agency, Health Depart- ment would be utilized for identifying potential respite case clients and HHA as an aide provider. IFC and OCIM would be utilized as to coordinating volunteer efforts to respite care. 5. The applicant assures that the service X standards for respite care services as established by the Division of Aging and • all, applicable laws and regulations will be adhered to. • 6. The applicant assures the availability of 12 1/2% cash match. 7. The applicant assures that program fees X collected will be used to expand respite care services. Program fees may not be used for the required cash match. X 8. The applicant assures that some type of volunteer component will be incorporated • into program operations. 17 Proposal Part B YES • NO 9. The applicant is a Family C:7 tie Home or x Domiciliary Facility. If "yes", applicant assures that 75% of the of service delivered will be probvid in the clients' homes. 10. The applicant assures that it i u .:•;•.al x opportunity employer. 11. The applicant assures that mont :1; And x quarterly program and fiscal - provided by the Area Agency on Aging, will be submitted in compliance with the time frame established by the North • Carolina Division of Aging and/or Area Agency on Aging. 12. The applicant hereby assures that it has x read, fully understands, and will abide by all the provisions stated in the infor- mation concerning Respite Care Service. . OR . The applicant hereby .assures that it has — read, fully understands, and will abide by all provisions stated in the information • concerning Respite Care Services, except for the following for which we will seek a waiver(s) . Item Number: Reason for seeking waiver: • • • • • • • 18 • • SEf'T I ON I I APPEND I.X (Each form is to be completed by all applicants and executed by the appropriate person, ) - Assurance of Compliance With the Deportment of Health and Human Services Regulation _ Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Assurance of Compliance With Section 504 • . of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 - Equal Opportunity Employment Statement - Commitment of Non-Federal Matching Support ' For Social Services Block Grant • . • • • . . 19r • • Appendix • COMMITMENT ()V WOW-FEDEML MATCHING SUPPORT FOR SOCIAL SERVICE BLOCK GRANT PROJECT • • • A separate copy of this agsr.::.ment should be completed for each commitment of support axcept volunteer in-kind match. • :Orange County Dept. of Social Service Agency 'State Agency 300 West Tryon Street Address: _ 0 Local Agency Hillsborough, NC 27278 El Public. Agency 0 Private Agency • • 0 Individual - , - . . Type of support or activity (give brief description) : A) If support is in the form of staff, describe duties and . • relation- ship to the project, B) if space, attach two appraisals of rental value. Space, equipment and staff contributions which are pro- posed as match for SSBG funds cannot have been. derived from Federal funds. $500 Indirect cost (Tel. ,S•ace, Adm.-calculated at 000 per full time e-uivale t em•lo cc) • , • 's o a o 2 ree county prof. staff • 510 - Cash contribution • Type of Commitment: 0 Tentative Final Di Cash Di Inkind • Value to this Budget Year (if applicable) : S. 3 ,292 Certification by official authorized to make Commitment: It is understood that these committed non-Federal resources will . be used to match Social Service Block Grant Federal funds, and will not be used to match any other Federal funds during Le . period of the SSBG project. Shirley E. Marshall . Date: 12-1-86 Typewritten Name Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners Title -• • - Signature . • 20 . - Arrendix ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND. WELFARE REGULATION UNDER TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 Orange County Dept.of Social Services (hereinafter called the "App; zcert ) (Name of Applicant ) HEREBY AGREES THAT it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P,L. 88-352) and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Reg.a...on of the Department of Health, Education , and Welfare (45 CFR Part BO) issue, pursuant to that title, to the end that in accordance with Title V; of that Act and the Regulation , no person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any progra?- or activity for which the Applicant receives Federal financial assistance f ro7 the Department; and HEREBY GIVES ASSURANCE THAT it will immediately take ar-f measures necessary to effectuate this agreement. If any real property or structure thereon is provided or improved with the aid . of Federal financial assistance extended to the Applicant by the Department, this assurance shall obligate the Applicant , or in the case of any transfer of such property, any transf eree, ' for the period during which the real property or structure is used fora purpose for which the Federal financial assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits. If any personal property is so provided. this assurance snail obligate the Applicant for the period during which it retains ownership or possession of the property. In all other cases , this assurance shall obligate the Applicant for the period during which the Federal financial assistance is extended to it 'by the Department. THIS ASSURANCE is given in consideration .of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all Federal grants, loans , contracts , property, discounts or other Federal financial assistance extended after the- date hereof to the Applicant by the Department, including installment payments after such date on accour t Of . applications for Federal financial assistance which were approved before suck date. The Applicant recognizes and agrees that such Federal financial assistance will be exrtended in reliance on the representations and agreements mace in this assurance, and that the United States shall have the right to seek judicial enforcement of this assurance. This assurance is binding on the Applicant , its successors, transferees , and assignees, and the person or persons whose sigratures appear below are authorized to sign this assurance on behalf of the Applicant. DATED 12-1-86 Orange County (Applicant ) • B Y lif Preszven • , Chairman of Board , or comparable authorized official Shirley E. Marshall Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners , 300 West Tryon Street xillsborouch NC 27278 Appli.eant s mailing address )~ HEW-441 21 • (12.641 .+. AnnendIT ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED The undersigned (hereafter, "we") agrees to comply with Section 5C; Of the Renabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794) , and w;tn requirements contained in applicable HEW regulations (45 C.P.R. 84). Though we will not make a survey of identifiable barriers to tFe handicapped in the programs listed below, we do promise to follow a policy of nondiscrimination against the handicapped" in providing or Contractive for these services. If we find that present services or facilities prO..-cer by this agency or of those with whom we contract do discriminate against the handicapped, we promise, (1 ) first, to try to remedy the situation; (2) second, to contract with another provider that does not discri.-'.pate; or (3) third, if an alternative provider is not available or feasible. to find. a comparable service for the handicapped person. If the last course (3) is chosen, we shall take steps to ensure that no additional costs are incurred by the handicapped person and that the service is both equally effective, affords equal opportunity, and does not segregate the harcica;ced such that they are in a more restrictive setting than nonhandicapped re_er; the same service. The purpose o! this agreeient is to ensure that all services and facilities obtained from contracts made through local service agencies are readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons. • +rAI Signet. - - nd Title of Autho°ri.zed 0t : :c :a . Shirley E. Marshall . • Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners • Programs Covered by This. Statement (List each contractor by name ) Respite Care . • • 22 Appendix EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LMPLOYMENT STATE 'T Name of Applicant: Oran•a County Demartaaent of Social Services In carrying out the work of this Proposal. this.Agency will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race. creed, color. national origin, physical handicap. The Agency will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed. and that employees are treated during em- . ployment, without regard to their race. creed, color. national origin■ or physical handicap. Such action will include, but not be limited to, the following: employment upgrading, demotion or transfer. recruitment or recruitment adver- tising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for training, including apprenticeship. This Agency agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to all employees and applicants for employment, notice to be provided by the Government setting forth the provisions of this non- discrimination clause. This Agency will, in all solicitations or adverti sements for employees, placed by or on behalf of the Agency, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race. creed. color, national origin, or physical handicap. The Agency will incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all subcontracts for services. should this Proposal become a Project and be included in the Area Plan. 12-1-86 . Ze• i �- Date - '1 Authorized Signature Shir).ev E. Marsba]1 Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners AFFIRMATIVE AdTION PLAN Name of Applicant: Orancxe Count De•artment of Social Services Total number of full-time and part-time Project Positions Proposed to be funded with project funds for all Service 75 Co onents. Number of Project Positions filled by Minorities 63 Number of Project Positions filled by 60+ Persons 6 Number of Project Positions filled by women 74 Do you have an Affirmative Action Plan and is a copy available' x�YES __.�.NO 12-1-86 Date Authorized Signature Shirley E. Marshall Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners 23 • • • Attachment IV-A • . RESPI7E CARE PROGRAM . , SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SERVICES BID FORM • Appl icant: Orange County DSS Area to be'Served: Orange Co. -r 4.■........■............................ Unduplicated Proposed Net Service Net Servicc County Persons to be Served Service Units Cost per Unit Cost Orange 17 856 4.77 4,081 . . Total Net .7.0c • 4,081 Budget: Signature and Title of / . - Authorized Official Shirl marshall _ Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners Date: 1 7—1—_86 Address, and Phone: 300 •t,% Tryon St. Hillsborough, NC • 1 I 27278 i ' . ' 1 1-) ...--.... IM�Pr"_F; CART PRdGRA.M PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET ' AND Attachment TT-13 CAPITAt REQUEST FORM Contractor: Orange County DSS Contract Period: Jan. 1;1987-June 30, D Service xpense Respite Line �en'se 0 'Line item E Admin. rotanty ftinty County County County Count " ' Total A. Expenses: 1 . Personnel 1 . 7,182 2. Rent and Utilities 3. (lent and Utilities In-Kind 4. Equipment (< $300) S. Travel b. Communications ,t. Maintenance b Repair 8. insurance/Bonding 9. Print, & Supplies 12. indirect 13, Capital Equipment 14. Total line Item 15. Admin. Allocation fin 16. Total Service Exp. ywo 7 .6132 17. Estimated Units 18. Service Unit Casts 19. Estimated Clients 8. Resource Requirements 20. Total Service Expenses 7 .6Q2 21. Program Income 23. Non-batch Cash 2,282 24, Non-batch In-Kind 500 25, Net Service. Cost 4 081 26. Net Gust per Unit 4.77 27. Minimum Match: Cash 510 28. Minimum Match: In-Kind 29, AAA Shares (Fed, r, State) 3,573. 0. AA .17 31. Description of Capital Equipment Items: FESPITF. CAM, PRtXiTtAM Attachment TV-C Budget Proposal f pe or C. STAFF LABOR COST . 11w pent of' me ti to be allocated Contractor- Orange DqS to a service ALLOCATION FORM P - Paid Staf f V - Volunteer Staff Contract Petiod:�Tan- 7 *_i Q 83 uz�a 3 0,19 87 C -�yContt ib�sttd Staff y 7 5. [t. 7• iTe 7• lfl• i�.` • 12.� 13. Staff ibeitiana Salary Fringe Total Admin. Re spit, 20% 2 X X X f t3mr-.Ann Gent 19 ,836 3,9+67 $ $ 5 $ Posit on: DSS-SWII $ $ $ $ $ 476 $ $ Rate/Hr: — HoUrs,N&: 40 PVC PVC PV PVC PVC PVC PVC PYC PYC ! i' VC x X I 3 ?qwe: Gwen Phillips 7 ,136 3,427 $ $ $ $ $ Posf.tTc;:; DSS-SwI S $ $ $ $ 616 $ $ Rateltfr: tbtasll�ci 40 PVC PVC PVC P-VC PVC PVC PVC PYG PVC PVC x X 5 X X % X z X X Z 1+we: tree 9 ,836 3,967 $ $ $ Posit t�cti:DOA-Gale �It�a $ g $ $ $1,190 $ $ $ $ R+atellir: W�s,1 t: 1 PVC PVC PV � PVC PVC . PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC z x z z % iiA Aides-350 hrs 2 ,454 z -.1o0 % X Nm ei DSS Ch____ ra Wkr - 2 ,277 173 $ $ $ $ Pvs ft on: g g $� $ $4,9 0 o $ $ �lq Iio��rs/Wki ` 4 ,727 173 P V C PYC ( VC PVC PYC PVC PVC PVC PVC PY Rate/Hr: 4 5Q—t-,14 Subtotals a �' $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Volunteer 'Staff its coat: g g $4 ,90( $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Paid Staff . Contributed Staff Cost: • $ $ s2#282 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ GRAS 'tQr�t. $ g $7 ,12 $ $ $ $ $ - c DSS Chore Supervisor y Primary Purpose • The primary purpose of this position is to implement and facilitate the Chore Service Program, which serves the aged/disabled population of our county. The worker acts ,as client' s social worker and provide. case management for Chore Service Cases , Coordinates the Chore Train- ing Program, Supervises all Chore Providers , and works in conjunction with the Long Term Care Screening (LTCS) Program Social Worker in im- plementing the LTCS Program. The worker acts as lead worker providing , training and consultation to the other social worker in this program area. Worker acts as back-up Protective Services Worker. II . Duties and Responsibilities A. Chore Service Program - 407 This program is designed to provide in-home care to the elderly or disabled clients who would not otherwise be able to remain in their home , or whose health or quality of life would deteriorate without this service . Funding for this program is through Block Grant and LTCS Program (Medicaid) . _ At present there are approximately 45 clients who receive services funded by Block Grant monies , and approximately 30 who receive Chore Services funded through Medicaid . Cases are assigned to worker based on the service being offered (Chore) . - i The worker is case manager and assures delivery of services for all Chore funded by Block Grant Funds . Responsiblitities in these cases involve: 1) Receiving and evaluating requests for services . Worker receives phone calls and office visits by individuals requesting services. Requests may also be received from other agencies such as Home Health Dept. on Aging , or from hospitals . • 2) Making a home visit to gather information about client concerning financial , environmental , physical needs , in order to determine appli cant' s eligibility for services . .3) Assessing client and family need based on information acquired fr client , family and other agencies . 4) Developing a Plan of Care/Service plan in order to assure client' needs are being met. Goals are clearly set, worker decides what specific services will be provided, by whom and how often. Implementing the plan of care by directing and controlling the way in which designated services are carried out. 5) Communicating with other professionals regarding plan of care in order to assure consistent services for the client. 6) Reassessing plan of care periodically to ensure appropriate modi- fications when necessary. Worker makes quarterly home visits and yea redeterminations of eligibility for services. Termination of services when no longer needed by client. 7 ) Referrals and follow-up calls to other agencies to assure provisi _.__ _ - - - -2- - • o? services not offered by our agency. Agencies that worker may con- tact include local Home Health Agency , Hospice , Department on Aging , Meals on Wheels , Home Assister Service , Orange Congregation in. Mission i Inter-Faith Council . ,.- ' Worker also directly supervises all Chore Providers who provide direct in-home care . Duties and Responsibilities in this area include : 1) Recruiting through newspaper adds , County Personnel office , Employment Security Commission and word of mouth. 2) Hiring qualified Chore Providers after interviewing , checking references . . 3) Ensuring the provider has initial Chore Orientation , verifying Provider' s previous training , or receives training in accordance with • state requirements . 4) Providing monthly supervision and evaluation of job performance of untrained Providers and quarterly supervision of trained providers by home visits , reports from other professionals , and reports from the client. - 5) Recommending promotion, new assignment, or termination of job based on provider' s performance . Worker schedules hours/days of serv- ice for each provider based on Plan of Care , worker' s capabilities . 6) Assuring training of providers in agency by developing course con-- :j tent, contacting instructors , arranging for training facility , main- taining training logs and attendance records. Worker evaluates the training and makes appropriate efforts to improve skills and knowledge of providers through course content. Worker arranges in-service train- ing and advises workers of other training opportunities . 7) Maintaining Personnel Records of all Chore Providers , verifying necessary information such as references , training, work experience. 8) Checking all time sheets , and assist in completing payroll infor- mation. . Provision of this service is carried out by worker independently. Supervisor is available for consultation during individual advisory time and staff meetings . Guides used in the provision of the Chore Services Manual, Title' XX Eligibility Regulations , Services Adminis- tration Manual , Chore Provider Handbook, SIS Manual, PUR.. S. Coordination of Long Term Care Screening Program and Chore Services - Aged/Disabled clients in this area suffer from physical problems whit_ would necessitate .placement in an Intermediate Care Facility should they not be able to receive care in their homes . Worker receives referrals from LTCS Program Social Worker. Home visit is made to assess need for Chore Services . Assessment based on infor- mation provided by LTCS social worker, client, family , other agencies , such as Home Health. Worker collaborates with LTCS social worker in order to assure con- tuinuity of services for clients . . _ - -3- ,corker implements proceedures for hir ing ,supervision, training of Cho- `? • providers as described in Section A. ;tome visits are made on a quarterly basis to evaluate client ' s needs , to supervise Chore providers , and to assure quality of services provid C . Back up for Protective Services Workers - 5% Worker assists full-time protective services worker with emergency client assessment as needed . Referrals are made to P.S. staff . Worker also received P. S . calls on rotating basis with other workers , this involves nights , weekends , holidays . D. Community Cases - 5% The worker is case manager and assures delivery of• services to clients who request through phone calls , office visits , or referrals from otbe '.t agencies . Various services, worker makes home visit to evaluate client need based on economies , health , environment. Worker strives to ini- tate services that will assist client and family members in attempts t L'- restructure or solidify the client' s environment. Worker councils family and client regarding needs in order to help i.ndividua'ls utilize community resources , take advantage of natural, support systems , and achive adequate level of functioning within the family or community . Referral may be made to other community agencies to assist in this process . Worker strives to assure continuity of services by coordi- nation with other community agencies . 1 E . General Intake - 5% Worker determines eligibility of clients for emergency/crisis services based upon their request. Requests from clients come by phone call or office- visits . Worker provides Information and Referral to other agencies ; coordinates with other "community resources in order to pro- vide needed services . Worker maintains records on general assistance clients . F. Case Management, Record Keeping - 5% . Worker promptly documents requests for services , and completes case recording on •a timely basis . Worker assures timely , accurate cortpletx of agency required reports such as Time Sheets , Day Sheets , Mileage reports , In house reports , and Individual Client Card system. Worker completed all eligibility forms required for services on a timely bas ensuring all guidelines for eligibility have been met by client . c ii • :r • Respite Care Sliding Fee Scale The income levels outlined below, based upon the. combined Income cf the, patient ,30.E caregiver only , provide a recommennpd percentage to be applied to service fees. Each provider needs to apply their own unit cost into the formula . In order to keep the racammendld sliding fee scale as siuple as possible , we have not factored in formulas for: number cf dependents , medical expenses , loss of caregiver income, etc . Therefore, we are providing the sliding fee scale with the following implementation philosophy. The legislation requires that a minimum of 20% of the cost of the service (unit cost X number of ur :ts received in a given month) be charged to the caregiver . The income levels with their respective- percentages above the 20% level are 12cge.sted fees for service. The caregiver should be info:ued or the suggested fee. The actual fee paid, however, should be . negotiated between the provider agency and the caregiver based upon the caregivers ability to pay ; taking into account. number. of dependents , medical expenses , other financial obligations, etc . tot not less than the required 20% . Irco= LtYels. Rec.pmmended Perceatace_ 0 10,000 1 20% , 10,001 12,000 { 30% 12.,001 - 15 ,000 1 - 40: 15,001 18 ,000 I 50% 18 ,001 - 22 ,000 1 60% • 1 80; 22,001 - 25 ,000 1 25 ,001 - I 100% •. •� • . I CHANGE- Distribution It ORDER-- .. OWNER • II : . ARCI-ITT I:CT AM DOC:UMENT 0707 • CONTRACTOR 1 HELL) OTHER ❑ . PROJECT: Carr Building Renovation CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 2 In.lmc', address) Corbin Street Hillsborough, NC INITIATION DATE:' November 21, 1986 TO (Contractor): 17 Mebane Heating di. Air Conditioning ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 5568 P.O. $ox 756 CONTRACT FOR: Mechanical Construction Mebane, NC 27302 J CONTRACT DATE: August 13, 1986 Thu are directed 10 make the following changes in this Contract: Item One HVAC conditions requiring repair where exposed after demolition. Extra $300.00 Resultant Change Order Amount Extra $300.00 • Not solid wild..ignrtl liy hull, 1Iu•Ih%111 r and Art hil•cl, till;n,iwrt•n1 the 1'un11-M1,n intiic11t•% his ..1;u•wuvnl Ix rt.Willt. inrlutlin4any atljusltnt•nl in 11w ('tmlr,WI Sum lit ('unlr•uI lune, 1 ht. urihina l (COMM" Sum) aXilriKILlarc ntX.CO S5 UE14110E was $ 19,000 � . Net change b)y previously authorized Change Orders $ 750 '111e (Contract Sum) icza f nilif CMCIX XJ11X1 prior to this Change Order was $ 21,700 The iCunlra.t Sum)XO(DL}rt3i)XpEMM(]SXikXi X01,X'X) will be (increased)TdF1YXuxxauf by this Change Order $ 300 1hr new 'Contract Stunt JB)I4GXX 0X1 /ifaXMl3NXXolincluding Ibis Change Order will he $ ` 22,000 The Contra( Time will he )110tXX 1dX itXNJbXl}d( (unchanged) by . ( -0- ) Days. The Dap.. of Substantial Completion as of the (tale of this Change Order therefore is Authorized: CHR Associates, PA Mebane Heating & Air Cond. County of Orange ��JJ ( )N .A 'IC)Rt O}�t�NN..Cit .\130 Ailrport Road _ .d. �ox 756 lU6 E. Margaret Lane •lthlrt. . Athln•.0. mdfv,,S Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Mebane, NC 2730 Hillsborough, NC 27278 171'- _ _ — �.•— IIY y,, /_ r—i7 �1 _ IIY .___ DATE A1A DOCUMENT G7U1 • (.IIANGI: if 1RI11l • .full I'1711 1111111'Sr • MA- • 14711 1111 Anil KU AN IN+l 111111.4)I :vu 11111.1.1%, 1711 N1.W Y11113:.wr., N.V ,.%v.v.'um;I t ti.N,1),c.atm. G701—1978 • • • ML 1 w APPROVED DECEMBER 16, 1986 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 1, 1986 on The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular December 1, 1986, 7 :30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Jr. , Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. COMMISSIONERS ELECT PRESENT: Stephen Halkiotis and John Hartwell. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Assistant County Managers William T. Laws and Albert Kittrell, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Deputy Clerk Sylvia Clements, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Purchasing Diector Reeve, Planner GregA Jerry Szymik, and Passmore, Lan Personnel Director Beverly Whitehead. The meeting was called to order by Chair Willhoit. I A. MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to approve the minutes for November 3 , 1986 as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner, Carey to approve the minutes for November 18, 1986 as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner, Lloyd to approve the minutes for November 24, 1986 as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. B. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION Chair Willhoit presented a resolution of appreciation that will be given to Tom Ward at a reception in his honor. Motion was made by Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to approve the resolution as printed below. WHEREAS, on September 15, 1965, Thomas M. Ward became Director of the Orange County Social Services Department, and WHEREAS, Thomas M. Ward has served Orange County and its citizen conscientiously, and WHEREAS, Thomas M. Ward has given freely of his time, talents and energy in the administration of the Social Service programs, and for the concern of Orange County citizens, and WHEREAS, Thomas M. Ward through his efforts has earned the respect and appreciation of the government officials, his peers a coworkers, and the citizens of Orange County, and WHEREAS, Thomas M. Ward has determined that it is now time for him o retire and channel his efforts toward new endeavors, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of 2 Commissioners takes action through its members on behalf of the citizens of Orange County to express to Thomas M. Ward its sincere appreciation and gratitude for his years of service and contributions to Orange County and the Department of Social Services, and further wish to him happiness and good health in the future. Let a copy of this resolution be presented to Thomas M. Ward and a copy of this resolution be included in the minutes of this meeting, this the 1st day of December, 1986. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. C. OATHS OF OFFICE FOR BOARD MEMBERS (The signed oaths are on permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board) , Ms. Charlotte Cole administered the oath of office to newly elected Commissioner Stephen Halkiotis. Mrs. Beverly A. Blythe administered the oath of office to newly elected Commissioner John W. Hartwell. Clerk of Courts Shirley James administered the oath of office to re- elected Commissioner Shirley E. Marshall. D. BOARD ORGANIZATION 1. ELECTION OF THE CHAIR. AND VICE-CHAIR The Board elected Shirley Marshall as Chair until the first meeting in December, 1987. The vote was unanimous. The Board elected Moses Carey as Vice-Chair until the first meeting in December, 1987; the vote was: Moses Carey, 4; Don Willhoit, 1. 2. ADOPTION OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE Two additions to the present adopted "Rules of Procedure" were suggested by Chair Marshall: (1) Ado.tion of Resolutions Proclamations and Orders A motion shall be adopted by a majority of the votes cast for any and all resolutions, proclamations and orders. The vote shall express the sense of the board on a question or issue brought before it and shall serve as an official declaration of a particular state of fact or circumstance. (2) Documents Presented to the Chair for Signature The Clerk to the Board shall be the single county employee responsible for presenting documents to the Chair for signature; the Clerk shall review all such documents with the County Attorney before they are presented to the Chair for execution. In response to a question from Commissioner Hartwell, County Manager Ken Thompson explained that the deadline for receipt of items to be placed on the agenda has been set for the preceding Tuesday for Department Heads. A Board member may add an item to the agenda any time before the agenda is printed. Commissioner Willhoit explained that an item may be added to the agenda the night of the meeting providing all five members are present and agree to the addition. Commissioner Hartwell also questioned the order of business as stated in the "Rules of Procedure" and Chair Marshall suggested that this specific item be deferred to the next meeting for further discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the two additions to the "Rules of Procedure" and 3 adopt the "Rules of Procedure" as previously amended by the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E. APPOINTMENTS 1. MANAGER Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to appoint Kenneth R. Thompson County Manager. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2. CLERK TO THE BOARD Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to appoint Beverly A. Blythe Clerk to the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3 . COUNTY ATTORNEY Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to continue the County's association with the firm of Coleman, Bernholz, Dickerson, Beiholz, Gledhill and Hargrave for services as the County Attorney. VOTE: UNANIMOUS, 4 . BOARD MEMBER APPOINTMENTS Commissioner Halkiotis agreed to serve as the Commissioners' representative on the OPC Mental Health Board and the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Commission. Commissioner Hartwell agreed to serve as the Commissioners' representative on the Social Services Board and the Triangle J COG Alternate Delegate. Chair Marshall stated that all other Commissioner appointments would remain as they are. 5. OTHER APPOINTMENTS ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Nomination of Henry Crane was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD The nomination of Dan Eddleman was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. HILLSBOROUGH BOARD. OF ADJUSTMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to rescind the appointment of Vance Spinks and appoint Mary Ann Wolf as the alternate County appointee to the Hillsborough Board of Adjustment. VOTE: AYES, 4 ; NOES, 1 (Commissioner Halkiotis) . . F. BOARD COMMENTS Chair Marshall thanked the members of the Board for their vote of confidence and indicated she would try to be a good Chair and keep communication open. She announced three work sessions that have been scheduled by the Board of Commissioners: (1) December 4 with the Orange County Planning Board to be held at 7: 30 p.m. at Moorefields. (2) December 6 - Goals and Objectives work session from 9:00 - 4:00 in the Department on Aging conference room. (3) December 8 with the School Merger Task Force at 7: 30 at Lincoln Center. Chair Marshall requested that items 1, 3, 5, 8, and 9 be removed from the consent agenda for separate consideration. County Manager Ken Thompson requested that item 15 be postponed. G. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Those citizens in the audience who would like to make comments mimmmimmimmmm • will be recognized at the time their item is discussed. 4 2. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Joe Crews questioned why Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker had not been recognized. Chair Marshall accepted this inquiry and indicated it would be taken under advisement. H. REPORT - ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS BOARD STATUS REPORT Dave Moreau, Chairman of the Environmental Affairs Board gave a summary of the Board's accomplishments. He indicated that in an effort to receive additional citizen input, a conference is planned for January 31, 1987 at Orange High School. The members of the Board of Commissioners will be invited to participate in the conference. The information will then be evaluated by the various subcommittees and recommendations will be presented to the Board of Commissioners in the spring. I. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA (Items 1, 3, 8, and 9 were removed for separate consideration and Item 5 was postponed) The County Manager recommended the following action by the Board: 2. BUDGET AMENDMENTS That the 1986-87 Budget Ordinance be amended by the following changes: GENERAL FUND (General Assistance funds) Appropriation -- Social Services $ 8, 000 Source - Contingency $ 8,000 GENERAL FUND (Relocation of Driver's License Bureau) Appropriation - Public Works $ 9,900 Source - County Capital Projects Fund $ 9,900 COUNTY CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Appropriation - Transfer to General Fund $ 9, 900 Source - Fund Balance Appropriated $ 9, 900 4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDING BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY To approve the Resolution stated below to authorize the release of funds that were appropriated to councils of government by the General Assembly. RESOLUTION BY ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, in North Carolina the Lead Regional Organizations, as voluntary organizations serving municipal and count established productive working relationships with the county cities counties across this state; and WHEREAS, many counties and cities need assistance in pursing economic and community development opportunities, but federal assistance in the form of intergovermental revenues has been severely curtailed in recent years; and WHEREAS, the 1986 Short Session of the 1985 General Assembly recognized this need through the appropriation of $990, 000 to held the Lead Regional Organizations assist local governments with grant applications, economic development, community development, support of local industrial development and other activities as deemed appropriate by their local governments; and WHEREAS, these funds are not intended to be used for payment of member dues or assessments to a Lead Regional organization or to supplant funds appropriated by the member governments; and WHEREAS, in the event that a request is not made by a unit of 5 government for release of these funds to our Regional Council, the available funds will revert to the State's General fund; and WHEREAS, in Region J funds in the amount of $55,000 will be used to carry out the economic development plan approved by the COG Board of Delegates and especially to improve the economy of the counties and towns of the Region by strengthening ties to and consequently benefits of the Research Triangle Park. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT Orange County requests the release of its $7, 594.82 share of these funds to the Triangle J Council of Governments at the earliest possible time in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1014 of the 1986 Session Laws (HB 2055) . 6. RESPITE CARE BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION To approve the application for Respite Care assistance funds with the Triangle J Council of Governments effective January 1, 1987 through June 30, 1987 in the amount of $4, 018.00. A local match from the Department of Social Services of $510. 00 will be required. 7. CHANGE ORDER FOR REVERE ROAD OFFICE COMPLEX To approve a change order for the Revere Road Office Complex for the purpose of altering the supply duct work in the ceiling of the existing building at a cost of $300.00. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve items 2 , 4, 6, and 7 of the Consent Agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. NOTE: Those consent items removed for separate consideration are listed below. 1. CABLE TV FRANCHISE TRANSFER ALERT CABLE (A copy of the resolution will appear in the minutes upon approval of the second reading) . County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill stated that he reviewed the financial information provided by Alert Cable TV and ascertained no reason for them not providing the same service as Alert presently does. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the first reading of the resolution to approve the transfer of Wometco Cable TV, Inc. , the corporation which owns Alert Cable TV Franchise, to BT Cable. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3 . EXAMINATION OF BONDS Purchasing Director Pam Jones explained the purpose and statutes governing Bonds. Bonds are written for $25,000 for the Sheriff; $25, 000 for the Register of Deeds; $250, 000 for the Finance Office; $30, 000 for the Tax Collector and $10, 000 for all County employees for faithful performance. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the bonds at their present level. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 8. TRANSPORTATION BOARD OPERATIONAL BY-LAWS In answer to some concerns expressed by Commissioner Hartwell, Director of the Department on Aging Jerry Passmore explained that the by- laws refer only to human service transportation and have nothing to do with roads per se. The County Transportation Development Plan provides for replacement or addition of vehicles to the existing operation. 6 • Chair Marshall suggested that (1) all appointments to the Orange County Transportation Advisory Board be made by the Board of Commissioners and that the agencies listed in the composition of this Board make recommendations for consideration by the Board and (2) that the Advisory group be guided by the "Rules and Procedures for Small Boards" . Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to table this item until revisions can be made. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 9. APPROVAL OF 1986-87 WORKPLAN FOR REMAPPING PROJECT COMPLETION OF PHASE 2 AND PART OF PHASE 3, Land Records Manager Roscoe Reeve explained the remapping project, its inception and the different phases that will ultimately culminate in the completion of the project. He explained the workplan for the remapping project for 1986-87 in detail. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the workplan as presented by Roscoe Reeve and to approve an additional $627 in County funds for the project. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. J. ITEMS FOR DECISION 1. PD-1-86 EUBANKS ROAD TOWNHOUSES Marvin Collins stated this item was considered at public hearings on April 3 , May 5, and October 13, 1986. The request is for a planned development rezoning and Class A Special Use permit for the project known as Eubanks Road Townhouses which is located in the Joint Planning Area. Collins stated that he, the County Manager and County Attorney would like to recommend that the item be deferred for further consideration. Following the public hearing the applicant John Loving presented information to the Town of Chapel Hill which indicated a reduction in the number of units and improvements to Eubanks Road-NC 86 Intersection. Because this is new evidence after the public hearing, it would constitute a new application and would require a new public hearing. One option for the applicant is to submit an application based on 120 units; another option is to allow the original proposal based on 137 units to go back to the Chapel Hill Council and the Orange County Planning Board for consideration and recommendation based on the evidence presented at the public hearings. Dexter Smith who is involved with the application requested that the Board defer action on this matter until they have an opportunity to consider the two alternatives. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adjourn the public hearing until January 5, 1987 for receipt of a recommendation from the Orange County Planning Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2. REVISIONS TO JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT Commissioner Willhoit informed the Board that Carrboro requested that no action be taken on these revisions until they have additional time for a response. Discussion ensued on the agreement and the Joint Planning Map. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to defer consideration on the revisions to the Joint Planning Agreement until January 20, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3. COUNTRY MANOR SUBDIVISION Marvin Collins presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for Country Manor Subdivision, property of A. E. Morgan. The property is located in Little River Township on the north side of ' 7 . McKee Road (SR 1534) . The tract has direct access on McKee and is bordered by residential development and vacant land. Four (4) lots are proposed out of 11.4 acres. The Land Use Plan Designation is Agricultural Residential. The Planning Board has recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the recommendation of the Planning Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4. CAROLINA FOREST. SUBDIVISION Marvin Collins presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for the division of Tract #6 - Carolina Forest Phase II, property of Edward and Lita Pascarella. The property is located in Chapel Hill Township on the west side of Damascus Church Road (SR 1940) . The tract is bordered by residential development and wooded land. The tract has direct access on Damascus Church Road. Two lots are proposed out of 11.59 acres. The zoning of the property is Rural Residential (R-1) with an overlay zoning designation of University Lake Protected Watershed (PW- II) . The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential (Rural Buffer) and University Lake Watershed. The Planning Board recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan on November 17, 1986 contingent upon the following condition: Submission of payment-in-lieu for two (2) lots based on recommendation of the Recreation Director. Payment-in-lieu would be equal to 2/35 or 0. 057 acres x $5, 115 per acre = $291.00. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5. REQUEST TO DELAY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Marvin Collins presented for consideration a request from Mr. Edkins and Attorney John McCormick to delay legal action, which was authorized by the Board on September 16, 1986, against Mr. Benjamin Edkins, owner operator of Carolina Sport Art Center until such time as the Board of Adjustment has an opportunity to review his application for a Class B Special Use Permit at its January 12, 1987 meeting. Lynn Keiser presented a petition with 99 signatures thereon. The petition is stated below: "We, the parents of children attending classes at Carolina Sport Art, recognizing the benefits of these classes to the health and well- being of our children, respectfully request the Orange County Board of Commissioners to allow Carolina Sport Art to remain in operation while its applications for non-profit status and a special use permit are under consideration. " Mr. John McCormick, representing Mr. Edkins, asked that the Board allow Carolina Sport Art to continue with their activities during the proceedings of the Board of Adjustment. He stated that if the decision is that Mr. Edkins will not be allowed to operate that he will voluntarily cease operations at that time, requiring no action on the part of the Board or County Attorney. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to delay legal proceedings against Mr. Edkins until the first regular meeting in February. At that time, legal proceedings may be dropped if the application is approved by the Board of Adjustment, or if not approved, could be initiated again without further Board action VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 6. MORATORIUM ON LANDSCAPING STANDARDS Marvin Collins presented for Board consideration a request to 8 • place a moratorium on the enforcement of Section IV-B-8-c-1 of the Subdivision Regulations until a study is completed by the Planning Board of the standards contained therein. Section IV-B-8 establishes landscape and buffer requirements for new subdivisions. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve a moratorium on Section IV-B-8-c-1 of the Subdivision Regulations pending further study of the standards and a recommendation of the Planning Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 7. WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCE Commissioner Willhoit suggested that the Board Chair and County staff coordinate with OWASA to determine how to manage water resources upon recovering from a drought. He noted that OWASA requested from the Town of Hillsborough a delay in the deadline for getting the pump station installed until December 15 and suggested that the County approve a delay in that installation until mid January but that OWASA be encouraged to proceed with the installation of the pump. The present water situation was discussed. It was agreed that specific recommendations to address the present situation would be presented at the December 16, 1986 meeting. By consensus the Board agreed to support the delay as requested by OWASA for installation of the pump station by 30 days. K. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing legal matters. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. L. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to come before the Board, Chair Marshall adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on December 16, 1986, 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the old Post Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk