Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-05-1987 • ORANGE. COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 1987 7 : 30 P.M. OLD COURTHOUSE COURTROOM HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda 2 . Matters not on the Printed Agenda C. MINUTES PAGE # D. REPORT 002 1. Public Proclamations to Rescind Voluntary Stage II Restrictions E. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) 005 1. Public Meeting and Public Hearing Policy 006 2 . Animal Shelter--Change Order 008 3 . Amendment to Commission for Women Bylaws F. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA 014 1. Zoning Ordinance Text/Atlas Amendment--Rural Buffer 068 2. Subdivision Regulations Amendment--Lot Standards 075 3 . Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment--Telephone Exchanges 091 4 . Walker's Landing II--Preliminary 1p3 5. Stacy Heights Section II--Preliminary Plan 128 6. Personnel Ordinance Revisions 141 7 . Northern Fairview Park Construction--Bid Award 147 8. Small Business Administration Loan Program 156 9. Proposed Recycling Program 159 10. Financing Options for Long Range Capital Needs 175 11. Space Allocation Plan 177 12 . Sewer Operating Rules Revision 180 13 . Reconstitution of the HSAC 183 14. Cablecasting Board of Commissioners Meetings 195 15. Legislative Goals Conference 196 16. Public Charge 197 G. APPOINTMENTS H. ADJOURNMENT • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COi•i"1ISSIGi.ERS • ACTION AGEflDJ . = ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO.F�p • MEETING DATE January 5, 1987 SUBJECT: PERSONNEL ORDINANCE RRN!ISInNS • DEPF�RTi1EP1"C: TI PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO r INFOf:'1ATIOM CONTACT:. K. R. Thompson . ATTACF1 l�f Jl (S) : Yes B. M. Whitehead PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH -- 732-8181 .HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9351 CHAPEL HILL 967-9251 ' MEBANE -- .227--2031 " • . DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To. further consider the revisions to the Orange County Personnel Ordinance . that were presented .at the December 16th Commissioner's meeting. • • • • NEED: - The Ordinance was adopted effective July 1985..• Sections.of the Ordinance need revision due to changes in federal law, employee-.benefit adjustments, and to'assure clearness 'in interpretation. . • _ " . - • • • • IMPACT: • . • • • RECOMFNDATION(S) :. As the Board decides. - • -1- i2b ARTICLE I (Section 4.14) Pg. 3 Recommended Change: **Immediate Family - spouse, parents, siblings, children, grandchildren, grandparents ARTICLE II (Section 2.2.1) Pg. 12 Recommended Change: **It is the policy of the County not to practice or permit discrimination in employment on the basis of age. Any applicant may be considered for appointment as a permanent employee that is age 18 or older. ARTICLE II (Section 2.3.7) Pg. 13 Recommended Change: **Delete this section. ARTICLE II (Section 2.4.15) Pg. 15 Recommended Change: **All selection related activities will be conducted within the boundaries of the County. ARTICLE II (Sections 3.2/ 3.2.1/ 3.2.2) Pgs. 16 & 17 Recommended Change: **Delete these sections. ARTICLE II (Section 4.6) Pg. 19 Recommended Change: **When a department or division head position becomes vacant, an appointment to an acting position is made with the approval of the County Manager. The Acting Department or Division Head may be asked to serve up to six (6) months. The salary paid to the employee selected to serve in an acting position shall be adjusted to the hiring rate of the new range assigned or to a step within the range that provides a minimum of five percent increase in pay. • NOTE: ** CONSENSUS APPROVAL BY BOCC -2- 13 u ARTICLE II (Section 7.7) Pg. 22 Recommended Change: **Former employees who return to work for the County after the one year reinstatement period, shall receive credit for their previous employment years, if they remain employed for a period of no less than five consecutive years. ARTICLE III (Sections 6.0, 6.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.2(a)(b) 6.2) Pgs. 29, 30, 31 Recommended Changes: 6.0 Political Activity All employees are free to engage in political activity to the widest extent consistent with the restrictions imposed by law. An employee may participate in all political activity not specifically restricted by law; including candidacy for office in nonpartisan election and candidacy for political party office. However, no employee shall: (a) use official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for office; (b) directly or indirectly coerce, attempt to coerce, command or advise any other employee of the governmental unit to pay, lend or contribute anything of value to a political party, committee, organization, agency or person for political purposes; (c) be a candidate for elective public office in a partisan election while on active pay status. (d) be required as a duty of office or as a condition of employment, promotion, or tenure of office contribute funds for political or partisan purposes; (e) post, nor cause to be posted, signs, notices, or other materials related to any national, state or local political party or candidate, in or on property owned, leased or used by the department in the conduct of its official business. (f) wear or display badges, buttons, or other emblems related to a national, state, or local political party or candidate while on duty or during the performance of services for the department; or (g) use any supplies or equipment of the governmental unit for political purposes. 6.1 An employee, regardless of employment status, shall give written notice of candidacy for partisan elective office, or appointment to a vacancy in a partisan elective office on or before the filing deadline or acceptance of partisan appointment. • 4i31 -3- 6.2 An employee that files for an elective partisan office shall be placed on leave without pay effective the following workday. If elected or appointed to a partisan office, the employee shall resign from loyment with the County before the start of their term of office. 6.3 Any violation of this section shall be deemed improper conduct and the employee shall be subject to disciplinary action or dismissal by the appointing authority. ARTICLE III (Section 7.1.1) Pg. 32 Recommended change: `_V An of fcf I employee, County Manager, Clerk to the Board, or Board of Commissioners member shall not accept any gift, favor, or thing of value that may tend to influence the discharge of duties. ARTICLE III (Sections 9.1 - 9.6) Pgs. 36 - 38 Recommended Change: 9.0 Travel 9.1 Policy Vehicles owned by the county will be provided for full-time permanent county employees for official county business. 9.1.1 The provisions of this article will be applicable also to County Manager, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, County Attorney, Commissioners, members of advisory or special boards, and other employees or officials designated by the Commissioners. 9.2 Procedure Travel on official County business out-of-state or requiring an overnight stay must be authorized by the County Manager. All other travel within the state by a county employee must be approved by the employee's department head. 9.2.1 A request for travel must describe the travel requested, the purpose of the proposed trip, the period of time away from the County, and approval of the department head, if applicable, or of the County Manager or the Board of County Commissioners. Travel advances require the approval of the employee's department head. An accounting shall be made to the Finance Department within 5 workdays after termination of any trip for which a travel advance was received. Such accounting shall be made by the submission of a properly completed Travel Expense Statement. 9.2.2 County employees and officials traveling away from the County on official business will be reimbursed as follows: (a) travel by official vehicle, Orange County shall pay total cost of operation and maintenance; (b) travel by personal vehicle, Orange County will reimburse at the prevailing non-taxable rate per mile allowed by the IRS, or air coach rate, whichever is less, with living expenses being reimburseable -4- 13 • - only for the period required for airplane travel, unless the use of the employee's personal vehicle is for the convenience of the County. • (c) travel by public conveyance with the prior approval of the Manager, the actual cost of the fare, not to exceed the rate of "coach" fare; and (d) mileage for travel will be paid for the shortest, usually traveled route. 9.2.3 Travel - Room, Board and Special Expenses * (a) Lodging expenses will not normally be authorized for trips where the destination is less than 40 miles from the employee's normal duty station. Lodging for such trips must be approved by the County Manager in advance, except such trips by the Commissioners, County Manager, County Attorney. (b) Employees and officials will be expected to commence the return to Orange County as soon as practicable after conclusion of their business. (c) Room and board expenses incurred by persons traveling away from Orange County on official business will be reimbursed for lodging, meals, and gratuities. Lodging expenses will be reimbursed in full but in an amount not to exceed the single occupancy rate unless two or more County employees are sharing the same facilities. Reimbursement for meals shall not exceed the three meals when traveling in state and $27.50 for three meals when traveling outside the state. The following is a table of rates for reimbursement. In State Out-Of-State Breakfast 3.50 5.50 Lunch 5.00 7.00 Dinner 10.00 15.00 $18.50 $27.50 The above amounts include gratuities, not to exceed 15% of the cost of the meal. An employee not involved in overnight travel will not be reimbursed for meals except under the following circumstances: breakfast - travel originates before 6:00 a.m.; lunch-travel originates before 11:30 a.m. and terminates after 2:00 p.m.; dinner-travel originates before 4:30 p.m. and terminates after 7:00 p.m. Reimbursement will not be made for expenses incurred for meals for trips within the boundaries of Orange County unless such expenses are incurred for attendance at conferences, seminars, or other training sessions. (d) employees and officials will be reimbursed for the actual cost • of special expenses paid from personal funds, such as registration fees and other related expenses; (e) carpooling and the use of county-owned vehicles is hereby encouraged. * SEE ATTACHMENT #1 ( COMPARATIVE TRAVEL POLICIES ) -5- r i 136 A (f) Reimbursement for receipt supported personal phone cals during . properly authorized overnight trips will be allowed as follows: one "safe arrival" call; one call due to a change in itinerary, and for extended trips, one call after each "3 consecutive day periods" of overnight stay. All such personal phone calls are limited to $3.00 per call. Official business phone calls must be receipt-supported and identified as to point of origin, point of destination, and purpose. 9.3 The employee shall keep an accurate record of all expenses. No reimbursement will be paid without a completed Travel Expense Statement, signed by the department head. Receipts, as required must be attached to the Travel Expense Statement. Travel and Expense Statement accompanied by all receipts for lodging and meals must be submitted for reimbursement within 30 days of completed travel. 9.4 The employee shall keep an accurate record of the time of departure to and from destination, and the time of return. 9.j) Part/icipation in official out-of-town business meetings, authorized training courses, and authorized professional conferences is "time worked" for the purpose of computing overtime and compensatory leave for non-exempt employees. 9.6 Employees of the county absent from the county on official business, or in training courses or professional meetings, with authorized approval, will be converted by Worker's Compensation Insurance in accordance with the North Carolina Worker's Compensation Act and the County's Workers Compensation Insurance Policy. 9.7 County Vehicles 9.7.1 When travel by a motor vehicle is determined to be feasible, a county vehicle when available, should be used instead of a private vehicle. 9.7.2 notification of intent to travel, together with the itinerary, will be provided to the appropriate individual when a vehicle is requested. This will be accomplished at least 24 hours before the start of travel. 9.7.3 The following laws and regulations apply to the utilization of all County owned vehicles. (a) County owned cars shall be used for official county business only. "G.S. 14-247-Private use of publicly owned vehicles--It shall be unlawful for any officer, agent, or employee of any county or of any institution or agency of the state, to use for any private purpose whatsoever any motor vehicle of any type or discription whatsoever belonging to the state, or to any county, or to any institution or agency of the state. 111 . -6- 134 (b) Drivers shall observe all local and state ordinances pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles. Any fines imposed for any violation which was under the control of the driver shall be the responsibility of the driver. (c) Hitchhikers are not permitted to ride in county owned vehicles. (d) When a county owned car• is used for travel, parking and storage fees, tolls, and required repairs are legitimate charges to the county, including reimbursement when applicable provided necessary receipts are obtained. Reimbursement of expense for airport parking for both private and county owned vehicles is limited to forty-eight (48) hours, with a receipt required for any charges exceeding three dollars. Parking expenses in excess of forty-eight (48) hours may be reimbursed in extraordinary circumstances if advance approval is obtained from the department head. (e) For permanent signed vehicles, the log will be kept in the vehicle an kept current • the asigned driver. for single trip assignments, the 1.10511 be issued to the driver by the Central Motor Pool an s 1 be returned to the pool at the completion of the trip. (f) At the employee's destination, county vehicles may be used . prudently for travel to obtain meals, but not for private purposes or for entertainment while off duty. No common carrier or public transportation fares are reimbursable on a trip on which an employee uses a State car, unless it is shown that such transportation was more economical in a particular situation. 9.8 Private Cars 1. Policy on use of private cars by county employees. The County Financ Department may agree to grant reimbursement for expenses incurred for use of a private care when another made of transportation is more economical if the employee wishes to use a private car agrees to be reimbursed at the most common rate for a County owned car. 9.8.1 Exceptions Use of private car for convenience of the County County employees may use their private cars: 1. For round trips at a reimbursement rate of 20.5 cents per mile non-taxable. • 2. When the employee has a physical handicap which requires specialized equipment for operation of a motor vehicle that is not available on cars purchased by the County. -7- 1:36 3. When such use is to the County's advantage, due to • particular requirements of the employee's duties. Reimbursement is limited to direct mileage between stops on the employee's itinerary. Article IV (Section 3.1) Pg. 39 Recommended Change: **During periods of adverse weather conditions which make travel extremely hazardous, the County Manager may close County offices, except those 11) departments that provide emergency related services. When County offices are officially closed by the Manager, employees shall be granted administrative leave of absence at full pay. Non-emergency personnel % that are required to work during this time shall receive time off at the rate of 1 1/2 times the total number of hours worked in addition to regular pay. Administrative leave hours shall not be paid to an A V employee at termination unless it occurs during the week worked. (See Article Ix, Section 7.3). Article IV (Section 5.3) Pg. 41 • Recommended Change: **Vacation leave that will exceed three consecutive work days, shall be requested by the employee at least two weeks prior to the date the vacation is to begin. .1-1‘P Article N (Section 5.4) Pg. 41 ��, Recommended Change: r` N **Vacation leave may be used for sick leave purposes upon the approval of the department head. 1 / Article IV (Section 9.3) Pg. 46 Recommended Change: • **Delete this section. c....__,■//' 1 44,1J--) Article IV (Section 9.5) Pg. 47 fl , Ilik Recommended Change: I" (Will be forwarded under s Aerate cover) • to(— PAd)11-1-92-' 1 -8- 136 Article IV (Section 15.1.1) Pg. 51 Recommended Change: Add statement to the end of this Section. **However, the salary payment which the employee receives from the military shall be deducted from the sum paid by the County. V Article f (Section 5.2) Pg. 59 Recommended Change: Change the last sentence in this Section to read as noted below: *No employee shall be hired above the middle of the range without recommendation of the Manager and approval of the Board of commissioners. V Article IV--(Section 7.0) Pg. 59 Recommended Change: Delete first sentence and insert statement below. **Funds shall be recommended by the County Manager and approved by the Board of Commissioners annually for the purpose of providing salary increases to employees in recognition of above standard or improved performance. The funding level of the Merit Pay Program will be decided annually and will be in accordance with one of the following options. • 1. Full Merit Pay Program - All employees that have been granted permanent status shall be eligible for merit pay consideration. Salary adjustments shall be awarded on the employees anniversary date. Full Merit Pay Program shall be budgeted at six (6) percent of payroll. 2. Modified Merit Pay Program - All employees that have been granted permanent status shall be eligible for merit pay consideration. Salary adjustments shall be awarded on the employees anniversary date. Modified merit pay Program shall be budgeted at four (4) percent of payroll. 3. Modified Merit Pay Program - All employees that have been granted permanent status shall be eligible for merit pay consideration. Salary adjustments shall be awarded quarterly. Modified Merit Pay Program shall be budgeted at three percent of payroll. Article VI (Section 3.14) Pg. 63 Recommended Change: **The Manager shall be responsible for the administration and maintenance of the Position Classification Plan and shall advise the Board of County Commissioners of approved changes in the Officials/Administrators occupational category. * SEE ATTACHMENT #2 NOTING ABOVE THIRD STEP HIRINGS AND LAST TWELVE NEW HIRES _9- I Q i n ' Article VII (Section 3.2) Pg. 65 Recommended Change: **Based on the work standards developed, the employee and the supervisor will meet formally to discuss work performance at least one a year. A rating will be assigned summarizing the employee's work during the evaluation period. Ratings shall be in one of the following areas: Below Standard Level: performance is below the standards established for the job in all or most areas. An employee receiving a below standard rating shall receive a detailed plan for improvement from the supervisor and shall have their performance reviewed again in 90 days. If significant improvement is not made, the employee shall be subject to reassignment, demotion, or termination. Standard Level: performance meets the standards established for the job in all or most areas. Above Standard Level: performance exceeds the standards established for the job in more than half of the areas. Exceptional level: performance exceeds the standards established for the job in all of the areas. (2-j2"-- 6) 1 , 1 I ' VJ 4 rr (l ,s((\(2./4 • U'.12 01)0-.1 s • • A7TACHMM N[Ram ONE CCMPARATICE TRAVEL POLICIES Meals ' Hotel Comments Durham $35 maximum per 24 hours. No ceiling. Employees Air Coach Travel If less than $35■ no receipt are encouraged to seek is allowed. Bus, required. the most reasonable rate. Taxi, Subway fare reimbursed at actual, ' cost. Durham County $14 per day Reimburse at actual Depart. Head must make Brek. $3.00 cost, no ceiling encouraged effort to monitor travel Lunch $4.00 to seek reasonable rate. cost. All fares Dinner $7.00 reimbursed for actual cost. Chapel Hill $16 per day No ceiling encouraged N/A Brek. $3.50 to seek reasonable rate. Lunch $4.50 Dinner $8.00 If exceeded,l employee will pay the difference. Carroboro $16 In State $21 Out of State $50 allowable In State N/A Brek. $3.50 $4.50 $60 allowable Out of State Lunch $4.50 $5.50 Dinner $8.00 $11.00 Raleigh $20 In State $30 Out of State Reimbursed at actual cost N/A Brek. $4.00 $6.00 no ceiling, subject to Dept. Lunch $4.00 $8.00 Head approval. Employees are Dinner $12.00 $16.00 encouraged to share room with No receipt required. Any meal non-city employ. City will exceed above rates will be reimburse at single occupancy W reimbursed, if documented. rate. p�; ATTACH NUMBER CNE CONTINUED Wake County See Comments $45 In State Meal cost are included $45 Out of State in per diem for hotels. Entire policy is currently in the process of extensive revision. F� W CC Forsyth County $15 per day No ceiling, reimburse N/A Brek. $3.25 at actual cost with Lunch $4.25 receipt. Dinner $7.50 No Receipts Req. State of North $15 In State $20 Out of State $32 In State Carolina Brek. $3.25 $4.25 $39 Out of State Lunch $4.00 $5.00 Dinner $7.75 $10.75 Orange County $18.50 In State $27.50 Out of State Reimbursement at actual cost All other fare cost (Recommended) Brek. $3.50 $5.50 not to exceed the single- (i.e., bus, taxi, etc. ) Lunch $5.00 $7.00 occupancy rate unless two will be reimbursed Dinner $10.00 $15.00 or more county employees at actual cost. share the same facility. a * Note: all jurisdictions recognize a ceiling of 20.5 for mileage when using a private vehicle. h N r ATTAaRiENT NUMBER awn 1401 . EXAPPLESOF ABOVE 3RD STEP fIItfl (1981 to Present) TITLE DEPARTMENT GRADE SsEP S. W. Supervisor Social Services 68 5 Chief Deputy - - --- Sheriff's Dept. 69 6A Major - Sheriff's Dept. 68 7A Sergeant Sheriff's Dept. 63 55 Director Planning 77 48 Clerk to the Board Comaiss. Off. fi5 4A S.W. II Social Services 66 - 88 Chairman Agriculture S.W. II Social Services. Special 5alary43 a 3RD Agent Agriculture Special Salary above 3RD Planner III Planning 72 Director Social Services 78 7B Agent Agriculture Special Salary above 3RD LASZ 12 NEN ingas (November - December 1986) S.W. II Social Services 66 0 Clerk Typist Social Services 57 0 Pers. Analyst Personnel 67 0 S.W. II Social Services 66 1 Dispatcher EMS 65 0 Deputy I Sheriff's Dept. 65 0 Housing Couns. H/C D 65 0 Elig. Spec. I Social Services 60 1 Sanitarian Health Dept. 66 1 PBN II Health Dept. 71 1 S.W. I Social Services 63 0 District Supervisor Recreation 63 0 • • ARTICLE IV SECTION 9.5 (Page 47) 9.5 ADDITIONAL RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS In accordance with 5143-166.70 additional retirement�benefits are provided for Local :Law Enforcement Officers. 9.5. 1 Local governments are required to provide contributions to the Special Retirement Income Program (401K Plan) for local law enforcement officers as follows: 2% of salary amount in F.Y. 1987 - 1988 5% of salary amount in F.Y. 1988 - 1989 and thereafter. 9.5.2 Local governments are required to pay a special separation allowance to local law enforcement officers who meet one of the _ following two criteria: (1) are at least age 55 and have 5 years creditable service as a law enforcement officer, or (2) have at least 30 years creditable service (regardless of age) in the Local Governmental Employees Retirement System with at least 50% of that service being in law enforcement. If the law enforcement officer meets one of the two criteria, the officer is entitled to a special separation allowance from retirement until the officer reaches the age of 62 calculated as follows: .85% times years of creditable service in the Local Governmental Employees Retirement System times- rate of pay. AMEN 0ENERAL ASSEMBLY Or NORTH CAROLINA 1985 SESSION (REGULAR SESSION, 1986) RATIFIED BILL CHAPTER 1019 BILL AN ACT CONCERNING LOCAL LAW HOUSE - Whereas, local governments were authorized by the 1983 General Assembly in Chapter 908, Session Lars of 1983, to levy an additional one-half cent sales tax; and Whereas, both the House and Senate have in 1986 passed a bill to authorize an additional one-half cent sales tax for local governments; and Whereas, local governments would raise over three hundred fifty million dollars (1350,000, 000) annually from these two taxes; Nov, therefore, The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: Section 1. . Effective July 1, 1987, G.S. . 143-166. 50 (e) is amended by adding a new sentence at the end of the first paragraph to read: "From July 1, 1987, until July 1 , 1988, local government employers of law enforcement officers shall contribute an amount equal to at -least two percent (2%) of participating local officers' monthly compensation to the Supplemental Retirement Income Plan to be credited to the designated individual accounts of participating local officers; and on and after July 1, 1988, local government employers of law enforcement officers shall contribute an amount equal to five percent (5%) of participating local officers ' monthly compensation to the Supplemental Retirement Income Plan to be credited to the designated individual accounts of participating local officers. " Sec. • 2. - Article 12D of Chapter 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes is amended by adding a section to read: "0 143- 166. 42. . Special separation allowances for local officerg.-- (a) On and after January 1, 1987, the of G. S. 143- 166. 41 shall apply to all eligible law oenforcement officers as defined by G. S. 128-21 (11b) or G.S. _ 143-166.50 (a) (3) who are employed by local government employers, except as may be provided by this section. As to the applicability of the provisions of G. . . 143- 166. 4l to locally employed officers, the governing body for each unit of local government shall be responsible for making determinations of eligibility for their local officers retired under the provisions of G.S. 128-27 (a) and for making payments to their eligible officers under the same terms and conditions, other than the source of payment, as apply to each State department, agency, or institution in payments to State officers according to the provisions of G. S. , 143-166. 41, " Sec. 3. This act is effective upon ratificatio=d. In the General Assembly read three times and ratified, this the 15th day of July, 1986. ROBERT B. JORDAN Robert B. Jordan III President of the Senate LISTON B. RAMSEY Liston B. Ramsey Speaker of the House of Representatives 2 douse Bill 2130 001 inn ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMNIISSIONERS Item Ho. Cj ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT NETTING DATE January 5, 1987 Subject: MINUTES I Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I Public Hearing: Yes X no I Attachments: , Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under Separate Cover Phone lumbers: 132-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: December 16, 1986 - Regular Meeting December 19, 1986 - Special Meeting NEED: Approval so the minutes may be entered into the official minute book in the Clerk's office. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. 002 ORANGE COUNTY Action Aiznda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS it No ) ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE January 5, 1987 Subject: PUBLIC PROCLAMATIONS TO RESCIND VOLUNTARY STAGE II RESTRICTIONS IDepartment: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ( Public Hearing: Yes X no Attachments: Yes - Proclamations Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-1+501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To inform the Board and the Public that two Public Proclamations were signed by Chair Shirley E. Marshall which rescinded the voluntary Stage II water restrictions for those citizens who live in the unincorporated areas of the Orange. Water and Sewer Authority, Orange/Alamance and Town of Hillsborough service areas. NEED: The Proclamations will be made a part of the proceedings of this meeting and inserted verbatim in the minutes of said meeting. RECOMMENDATION: For information only. O O 3 ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CAREY,JR. STEPHEN H.HALKROTIS JOHN HARTWELL SHIRLEY E_MARSHALL DON WILLHOIT PUBLIC PROCLAMATION ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA DECEMBER 23, 1986 Orange County has been notified by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority that the water supply situation has continued to improve. The return of near normal precipitation has restored University Lake to about 22" below full and along with added water to the Quarry Reservoir and the Cane Creek impoundment has reduced the overall system demand and in- creased the water supply to more than three months. As Chair of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, I hereby rescind the voluntary Stage II water restrictions for those citizens who live in the County portion of Orange Water and Sewer Authority service area. I thank the citizens of Orange County in the OWASA service area for their cooperation during the drought of 1986 and ask that you continue to practice good stewardship of our natural resources. • Shirt . Mars all, Chair ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EasT MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 004 27278 MOSES GREY.JR. STEPHEN H.HALKIOTIS JOHN HART%ELL SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL DON WILLHOIT PUBLIC PROCLAMATION DECEMBER 29, 1986 The management of Orange County has determined that with the combination of available water sources and the forecast of normal rainfall for the forthcoming winter months, the water level of Lake Orange is now at the Stage I level in accordance with the County's Water Conservation Ordinance. • As Chair of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, I hereby rescind the Voluntary Stage II water restrictions for those citizens who live in the County portion of the Orange/Aiamance and the Town of Hillsborough service area and use water obtained from any raw water supply within Orange County. I thank the citizens of Orange County in the Orange/Alamance and the Town of Hillsborough service area for their cooperation during the drought of 1986 and ask that you continue to practice good stewardship of our natural resources. r 1:lYfeg4<Alg.'6*4-----"e* Frey Marshall, Chair 1 005 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. el ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE January 5, igip Subject: Public Meeting and Public Hearing Policy Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: Yes X no Attachments: None Information Contact: Shirley E. Marshall Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-1i501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To set a policy on setting of general public meetings and hearing. NEED: It is not now understood that NO general meeting advertised to hear the views of the citizens of Orange County should be set by County management or departments at a time when the Board of Commissioners as a Board is scheduled for another meeting or, as a group, will be absent from the County for County- related events. IMPACT: Commissioners will be able to hear citizen comment . RECOMMENDATION: The Board adopt the policy that County management and County departments will set general public meetings or public hearings only at such times as the Board of Commissioners is not regularly scheduled to meet or is not expected to be absent from the County, as a group, for County-related events. 006 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agen Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: JANUARY 5, 1987 SUBJECT: ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER PROJECT--CHANGE ORDER 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 change order for two locksets. The project consists of adding a wing to the shelter, located at Municipal Road, in order to increase animal holding capacity. NEED: In the original design for the addition, security from the existing building into the new portion was not a considera- tion. It now is apparent that allowance should be made for internal security. A keyed rather than passage lock should be installed in the door separating the existing and new portion. Also the door to the storage room should be equipped with a slide bolt. IMPACT: The cost of this change order is $224. 00 and there is enough in contingency to cover the amount. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve change order. 71 CHANGE 007 Distribution to: ORDER OWNER ❑ Dail Dixon & Associates AJA DOCUMENT G707 ARCHITECT ❑ Suite.220A Carr Mill CONTRACTOR 0 Carrboro, NC 27510 FIELD ❑ OTHER ❑ PROJECT: Orange County Animal CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 3 (name, address) Shelter Expansion INITIATION DATE: 12110/86 TO (Contractor): —1 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 85/101 Holt Construction Co. CONTRACT FOR: Orange County Animal PO Drawer 118 Shelter Expansion Graham, NC 27253 CONTRACT DATE: 3/17/86 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: Provide a slide bolt and two locksets per final inspection punch list, dated October 6, 1986, interior items 13. and 14. , and per Holt Construction Co. invoice dated December 5, 1986. Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time_ The original (Contract Sum) > ) was $ 56,460.00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders $ 438.70 The(Contract Sum) (60221eateirktda:ciavaxocCirot prior to this Change Order was $ 56,898.70 The (Contract Sum) (It itacata7 d: mtrt €90 will be (increased) gr1 f raMi by this Change Order $ 224.00 The new (Contract Sum) (fiNIXaMiCltddhetirMIXingtincluding this Change Order will be $ 57,122.70 The Contract Time will be (i ce jck91faigdk(unchanged)by C 0 ) Days. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is Authorized: Dail Dixon & Associates _ Holt Construction Co. Orange County ARCHITECT CONT CT R Suite 220A Cara_ Mill Drawer 118 OWN T06 E. M argaret Lane Address Address Address Carrboro, NC 27510 Graham, NC 27253 Hillsborough, NC 27278 BY • BY BY DATE 12 , DATE DATE AIA DOCUMENT G701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AIAA • @ 197g THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W.,WASHINGTON, D.C.200nb 008 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS It No. E3 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT . MEETING DATE JANUARY 5, 1987 Subject: Amendment to Commission for Women Bylaws • Department: Public Hearing: Yes X no commission for Women Attachments: Amended Bylaws; see Information Contact: Ann McPherson Article V. , Section 1. , Executive Phone Numbers: 732--8181, 968-4501, _ Committee. 227-0231 ext. 442 PURPOSE: To increase membership on the Executive Committee with the immediate past Chair of the Commission. And, given the possibility then of a tie vote, - to make provisions for resolving a tie vote by carrying the issue before the full Commission. NEED: The inclusion of immediate past Chair is standard practice in most organizations. Also, such involvement preserves continuity in leadership not currently provided for in the structure of the Executive Committee. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the by-law change as incorporated in Article V by the underlined word addition. Amended by OCCW 12/11/86 009 Adopted by OCBC 1/ /87 If BYLAWS ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR WOMEN Article 1. Organization Section 1. Name. The name of this organization shall be the Orange County Commission for Women. Section 2. Authority. The Commission for Women derives its authority from the Orange County Board of Commissioners through their action taken on March 25, 1976. Section 3. Term. The Commission year shall coincide with the twelve month period beginning July 1 and ending on June 30_ Article II. Purpose The purpose of this Commission shall be to serve as the official advisory body on the status of women to the Orange County Board of. Commissioners by: 1. Identifying the status of women in Orange County by assembling information and conducting original research; 2. Disseminating information on the status of women; 3. Recommending through resolutions appropriate actions regarding the status of women; 4. Promoting the development of all Orange county women; 5. Increasing public understanding of the problems, needs, and abilities of women; 6. Serving as a referral center for existing county services and as a clearinghouse of information regarding the problems of women; 7. Preparing an annual report to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Article III. Membership Section 1. Number and Qualifications. The Commission shall be composed of 15 Orange County residents appointed by the County Commissioners. Any person whose total salary is funded by Orange County revenue is ineligible for membership. The Commission shall recommend potential 4 members to the County Commissioners for appointment. N .Commission for Women Bylaws - page 2 Section 2. Terms. The term of appointment shall be three years, beginning July 1 and ending June 30, with five terms filled each year. Vacancies resulting from a cause other . than expiration of term shall be filled only with the unexpired portion of that term. Members are eligible to apply for reappointment. Section 3. Distribution. Distribution of Commission membership should be as follows: Five members should reside in Chapel Hill Township; one in Bingham Township; one in either Chapel Hill or Bingham Township; three in Hillsborough Township; one each in Eno, Little River, • -Cheeks, and Cedar Grove Townships; and one in any of these last five. • Section 4. _ Removal of Members. Members are expected to attend each regular meeting. Should a member miss three consecutive meetings or a total of four meetings in one fiscal year, the Commission may ask the member to resign or recommend to the County Commissioners that they terminate the appointment of such member. Article IV. Officers Section 1. Number, Tenure Qualifications. The Commission shall (: elect a Chair, a First Vice-Chair, and a Second Vice-Chair. All officers shall be members of the Commission. Persons holding office should be representative of the Commission membership. The term of office for all officers shall be for one year beginning July 1. Unless removed for cause or through resignation, elected officers shall remain in office until their successors are qualified and elected. Section 2. Duties. Duties of the officers are as follows: Chair: shall call and preside at Commission meetings; appoint committees and committee officers; develop the charge for each committee; serve as an ex-officio member of all committees; provide direction for the Coordinator by interpreting the views of the Commission; see that all resolutions and policies of the Commission are carried out; serve as the official spokesperson for the Commission; and have the general powers and duties of supervision and management usually vested in the Chair. First Vice-Chair: -Shall- be responsible for planning programs in keeping with the goals and objectives of the Commission; perform duties as delegated by the Chair; and shall , in the absence of the Chair, preside and perform the duties of the Chair. C rEmm 011 Commission for Women Bylaws - page 3 irSecond Vice-Chair: shall be responsible for membership activities and perform other duties as delegated by the Chair. Article V. Committees Section 1. Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall consist of the Chair, the First Vice-Chair, the Second Vice-Chair, the immediate past Chair (who must be a current member) , and the Coordinator, who shall serve as a non-voting, ex-officio member. The Executive Committee _ shall have the authority to transact business between AMENDED meetings; make recommendations regarding the policies of the Commission; advise the Chair; provide guidance in SECTION: the development of the annual objectives; recommend. AMENDS UNDER changes in the bylaws subject to the adoption by the Commission and approval of the County Commissioners; and LINED. make recommendations to the County Commissioners for appointments to the Commission. Should a tie vote occur, the issue shall be brought before the entire Commission. All business transacted by the Executive Committee shall be reported to the Commission membership at the next regular meeting through the distribution of minutes. Section 2. Nominating Committee. The Commission Chair and two 4E: additional members recommended by the Chair shall be elected by a majority of the Commission members present at the April meeting. The Nominating Committee will present a slate recommending officers in May. This slate will be acted upon in June. Section 3. Formation of Committees. The Chair shall establish other committees as deemed necessary and appoint members and any officers to carry out the charges for which the committee was formed. Article VI. Coordinator Section 1. Duties. The Coordinator, selected and supervised by the County Manager, shall handle the daily business of the Commission; supervise office staff; prepare and present a monthly report to the Commission; prepare the annual. report and budget for submission to the County Commissioners; update the agenda when necessary; and keep members informed of current information relative to the status of women._The.__Coordinator shall be a point of contact with the private sector and government units and shall maintain a liaison with the news media and agencies affecting the status of women_ r Commission for Women Bylaws - page 4 t 012. Section 2. Committee Membership. The Coordinator shall be a non-voting, ex-officio member of all committees. Article VII. Meetings Section 1. . Regular Meetings. The Commission shall meet once a month. Section 2. Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall meet at least quarterly. Section 3. , Special Meetings. Special meetings may be called by the Chair or at the request of a majority of the members. The purpose of the meeting shall be stated in the call. Except in cases of emergency (when a minimum of six hours notice shall be given) , at least three days notice shall be given. Section 4. Executive Sessions. (Closed Meetings) Executive sessions may be held at the discretion of the Chair, or in the Chair 's absence the First Vice-Chair, or at the request of a majority of the members. Section 5.. Open Meetings. All meetings of the Commission, including the Executive Committee, committees, sub-committees, and task forces are subject to the Open Meetings Law. C Individuals and/or groups who wish to make presentations should request time on the agenda from the Chair prior to the call to order. Section 6. Quorum. A majority of the members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any time. Section 7. Rules of Order. All meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the latest edition of Robert's Rules of Order, unless otherwise expressly provided in these bylaws. Article VIII. Standards of Conduct Section 1. In conducting Commission business, members shall recognize and follow policies and guidelines established by the County Commissioners and the Commission for Women. Should a . member violate these policies or guidelines, the Commission may ask the member to resign or recommend to the County Commissioners that they terminate the appointment of such member. C r Commission for Women Bylaws - page 5 013 Article IX. Amendments Section 1. Amendments. Recommendations to amend or repeal these bylaws may be adopted at a regular or special meeting by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the voting members present, provided that the amendment or new bylaw has been submitted in writing to the voting members not less than two weeks prior to the meeting. Section 2. Approval by the County Commissioners. Adopted changes to the bylaws must be approved by the County Commissioners. C. J.. O R A N G E COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT 014 Meeting Date: January 5. 1987 Action. Agenda Item # FL SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING TEXT/ATLAS AMENDMENTS-RURAL BUFFER (1) ART. 4.2.1/4.3-APPLICATION CRITERIA/PERMITTED USES (2) ART. 4.2.1 TO 4.2.4 - RENUMBERING (3) ART. 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (4) Z-9-86 ORANGE COUNTY (RURAL BUFFER DESIGNATION). *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes XNo *************************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Text CONTACT: Marvin Collins - Amendments; 11-24-86 Public Hearing TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Minutes; Citizen Hillsborough 732-8181 Petitions; 12-15-86 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Planning Board Durham 688-7331 Minutes; County Mebane 227-2031 Attorney Letter; Location Map. *************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider for approval proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance text and atlas which would establish a new zoning district classification. Rural Buffer (RB) ; establish criteria for its application; set interim dimensional requirements for lot area. pending further study and public hearing as called for by the Planning Board; and rezone approximately 38.000 acres from Rural Residential (R-1) and Agricultural Residential (AR) to Rural Buffer (RB) . To receive the Planking Board' s recommendation. This matter was presented at public hearing on November 24, 1986. • NEED: On October 13. 19864. -the Board of Commissioners adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, including a minimum required lot size of two acres per dwelling unit. It is essential that the Zoning Ordinance/Atlas now be made to conform with the adopted Land Use Plan. Specific provisions do not presently exist in the Zoning Ordinance which define the Rural Buffer district. provide criteria for district application. identify permitted uses, and establish dimensional requirements for lot area, 015 lot width, setbacks, etc. The new district designation and accompanying standards, if approved, would apply to the area identified on the attached Location Map. Addition of the new designation as Article 4.2.1 would also necessitate the renumbering of existing Articles 4.2.1 through 4.2.4 to 4.2.2 through 4.2.5. respectively. Approval of the proposed amendments establishing application criteria. permitted uses and dimensional standards would conform the Orange County Zoning Ordinance with the Rural Buffer designation adopted October 13, 1986 as part of • the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Approval of the proposed amendments regarding renumbering of Articles 4.2.1 through 4.2.4 would provide consistency in zoning district arrangement with the text of the Zoning ,Ordinance. Approval of the proposed rezoning would conform the Orange County Zoning Atlas with the Rural Buffer designation adopted as part of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Data collected from the Orange County Land Records Office indicates that 2.119 lots representing five percent (5%) of the total acreage would become conconforming. Any lots made nonconforming through adoption of the provisions would be subject to the requirements of Article 11 - Nonconformities (see attachment) . With respect to the "continuous frontage" rule contained in Article 11.7.2, Land Records data indicates that 244 lots (5.7% of all lots) would have to be combined to meet the minimum lot size standard should there be a desire to further develop the property. IMPACT: At the public hearing, no comments were received regarding the list of permitted uses in the proposed Rural Buffer district. No comments were received regarding the wording of the Rural Buffer intent statement, application criteria. dimensional_ requirements or zoning atlas change other than the following: 1. Concerns were voiced about the two-acre minimum lot size requirement; and 2. Concerns were expressed about the limitation on public water and sewer extensions within the Rural Buffer area. N At its December 15. 1987 meeting, the Planning Board voted to recommend that the Board of Commissioners take no action at this time on the Rural Buffer proposals. The Planning Board 0 16 recommended that a second public hearing be held on March 10. 1987. The public hearing would be held jointly with the Town of Chapel Hill. Reasons cited for the recommendation include the following: 1. Two petitions have been received requesting that the Joint . Planning Area Land Use Plan text be amended to return the two-acre lot size standard to one acre. In accordance with the Joint Planning Agreement with Chapel Hill, any amendment to the Plan must be _ considered at a joint public hearing. The next scheduled public hearing for _ Joint Planning matters is March 10. 1987. 2. The Planning Staff/Board could address as many issues raised at the November 24. 1986 public hearing as possible during January and February. allowing the Rural Buffer concept. mechanisms for implementation and citizen concerns to be considered further. This would include proposed amendments to Article 11.7.2 which requires combination of nonconforming parcels. The County Attorney recommends against delaying the adoption of the proposed amendments that conform the Zoning Ordinance to the Land Use Plan because of the strong relationship between the two documents. He further recommends against leaving all lots less than two acres in their present R-1 zoning classification because of prohibitions against "spot zoning'. The County Attorney further suggests that the "combination" issue can be handled through an amendment to Article 11.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. (See attached 12-15-86 correspondence from County Attorney) . RECOMMENDATION: Recommend adoption of the Zoning Ordinance text/atlas amendments to conform the Zoning Ordinance with the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The proposed amendments. including recommended changes to address staff concerns as well as others expressed at the public hearing. are as follows: 1. Permitted uses in the Rural Buffer district would be identical to those permitted in the Agricultural Residential (AR) district except for the following: Change "cemetery" from a Permitted Use to Class B Special Use. Delete "extraction of earth products" as Permitted Use. 017 Delete "non-profit educational cooperative" as Class A Special Use. Delete "greenhouses (on premises sales) " as Permitted Use. Delete "commercial feeder operation" as Permitted Use" . The proposed changes would make the list of permitted uses identical to those permitted in the Rural Residential (R-1) zoning district. A complete listing of permitted uses in both AR and R-1 districts is provided in the attached Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table. 2. Adopt proposed Rural Buffer "Intent' • statement and "Application Criteria" as presented at public hearing (see attached proposal) . 3. Adopt proposed renumbering of Articles 4.2.1 through 4.2.4 as presented at public hearing (see attached proposal) . 4. Adopt dimensional requirements for proposed Rural Buffer district as shown on the accompanying tables. Contrary to what was earlier recommended, the dimensional requirements of the Rural Residential (R-1) zoning district would apply in the proposed Rural Buffer (RB) district except for "minimum lot area per dwelling unit" which would be two acres or 87 .120 square feet and "minimum gross land area (planned developments only) " . In the latter case. the minimum gross land area for a nonresidential planned development, and residential planned developments 1 and 2, would be four acres or 174.240 square feet, while the gross land area required for a mobile home park planned development would be 20 acres or 871.200 square feet. The required gross land area for planned developments is consistent with the practice in AR and R-1 districts of requiring twice the minimum lot area per dwelling unit for nonresidential and residential planned developments 1 and 2. The gross land area required for mobile home parks is likewise consistent. requiring 10 times the minimum land area per dwelling unit. rmmi 5. Adopt amendment to Zoning Atlas as proposed at public hearing rezoning approximately 018 38,000 acres of land from AR and R-1 to RB. Coupled with the above recommendation is another directing the Planning Board/Staff to study other concerns voiced at the public hearing. These concerns, including provisions requiring combination of nonconforming lots, are listed on the accompanying sheet. As many concerns as possible should be addressed and proposed ordinance amendments presented at public hearing on March 10, 1987. In this respects the approval of standards for the Rural Buffer area would be an interim action followed by additional investigation and refinement of adopted standards. (See Attachment) •2 . - •83.. * . __. -P.- /-ri. ) k-N. • i'. INN - ..„. fi ��.�- ( I r I�+r . ,per - j , • ---1 I-- • 44" ON, . y.y. . ) .. . . ...• . le +2. •.1, a i r14......;:. .....I* od t.„–,-,. La. .In*-c1w--- ii4J } { .—‘ A Y+-a. f _!_ - ' 9• • 0' - i _Al IAA. -20106 A - :,e1.7-_- ••. - r•• ti ' �.� '�"�• P r� S •-.' _ �r �. ..a 0. 11\: "-....."...... '• f 49 2 . _ ., it ...-”" A • I . •.: .n..‘'..-- I ift. ,_ . , . _ _ ..„:„...... . 1....--...iik_ --frA 7-e-s.-, . ' • :- .--..u. . • ' . . -•____. S-. IT •-I-Vt - - 4S111111ropi amIlamiraw" - - 4:JIV'' , - '‘''...-*-i4:. . ":1".)-Iii:ii:;--.1:11r.f..---. 5*1.i.lrt, I.-% y c _ . !:..,....:.!....e.t-;i ( „„„411 111110t4111bilsorait ' --,--..-„,..„ • --..„ ....... .._. 4-I P'74 II f 6\ Ai Itt- --■111 ,� - ``may • r' -• • ate -•-•-••N — - or .. 40,:-„,._,:7...,,..,,,-„,-„,„...... „,..,:, - fr., ,. . c\. ,,,.. , -1, A1/7:50 % ilk. 41 ellite . . . li 10:tL'...-1.:■--:-ii:',4'4:W:iti,..7:j. :tv:'•••.: '..,riarl::; • oti4k.: -.' '- -.* .4' * `i !-' -11--.-.:.;-_a re� 'l. . a. - -• 1 Aip, ' V 1 . .4.1alip„et- 1 ` # , ..- IVN1VI-.*':: - 111.11111.141bir. ., --3 :. • _.. -- I , \; . s- .1, PROPOSED RURAL WEn )ii-. 61 A IVIIIV A .''' -_ ---.. .:',:- e Ler*-'M 1: - 104-11. eft,.. i . ' * ” '''-. t ' .., -.:_.f----1. 1"...-7.t,:-:-..cra6.-7.4:.-.''.:•z4r1111;:t.S...."...;".C.4._:11-:::"...-7 --,.... 11' :7:V11,,Ar..m. . 1 ' Nfi.•I .. A 1 P. . ' II' bt aL4, I t . is a�. "f._'`•+ `-� - % J _ s. ,. -� r. :,...-r,"_• r� ......,.v. a- - ,---- ( - - risi, ..-.1 ii-,c-.4.--rlp/ Al •.....e., \ 1 , IA_ , ..-- „,„/ A , �7% i ` •. ~ w - / = kri 13x.oip.A.1.," f ' �f -.4 # .Ait r j' J ./ •�,..p s ue , w.... / J ' v. �.. { •.may c ar.n I.,Charhom county = _ ..'1.41M•1 ,,.....m.• - E ■ V 14~ SCALE • - _ 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 � . ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 4 - Establishment of Permitted Use Table - (New Article 4.2.1 - Rural Buffer) 020 ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staf f_Planning Boarder:BOCC_Public - Other: • STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: high, .Middle }•ow Comment: - - EXPECTED PUBLIC BEARING DATE: November 24. 1986 _ ****************i******************** PURPOSE' OF AMENDMENT: To revise Article 4 of the Zoning ' Ordinance by renumbering Articles 4.2.1 -- • through 4.2.4 to Articles 4.2.2 through • 4.2.5, respectively, and adding a new Article 4.2.1 Rural Buffer (RB) . This - amendment would establish the Rural Buffer _ • district within the Zoning Ordinances • including a definition of the districts criteria for application of-the districts and a list of uses permitted by. right and • by issuance of a Special Use Permit. IMPACTS/ISSUES: On August 5, 1986. the Board of Commissioners . adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plans including a minimum required. lot size per ' dwelling unit of. two (2) acres. This action was reaffirmed on October 13. 1986 when the Commissioners adopted the text of the Joint Planning Area' Use Plan. -The County Attorney has indicated -that the two-acre standard can be enforced in the case of any subdivision which has not received preliminary plat approval and in the case of a planned development. (See attached letter.) Nevertheless, specific provisions do not exist in the Zoning Ordinance which define the Rural. Buffer district, provide criteria for district application, and identify permitted uses. Consultation with the County Attorney indicates a need to provide such provisions in a manner consistent with similar requirements for other zoning districts. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS;„None PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS: The proposed wording for the, - new Article 4.2.1 Rural Buffer (RED District is as follows: 4.2.1 =Al Buffer (RB) Ildstrict 1 - a) Intent 021 The purpose of the Rural Buffer (RB) District is to provide locations for rural residential developments and agriculturalr silvicultural or horticultural uses which serve to buffer or separate more intensively planned and/or developed portions of Orange County. Development within the Rural Buffer (RB) District is at very low densities (the minimum lot size per dwelling unit Is two (2) acres) and relies on individual wells and - ground absorption systems for domestic water supply and sewage disposals respectively - b) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: _ - - 1. Designated by the adopted Countywide Land Use Plan as Rural Buffer or'by the adopted Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as Rural Residential or both. 2. Urban services, including water distribution and sewage collection mains are not likely within 10-20 years.. The proposed renumbering _within - Article 4 to provide consistency in - zoning district arrangement would be as follows: . - • Existing New - New District - Article k article, j Abbreviations: - 4.2.1 4.2.2 AR 4.2.2 4.2.3 - R--1 4.2.3 4.2.4 R2. R-3, R4- 4.2.4 4.2.5 " R-5, R-8, =13 No changes are proposed to the text of theme articles. The proposed list of permitted uses is identical to those permitted in the Agricultural Residential (AR) District. (See _ attached _ Article 4.3- - .Permitted Use Table.) ************************************** - ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEW: _ PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: - I } 4.3 M1117TO OSE TAOLk "`+ ;' '" ,_+' • KARITI(O USE A = CLASS A SPECIAL USO (AATICLE 8� 0 'CLASS A SPECIAL PSI (A1t3I4r 8) Aft� R' ,IL' Art QI it0 N l M NC2 u' GCII t� 01 f l • 2 1 A5 ED N i O �I tla Nelreory. tlayearo,Private K1ndugardan�_ D !1 0 An1maded 10-1j-112 '""•' • lilt AvM1 t11>f • S111918 FAMI IY.' wlwo Elf. AAt. a A. * f• 0 a a • o a 1��Ur�o t i aJL..wa Fn1a ..._..__..r.. � _A--.t-�-A. - 11 Ir4wclTing: ilil t p a a,n y __ 115 Dwal f ingi Mobile lions a a A >* 777 !. a a ' [tG Famt[1 Clara tloaln a a a a a a a 111 It`It — — —— — it 117 Group Caro Fact l I ty b 0 0 0 U. 0 0 0 a a 0 0 D A [1G khabi1at[ve Cara Fact1ity a It i F 119 , klutc[s Z Hotels - 1110 Anti l dant tal HOW IFrAWJrnI Al(;%„ Soeorl,014S A A A A A And Dorml toe[e%) ` ■I��A�•.�.�.IP•�A��.1�-li..�.�� •A �� � w� ����wlr�� w� w w �.�'•�.� i #t t 1 1t41�1n1 nr� llauisp ' fill YampoMy NU!1s t 411* Olod tool A Cara) 0 0 w Q' 0 D s D l♦ low vm"I=$ - Ile 1111111 ' -III sk" r 40ft" ��ll 1 l�l�a Tompurary Acbl la !l,lulo (We During ' f:vllstrue[iaillustA�aaR1a� of? P+ar•It1A�1w�4R * a A A a ltas i durst tai uAl t anti. la? 3o Days ; Foltawing Iss4tanco of f:nruf1cm od - Imsnded 11t:r.11 ant , �. ..� RIS �� w .r M.r LO-4-82 1113 4purlSt Llama A • . , a At mory Uses ' . A a A 'tt • A a A 4 # A rE a a s a A a.wr '�� w�� rw1�. -ql�� +F . Ar- �r rr-�uw w .� r .rrr `�An 111 1t• 113 1113 GCl IM CO 00 9C-5 �l '81 f cx l3 s Eu Stu ..■■=.7iN 02 AM a1 22!231 241 29 ?9+ > a! ...: XL .3Rtif.aC• 4.=g a - f ` • :zOtt9 3�haei :i0 _ • Ad1rier-1 •.2pli y ! r i !. - - r+d3ae�► Vacs I - _ _ - • - - 3cucdar ss QC Mar - ; R 4.` .- _ _ • • - . - • ,aaiaq �xs3.'� - Pa!a.2' W 3::3 4!3J il 391 !fir;:{C=T3 1 Gbil .::.: Z • • • • • • • 4-L2 • • - • tl y . . . -. . .. - • - - • . - • • - _ • . . ' - . . . . . • ON.i=., . • . . .- . . . _ . :ARI 9.1.11121R31R4 tR5I R8111131 l'.C1r3C3CC3 e=4 r-=.•517 Cif Er fr,1"72CI3rAS•M r . . .. • . . n Airport. General - ‘ 1 1 1 ; " i i -• i r I • 7 • i .. i • -.., ••• Aviation. Reliports. - 1 11 a 1 - - - •.• rI 5.T.O.L. AI a • ,r I I • .. .A a at .*- • • I ' • . i 1. . . . P2 Botanical Carder= 1 1 I I s I _- 1.- - - . . , t a Almaremoss •• • . • • & ri of ell all eqa r, a •1 ei me e- al.7 e:•. e ------rpeee . q " ‘ . • - " • - :. *.- B'S Buildings: Portable 1 J •Si 3 3 Bi SIL 81 31 I 3i1. 3s 3! . ag a.; 1 -: - i ,- •--7- -',-'I . ..,, . i-, I: I. ' • i . — :. I : 1 - = .- . . -- -:=':.X.-.1-- L- - • .-.-..*::-_,..P4 -2us Pa.ssiengee ":. ''.- I : I i . . 1 -1 --F ' ... -Z - ;?• ' - -t a -- i. - "'IC-:•-• . . ,:-:---; ••• .1 • •• .1 el •01 • et . are •e : ei.. e&'a.- . .....,. - ._ •. . I I • I • a t - . • - . is - r __.„.. 2.• • • ' • .. to aus Teresinalm - I - • I - '. . !, ..• t Z - -• . • - a 1 .: .•-• : *- *: ,i; • '.4 a:;; 07 ib: • - ... . • - - •..- - • i I I _ . : . PS Camettecy 1 51 131 5 8.7- a 31 sl. I - .. • . , . . . . • I I i . . . ..•. :- P7 Church .4 0 .r • .1. .1 •I i .1 • 4 - .. .,- .. .i • : 4: mil • • • , - i 1 • • I 1, f - ■ - I• • • • ' - • . . PS Community Ceatar :.S1 Si Si 8 8• 81 Sf. S1 l'i •• .7 _ . e l'i - : - i • . . 1 i . • . . Ir i . 1 • . a - . . ' Allitrititaetiot180-5 Earth 1 1 ' 1 . • • a a - _ _ . - ! _ '7 : • Products • I Al I .! ..! . . . .1 .1 I . - - . . , . . - ! I, -. • 1 . i , :_ - ,, - •..-- • • -- • , _ - no Gentermental . 1 • I ' ' 1 -t -; -- - - =. i.. • Protective Services - . . : - - . -t -- - I .. • . " (Police a fire ! I - - -- - -.; -: - - • sescicas) Rescue - 1 • ' ' ' t ". 11- -- . - -- 7. (:) .. , _ , • 9 ... -r_ 2.7 • Squads, Vbluoteer ! , . .. i • i . , - -- ,. • • fts-e Oepar=ents 1 •1 *0 *i • * .• '11`■ gii - --411i + - •• - 41.- e e •e, a- dr •••• . • ' . _ • • I 1 I 1 ' i . * ■• . • i ;. 1 P_ .. Pll Land Pills (2 Mr els 1 ! • !• . 4 - ■ : •. : • .; , • - .7., _ _ - OC Wore) • Al Al - - . a a A . : . .- - - . . • • 212 Land 21.1.1.3 Ma 1.ss : : " -,' 1. e e = . -_- --_ Than 2 Acres) 33: 1 re . • • -- - _ , . 3. 3. . i a - . • : -. _ . . P13 Military ' l. - , - ' r -- f • Installations. - - -- - - _ • (National Guard a : 1 . • _: _ -- - .-_-- - ' &nerve Armory) - _sr • • _1.. • ; . .. _ . P14 Parks, Public -' - I • .. . . _ _ - _ • - • ' I Non-Profit . - • W IP 0 •• •• a a: •".• 0.• •• d• .. • 0 * - ..• .■1 ,..... ..,.....■...,.... .......■...,■.....,... , . 73.5 Parking As Principle. i • . i . . - .• On*. Surface Ot 1 . " - - . Struczire - - 1 • 5 . . - - ------ .... 1. • P16 Public 'Unity - • 1 . , -: . • Stations a Sum- • • • !. i - .. ..- . " - Stations. Switching • 1 • f _ _ . Shations. Telephone - - I ! - - • - . . . - . • Exchanges. water a 1 - - . & Sewer Treatment . _ :. •.- _ - . Plants , A: Al Al Al A 1 t A A. A. Al a - A_ A.. - Xe Ar I AA Ril R2 R.31 R4 IRS I Bs/3131 Z.C1 L3C2=31C01:-::,.E.C-Si.01.1.:72:11;-*m-.2_3.- As;r-•, . - - - 7 . . . . - . . a . . . _ . • , . . _ . • , - _ . . , . -. • . • . - ...e. 025 . • - A31341 32*831:34`139 33:ZL3I t:C'J:1C2:.':.•3!►:.•"=..5$On 3w.''Zr 33-I3•Aa'•�?Ipr 217 3adio'S Telsrlaisra 1 - ! ! ` I ' _ f _ • - Reeeiv/AO 3 s . I j 1_ e` _ ; _ - 8 14113Cfa w"�CaS i ! • •• = 1 • s a _ .. • Sta:sgr 3'IS ; 31 3i 3• 3. sI 31 .3. 3: 31 3 9 31 • 3 it 3` 3 9• - . ;&2 3aserire t Lands • • ;• I - -- - _ _ - _ _Z __ - .:,_ 3 2.4. 11aciscs r j , $ - - • - - - ' z--- ; - . Sarr•> »� i� 5 ; •! - 3'.9 Zcaeelai I - s = - -• ,�_• -:e,� ` f i $eeeadas r •:. • •• : f7r . - - . - - �eesr.:aaaL . • . • • - •• •• - •• •I - .- .:- - . 2.1. x.4oa?.ss Dance. . i ! ' . -- - ! • - - _ - 3 s arc S ?Music • rr r •• e wr .- 21A Nan-Profit A - - -- •l,�ended ' ducatipna] __- y _ - - . • r _ ?/1/ 5 Cooperative - _ _ _ _ 22 '•'•_••"J:3' iss;Cst £..tnes • 91 3 3 3' 31. 3• 3 1 3! 3: 3- 3 3 3: 7 0 3 1! 3: a 3: 3 3-.4• - 23 :nsveraieieis, • i . • • 1 .• _ - - - 311eges s< 1 1 : 1. - - - - _ - _ - _nstirstes • • •• • •-: s 24 :use_mensal. I - - - _ facilities 3 1 - -- _ - - _ • tfice 3ui:dirry •i, • • •: or • • i • • • t • s ■- s•• • .. • , 15 :laces . as=3ts -- • - • - - -_- - Zweig 3t.�sping 1 - -. - - .- St:Cions .� � • •• •• • •, • • • tP, s. r r • V f 44.` s- • s • - t as 3L:32'a313413S iaa 313 CC \C2 CC3•:CS !— at 3i •a. 'za tra i$ so. 3 • • 4-1.4 - - - . . • . . . .3 - - 026 AR 81182 B3 R4183 BS 813 LC11 NC2 CO- CC4 EC-5 01 El 11 i 1'ID S2 Agricultural l 111111111 . • _ Service IIsea S3 Animal Hospitals; / - VeterlparfaAS • •• • • S4 Assembly Facility - Greater Taw 300 • ' - -: 33 assembly Feel lity - III=Greater than 300 • e A • 38 Bnstea•3 Financial Inn" S7 Eaaaty # Barbar Shops • •. •• •s • 11111111,111111 SS Clara er Lodges; - 1 ' - Social; Fraternal• or Ualer Clubhouse_= • • • • • • •r r 111 • 59 Dr;ve to T'ltsalrea • 310 Farms F.gclpment k SINN Sales I • • 311 Feed, Seed. Storage' . - , A Processing - - U. * 1. INI ° `-. • 513 Pun' uneral.Homes • • 513 Greenbessea (NO CO 1111111111 Premises Sales) • • •• • e • •• 5I4 Greenhouses (On ,!- Premise' Sales • • • • -• t 515 Health 0,Services: - . IIndes 10,000 Sq. F!, • • • • • i > F • 1 S18 Health Services: Over 10,000 Sq. Ft. • • _ • 517 Hospitals ` - _ 818 Commercial Feeder F - . . ' - Operation - • - • main . , _ • S19 Junkyards ^.t A 1... 520 Eennelsl8ldlag Stables • 8 8 S S. g f Massage, Business of - AR R1 82183 R4 85 R8 $13 LC1 NC2 OCZ CCS r-S 1011E1 13 12 13 A5 20) P10€ I _ _ 1 t AMENDED 3-18-x6 • --- -._.-x-15 - •tr._ . • O2? - 1 ARIRI.'RZ:R3!341:35:Pe'3131C.=:VG2:CC3r„C;,EC—5:Cr:IT irx'xs!1.2; si031'r? sr- t.aw dry i ory 1 �.� ! I • • - i ' • - C1 Cleaning Services' ! 1 s: ., . s! �s ! • i _ - 52'2' tier2ries 1 1 1 .i 1 s: •! sI at l a! + t s * ■ f 523 Motor !'reigtte ':erainal 1 i ' - . I• : { • -•s ! •e• e ; e: ; 524 Motor Vehicle Naintanance I I • • i. • ! I -* s s . : . : ; - s Repair i3od7► Shoo, t • 1• - - - • • «r r3 - • - = ..' SU Motor Vehicle-Sales t • i •• + / - _ • - _ = ` Rexleal Neu I Used), / . -- •• . . i l •! ••• 8. - a • t .. ■525 motor Velsicle Services i •i 1 ▪ _� Stations I ! I I - !. 1 . / .; .� •� �'" ! g + • S27 �tigh tubs, Bars. Pubs ! ` • ! c . i $ •I ' ..i .; ▪ l _ 1 - ! _ • 1 • • • I 1 • •• • - • S28 Officals S Personal. . • I 1 i •i I t . i. ! t . .� s s = - Services. wac Attract I I 1 ' I . 1- 1 1 II I • L . ! t : : 1 _ - -r ` Few s'CCAel3 Ot CIL . 4 I .. ! I . i I '1,-- i I " '- : -« i-`= r 1 On aremiaies Other Than .1. i I - ; 1 • ! ! • e : s ; Ii 0 0• . - - 3tploye*ys. Canasta Wu • I . 1 1 ■ • e - r = } 7� = r Traffic Volumes, Wave No t I 1 i I : : - a i = 3 : : ; • _ - adVeL3a4-� Seyond 1 fj . 1 1- ! a •a. - _i • a ! The Space Coe ied a y I I E l f sit ' ! : i � ra ` . • - • ` ! -: - The Suildieq I I I 1 I I. : •1 •► . .: «! si • •. wi rE ; 1 1 • l i t s 529 C ices i ?arsenal - i I ! 1 ; I ; I i 9 f - - ! ; - t i Services That i I + 1 1 : r : ■ i Generate Medics - i 1 I p • I - e ! - - I _ Traffic 7a].ur;as s - - i L s r . . : Have No adverse i ! ! • I i ! : • I - _ a _ 1 ■ _ - aac-a 3eyond =e . I j • • : - ' : : s - ' Z i. • tot Boundaries i 1 T 1 1 1 . • •• •r - - - w= ►c - _ . -- 028 - y . ARJRl =IRE R4 RSI RB R13rLQLkvC2 MCI/GCS EC-S; C3 C1 TI!X ;AS I S34 �Ptofit) facilities a al a,• a a a al a al a e1 _ a - s al • . . 535 Racceogriona.L Faa:iZieies ( s - _ - 1 (Profit/Sore profit): : 1 _ _ . I Cd7.0 C.nb sad Colt C1aalx 1 - — '; r •• Countryelub • r1 at • .• . • s1 • r s! •! •t r �. rf• I 333 aeceasaesdonaL Paailities 1 i . ; �_ i i- •• _ - . -. 11'retie): . ' 1 ! e a ! •: •. : I ..1 - - ' SJ7 8a•p it Service- 7 �• i I i- L !.r• •• - *.i 538 Researcta Facility I 1 I I _ •• s i • -• I ., - .1 .i •• i • . 339 Restaurants: Ca Oat s E • ' * . • . 340 Restaurants: Drive Is I . MINI tt - .' e . '• 1 ! If i S4A. P.eaeauranrsa General i •! .1• .; �! i ! ! ' = g ■ r a - _ r • • • S4Z Rattail. Trade, Sales, 1_- ■ i Rents]. of C4nveniencs a • Goods, Merchandise 8 ■ r. 3, •Eeyvipmant Where i i ! 1 ; 1 - # r - a 1 Adverse =pacts Occur _ II t I ; i . .'=s . Beyond Iassedf ate Space i 1 1 i 1 1 1 I - _ 2 : . • ' Occupied. By The Building t ! s! •i s s• a. I. 1 I i • •AA)Operations Are i • I I a z "a a : _• " e • w I .1 Designed To Attract i- - j : . R r _ . i Serve Few Custcmern I I 1 a i if ! : •: _ . r t ' _ •s . 0e' C Lients On.Promises I ._ ! _ _ j t 1 Other Than csployees 1 _« I t : # : I a = ; ; Of The Principle Use. 1 ; I - i r- ■ t - 1 of r a_ i 1! B) Low volume Traffic _ i ! t a s L ' i i 1 i Generation C)-200 .rips _ - ' i 1 1 ; i /-- ; 1" • # a. C s 1 . . C) AU. Operations ( I 1 i - ; +- - I : ! Entirely 111G%in A 1 ! • j - r I L t i = r f • rutty Enclosed 3niiding. !! I. 1 -; t _!- t ! 4 t With No Outside Storage ! 1 1 1 1 0 i i • I i ■ i ` . • 1 a a s /1stIR1 R?1aY3lR41aZSi:3a 3s:tiC.. >SC?LM-31:sC:: ^-3!C`3'�1t TZRL3) S! • s - - • 4-17 - - - • .—1.ti,µ.:i • .r . •• - . ; 029 •i 3.12= 1:a4:9 ;Re;21.3:ra: + :.;4.x- :cxi -a= 11s: r; ss 543 asC�i�. pia 3i1• . 3. i i s a - - - a 3+ceal at Ct++�Mx • + 1 ` ... _ s a • 'Wasn't? ddvansr • 1- • - - • ' s •a '" . • Cry 3a * >~'at, . a •= i ' ; _ + ` - i ' : ^ SL` •lie;: C�tea'Muir e : - _ '' T • . _ /may' ' • • r r «i w. = - _ aadr. Sam. 3 - s s - - s. - - ...': ;: :: - t . T _ - i - ;' K o = • 3aaadsrts • . . •. a • • t 7 - s ;.- a-• ■ rI •: - - j - r 3r<srae mar • - • , • ! 1 . _: - - - - ! . — _ * `.� • ' 1 - •. • . 1 ! i - • — r — _• • �r 3trvaep 1 e i • i - i ; —— _ - — — r iae! 3Y'f;a 1 +7 d3„y • :. . - - _ . . - Maces •i 1 : a� _ `+• s f - - i = - _ - • Al e- D-esd - . f t:�ass - • 7 AL-'=3= a aka re's. •- ` _ - �ss's•--e;� Le G.�es�r. �a i : , - - Q3 • , . -• - . GeetWax:a:r Ca-7413 .r • • - - - ; /Carl • ; • : : • - _ - • • - r - _ Gsysat+eesy - - . 3e:�te:g t V.e atags . - • - cr aispLag 2: .xda *Az- • • • aids.AY 1aa,.d _ - 3uiidi • •• • : MI 3L.=I 3.31341R5t RS:3L '.0 NC=I C3 GC-1.=- "OZ.Mt '~ t3•fir �3 4•1$ - - - - • • • • 030 ARI RL!R2!a31 R41 g31 a3I at31-C=XC+2rc ;BC/Dr-74-3;0="1= a""•.•.!2t:3=�i: • •• •.!•>,i Rs Trade, $�.r• s .i 1 I • i e t -- -. - - 2ant:a.L Or LuuraaL•Goods • ! • _ - _ ?1e1de+ 1011.1s I Z 3�e 1 ! 4 . - •- :01. ., _ I _ - _ ! • r :� Adveieae Lapse= f • • • 2 r 7 - • _ -- .- )'•. .. .O . t� W 3llditer : • • -! - `. • ~.- - .7.-.-,.---,7-ma a '' . . ?l,• _ - - Wattles•Zane co.'.�Y S. .' • • .j - —_ - - _ __ - _ _ _L. . •_ --1::• -.4,.:.' 4e 0339liy O! Goode QtiL •' Z r.`• - - _- -- - _ - ;.:. side A /MUT Mscaaassel., .� - _ - ._ti ,•_:-• k t S17• '�aeie� SaLers. `: . * . . - s - _ a=- -•_•�Y- -_k_ ° ;_• • - aseea L Cr OarabLn Ocog9 • . - - - _- _ _ - . . ;-:`• .. . iseo & °.k3Ri; - - • s-- - _ _ - _ i Or rho Zoning 0ee ; - 83-h Tract ..0 O•nerael s! - . ' _ •• .: - - • • 348 3aemi►'_• -• - - - - .. 549 Se�xxaae is - - -- - r 330 St sraq! Cr Gaza*. Our3melr . -- - 4.- r. !- 4.- 5 - •`-•�■ ,• !$� Steen. a :Plc if -• 3a+et1.1.gt7 rax rdaus. • ri a c - �. Ai- 533 NttoL.saLe SaLi! - 1. •� .� �► e.a v. r Amended 554 Historic Structured 1 . !. _ 4-1-85 NonResiaential/ I * t + t i t • Mixed use II ' - - , : ; ; - • € ; s S55 bisemhlyy and s ' = " .: _ = . blended Packs zng Oi erations f I - . = 3-18-86 Inchi ng 1,.a.Y•1 Order. 1 i + - ; I : • 1 = • Souses, Hut Excluding - � ' _ i 1.- - ! • • On-Premises Fetal' ! : I t ! _ #- • r e e' _ Outlets. i 1 1 1 t • . - 4-15 _•` " = - - _ • ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance - REFERENCE: Article 5 - Establishment of Dimensional Requiremexit = for Rural Buffer (RB) District _ 031 (Schedule 5.1.1 - Residential Development) (Schedule 5.1.2 -- Non-Residential Development) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _Staff,_ .Planning Board _BOCC_._, UbliC. Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X_Eigh Middle i aw Comment: . - - - EXPECTED PUBLIC BEARING DATE: November 24, 1986 -- :******************.*************fir************* • PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To revise Article 5 of the Zoning - � . Ordinance to add dimensional requirements . to Article 5.1.1. Schedule for. Residential Development, and Article 5.1.2. Sohedule for Non-Residential Developments for the - proposed new Rural Buffer (RB) District. • IMPACTS/ISSUES: On August 5. 1986. the Board of Commissioners _ - adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. including a minimum required lot area per dwelling unit of two (2) acres. This action was _ reaffirmed on October 13. 1986 when the Commissioners adopted the text of - the Joint Planning Area Plan. The County Attorney has indicated that the two-acre standard can be enforced. Nevertheless, specific provisions do not exist. in the Zoning Ordinance which • identify dimensional requirements for lot area. lot width. setbacks, etc. Consultation with the County Attorney indicates a need to provide such - requirements in a manner consistent with other zoning district provisions. To provide some indication of . the impact of the proposed amendments, particularly the two-acre minimum lot size requirement. data was collected on the number of parcels above and below 80,000 square feet in area. (80.000 Square feet is approximately two acres.) The data collected • . from the Orange County Land Records System indicated that 48% of the parcels identified had lot areas of less than 80.000 square feet. (See - attached data sheets.) - In other - words, approximately 48% of all lots in the proposed Rural Buffer district would be nonconforming under the two-acre standard. These lots. however, represent only five percent (5%) of the total acreage. --�----All lots made nonconforming through adoption of the dimensional requirements for the Rural Buffer (RB) District would be subject to theO32 provisions of Article 11 -- Nonconformities. Specifically, the provisions of Article 11.7. Nonconforming Lots, and Article 11.10. Nonconforming Structures, Other Than Signs. would apply. These provisions are attached for reference. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: None PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS: ' Proposed additions to Article- 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 are attached_ Dimensional requirements for AR and .R 1 zoning districts = _ - have also been shown for comparison. - All properties within the proposed Rural Buffer (RB) district are currently zoned AR or R-1 except for a few parcels designated in a nonresidential. category. New parcels - created - for nonresidential use would have to comply with the two-acre minimum lot size requirement for nonresidential development. Schedule - . 5.1.2.) - ****************************************r*********** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: - BOCC REVIEW: _ SCHEDULE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEI�ELOPMENT,, SINGLE. AND Two FAMILY, o' • MULTIFAMILY, RESIDENTIAL HOTELS, ROOMING HOUSES, ETO. . %:h LOT AREA PER MIN. AfQ. REQ. D�Ih.GROSS OR OPEN SPACE LIVEABI�LITt RECREATION DWELLING LOT rion SIDE I4 REAR MAlLBL06. LAND AREA LVI FLOOR AREA UNIT WIDTH SETBACK SETBACK HEIGHT INS ONLY RAZING RATIO RATIO SPACE RAT14 SPACE RATIQ . - .014 LOT 81,(120 '. 200 60+1 30 (-1 .25 ''. .80 .017 PD-i 87.120 - ' - - �.. '* 25 174,240 18 .040 •8 Prapassd 'AB PD-2 87,120 - I ' i - 25 174 '240,' 18 040 86 .$0 .020 I PD-MHP 87,120 ; NIA $719200 18 � •040 •86 •'80 _ g gg1q� DoT _ 1 2 80,000 2 I .899 .84 .75 .034 I PD•1 G0,000 - I _ 1 _ 25 80,000 21 .. PD•2 40,000 - 1 - 1 s i i .$4 .75 Po•MHP 40,000 - - N/A 400,.000.• 22. •058 - T PD.1 40;000 - - I I �1 25 ' 80,0 22 I •058 �.84 . .034 Po.z 40,000 - _ i •25 80.000 22 .f 4 .058 .84 , I ' PD•MHP 40;000 - -. - NIA 400,0 LO= RGPD-1 , L •— — — — .—.�. -. — — . PD-2 PD•MHP LOT . ' Recorunend approval as Recommend anproVal, as curiently PD•1 ' presented at 'i1-24-86 required in.R'-i zoning district R3 PD-2. public hearing.- PD•MHP tor r 7 f R4 PD • e, ' PO•MKP ' toy C� PD-2 LOT PID of P0.1 O w. ' 1'*I tot r ' 13 Pp•T �� .; �!11 for i �V1. , I� , IN I up a DE1r�ELOPMENT LOT NY LOT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - 5 .1. 2 SCHEDULE FOR NON RESIDENTIAL . . RIO. REQ. KIN.CROSS is CROSS, •' REO MIN REQ MIN RJR LOT TliN.IOT FRONT S16E I; R£AR MAX BLDG' LAND AREA LAND AREA LU I MAX. FLOOR OPEN SPACE PEDESTRIAN/ AREA PER USE WIDTH SETBACK SETBACK HEIGHT IPO'S ONLY) (PQ'SQhLY) RATINQ AREA RATIO RA114 LANDSCAPE RAT 040j+1 ..8 6j LOT 87,,124 240' '60 � 30 25 - : l8 ' .040 '.8b .2111 25 174 240 Fragased RB P4 ST;124 .204 I. 1 .. 1 I 1 IT AR 4 22 1 .058 1 .84 .21 150 . 1 40 24 ! , 25 80r000 - 22 .058 .84 . .2 PD •40,000 150 40,004 130 44 20 25; - - 22 �.} .45$ . .84 1 .21 Rl p 40;000 134 - k - ! 25 8-4 000- - 22 .058 .s4 .21 R2 ao LOT Recommend approval as Recommend approv4l as currently R3 PD - R� LOT, presented at 11-24-86• required .in .Rnl zoning distinct:- PD R5 LOT public hearing. PD LOT r R$ PD f LOT R 13 PD LCI e•.� ao ' PD �? CC8 r r 1PQD! tot. ; Pp ' E• LOS 4 ' ' ICY �O' r r r , ' F ' { ' • +r r 'F, �1 i' ?!�+' +r , - ..11w�1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 035 MLLS$OROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 • LOT SIZE CHARACTERISTICS IN THE PROPOSED RURAL BUFFER (RB) DISTRICT NUMBER OF % OF ACRES IN % OF AVERAGE LOT SIZE PARCELS TOTAL PARCELS TOTAL LOT SIZE 2.0 Acres 2.196 51 36.553 95 17 Or Greater Less Than 2.119 49 1.785 5 1 2.0 Acres Total Lots 4.315 100 38.338 100 9 NOTE: Of the 2.119 lots less than 2.0 acres in size. there are 244 (11.5%) lots which are contiguous to at least one other lot (less than 2.0 acres) where both lots are owned by the same person(s) . Of the 244 lots. 142 (58.1%) are developed or adjacent to a developed lot owned by the same person. 036 11.7 Non-Conforming Lots - 11.7.1 • UseOf Single Nan-Conforming Lots For one"-Fami17 Detached Drie1l A one-faro 3.y detached c weLtiag and.uz o ary accessory strum" . tures may be erected, occupied and used. on a separate nox- con-- . . forming lot of record, not in continuous, -:~montage: with:- other--3,0„ 3a the sane ownership in aaccord with other is a l- " - ing in the districts.. • . • . ' _ ` - -_ - _ - - _ - •7:2 :▪ . :r',•.Rrstas Coace�ainc�„C��'tian of Contigaa2s-ass .�- ,� �- yam_ s- �.1. ta. a Excexation ▪ n Same Ownexscti. }And With Can ixt .�.. a) Combinations Recn i red Where Non-Conformity- :was Created at -• . :• Enactment or Amendment of this Ordinance - - - .Where two or. • more non-conforming lots in single 'p and '-, . with Continuous frontage exist, they shat -be co sidere3.a sing ' . ''••••:"...1-..zoning lot area- Zoning Compliance Fetmit a itboririrag their use ' . shall only be issued when the lot area arid; lot width recrair-e _ -. ,'';•' ?^'•meats are mat for the -district in which the lots are locatedr-~ • .:ry:: except as provided in b) , below. ' - ' _ - ` -- " 0% Applicable Where free Lots or-less are -- . - .�., b)' Excevtian_ 80% Rule- _ _ • • Involved . _ _ - - - _ - _ •• ' Where land in single ownership at the time cif image of this . ordinance and in continuous frontage -is-of suffii.cient V. d-th ahc . . . area to provide at least 80% of the width and area wegaired foa . tree lots or less, It may.be used a-d/ccr ivided to provde c 'wore than three lots, each with at least $OZ of -t..1w sria-t!„, aza area required in.- the district in which they are locate„ - - .. . c) Roles for other Co b;nations of Lots - _ - _ _ _; _ - - • • - • Frontage of greater dimension than in b} above, Si diirided . sii; . conform to all applicable district regulations, eept that in. the division one remaining lot may have not less than 80% of- . . • . - . width and area generally required. Full yard reguireanents sba: apply to all of the newly created lots - - _- d) Combination Not •Reauicred Where Work-Confor315- • atea by 1 bli Taking or Court Order -- -_ _ _ • Where the non-conforaei ng lots were created by public taking- - action or as a result of a. court order, combination. of the lot . . shall not be required. - • .. - a -e - - - 11.10 ion-Conforming Structures, Other Than Signs - r -W7 ' A structure which is non-conforming, due to noncompliance with. one- - or more requirements in the Table of Dimensional Requirements of • 037 this ordinance and which is used for a use permitted in the district _ in which located, such structure may remain, provided: - a) That any structural change to the building shall not increase the de- gree of non-conformity. Structural changes wh!c.b decrease or- do not affect the degree of non-conformity shalt he permitted- . b) A non-conforming commercial or industrial structure destroyed • ' to the extent of 60% or more of:its 'floor area may only be __ -_ • reconstructed in accordance with the regulations.. of the district ti . in which located including those regulating . _ " T.- . o minimum. lot area per use • - • - - = - - o minimum lot width . • - • - -- - _ - - - = o required front setback • - , - - _ ' - • o required side and rear. setback ----_ _ - - .-- . _ ---_-=._._- - • co maximum imcmr building height; _ - _ - - - - _ - - • provided, however, a non-conforming commercial or industrial - - - 7 -_ structure located on a non-conforming lot shall 'not be required r - _ • to.comply with either_ or both dimensional requinetts: regulating- r o stinimunr-lot area per use . . _ _` _ - - - _ - _--._- * minimum lot width, - _ - - - - _-_ - - - -- _- _ _ • but.shall comply with the dimensional :requirements regiulaUng_ _ Z. _ • o required front setback _ - - - - - _ _ - - • 0 required side and rear setback • _ 7 .. _ - _ _ - '_ - o maximum building height. - - _ _ c) A non-conforming residential structure destroyed to the extent: of 1st • more of its floor area may. only be reconstructed an accordance with t • _ - regulations of the district in which located, includirg. those resolatii •o minimum lot area per dwelling unit _ - - - - .-- _ _ ' - - .o minimum lot width _ _ _ - _ - - . * required front setback' - • : _ ` - -_ - - - - _ • o.required side and rear setback ' _ _ - _ - - -- . . o maximum building height; - _ - _ - _ -_ _ - - • provided, however, a non-conforming residential structure .locate-4 on . • . non-conforming lot shall not be required to comply with _either or hot • dimensional requirements regulating. . _ - o minimum lot area per dwelling--unit v - _ ` _ o minimum lot width, - - - - but shall comply with the dimensional remit-cements regulating - o required front setback - - - - • _ - • - o required side and rear setback - - - • o maximum building height , . • JOINT QUARTERLY MEETIRG ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CO WSSIONERS 38 AND ORANGE COUNTY PLJTNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 1986 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for the purpose of holding_a joint quarterly public hearing on November 24, 1986, 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:_ Chair Don Willhoit and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Jr. , and Ben Lloyd. BOARD' MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Norman Walker. PLANK 4_r,TC BOARD MEM rRS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and members Sharlene Pilkey, Betty Margison, Mike Lewis, Chris Best, Steve Yuhasz, Carl Walters, Prince Taylor, and David Shanklin. - ATTORNEY PRESE T:: Geoffrey Gledhill. STS Fr PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Gene Bt-:!.l, Greg Szyn:ik and Brad Torgan. A. BIRD COMMENTS - Commissioner Lloyd announced that Commissioner Walker would not be in attendance because of family illness. Chair Willhoit called the meeting to order and introduced the Planning Board Chair Barry Jacobs who conducted the meeting. Jacobs announced that item 2d Article 12 Landscaping and Screening and item 3b which perta?fi:; to Section IV--B--8 of the Subdivision Ordinance for Landscaping and Buffer Requirement-. would not be heard tonight. C. -PUBLIC HEARINGS 1, . ZONING AT!1AS AMENDMENTS A. Z-9--86 Orange County (Designation of Rural Buffer Area) Director of Planning Marvin Collins made the presentation. He explained that this amendment is to the Zoning Atlas which is a map showing the various zoning districts in the County. The change deals with the Rural Buffer which surrounds the Towns of Chapel 'Hill and Carrboro. He reiterated the events leading to this point in time. On October. 13, 1986, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a Joint Planning Area Plan with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He pointed to the map and noted all the designations that were adopted, including the areas that were designated most suitable for agricultu?-al use, rural residential for very low, density, urban- development or higher ,nsities, co. aercial-office development and also the resource protection eas. As a part of that plan adoption, a minimum lot size standard was d=:s :.naffed for the Rural Buffer section surrounding Chapel Hill and C :r;-;..ors,. He pointed out these areas on the map noting the minimum lot size of two (2) acres. He stated that because of the standards contained in the Subdivision regulations, the minimum lot size of two acres could be enforced as of the date of the adoption of the Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area. Any new subdivisions which have been received by the Planning 039 2 Department since October 13, 1986 for either preliminary or sketch plan. approval have been required to comply with the two acre minimum lot size standard. nY explained that in order to provid^ continuity between the Land Use Plan and the Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Atlas and Zoning Ordinance, thc! pthlic hearing on establishing the Rural Buffer district, the d:i - . :....tonal requirements that apply within that district and the des' c;nntion of that area on the Zoning Atlas was set for tonight. Collins made reference to the map ildicating the boundaries of the proposed Rural Buffer district. He noted that it comprises approximately 38, 000 acres and involves approximately 4300 parcels. There are currently two zoning designations in this area which are Agricultural Residential (AR) and Rural Residential (R1) . If this proposal s approved by the Board of Commissioners, those two designations would ►e changed to Rural Buffer (RB) . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS a. 7�r iclee 4 -- Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule (4 . 2 . 1 - Rural. Buffer) - Collins explained that Article 4 establishes a- list of all the zoning dist:.~icts included in the Zoning Ordin �.— e and- also designated in the Zon1_ng Atlas. Article 4 also indicate- the intent of. the various zoning. districts, when the district will be applied and the criteria used for such application. The intent of the Rural Buffer district is to provide locations for Rural Residential development and agricultural, silvicultural or horticultural uses which serve to buffer or separate more intensively planned and/or developed portions of Orange County. Dev - _nent within the Rural Buffer District is at very low densities (thr= minimum lot size per dwelling unit being two (2) acres) . Development that area would also rely on individual wells and ground absorption systems for domestic w` -er supply and sewage disposal, In te=s of the application criteria, the district will usu ha applied where the following conditions exist: (1) Designated by the adopted Countywide Land Use Plan as Rural Buffer or by the adopted Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as Rural Residential or both. - (2) Urban services, including water distribution and sewage collection mains are not likely within 10-20 years. Collins noted that in order to accommodate this district, renumbering would be necessary within Article 4 to provide consistency in - zoning district arrangement. b. Article 4 -- Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedul _f_Renumber 4. 2 . 1 to 4._2.4) Collins pointed out that the establishment of a new zoning district classification woul_" require a renumbering of the current Articles 4.2.1, 4 . 3 . 3 , 4 .2 . 3 and 4. 2 . 4 . No changes �,are proposed to the text of these articles. No changes are being recorim?rended in the uses in the AR oY- R1 districts. All the uses that are currently permitted in these two districts would continue to be permitted in the proposed Rural Buffer districts. c. Proposed 74oni-riq Ordinance Text Amendment - Article 5 -- Et.ahT.i shl, Inc of Dimensional Re_uirementsJRural Buffer - Collins indicated this item is to receive public comment on a tY4D . 3 proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment which would establish dimensional requirements such as lot area, lot width, setbacks, building height, etc. for a proposed new zoning district classification, Rural Bu f C, r- (RB) . Collins' indicated that the information regarding lot sizes in the acje a packet was based on 80, 000 squarer foot lots and should be disr( c :.rded. He said updated information was distributed based on a two acro lot size before the mooting. Collins said data was collected frou the o,_ange County Land Records 02fice indicates that approximately 50% of the ppace?.7 within the proposed Rural Buffer have lot sizes of less than 2 acs. This in 'Lcates that 50% of all parcels within the area would becQxa-- nonconforming if the proposed minimum lot size standard of t!o acres were adopted. These p trdels conatitute only five percent (5%) pf the total acreage. Othr::r. dimensional' requirements that would apply include lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, building height and standards which apply to Planned Developments. The mini um lot width proposed in the RB district would be 200 feet. The proposed front yard setback would be 60 feet from the front property line. The proposed side and rear yard setbacks would require a 30-foot setback. The propo ie:d maximum building height is 25 feet. For Planned Developments, the minimum gross land area required would be 4 acres. A maximum floor area ratio of .04 is proposed and the minimum required open space (all areas not covered buildings) would be 86% of the site. The required livah:i?. ty space ratio would be 80%. The minimum required recreational spy c:e ratio on a lot-by-lot development would be equivalent to .014 . he explained that for any type of multi-family development or non-- residential development, the same minimum lot size would apply. The d11,. i. ;ional requirements for non residential use are identical to those for residential development in this Rural Buffer area. Collins emphasized that any existing one acre lot that existed prior to the time of the adoption of this Ordinance could be built upon pro ded. the owner of that lot did not own other lots with continuous fro: _ c.;:. If a per -,n owes more than three lo -s, the continnou=: frontage ro l : could apply. There are provision._ that would allow three lots with 80% of the lot area and 80% of the lot width required in the Rural Buffer district. If any structure within this proposed Rural Buffer became nonconforming as a result of the application and was destroyed up to 75%, of tha floor area, it could be reconstructed and would not need to meet the minimum lot size or minimum width standards. It would have to comply with front, side and rear yard setback requirements as well as the building height: requirements. 3 . . SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS • a. Section TV--B-1 Lou Scandards To clarify the application of lot standards within the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, it is recommended that the following wording for the first sentence in the first paragraph of Section IV-B-1 read as follows: - "The minimum lot size sfial1 he as required by the Orange County Land Use Plan, Orange County Zoning Ordinance or the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance, whichever is applicable. " Collins noted for the record the receipt of several letters. Thos,.? writing in support of the 2 acre minimum lot size are Mr. William Mead, Mr. Dale Hammel:d, and R. R. McGregor Converse. Those writing in opposition of the 2 acre minimum lot size are Mazie Cradle, Surtronics, Inc. , and Mrs. Edna C. Harville. 041 4 OUESTTONS AND ANSWFR OF CrARTFICATIO r Several men hers of the audience asked questions of clarification. The__e were 'an_swE.:red by Narvi._l, Collins. In answer to a question from Commissioner Lloyd, Collins explained the th=e 6% impervious ratio has no real relationship to the Rural Buff=. It would apply indirectly for Planned Developments through application of the open space ratio. It does not apply to individual lots. Collins explained that if there is a planned development in the Rural Buffer whereby cluster units are proposed, the two- acre mininnem would stilt` apply in terms of overall density. Collins explained that any plan that has not received preliminary plan approval or sketch plan approval in the case of phased developments where at least one phase has received preliminary plan approval, will be required to meat the two-acre minimum lot size if within the AR and R.1 district. Several in the audience expressed the fact that they knew nothing about any of th: informational meetings or public hearings that were held or tLe issues being discussed. Farvin Collins explained that what is being presented for public cont is a proposed zoning district designation. It has not existed before and the dimensional requirem nts that are being proposed have not exisl.e0 before. The two acre minimum lot size standard was approved as a part of the joint Planning Area Plan. y. .2r fie Collins explained that the extension of water and sewer will be cce,,:rolled by the two acre minimum lot size requirement in that such ext;:eeions are cost prohibitive for such large lots. COLIL; '_'1 UESTIONS FROM THE EOA!:r OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEN In answer to a question from Commissioner Lloyd, Collins stated that the extension of water and sewer into the Rural Buffer will be prevented from reaching that area. If water and sewer were allowed in the RB, there would be a great deal of pressure to develop and the very low density area that would be achieved by this change would be lost. Collins explained that if a person owned three acres and wanted to subdivide, that each lot would need to have 1.6 acres or 80% of the two acre minimum lot size requirement. It would have to meet the 200 foot width requirement -- 80% of which_.would be 160 feet. Chair Don Willhoit made reference to the number of lots that would be mn.caL nonconforming and eeked if it was absolutely required that the Zoninc; Ordimif ce be amended to be consistent with the Land use Plan in regard or could it be just a part of the Land Use Plan and applied • p -:Os.icct:ively to sebdi.:Tisions. Collins indicated it could be done but there would forever be a contradiction in the standards contained in the two ordinances and the Land Erse Plan. =mg. 041,2 5 Commissioner Marshall asked if it would be possible to have the old standards apply to the 5% nonconforming areas and the new standards apply to the remaining 95% . Collins suggested an alternative would be to leave thos: properties: that were developed with a one acre standard in an R1 district where the lot sizes are 40, 000 square feet. It would not address every single lot in that area but it soul.' greatly reduce the nu bcr of lots affected by the two acre lot minimum standard considerably. - Collins indicated in answer to a question from David Shanklin the advantages of a two acre minimum lot size. - - Planning Board member Steve Yuhase asked what particular advantages will be accrued to the County to cre, e a large number of nonconforming lots. Collins indicated the real advantage is that the intent of the Rural Buffer would be carried out by applying the standards as uniformly as possible throughout that area. Anytime a change is made where zoning is being applied there will be .lots placed in a nonconforming status. In answer to a question from Commissioner Carey, Collins indicated that the number of nonconforming lots where a contiguous lot is owned by the same person is unknown. In answer to a question about notice of public bearings, Barry Jacobs explained the procedure that is followed. Note: The Public Hearing was opened at this point for the purpose of receiving public comments or additional questions. 1.. REGINA NOBBLITT spoke in opposition of the proposal. She owns two acres of land and objects to the fact that she cannot give one acre to liar son to build a home. r: . DELOIS TURNER expressed her difficulty In getting a building peraui.;°. 3 . JOHN SHERRON spoke in opposition of the proposal indicating be would do on his acre whatever he wanted. 4 . JOHN CATE spoke in opposition of the proposal. 5. LOIS BURNETTE spoke in opposition of the proposal and the fact that the County Commissioners are requiring the taxpaying citizens to build on two acres of land. 6. TOM HEFFNER spoke in opposition of the proposal. He expressed a concern that the requirement of two acre minimum lot size will increase lot prices by at least 10% while the current market value of the raw undeveloped land will decrease. He suggested that a one acre minimum be ' approved for those who want .only__a one acre lot. He noted that usually due to soil perk problems most developments have lots between 1 acre and 2 acres. He stated that the extension of water and sewer should be encouraged because of the health problem= associated with septic tanks. In a;!swer to a question from Planning Eoard member Peter Kamer, l!effner stated that the developer will receive a return on investment but that fret an economic standpoint, a developer will pay more for land that they can develop at a ratio of one lot per acre than for a piece of land they would develop at a ratio of one dwelling per two acres. 043 6 ! 7. HAZEL M. COTTON asked about a situation in which she deeded to her son an acre of land but because of a problem with the right-of-way cant.- t get a building permit to move her sons trailer onto the one acre of land. Barry Jacobs explain d that without kn(lwing the entire situation, he could not .address t.-e problem. He infor: _••i her of the appeal procedures through the Board o_" Adjustment. 8 . BOB HOGAN expressed opposition to the proposal. He indicated that the proposal was not in the interest of the majority of people. He exp.esr;ed a concern that the watt.= :shed continue to be protected. 9. DICK HAVENS, Real Estate Broker, spke in opposition. He mentioned concern for the land that had been handed down through generations. e questioned the legality of attache-'ig such a regulation to land owned y individuals. 10. JOHN HODGES--COPPLE, 17:=.bitat for Humanity, expressed opposition to the proposal and expressed a concern for affordable housing. He agreed with keeping Chapel Hill and Carrboro away from Hillsborough. He feels there must be another solution for what the Board is trying to do. 11. CHARLOTTE THOMANN spoke in sup-pert of the twc• acre minimum lot size. She agreed that the undeveloped land should be kept to the minimum growth but that any pre-existing properties should be exempted from the two acre mil mum. Development is encroaching upon Orange County and she feels the pee ' i -1 who live in the County should be protected . The two acre minimum woL '' also help protect Duke Forest which hopefully will remain undeveloped to provide green space in the County. . 12 . J. BARRY WESTON, Civil Engineer specializing in land planning, emphasized that the minimum two acre lot size will significantly increase the price of lots. There are problems with water and sewer within those area already. The proposal will be unfair to those existing property own-.,1 r.s both large and small. It will be . unfair to prospective buyers brzcaue:e it will raise the cost of those lots. 13 . WILLIAM Hu..- CHINS, Falls of the New Hope, indicated that the vast majority of lane,e nets in that area desire the two acre minimum lot size. He :..-gated that six wells are already polluted making it difficult to have one acre lots. • 14 . PETE THORN, Homebuilder-s Association, spoke in opposition of the two acre minimum because it prohibits affordable housing. If water and sewer is not extended into the Rural Buffer most of the land will remain undeveloped because of the inability of the soil for septic tanks. He stated that unless the Rural Buffer is going to be set aside as a bedroom community, the two acre lot size does not make sense. _ 15. FORREST D. LOY owns one and one half acres and voiced opposition to the proposal. 15. LULA M. COTTON asked that the County Commissioners think about what. an acre of land costs. She asked that they let one acre stand. 17 . JOSEPH FEARRINGTON spoke in opposition to the proposal. He wants the propo;,al changed to one acre lots. 18 . GROVER WEBB of the Orange Grove Community strongly opposed the two acre proposal. 044 7 19 . CECIL GRIFFITH stated he lived in the area for 23 years. He questioned the logic for requiring a tvo acre lot size. He noted that e :A'ti_c tank inspections have linite:i the &mount . of territory necessary foe site. If a person has only oel acre of land, he should be p e-ei L ed to build upon that site. I-o asked why it was necessary to change the setback requi nt a because of the two acre minimum lot size. he spoke of the tax rate and questioner'. i•.hy the County did not allow more density to increase the tax beo_y so tz oce xoule be lcreer. He see no lncj is in the proposal. He questioned who on the Board voted for the two acre minimum lot size and was informed that it was a unanimous vote. Peter Kramer stated :L)r. the ' record that the vote of the Planni: g Board on the two acre minimum lot size was a five to five vote. He noted that increased density increases the need for services which will nit decrease the tux rate. - 20. HENRY WHITFIELD spoke in opposition of the proposal. Ke reemphasize- . that two acre lots will prohibit water and sewer extensions. Be stated that there are health problems that need to be corrected and there needs to be. enough density to pay for the needed services and utilities which cannot be done with two acre lots. The cost of building would be greatly increased and the cost of property would increase. He noted that one acre lots should be permitted and if the developer wants to run sewer and wale..- lines permit that developer to have one half acre lots. He indicated that growth is coming and the County needs to prepare for it. 21. STEPHEN QUINT of the Falls of New Hope area stated that he had no idea that this proposal would be so restrictive. He feels that the Falls of New Hope Association will change the: position on this proposal once they are informed of the ramifications. Because of the side setbacks he will not be able to expand his home. He criticized changing the regulations and making them retroactive to the existing lots and houses. He stated it sere that the people Eu:e here for the convenience of planning instead of planning being here fer the convenience of people. He e Li eeeed concern for those people who want to give a portion of their lend to relatives for a home. He questioned why the setbacks had to be ch-enged. He indicated that while he is concerned with development he is also concerned about the increase in hardship - as a result of lower . den i_tT. 22 . LIZ PETERS stated that what the Planning Board is doing is defeating the pU: pose. She expressed concern for maintaining the character of her neighborhood. She lives on one acre and feels it wrong that people who own two acres cannot develop both of those acres. - 23 . HELENE IVEY, Realtor in Chapel Hill, expressed concern for the poor peogale in the Coun'by. She fee'e that penalizing people -- for the County . to cone in and set a minimum lot size -- is not right. Slee noted that she just had 90 acres tested and not one acre perked. The extension of water and sewer is essential becai ee-there is a lot of land in the County that will not perk. The price of land will be out of reach for most of the minorities in the County. 2s . DAVID PARRISH, indicated he has four acres and three children. He s.:'ked if his three childcee. could live on the other three acres he owns. Toe of his children . will not be able to purchase land in Orange County. He is looking out for his children :rut the Commissioners are not looking out for him. 045 25. ROBERT MCMILLAN, Minister, asked if he will be able to subdivide a two acre lot and Chair Willhoit indicated he would not be allowed to do so. Hc.iillan stated that it see:as that ordinances and town rules and regulations are taking the place of people. Ho recommended that this pr n po al be reconsidered bocaus3 nose ctho want the two acres are those r:-L,o are rich or l ti..ve in the town and want to run all over country people. It i , xuaking it iinpo: ible for black it opia to own or develop land if you go to th two acre raini,ldruu. 26 . BOB HARTFIAN, Contractor, stated that it seams that most of the people in the audience are opposed to the proposal and asked what the procedure will be following the public hearing. DOA Willhoit explained that at the end of the public hearing the proposal will be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation. They will meet on December 15 and the recce.aendation will be received by the Board of Commissioners on January 5. 27 . GREG MCALLISTER, agreed with what Mr. Hefner and fir. Whitfield said. Ha approves of the one acre lot size and emphasized that water and sewer extensions should be encouraged to go into those areas. 2n . MARK O'NEILL noted he and four sisters own 160 acres in the Rural Buffer zone.' He had a contract with a developer to purchase this property. However, with the proposed changes, the developer is no longer iinterceted and the contract fell through. He stated that it does adversely affect the land values. The development costs are going to ineroaee thus nuking it more difficult for the average homabuyer to own a home. The lac,: of housing is affecting economic development in the county because of the lack of a workforce. The future growth of Orange - County will be adversely affected as well as the economic wellbeing of the County. 29 , RAY LEIGHE?iDORF F, spoke in favor of the two acre minimum. He sta ted that the County would be better served with two acre lots. 30 . ALOI 7 CALLS EYN, Surveyor, spoke on behalf of his clients. The two ac.+;c e versus one acre has an i ;pact oe future development. Most cd : .:,:i.opt. :s want to do something that works. Generally, if you come in w i..;- 100 acres, you get 70 lots. The two acre minimum lot size would reduce the number of lots to 40. The developers will leapfrog the Rural Buffer. There will be development but it will be further out in the. County. This proposal would add an increased burden to the land. He asked if there was any hope that this proposal will be turned down - and then will the effective date be known. Chair Willhoit stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to n-, e .ve public input and that all commento will be taken under advisement in meking. a decision. Commissioner Lloyd asked if--this two acre minimum lot size wee in effect at this time and if so what procedure must be followed to revert 1. ck to the one c cre minimum lot size. Collins indicated that if anyone weer: to amend the existing two acre standard, the Land Use Plan would ii to ee amended. This procedure can be initiated by the citizens of C. County or by the Board of Commissioners. 31. RAY DANZINGER, Calavander Neighborhood Association, indicated that the main purpose of initially supporting the two acre minimum lot size 416 9 was to maintain the rural character of the area. He noted that the interest of those homeowners in the Calavander area was in not seeing high density housing in the rural area. Fnother concern was that water and sew:r- not be extended out into the rural area because high density trc,.�1d follow. He suggested that one way to address these concerns would 1h�: to kee p the one acre minia:tum lot siz2 but to cluster developments so that.: o_)an space would be provided anr1 dedicate this open space to protect it f_-om ever being deve3opecI. This would satisfy those concerns expl-e.. d by tho;e in attendance and those needs for of Fordable housing. This c::,nsity would make it economically feasible to ruff sewer and water and provide other necessary services. 32 . LARRY REID spoke in opposition to the proposal. 33 . ANN JOYNER, Cedar Grove Township, spoke on behalf of_ Dolly Hunter:*. She expressed concern that this ?regulation will cause developers to leapfrog and come out into the rural agricultural section of the County. 34 . BOBBY GRIFFITH spoke in opposition to the two acre-mini ut lot size. He indicated he will have to pay double for the amount: of land be wil_'- need in order to build a house. 35. MERRILL i' -.ESHER spoke in opposition of the proposal. 36. ROY S'±`::LfaND stated that sewer should be extended as far as possible and the property to the west and north developed. 37 . HENRY WELLS stated that water and sewer should be extended through the entire County wherever feasible. 38 . CHARLES HIGH spoke in opposition to the two acre minimum lot size. He asked about the setbacks and P ::rvin Collins reiterated the dimension:. 39 . DIANE RIGSBEE indicated she had been since .Tune trying to get har pl-_n ; pp:i.•:,ved by the Planning Staff. She has paid out $600 for a survey an:.1 would like to be able to move her trailer to her land. She felt it the responsibility of the Plan;:ing Staff to inform her of any changes that may affect her request. 40. WADE PARRISH spoke in opposition of everything proposed. 41. J. C. MCLAMB, resident of New Hope, stated it was not the place of any body of government to tell people what they can do with their land. 42 . JOSEPHINE BYRD spoke regarding some land that was sold to pay the • taxes. 43 . HENRY WHITFIELD questioned why this proposal had to be returned to the Planning Board and why a decision could not be made tonight. Chair Will.hoit explained the procedure in accordance with the Ordinance. Whitfield asked if a petition would` be in order to request that the two acre lot requirement be dropped and asked that Collins draw up the petition for those in attendance to sign. o..--- _ARTICLE 6 - Jeaplication of Dimensional Requirements (6. 16.12)_ 'eleph:Jne .r xcherapw _ F_t. al . _ Collins presented for the receipt of public comment a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment which would establish a minimum lot size /?'� l) 177e • 047 We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons: 1. Property Rights -- Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. ' 3. Tax Increases - .Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. NAME // /) ADDRESS TELEPHONE 14i_ 4 . L 4 67 •, .Grte..{44 ' % 12 - eJ C +...Nck y 17 U Fr-...'; Rd 1/i'>- 31"e? \(:; % (-4D 79z. ttc b 211t/ @;,' t f 42'f\- 70g- R! 2t /jRiS eAive 414 C. 9q.).-Z703 27S aE o-,c 7 y C p 3S")9-SS2 Z WHEREAS, the Orange county Board of Commissioners adopted the OranQ 4 4 8 County-Chapel Hill -Carrboro Joint Plannino Land Use Plan on October 13, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Land Use Plan contains a land use classification of Rural Residential and describes said classification as a low-density area consisting of single-family homes situated on large lots two acres in size or greater ; and WHEREAS, Orange County has required compliance with the two-acre lot size standard through application of its Subdivision Regulations ; and WHEREAS, Orange County conducted a public hearing on November 24, 1986, for the purpose of amending its Zoning Ordinance and Zoning' Atlas to conform with the Joint Planning Land Use Plan, including the establishment of a Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district and dimensional requirements applicable therein; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot substantially increases the cost' of housing and is therefore directly contrary to any idtg-ntion- the county has of providing affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot imposes hardship on the majority of land owners, most of whom have struggled for many years to pay for their land and the taxes thereon, and would like to use the land for their children or realize some benefit to themselves rather than lose the value thereof ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot standard makes the extension of public water and sewer lines to new developments uneconomic , . thereby encouraging the use of septic tanks and wells, both of which are already causing increasing health and sanitation problems; and WHEREAS, as more and more people settle in the county, public water and sewer will of necessity have to be extended to both old and new lots at a cost that will be devastating if lots are large ; and WHEREAS, there are other ways to obtain open space such as public parks and cluster developments with dedicated open space ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum standard has made most of the platted lots in the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning non-conforming and therefore less valuable since fiduciary institutions have reservations about making loans on non-conforming property; and WHEREAS, under the present two arel --standard, existing structures on non-conforming lots, if damaged by catastrophe , might not be rebuildable in a manner suitable to the owner's needs: THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS LIVING WITHIN THE PROPOSED RURAL BUFFER (RB) ZONING DISTRICT AND ELSEWHERE IN ORANGE COUNTY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AMEND THE ORANGE COUNTY-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO JOINT PLlNNNING LAND USE PLAN TO CHANGE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE PER DWELLING FROM IWO (2) ACRES TO ONE ( I ) ACRE WITHIN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAUD USE PLAN CLASSIFICATION: SIGNATURE E ADDRESS 049 DRAFT PBM 12-17-86 PAGE 10 Planning Agreement and the lack of response from the applicant to the requests from staff for revisions to the Preliminary Plan dating back to November 11. Yuhasz continued that there is insufficient justifica- tion for some of the Chapel Hill recommendations, particularly the reference to the widening of Rogers Road and future consideration for adjoining properties development. Collins responded that he felt the concerns expressed by Chapel Hill are legitimate concerns. He continued noting that the developer had not responded and addressed the concerns of Orange County Planning Staff. With the lack of response. Staff would have recommended denial even if the project were not in the Joint Planning Area. VOTE: 9 in favor. 3 opposed (Taylor, Walters, Yuhasz) . AGENDA ITEM *7 : MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING 11-24-86 a. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Marvin Collins, Planning Director. stated that he would be presenting the amendments concerning the Rural Buffer --and indicated that he would be presenting them collectively rather than as separate items. The first proposal for amending the Zoning Ordinance was the establishment of a definition of the Rural Buffer district and identification of criteria for application of that district in the County. The amendment also identifies uses that would be permitted within the Rural Buffer district. The uses are identical to those currently allowed in. the Agricultural-Residential zoning district. No comments were received at the public hearing regarding the wording on the "Intent" statement or the "Application Criteria". Concerns were voiced by many people regarding the two-acre minimum lot size requirement. Concerns were also expressed about several basic issues which include property rights, affordable - housing. various environmental impacts. and cost implications for both municipal and county governments. There was concern about decreasing land value and the additional expense of acquiring and developing land which would result in higher housing costs. A concern was expressed about the expense related to extending water and sewer service in emergency situations or as part of a planned municipal annexation. There were concerns voiced about decreases in housing densities which would • __ _- - 050 DRAFT PBM 12-17-86 PAGE 11 result in lower tax revenues and the ability of local government to finance needed services. Another concern was the potential for leapfrog development into other areas of the county if a Rural Buffer and two-acre minimum lot size requirement were implemented in the area north, west and south of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area. A concern expressed apart from any specific ordinance amendment had to do with the lack of knowledge and involvement in decisions regarding the, adoption of the two-acre minimum lot size standard, as part of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Some alternatives suggested at the nearing included leaving the ordinance requirements as existing; coupling water and sewer extensions with cluster provisions to encourage open space reserva- tions; establish specific design requirements for achieving a rural character rather than lowering densities; exploring other approaches such as agricultural preservation/transferable development rights; and amending the JPA Land Use Plan to delete the two-acre lot size standard. In terms of the proposal to establish dimensional requirements (two-acre minimum lot size. 200 foot lot width requirement. front yard setbacks of 60 feet, side and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet) , a concern was expressed of what would happen in the case of pre-existing lots. There was considerable discussion about the continuous lot frontage. provision which would require any pre exisiting lots of less than two acres to be combined in such a manner to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The concern voiced in regard to the actual change in the Orange County Zoning Atlas was the two-acre minimum lot size requirement as well as the implications of the two-acre standard if approved by the Board of Commissioners. Collins referenced an outline (see attached) noting that he had covered many of the issues listed under Item B. This outline should help guide the discussion . of the Rural Buffer proposal. Collins referenced a letter from the County Attorney (see attached copy) indicating the County should move forward with implementing the proposals that were carried to public hearing on November 24 so that conformity between the Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance could be retained. The letter also 051 I"V.. a DRAFT PBM 12-17-86 PAGE 12 addressed some of the concerns about the issue of spot zoning. - Collins continued noting that another implication in regard to joint planning and one of the principal issues addressed at the public hearing was a water and sewer extension policy. It has been the policy of the County to discourage water and sewer extensions into protected watersheds in order to control the density within those areas. The County was proposing a similar extension policy for the Rural Buffer to control the density within that. area. One of the alternatives proposed involved cluster provisions. - Collins noted that approximately 40% of the total Rural Buffer area is comprised of the University Lake Watershed. OWASA will be conducting a study on University Lake Watershed as well as Cane Creek Watershed to determine development impacts. Collins explained the three growth strategies of the Rural Buffer concept. The "urban containment" strategy is the one which the current rural buffer proposal is based on. If there are two acre minimum lot sizes as a standard, it does preclude municipal annexation and discourages urban expansion. The "holding zone" strategy one in which land is held in reserve until such time as the transition areas were developed and there was a desire for urban. expansion. If this strategy were being proposed. larger lot sizes than two acres would have resulted. The "low-density residential" strategy was one in which the lots could be subdivided with a minimum lot size of 40.000 square feet (.92 acres) . This strategy would allow for the expansion of the Transition areas to the Rural Buffer. Two options are presented for consideration. The first option is to approve the proposed amendments and proceed with enforcement of same on an interim basis. Justifications for this option are as follows: 1. The JPA Land Use Plan has been adopted. Under the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement with the Town of Chapel Hill. any amendment to the Plan must_be._considered at a joint public hearing involving both governing bodies and the Orange County Planning Board. Two separate petitions have been received requesting that the JPA Land Use Plan be amended to return the two-acre lot size standard to one acre. In accordance with established public hearing schedules. the petitions would be presented at public hearing on March 10. 1987. Given the amount of time 052 DRAFT PBM 12-17-86 PAGE 13 involved until the public hearing date, the issues of clustering, water/sewer extensions and design standards for the Rural Buffer area could be addressed at the hearing. Other plan or ordinance amendment proposals. including the expansion of the Rural Buffer concept to other portions of the County and deletion of the "continuous frontage" provisions. could also be considered. 2. If the proposed ordinance amendments are not adopted and the JPA Land Use Plan standard of two acres remains in effect. a contradiction in Land Use Plan/Zoning Ordinance standards would remain. • Approval of the standards on an interim basis until issues could be resolved would eliminate the contradiction. The second option would delay approval of the proposed amendments until a second public hearing is conducted to allow more citizen comment and explanation of the proposals by Staff. Many: but not all, of the issues brought out at the November 24 public hearing could be addressed further. A special public hearing could be set for January 27 . 1987 for this purpose. Coupled with the interim bearing, the petition to amend the JPA Land Use Plan could be presented at the March 10 regular JPA public hearing. Informa- tion received at the January 27 hearing could be addressed by Staff and larger issues as well as any ordinance amendment proposals could be presented. Governing board and Planning Board members from both Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill would be present, allowing the Rural Buffer concept. mechanisms for implementation and citizen concerns to be considered. Jacobs inquired about the effects of the continuing nonconformity with the Zoning Ordinance and the JPA Land Use Plan. Collins responded that new subdivisions would be approved which created new lots of at least two acres in size. Once those lots were created. there are no specific dimensional requirements for the proposed Rural Buffer area. Tie` A and R-1 zoning districts are the only requirements listed in the Zoning Ordinance with dimensional requirements of 40.000 square feet. The concern would be what dimensional requirements (other than lot size) to apply. Eddleman asked how leapfrog development would be address- ed. Collins responded that this was a concern voiced at 053 . ‘ t. DRAFT PBM 12-17-86 PAGE 14 the public hearing. The only way to avoid leapfrog development would be to consider - expansion of the Rural Buffer concept to other portions of the County. This all ties in with defining just what the Rural Buffer is. Collins indicated that he felt if the lot size were reduced to one acre or 40,000 square feet, there would not be such a problem with leapfrog development. This would make development fairly uniform throughout the County. Pilkey inquired the status of the University Lake; discussions with Carrboro. Collins responded that those!. discussions are still to be resolved. Dates for a future public hearing were discussed. Collins gave the Board the options available for those dates. Kramer noted that there had been a lot of opposition to the two acre minimum lot size. PUBLIC COMMENT Henry Whitfield Mr. Whitfield, owner of property in the Rural Buffer as well as other property in Orange County. expressed the concern that all property in Orange County would be affected by what is done in the Rural Buffer due to the effect on the tax base. Mr. Whitfield expressed concern that those involved in making such decisions are new to Orange County and not life-long residents as are most of those citizens. expressing the desire for smaller than two acre lot sizes. He noted that he felt this was a move to stop growth and make development of an individual's property too expensive to develop. He indicated that he felt more damage would be done to the ecology through the installation of wells and septic tanks on every two acre lot and encouraged extension of public water and sewer from the beginning. He felt more investigation needs to be done from the ecology standpoint. He noted that the cost of extending public water and sewer later, perhaps after the failure of septic tanks and contamination of wells, would be much more costly for the residents of Orange County. He submitted the name of B. B. Olive as one who could bring much needed information to the Boards about the ecology of the county. Jacobs stated that .the Planning Board would appreciate hearing from Mr. Olive and anyone else who can supply the much needed information. Larry Reed Mr. Reed, property owner in Orange County. submitted a list of thirty-five additional names to the petition already on file. He indicated his property was within the extra-territorial boundary of Chapel Hill and would CT 054 DRAFT. PBM 12-17-86 PAGE 15 probably be annexed into Chapel Hill within a five-year period. He expressed the concern that larger houses as well as larger septic systems would have to be installed on two acre lots. He inquired about the Transition areas and the possibility of annexation by Chapel Hill. Jacobs responded that the Rural Buffer area would not be under jurisdiction of or annexed by Chapel Hill. Collins identified the entire Rural Buffer area on a map noting that Orange County development standards would be those which apply in the Rural Buffer area. Mr. Reed asked for clarification of a non-conforming lot. Collins responded that if one owns a non-conforming lot and owns no other property contiguous to that lot, they can build on that lot with all the proper permits. If one owns two to four lots contiguous to each other. they would have to be recombined under the- current ordinance to have at least 80% of the two acre minimum required lot area and at least 80% of the required 200 foot lot width. If one owns more than four lots. they would• have to be combined in such a manner that all the lots that were created except one had the minimum two acre lot size and the minimum 200 foot lot width. Larry Schwartz Mr. Schwartz inquired if a lot is already platted, 100' z 400 ' , would this be buildable under the new codes. Collins responded that if this lot were zoned R-1, this is already a non-conforming lot. If you own no other property contiguous to this lot. you could build on this lot. Mr. Schwartz continued addressing Article 11.10 c) expressing concern with the inability to reconstruct a home destroyed by fire on a non-conforming lot. Collins responded by explaining that the dimensional require- ments (front, side and rear setbacks and maximum building height) are the only requirements to be met in rebuilding such a residential structure. Jim Plymire Mr. Plymire, a consultant in land use planning. spoke expressing the feeling that more study of the Rural Buffer needs to be done as he felt various uses could be made of the area.. __- He continued that he felt a two acre minimum lot size would create leap-frog development. Kramer inquired if information is available on the rate of failure of septic systems. Collins responded that this information is to be made available to the County from OWASA. Pilkey noted that much more was to be considered in the U i r DRAFT PBM 12-1 -` 6 PAGE 16 extension of water and sewer than just the rate of failure of septic systems. Jacobs noted that he is in favor of the Rural Buffer concept. but he expressed difficulty in recommending that standards be adopted that relate to an area where residents feel they have not adequately been involved in the decision-making process. MOTION: Jacobs moved to defer the Rural Buffer amendments to a public hearing on March 10, 1987. Seconded by Pilkey. Ben Lloyd asked if this would be placing a moratorium! until the March 10 public hearing. Yuhasz responded that with no action being taken on the two-acre lot size standards the only enforcement action would be that new subdivision applications for the Rural Buffer area would be required to meet the two acre minimum lot size standard. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #7a (4) : PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT (ARTICLE 6.16.12 - TELEPHONE EXCHANGES, ETC.) Presentation by Marvin Collins. This agenda item is to consider for approval a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment which would establish a minimum lot size requirement for telephone exchange facilities (without offices) , subscriber loop huts, pressure regulator stations, water and sewer pump stations in all zoning districts. This item was considered at public hearing on November 24. 1986. On October 31. 1986. the OWASA Board of Directors approved the development of a water sale and transfer agreement between OWASA and the Town of Hillsborough and authorized immediate action to develop the capability to pump water to the Hillsborough system. Of critical importance is the acquisition of a suitable parcel of land in the Calvander area. The Orange County_Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 40.000 square feet in areas east of Old NC 86, while the Land Use Plan requires a minimum lot size of two acres west of the thoroughfare. OWASA has indicated a site of 10.000 square feet is sufficient for the pump station. Mebane Home Telephone wishes to acquire property in the vicinity of Mebane Oaks Road to install a telephone COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, DICKERSON, BERNHOLZ. GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE 056 ATTORNEYS AT LAW - 110 C HCRTON STREET HILLSBOROUGH.N.C. 27278 919-732-'2196 919-942.8000 CHAPEL LO E I E0.F SRBUILDING December 15, 1986 137 E.FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL,N.C.27514 919-929 4151 • ALONZO B.COLEMAN.J8. STEVEN A.BERNHOLZ DONALD R. DICKERSON ROGER B•BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL DOUGLAS HARGRAVE MARTIN J•BERNHOLZ RICHARD J. SNIDE4R,JR. - Mr. Marvin Collins G. KAREN NICHOLAS HrE Orange County Planning Director Orange County Planning Department 0,counsei BONNER D.SAWYER 106 East Margaret Lane (1902-1972) Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Two (2) acre minimum lot size requirement in the rural buffer Dear Marvin: This letter confirms recent conversations we've had concerning pending amendments to the County's Zoning Ordinance, including. the Zoning Atlas, to conform the ordinance to the adopted 2 acre minimum lot size requirement in the rural buffer of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Much of the discussion during the recently concluded public hearing on this point concerned the effect the proposed amendments would have on lots that are less than 2 acres. These lots will become nonconforming upon the adoption of the amendment. Section 11. 7.1 of the Zoning Ordinance allows the use of a single nonconforming lot for a one- family detached dwelling. However, Section 11.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the combination of contiguous nonconforming lots in the same ownership and with contiguous frontage under most circumstances. The amount of opposition to the conforming amendments has apparently caused some Planning Board members and perhaps members of the Board of County Commissioners to consider delaying the conforming amendments or adopting an amendment which would only rezone some of the._prQperty to the RB zone (2 acre minimum lot size) . I strongly recommend against both of these notions. The first, delaying the adoption of the ordinance amendment that will conform the Zoning Ordinance to the Land Use Plan, is ill-advised because of the close relationship between the County's Land Use Plan and its Zoning Ordinance, which relationship is both philosophical and legal. I have detailed that 057 Mr. Marvin Collins Page Two December 15, 1986 relationship and its effect recently in the letter, a copy of which is enclosed. The second notion, that of leaving all existing lots that are less than 2 acres in their present R1 zone, is likewise ill-advised. Even a quick look at the map presented at the public hearing illustrating the parcels of land effected reveals that such an action would violate the prohibition against "spot zoning." The best statement of this principle by the North Carolina Supreme Court can be found in the case of Blades v. City of Raleigh, 280 N.C. 531 (1972) . THe court said this: - A zoning ordinanace, or amendment, which singles out and reclassifies a relatively' small tract owned by a single person and surrounded by a much larger area uniformly zoned, so as to impose upon the small tract greater restrictions than those imposed upon the larger area, or so as to relieve the small tract from restrictions to which the rest of the area is subjected, is called "spot. zoning." It is beyond the authority of the municipality, in the absence of a clear showing of a reasonable basis for such distinction. Id. There has been no showing whatsoever of a reasonable or other basis for distinguishing between the property that would be zoned R1 and the Eroperty that would be zoned RB. The only basis stated for the distinction sought is one of fairness to the owners of the property in question. This is not a valid basis for a zoning distinction. It may, however, be the basis for the granting of a variance by the Board of Adjustment, on a case by case basis. Enclosed is a short article on the subject of "spot zoning" by Philip P. Green, Jr. Mr. Green is on the faculty of the Institute of Government and is generally regarded as the zoning-planning law "guru" in North Carolina. Furthermore, the "combination" requirement contained in Section 11. 7. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance can 058 Mr. Marvin Collins Page Three December IS, 1986 be reconsidered by the Board. Such a reconsideration, of course, would apply County-wide and not just in the Joint Planning Area. eery truly yours, Ak h. ey Gledhill • GEG/lsg Enclosures xc: Moses Carey - Steve Halkiot• John Hartwell Shirl Marshall Don Willhoit Barry Jacobs, Planning Board Chair for the Planning Board • O5 eOLEMAN. BEUN IOI.Z. DICKERSON. QER`UOLZ. GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 110 CHURTON STREET HILLSDOROUGH. N.C. 27278 919-732.2196 919-942-8000 CHAPEL UITE 20 HILL OFFICE BUILDING October 3, 1986 t37 E.FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL.N.C.27314 - 919-929.7151 ALONZO B.COLEMAN.JR. STEVEN A.BERNHOLZ DONALD R.DICKERSON ROGER B.BERNHOLZ E. DOUGLASYIHARGRAVEILL Mr. Marvin Collins MARTIN J. BERNHOI.Z RICHARD J. SNIDER.JR. Director KAREN J Orange County Planning Department 106 East Margaret Lane BONNER D.SAWYER Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 (1902-1972) Re: Amendment to Orange County's Comprehensive. Plan - Adopted Joint. Planning Area Land Use Plan Dear Marvin: We recently spoke about the relationship between the recently adopted amendments to Orange County's Comprehensive Plan in the Joint Planning Area and the existing Orange County Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the concern was, to what degree does the Comprehensive. Plan control, define or limit specific development requests. For the most part I will be unable to answer this question except on a case by case basis. That is, the application of the recently amended Land Use Plan to specific developments will depend on the zoning and. subdivision ordinance provisions affected by the proposed development. For example, we recently discussed and resolved this question in the context of recreation and open space area. requirements.. The designation in the Land Use Plan of resource protection, water quality critical and perhaps other public/private open space areas provide Orange County with the basis for requiring dedication of any such areas within a proposed development or alternatively payment in lieu Of dedications. even though this seems fairly straightfoiiiardi individual cases will present questions. I understand from Gene Bell that questions have already come up concerning the meaning of certain provisions of the "Recreation Sites" section of the Subdivision Regulations. Perhaps the question which might arise most frequently is the application of the portion of the Mr. Marvin Collins Page Two _ Octc beer 3, 1986. Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan which requires a . minimum of 2 acres per unit in the rural buffer area.. First of all, lots of record and nonconforming lots are specifically addressed in the Zoning Ordinance and should be treated accordingly. Any proposed development which has not received either preliminary I plan approval, in' the case of a subdivision request, or has not been granted a special use permit, in the case of a planned development, must, I think, meet the 2 acre minimum lot size requirement. Section III-B-1 of the subdivision regulations requires the planning department to review a subdivision sketch design plan for "compatibility with the comprehensive plan for the County." Section IV, entitled "REQUIRED MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS,' recites the policy of subdivision regulations, that is, "the avoidance of congestion and overcrowding and the creation of conditions essential to public health, safety and the general welfare," and then goes on to state that these goals are to be accomplished through the application of design standards "providing for the distribution of population and traffic, safe and coordinated street systems, approved water supply and sewage disposal systems, useable lots and conformance to plans for Orange County. . .adopted by the Board of Commissioners. " (Emphasis added.) Subsection B-1 of Section IV requires lots served by on site sewage disposal and water systems to be at least 40,000 square feet and lots served by public or community water and sewer to comply with the appropriate zoning ordinance. These requirements are minimum lot size requirements. The idea that the lot size requirements are minimums is further underscored by the need to meet watershed protection standards regardless of the lot size necessary to accomplish those standards. The Zoning Ordinance permits the development of. planned development districts. Section 7.1 of the Zoning Ordinance provides, in the first paragraph, that planned development districts may be established where "suitability of [land] for the development proposed shall be determined primarily by reference to the comprehensive plane-"-=-.The PD analysis may also give "due consideration to the existing and perspective character of surrounding development. " Furthermore, the last paragraph of Section 7.1 states that PD districts "are intended to accomplish the purposes of zoning and other applicable regulations to an equivalent or higher degree than where such regulations are intended to control unscheduled development on 061 Mr. Marvin Collins Page Three October 3, 1986 individual lots. . . ." This theme is continued in Section 7.4 which states that "PD districts shall be appropriately located. . .with respect to the pattern and timing of existing or proposed development in the comprehensive plan. . . .* There is another reason for thinking that the Comprehensive Plan dictates lot size where it specifically requires a particular lot size. Orange County's Comprehensive Plan is intricately connected/related to its Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. As you know, under North Carolina law, local governments must have a comprehensive plan and zoning regulations must be "in accordance with a comprehensive plan." N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 153A-341. However, our courts have held that , the comprehensive plan requirement does not require "an extensive written plan, such as a master plan based upon a comprehensive study. .. . The ordinance itself may show that the zoning is comprehensive in nature." Allred v. City of Raleigh., 7 N.C. App. 602, 173 S.E.2d 533 (1970) rev'd on other grounds, 277 N.C. 530, 178 S.E.2d 432 (1971) . The comprehensive plan requirement. is said to be one which aids in preventing the local government from exercising its zoning power arbitrarily or capriciously. Willis v. . Union County, ,�_a^..r� s N.C. App. , 335 S.E.2d 76 (1985) . However, you know, Orange County very closely links its comprehensive plan to its zoning activities. All requests for a change in zoning must be measured first against the permissibility of the requested change in accordance with the County's Comprehensive Plan. If the requested land use does not comport with the Comprehensive Plan, that plan must be changed before the zoning request can be granted and in most cases even considered. This policy and procedure of Orange County varies remarkably from the practice of most other local governments. Most other local governments amend their comprehensive plans de facto. That is, changes in zoning regulations effectively amend their comprehensive plans and no separate action is ordinarily taken on the comprehensive plan. Orange County follows the policy and practice it does as an additional protection•--against arbitrariness and as a statement to the people of the County that the Art • 062 Mr. Marvin Collins Page pour October 3, 1986 Comprehensive Plan provides strength and structure to the County's land use regulations. very truly yours, 41Wfrey r dbi11 GEG/lsg cc: Ken Thompson Don Willhoit • I f C 63 . t Questions I _ __ ~ t C y is -.:- # it- wfr '' _' Most Often Asked ., ...„...._ ..-_- _,,, ,-= - ,., ,,,,,,,,,,, ,- ., ______,-.,_:- - '-''''Y -- -'7'. -\'4"Y'''' r What Is "Spot Zoning?" -- . r _ ,may.: - �� : ri . ` _ - _ Philip P. Green, Jr. . � V. t "Spot zoning"is perhaps the most- in Sec. 34), or the denial of perhap g. They all agree that it is invalid (Article I, used,and least-defined,expression in when it is attempted.But I have found equal protection of the laws(Article I, the lexicon of zoning. Nowhere does no case in which they have pointed to Sec.19;also,US.Constitution,Four tt it appear in the zoning enabling act& the constitutional or statutory basis of teenth Amendment).It applies only to Rarely is it found in a zoning ordinance, their ruling.And rarely have they de- legislative actions(adoption or amend- r No one seems to know who coined the fined "spot zoning" with precision. merit of a zoning ordinance)and not to G 3 phrase.'But generations of zoning of- In general the courts have described administrative or quasi-judicial actions ficials have reacted like Pavlov's dog to "spot zoning"as zoning that does not (e.g.,grant of a special-use permit or t the sound of a dinner bell whenever the accord with a comprehensive plan,or a variance). If there is a reasonable 1 term was injected into debate over a is sharply different from the zoning of basis for treating particular property pending amendment.Apparently they surrounding or nearby properties, or diffeendy from nearby or similar prop- feel like Justice Potter Stewart of the appears to favor(or punish)a particular ernes,that should be enough to support l United States Supreme Court, who property owner.They have enunciated the validity of the zoning;ergo,it isnot confessed that he might not be able to subsets of rules: "It is not `spot zon- "spot zoning." define "bard core pornography" but ing'when the amendment is in accord declared, "I know it when I see it."2 with a general, previously-adopted ' Courts as well as zoning officials policy or plan.""It is not'spot zoning' North Carolina cases have reacted in generally predictable when it merely extends an existing ways when they have found that a zon- district."In some cases they have held Now let us examine what the North ing amendment constituted"spot zon- the rezoning of very large tracts to be Carolina courts have said on the "spot zoning";in others,they have held subject. the rezoning of small lots not to be"spot The first mention of"spot zoning" The author is an institute Faculty member whose zoning." in a published North Carolina decision field is planning law. At the risk of indictment for imper- was in l4blker v. Elkin, 254 N.C. 85 1.Assiduous research in the earl literature of sonating a judicial officer,I would like (1960). It involved the rezoning of a tuning has produced no clues it ght be need to suggest that at root"spot zoning"is 3.56-acre tract from RA-6 Residential that the word"spot"itself is used in many ways• nothing but giving special treatment to to Neighborhood Business.The super- with widely varying meanings:"He is on the spot.- one or a few property owners,without for court found that the topography of "This is a lovely spot fora picnic.-"That was the adequate justification.The concept is the tract,its location with respect to ma- high spot of his career.""That really hits the spot.' rooted in the North Carolina constitu- jor highways, and other development He spots the enemy;•"Out.damned spot!""You tional provisions that prohibit the grant in the area rendered it unsuitable for have spotted my escutcheon" "My dog Sputa' p p g 2. Jacobellis v. ohm. 378 u.s. 184. rn. l3 of "exclusive privileges" (Article I, residential development. On appeal. L.Ed.3d 793. 803-1(19641. Sec.32).the creation of"monopolies the Supreme Court agreed: 50 l Popular Government 064 : I The term "spot zoning" has freq- commercial use over the objection of Since that decision, three Court of uently been used by the courts and text adjoining owners of residential Appeals decisions have invalidated writers when referring to changes property.... amendments characterized as 'spot limited to small areas...We think the [T]he amending ordinances before zoning." All three quoted the above basic rule to determine the validity of us do not fall into the category of spot passage as a primary basis for the an amending ordinance is the same rule zoning....There is ample support in the decision. used to determine the validity of the record for the conclusion that the Struts it Swaim. 20 N.C. App. 611 original ordinance...The legislative rezoning of the...tract was not arbitrary (1976),involved the rezoning of a four- body must act in good faith.It cannot or discriminatory,may reasonably be acre tract from R 1 Residential to M- act arbitrarily or capriciously. If the deemed related to the public welfare H,Mobile Home.The tract was located conditions existing at the time of the and is not inconsistent with the pur- within a zoned extraterritorial belt half proposed change are such as would poses for which the city is authorized a mile wide around the town of Randle- have originally justified the proposed by the statute to enact zoning regula- man. This entire extraterritorial belt action, the legislative body has the tions...and(is]consistent with its corn- (some 500 acres)was zoned for single- power to act. prehensive zoning plan.... family and two-family residences,ex- Next came Zopf v. City of being- The first case in which our Court cept for two mobile home parks.Ap- ton,273 N.C.430(1968).The rezoned found that"spot zoning"had occurred thedefinition mom'both the h property was part of a triangular was Blades v City ofRaleigh,280 N.C./ court and due Caul n invalid 60-acre tract of land at the intersection 531 (1972). In that case the property had little difficulty in fiectin�invalid spot of two major highways. One point of consisted of approximately five acres, &other two zoning_ cases were?fromunion the triangle was already zoned for corn- surrounded by streets on three sides and County.In Lathan u Bound of Co s- merce,while the remainder(and prop- a nonconforming woodworking plant, 47 N.C. App. 357 (1980), erty that abutted it) was zoned for and antique store on the other. It was netr_ denied. 301 NC. 92 (1980), an single-family residences.The rezoning situated in the center of a very large R4 ll.412-acre tract in the midst of an R-20 added some 271/2 acres next to the point (essentially,single-family residential) Residential District was rezoned try an to the commercial area.It changed the district.The owner sought rezoning to L.1 light industrial District A small next 12 acres to multi-family, leaving R-6 Residential,so that he could build (one to two acres)B-3 General Business "-`) the balance of the tract as single-family. some 20 townhouse units.In response District was Iocaaed across the road - Neighbors charged that the amend- to a recommendation of the planning from the pro pert� Both the superior meets were "spot zoning." commission,the city council adopted court and the Court of Appeals con- The superior court found that the the requested amendment. Its action eluded that the amendment was invalid resulting zone pattern met statutory ob- was sustained by the superior court,but .. „ jectives and upheld the amendments. the Supreme Court reversed, on the spot o ntog' Both gany factors were The State Supreme Court again agreed: ground that the rezoning constituted press rot to whether any factryrs wwere both "spot zoning„ and "contract presentthatwouldaonsgt~rtea"reason- Spot zoning arises where a small able basis"for the rezoning and con- area,usually a single lot or a few lots, zoning' eluded that there were none—nothing surrounded other a This time the Supreme Court set property a more detailed description of about the rezoned property made it similar nature,is placed arbitrarily in " p particularly suitable for industrial a different use zone from that to which spot zoning": development. the surrounding property is made sub- In Godfrey x Union County Burnt jeer.When that small area is subjected A zoning ordinance,or amendment, of Commissioners. 61 N C App, 100 to a more burdensome restriction than which singles out and reclassifies a (1983),there appeared tube a far more that applicable to the surrounding relatively small tract owned by a single solid basis for rezoning. The tract in- property of like kind, the weight of person and surrounded by a much volved was 17.45 acres lying on a ma- authority is that the owner of the prop- larger area uniformly zoned,so as to jor highway with a railroad-running erty so subjected to discriminatory impose upon the small tract greater parallel to it.The land was zoned R-20 regulation,may successfully attack the . restrictions than those imposed upon Single Family Residential and was validity of the ordinance...The rule the larger area,orso-arto-relieve the shown on the county's comprehensive denying the validity of spot zoning or- small tract from restrictions to which plan as low-density residential. All of dinances has also been applied where the rest of the area is subjected, is the property surrounding it was zoned a small area previously in a residen- called"spot zoning:' It is beyond the R-20 or R-10 Residential Suburban. tial zone has been removed. by an authority of the municipality, in the There were 12 residences in the area amending ordinance.from such zone absence of a clear showing of a surrounding the tract.but approximate- and reclassified to permit business or reasonable basis for such distinction. ly ahalfmile away.a cluster of proper- Summer 1985 / 51 • 065 • ties were zoned for Light Industrial or dicates that"spot zoning"can be either zoning=all of which suggests that this Heavy Industrial uses.The owner peti- by adoption of a comprehensive zon- particular criterion may not be decisive. tioned to have his property rezoned to ing ordinance or by a subsequent "Surrounded by a much larger H-I Heavy Industrial.His petition was amendment. Most of the cases area uniformly zoned." Since the supported by the county planning dines- elsewhere have focused on amendments Court began by speaking of a"relative- tor,who pointed to the major highway, (as have all of the North Carolina ly small tract," it is apparent that "a the railroad, and the availability of a cases).But the Court appears to be on much larger area" must be measured public water system as factors that made solid ground when it indicates that there in accordance with the size of that tract. the tract peculiarly suited for such may be instances of "spot zoning" However,we have no guidelines as to development,noted that the area was within the framework of a comprehen- how much larger thesurrounding zone already subject to a high level of noise, sive ontinancethe discriminatory im-' must be. and suggested that the size of the prop- pact is the same,whether it is created "Uniformly zoned" y poses a more erty was sufficient to provide for off- by one action or two.' difficult criterion.It is not common to street parking and buffering to protect "A relatively small tract."The size find a very large uniform zone (par- neighboring properties.Despite these of the parcels involved in the North titularly in an urban setting).It will be factors, the superior court found that Carolina spot zoning cases appears to noted that in Lathan across the mad there was nothing to distinguish the be Iarger than that in many cases from the subject property was a one- tract from surrounding properties and elsewhere.In Blades the size was five to two-acre tract zoned for General invalidated the amendment as "spot acres in a city, in Struts four acres in Business,while theother nearby prop- zoning." The Court of Appeals a semirural setting, in Lathan 11.412 erty was R-20 Residential.This would affirmed: acres and in Godfrey 17.45 acres,both suggest that in determining whether the • [T]he evidence before the trial court in a rural setting. surrounding area is uniformly zoned, clearly showed that the whole intent The popular image of"spot zoning" one should overlook any pre-existing and purpose of[defendant's]applica- is the rezoning of much smaller tracts spot zones. don for rezoning was m accommodate than these. By "relatively;' does the In Godfrey,most of the surrounding his plans m relocate his grain bin Court mean that the rezoned tract area was subject to one of two different operation,not to promote the most ap- should be compared with (a)the size types(and densities)of residential zon- operation,not afthelaird dhroughorttap- of the zone that surrounds it,or(b)the ing: R-20 (with a 20,000-square-foot comnate Wells the evidence size of like zones elsewhere in the minimum lot area) and R-X)(with a 0 ty"' jurisdiction,or(c)the size of all zones 10,000-square-foot minimum lot area). clearly does show that the[defendants] of whatever nature in the jurisdiction? It can hardly Property has certain characteristics y be argued that this does. that make it suitable for industrial use, Under most such comparisons, 17.45 not affect uniformity,because in Blades e.e., paved public highway and a acres would not be termed"relatively the "spot" eras rezoned from R-4 railroad on the tract and public water small: Residential to R-6 Residential— available,viewed in the context of the "Owned by a single person."This essentially both residential, but R-6 element of the definition no doubt allowed a greater density(as R-10 does general characteristics of the area in reflects the Court's aversion to when compared with R-20). Further- which it is located, the [defendant's] "sweetheart deals" of the type it more, in Godfrey, about a half-mile tract is essentially similar to the prop- characterized as improper "contract away there were Light Industrial and city or land that surrounds it and the zoning"inAllred It City((Raleigh,277 Heavy Industrial zones. (Possibly the characteristics cite[defendant's]tract N.C.530(1971),and also in Blades and Court overlooked them because they provide no reasonable basis for ion- were ing it differently from the surrounding �In most of the North Carolina deci- "So pre-existing "spot zones.") as to impose upon the small Prole> sions,the tract was owned by a single tract greater restrictions than those Analysis of the Blades rule person,but the Zopfi tract was owned imposed upon the larger area,or so by two women jointly,and the Blades as to relieve the small tract from It appears that North Carolina cases property was owned by a corporation. restrictions to which the rest of the will continue to measure claims of While the"smell"of favoritism is clear- area is subjected." This is clearly "spot zoning"against the definition in ly stronger where there is a single sound. If unjustified differences in Blades v. City of Raleigh.This suggests owner, it would appear that a "spot" treatment of similar properties are the that we analyze this definition clause might easily be in multiple ownership root of the difficulty,it should make no by clause. without having its essential nature difference whether the spot is favored "A zoning ordinance, or amend- changed. On the other hand, many a or discriminated against. ment."In both Blades and its forerun- shopping center is held in single owner- "bailed 'zoning."'This gym- _ ners(Walker and Zopfi)the Court in- ship without arousing cries of"spot ment is too broad.if one believes that 52 / Popular Government • 1 • all "spot zoning" is illegitimate (as tionale supporting the amendment than apparent that a very high percentatvor O most courts apparently do). It might is common in miming matters.hut the rezoning amendments by local gtwcrn- mhave been wiser to include the follow- Court did not buy it. in Scutt .essen- ing hoards meet theecurts criteria for lag limitation (which appears in the tially none was offered. There was a "spot tuning."If opponents challextged next sentence)on'the definition: similar lack in Lathan. although the all meting actions that appear to he "In the absence of a clear Court made some effort to look for discriminatory,they would flood our of reasonable basis fur such distinc- distinguishing features.In Godfrey the courts with successful litigation.. lion."Now we come to the real nub of planning director convinced the plan- It is unfortunate.however.to have a the matter.If there is a reasonable basis sling board and the county commis- rule of law applied in a mechanical tl for treating properties differently.there sinners that there were such distinc- fashion. That is why I believe there is no violation of the "exclusive Lions.but the courts brushed his reason- should be increased emphasis on the privileges" or "monopoly" pruhibi- ing aside. • existence or nonexistence of ors tions. and there is no denial of equal distinguishing the property from its protection. Unfortunately. in many neighbors.All zoning should be based "spot zoning"cases the Court has been Conclusion on such analysis:if it were.there would slack in this area of analysis. he no "spot zoning:di In Blades the planning commission To anyone familiar with zoning prac- and city council set forth far more ra- ticcs throughout the state.it should be Juvenile Courts (continued from page 15) for such an enterprise.Wilmington is an urban community Far further infitrntation about thelstteni[e Sertzces 's and thus relatively rich in service agencies.And the awn- Center Ewltiation Co neniuee: Please feel free to con- - .3 ty.unfortunately,has enough juvenile offenders that the tact either Chief District Court Judge Gilbert Burnett or Committee is called on to meet on regularly and frequent- Tom Koonce. Committee Chairman: ly. But every county has certain basic services available for children,including schools.mental health,social ser- vices. law enforcement, and court counselors. Even if an interagency committee were to include only these agen- cies.it could probably be productive.The key ingredient. The Honorable Gilbert H. Burnett,Chief District Court however.is that the team receives the continuing support Judge, New Hanover County Courthouse.Suite 519. and leadership of the district's juvenile court judges. Wilmington. NC 28401 Without frequent referrals and without judges who respect its judgment enough to follow its recommendations fro- 4 quently,such a committee would probably founder. But with encouragement. it can prove valuable to juvenile Tom Koonce. Assistant Director. Lower Cape Fear court judges as they struggle to come up with effective Juvenile Services.Rt.3,Box 281A.Castle Hyyne.NC dispositions of juvenile offender cases.d 2$429 Summer 1985 /53 ATTACHMENT Q r RURAL BUFFER ISSUES (As identified at the Public Hearing to be st'tdied by the Planning Board.) A. Concepts - 1. Growth Strategies a. "Urban containment" strategy -- 2+ acre lots b. "Holding zone" strategy - 10+ acre lots c. "Low-density residential" strategy -- 1+ acre lots 2. Design standards B. Concerns 1. Affordable housing a. Development costs b. Purchase price (home/lot) 2. Environmental impacts a. Private wells/septic tanks (1) Failure potential ' (2) Dual drain fields - alternative b. Public water/sewer (1) Density considerations - (2) Extensions in emergency situations (3) Easement provisions (4) Carrying capacity/density ceilings (5) Extension cost escalation 3. Municipal/County service implications a. Annexation limitations b. Service expansion/provision costs c. Cost/benefit disparity 4. Pre-existing conditions a. Dimensional requirements b. Continuous frontage provisions 5. Expansion of Rural Buffer concept a. Definition of urban services districts b. Countywide or limited basis C. Relationship to Joint Planning 1. Conformity of Zoning Ordinance/Land Use Plan 2. Water/sewer extension policy 3. Cluster provisions 4. Impact fees/transferable development rights 5. Watershed protection (University Lake) 6 . Joint Planning Agreement 7 . Land Use Plan considerations a. Definition - Transition/Rural Buffer/Activity Nodes b. Chapel Hill/Carrboro dividing line c. Transition area extension - Bolin Creek basin 068 ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date January 5. 1987 Action A ends Item # F SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENT (SECTION IV--B-1 LOT STANDARDS) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact: Marvin Collins Proposed Text Amendments; 11-24-86 Public Hearing Minutes; 12-15-86 Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane -- 227-2031 Chapel Hill -- 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider approval of proposed revisions to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. To receive the Planning Board' s recommendation. This matter was presented at public hearing on November 24, 1986 . NEED: On October 13 . 1986. the Board of Commissioners adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. including a minimum required lot size of two acres per dwelling unit. Refer- ences within the Subdivision Regulations indicate that new subdivision plats submitted for approval must comply with the two-acre standard contained in the Land Use Plan. While such references exist. a direct statement to that effect is needed. Furthermore. Orange County' s Subdivision Regulations are enforced in the Town of Hillsborough. and specific language is needed to indicate that lot areas for subdivisions within the Hillsborough planning jurisdiction must meet the standards set forth in the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance. IMPACT: The proposed ordinance amendment recommends the following wording for the first sentence in the first paragraph of Section IV-B-1. "The minimum lot size shall be as required by the Orange County Land Use Plan, Orange County Zoning Ordinance or the T 0 6 9 Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance, whichever is applicable. " Approval of the amendment would clarify the application of lot size standards as contained in the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. No comments were made at the November 24 , 1986 public hear- ing concerning the proposed amendment. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ANIENu[WNT ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations • REFERENCE: Section IV-B-1 Lot. Standards - 070 ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: H_Staff_Planning Board_BOCC_ublic Other: County Attorney _ STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATXON:_x High Middle_Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 24, 1986- - ***********************************•****t******* PURPOSE- OF AMENDMENT: To revise Section IV:B-I of the Subdivision Regulations to clarify the • application of minimum lot area standards. IMPACTS/ISSUES: On August 5, 1986, the Board of Commissioners adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. including a minimum lot required lot area per dwelling unit of two (2) acres_ This action was - reaffirmed on . 13. 1986 when the Commissioners adopted the _ text of the Joint • Planning Area Flan. ._The County Attorney has indicated that the" two-acre standard can _be enforced. (See attached letter of 10-3-86.) Several references. including Section III-B-1 and Section IV of the Subdivision Regulations, and Articles 7.1 and 7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance: indicate that subdivisions and planned - developments: ts: respectively, . must comply with the 'comprehensive plane . - - -. - • • While such references indicate that camp/lance with the two-acre standard is required. a direct statement to that effect is needed. Furthermore, Orange County's Subdivision Regulations are . enforced in the ,own of Hillsborough, and specific language is necessary - to indicate that lot • areas for subdivisions. within the Hillsborough planning jurisdiction must meet the standards set forth -in the Hillsborough Zoning. Ordinance_ - " EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: The existing provisions of Section IV-B--1 are as follows= IV-B-1. ),Q'I' •SNdDAROS • The minimum lot - size shall be determined by the waste disposal and water supply system. and shall comply - with the appropriate Zoning Ordinance where applicable a) Lots served by on-site sewage ...--» disposal and water systems shall be 071 at least 40.000 square feet - b) Lots served by public or community water and sewer shall comply with the appropriate Zoning Ordinance c) Lots served by public or community water and - sewer that are not governed by a Zoning Ordinance shall • be at least 15,000 square feet. - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: The proposed amendment to Section IV-B-1 revises the first - paragraph to read as • follows: _ IV B-1. _ _The minimum lot size shall be as - required by the Orange County Land Use Plan. Orange County Zoning Ordinance, . or the Hillsborough - Zoning Ordinance, - whichever is applicable. In those - • areas of Orange County which are. not zoned. the .minimum lot size shall be determined by the waste disposal and water supply system - . - ****************************************turf****t***** ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: _ PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: _ BOCC REVIEW: • Psi M[tiwrE3 1J72 3 proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment which would establish dimensional requirements such as lot area, lot width, setbacks, building height, etc. for a proposed new zoning district classification, Rural Buffer (RB) . Collins indicated that the information regarding lot sizes in the agenda packet was based on 80,000 square foot lots and should be disregarded. He said updated information was distributed based on a two acre lot size before the meeting. Collins said data was collected from the Orange County Land Records Office indicates that approximately 50% of the parcels within the proposed Rural Buffer have lot sizes of less than 2 acres. This indicates that 50% of all parcels within the area would beome nonconforming if the proposed minimum lot size standard of two acres were adopted. These parcels constitute only five percent (5%) of the total acreage. Other dimensional requirements that would apply include lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, building height azOd standards which apply to Planned Developments. The minimum lot. width proposed in the RB district would be 200 feet. The proposed front yard setback would be. 60 feet from the front property line. The proposed side and rear yard setbacks would require a 30-foot setback. The proposed maximum building height is 25 feet. For Planned Developments, the minimum gross land area required would be 4 acres. A maximum floor area ratio of .04 is proposed and the minimum required open space (all areas -- not covered by buildings) would be 86% of the site. The required livability space ratio would be 80%. The minimum required recreational space ratio on a lot-by-lot development would be equivalent to .014 . He explained that for any type of multi-family development or non- residential development, the same minimum lot size would apply. The dimensional requirements for non residential use are identical to those for residential development in this Rural. Buffer area. Collins emphasized that any existing one acre lot that existed prior to the time of the adoption of this Ordinance could be built upon . provided the owner of that lot did not own other lots with continuous frontage. If a person owns more than three lots, the continuous frontage rule would apply. There are provisions that would allow three lots with 80% of the lot area and 80% of the lot width required in the Rural Buffer district. If any structure within this proposed Rural Buffer became nonconforming as a result of the application and was destroyed up to 75%, of the floor area, it could be reconstructed and would not need to meet the minimum lot size or minimum width standards. It would have to comply with front, side and rear yard setback requirements as well as the building height requirements. 3. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS_ __1\ a. Section IV-B-1 Lot Standards To clarify the application of lot standards within the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, it is recommended that the following wording for the first sentence in the first paragraph of Section IV-B,1 read as follows: "The minimum lot size shall -be as required by the Orange County Land Use Plan, Orange County Zoning Ordinance or the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance, whichever is applicable. " Collins noted for the record the receipt of several letters. Those writing in support of the 2 acre minimum lot size are Mr_ William P:ead, Mr. Dale Hammond, and R. R. McGregor Converse. Those writing in : opposition of the 2 acre minimum lot size are Mazie Cradle, Surtronics, Inc. , and Mrs. Edna C. Harville. 0 73 PAGE 18 DRAFT PBM 12-17-86 DRAFT VOTE: 9_ in favor. 3 opposed (Yuhasz. Best. Jacobs) . AGENDA ITEM #7c: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENT (SECTION IV-B-1 LOT STANDARDS) Presentation by Marvin Collins. This agenda item is to consider approval of proposed, revisions to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. This matter was presented at public hearing on November 24. 1986 . On October 13. 1986 . the Board of Commissioners adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. including a minimum required lot size of two acres per dwelling unit. References within the Subdivision Regulations indicate that new subdivision plats submitted for approval must comply with the two-acre standard contained in the Land Use Plan. While such references exist, a direct statement to that effect is needed. Furthermore. Orange County's Subdivi- sion Regulations are enforced in the Town of Hillsborough and specific language is needed to indicate that lot areas for subdivisions within the Hillsborough planning jurisdiction must meet the stnadards set forth in the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance. The proposed ordinance amendment recommends the following wording for the first sentence in the first paragraph of Section IV-B--1. "The minimum lot size shall be as required by the Orange County Land Use Plan. Orange County Zoning Ordinance or the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance. whichever is applica- ble. " Approval of the amendment would clarify the application of lot size standards as contained in the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. No comments were made at the November 24 . 1986 public hearing concerning the proposed amendment. The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations. MOTION: Pilkey moved approval. Seconded by Best. VOTE: 8 in favor. 4 opposed (Walters. Lewis. Shanklin. Yuhasz) . Shanklin expressed concern with the wording "whichever" 074 DRAFT PBM 12-17-86 PAGE 19 and felt it should not be included in any ordinance since it allows for each individual' s interpretation. Jacobs reminded the Board of the long-range meeting scheduled for January 13. 1987. Meeting Adjourned 10:30 P.M. amp - O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 075 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date January 5s 1987 Actio enda Item SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT (ARTICLE 6 .16 .12 - TELEPHONE EXCHANGES. ETC.) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment (s) Information Contact: Marvin Collins Proposed Text Amendment; 11-24-86 Public Hearing Minutes; OWASA Letter of 11-14-86 ; 12-15-86 Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough -- 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider for approval a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment which would establish a minimum lot size require- ment for telephone exchange facilities (without offices) . subscriber loop huts. pressure regulator stations. water and sewer pump stations in all zoning districts. To receive the Planning Board' s recommendation. This item was considered at public hearing on November 24. 1986 . NEED: On October 31. 1986. the OWASA Board of Directors approved the development of a water sale and transfer agreement be- tween OWASA and the Town of Hillsborough and authorized immediate action to develop the capability to pump water to the Hillsborough system. Of critical importance is the acquisition of a suitable parcel of land in the Calvander area. The Orange County Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 40.000 square feet in areas east of Old NC 86, while the Land Use Plan requires a minimum lot size of two acres west of the thoroughfare. OWASA has indicated a site of 10.000 square feet is sufficient for the pump station. Mebane Home Telephone wishes to acquire property in the vicinity of Mebane Oaks Road to install a telephone exchange (without offices) . 076 Representatives of the company have indicated that 5,000 square feet is sufficient to serve their needs. IMPACT: Article 4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance permits telephone ex- changes and similar facilities as a matter of right in all zoning districts. Such uses. however, must comply with the provisions of ARticle 6 .16.12 which contains standards for building size and design, landscaping and screening. The proposed amendment would add a new subsection d) which would establish a minimum required lot area of 10.000 square feet or the lot area required by the zoning district in which the use is located, whichever is less. At the public hearing. the Planning Department recommended approval of the proposed amendment. Although OWASA supported the proposal, it also recommended that considera- tion be given to the following: 1. Allowing such facilities on lots of 5.000 square feet or more. (This is consistent with the Mebane Home Telephone Company request. ) 2. Increasing the current building area limitation from 200 to 400 square feet. 3. Changing the lot width from that required in the zoning district in which located to a uniform 75 feet. 4. Changing the front yard setback requirement from that required in the zoning district in which located to a uniform 30 feet. Item #1 may be considered for approval by the Board of Commissioners. Items #2--44 were not part of the advertised amendment and would require scheduling for public hearing in February to be considered for change. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends that a uniform lot area requirement of 5,000 square feet be approved in that both utility companies recommended this standard. A minimum standard of 5.000 square feet would permit utility companies flexibility in negotiations with property owners while allowing them to secure larger sites to meet the needs for particular facilities. The utility companies would still be required to comply with existing design standards governing setbacks. outside storage areas. lighting. parking and screening. OWASA' s concerns regarding lot width. building area and front yard setback have been referred to the Ordinance Review Committee for study. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 077 - ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance • REFERENCE: Article 6 .16 .12 Application of - Dimensional Requirements (Telephone exchanges. subscriber loop huts, pressure regulator stations. water and sanitary sewer pumping stations in all zoning districts) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X__Staff`Planning Board BOCC_Publis Other: OWASA/Mebane Home Telephone request STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION:xHigh_iiddlow - Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 24. 1986 - • *********************************************** PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To revise Article 6.16.12 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit utility companies to locate telephone exchanges (without business offices) , subscriber loop huts, regulator stations. and water and sanitary sewer pumping stations in all zoning districts on lots of 10.000 square feet or the minimum required lot area of the district in which the facility, is located. whichever is less. IMPACTS/ISSUES: On October 31. 1986. the OWASA Board of - Directors approved the development - of a water sale and transfer agreement between OWASA and the Town of Hillsborough and authorized immediate action to develop the capability to pump water to the Hillsborough system. Of - critical importance is the acquisition of a suitable parcel of land in the Calvander area for a pump station. (See attached OWASA letter of 11-3-86. ) The Orange County Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 40,000 square feet of land east of N.C. 86 And two acres west of N.C. 86 (IPA Land Use Plan standard) . OWASA has indicated a . site of 10,000 square feet is sufficient for the pump station. Mebane Home Telephone wishes to acquire property .. in the vicinity of Mebane Oaks Road in Cheeks Township to install a telephone exchange (without business office) . Representatives of the company have indicated that 5 ,000 square feet is sufficient to serve their needs. OWASA has requested that Orange County waive its • lot area standards to permit the installation of the pump station. This cannot be done. and two alternatives are available_ First. a. lot area 078 variance can be sought from the Board of Adjustment. Second. the Zoning Ordinance can be amended to recognize the specific needs of utility companies. Both companies can apply to the Board of Adjustment. but there will be no long-term solution to the problem. • Article 4.1 permits telephone exchanges (without business offices) . subscriber loop huts, pressure regulator stations, and water and sanitary sewer pumping stations as a matter of - right within all zoning districts. Such uses. however, must comply with the design standards. contained in Article 6 .16.12 governing building size. building .design. and landscaping and screening. The proposed amendment would add a - new subsection d) to Article 6.16.12 to establish a minimum required lot area of 10,000 square feet or the lot area required by the zoning district in which the use is located, whichever is less. _ EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Attached PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Attached ***************************************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: - . • • EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: • 6 .16 .12 - - . . . . - . . , . _ - - n.. arTIAMOt. sa cr.j bat 10013 hu,s, asst reguiatoE. -_n iQn � • The following restrictions shall be applied to' the: above ! - uses in all zoning districts: • a) The design of structures shall conform as closely • as; possble to the character of the area in which- it • . located. - - • .. � the b) Buildings or structures shall _conform to tinimum • • building setback distances for the applicable zoning! - district and shall not exceed 200 square_ feet. in area. . . • ' c) All 'buildings and structures . shall be . landscaped*, ' and - screened according to the standards -that follow: - • 1 . Buildings and structures which resemble •Fesidential • accessory structures must be landscaped .and maintained in the character' of a residential area. - 2. Any outside storage areas must be_ fenced with a_ minimum. . 5 foot fence and the area screened from - ad3aeenf.. • property according to the standards inn this section._ 3. Lighting in and around these facilities - shall be constructed and shielded so as not. to shine -directly on • adjoining property used for or toned _ residential - purposes. Electrical and telephone - _service -.to the structure - shall be placed underground. .Types of • lighting to be considered shall include,but not _ be limited to, indoor lights when visible through windows; . outdoor lighting , automobile headlights - and slgn4.. • Devices to shield lighting may include shades, fences., - shrubs, trees and natural conditions. • - _ - - - 4. Parking areas and driveways used in connection with facilities constructed pursuant to this Section. 5.16-.12 - . shall either be surfaced or -shall be looated: and •maintained in a conditions so that- dust- and -dirt -will - ' not settle on adjoining properties as a result of their - . use. Driveway entrances. shall be located in a manner that will create a few additional traffic hazards as possible. 5. Buildings , structures , equipment or material shall.._be screened by either a durable masonry wall , or a - fencer . or by natural planting, designed to be compatible _with the character of adjoining properties, in order to . materially screen the uses within the subject property - from the view of adjacent properties. Walls and fences shall be at least 5 feet in height , but need -not be greater than 7 feet in height , measured from- the ground along the common lot line of adjoinig. properties. Walls. • • • • 080 and fences shall be constructed and maintained In safe • • and sound condition. Where natural -planting is used es screening, a strip of land at least 10 feet in width shall be reserved for this purpose. This planting strip shall be composed of anarrangement of -shrubs and trees. The shrubs shall be evergreen and shall be arrange-d in 2 rows as minimum and planted at an initial height of at - _ least . ' 3 feet* with distance between shrubs being not more than 5. feet. The. shrubs shall be of such variety _ that an average height of at -least 6 feet could - be 'expected as normal growth within no more than 2 years ' from the time of planting. .Trees* which nay be eight _ evergreen or deciduous, shall- augment the arrangement of ; • shrubs so that there will . be - a screening effect or = opacity to materially screen the use within the subject property from the view of adjacent properties. - _ - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS _ _ -- - • Add to Article 6. 16-. 12, subsection d) as follows; - • • d) The minimum required lot area for such uses shall be 10,000 square. feet or the minimum required by the zoning district in which the use_is located, - - • whichever is less. - • • • • • ARTICLE 4 . ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMITTED USE TART-R AND SCHEDULE - 4. 1 Establishment of Use Regulations _ Except as otherwise provided herein, regulations governing the use of land and structures are hereby established as shown in the Schedule of Permitted Uses. Uses not expressly permitted are prohibited. - *within all districts there are certain uses that are permitted as a matter of right.. The uses are : _ _ . 1. Above ground and buried utility lines for local - distribution of electricity, 'telephone, and cable -- - *Mended , - television service, accessory and apartment apparatus - - 1 n -such as poles , guy wires , transformers and switching boxes. • • 2. Bona: fide -farms. . 3. Buildings and 'other temporary structures -used in connection with the construction of a permanent - - . building. • - - ✓ 4. 'Neighborhood utility facilities- located within a _ public right of way with the permission of the --- .owner of the right of way (State , City or Town) . 5. Off street parking as a required accessory use to - a permitted use . • 6 . Public and private streets and roads_ Railroad - ',rights of way. _ 7. Water and sanitary sewer lines , - gas and liquid _ fuel distribution lines. - . Telephone exchanges (without business offices) , - - -subscriber loop huts , pressure regulator stations , water and sanitary sewer pumping stations. (See *Amended Section 6 . 16 . 12. - �_q-82 Uses requiring special permits must meet certain conditions specified in this ordinance. Only after the existence of - these specified conditions has been determined by the Board of Adjustment , or the Board of Commissioners , as_ appropriate, will a special permit be issued; otherwise such uses are prohibited uses. - • 4-1 - • Orange Water and Sewer Authority 406 Jones Ferry Road I OWASA I P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 . (919) 9684421 082 November 3, 3.986 • HAND DELIVERED - = - Dr. Donald Willhoit • " Chairman _ - Orange County Board of Commissioners - 101 E.. Orange Street P.O. Box 429 - - Hillsborough, C 27278 - - . Dear Dr. Willhoit:On October 31, 1986 the Board of Directors of Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) approved the development of a water sale and transfer agreement between OWASA and the Town of Hillsborough and also authorized. . me to take immediate action necessary to develop the capability to pumps water to the Town's system. %ASA staff is proceeding expeditiously to complete those tasks necessary to begin the transfer of finished_ water to - - the Town. Enclosed is a staff report describing the improvements which are necessary for this purpose and the B oard of Director's resolution concerning this matter. Of critical importance is the acquisition of a suitable parcel of land for the pump station. Pump station construction and startup cannot proceed until a suitable site is obtained. OWASA staff has contacted several individuals which own land in the general area in which the pub station would need to be located. That area is shown on the enclosed project location map. Although those property owners are cone reed about the growl of Hillsborough's emergency water supply needs, they either do not want to sell at all or do not want to sell OWASA the amount of land which is needed to meet applicable minimum lot size provisions of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. _ - A site of 10,000 square feet or more would be sufficient for this project. However, it is OWASA's understanding that the Zoning Ordinance provides that land located on the east side of Old NC 86 cannot be subdivided in parcels less than 40,000 square feet in size and land on the- west side of Old NC 86, which is in the University Lake watershed, cannot be subdivided in parcels less than 80,000 square feet in size, without either rezoning by the Board of Commissioners or approval of a variance- 11r the Board of Adjustment. • An Equal Opportunity Employer .. .. .-< - -- - -.. -. ... =rr Dr. Donald Willhoit November 3, 1986 Page Two In light of the Town's emergency water -supply needs, Orange County is hereby requested to take whatever action is necessary to immediately grant OWASA a variance from the minimum lot size provisions of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The requested variance would be solely for the purpose of acquiring the land parcel needed for completion of tImptccosed water pumping station which would provide emergency assistance for the Town of Hillsborough. A water pumping station is a permitted use in the general project site. OWASA staff will notify the County when an agreement has been reached with a landowner for the purchase of a suitable pump station site. Thank you very much for your assistance in this effort. Please do not hesitate to contact Ire if you have any questions concerning this requea. Very y yotrrs, Everett Billingsley Executive Director wp Enclosures cc: Edward N. Mann, Jr., Chairman, Board of Directors Kenneth Thompson, County Manager, Orange County # - Marvin Collins, Planning Director, Orange County - James Porto, Mayor, Town of Carrboro James Wallace, Mayor, Town of Chapel Hill _ 0 •r • LAKE HIGH f ftiy;: � ry/�` �/ FARM �R c w rl �� DA I R 1 L ♦~��1� FARM �:;fr'r' rrr,:;'r, �G 6 .1771 GENERAL PROJECT SITE 0� Ci FOR PROPOSED B00$TER � � �i �::�:•: ti. . ' PUMP STATION IV(3n' der � 0 AN NAi Ire W'PDO ........... Ica, 'I;r1•,,r, •,•I,•IGr 1�:{''•1`:i .;1;r ,•;+;';';':•:;:':•I'''i:'d:'.�•j OwD TERR OR.2011 LANE VIEW O CV '.�•%':{%''rr'i��'`''f''�r{'i r'Frr':::••'.{.er r r;,:::'�' :i:,,. .,.Yr�,':.:::: C. :r,•;�'�1ryr'' rr;r:;.r:;a:;:; �!!�F',tiv!I;� r,.:v.r'. 1 v _{' �:%?•{;:?r:?::v:; ..,�:jyr#:r �•'�: �L;•;}{•:� �e!':;.�,�'� '•'rr:: .. �Q FI �;�;:,}{.;'•�.�'. .fir:., {:}};;r{� '•:':•;:;� /;�.;;,•::� �►,:�;;;4•:%: .;,, •.�': �••,r: , L:•.;.,, ,•.'.:•::.; :�'a.:L':"�:i::'1::'�:•:::. :.•LY Yn . :ti r,+a{':v.•'• .�;:,rr..;: r rry',•: ''r}'%'•'�: ,rr;:rr•:;�;,�;;;:;:'� '{r:.r' '� .'{:;, :,r.,r{,.r, ,•rr,L';,: ,r;y'.;.•'':,+"�'r, ':ti.'r.L'�,��,�,,�.,,,., '+{':'i'i'.:'i'r.',� '::: ',;'•ti�'''• t,•J'''rh',i; � ,:•:'L:;:,'frr{':':• ''S:, L' r'r'f•S'�' •;.� :�.;.;.1...,,..� :rti ,.4. r r r ''�r'�rigrr• ',•r.r;rrr. ;,• r,,rr;{+r,.,,•'i,',, :,.,r;r rr�;r,r '�r,e :;,.:,�� ;;:;•:• L '�1 ::J.. rYi'.+r'{r{�,r,rri�i4'* '.Y.,, r, +L�. ,{ri r , .'''' ' .L��',,fi�'•'•,r� 1, `1:1, r, �Rrr��r�,�.;,.;,r, r'r' r ri i. L r, :�i r i r; �.r;:i., 'r'i'''i+•' .hr,�r,,. .I'11► r.,,•,r} '�,{;: ,+.,i.r:d:{.'r'} r'rr,':, ,r,r,r i�,,r, �;r r,y r'i:: ,,+�'i: 6 ,�7r �. 777111 1 � +'fir +r: , •�' r':•': rr r,"}r :,��:.. ,�'.� •• !.iqr ///���� ,,ti. ,i;r�4'i•:•r'i, ,,�,yi, '':i},i Lr,,r,LL,4,r r,:'-;•+Y,, ,• ri'•'•' r'•:';'•,. ' ,i'.,, ,;•: __ \1111 -f� ;l;T, ;.;::•'. ''T�:'. ti:'r.; ..S,:;:.h�aM.:�'i;�L'�i�':Yr:�. ::':'f::::';, r,,; i};'i'''''. ' ,':;ti r'Lr�'Y�. '''i. ':i:�;i:i;:�'y'i Y,:... .'.'i',,• 'rr,'.i:•.'.:,:'•,: I1- 24- 36 PiJ t41NoTE5 ;} • 9 was to maintain the rural character of the area. He noted that the interest of those homeowners in the Calavander area was in not seeing high density housing in the rural area. Another concern was that water and sewer not be extended out into the rural area because high density would follow. He suggested that one way to address these concerns would be to keep the one acre minimum lot size but to cluster developments so that open space would be provided and dedicate this open space to protect it from ever being developed. This would satisfy those concerns expressed by those in attendance and those needs for affordable housing. This density would make it economically feasible to run sewer and water and provide other necessary services. 32 . LARRY REID spoke in opposition to the proposal. 33 . ANN JOYNER, Cedar Grove Township, spoke on behalf of Dolly Hunter. She expressed concern that this regulation will cause developers to leapfrog and come out into the rural agricultural section of the County. 34. BOBBY GRIFFITH spoke in opposition to the two acre minimum lot size. He indicated he will have to pay double for the amount of land he will need in order to build a house. 35. MERRILL FISHER spoke in opposition of the proposal. 36. ROY STRAND stated that sewer should be extended as far as possible and the property to the west and north developed. 37 . HENRY WELLS stated that water and sewer should be extended through the entire County wherever feasible. 38. CHARLES HIGH spoke in opposition to the two acre minimum lot size. He asked about the setbacks and Marvin Collins reiterated the dimensions. 39. DIANE RIGSBEE indicated she had been since June trying to get her plan approved by the Planning Staff. She has paid out $600 for a survey and would like to be able to move her trailer to her land. She felt it the responsibility of the Planning Staff to inform her of any changes that may affect her request. 40. WADE PARRISH spoke in opposition of everything proposed. 41. J. C. MCLAMB, resident of New Hope, stated it was not the place of any body of government to tell people what they can do with their land. 42 . JOSEPHINE BYRD spoke regarding some land that was sold to pay the taxes. 43 . HENRY WHITFIELD questioned why this proposal had to be returned to the Planning Board and why a decision could not be made tonight. Chair Wilihoit explained the procedure in accordance with the Ordinance. Whitfield asked if a petition would be in order to request that the two acre lot requirement be dropped and asked that Collins draw up the petition for those in attendance to sign. 1-4 ) E_. ARTICLE 6 - Application of Dimensional Requirements (6. 16. 12) Telephone Exchanges, et. al. Collins presented for the receipt of public comment a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment which would establish a minimum lot size r 086 10 /requirement for telephone exchange facilities (without offices) , subscriber loop huts, pressure regulator stations, water and sewer pump stations in all zoning districts. OWASA and the Town of Hillsborough reached an agreement to develop the capability to pump water to the Hillsborough system. OWASA has indicated a site of 10, 000 square feet is sufficient for the pump station. Also Mebane Home Telephone wishes to acquire property in the vicinity of Mebane Oaks Road to install a telephone exchange (without offices) and have indicated that 5,000 square feet is sufficient to serve their needs. Collins acknowledged receipt of a letter from OWASA in which they express their support for this amendment. WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer all of the public hearing items presented to the Planning Board for a recommendation and continue the public hearing until January 5, 1986 for receipt of the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on Monday, December 1, 1986 at 7:30 in the Board of Commissioners Room, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Orange Water and Sewer Authority 087 406 Jones Ferry Road rOWASA I P.Q. Box 366 . Carrboro, NC 27510- (919) 968-4421. November 24, 1986 HAND-DELIVERED . Mr. Kenneth Thompson County Manager Orange County D E CE I Ur' 101 E. Orange Street ll- I -gb Hillsborough, NG 27278 Dear Mr. Thompson: Orange Water and. Sewer Authority (OWASA) staff has reviewed the proposed amendment to Article 6.16.12 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The following comments and recoinendations concerning that proposal are offered for consideration by. the Orange County Board of Commdssioners. • The present ordinance provisions restrict the construction of water and wastewater utility facilities which may be immediately needed to protect the public health, safety and welfare. In fact, the requirement that such public utility sites comply with the minimum lot size requirements applicable to the zone in which the facility is constructed has delayed the process of acquiring a suitable site necessary for the construction of a booster pumping station required to transfer water to the Town of Hillsborough. . The proposed amendment will_allow more timely and economical development of these important public facilities. Therefore, MASA supports the proposal to revise the Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of water and wastewater pumping stations on parcels of land 10,000 square feet or more. Consideration should be given to allowing these facilities on 5,000 square feet or more. ( QASA also requests that the ordinance be revised to change: (1) the current maximum building area limitation for such pumping stations from 200 square feet to 400 square feet; (2) the - applicable lot width to 75 feet; and (3) the applicable front setback to 30 feet. Orange County's consideration of the above comments and recommendations is appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact Patrick Davis if you have any questions concerning this matter. ly yours, / ,/ • Everett Billingsley Executive Director wp Enclosures cc: Edward N. Mann, Jr., Chairman, Board of Directors Marvin Collins, Planning Director, Orange County An Equal Opportunity Employer. i rkF DRAFT PBM 12-17-86 PAGE 16 extension of water and sewer than just the rate of 088 failure of septic systems. - Jacobs noted that he is in favor of the Rural Buffer concept, but he expressed difficulty in recommending that standards be adopted that relate to an area where residents feel they have not adequately been involved in the decision-making process. MOTION: Jacobs moved to defer the Rural Buffer amendments to a, unJ public hearing on' March 10. 1987. Seconded by Pilkey. Ben Lloyd asked if this would be placing a moratori until the March 10 public hearing. Yuhasz responded that with no action being taken on the two-acre lot size standard. the only enforcement action would be that new subdivision applications for the Rural Buffer area would be required to meet the two acre minimum lot size standard. VOTE: , ' ' Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #7a (4) : PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AGENT (ARTICLE 6.16.12 - TELEPHONE EXCHANGES. ETC.) Presentation by Marvin Collins. This agenda item is to consider for approval a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment which would establish a minimum lot size requirement for telephone exchange facilities (without offices) . subscriber loop huts. pressure regulator stations. water and sewer pump stations in all zoning districts. This item was considered at public hearing on November 24r 1986.. On October 31. 1986. the OWASA Board of Directors approved the development of a water sale and transfer agreement between OWASA and the Town of Hillsborough and authorized immediate action to develop the capability to pump water to the Hillsborough system. Of critical importance is the acquisition of a suitable parcel of land in the Calvander area. The Orange County__Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 401000 square feet in areas east of Old NC 86. while the Land Use Plan requires a minimum lot size of two acres west of the thoroughfare. OWASA has indicated a site of 10,000 square feet is sufficient for the pump station. Mebane Home Telephone wishes to acquire property in the vicinity of Mebane Oaks Road to install a telephone 089 DRAFT PBM 12-17-86 PAGE 17 exchange (without offices) . Representative of the company have indicated that 5,000 square feet is sufficient to serve their needs. Article 4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance permits telephone exchanges and similar facilities as a matter of right in all zoning districts. Such uses. however, must comply with the provisions of Article 6.16.12 which contains standards for building size and design. landscaping and screening. The proposed amendment would add a new subsection d) which would establish a minimum required lot area of 10.000 square feet or the lot area required) by the zoning district in which the use is located. whichever is less. At the public hearing. the Planning Department recommend- ed approval of the proposed amendment: Although OWASA supported the proposal, it also recommended that consid- eration be given to the following: 1. Allowing such facilities on lots of 5.000 square feet or more. 2. Increasing the current building area limitation from 200 to 400 square feet. 3. Changing the lot width from that required in the zoning district in which located to a uniform 75 feet. 4. Changing the front yard setback requirement from that required in the zoning district in which located to a uniform 30 feet. Item #1 may be considered for recommendation by the Planning Board. Items #2-#4 were not part of the advertised amendment and would require scheduling for public hearing to be considered for change. The Planning Department amends its initial recommendation to set a uniform lot area requirement of 5.000 square feet in that both utility companies recommended this standard. A minimum standard of 5.000 square feet would permit utility companies flexibility in negotiations with property owners while allowing them to secure larger sites to meet the needs for particular facilities. The utility companies would still be required to comply with existing design standards governing setbacks, outside storage areas. lighting, parking and screening. A further recommendation is that OWASA's concerns regarding lot width, building area and front yard setback be referred to the Ordinance Review Committee for study. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval to change 6.16.12 to read 5.000 square feet. Seconded by Walters [214- DRAFT PBM 12-17-86 PAGE 18 VOTE: 9 in favor. 090 3 opposed (Yuhasz, Best, Jacobs) . . AGENDA ITEM #7c: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENT (SECTION IV-B-1 LOT STANDARDS) • Presentation by Marvin Collins. This agenda item' is to consider approval of propose revisions to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. This matter was presented at public hearing on November 24. 1986. On October 13. 1986, the Board of Commissioners adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, including a minimum required lot size of two acres per dwelling unit. References within the Subdivision Regulations indicate that new subdivision plats submitted for approval must comply with the two-acre standard contained in the Land Use Plan. While such references exist. a direct statement to that effect is needed. Furthermore. Orange County's Subdivi- sion Regulations are enforced in the Town of Hillsborough and specific language is needed to indicate that lot areas for subdivisions within the Hillsborough planning jurisdiction must meet the stnadards set forth in the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance. The proposed ordinance amendment recommends the following wording for the first sentence in the first paragraph of Section IV-B-1. "The minimum lot size shall be as required by the Orange County Land Use Plan. Orange County Zoning Ordinance or the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance, whichever is applica- ble. " Approval of the amendment would clarify the application of lot size standards as contained in the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. No comments were made at the November 24. 1986 public hearing concerning the proposed amendment. The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations. MOTION: Pilkey moved approval. Seconded by Best. VOTE: 8 in favor. 4 opposed (Walters. Lewis. Shanklin. Yuhasz) . Shanklin expressed concern with the wording *whichever" O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 091 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date January 5/ 1987 Action anda Item Atb SUBJECT: WALKER'S LANDING II - PRELIMINARY DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _ No Attachment(s) Information Contact:- Eddie Kirk Checklist Vicinity Map - Agency Comments - Preliminary Plan 12-15-86 Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough -- 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for. Walker's Landing II. To receive the Planning Board' s recommendation. NEED: This property is located in Cedar Grove Township on SR 1383 (Eno Cemetery Road) . It is referenced as Lot 11 on Tax Map 38. The owner (Vera Walker) is proposing 9 lots out of a 24.53 acre tract. The average lot size is 2.3 acres. The tract is designated as Agricultural Residential and Water Supply Watershed on the Land Use Plan. It is located in the Upper Eno Watershed. The tract is not zoned and is proposed to be served by a Class "B" private road (Harold' s North Field Road) . Fire protection for the property is provided by the Orange Rural Fire District. IMPACT: Development of this-subdivision would create 9 new lots with access to Eno Cemetery Road. This would generate approxi- mately 85 trips per day. In 1984 Eno Cemetery Road had an average daily traffic count of 90. There are no streams on the property, however, lots 4 and 5 back up to Lake Orange property. RECOMMENDATION: The County Attorney has informed the Planning Staff that the property below the 620 elevation must be shown as owned by Lake Orange Inc. and property lines must stop at this eleva- tioi3. a The Planning Board recommends approval subject to the 09,E following condition: - (1) All property lines below the 620 elevation must be removed and the property be designated as Lake Orange Inc. PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ( INK ONLY) 093 14/85 APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL ORANGE COUNTY DATE: • / SUBDIVISION NAME: Walker's Landing II . r • LOCATION : Eno Cemertary Road and Lakeview Drive OWNER/DEVELOPER: Vera Walker ADDRESS: Route .Box /83 TELEPHONE NO. : . . Cedar Grove, N.C. AGENT/CONTACT: _ Alois Callemvn/ Vance Spinks TELEPHONE NO. : 7323883 • 104 N. Churton Street - Hillsborough, N.C. •` . A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tax Map 38 , Block 0 Lots) 11 Township 2 Zoning District(s) : Cpdar Grove • Total Number of Acres : 74- 993 Phases: • I Total Number of Lots: __9__ Average Lot Size: , 2. 3 Minimum Lot Size 43, 560° - Number/Type of Structures: (existing) (proposed) Single Famil Lineal Feet in Streets: Acres in Open Space Water Supply: Public(specify) Community raMaIndividua I. . Wastewater Disposal: Pub Li c(speci fyl Community X,Indi Sri due l School District: ( ccar (;rave Fire District: Cedar Grove General Land Uses in Area: Rragj dtcnti al/. Aguric Critical Areas: stream/drainageways XXX flood prone areas • watershed(specify) historic sites other(explain) S. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smeller than one inch squats two-- hundred feet • (1 "=200 ' ) and no Larger than one inch equals fifty feat (1 "=S0' ) and must contain the following information: ��� M subdtviolon nags _ x- '•seg saws of owner(!] n building setback limas by notation or typical lot :heck items X_ $::.:f news of surveyor, enginawr or :. layout IP�o(n leted Land planner • h existing and proposed aesa- p ) � w,,•r (title] Preliminary Plan 3.. (draiwags, utilities. 2;._ +'• scale. north arrow (North at rdeda, ate.) X .•%`` top of map] ▪ _. existing, proposed mad -K dots (including revision detail , •hr adjoining rights-of-way ,Y,,,.. - . township, tax sap-bLepk-tot ..:: including dlsansigns end references street newsy and state road X.� �J • boundary described with "•`• nuwb•rs }f 1•R bearings and distances nLa�:i n suiting and proposed y,._ A. y; total acreage of the tract : utilities. including ;,nyy sad 'orange of Lets. including : type, suss, and excluding area within i �r? hydrants. valves and ri hte-of-we ��r •+:; g y �:�:?•• ranhd lea l ... control corner „„ _��� existing and proposed culvert K,. proposed Lot lines with ++>`-agm including sizes:j;•.• g zee cad grades >7 disansiona x , typical 'trust cross-sections . X... Lot numbers end intsresction details .,[a>: phasing line■ - A-• including design and width ii topography at tan foot -(1o"r•--------;>`•':•+:;: of travitway eau shoulders• S 1 le .X. : horizontal alignment and water bodies. atraaws, flood- general terve data tpwbltc ▪ `r}••r- ray and floddplein■ �., /`••r.�, roads] ::44::'r stress buffers end notation tea/ per t features such as WO:; indicating restricted ~••�•''• buildings. cemeteries. dsvelopeent potential ` historic Landaorkm, township, corporate and eXtre- X adjoining • pm territorial planning Lon Layout p g dame• of adjoining proper[ M* juriadietion line■ which a and subdivisions y '••,ry:: cross the property n,/a location and wiz. of parcels dedicated for public was or rssarvad Hiii in location and size of lots of restricted devoidpoment potential and •J,,• #�i:" notation on plat regarding sere a. ; storauster ■snag t plsn indicating provision for Control of the first 1/2 Inch of ff from Impervious eurfeces (GRAY AREAS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) _ • Q94 • C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: 1 . Twenty—six (26) copies of the preliminary plat 2. Two full size copies of an Orange County Tax map (one copy with tax parcels involved clearly marked) . 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a tatter from the Orange g County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system far each Lot. I , the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. I understand that a $210.00 fee (subdivisions of 15 Lots or Less) or a $370.00 fee (subdivisions of 16 Lots or sore) is due at the time of application . A $5.00 per Lot fee is due at the time the final plat is presented for recordation . 4111, IP /, , "41. ..?PLICANT'S S1TURE OWNER 'S SIGNATURE DATE - FEES: Amount '�,Z/O, Date Paid Cd-�# C_ Receipt 4141/.2. 095 11/85 WALKER'S LANDING II ORANGE COUNTY CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS - PRELIM.IjsIARY PLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Eddie Kirk SKETCH PLAN: Received 9-�5-86 Reviewed 10-1-56 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 10-24-86 Reviewed 10-29-$6 _{ REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 11-18-$6 Reviewed - 11-19-86 NCDOT: DATE 12-8-86 CERTIFICATION Jae Haynes - SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill-Carrboro) : DATE 12-5-86 CERTIFICATION N/A UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE t0-28-86 Certification Health Department OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council 11-21-86 , , (Date) Carrboro Fire Department _ (Date) Chapel Hill (Date) Carrboro _ (Date) Hillsborough _(Date) Durham _ . (Date) Other (Date) (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date 12-15-86 Approval Approval with Condition X Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial 0 S .40 / 09b °► ► • / I I WALKERS LANDING E ► ► Applicant: VERA WALKER 1 ► Zoning : Not Zoned .,f 1 in 1I (' -co LUP Designation: Agri. Residential, ► ► Water Supply Watershed _ ` I . Scale: l": 400' t -I I ;- II , - oII . v ► I Iti : l; �z�.<t r e8a, K LA • 6Er N 6. CON r,.. 1 ► ` •397.04 : CI I ?i O 6 CO•Y BF ✓NSS p To -. ne,E ,ic. • ► • -1943 ' 1 HCRFa INC Ed I �Z s3 1 r' I • 2a3s4 :_. jk,067 vi 4 0. • 846 ■ FU i I- I lE a g h �Y 256.6 6 °�Zi29"6":31,--4,/ 330� � s, ► i„ 1530 c 466.3 2D 'q, \ : 1 ` X9.6 I IF s o "017- : 4. 01 / ► ENO PRES. 625.81 Cki1RCN I o19w 30•� 42sit\ , a (CEl TERM) ` V b .2051 a.1 i ! r -2227 s v 3.3 LAC.CA!- SEE YI 0- any, , s. Qp38A 34z 23 o- 14 ,4:61.zs4 7 „ / �` 062 WA L Obv _22 , 1 1 L AMO!/b'fi . �.., i/-- :r $ 's LAKE OR.i.YGE MAP 45-5 -4015 47.9.16 `. / 0 (6 9r;.'` 0879 , • /0 15657AC . ,. 358.5 23.", `'F SEE `'5 �© /.a O '._ ' MAP 45-5 F.• �33o> ". �`'.0 1 -—5G P/0 f56.57AG_ 7, ..... , , 5255-0 27 --' ? 332 I • 1Tg S A4 ii / _ . 1 f. /. •M TC /L1 .. X40— lazas MATCF! LINE �RRgTCH SEE 45 _ 5 - URAFT DRAFT PBM 12-17-86 09'r PAGE 7 The Planning Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Mel-Oak Estates Phase - 4. All requirements. including payment of payment-in-lieu and posting a letter of credit for improvements have been met. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval. Seconded by Walters. VOTE: Unanimous. d. Walker' s Landing II - Preliminary Presentation by Kirk. This agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Walker's Landing II. The property is located in Cedar Grove Township on SR 1383 (Eno Cemetery Road) . It is referenced as Lot 11 on Tax Map 38. The owner . (Vera Walker) is proposing nine lots out of a 24.53 acre tract. The -average lot size is 2.3 acres. The tract is designated as Agricultural Residential and Water Supply Watershed in the Land Use Plan. It is located in the Upper Eno Watershed. The tract is not zoned and is proposed to be served by a Class "B" private road (Harold's ]forth Field Road) . • Fire protection for the property is provided by the Orange Rural Fire District. Development of this subdivision would create nine new lots with access to Eno Cemetery Road. This would generate approximately 85 trips per day. In 1984. Eno Cemetery Road had an average daily traffic count of 90 trips per day. There are no streams on the property. however. lots 4 and 5 back up to Lake Orange property. • The County Attorney has informed the Planning Staff that the property below the 620 foot elevation must be shown as owned by Lake Orange Inc. and property lines must stop at this elevation. - The Planning Staff recommends approval subject to the following condition: (1) All property lines below the 620 foot elevation must be . removed and the property be designated as Lake Orange- Inc. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval. Seconded by Lewis. Pilkey noted misspellings on the plat which need to be corrected by the surveyor. Walters inquired what the expected water level would be after the raising of the dam. Shanklin responded that 09SR PAGE 8 DRAFT PBM 12-17--86 according to information at the public bearing the water level would be 616 feet. - VOTE: Unanimous. g. Stacy Heights Section II - Preliminary Plan Presentation by Greg Szymik. • This agenda item is to consider the Preliminary Plan for Stacy Heights Subdivision Section II. property of George Tate. Jr. The property in question is identified_ as Lot 25B Block D of Orange County Tax Map 23 in Chapel Hill Township. It is a 6.787 acre parcel on the east side of Rogers Road (SR 1729) . It is located opposite the intersection of Tallyho Trail with Rogers Road. The property is zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) . It 3s located in the Transition area of the Joint Planning Area Land Use 'Plan. It is designated as Suburban Residential (1-5 units per acre) in the Plan. The proposed subdivision would create seven (7) lots. The lots would each be 0.92 acres in size. An Orange County Class "C" private road (East Tallyho Trail) would provide access to lots 3. 4. 5 and 6. _The Health Department has granted approval on lots 2. 4. 6 and 7. Lots 1. 3 and 5 are regarded as having restricted development potential because of the unsuitability of the subsurface soil for the installa- tion of an on-site soil absorption sewage disposal. facility. A separate document has been drawn up which is to be recorded with the Final Plat. Police protection would be provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. Fire protection would be provided by the New Hope Rural Fire District. The Orange County Recreation and Parks Department has reviewed the proposed subdivision and recommends that a payment-in-lieu of dedication of recreation area be approved to meet subdivision recreation requirements. In accordance with the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement. CYiape _ _`Hill has reviewed the proposed subdivision and has recommended that it be denied. (See attached copy of resolution) . The Town's concerns focused on several key issuesr including access and circulation problems. recreation spacer and the use of industrial wells and septic tanks. specific concerns raised by the Town were not addressed by the applicant. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH 099 NORTH CAROLLNA 27278 • #•`i. d•'•� MEMORANDUM TO: Eddie Kirk, Planner FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Officer SUBJECT: Revised Walker' s Landing II Stormwater Management Plan DATE: December 11, 1986 I have reCeived revisions to this plan that adequately address the concerns expressed in my review of the original plan. )A/Af1/401RA:ik 100 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT laLLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 oat' K fl "I 1.14 COO MEMORANDUM TO: Eddie Kirk, Planner - FROM: Warren Faircioth, Erosion Control Officer SUBJECT: Walker 's Landing II Stormwater Management Plan • DATE: December 1, 1986 Several factors in this subdivision contribute to it meeting the Ordinance requirements: the large lot size, the limited amount of impervious surface, and the Private Road. However, since this property has been used as farm land, there is no permanent vegetation in place to protect the soil, filter runoff from the development, and promote infiltration. The plan must be modified to establish some type of permanent vegetation (grass, trees, etc.) in order for the plan to be acceptable. LaNdlEalkilidA_ 1 ;;;124 4. ±� 101 A'L �� d _il STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -. J"86V OR.N8Vrtin December 8, 1986 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS • James E. Harrington SECRETARY Orange County Mr. Eddie Kirk - Orange County Planning Department 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Subject: Preliminary Plan - Walker's Landing II off SR 1383 Dear Mr. Kirk: The sight distance is adequate for this development. Au approved driveway permit is required. If there are any questions, please advise. Yours very truly, 9er-f 6. Joe B. Haynes Highway Maintenance Engineer JBH:kww ` r 4Jr' 102 '4 . (grangt (fatuity .rrrrtttinn nib parks � ,�•= " 300 West Tryon Street A- o,�r HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27276 Life.Beinit_ Mar; Arne Back, Director MEMMANDUM TO: Eddie Kirk, Planning Department FROM: Mary Anne Black 7)93 DATE: November 21, 1986 - RE: Courtesy Review -- Walker's Landing II Upon review of the preliminary plan for the proposed Walker's Landing II subdivision, I see only one element of the plan warranting convent from a recreation and park perspective; namely, the proximity of the subject property to Lake Orange. Thank you for the opportunity to offer these staff comments. I will present my recommendations to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council at its next scheduled monthly meeting (December.) and will forward to you any changes/additional convents they may lave. MAB/pbl Hillsboroucr. 732-9361 • Durham, 688-7333 • Chapel HIIL 968-4501 • P.4ebarte. 227-2032 Area Code 919 ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 103 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date January 5. 1987 Action Ada Item SUBJECT: STACY HEIGHTS SECTION II - PRELIMINARY PLAN DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact: Application Vicinity Map • Preliminary Plan - Preliminary Plan Certification Agency Comments Chapel Hill Recommendation 12-15-86 Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers' Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider the Preliminary Plan for Stacy Heights Sub- division Section II. property of George Tater Jr. To receive the Planning Board's recommendation. NEED: The property in question is identified as parcel 7.23.D.25B by the Orange County tax mapping system. It is a 6.787 acre parcel on the east side of Rogers Road (SR 1729) . It is located opposite the intersection of Tallyho Trail's inter- section with Rogers Road. The property is zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) . It is located in the Transition area of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. It is located in the Joint Planning Area with Chapel Hill and is designated Suburban Residential (1-5 units per acre) in the JPA Land Use Plan. The proposed subdivision_ would create seven (7) lots. The lots would each be 6.92 acres in size. An Orange County Class "C" private road (East Tallyho Trail) would provide access to lots 3, 41 5. and 6. The Health Department has granted approval on lots 2r 4r 6, and 7. Lots 1. 3. and 5 are regarded as having restricted development potential because of the unsuitability of the subsurface soil for the installation of an on-site soil absorption sewage disposal facility. A separate document. has been drawn up which is to be recorded with the Final Plat. 104 Police protection would be provided by the Orange County Sheriff' s Department, while fire- protection would be provided by the New Hope Rural Fire District. Orange County Recreation and Parks Department has reviewed the proposed subdivision and recommends that a payment-in- lieu of dedication of recreation or open space be approved to meet subdivision recreation requirements. IMPACT: In accordance with the terms of the Joint Planning Agree- ment, Chapel Hill has reviewed the proposed subdivision and has recommended that it be denied. (See attached reso- lution) . The Town' s concerns focused on several key issues, including access and circulation problems, recreation space and the use of individual wells and septic tanks. Specific concerns raised by the Town were not addressed by the applicant. - Orange County Staff review of the proposed subdivision noted the following: (1) The tax map reference is incorrect. It should be changed to 7.23.D.25B. (2) Although the property is in the Transition area, public sewer is not available. The nearest sewer is at Chapel Hill High School approximately 3500 feet to the south. Public water is also not available. It is approximately 2500 feet to the southeast. Since both water and sewer are expected to be available in the future, easements for their installation should be included on the plan. (3) A payment-in-lieu of dedication of recreation and/or open space be approved per Recreation Department recommendation. This payment should be in the amount of $1,544. (4) A Class "C" private road should be indicated on the typical cross-section. (5) A recorded 10 'x70 ' sight triangle be provided and shown on the plan at the intersection of Rogers Road and East Tallyho Trail per NCDOT comment. (6) Lots 1 and 2 be restricted to a "shared driveway" access onto Rogers_ Road with notation on the plat stating same. (7) The names of adjacent property owners shown on the plan should be corrected. Specific concerns of the Orange County Planning Department were not addressed by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends denial of the Preliminary Plan and recommends submittal of a revised plan after consulta- tion with Town and County Staffs. PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ( INK ONLY) iot5 11/85 APPLICATION FOR typo (ISION,APPROVAL ORANGE COUNTY DATE: May 5, 1986 SUBDIVISION NAME: STACY HEIGHTS SECTION II LOCATION: ROGERS ROAD, CHAPEL HILL, ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. OWNER/DEVELOPER: GEORGE TATE JR. ADDRESS: 342 ROSEMARY STREET TELEPHONE NO.: (919 1 947-1938 . CHAPEL HILL, N.C. AGENT/CONTACT: CLAY V. FULTON TELEPHONE NO.: (919) 227-2031 GREENSBORO, .N.C. - A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tex Map , '1 Block D Lotter 25B Township CHAPEL HILT. Zoning District(s) : R-1 (RESIDENTIAL Total Number of Acres: 6.787 AC. MORE OR LESS Phases: t _ Total Number of Lots: Average Lot Si ze:40.038 Minimum Lot Size Number/Type of Structures: (existing] 1 sf (proposed). 3 44,440s.: Lineal Feet in Streets: 307 Acres in Open Space 0 Water Supply:, Public(specify] Community x Individual Wastewater Disposal: P a(s ci F ' Communit x ndividual School District: SEAWEbb xL� " .t es tract: NEW HOPE gitffLAt. General Land Uses in Areal RESIDENTIAL AND FARMING Critical Areas: stream/drelnageweys flood prone areas weterahed(apecify) historic mites • other(explain) O. All plats must be submitted on sheet no - smatter then one inch equals two- hundred feet (1°=200' ] and no Larger than one Inch .equals fifty feet (1 "=501 ] and must contain the following information: war X subdivision news X •'I.5' betiding setback lines _. :'' nese of osnsr(nl by aetutiae or typical lot :heck 1 tems 3L nese of yap, engineer or land planner ...� J 'twisting sod proposed coss- :ompieted) x .., Iti!Lel Prslisinery Plan emote !drainage, etilItioe. fir,. •a'le sestet north arrow (North at roads, scc.1 X top of sup' X -,ea salettng, proposed and ,E. dots (including revision due..) :• " adjoining rights-of-way .. toenehip. tan sap-block-lox including dimensions end ref seunoes street noose and stele reed • $ :. c boundary described with :ft t numbers . bearings end die eeeees Y.. -.,- wristlet nod proposed .X. :*,'%,., total acreage of the tract utilities. loeladiog - and scrooge of lots, including typo. sines, • , end excluding arse sitbin hydrants, valves end • rights-of-way nsnho les control corner _... stinting end proposed culvert Mr proposed tot lines with ' looludieg sixes end grades mi diems/on■ ^ typtost street cruse.sections ' $ :- lot nwrbers vv, and totsruection details ''"r°: phasing tines - including design sod width • topography at tea foot .111_,. '_w of truvelwy end shoulders :P: -- interim le horttcntsl slignmens end ester bodies, . flood- , goners( eery* dots (public - im say end floodplslna ON roods) • 'creme buffers sod notation w . pureensot restores secb us Indicating restricted ': buildings, cemeterie. . development potential x � historic lsodmerks, X township, corporate end metre- --- • edjoiniog tot layout territorial planning ems of adjoining property • 4 jurisdiction lines which wansr* and subdivisions cross the property - r.: location sod sits of percale dedicated for public use sr reserved M. to eo■son 2C. locution end sins of lots of restricted development potential and X notation on glee regarding sees - 4, storuwstor ■en.g.senc glen indicating provision for centre& et the fiIs$ 1/2 Inch of If Iron impervious' surfaces (GRAY AREAS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) s . -.... • 106 C. 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 tax parcels involved clearly marked) . 3, Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a Letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system fa each Lot. I , the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete anti accurate. I understand that a $210.00 fee (subdivisions of" 15 late or Less) or a $370.00 fee (subdivisions of 18 Lots or more) le due at the time of application . A $5.00 per Lot fee is gut at the time the final plat is presented for recordation . APPLICANT 'S SIGNATURE OWNER'S SIGNATURE `d/!s/ate 9 //r/o DATE DATE FEES: Amount $2.2 Date Paid 6-// /14. Receipt 11i42 • Stacy Heights —Section Two E Q / 411/a5 ORAUGE COUNTY CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS - PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Jane Garrett • SKETCH PLAN: Received 11-15-86 .._._ _ Reviewed T1.-20-86 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 5-1-86 Reviewed 5-2-86 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 9-16-86 Reviewed 9-23-86 NCDOT: DATE 10-22-86 CERTIFICATION Joe B. Haynes, Highway Maintenance Engineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hi LL-Carrborol • DATE9-23-86 Certification N/A UTLITIES (0WASA/Hi L Lsbo rough/Mebane/Orange A Lamance/Ju r ham) : DATE Certification OTHER : Recreation Advisory Council 11-7-86 MABlack (Date) Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel Hi L L DRoesler (Date) Carrboro (Date) Hillsborough (Date) Durham _ (Date) Other S & E 10-2-86 WFaircloth (Date) Health Department 11-26-86 TKonsler (Bate) 4-2-86 RHoldway PLANNING BOARD : Date 12-15-86 Approval Approval with Conditions X Denial i BOARD OF CO1MMISSIONERS : Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial �l3AC 97'5 851A� I ��� ~ _ y RON TWO 14O , ",.., 2 A AG 1516 DEED OVER •P Q APPlaCa►�• &EDD iE UTE., �_j 1 0 44"',. ' X23 AC. I�.aal+u�: t�iae. ) • i: Y .,•y.64 AC. . ' 52 4 6572 • 5 ' 22'9 4• .t f--.��"4t7 WO u5E DOA DESICALAna&t: ThE)ar)91- nog 0 . - -' 9 S 1l AC 4 '3385 x� `� P 1 2,06115 2178 A r4'� • z, _, xr p0 6 i - . 1,05 AC. • • i` S N 9A n� % a ;; 271 C f. 7 7$. ) r F,. v 1s5 507 1 9D , r 5 fi 3 8 AG. I o 0 SEE 3O AC f-_-_-1070. \�o `b; MAP 236 g� ® •':�� 31 3735 C17• 1.35 • / . 7529 AC. ",�c a0s 1 AC. 01 1CO I zoasuw\\•. ' „h 7551 X111/ zoo ! 3 I SS AC.ill. \'7ff I s .15 AC -45183 /_ )1 ''''• r. \ '0416 fa 3 0 i 1 2 ; - 6 •••,-.• : 7 9C _ ESTATE) 6249 7289 9228 0259' 2208' 3289 �, C^! k.a. 60 rte= - �� 14 15 16A 17 118 5 e9 T • aura �- — ...."..i -~ bR �"� 0 . ,�`. '- SEE 1164 �� a V i �� a i a 1.54 ?0�' 4 \��: P N $ MAP G�[* F't, N N N N 1 N 1 W. r rrN " _ O8Oj 31g4AC t . 8 7 6 5 1 4 3 ' -75 CD I 1.04 - c 4766 �� i .: ' ' , s % 405 1.07A . 7. . INSEP.T AC��P4: -843\ - . S AM SEC 2 / t � #(.:5 /// - t •'01ii - 4 t • lik III 7890 t - -j2745 1 t 1 - 6`7 87AC- --- � - - _ f a 2$ _ TALL-YHO —7RAtL - R c- 31-51AC •, SEC I ���- __`.,/.Q SEE MA 111 p . l�r. 22.45 AC - = 1 A 1 I s950 /, 1 3213 ' . a . /6.3,/ . k . ‘ . i . : r nRit 109 DRAFT PBM 12-17-86 PAGE 8 according to information at the public hearing the water level would be 616 feet. VOTE: Unanimous. 4)1 g. Stacy Heights Section II - Preliminary Plan Presentation by Greg Szymik. This agenda item is to consider the Preliminary Plan for Stacy Heights Subdivision Section II, property of George Tate. Jr. The property in question is identified as Lot 25B Block D of Orange County Tax Map 23 in Chapel Hill Township. It is a 6.787 acre parcel on the east side of Rogers Road (SR 1729) . It is located opposite the intersection of Tallyho Trail with Rogers Road. The property is zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) . It is located in the Transition area of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. It is designated as. Suburban Residential (1-5 units per acre) in the Plan. The proposed subdivision would create seven (7) lots. The lots would each be 0.92 acres in size. An Orange County Class "C" private road (East Tallyho Trail) would provide access to lots 3. 4. 5 and 6. The Health Department has granted approval on lots 2. 4. 6 and 7 . Lots 1. 3 and S are regarded as having restricted development potential because of the unsuitability of the subsurface soil for theinstalla-- tion of an on-site soil absorption sewage disposal facility. A separate document has been drawn up which is to be recorded with the Final Plat. Police protection would be provided by the Orange County Sheriff' s Department. Fire protection would be provided by the New Hope Rural Fire District. The Orange County Recreation and Parks Department has reviewed the proposed subdivision and recommends that a payment-in--lieu of dedication of recreation area be approved to meet subdivision recreation requirements. In accordance _with the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement. Chapel.. , _ Hill has reviewed the proposed subdivision and has recommended that it be denied. (See attached copy of resolution) . The Town's concerns focused on several key issues. including access and circulation problems. recreation space. and the use of industrial wells and septic tanks. specific concerns raised by the Town were not addressed by the applicant. DR' FT DRAFT PBM 12-17-86 PAGE 9 Orange County Staff review of the proposed subdivision noted the following: (1) The tax map reference is incorrect. It should be changed to 7.23.D.25B. (2) Although the property is in a Transition area. public sewer is not available. The nearest sewer is at Chapel Hill High School approximately 3500 feet to the south. Public water is also not available. Is approximately 2500 feet to the southeast. Since both water and sewer are expected to be available in the future. easements for their installation should be included on the plan. (3) A payment-in-lieu of dedication of recreation and/or open space be approved per Recreation Department recommendation. This payment should be in the amount of 51.544. . (4) A Class "C" private road should be indicated on the typical cross-section. (5) A recorded 10'x70 ' sight triangle be provided and shown on the plan at the intersection of Rogers Road and East Tallyho Trail per NCDOT comment. (6) Lots 1 and 2 be restricted to a "shared driveway" access onto Rogers Road with notation on the plat stating same. (7) The names of adjacent property owners shown on the plan should be corrected. Specific Planning Staff concerns were not addressed by the applicant. The Planning Staff recommends denial of the Preliminary Plan and recommends submittal of a revised plan after consultation with Town and County Staffs. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of staff recommendation. Seconded by Best. Yuhasz questioned the incorporation of Chapel Hill recommendations for Orange County approval or disappro- val. Szymik responded that the Joint Planning Agreement permit the Orange County Board of Commissioners to deny a subdivision when there is a Council recommendation of denial from Chapel Hill. Yuhasz continued that he had some concerns with the Chapel Hill recommendations and did not feel there were sufficient problems to recommend denial of the subdivision. Szymik pointed out that the recommenda- tion for denial stemmed from two sources. the Joint DP A Yr. 111 DRAFT PBM 12-17-86 PAGE 10 Planning Agreement and the lack of response from the applicant to the requests from staff for revisions to the Preliminary Plan dating back to November 11. Yuhasz continued that there is insufficient justifica- tion for some of the Chapel Hill recommendations, particularly the reference to the widening of Rogers Road and future consideration for adjoining properties development. Collins responded that he felt the concerns expressed by Chapel Hill are legitimate concerns. He continued noting that the developer had not responded and addressed the concerns of Orange County Planning Staff. With the lack of response. Staff would have recommended denial even if the project were not in the Joint Planning Area. VOTE: 9 in favor. 3 opposed (Taylor. Walters. Yuhasz) . AGENDA ITEM #7: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING 11-24-86 a. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Marvin Collins. Planning Director, stated that he would be presenting the amendments concerning the rural buffer and indicated that he would be presenting them altogether rather than as separate items. The first proposal for amending the Zoning Ordinance was the establishment of a definition of the Rural Buffer district and also identification of criteria for application of that district in the County. That amendment also identifies all uses that would be permitted within the Rural Buffer district. Those uses are identical to those currently allowed in the Agricultural-Residential zoning districts. No comments were received at the public hearing regarding the wording on the 'Intent" statement or the "Application Criteria". Concerns were voiced by many people regarding the two-acre minimum lot size requirement. Concerns were also expressed about several basic issues which include property rights, affordable housing. various environmental impacts, cost implications for both municipal and county governments if *the proposed rural buffer concept is implemented. There was concern about decreasing land value. the additional expense of acquiring and developing land which limitation on public water and sewer extensions within the Rural Buffer area. 112 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MLLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 4,001 4t,P../l MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Planning Board FROM: Orange County Planning Staff DATE: December 9. 1986 SUBJECT: Stacy Heights Subdivision On September 26. 1986 the Orange County Planning Department received an application from George Tate. Jr. for preliminary plan approval of a major subdivision. The subdivision. Stacy Heights. is proposed on parcel 7.23.D. 25B. It is a 6.787 acre tract located on the east side of Rogers Road. The proposed subdivision would contain seven (7) lots. The parcel is located in the 10 year transition area desig- nated in the Orange County Land Use Plan. In accordance with the Joint Planning Agreement. the application was con- currently submitted to both Chapel Hill and Orange County Planning Departments. On December 2. 1986, Chapel Hill Planning Board recommended denial of Stacy Heights subdivi- sion. On December 8. 1986, Chapel Hill Town Council adopted a resolution recommending that the Orange County Commis- sioners deny the application. A copy of the recommended resolution is attached. It contains the reasons for the recommendation. Under the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement. the Orange County Planning Board cannot recommend approval of an appli- cation when Town Council recommends denial. Under the terms of Section III-D-1 of the Orange County Subdivision Ordinance, the Orange County Planning Board must act on an application within 85 days of receipt or it will automati- cally be deemed approved. The December 15. 1986 meeting will MEMORANDUM 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 9, 1986 - PAGE 2 be the last opportunity for the Planning Board to act on the Stacy Heights application within the 85 day period. With the Chapel Hill recommendation for denial, the Orange County Planning Board should make the following recommendation to the Board of Commissioners: denial of the preliminary plan. for Stacy Heights and submittal of a revised plan after consultation with Town and County planning staffs. . 1 ' 4 December 2, 1986 Planning Board meeting - Subject: Stacy Heights Resolution A (staff recommendation) A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNCIL RECOMMEND THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR STACY HEIGHTS, SECTION II BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill finds that the subdivi- sion proposed by George Tate, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 23, Block C, Lot 25A, if developed according to the plat dated January 27, 1986 would not comply with standards which the Town of Chapel Hill applies in the transition zones. The reasons for this finding area • 1. That there is no provision for paving and public dedication of the street serving lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 and accessing developable land to the east. ` 2. There is no provision for the future widening of Rogers Road. 3. There are 3 of 7 lots which have been determined to be unsuitable for septic systems by the Orange County Health Department. 4. The location of the proposed subdivision within the urban transition area indicates that the subdivision should be on water and sewer. 5. The lotting off of road frontage with no future consideration of how adjoining properties develop only leads to undesirable environments in the future for the 4 to 5 lot owners, and adds to the future roadway and traffic conflicts. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby recommends that the Orange County Board of Commissioners deny the application for preliminary plat approval for Stacy Heights, Section II. This the day of , 198_. 11 5 December 2, 1986 Planning Board meeting Resolution B (not recommended by staff) RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE, AN APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR STACY HEIGHTS, SECTION II BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the subdivision proposed by George Tate on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 23, Block C, Lot 25A, if developed according to the plat dated January 27, 1986, with the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Orange County Subdivision Ordinance and the intent of the Joint Planning Agreement between Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill. 1. That the applicant dedicate for public use one-half of an-85-foot right-of-way along the subdivision's frontage on Rogers Road. - 2. That the applicant dedicate for public use a 65-foot right-of-way for the road (East Tallyho Trail) serving lots 3, 4, 5, and 6, and that this road be built to Town of Chapel Hill Class B standards with 20 feet of pavement with shoulder and ditch. 3. That a temporary T-turnaround meeting Town of Chapel Hill standards be installed at the end of the street. - 4. That lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 access on the proposed street and not on Rogers Road. 5. That lots 1 and 2 be restricted to a "shared-driveway" access onto Rogers Road. 6. That the developer and/or contractor be responsible for the placing of temporary regulatory traffic signs before Certificates of Occupancy are issued. 7. That final construction plans, including stormpipe calculations, be approved before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 8. That the subdivision be served by water and sewer prior to final plat approval. 9. That the subdivision meet Orange County Recreation requirements and all other Orange County Ordinance requirements. 10. That easement documents required by OWASA be recorded prior to final plat approval. 11. That prior to paving streets, utility service laterals be stubbed out to the front property lines of each lot. Sanitary sewer laterals shall be capped off above ground. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council-hereby recommends that the Orange County Board of Commissioners approve the application for preliminary plat approval for Stacy Heights, Section II subdivision in accord with the plans and conditions listed above. This the day of , 198_. 11 'ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ra LSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 4t:11 ul MEMORANDUM TO: Jane A. Garrett, Planner FROM: Warren Falrcloth, Erosion Control Officer SUBJECT: Stacy Heights Section II Stormwater Management Plan DATE: October 2, 1986 The plan for this subdivision utilizes the lot size, grassed swales along the new road, limited impervious surfaces, and retention of the existing vegetation as a buffer for fil- tering and infiltrating runoff to meet the Ordinance requirements. The plan and subdivision meet the Ordinance requirements . Warren Faircloth RECEIVE -in E�CEIVE Lni ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 1 / Il i • Septelber 23, 1986 Joe Haynes, Highway Maintenace Engineer - N.C. Department of Transportation Route 3, Box 3 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Stacy Heights - Section Two Dear Mr. Haynes: Enclosed is the Preliminary Plan of the abovereferenced subdivision for your review. The property is referenced as Tax Map 23 Lot 25B, Block D in Chapel Hill Township and located on the east side of SR 1729 (Rogers Road). The tract is located approximately 280 feet south of Allen Street (SR 1842) and approximately 1000 feet north of Homestead Road (SR 1777). The applicant is proposing seven (7) lots to be used for single family dwellings. An Orange County Class "C" private road will be constructed as part of this subdivision to provide access to Lots 3,4,5 and 6. Please provide your comments by November 7, 1986. it will be greatly appreciated. Yours truly, Pia.' Jane A. Garrett Planner -- - October 21, 1986 Enclosure Dear Jane: JAG/jg We recommend the following: 1 . A recorded 10' x 70' sight triangle at intersection of Rogers Road and East Tallyho Trail. �1 o, E G E N E D 2. Sight distance is adequate. fj_ IV 3. No driveway permit required. PC„,. i I_ - Joe B. Dynes, Highway Maint_ Engineer TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL 1 . C 306 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET CHAPEL HILL..NORTH CAROLINA 273W369I■ October 20, 1986 Tekprmar ( 9) 9GS-27O Greg Szymik Orange County Planning Dept. 106 E. Margret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 _ • RE: Stacy Heights Subdivision (23-D-25B) Dear Greg: _ The following are the Development Review staff's cents concerning the proposed Stacy Heights subdivision. 1. Since the proposed Fast Tally No Trail is accessing a large tract of land to the east, we feel that this road should be a public right-of-way, and not private. . 2. The subdivision does not propose any recreation space. - 3. Lots 1 and 2 should be restricted to a 'sh.ared-driveway' access onto Rogers Road. - - 4. Rogers Road will in the the future become, at a minim , a major collector street. As such, we.would recommend a I5-fo_ot widen- _ ing strip be provided along the sites frontage. - - 5. Accomodations should be made for future WASA Water and Sewer - Service. We suggest that the applicant coordinate this with OWASA and indicate on the plan the necessary easements. 6. We strongly recommend that the applicant provide evidence that each newly created lot will be suitable for individual wells and • septic tanks. - I wish to emphasize that since this proposal falls within the urban transition area of the Joint Planning Area, we are strongly opposed to developments requiring individual wells and septic tanks. We also question the timing (and design) of this development since It appears that the - applicant owns a larger adjacent tract and may have development ties with adjoining property owners. The lotting-off of road frontage with no future consideration of how adjoining properties develop only leads to undesirable environments in the future for the 4 to 5 lot _ owners, and adds to the future roadway and traffic conflicts. We hope you will consider our stated concerns and recommendations in your deliberation on this proposal. •-._. �_ _ Sincerely, CIC Dave Roesler - _ Development Coordinator as-zz- • DR/gp !" =•- tr-r'tig: t nturitg Merre iicn nn?•i1:r :::. Cirpartratut f . ■ - 300 We%. Mein - Ii LLSBCscL';:H- N.C. 27.73 3 i 1::: O rec or 1 1 U MEWHANCOM - • TD: Jane Garrett, Planner • FROM: Mary Anne Black // 9-5 DATE: .November 4, 1986 - - -~ RE: Courtesy Reviews — Country Manor, Stacey Heights (Section WO. - Carolina Forest (Tract 6, Phase II) and Spring _ Crest Meadows(Phase III) Subdivisions - Upon review of the preliminary plans for the above•mentioned subdivisions, _ find no elements warranting comment .from a recreation and park perspective. In • terms of• my reccumaendation as it pertains to Dedication of Space as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, -I offer the following: - °DUN.'1RY MANOR • Not of ected - - STACEY HEIR (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 recomraend 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 prey. SPRING «- v- MEADOWS (Phase III) - ` - Not affected _ - - Thank you for the opportunity to offer these staff comments. I will present �Y recations to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council at their next monthly meeting (November) and will _ forward to you any changes/addit ions they may have. - MAB/vcw - • . ECEkU' a' D , h- tii sboruL : 2 :.36" 4 Durham. 633-7333 • 07,=: �_ - '��~�—_ - Area Coca G:`- r' TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL 120 306 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET CHAPEL HILL.NORTH CAROLINA 373143690 Tdepko+e (919) 96B-21410. MEMORANDUM To: Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director From: Roger Walden, Chapel Hill Planning Director Subject: Stacy Heights Subdivision, Section 2 (JPA-23-D-253) Date: December 10, 1986 - - On December 8, the Chapel Hill Town Council reviewed the Stacy Heights Joint Planning subdivision request. The Council voted unanimously to adopt Resolution A denying the subdivision request. Attached is a copy of the December 8 memorandum to the Council addressing the Town's concerns. . This memorandum includes a copy of the adopted Resoltuion A. Should you have any questions, please call. _ • AGENDA #10 121 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: David R. Taylor, Town Manager SUBJECT: Stacy Heights Subdivision - Joint Planning Area DATE: , December 8, 1986 - - The attached resolution would recommend that the Orange County Board of Commissioners approve/deny a subdivision. in. the Joint Planning Area. - Background We have received an application for subdivision approval in the Joint Planning Area. A 7-lot subdivision 3s proposed on the east. • side of Rogers Road, 250 feet north of Homestead Road. This is in the "20-year" transition area of the old Orange County Land Use Plan (upon which the existing Joint Planning Agreement is based) . Attached is a Planning Staff Report that reviews and evaluates the application. Key Issues The Planning Staff Report raises several key issues. (1) There are access and circulation problems. Four lots are proposed to front an an unpaved private road. This proposed unpaved road would also connect Rogers road to an adjacent undeveloped tract to the east of this property. This adjacent, undeveloped land does not now have direct access to a street. Also, the future widening of Rogers Road is not addressed in the proposal. (2) The proposal does not- propose any of the required recreation space. (3) The developer is proposing individual wells and septic tanks. There are two problems with this 'proposal. First. .we believe this area, which will become urban in the near future, should not develop on wells and septic systems. Provisions should be made for public water and sewer. . 122 Second, three of the proposed seven Lots have been found to be unsuitable for septic systems, according to the Orange County Health Department. Recommendations We cannot recommend approval of an application with these deficiencies. we have raised these concerns with the applicant, and asked for revisions of the application. These have not been submitted, and the time deadline for action on the application has approached. Therefore; we bring this application to they Council with a recommendation for denial. Planning Board's Recommendation: The Planning Board is reviewing this application on December 2. Its recommendation trill be presented on December 8. - _ - Manager's Recommendation: That the Council recommend that the Orange County Board of Commissioners deny the application for Stacy Heights. Adoption of Resolution A should do so. . ." I • 123 ' Resolution A Manager's Recommendation A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR STACY HEIGHTS, SECTION II (86-12-8/R-SA) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the subdivision proposed by George Tate, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 23, Block C, Lot 25A, if developed according to the plat dated January 27, 1986 would not comply with standards which the Town of Chapel Hill applies in the transition zones. The reasons for this finding are: 1. That there is no provision for paving and public dedication of the street serving lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 and accessing developable land to the east. 2. There is no provision for the future widening of Rogers Road. 3. Three of 7 lots have been determined to be unsuitarte for septic systems by the Orange County Health Department_ 4. The location of the proposed subdivision within the urban transition area indicates that the subdivision should be served by public water and sewer facilities. 5. There is no consideration of access to adjoining properties. 6. Recreation area requirements are not addressed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby recommends that the Orange County Board of Commissioners deny the application for preliminary plat approval for Stacy Heights, Section IX. This the 8th day of December, 1986. 124 Resolution B RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL ?OR STACY HEIGHTS, SECTION II (86-12-8/R-5B) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the subdivision proposed by George Tate on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 23, Block C, Lot 25A, if developed according to the plat dated January 27, 1986, with the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Orange County Subdivision Ordinance and the intent of the - Joint Planning Agreement between Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill. 1. - That the applicant dedicate for public use - one-half of a 90-foot right-of-way along the subdivision's frontage on Rogers Road. -- 2.. That the applicant dedicate for public use a 70-foot right-of-way for the road (East Tallyho Trail.) serving lots 3, 4, 5, and 6., ' and that this road- be built to Town of Chapel Hill Class B standards. - 3. That a temporary T-turnaround meeting Town of Chapel Bi13 standards be installed at the end of East Tally Ho Trai 1_. 4. That lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 access on the proposed street and not on Rogers Road, revised. plans subject to Town Manager approval prior to issuance of a. Zoning Compliance PerRit_ 5. That lots 1 and 2 be restricted to a "shared-driveway* access onto Rogers Road, revised plans subject to Town Manager approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. - - 6. ' That the developer and/or contractor be responsible for the placing of temporary regulatory traffic signs before Certificates of Occupancy are issued. 7. That final construction plans, including stormpipe calculations, be approved by the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit_ 8. That the subdivision be served by a public water and sewer system prior to final -plat approval. 9. That the subdivision meet Orange County Recreation requirements and all other Orange County Ordinance requirements. 10. That easement documents required by OWASA be recorded prior to final plat approval. 125 11 . That prior to paving streets, utility service laterals be stubbed out to the front property lines of each lot.. Sanitary sewer laterals shall be capped off above ground. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the. Council hereby recommends that the Orange County Board of Commissioners approve the application for preliminary plat approval for Stacy Heights, Section 11 subdivision in accord with the plans and coa&Ztions listed above. This the 8th day of December, 1986. • • _ S. i b Planning Staff Report z - Subject: ' Stacy Heights, Section II Date: December 2, 1986 Development Description The Town has received an application, proposing subdivision of a 6.78 acre parcel into 7 lots. The proposed subdivision is called Stacy Heights, Section. II. The site is identified as Chapel Hill Township Tar Map 23, Blocs 6, Lot 25A. The proposed subdivision is located on the east side of Rogers Road, 250 feet north of Homestead Road and 450 feet from the Chapel Hill city limits. The southern half of the proposed subdivision is in the ten-year transition. zone, while the northern half is in the twenty-year transition zone of the Joint Planning Area. Because of the proximity to the Urbanized. Area, to have applied urban standards to our review of this proposed subdivision. Evaluation : - - -_ - � General Site Arrangement The site has 1,075 feet of frontage on Rogers Road. Three proposed lots front on Rogers Road. Four lots are proposed to front on an =paved private road. which would connect Rogers Road to undeveloped tracts of land to the east (2 tracts of approximately 4 acres each). The adjacent undeveloped land on the east side of the property does not now have direct access to a street. Access and Circulation - Rogers Road is not part of our Thoroughfare Plan at this time. F.ovever, Gkap Hill engineering and planning staff and the transportation planner believe Rogers Road will be a major collector street in the future and 1411 require a 70-foot minimtitm right-of-way width with curb and gutter or 85-foot minima= right-of-way width without curb and gutter (Design Manual, Table 3-2). Ro;axs Road currently has a 60-foot right-of-way, and no additional right-of-way has been provided for by this proposed subdivision. The developer is not propoziny to address the future widening of Rogers Road. Internal circulation is proposed as an unpaved private road. The road accesses two undeveloped tracts of about 4 acres each. Since the area is in the ten and twenty year transition zones, the private road should be built to Town standards, Class B with a minimum right-of-way of 65 feet without curb and gutter and a • pavement of 20 feet with shoulder and ditch. A temporary T-turnaround should be installed at the end of the street. Lots 3, -4, 5, and 6 should amass on the proposed new street and notion Rogers Road. The proposed new street should. be a public road. The new road (East.Tallyho Trail) is not shown as public on- the plat.. • Open Space/Recreation Area The subdivision does not propose any recreation span. Utilities E _ The developer is proposing individual well and septic tanks. We do not have evidence that each newly created lot would be suitable for individual wells and septic tanks. - A soils analysis by Ron Holdway of Orange CauntyilealthDepartmunat on April 2, 1986 showed three low pressure pipe system sites approved of six sites checked. One low pressure site had been approved. November 26, 1985 by Ton Kaasler. Three lots tested were unsuitable for septic systems, according to theme • County Health Department. Two lots of the three-lot subdivision, Stacy H.°-ig::ts Section I, were determined to be unsuitable for septic system: by the Orange County Health Department. Stacy Heights, Section 1 was approved by the Orange County Commissioners on January 6, 1986. According to Orange County planning staff, Stacy Heights, Section 1 on 'the west side of Rogers Road and the land now proposed as Stacy Heights, Section-3U ware combined in early 1986 to remedy an illegal subdivision by -deed split in April, 1985. Stacy Heights, section I subdivision has not been recorded at Orange. County Land Records. - . Since this proposal falls within the urban transition area we believe it should. be served by public water and sewer. Water and sewer lines should.either be extended, or the development should be delayed until they are available to the sits. - Recorame.ndation Planning Staff: That the Planning Board recommend that the Council adopt a resolution recommending that the Orange County Commissioners deny the applica- tion (see Resolution A). Resolution B would recommend that the application be approved. • • • ..� _ BOARD OF COH21ISSJO: ERS • - ACTION AGENDA .- ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO.F1p MEETING DATE January 5, 1987 _I_2 Es - - SUBJECT: PERSONNEL ORDINANCE REVISIONS _ - • DEPARTI EN-I: yW^ __ I PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO 1 ATTACHMENT(S): yes - INFOMATION CONTACT:- K•- R• mlaompson B. M. Whitehead PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH -- 732-8181 -HILLSBOROUGH - 732--9351 . CHAPEL HILL -- 967-9251• • • - MEBANE - 227-2031 - - DURHAM 688-7331 PURPOSE: To- further consider the revisions to the Orange County Personnel Ordinance - _ that were presented .at the December 16th Commissioner's meeting. • • • TEED: _ . The Ordinance was adopted effective July 1985..•_Sections_of the Ordinance . . need revision due to changes in federal law, employee-benefit .adjustments, - • and to'.aasure:cleerness='in -interpretation. - - _ • IMPACT: - . • • RECOMMENDATION(S): As the Board decides. • -1- ARTICLE I (Section 4.14) Pg. 3 Recommended Change: **Immediate Family - spouse, parents, siblings, children, grandchildren, grandparents ARTICLE II (Section 2.2.1) Pg. 12 Recommended Change: **It is the policy of the County not to practice or permit discrimination in employment on the basis of age. Any applicant may be considered for appointment as a permanent employee that is age 18 or older. ARTICLE II (Section 2.3.7) Pg- 13 Recommended Change: **Delete this section. ARTICLE II (Section 2.4.15) Pg. 15 Recommended Change: **All selection related activities will be conducted within the boundaries of the County. ARTICLE II (Sections 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2) Pgs. 16 & 17 Recommended Change: **Delete these sections. ARTICLE II (Section 4.6) Pg. 19 Recommended Change: **When a department or division head position becomes vacant, an appointment to an acting position is made with the approval of the County Manager. The Acting Department or Division Head may be asked to serve up to six (6) months. The salary paid to the employee selected to serve in an acting position shall be adjusted to the hiring rate of the new range assigned or to a step within the range that provides a minimum of five percent increase in pay. NOTE: ** CONSENSUS APPROVAL BY BOCC -2- 130 ARTICLE II (Section 7.7) Pg. 22 Recommended Change: **Former employees who return to work for the County after the one year reinstatement period, shall receive credit for their previous employment years, if they remain employed for a period of no less than five consecutive years. ARTICLE III (Sections 6.0, 6.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6_1_2(a)(b) 6_2) Pgs. 29, 30, 31 Recommended Changes: 6.0 Political Activity All employees are free to engage in political activity to the widest extent consistent with the restrictions imposed by law. An employee may participate in all political activity not specifically restricted by law; including candidacy for office in nonpartisan election and candidacy for political party office. However, no employee shall: (a) use official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for office; (b) directly or indirectly coerce, attempt to coerce, command or advise any other employee of the governmental unit to pay, lend or contribute anything of value to a political party, committee, organization, agency or person for political purposes; (c) be a candidate for elective public office in a partisan election while on active pay status. (d) be required as a duty of office or as a condition of employment, promotion, or tenure of office contribute funds for political or partisan purposes; (e) post, nor cause to be posted, signs, notices, or other materials related to any national, state or local political party or candidate, in or on property owned, leased or used by the department in the conduct of its official business. (f) wear or display badges, buttons, or other emblems related to a national, state, or local political party or candidate while on duty or during the performance of services for the department; or (g) use any supplies or equipment of the governmental unit for political purposes. 6.1 An employee, regardless of employment status, shall give written notice of candidacy for partisan elective office, or appointment to a vacancy in a partisan elective office on or before the filing deadline or acceptance of partisan appointment. 131 -3- 6.2 An employee that files for an elective partisan office shall be placed on leave without pay effective the following workday. If elected or appointed to a partisan office, the employee shall resign from employment with the County before the start of their term of office. 6.3 Any violation of this section shall be deemed improper conduct and the employee shall be subject to disciplinary action or dismissal by the appointing authority. ARTICLE III (Section 7.1.1) Pg. 32 Recommended change: An official employee, County Manager, Clerk to the Board, or Board of Commissioners member shall not accept any gift, favor, or thing of value that may tend to influence the discharge of duties. ARTICLE III (Sections 9.1 -- 9.6) Pgs. 36 - 38 Recommended Change: 9.0 Travel 9.1 Policy Vehicles owned by the county will be provided for full-time permanent county employees for official county business. 9.1.1 The provisions of this article will be applicable also to County Manager, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, County Attorney, Commissioners, members of advisory or special boards, and other employees or officials designated by the Commissioners. 9.2 Procedure Travel on official County business out-of-state or requiring an overnight stay must be authorized by the County Manager. All other travel within the state by a county employee must be approved by the employee's department head. 9.2.1 A request for travel must describe the travel requested, the purpose of the proposed trip, the period of time away from the County, and approval of the department head, if applicable, or of the County Manager or the Board of County Commissioners. Travel advances require the approval of the employee's department head. An accounting shall be made to the Finance Department within 5 workdays after termination of any trip for which a travel advance was received. Such accounting shall be made by the submission of a properly completed Travel Expense Statement. 9.2.2 County employees and officials traveling away from the County on official business will be reimbursed as follows: (a) travel by official vehicle, Orange County shall pay total cost of operation and maintenance; (b) travel by personal vehicle, Orange County will reimburse at the prevailing non-taxable rate per mile allowed by the IRS, or air coach rate, whichever is less, with living expenses being reimburseable -4- �3c only for the period required for airplane travel, unless the use of the employee's personal vehicle is for the convenience of the County. (c) travel by public conveyance with the prior approval of the Manager, the actual cost of the fare, not to exceed the rate of "coach" fare; and (d) mileage for travel will be paid for the shortest, usually traveled route. 9.2.3 Travel - Room, Board and Special Expenses * (a) Lodging expenses will not normally be authorized for trips where the destination is less than 40 miles from the employee's normal duty station. Lodging for such trips must be approved by the County Manager in advance, except such trips by the Commissioners, County Manager, County Attorney. (b) Employees and officials will be expected to commence the return to Orange County as soon as practicable after conclusion of their business. (c) Room and board expenses incurred by persons traveling away from Orange County on official business will be reimbursed for lodging, meals, and gratuities. Lodging expenses will be reimbursed in full but in an amount not to exceed the single occupancy rate unless two or more County employees are sharing the same facilities. Reimbursement for meals shall not exceed the three meals when traveling in state and $27.50 for three meals when traveling outside the state. The following is a table of rates for reimbursement. In State Out-Of-State Breakfast 3.50 5.50 Lunch 5.00 7.00 Dinner 10.00 15.00 $18.50 $27.50 The above amounts include gratuities, not to exceed 15% of the cost of the meal. An employee not involved in overnight travel will not be reimbursed for meals except under the following circumstances: breakfast - travel originates before 6:00 a.m. ; lunch-travel originates before 11:30 a.m. and terminates after 2:00 p.m. ; dinner-travel originates before 4:30 p.m. and terminates after 7:00 p.m. Reimbursement will not be made for expenses incurred for meals for trips within the boundaries of Orange County unless such expenses are incurred for attendance at conferences, seminars, or other training sessions. (d) employees and officials will be reimbursed for the actual cost of special expenses paid from personal funds, such as registration fees and other related expenses; (e) carpooling and the use of county-owned vehicles is hereby encouraged. * SEE ATTACHMENT #1 ( COMPARATIVE TRAVEL POLICIES ) -5- (f) Reimbursement for receipt supported personal phone cals during properly authorized overnight trips will be allowed as follows: one "safe arrival" call; one call due to a change in itinerary, and for extended trips, one call after each "3 consecutive day periods" of overnight stay. All such personal phone calls are limited to $3.00 per call. Official business phone calls must be receipt-supported and identified as to point of origin, point of destination, and purpose. 9.3 The employee shall keep an accurate record of all expenses. No reimbursement will be paid without a completed Travel Expense Statement, signed by the department head. Receipts, as required must be attached to the Travel Expense Statement. Travel and Expense Statement accompanied by all receipts for lodging and meals must be submitted for reimbursement within 30 days of completed travel. 9.4 The employee shall keep an accurate record of the time of departure to and from destination, and the time of return. 9.5 Partricipation in official out-of-town business meetings, authorized training courses, and authorized professional conferences is "time worked" for the purpose of computing overtime and compensatory leave for non-exempt employees. 9.6 Employees of the county absent from the county on official business, or in training courses or professional meetings, with authorized approval, will be converted by Worker's Compensation Insurance in accordance with the North Carolina Worker's Compensation Act and the County's Workers Compensation Insurance Policy. 9.7 County Vehicles 9.7.1 When travel by a motor vehicle is determined to be feasible, a county vehicle when available, should be used instead of a private vehicle. 9.7.2 notification of intent to travel, together with the itinerary, will be provided to the appropriate individual when a vehicle is requested. This will be accomplished at least 24 hours before the start of travel. 9.7.3 The following laws and regulations apply to the utilization of all County owned vehicles. (a) County owned cars shall be used for official county business only. "G.S. 14-247-Private use of publicly owned vehicles--It shall be unlawful for any officer, agent, or employee of any county or of any institution or agency of the state, to use for any private purpose whatsoever any motor vehicle of any t rpe or discription whatsoever belonging to the state, or to any county, or to any institution or agency of the state. -6- 13 4 (b) Drivers shall observe all local and state ordinances pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles. Any fines imposed for any violation which was under the control of the driver shall be the responsibility of the driver. (c) Hitchhikers are not permitted to ride in county owned vehicles. (d) When a county owned car' is used for travel, parking and storage fees, tolls, and required repairs are legitimate charges to the county, including reimbursement when applicable provided necessary receipts are obtained. Reimbursement of expense for airport parking for .both private and county owned vehicles is limited to forty-eight (48) hours, with a receipt recUired for any charges exceeding three dollars. Parking expenses in excess of forty-eight (48) hours may be reimbursed in extraordinary cirmnstances if advance approval is obtained from the department head. (e) For permanently assigned vehicles, the log will be kept in the'vehicle and should be kept current by the asigned driver. for single trip assignments, the log shall be issued to the driver by the Central Motor Pool and shall be returned to the pool at the completion of the trip. (f) At the employee's destination, county vehicles may be used prudently for travel to obtain meals, but not for private purposes or for entertainment while off duty. No common carrier or public transportation fares are reimbursable on a trip on which an employee uses a State car, unless it is-shown that such transportation was more economical in a particular situation. • 9.8 Private Cars 1. Policy on use of private cars by county employees. The County Financ Department may agree to grant reimbursement for expenses incurred for use of a private care when another mode of transportation is more economical if the employee wishes to use a private car agrees to be reimbursed at the most common rate for a County owned car. 9.8.1 Exceptions Use of private car for convenience of the County County employees may-use their private cars: 1. For round trips at a reimbursement rate of 20.5 cents per mile non-taxable. 2. When the employee has a physical handicap which requires specialized equipment for operation of a motor vehicle that is not available on cars purchased by the County. -7- i3v 3. When such use is to the County's advantage, due to particular requirements of the employee's duties. Reimbursement is limited to direct mileage between stops on the employee's itinerary. Article IV (Section 3.1) Pg. 39 Recommended Change: **During periods of adverse weather conditions which make travel extremely hazardous, the County Manager may close County offices, except those departments that provide emergency related services. When County offices are officially closed by the Manager, employees shall be granted administrative leave of absence at full pay. Non-emergency personnel that are required to work during this time shall receive time off at the rate of 1 1/2 times the total number of hours worked in addition to regular pay. Administrative leave hours shall not be paid to an employee at termination unless it occurs during the week worked. (See Article IX, Section 7.3). Article IV (Section 5.3) Pg. 41 Recommended Change: **Vacation leave that will exceed three consecutive work days, shall be requested by the employee at least two weeks prior to the date the vacation is to begin. Article IV (Section 5.4) Pg. 41 Recommended Change: **Vacation leave may be used for sick leave purposes upon the approval of the department head. Article IV (Section 9.3) Pg. 46 Recommended Change: **Delete this section. Article IV (Section 9.5) Pg. 47 Recommended Change: (Will be forwarded under seperate cover) -8- 136 Article IV (Section 15.1.1) Pg. 51 Recommended Change: Add statement to the end of this Section. **However, the salary payment which the employee receives from the military shall be deducted from the sum paid by the County. Article IV (Section 5.2) Pg. 59 Recommended Change: Change the last sentence in this Section to read as noted below: *No employee shall be hired above the middle of the range without recommendation of the Manager and approval of the Board of commissioners. Article IV (Section 7.0) Pg. 59 Recommended Change: Delete first sentence and insert statement below. **Funds shall be recommended by the County Manager and approved by the Board of Commissioners annually for the purpose of providing salary increases to employees in recognition of above standard or improved performance. The funding level of the Merit Pay Program will be decided annually and will be in accordance with one of the following options. 1. Full Merit Pay Program - All employees that have been granted permanent status shall be eligible for merit pay consideration. Salary adjustments shall be awarded on the employees anniversary date. Full Merit Pay Program shall be budgeted at six (6) percent of payroll. 2. Modified Merit Pay Program - All employees that have been granted permanent status shall be eligible for merit pay consideration. Salary adjustments shall be awarded on the employees anniversary date. Modified merit pay Program shall be budgeted at four (4) percent of payroll. 3. Modified Merit Pay Program - All employees that have been granted permanent status shall be eligible for merit pay consideration. Salary adjustments shall be awarded quarterly. Modified Merit Pay Program shall be budgeted at three percent of payroll. Article VI (Section 3.14) Pg. 63 Recommended Change: **The Manager shall be responsible for the administration and maintenance of the Position Classification Plan and shall advise the Board of County Commissioners of approved changes in the Officials/Administrators occupational category. * SEE ATTACHMENT #2 NOTING ABOVE THIRD STEP HIRINGS AND LAST TWELVE NEW HIRES _9_ 13I Article VII (Section 3.2) Pg. 65 Recommended Change: **Based on the work standards developed, the employee and the supervisor will meet formally to discuss work performance at least one a year. A rating will be assigned summarizing the employee's work during the evaluation period. Ratings shall be in one of the following areas: Below Standard Level: performance is below the standards established for the job in all or most areas. An employee receiving a below standard rating shall receive a detailed plan for improvement from the supervisor and shall have their performance reviewed again in 90 days. If significant improvement is not made, the employee shall be subject to reassignment, demotion, or termination. Standard Level: performance meets the standards established for the job in all or most areas. Above Standard Level: performance exceeds the standards established for the job in more than half of the areas. Exceptional level: performance exceeds the standards established for the job in all of the areas. ATTACHMENT NUMBER ONE COMPARATICE TRAVEL POLICIES Meals Hotel Comments Durham $35 maximum per 24 hours. No ceiling. Employees Air Coach Travel If less than $35, no receipt are encouraged to seek is allowed. Bus, required. the most reasonable rate. Taxi, Subway fare reimbursed at actual cost. Durham County $14 per day Reimburse at actual Depart. Head must make Brek. $3.00 cost, no ceiling encouraged effort to monitor travel Lunch $4.00 to seek reasonable rate. cost. All fares Dinner $7.00 reimbursed for actual cost. Chapel Hill $16 per day No ceiling encouraged N/A Brek. $3.50 to seek reasonable rate. Lunch $4.50 Dinner $8.00 If exceeded,l employee will pay the difference. Carroboro $16 In State $21 Out of State $50 allowable In State N/A Brek. $3.50 $4.50 $60 allowable Out of State Lunch $4.50 $5.50 Dinner $8.00 $11.00 Raleigh $20 In State $30 Out of State Reimbursed at actual cost N/A Brek. $4.00 $6.00 no ceiling, subject to Dept. Lunch $4.00 $8.00 Head approval. Employees are Dinner $12.00 $16.00 encouraged to share room with No receipt required. Any meal non-city employ. City will exceed above rates will be reimburse at single occupancy co reimbursed, if documented. rate. 071 A7TACEVENT NUMBER ONE CONTINUED Wake County See Comments $45 In State Meal cost are included $45 Out of State in per diem for hotels. Entire policy is currently in the process of extensive revision. W Forsyth County $15 per day No ceiling, reimburse N/A cc Brek. $3.25 at actual cost with Lunch $4.25 receipt. Dinner $7.50 No Receipts Req. State of North $15 In State $20 Out of State $32 In State Carolina Brek. $3.25 $4.25 $39 Out of State Lunch $4.00 $5.00 Dinner $7.75 $10.75 Orange County $18.50 In State $27.50 Out of State Reimbursement at actual cost All other fare cost (Recommended) Brek. $3.50 $5.50 not to exceed the single- (i.e., bus, taxi, etc.) Lunch $5.00 $7.00 occupancy rate unless two will be reimbursed Dinner $10.00 $15.00 or more county employees at actual cost. share the same facility. * Note: all jurisdictions recognize a ceiling of 20.50 for mileage when using a private vehicle. TWD 140 L.ES og Aeon 3RD STEP H?RI (1981 to Present) TITLE DEPARTMENT GRADE SIP S. W. Supervisor Social Services 68 5 Chief Deputy _.. 4 -- Sheriff's Dept. 69 6A Major - Sheriff's Dept. 68 7A Sergeant Sheriff's Dept. 63 58 Director Planning 77 4B Clerk to the Board Commiss. Off. 65 4A S.W. II Social Services 66 88 Chairman Agriculture Special Salary above 3RD S.W. II Social Services- 66 48 Agent Agriculture Special Salary above 3RD Planner III Planning 72 5C Director Social Services 78 78 Agent Agriculture Special Salary above 3RD rpsr 12 r g (November - December 1986) S.W. II Social Services 66 0 Clerk Typist Social Services 57 0 Pers. Analyst Personnel 67 0 S.W. II Social Services 66 1 Dispatcher EAAS 65 0 Deputy I Sheriff's Dept. 65 0 Housing Couns. H/C D 65 0 Elig. Spec. I Social Services 60 1 Sanitarian Health Dept. 66 1 PHN II Health Dept. 71 1 S.W. I Social Services 63 0 District Supervisor Recreation 63 0 • • ORANGE COUNTY 141 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGFN ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. F MEETING DATE January 5, 1987 SUBJECT: Bid award; Fairview Park Construction *********************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SERVICES PUBLIC HEARING YES NO ************************************************************************** ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES Bid Tabulation EXT 497 Notice of Award Breakdown of negotiated cost (Exhibit A) Map of Layout (Exhibit B) PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL 967-9251 MEBANE 227-2031 DURHAM 688-7331 ************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider awarding bid for construction of Fairview Park. NEED: The construction of Fairview Park was included as part of a community Development Block Grants received in 1978. On October 7, 1986 bids were solicited from various construction companies to build the park. Two companies responded. Since this is a sealed bid, it is required that at least three bids be received. Bids were taken again 10-20-86, again with two responders. By statute, the lowest bid in the second round of bidding may be accepted regardless of the number of responders. Laramore Construction, Danville, Virginia, submitted a base bid of 198, 800 with an add alternate of 39,500 for a total of $238,300; Gaither Construction Co. , Raleigh, submitted a base bid of 218,507 with an add alternate of $16,890 for a total of $235, 397. Since approximately $100, 000 of CD funds are available it was readily apparent the add alternate (picnic shelter) would not be feasible thereby making the low bidder Laramore Construction Company. General Statutes allow that negotiations may be carried on with the lowest responsible bidder, making reasonable changes in the plans and specifications "as may be necessary to bring the contract price within the funds available, and may award a contract to such bidder (if he will agree) to perform the work at the negotiated price within the funds available therefor". Negotiation was entered into with Laramore and a negotiated figure of $104,990 was reached. Detail of items included and deleted are found on exhibit A. Since this figure falls within Community Development available funds it is recommended the negotiated figure be accepted. IMPACT: Community Development funds are available. RECOMMENDATION: Award bid for construction of Fairview Park to Laramore Construction Co. , Danville, VA, for the negotiated sum of $104,990; and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. J 142. r FAIRVIEW COMMUNITY PARK DEVELOPMENT ORANGE COUNTY RECREATION AND PARKS DEPT. HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA ' DATE: 20 OCTOBER 1986 - 2:00 P.M. LICENSE BID CONTRACTOR NUMBER BOND DID4 ; ADD: -ALT. GAITHER CONSTRUCTION CO. J3`l�� off-I �� 7 /(D �? 9 O RALEIGH, N.C. `'- 00, 0 e LAPAMORE CONSTRUCTION CO. DANVILLE, VA. 333-3 . . . . . . . . 39, so 0 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE BIDS TABULATED HEREIN WERE PUBLICLY OPENED AND READ ALOUD AT 2:00 P.M. ON THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1986 AT THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PURCHASING, ORANGE COUNTY, 300 W. TRYON STREET, HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. , AND THAT ALL BIDS WERE ACCOMPANIED BY A CERTIFIED CHECK OR BIDDER' S BOND UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. L. E. 1400TEN AND COMPANY Robert L. Runyans, AIA C: • NOTICE OF AWARD 14I TO Laramore Construction Company, Inc., P.O. Box 1656 Danville, VA 24543 PROJECT/CONTRACT Fairview Park Community Construction The owner has considered the Bid submitted by you for the above Work in response to its Advertisement for Bids dated October 20, 1986 1986, and Information for Bidders. - You are hereby notified that your Bid has been accepted in the amount of One hundred four thousand, nine hundred ninety dollars ($104J990) . You are required by the Information for Bidders to execute the )greement and furnish the required Contractor's Performance Bond, Payment Bond, and certificates of insurance within ten calendar days from the date of this Notice to you. If you fail to execute said Agreement and to furnish said Bonds within the days from the date of this Notice, said Owner will be entitled to consider all your rights arising out of the Owner's acceptance of your Bid as abandoned and as a forfeiture of your Bid Bond. The Owner will be entitled to such other rights as may be granted by law. You are required to return an acknowledged copy of this Notice to the Owner. Dated this 5th day of January, 1986. OWNER County of Orange BY Chair, Board of Commissioners Shirley E. Marshall Enclosures. _= mss RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED this day of 1986. BY TITLE EYk b14 A. X46 LARAMORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. PHONE: (804) 793-1032 ..ESTABLISHED 1924 220 RIVER STREET DANVILLE, VIRGINIA 24540 MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. BOX 1656 DANVILLE, VIRGINIA 24543 December 12, 1986 Mr. Robert Runyans 120 N. Boylan Ave. Raleigh, NC 27603 Re: Orange County Community Park Dear Mr. Runyans: The following is our modified Lump Sum Bid as per our meeting on November 21, 1986. Our Lump Sum amount is $104,990.00, however for clarification I have divided it into various major components: 1. Mobilization, Bond 4,200.00 2. Grading Entrance Road & Parkin 12,300.00 3. Gravel Entrnace Road & Parking Lot 24,200.00 4. Playground Equipment 37,900.00 5. Access Trail - Approx. 1,300 L.F. 5,750.00 6. 3 Double Trash Receptors 1,200.00 7. Entrance Signs & Gate 4,100.00 8. Ditching & Piping 13,480.00 9. Asphalt for Entrance 900.00 10. 50 plants to screen lift station 960.00 104,990.00 The general outline of the proposed construction area is shown in orange on the enclosed plan. The following are some of the major items deleted: Fitness Trail Construction and Equipment 2 Parking Lots, Maintenance Road, Concrete Wheel Stops, Handicap Sighns, Stop Signs and Plants (except item 10) I appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please call if you have any questions. Sin ely, /4.1 4,27,_ n 4- H. L ramore President JHL/rr c. /cc: Ms. Mary Ann Black Dir. of Recreation and Parks Dept. 300 W. Tryon St. g6' Hillsborough, NC 27278 146 - -- -, or tip pi , , z a ky�� 1 I rt m �, v � m .•�''.: '' rxn�r W x• �itvi. r 1 ��, N.,...,,' fj 0.. ) 4.-._c- / varr eno • 1 %,.. . . , :-,• ; i jr; 4 .,_ .„..._ f, N .2 . ,•0 ' ''''''' '--'''' 4446.0.0 '\ 1 i / q 7. ilk - - . i L -0 9.T.. r )----D_ • E-3 t.1 •n x fir"a a 41• '0. r� N '57 r• r] / r a73 M QNN 14 [n in •411 i 7:7-- Fpg-/ 9 / it. 3s F. • n zs y goitimel _ difid OPP- -A111411Leak:W I‘... g D'n \. 1 7.9:g Y ORANGE COUNTY • BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM HO.r g MEETING DATE January 5, 1987 14? SUBJECT: Availability of SBA 504 Loans in Orange County DEPARTMENT: Economic Development C PUBLIC HEARING: YES x NO ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Sylvia Price EDC Minutes, Dec. J1, 1986 A CEDCO rep. will be present on Jan_ (includes EDC Resolution) PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider a Resolution which will start the process of making available to Orange County firms the Small Business Administration (SBA) 504 loan program. 1. The SBA 504 program - benefits existing firms. The SBA 504 program, though narrow in its focus, can benefit existing Orange County firms which qualify. The program benefits the firm because the SBA loan helps to fill the gap between what a bank will loan and what the company has to put in. On a typical loan package, the bank takes a first deed of trust, the SBA takes a second deed of trust, and the borrower puts in the balance (at least 10%) . The loan can be used for the purchase of land, buildings, equipment, long term assets. 2. Availability in Orange County. Federal legislation requires that all 504 loans must be submitted by a "CDC", a local certified development corporation which is certified by the SBA for this particular program. The role of the CDC is to screen the applicants, process the paperwork, liaise with banks, and submit the completed application. To make the loans available in Orange County it is necessary either to establish a CDC, staff it and get it certified by the SBA; or to ask an existing CDC to include Orange County in its service area. Because of the overhead costs and the small number of loans likely to be processed, the establishment of an Orange County CDC is not recommended. The procedure required by federal regulations is that: 1) the BOCC may by formal Resolution invite an existing CDC to service Orange County for these loans; and 2) that the arrangement must then be approved by the SBA. The SBA favors such arrangements and are expected to give approval, though the approval process may take several months. 3. CEDCO Proposal. Capital Economic Development Corporation (CEDCO), established in Raleigh by Wake County in 1981, has offered to extend its service area for the SBA 504 loan program to include Orange County. Durham County was added to the service last year. CEDCO staff member Janneke Hermans and CEDCO consultant Lee Butzin work with applicant firms and banks to prepare the loan documents. Ms. Hermans is also available to offer advice to companies on other SBA programs which might be suitable, if the 504 program is not appropriate. 148 CEDCO offers two ways of making the 504 program available to Orange County: 1) CEDCO would make the program available to Orange County at no cost, and no time or other commitment or input from the County; or 2) The CEDCO board would add one member representing Orange County interests and in return Orange County would contribute to CEDCO's administrative expenses ($2400 in the first year) . Durham County has opted for this second arrangement. In both cases CEDCO would inform area bankers of the program and keep regular contact with bankers and other relevant groups. IMPACT: The Orange County Economic Development Commission at its December 1986 meeting, heard a presentation from CEDCO and then thoroughly discussed the SBA 504 program, CEDCO's proposal, and the likely benefit to Orange County businesses. (A copy of the draft minutes of the EDC meeting is attached for background information.) following the discussion and questions, the Economic Development Commission adopted a Resolution asking the BOCC to invite CEDCO to expand its service territory to encompass Orange County, conditional upon the following: a) That CEDCO would make the SBA 504 program available to Orange County at no cost, and no time or other commitment or input from the County; and b) That CEDCO would inform area bankers of the_program and keep regular contact with Orange County bankers, and with the Orange County Economic Development Commission. RECOMMENDATION: That the attached draft Resolution be adopted by the Board. AMMON 145 RESOLUTION TO INVITE THE CAPITAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [CEDCO) TO EXPAND THE TERRITORIES OF ITS SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA) APPROVED CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM BOUNDARIES TO INCLUDE ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Board of the Orange County Commissioners sees the need to help small businesses in Orange County by improving the availability of Long—term fixed asset financing to small businesses at affordable terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the Board of the Orange County Commissioners believes that expansion, growth and viability of small businesses in Orange County will expand employment opportunities for Orange County Citizens, expand the tax base, increase business ownership opportunities and expand the economic base of the community; and 1980 amendment to the the authority fo theSmallBusiness Investment rAct;sandund in the July 2, WHEREAS, the Capital Economic Development Corporation, hereafter known as CEDCO, is an authorized Certified Local Development Corporation with the resulting capabilities to provide long—term, fixed asset financing through section 504 loans to certain businesses and individuals owning or leasing property located within designated boundaries of the CEDCO service area; therefore BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: 1 . That Capital Economic Development Corporation (CEDCO) is invited to expand its service territory to encompass Orange County, condi- tional upon the following: a) That CEDCO would make the SBA 504 program available to Orange County at no cost, and no time or other commitment or input from the County; and b) That CEDCO would inform area bankers of the program and keep regular contact with Orange County bankers, and with the Orange County Economic Development Commission. 2. That the County Clerk furnish to CEDCO a certified copy of this Resolution. Adopted this day of 1987. 150 MINUTES - ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 1986 LIBRARY MEETING ROOM 300 WEST TRYON STREET HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT. John McKee, Elaine Parker, Maury Klein, John Gastineau, Dennis Howell, Paul Williams. MEMBERS ABSENT Lynn Wilson, Pat Crawford, Norman Weatherly. (Ex- Officio: Ken Thompson, Bob Morgan, Elaine Hicks, Harding Hughes, David Taylor.) OTHERS PRESENT. Lee Capps, James Harris, .onmeke Hermens, Lee Butzin. 1. Jlinutes_of Last Meetina. . - The minutes of the meeting held November 13, 1S86 were approved on a motion by John Gastineau, seconded by Paul Wiltiams. 2. Tbp SBA 504 Sapp Program. Sylvia Price asked to add en .item to today's meeting concerning SBA 504 loans, saying she thought it would be beneficial to EDC members to be informed, and to take action toward making these loans available in Orange County. She introduced Janneke Hermans and Lee Butzin, representatives of the Capital Economic. Development Corpor- ation (CEDCO) , who made a joint presentation regarding SBA 504 loans. Janneke Hermans and Lee Butzin explained that the small Business Administration (SBA] 504 Loan Program provides combined private and public financing, up to 90%, at long terms and affordable rates, to small businesses for the purchase of fixed assets (land, building, construction, renovation, machinery and equipment with a tong-term useful life). SBA 504 loans cannot be used for working capital. It was explained that the eligibility for the Loans is restricted to small businesses, whose net worth does not exceed $6 million, and whose average profit after tax for the Last two years does not exceed $2 million. Ineligible businesses and projects include: real estate companies, developer deals, financial institutions, unregulated media, and non-profit institutions. New start-up companies are eligible for these Loans, though it can be difficult. The minimum SBA 504 loan is $50,000, for a minimum total project cost of $125,000. SBA terms may be either 10 or 20 years. Most loan packages are brought forward through banks, and repayment ability must be clear, as well as sufficient collateral. Typically the bank will take a first deed of trust, the SBA takes a second deed of trust, and the borrower puts in the balance, which must be at least 10%. S • 2 15: Job Creation. The project must lead to the creation or retention of at Least one job per $15,000 of SBA funds Loaned. (For example, a $500,000 project with 30% SBA participation of $200,000 must create or save 13 jobs within two years.) Since it is a federal program, relocation projects are not eligible, since they do not contribute to net national job creation. Procedure for Making SBA•504 Program Available in Oranoe County., The federal legislation requires that SBA 504 Loans can be made only through Local development companies, or "CAC's". CDC's are certified by the SBA to operate on a county—wide basis, and if a county is not served. by a CDC, local business cannot obtain 504 financing. This is currently the position obtaining in Orange County. The options for Orange County regarding the availablity of 504 loans is either to create an Orange County CDC, or to invite an existing CDC to make this service available in Orange County. If Orange. County invites an existing CDC to make the program available, the procedure is by formal resolution of the county commissioners, which is then forwarded to the SBA for approval. CEDCO. The Capital Economic Development Corporation (CEOcO) is a community development corporation Located in Raleigh, which has been operating as the Wake County CDC since 1983. In 1985 and 1988 CEDCO has achieved eight SBA loans in Wake County, which is a good record, since these loans are difficult to qualify for. Recently Durham County was added to CEDCO's area of 504 certification, and already one 504 commitment has been made in Durham. CEDCO would like to offer the availability of SBA 504 financing to Orange County businesses, and proposed the same two alternatives offered to Durham County: 1) CEDCO would make the program available to Orange County at no cost, and no time or other committment or input from the County; or 2) the CEDCO board would add one member representing Orange County interest and in return Orange County would contribute to CEDCO's administrating expenses ($2,400 in the first year). This is the arrangement which Durham County has opted for. In both cases CEDCO would inform area bankers of the program and keep regular contact with Orange County bankers and relevant groups. CEDCO's expansion of the 504 program to Orange County would mean the availability of a new financing vehicle for area's small businesses. Everything is currently in place for CEDCO to efficient- ly apply for, close, and service 504 Loans in Orange County. In addition, Janneke Hermans can offer advice to businesses about other SBA loans and programs. 152 3 John McKee inquired of Maury Klein if he had used the 504 loan program for his business and Maury replied that he had used other types of financing, since at the time he needed money, Orange County was not included in the program. Maury Klein said that he had spoken to Janneke Hermans on many occasions, and that if CEDCO had had a presence in Orange County it would have helped him Last summer, in creating more than 20 jobs for Orange County. He said he felt it was a facility many small businesses might find helpful. James Harris,. Community Development Coordinator for the Town of Carrboro, who was in attendance at the meeting, was asked by John McKee if he had candidates for these Loans in Carrboro, and James Harris replied that although no specific candidates had been identified, Carrboro's revolving Loan program did not offer enough finance for many small businesses, and he thought that the 504 program would be a good way to top up the loans which the Town of Carrboro could make to suitable businesses, and that the town would certainly Like to see these Loans available in Orange County. • Paul Williams asked if a wholly--owned subsidiary of a Large corporation would be eligible for a SBA 504 Loan, and Janneke Hermans replied that such a company would n . qualify. John Gastineau inquired about the fees for these Loans, and how they were funded. Janneke Hermans replied that the total fees were between 2-1/2 to 3% of the Loan amount and the amount of the fee is rolled into the loan. Each month the borrower makes two payments, one to the bank and one to the SBA. Dennis !Nowell asked about foreclosure history, and Janneke Hermans replied that nationally the foreclosure rate is 3%, although there have been no foreclosures of the loans put together by CEDCO, adding that the SBA 504 program is not the disaster which the old SBA "direct Loan" program had been — it had a terrible foreclosure history. Sylvia Price asked about how the program was publicized, and how companies knew about the SBA 504 loans. Janneke Hermans replied that 90% of their inquiries come through banks, and that CEDCO makes a careful promotional program to inform all banks in the area. Walk- ins are a very small percentage of the inquiries. She said she thought this was appropriate because SBA 504 Loans are riot for all companies but are a narrow—focus program. Several EDC members commented upon the job creation requirements of one permanent job for every $15,000 of SBA funds. It was clarified that the jobs created must be permanent jobs, so that construction workers would not count. Lee Butzin stated that the job creation had to take place over a two year period, though Loans could be justified on the basis of trends of past employment growth. Members discussed the appropriateness of CEDCO, a Wake County CDC, offering services in Orange County. Lee Butzin stated that CEDC's charter only allows them to go to counties contiguous with their service area, and now that they serve both Wake and Durham 4 15i counties, Orange County is a "natural" extension; for example, the - banks in the Triangle know each other well. He said that Durham County- had opted to put money into CEDCO because that county wanted a say in how CEDCO is run. John McKee stated that Orange County is unlikely to want to put funds into CEDCO, that in his view it would be unrealistic to try to establish a CDC in Orange County when CEDCO is functioning well nearby, and he commended the following resolution to the EDC: • DRAFT RESOLUTION - ORANGE COUNTY EDC - 1j DEC. 1986 TO SECURE AVAILABILITY OF SBA 504 LOANS IN ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Board of -the Orange County Economic Development Commission sees the need to help small businesses in Orange County by improving the availability of long-term fixed asset financing to small businesses at affordable terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Economic Development Commission believes that expansion, growth and viability of small businesses in Orange County will expand employment opportunities for Orange County citizens, expand the tax base, increase business ownership opportun- ities and expand the economic base of the community; and WHEREAS, the authority of this program is found in the July 2, 1980 amendment to the Small Business Investment Act; and WHEREAS, the Capital Economic Development Corporation, hereafter known as CEDCO, is an authorized Certified Local Development Corpora- tion with the resulting capabilities to provide Long-term, fixed asset financing through section 504 loans to certain businesses and individuals owning or leasing property Located within designated boundaries of the CEDCO service area; therefore BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: 1. That the Orange County Board of Commissioners are requested to adopt a Resolution inviting CEOCO to expend its service territory to encompass Orange County, conditional upon the following: a) That CEDCO would make the SBA 504. program available to Orange County at no cost, and no time or other committment or input from the County, and b) That CEDCO would inform area bankers of the program and keep regular contact with Orange County bankers, and with the Orange County Economic Development Commission. Paul Williams made a motion that the above Resolution be passed by the EDC, and was seconded by Dennis Howell. John McKee asked • • X54 5 Janneke Hermans to confirm that the Resolution conforms with CDC's expectations of how the arrangement could work between Orange County and CEDCO. The motion was passed unanimously, and the Director was asked to communicate with the Board of Commissioners, end take steps to have the item placed on the agenda of the first meeting in January. 3. Director's Reoort. - Inquiries. Sylvia Price reported that seven inquiries were made during the period of the Lest two months, five from menufactur- are, .one commercial, and one high—tech production, and that two of these are probably serious. Hjllsborouor Textile Closure., Sylvia Price explained the Hillsborough Textile mill has had several names, which can be confusing unless you know that they all refer to the same mill, viz.: Hillsborough Textiles, Falk Fibers and Fabrics, Saratoga Knitting Mills, Hanover Mills, Guilford Mills. She stated that Guilford purchased the operations (but not the real estate) from the Falk family in October, and within the same week announced that the dyeing and finishing operation would close. A few weeks Later it was announced that the knitting operation would also be closed, making a complete closure of the mill by the end of December. She said it was her understanding that Guilford had bought the company, which owns mills in several towns, for its market share and the more modern of the (not the Hillsborough facility) mills. The building and Land are owned by 11 members' of the Falk family, and Sylvia Price stated that she had met with Michael Falk last week, who stated that he has a master lease for the premises, and would be interested in offering square footage to up to five firms for a rental of $2 per square foot. Hillsborough Business Center. The Hillsborough Business Center are expecting a new tenant, which is a medical supplies company out of Mississippi . Although a Lease has not yet been signed, the company is recruiting a small number of employees through the Employment Security Commission. Employment Security Commission — Office in HiLLsborounh. The Employment Security office is opening a branch office in Hillsborough from Monday, December 15. This will be in the Old Courthouse, Grand Jury Room, and Judy Judkins, placement specialist, will be there from 8:30 till noon, Monday through Friday. She emphasized that, while the impetus for the branch office is clearly the mill closure, services of the Employment Security Commission are available to all citizens, and to employers who wish to List jobs. John McKee stated that he was delighted at the fest response of the Employment Security Commission to a need in Hillsborough, and asked Sylvia Price to send a Letter of support. Maury Klein said that he felt it would be a real convenience to employers to have the option of Listing jobs with the Employment Security Commission either in Chapel Hill or at the new Hillsborough f B 15o office. He referred to the benefits to employers seeking job applicants through the Employment Security Commission, not Least the 100 day no-fault benefit. Members of the EDC agreed that employers should be encouraged to make more use of the Employment Security Commission, and asked the Director to contact the Chapel HILL and Hillsborough Chambers, as well as the Mebane Business Association, asking the Chambers to inform their members about the benefits of using the Employment Security .Commission for recruiting employees. 0 Sylvia Price reported that she had meetings concerning the possibility of offering a dislocated workers program to those persons displaced by the closure of Hillsborough Textile Mill. She said the program would be likely to include on-the-job training, as well as the possibility of special courses provided by Durham Tech in new skills for these workers. She said she was hoping that the job training programis for the displaced mill workers could be Located in Hillsborough, and could start early in 1987, to run while the workers were 'still eligible for unemployment compensation. She added that a survey is being taken amongst the mill workers to ascertain their interest in training, and that staff at Guilford Mills are being very cooperative and accommodating in assisting with this survey. She said that in general Guilford Mills are being more helpful than Cone Mills were at a comparable stage in the closure process. PB S. Members discussed that fact that UPS has been Looking for a Location in Orange County, near Chapel Hilt for 16 months. Because of zoning restrictions, and in some cases being unable to reach a deal on the land, they still may not have settled. They want to build 15-20,000 square feet on 4 acres, and the choice of Location is determined by sophisticated formulas of their own reflecting their currant delivery patterns in Orange County. Maury Klein stated that he felt that their refusal to consider seriously a Hillsborough location was ignoring the cost attached to nit. being here, given their lack of penetration of the northern Orange market, and the development which will be here in the future. Isotechnologies. Inc. Sylvia Price reported that she had Last week visited Isotechnologies in their excellent new building. She said they now have 30 employees, a faster rate of growth than they had expected at the time they were applying for the industrial revenue bond this time Last year. The reason for the employment growth is increased sales and production. Greenwich Mills. Sylvia Price announced that she is planning to arrange a visit to Greenwich Mills in Mebane in the neer future, and that if members of the EDC would like to accompany her, she would be glad. Pre-Zoning. Sylvia Price stated that Ken Thompson had informed her that the issue of pre-zoning was discussed at an informal work session between the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the 156 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. Fl ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: JANUARY 5, 1987 SUBJECT: PROPOSED INTERIM RECYCLING PROGRAM FOR ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 MEMORANDUM TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough — 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider a recommendation from the Regional Landfill Owners Task Force which consists of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County. NEED: Pursuant to a recommendation by the Solid Waste Task Force that a recycling program be undertaken representatives of the landfill owners met December 15, 1986 to consider a proposal for the establishment of such a program on an interim basis. The attached proposal was considered as an "interim solution" pending decision in what further recycling measures might prove feasible. The main points endorsed by the landfill owners include: 1. Chapel Hill would operate the program. 2 . It would be confined initially to the collection of newsprint and aluminum cans. 3. Five collection points would be established. 4. Funds for the program would be provided from both landfill operating revenues and income from the sale of recyclable material. IMPACT: First year cost would be $21,500. This amount consists of the one time purchase of containers ($6,500) , labor ($4, 500) , equipment ($9, 000) , and overhead ($1,500) . RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve the Interim Recycling Program with funding to come from the landfill revenues to the extent that costs are not covered from the sale of recyclable material. 1 C�! MEMORANDUM TO: Bruce Heflin, Public Works Director FROM: W. Lee Burgess, Jr. , Sanitation Superintendent SUBJECT: Interim Recycling Program DATE: Nov2'iaber 20, 1986 I propose the following operating plan for our participation in an interim recycling program for Orange County. I. Collection Process: We will assign one SANITATION EQUIPMENT OPERATOR I, one front-end sanitation truck and 1 white ods dump truck for recycling collection route. Both newsprint and aluminum will be collected from 5 public drop-off sites, 3 ie Chapel Hill and 1 each in Carrboro and Orange County. Suggested sites are noted. Chapel Hill: North end - Timberlyne Shopping Center Central - University Mall area South end - Glen Lennox area Carrboro: . Plantation Plaza or. Willow Creek Shopping Center Orange'County: Sunrise Market, Hi-way 86 Collections and deliveries to markets will be made weekly on Wednesdays_! The route will commence at 6:30 a.m. and continue until 3:00 p.m. More or less time will be used that day as necessary. Material collected will be delivered and sold as follows: Newsprint -- to Paperstock Dealers in Durham at $15 per ton Aluminum - to Boy Scout Troop #39 in Chapel Hill at 20C per pound During holiday weeks, collection services will be provided only if needed, based on quantity. If necessary, one of three front-end sanitation truck operators will operate a double route. I note that this recycling collection route is be- ing created for the new front-end truck on order and for Laster Betts as a new 5-day per week route. Accordingly,g y, other collection services 47111 not be cur- tailed to any significant degree. Citizens can deliver items for recycling at any of the 5 sites, each of which will have a 4 cubic yard bulk container for newsprint and 5 barrels for aluminum. The operator of the route will be responsible for minor cleanup at collection sites. If major work is required, assistance will be provided by Chapel Hill reserve sanitation personnel and public works employees from Carrboro and Orange County. II. Funding: the Orange Regional Landfill will pay program service costs. Funds will be provided from both landfill operating revenues and income from the sale of recyclable material. First year costs are estimated at $21,500 as follows (off- , X58 setting income unknown): Initial purchases - $6,500 10 4 cubic yard bulk containers @ $650 per Note: barrels for aluminum will be found; if insufficient number can be found (50 are needed), then units will be purchased @ $5 per. Charges by Sanitation Division - $15,000 (rounded) 1. Labor - $4,500 416 hrs./yr. @ $8.62 per, + 252 fringes 4. Equipment - $9,000 Front-loader 208 hrs. @ $30 per amounts include fuel Dump Truck 208 hrs. @ $15 per j 3. Administrative Overhead (10Z) - $1,500 Monthly charge to landfill - $1,250 I note that changes may be necessary as we enter into this new service. We can make operational adjustments as experience warrants. Please advise if you have questions. WLB:mhb • • • ORANGE 'COUNTY . • BOARD. OF COMISSIONERS . ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITE{i no. FIO MEETING DATE January 5, 1987 • 159 SUBJECT: Financing Options For Long-Range Capital Needs - - DEPARTMENT: Finance • ' PUBLIC HEARING: . YES No • . . 1• • ATTACHMENT(S) : , INFORMATION CONTACT: Finance Director 1. Memo from Finance Director Ext 496 2: Memo from N.C. Association of PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 731- 8181 County Commissioners HILLSBOROUGH 732-0;361 3'. Memo from Craig Phillips,State CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 Superintendent fIEI3ANE 227-2031 4. Mema-_from. William W.Peek,Associate DURFIPJ{ GP8--73.31 atato buperintendent . PURPOSE: To consider various options •available to County for funding long-range" capital needs. . - - •The. local Boards of Education in the State have been directed by the Department of Public Instruction to prepare a survey of public school facility needs. This- survey is to cover the capital needs of the local _ _ school systems for the fiscal years 1987-88 through 1992-93 and beyond, if possible. - NEED: • . . As part of this process, the Board of County Commissioners will be asked - to review the estimates .of capital• needs submitted by the Boards of Education. • Also, the Commissioners. w.ill be .asked to submit their proposal- for funding, these needs. - The State Superintendent of Public Instruction has requested that the Board of Education and the County Commissioners complete their work on this survey by January 31, 1987. In addition to the. school capital needs, the Commissioners _ - - will be in the process of determining'how to finance other long-range capital - needs that will be included in the County's Five Year Capital Improvement - Plan scheduled to be submitted to the Board in the spring of 1987. . _ As a result of these two events, there is a need for the Board to begin • discussing and evaluating the various alternatives for funding the long- range capital needs of the schools and the County. After today's information on the methods of financing together with advantages - : and disadvantages there would be a second discussion on January 20, to try to arrive at a consensus on the preferred approach or combination- of approaches. ' Between the 5th and 20th the County will be reqeiving more specific information . from the schools and CHR Space Study. This will be passed to the Board Members in preparation for the meeting on-the 20th.to the extent it is available. A special meeting with the two school boards is planned for - January 27 in order to finalize a decision as to what is to be reported to the. state. Please retain the information in this packet for the meetings on the 20th and 27th. 160 RECOMMENDATION: To consider the pros and cons of the various options outlined by the Finance Director in the attached memo and to bring forth any other options that may be possible but not mentioned in the attachment. Also, the Board should consider certain questions that you may want to pose in reviewing the school boards list of capital needs. These questions are included in the attached memorandum from the N. C. Association of County Commissioners. - • Soanttl of(q 181 FINANCE DEPARTMENT rJ „.....) MEMORANDUM ORANGE COUNTY GORDON R. BAKER DIRECTOR TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Finance Director/ SUBJECT: Financing Options for Long-Range Capital Needs DATE: December 23, 1986 Some possible sources of funding for long-range capital needs (schools and others) are outlined below for your consideration. These sources, as well as any others that may not be listed, are scheduled to be discussed at the January 5th Board Meeting as a first step in preparing for the County's response to a survey of school capital needs being conducted by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. In addition to the school capital requirements, the County faces other long-range capital needs that will be brought to the Board for consideration in the Spring of 1987 as part of the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan. Five Possible Sources of Funding 1. Local bond issue - This would allow major capital projects for the schools and other needs to be undertaken much sooner than under the present pay-as- you-go plan. Also the advantage of bonds is that it spreads the repayment cost over a longer period and to the public that will benefit from the project. The disadvantage of this approach is that passage of the bonds through voter approval is uncertain. Also, costs of a referendum and interest cost make the total outlay higher than a state bond pool or pay-as-you-go approach. 2. State bond pool - Again, major capital projects for schools could be under- taken much sooner and with the beneficiaries paying the cost over the life of the project. Enabling legislation is needed from the General Assembly and then a statewide referendum must be held before this option is available. Advantages of this option over a local bond issue are the elimination of the costs of holding a referendum at the local level and the reduction in interest costs as a result of the debt being issued by the State rather than the County. However, this would only be available for school capital needs and would not address the other needs of the county. 3. Two-thirds net debt reduction bond issue - While this would not require voter approval, the amount of bonds that could be issued each year is small and would hot be sufficient to allow the County to move ahead with the major projects that are needed. Taking last year as an example, were the County to have borrowed in relation to the principal paid in that year it would only have amounted to $330,000.00. 106 EAST MARGARET LANE • HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 • 919/732-8181 162 Memorandum Board of County Commissioners December 23, 1986 Page 2 4. Pay-as-you-go - This has the advantages of no financing costs nor costs associated with a local referendum. The disadvantages are that the needs will probably outpace the funds available, and that there is an up-front burden to pay for the projects instead of spreading the repayment over the useful life. The County could do a combination bonds and pay-as-you-go approach by issuing bonds to the extent that could be supported by annual proceeds from the sales tax. 5. Impact fees - Enabling legislation is needed from the General Assembly before any fees can be enacted. It is not known at this time what type or amount of fee structure will be needed to fund the various projects that could benefit from the establishment of this type of fee. RFGTD DEC 10 E9b • r NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS • 6 4."-' 1 ■40410 MEMORANDUM TO: County Managers • FROM: Ed Regan, Fiscal Analyst DATE: December 8, 1986 SUBJECT: New School Facility Needs Survey • Introduction The State Board of Education has authorized an update of the School Facility Needs Survey of 1984. The State Department of Public Instruction now is sending out the survey instructions and forms to local school board superintendents. The responses -to the survey are to be returned to the State Department by January 31, 1987. Need For Update _ There are several reasons why the State Board of Educati®n has launched this new survey. 7 . 3. Governor Martin's proposal to create a state-level school construction loan fund will require up-to-date and accurate data on the extent of school capital needs. 2. The 1986 local sales tax law requires the State Treasurer to make an annual report to the General Assembly detailing school building needs, county financial commitment, and the use of sales tax proceeds. The updated school building data will be incorporated in the Treasurer's report. 3. T result's of the 1984 survey have been questioned by many state - 1 gisl tors and county officials. • were the needs based on immediate or long-range projections, to what extent did the 1984 survey reflect the impact of the Basic Education Program, etc? 4. Some state legislators also have expressed concern that counties might not be able to keep pace in providing school buildings needed to house the additional state-funded teachers, support personnel, and administrators made available by the Basic Education Program. New Process Current and accurate information on school building needs will be of critical importance to the General Assembly in 1987 and beyond. The -OVER- ALBERT COATES LOCAL GOVERNMENT CENTER 215 N.DAWSON ST. • P.O.BOX 1488 • RALEIGH.NORTH CAROLINA 27602 • TELEPHONE 919/832.2893 , . 164 - _ • MEMORANDUM ;pace at which the state implements the Basic Education Program and legislative resolution of the issue of state/county financing responsibilities for public education may depend on the outcome of this new survey. Although the new survey instrument may not be perfect, there have been some notable improvements in the format and in the process for developing the needs estimates. Our staff worked with representatives of the State Treasurer's office, the Division of School Planning, the Office of the Governor and the staff of the General Assembly in the development of the new survey. The following is a summary of several important changes in the new survey: o Time Frame: Earlier surveys by the state department were 'not specific as to the length of time covered by the building needs estimates. The new survey requests local school officials to indicate priority building needs for a 6-year period (1987-1992) . Also, if information is available about longer-range needs, school boards may indicate these needs in their responses. o Basic Education Program: In . 1984, the Basic Education Program (BEP) was in draft form and its implications for building needs might not have been fully understood by local boards of education. The new survey instructs the school boards to consider the phased reduction in class size ratios, additional. teachers for new programs and other elements of the BEP which will impact facility needs over the next 6 years. o Input and Review by Local Boards of Education and County Commissioners: There was no formal requirement in the 1984 survey for official submission of needs estimates by local school boards. Also, there was no role at all for boards of county commissioners. The new survey requires official sign off by local school boards as well as review by county commissioners. Additionally, the board of county commissioners is asked to indicate how the 6-year needs estimates are to be financed. - We believe the recognition in this survey of the statutory role granted to county commissioners by G.S. 1150-521 (b) in reviewing and approving school facility needs is a major step forward. Important Questions . We expect that local boards of education will submit their official needs estimates to boards of county commissioners in January. We have developed a checklist of questions which your board may wish to pose in reviewing the school board (s) listing of needs. The checklist of questions is attached. You may want to contact your school superintendent in the next week to get a copy of the survey package. Please call us if you have questions. Managers Memo/regan3 - 16b Suggested Questions Regarding 1986-87 School Facility Needs Survey The Association staff have developed a few questions which commissioners may wish to ask when the updated public school building needs estimates are presented to the board. Also, we have included a commentary after each question to provide background. 1. What are the reasons stated for listing •building (s) as obsolete and needing replacement? Comment: There are significant numbers of older school buildings which do not meet the state building code requirements. However, there may be other structures which are considered obsolete because they are not suitable in terms of present-day curriculum requirements or are not located in areas with sufficient student enrollment. 2. Does the six-year plan presented by the board of education take into account any existing unused classroom capacity in sound buildings? Comment: The answer to this question may be very important in terms of how your local board (s) of education accommodate new state funded teaching and support positions made available under the Basic Education Program. Existing school facilities that are up to code (e.g. safe and structurally sound) may have unused space to absorb some of these new state positions. The public school building standards contained in the Basic Education Program are guidelines at this point. The Public School Finance Reform Study Committee of the General Assembly has requested that the State Board of Education develop firm standards (requirements) that would apply to new construction. Existing structures that meet the state building safety code would be covered by a "grandfather" clause through the remainder of their useful life. Thus, existing facilities would not be subject to the space per student requirements of the Basic Education Program. 3. - Does the six-year plan address the possibility of using existing . classroom and office space now utilized to house locally funded teachers, support personnel, and administrators to accommodate the positions to be funded by the state under the Basic Education Program? Comment: Here, again, the impact of the Basic Education Program needs to be considered. Many counties have provided funds for local school boards to hire additional teachers, librarians, etc. ; The General Assembly recognizes the possibility that, as the state funds more teachers and other personnel, the positions previously funded by local dollars will be transferred to the state payroll in order to free up local funds for school capital needs. 4. Are the bases used to estimate costs on new construction, renovations, etc. , reasonable? i66 Questions and Comments -2- Comment: The Division of School Planning recommends that $60 per square foot (excluding land and movable equipment) be used to calculate Construction costs. Based on recent school construction projects, $60 is a good general square footage cost estimate. However, costs may vary in different locations and from one type of project to another. • Managers Memo/regan3 6 St ,e M WDrt11 (! arul na DEC r 77 A.CRAIG PHILLIPS Sirritrintrnbrnt of'Public 1210trustion s EPINIT P+DeNr December 5, 1986 laaltigh 27511 MEMORANDUM TO: All Superintendents FROM: Craig Phillips, State Superintendent RE: A Survey of Public School Facility Needs Following our meeting in Greensboro on October 28th, our staff has met with the State Treasurer and representatives from the Governor's Office, the Local Government . Commission, the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, the North Caroli- na School Boards Association and the Fiscal Research Division of the General Assem- bly. This revised survey instrument is a response to their suggestions. I encourage each of you to involve your county commissioners in this new effort as we work toward a partnership in each of our one hundred counties. I also encourage you to work toward January 31, 1987, as a completion date as our staff must compile your responses for the upcoming session of the General Assembly. If you have, questions, please feel free to call on us for assistance. ACP:DS:sml Enclosures 11-10 • Administrative Unit County SCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS, 1986-87 The Board of Education submits these estimates of actual and realistic needs which it has determined to be necessary to provide a safe, attractive, functional environment for every student as specified in the Basic Education Program. The total of these estimates is $_ • Adopted by the Board of Education on Chairman Date -Secretary, Ex-officio bate Page 1 of 4 Administrative Unit County FUNDING SCHEDULE FOR SCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS The Board of County Commissioners has reviewed the long-range plan and Summary of School Facility Needs submitted by the Board of Education. The board of commissioners proposes to fund these facility needs in accordance with the following schedule: 1987-88 through 1989-90 $ 1990-91 through 1992-93 $ Future needs $ Total Comments (If you are unable to specify a proposed funding schedule at the present time, please indicate the reasons below.) : Adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on Chairman Date Clerk Date Page 2 of 4 170 Administrative Unit SUMMARY OF SCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS, 1986-87 Replacement of Temporary Facilities - Most school systems in North CaroTina are experiencing an increase in school member- ship for grades K-5. This compounds an existing problem as many administrative units still have students housed in mobile units, in temporary frame buildings, in multipurpose rooms or in other temporary quarters. This category in- cludes the estimated cost of adequately housing all students who are now in temporary quarters. The cost of land and equipment is included, where applicable. $ Replacement of Obsolete Facilities - Approximately 24% of the teaching stations in North Carolina are located in facilities constructed prior to 1949. Most of these buildings are non-fire resistive structures; many have serious building code violations. Most of these buildings are unsuitable for long-range use. Likewise, some of the fire resistive build- ings constructed after 1949 may have code violations and be unsuitable for long-range use. This category includes the estimated cost of replacing the obsolete facilities regard- less of date of construction. The cost estimates include land and equipment, where applicable. $ Renovation of Buildings Which are Suitable for Long-Range Use - Approximately 3O% of all teaching stations in North Carolina are housed in buildings which were constructed be- tween 1950 and 1959. Many of these buildings are minimal by today's standards, contain asbestos which should be removed and have building code violations which should be corrected. Most buildings constructed in this era lack the special facilities needed to accommodate the Basic Education Program. A major _renovation will cost up to one-half of the cost of new construction. Many buildings built in the 1960's and early 1.970's would also benefit from renovations. This category includes the estimated cost of renovations to build- ings which are suitable for long-range use. $ New or Renovated Facilities for Exceptional Children - Few public school facilities constructed prior to 1965 were planned to accommodate students with special needs. Self- contained programs for the severely and profoundly handi- capped, trainable mentally handicapped and educable mentally handicapped are frequently housed in regular classrooms or temporary classrooms which lack toilet facilities, sinks, adequate ventilation and adequate instructional areas. Resource teachers for exceptional children frequently share standard classrooms or are housed in mobile units or other inadequate accommodations. This category includes the estimated cost of providing all exceptional children with appropriate facilities, including land and equipment, where applicable. $ Page 3 of 4 17 Administrative Unit Accessibility for the Handicapped - Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires boards of education to make all programs and activities accessible to the handi- capped. Section 504 is applicable to school employees, parents, and other citizens as well as students. Most buildings constructed since 1973 are accessible to the handicapped or can be easily modified. Most buildings constructed prior to 1973 will require extensive modifica- tions; many will require elevators. This category includes the estimated cost of making all buildings which are suitable for long-range use accessible to the handicapped. $ Renovations for Energy Conservation - Limited federal monies have been made available on a matching basis to conduct energy audits and make some renovations for energy conserva- tion. The amount, however, has been insufficient. This category includes the estimated cost of renovating buildings to improve their energy efficiency. $ Community Schools Many school facilities are used by the community. Typical projects in this category include renova- tions to existing areas to improve their function and to enhance their use after school hours. New or Renovated Facilities for Administration, Maintenance, Transportation, and Warehousing - Many school- systems in North Carolina have adequate facilities for administration and operations while others house these functions in totally inadequate facilities. This category includes the estimated cost for adequately housing all administrative, maintenance, transportation and warehousing functions. $ Other Needs - School systems have many facility needs which do not fit the categories above. For example, elementary schools may lack appropriate indoor play areas or multipur- pose rooms; junior high/middle schools and high schools may lack teaching theaters. Increased participation in girls' athletics in grades 7-12 may have intensified the need for an auxiliary gymnasium. Shifts of student population may result in the need for system-wide reorganization and, consequently, new schools. Many kindergarten and primary programs are housed in conventional classrooms which are inadequate in size and lack special facilities. Schools may lack or have inadequate Master Antenna. Television systems; an earth station may be needed in remote areas. More stringent environmental standards are requiring more sophisticated sewage disposal systems. This category includes the estimat- ed costs for school facilites which are not indicated in categories above. $ TOTAL Page 4 of 4 172 •-]-, NOV 1 7 Age 1` NORTH CAROLINA 11 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SUPERINTENDENT 116 west Edenton Street •Education Building WI L AM W. PEEK Raleigh •2760-1712 SENIOR ASSOCIATE STATE SUPERINTENDENT November 14, 1986 MEMO TO: All Superintendents FROM: William W. Peek W ee Senior Associate State Superint dent Darrell Spencer, Director 0:46.7.cmell/ Division of School Planning SUBJECT: Governor's Proposal for Funding School Construction On October 9 the Governor held a press conference to propose a "loan fund" for school construction. You were mailed copies of the press release and a cover memo from Dr. Phillips on October 10th. As you know, the Governor's proposal would allow counties to use part or all of the two one-half percent sales taxes (or any other non-restricted monies) to repay the loan. The chart in the press release indicated the amount of revenue generated by the sales taxes in 1985-86 and the loan potential using only the mandated 40 percent and 60 percent of the revenue. The attached chart prepared by our staff, titled "Loan potential under Governor's School Construction Proposal , 1987-88," increases the revenues by 7 percent annually through 1987-88, the earliest year that the program could be implemented. The chart also indicates the amounts that could be borrowed under various funding levels. We trust that this information will be helpful as you plan with your board of education and board of county commissioners. Please feel free to call on us if you have questions or if we can assist you in any way. WWP/DS/st Attachment rw OI *) 1A++.. ,,„,ncdo.. ,- LOAN POTENTIAL UNDER GOVERNOR'S SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROPOSAL , 1987-88 1983 and 1986 Loan 1983 and 1986 loan 1983 and 1986 Loan 1983 and 1986 Loan Sales Taxes Potential Sales Taxes Potential Sales Taxes Potential Sales Taxes Potential County 100% d 100% 1987-88 160% & 60% 1987-88 40% R 100% 1987-88 40% d 60% 1987-88 Jones 553,961 5,984 ,456 443, 169 4,787,565 381 , 173 4, 189, 119 276,981 2,992.228 Lee 1 .631, 149 17.692.634 1 ,310, 199 14. 154 , 107 1 , 146 ,424 12.384,844 818.614 8,646.317 lanoi1 2, 705,860 29,231 ,466 2, 164 ,668 23,385. 173 1 ,894 , 102 20, 162,026 1 ,352.930 14,615, 133 Lincoln 2,362. 146 25.518.317 11889, 711 20.414,653 1 .653.502 17,862.822 1. 161,073 12.759, 158 Macon 11179,818 12,746,251 943,903 10. 197,001 825 ,915 6,922,376 589,939 6.373, 126 Madison 863.893 9,332,659 691 , 115 7,466. 121 604 ,725 6.532,861 431 ,947 4,666.329 Martin 1 .326.906 14,356,211 1,063, 126 11 ,484 ,974 930,235 10.049,352 864,454 7, 118. 109 McDowell 1 ,959, 745 21 . 1T1 . t10 1 .567 ,796 16,936,936 1,311 ,622 14.619,819 919,873 10.685.585 Mecklenburg 15.256.822 164 .819, 778 12,205,458 131 ,855,822 10.679, 716 115.373,844 7,628,411 82,409.889 Mitchell 128,641 7,871 ,524 582,913 6.297.219 510,049 5.510,067 364,320 3,935.762 Montgomery 1 ,085, 476 11 ,726,421 668,381 9,381 , 137 759,833 6,206,495 542,736 5,863.211 Moore 2,369,770 25,600.677 1,895.816 20,460,542 1 ,658.839 17,920.474 111841885 12.800,339 Nash 2, 747,669 29,685,289 2, 198,295 23, 748,232 1 ,923 ,506 20, 779.70.3 1 ,373,935 14,642,645 New Hanover 4,600, 447 49,698, 733 3.680,358 39,758,986 3,220,313 34 ,789, 113 2,300,224 24.849,366 Northampton 1 ,052, 118 11 ,474 ,065 849,694 9. 179,268 743,483 8,631 ,859 531 ,059 3,737 .042 Onslow 5,842,011 63. 111 .371 4,673,609 50,489,091 4 ,089,408 44, 177,960 2,921 ,006 31 ,555,685 Orange 3, 109.956 33,596,921 2,487,965 26,677 ,531 2, 176.969 23,517,845 1 ,554,978 16.796, 461 Pamlico 594,229 6,419, 468 475,383 5, 135,515 415,960 4,493,626 291, 114 3,209, 734 Pasquofank 1 ,240,450 13,400,605 992 ,360 10.720, 484 868,315 9.380,424 620,225 6.100,303 Pander 1 .259.934 13,611 .090 1 ,007,947 10.8e8.872 881 ,954 9,527, 763 629,967 6,605.545 Parquimans 458,571 4,954 ,016 366,861 3.963,213 321 ,004 3.467,611 229.288 2,477.008 Person 1 .536,591 16,599,824 1 .229.213 13,279, 860 1 ,075.614 11 ,619,877 166,295 8,299.912 Pitt 3,605,945 36,955,099 2,884, 756 31. 164 ,079 2,524 . 161 27,268.569 1.802,972 19,477.549 Polk 696,228 7,621.364 556,982 6.017.091 487 ,369 5,264,955 346. 114 3,780,662 Randolph 4, 488,841 48.493,049 3,591 ,013 38.794. 439 3, 142 , 189 33,945. 134 2.244.421 24,246,525 Richmond 1 ,964 ,244 21 ,219, 765 1 ,571 ,395 16,975,812 1 .314 ,970 14.853,836 982, 122 19,609,883 Robeson 4 , 732,062 51 , 120.563 3, 785,649 40.696,451 3,312 ,443 35,784,394 2,366.031 25,660,262 Rockingham 3,684.907 39.808, 125 2,947,925 31 .846,500 2,5191435 27,865,667 1 ,642.453 19,904,062 Rowan 4.268,604 46, 115,984 3, 415,043 36.892, 187 2.988 , 163 32,281 , 189 2, 134,402 23,057.992 Rutherford 2 ,852, 726 30,818,064 2,262. 181 24 ,654 .451 1 .998 ,908 21 ,572,645 1,426,363 15,409.032 Sampson 2. 484,063 26,835,605 1 ,987,267 21 ,468,484 1 , 738 ,858 18, 784 ,923 1.242,042 t3,411.802 Scotland 1 , 798,856 19,433.083 1.439,085 15.546.467 1 ,259. 199 13,603, 156 899,426 9,116.542 Slanly 2■ 109, 130 22. 784.975 1,687,304 58.221,980 1 ,416 ,391 16.949,463 1 ,054,565 11 ,392.488 Stokes 21055.568 22.206,343 1 ,644 ,454 11, 765,074 1 , 438,897 15,544.440 $.027,184 11 , 103, 171 Surly 3,020,411 32.629.561 2,416,329 26. 103,649 2. 114 .267 22,840,693 1.510.205 16,314. 780 Swain 567,39T 6, 129,598 453,917 4,903.678 397 , 178 4.290,718 263.695 3.064, 799 Transylvania 1 ,340. 704 14,463,658 1 ,012,564 11 ,586.927 936 ,493 10, 138,561 610.352 7.241 ,829 Tyrrell 232.131 2.514,201 186, 185 2.011 .361 162.912 1 .759.941 116,366 1.267, 101 Un1pn 3,854 , 110 41.636.029 3.063,288 33.308.824 2,697.877 29. 145.221 1 ,927.055 20.818,015 Vance 1 ,622,695 17,532, 168 1 ,298,316 14.025. 734 1 , 136.026 12.272.518 611 , 441 8.766,064 Wake 11 .541 , 161 124 ,619.410 9.232,929 99.743.528 8,078.813 87.275.587 5,710.580 62.330. 706. Warren 872,312 9,423,609 697,850 7,538,888 610.619 6.596,527 436, 156 4,711 ,805 .a Washington 628,553 6. 790,273 502,842 5,432.218 439.98T 4.753. 191 314,277 3,395, 136 Watauga 1 ,329,618 14; 364, 539 1 ,063. 742 11 ,491 .631 930, 775 10,055, 111 664,839 7, 182.269 Wayne 4, 102,461 44 ,318,970 3,281 .968 35.455, 116 2.871 .722 31 .023,219 2.061 .230 22, 159.485 Wilkes 3,298,911 35.636,204 2,639, 129 28,510,563 2,309,238 24,946, 742 1 ,649.455 17,819,102 Wilson 2,842,801 30, 110,636 2,214.241 24,568.669 1 .989,960 21 .491,585 1.421 ,400 15,355.418 Yadkin 1 .612,651 16.341 , 196 1 ,210, 120 13,012 ,951 1 ,056,855 11 , 436,638 756.325 8, 170,598 Yancey 646, 440 9. 165, 112 678. 752 1,332,570 593,908 6, 415,998 424.220 4.582,858 TOTALS 214. 199,335 2,962, 181 .303 219.359,468 2,369,745,042 191 ,939.534 2.073,526.912 137.099,667 1, 481 .090,651 I� NOTES: 1983 d 1956 Sales Taxes - Each column of ,1983 and 1986 Sales Taxes,, is the estimated 1981-88 county receipts for capital outlay if the county governments appropriate the given percentages for schools. 1987-88 estimated receipts from percent local $ales taxes are based on the 1985-86 distributions from the 1983 one-half percent local sales lax, as reported by the N. C. Department of Revenue, plus annual increases of seven percent . Atamence. Burke, Durham. and Peraon' 5 1985-86 distributions were estimaled by the Department of Revenue state these counties did not have a full year ' s collections. The projected revenues from the 1986 one-half percent local sales tax depend on enactmeal in all one hundred counties by 1987-881 presently ninely counties have enacted the tax . Loan Potential 1987-88 - The loan potential is the amount of loan that a county can afford under the Governor 's school construction proposal if the county government has committed The given percentages of the two one-half percent sales Saxes to capital outlay for school a . Of course, the amount of the loan will be subject to. approvai by the Local Government Commission. The loan potential is based on a Ieval repayment annually over a Twenty-year period ■l an interest rate of 6. 15 percent Division of School Planning N. C. Department of Public instruction November, 1986 i75 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.E2jL ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: JANUARY 5, 1987 SUBJECT: PROPOSED SPACE ALLOCATION PLAN DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 UNDER SEPARATE COVER TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To approve in concept a proposed space allocation plan for County departments and agencies done by CHR Associates. Ms. Toni Mason will present a summary of the plan and answer questions. NEED: The study was undertaken as part of an overall effort to develop a multi-year capital improvements plan for the County. It was also prompted by the need to re-evaluate space assign- ments in light of a move of offices to the new Planning and Agriculture Center Building. Not since the 1976 Facilities Study has such a comprehensive review been made of both owned and leased space. Six objectives were considered in undertaking the study. These include: 1. Determine which County agencies should occupy the Agricul- ture Building and a large portion of the new Courthouse basement when said spaces are vacated by the current occu- pants moving into the Carr Building. 2 . Allocate space in such a manner as to vacate the maximum square feet of rented space. 3 . Provide maximum possible expansion allowable, within the restrictions of the space available, to agencies needing increased square footage. 4. Determine the best location of agencies in order to satisfy adjacency requirements, thus facilitating efficiency of service. 5. Project generalized growth trends affecting County agen- cies. Recommend, accordingly, the best solutions for 176 future County facility locations and sizes. 6. Justify the need to allocate the new Courthouse in Hillsborough solely to functions directly related to the court. Evaluation was made of information gathered through the use of questionnaires, personal interviews, on-site inspection of each facility, study of architectural plans, and consideration of past space studies. The recommended plan aims at providing the best solution to utilizing existing space, given growth patterns and the architectural contraints which exist. It also sets forth an order for undertaking new construction in the future. IMPACT: Funds are budgeted to begin the renovations outlined for the Agriculture Building and Courthouse. New funding sources would have to be identified in the capital budgeting process to accomplish the new construction. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve the report in concept. ORANGE COUNTY 1 ~i BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Age Item No. rl ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: JANUARY 5, 1987 SUBJECT: EFLAND SEWER SYSTEM RULES AND REGULATIONS AMENDMENT TO DELETE SECTION XI, ITEM G DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 RULES AND REGULATIONS TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham -- 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider deleting Section XI, Item G from the Efland Sewer System Rules and Regulations. NEED: Section XI, Item G of the Efland Sewer Rules and Regulations states: Unpaid charges are a lien on the property connected to the system as provided in the Sewer Easement and Agreement. The collection of unpaid charges could be accomplished by having an agreement with water supplier to suspend service to that user. N. C. General Statute Section 153A-277 (c) does prohibit counties from using the lien/foreclosure method to collect unpaid/delinquent water and sewer charges. IMPACT: After deleting Section XI, Item G, an agreement with the water supplier to suspend service for those served by municipal water would be needed. RECOMMENDATION(5) : Approve deletion of Section XI, Item G from the Efland Sewer System Rules and Regulations. . ~ fir••... 7 Jr 176 XII. METER READING - BILLING - COLLECTING A. Orange County records will be the basis for all charges for service. All users are encouragbd to maintain receipts and other payment information and to bring any discrepancies in the user 's records and the County ' s records to the attention of the County immediately so that corrections, if any, can be made. The specific procedures to be followed in the event a user believes there has been a billing error are described in Article XIII. B. Meters will be read and bills rendered in accordance with the policies established by the County and any agency with which the County may contract. The County reserves the right to vary the dates or length of time covered by any statement, temporarily or permanently , if necessary for the efficient operation of the System. C. Statements for sewer service will be computed on the basis of the published rate schedule then in effect. D. Charges for sewer service commence when connection to the System is complete as prescribed and described in the Sewer Easement and Agreement. E. Each sewer connection will be separately metered and will be maintained as a separate account. F. Payment is due when the statement for- sewer service is received and delinquent 20 days after the statement date. If payment is not made within 20 days after 10 1 ( i7 F the statement date , sewer and. water service may be F discontinued. Statements will be sent to the address of the user as it appears on the application for service made by the user. It is the user's- responsibility to immediately notify Orange County of any change in this address. The user ' s failure to receive any statement or notice when it is addressed to the user at the address contained in the application shall not be a basis for forgiving delinquent payment and shall not be a basis for forgiving. discontinuation of service. L:Z> G. Unpaid charges are a lien on the property connected to the System as Y provided in the Sewer Easement and Agreement. XII. DISCONTINUATION OF SERVICE A. When service is discontinued, the deposit made by the user will be applied by the County toward settlement of any unpaid account. Any balance will be refunded to the user unless the amount is less than $1. 00. If the deposit is not sufficient to cover the outstanding account balance, the County may proceed to collect the balance in the manner provided in the Sewer 'Easement and Agreement or in any other manner provided by law for the • collection of a debt. B. The County, in addition to prosecution as provided by law, may discontinue and permanently refuse service to any user or property owner who tampers with a 11 180 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A ends Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: JANUARY 5, 1987 SUBJECT: RECONSTITUTION OF THE HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION (HSAC) DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S HSAC RECOMMENDATIONS OFFICE,X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider a revised draft regarding the restructuring of the HSAC which is an advisory board to the Board of Commissioners for human services. NEED: On December 16, 1986, the Board took action on the HSAC Task Force recommendation on the future composition, charge and resources necessary to support the HSAC. The attachment reflects the recommendation as revised by the Board. IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve the HSAC charge and composition statement as revised through earlier Board action. 181 ORANGE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION 1. Charge The HSAC shall be responsible for making recommendations to the Board of Commissioners concerning human services programs in the County in order to improve the quality of life. The HSAC shall develop, review, and periodically evaluate human services programs. The HSAC shall also function in an advisory capacity, providing counsel to human services agencies, commissions, and other groups within the County. 2 . Role of HSAC The HSAC shall be a planning and evaluative body with the following specific duties: A. Coordination of the County human services delivery system. B. Assessment of human services needs in the County. C. Evaluation of the level and availability of human services delivered by County departments and other agencies. D. Recommendations for improving the family orienta- tion of the County human services delivery system. E. Studies and projects as requested by the Board of Commissioners. 3 . Authority/Jurisdiction of the HSAC as it relates to the Board of Commissioners, non-departmental human services agencies and mandated human services boards (Health, Social Services and Mental Health) . Organization chart of County human services structure. A. The HSAC shall be appointed by and responsible to the Board of Commissioners and shall conduct an annual work session with the Board of Commissioners and present reports to the Board of Commissioners regularly. B. Cooperative relationship with mandated boards and County human services departments. C. Coordinate with Town Human Service Boards and other planning groups. y K p 182 4. Composition of the HSAC A. Seventeen members shall be appointed by the Board of Commissioners. The composition shall include a nominee from the following Boards/Associations: (1) Social Services, (2) Mental Health, (3) Public Health, (4) Department on Aging, (5) Orange County United Way, (6) Chapel Hill/Carrboro United Way, (7) Orange Congregations In Mission, (8) Inter- Faith Council for Social Services, (9) Board of Commissioners liaison, and eight members appoited AT LARGE to be equally divided between those who receive services (service recipient) and other Orange County citizens. B. The officers shall be a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson. C. HSAC members shall be appointed by the Board of Commissioners for staggered three year terms so that one-third of the terms expire in January of each calendar year. Members are eligible for reappointment for a second consecutive full term. After two consecutive terms a member shall be ineligible for reappointment for one year after the expiration of the previous terms. Appointments made to fill vacancies shall be for the unexpired term and shall not be counted as a term in deter- mining eligibility for reappointment. D. Officers shall be chosen annually. E. A regular meeting schedule shall be decided by the HSAC. 5. Staff Support A. The HSAC staff support shall be provided by the Assistant County Manager for Human Services and the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners. 6. Communication A. Communication and reporting shall be parallel to the lines on the attached organization chart. m 18ti ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A enc a Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: JANUARY 5, 1987 SUBJECT: CABLECASTING BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETINGS DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 CORRESPONDENCE TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider allocating matching funds for cablecasting of Board of Commissioners meetings. NEED: The Village Companies has offered up to $25, 000 as a matching grant to help the County, Town of Chapel Hill, Town of Carrboro, and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools buy and share cameras and equipment for cablecasting. The Town of Carrboro and City School Board do not desire to participate. The Town of Chapel Hill accepted the offer on June 9, 1986. Recently received correspondence from the Village Companies earmarked October 15, 1986 as the deadline for formal acceptance of the grant and January 15, 1987 as the final date for the deposit of matching funds into an escrow account. All grant funds must be expended by July 1, 1987. On October 6, 1986 the Board decided to request the Village Companies to extend the January 15, 1987 deadline for depositing matching to a date after July 1, 1987. The Village Companies responded by indicating the deadline will not be modified. IMPACT: Matching grant funds were not allocated in the 1986-87 Budget for cablecasting. It has been conservatively estimated that from $62,500 to $82,500 would be required of which only $12,500 would result from the Village Companies grant. RECOMMENDATION(S) : 1. Decline the Village Companies ' grant offer since matching funds are not yet available, and 2 . Decide on when to start cablecasting once permanent meet- ing rooms are selected for Hillsborough and Chapel Hill and once funding is available for the equipment purchase and operating cost. • RBI AUG 2s 19S6 V4 4 _ X� Ittae _�t?F a Co Panies 88 McClamroch Circle•P.O. Box 3300•Chapel Hill,North Carolina 27515.9191968-4811 Vi �and Controller August 22, 1986 - Mr. Ken Thompson . Orange County Manager 106 E. Margaret Lane - Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Ken: In May 1985, Village Companies offered a grant to Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools to match expendi- tures, up to a total of $25,000, for the purchase of equipment and related _ non-personnel costs to.cablecast public meetings by these governmental bodies. The initial offer was accepted by Chapel Hill and Orange County, and Orange County indicated it would fund the City School matching funds. In order to provide an orderly process for this grant, the following - procedure is established for allocation and disbursement of the matching. funds. By October 15, 1986, those who wish to participate in this procedure should indicate their intent to participate by notifying us in writing. In this way, each will know the amount of the required escrow deposit. Based on the number of participants, each will deposit its pro rata portion of $25,000 into an escrow account on January 15, 1987. At that same time, Village Companies will deposit an amount equal. to the total of such deposits up to $25,000. Earnings on the escrow account. will be used to offset any escrow agent fees with any excess to be distributed to those who made the initial deposits (including Village Companies) on a pro rata basis, based on the initial deposits. The funds will be disbursed to the appropriate governmental body up to a maximum of twice the amount of its initial deposit upon submission of copies of invoices for amounts spent for cablecasting equipment and related non-personnel costs. On July 1, 1987, any funds remaining from the initial contribution by any governmental body will be returned: The-balance of The Village Companies' contribution is available to match additional invoices from the other governmental bodies. If there are no additional invoices to be matched, the balance will be returned to Village Companies. - V.i7•- rr•r.G as:;rg,Inc.WCHL.C!iap°1 H'l:,N.0 •V Pace Cnnanuniratiens,Inc.WKQQ, h y.•:'i!!a Sroaiczst t9 k V 'U,FPale gh,N C i-c.The T9r Sports Network,i;haye1 Hill, I.C.•The Print Shop,Inc.Chapel Hill and Durham, V - v';• .,�.:aaa :�y Carp.The v e,e d rxate, ,nir,rsil Directories.The Trho le Pointer. /:lla a Prig,�Co-, JAcvermt �H ,N.C. cat:, rm.Chapel t;i:i.3r.-19a County,Cnath:,rn County,Pittsbc,ro,N.C.•Village Video Pfd Prach...ctions,ism Chapel KU,N.C. '111111.1.11....711.11111.m.111.11.11.7"41F—"—w-i- --4,:4 •NiAtV,' '` . ,•,,.•:- -• ,-,,,g‘z,,:-.. - - -' , -= , . . * rs Fly; '' :^ _'_ •: W4''''..: z'_ - _ I Examples: . Initial Deposits - overnmental bodies agrees to participate by October 1, If two g will deposit - _ each. will deposit $12,500. If there are three, e $8,.333. - - Distributions from Escrow • If there are three participants, submission of copies of invoices of $16,666 or more will cause disbursement of $16,666 to that . participant. On July 1, 1987, if only one participant has submitted and received payment for invoices for $16,666, i then it may submit copies of invoices totaling up to $33,334 and receive up to an additional $16,667. The other two participants will receive their $8,333 back at that time. If on July 1, 1987, two participants have obtained their maximum $16,666 remaining out of the escrow account, there will be $16, account, with $8,333 to be returned to the participant who did not expend any funds and $8,333 will be eligible for matching om an equal basis among the two participants who did expend funds. If not used, the $8,333 will be returned to Village Companies. . Should you have any questions, please contact me. Best regards, / 4 • . Robert E. Woodruff - - _ REWlkab cc: Don Wilihoit *OMEN APPEND X• • • -' • 'reti litieVillageftnapanikes Z�%egg 88 MCCIarnroch Circle/P.O.Box 3300 Chapel Hill,North Carolina 27514 9191968 481t - James a Herons -l:asides* May 24, 1985 _ Mayor Joe Nassif Mr. David• Taylor Mr. Dole Wilt Town of Chapel Hill - Town Manager Chairmsan 306 North Columbia Street 306 North Columbia Street Orange County Board Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 203 Lexington Road - Chapel 5111,_N.C. 27514 Mr. Ken Thompson _ Mayor Jim Porto Mr. Robert Morgan County Manager Town of Carrboro Town lem alter 106 East Margaret Lane 301 West Main Street 301 West Main Street Hillsborough, LC. 27278. Carrboro, N.C. 27510 Caxrboro, W•C. 27510 Mr. Ted Parrish Dr. Pamela Mayer Chairman . Superintendent Chapel Sill--Carrboro Chapel Hill-Carrboro - Board of Education City Schools . Lincoln Center Administrative Offices . - - Merritt Mill Road Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 Dear Dr. Mayer and Gentlemen: WCHL. and Village Cable's Chapel Hill-Carrboro Forum was a significant success by every measurement we use. Perhaps its most important immediate outcome is that it convinced me, and those of you with whom I have talked, about the ability • to go ahead and move immediately on making available your regular discussions to the widest possible audience through exposure through cable TV. At one time- or another, I have discussed with nearly all of you the benefits of. an inter-- agency partnership to combine the cost of a production packagre to cablecast all of your public meetings. The principal benefits are:. . 1) By combining costs, we significantly lower the entry level expense to begin the project. 2) By combining resources, the pooled funds can buy significantly enhanced production capabilities which, if paid by a single agency. might prove- to be unacceptably expensive in one lump. And: 3) The equipment can be used with more efficiency and less waste than if each agency begins with its own equipment, which would sit idle during the time when you were not in session. • Village Broadcasting,Inc.WCHL.Chapel Hill.N.C. • V8I.ga Communications.Inc.WICOO Lonangton,Ky. • Village Radio of Wilmington.Inc.WWOO,Wilmington,N.C. • Vulcan Broadcasting;Inc WZ•t`a, Raleighfeurtington,N.C- • Village Sports,Inc.The Tar Heel Sports Network,Chapel Hill.N.C. • Th.Print Shop.inc.Chapel HIlt and Durham. N.C. • Village Publishing Corp.The Village Advocate.University Directones:The Triangle Pointer.Village Printing.Melt Advocate.Ettandloys • Village Cable,Inc.Chapel Hill,Orange County.Chatham County.Pittsbo cr.N.C. •• Village-Video Productions,Mc.Chapel C- Page 2. Now, because of the success of the Chapel Bill-Carrboro Forum, and after conversations with several of you, Village Cable wishes to offer an incentive., or challenge, grant to those agencies who would like to take advantage of it to begin immediate cablecasting of its public sessions. Zhe terms of our offer are as follows: 1) The amount of the grant will be $25,000. 2) It will be presented to whatever combination of one or more government agencies among you who wish to participate in the purchase of a production package-by at least matching that amount in the aggregate.. For example: if only one government body wishes to accept our offer, it would match our grant with its own allocation of at least $25,000, or whatever . amount above $25,000 that it may wish to use to purchase the package or production equipment of,.its choice. If two agencies accept this offer and wish to participate, they would join with an allocation of at least 412,500 each. Three agencies, at least $8,333; four agencies, 46,250. - 3) Village Cable will also coordinate the purchase of the equipment, . and train those staff people at each agency whoa you designate in the operation of the equipment. Because the quality of the production can be a positive reflection upon all of us, Village.Cable will provide as much "hands on" training as is necessary to ensure that the quality of the coverage will be equal to that done by our own production staff. It is not difficult to learn to use the equipment, and each-staff will have some members who have a predilection to find the project enjoyable and will have the facility for rapidly developing the skins. 4) If .Carrboro desires to become involved, Village Cable will mmediately make all of its government agency programming available to the Carrboro system by allowing Carrboro to tap onto the Village Cable system-at. any point where it is now active, including any of our trunk which. _ now traverses Carrboro. And Village Cable will agree to take the government agency feed of the Carrboro public meetings at any point where it is made available to Village Cable at the point where Village's - trunk line upstream capability is now activated. . It is our belief that the joint production package with two or three cameras will make possible a far superior production and one more "watchable" than is currently being produced out of town hall or has been proposed under the new franchise agreement in. Carrboro. . 5) Village Cable will make this cash contribution to significantly underwrite the beginning of the project; all of the ownership of the production equipment will be in the hands of the government agencies - who accept the offer to participate and who organize an entity of their choice for joint ownership. The member agencies then determine what shall be cablecast and at what times. 6) The terms for those agencies who may wish to join the Government Agency Information Network at a later time would be determined by • Paga 3. _ y `S b the e'4 sting members. It is Village Cable's. desire to create an incentive for early acceptance of this proposal by all agencies.. There are two obvious benefits: 1) All those initial agencies may be involved in the process of determining the amount and kind of initial equipment ordered, and 2) significant equities would accrue to all those chartering agencies, because of the Village Cable contribution. In effect, each agency will own about twice as much- _ production equipment as it would otherwise.. - 7) Deadline for acceptance of offer: July 15, 1985.. ViLlage.Cable's offer must be accepted in writing to me and be received in my office . no later than that date. Attached is a-list for a proposed equipment package prepared by Village Cable's Director of Engineering, Rick. Hollowell. As you can see,. there are some options available which depend on funding levels. The two most important options are _ the third camera and the character generator. The third camera makes it possible to have a very cleans production sipce •it can be used for a standard "cover shot", thereby avoiding the possibility that. production could be trapped in an unwanted cutaway shot while the other camera was being put in position. It also provides some redundancy, so that a two- shot program can continue if one camera malfunctions. The character generator permits the director to superimpose the .name of the - person speaking when he or she is on the air. Finally, I am assured that this system is of such a design that a reasonably well-motivated person with a desire to learn to use the equipment can be taught to use it fairly quickly. Mr. Hollowell estimates that our people could bring a novice crew up to full proficiency by training them over the course of three meetings. The probable crew size will be three, although it could be done with two. The equipment may be stored anywhere at the choosing of the GAIN participating governments, but Village Cable is willing to act as a repository and assist in the necessary repairs at whatever the direct cost of the repair might be- Inevitably, questions will arise and we welcome them. I am convinced that we will not only do a better job of serving the constituencies of each of your agencies, but will also do a better job of promoting understanding among different parts of the county and between the two towns if GAIN has the widest possible agency participation. I'm hopeful that you and your board will agree in such a way that timely action can occur. Thank you. S -rely, (/ • • :mjw. '� _-__ _ - - .. • - • 1•g - MEMORANDUM • TO: Jim Seavaer - FROM: Rick Hollowell • RE: Basic Equipment for GAIN - _ . DATE:-. May 24, 1985 'The following is a video equipment .package that I propose as a basic system for cablecasting government agency meetings over the Village. Cable system. The basic package inclu as the following: - -2 cameras, JVC BY310 at $7,200 each $14,400 - 2 eamera. control units at' $1,700 each 3,400 2. cables at $700 each 1,400 - 2 zoom. lenses, intercoms, remote monitor 2,800 - remote focus at $1,400. each - - 2 tripods at $800 each = 1,600 1: video switcher 10,500 - a. portable light package at $550 550 includes 4 lights and stands • - • 1 - Return System Modulator at $2,300 - 2,300 • Scientific Atlanta 6350 - 1 Audio Limiter . - 1,500 1 Return System Demodulator - - 2,000 Scientific Atlanta 6250 1 Waveform Monitor/Vectorscope 3.000 black and white camera monitors _ 550 1 row of 3 monitors • color monitors - 1,500 - set of 2 portable equipment rack 500 power cords and accessories 75 Basic Package Total $46,075 •- - , Page 2. A third camera and associated equipment can be added to this page at an additional cost of approximately $11,800. A character generator can be added to this system for an aa at $8000. A unit at this price would be capable of approximately w of titles or text. - These additional items, which Village Cable reco s. S the total package price to approximately $66,000. The proposed system design would receive its audio feat from the casting sound systems, assuming the existing sound systems have a compatible interface for the Modulator's audio input. An audio system consisting of a mixer and 9 microphones would cost approximately $2600. The. equipment cabinet that the switcher, monitors. camera control units, -and modulator would be-mounted in is portable, with front and hack covers for protection during transit. - ' If all these things are purchased as a package, chances are excellent that a discount could be negotiated, perhaps ash as 5Z. Playback and recording V 's could also be interfaced with the system.. This proposed system 'has been designed for ma eimuat efficiency's reliability and simplicity of operation. The overall quality of the system would be the same as that video quality we were able to achieve for the Chapel. Hill.'.arrboro Forum cablecast on May 8. Please let me know if you need any further information. - - X91 ORANGE COUNTY - INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: County Manager FROM: Assistant County Manager SUBJECT: Cablecasting Commissioners' Meetings DATE: October 2, 1986 On May 24,1985, the President of the, Village Companies offered up to $25,000 as a matching grant to help local - governments buy and share cameras and other equipment for cablecasting. Under this proposal, Village Cable would match. any combination of funding by the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, ' Orange County and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. The cable company would also provide training at no charge. The equipment would be property of the participating governments. As indicated in Village's proposal, the total equipment cost would be approximately $66,000. The only remaining cost would be personnel costs for a camera opera- tor. Since the submission of the Village Companies offer, the Town of Carrboro and the School Board have declined to participate, the Town of Chapel Hill accepted a modified version of the offer on June 9, 1986, and the County accepted the offer in principle. Although the School Board decided against participation in the cost sharing arrangements, representatives of the School Board along with the Town of Chapel Hill staff and County staff have met numerous times during the past year to discuss cablecasting. Meetings also included site visits to the respective meeting facilities and the viewing of telecasting operations in the triangle area. After viewing other operations, the Village Companies suggested considering a voice-activated camera switching system which selects automatically, according to which microphone is used, among pre-set cameras focused at places around a meeting table and other points in a meeting room. In essence, each board member and staff (manager and county attorney) would have lapel -microphones which would trigger the camera mechanism when an individual speaks. The voice- activated system would require 6 pre-set stationary cameras (3 for the Commissioners, 1 for the staff, I for the podium and 1 for the easel area. The total cost would be approxi- mately $70,000 excluding sound system, lighting and extensive wiring if required. The County cost less $12,500 contribution from the Village Companies (1/2 of $25,000) would be $57,500. N . 19 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8607-801 Cabelcasting Commissioners' Meetings July 2, 1986 Page 2 Advantages of Voice-Activated Switching System - Cameras are pre-set, stationary and could be mounted on walls. ' Cameras are unobstrusive with audience and commis- sioners being somewhat unaware of telecasting. - Reduced personnel cost compared to conventional system. Two camera operators would not be required. However, a director/coordinator would be needed at least initially. - Lapel microphones are inconspicuous. Disadvantages of Voice Activated Switching System -- Lapel microphones are very sensitive. All sounds would be transmitted including coughs and paper rustling. However, lapel microphones can be provided with switches for temporary turn off. Cameras are pre-set and stationary. Cameras can not be transported to different meeting sites. Speaker must speak from pre-arranged position. Since the cameras are pre-set, the speaker can move partially or entirely out of the field of view. However, by setting a broad field of view for each camera, this problem can be limited. The conventional two-camera system proposed by the Village Companies (see attachment) would cost approximately $50,000 excluding lighting and sound system,, Advantages of Conventional System - Cameras are not pre-set allowing unlimited field of view. - Cameras can be transported to different meeting sites. - Town of Chapel Hill will implement this system. Town of Carrboro has similar system using one camera under an arrangement with Alert Cable. All County residents would be viewing comparable systems for all local governmental meetings. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDCJX: 8607-801. Cablecasting Commissioners' Meetings - July 2, 1986 Page 3 Disadvantages of Conventional System Extremely noticeable to everyone in the meeting room.. Requires personnel to operate cameras. May require altering of seating arrangements in small meeting facility. Other Concerns The Commissioners Room in the Hillsborough Court- house is not suitable for cablecasting. The 'room can not accommodate• cameras, equipment and citi- zens. All meetings would have to be held in the superior courtroom. Additional lighting and a new sound system would have to be installed. Conceivably, the improvements could be accomplished without altering the historical character of the superior courtroom. Cameras and related equipment could be positioned on the third floor utilizing the large window above the courtroom- - The Chapel Hill courtroom. would require additional lighting and a sound system. The courtroom is large enough for cameras and related equipment. - The conference room at the Lincoln Center could serve as meeting room, however, meeting dates would. have to be coordinated with the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School Board. This facility would permit a shared cablecasting arrangement with the school. board. M EQUIPMENT I SIX VOICE-ACTIVATED TWO CONVENTIONAL STATIONARY CAMERAS CAMERA ApploximatP_ Co $70.000 $50.000 Village Grant $12.500 $12_m0 Count*. Cost- $57,000 $37,500 (2 x.$57,500 if systems (Camera and equipment can are installed in be transported to meeting Hillsborough and Chapel sites) (2 x $37,500 if Hill) systems are installed in Hillsborough and Chapel Hill) Personnel (Director/Coordinator) Crwo Camera Operators) $5,000 $5,000 - Annually Annually Transportation (If desired) Motor Pool van at County mileage rates. Personnel cost is included. above) Lighting and Sound System $5,000 $5,000 Contingency Includes inflationary Includes inflationary factor, installation, factor, installation, extensive wiring, extensive wiring, structural changes structural changes $15,000 _ $15,000 TOTAL $82,500 $62,500 (One Location) • With all factors considered, the conventional system would be more advantageous at a cost of $62,500. r6144:11J-- h Albert ttrel 54s AK/srs cc: Board of Commissioners X95 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. I:7 14E; ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE January 5, 1987 Subject: Legislative Goals Conference Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS j Public Hearing: Yes I no Attachments: None Information Contact: Shirley E. Marshall Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-1+501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To provide opportunity to discuss 1987 Proposed Legislative Goals. NEED: To reach consensus on Legislative goals position. IMPACT: Consideration of views of each Board member. RECOMMENDATION: As you desire. X96 ORANGE COUNTY Action BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS it No/PA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE January 5, 1987 Subject: Public Charge Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: Yes I no Attachments: None Information Contact: Shirley E. Marshall Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To establish a public charge that would set the tone for civil decorum at all meetings of the Board of Commissioners. REED: Not all citizens respect the right of all other citizens to an orderly conduct of the public business and of each person ' s right to be heard fully and in turn. IMPACT: A understood process would be established to maintain or restore public. decorum. RECOMMENDATION: To adopt a Public Charge to be read following "Audience Comments" at each meeting. The following wording is recommended: The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful , courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member. to leave the meeting until that citizen regains personal control . Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. - 19? ORANGE COUNTY Action Ag BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE January 5, 1987 Subject: APPOINTMENTS I Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS II Public Hearing: Yes % no r Attachments: Under Separate Cover Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Phone Numbers: 132-8181, 968-1+501, 227-0231 • PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards. The following vacancies are announced for the first time for information only: A-13 - RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL - 1 additional vacancy (resignation of Thomas E. Link) . B-1 - BOARD OF HEALTH - 1 vacancy (resignation of David Kroninger) . 6-5 - DOMICILIARY HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - 1 vacancy (resignation of Esther Haithcock) . B-9 - MENTAL HEALTH BOARD - 1 vacancy due to an expiration of term for Dr. William Huffines who desires to be reappointed. C-1 - CARRBORO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - 2 vacancies due to expiration of terms for Margaret Brown and Will F. Ward (County appointees) . ' C-2 - CARRBORO PLANNING BOARD - 3 vacancies due to expiration of terms for Steven Chandler, Toy Cheek and Olivia Ludington (County appointees) . C-6 - HILLSBOROUGH PLANNING BOARD - 1 vacancy due to an expiration of term for Nancy Goodwin (County appointee) . C-8 - ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - 4 vacancies due to expiration of terms for David Shanklin, Steve Yuhasz, Prince Taylor and Dan Eddleman. The following vacancies are announced together with the indication of the status of securing candidates for possible appointment consideration. These vacancies have been duly advertised. A-12 - PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL - 1 vacancy (vocational rehabilitation representative) ; 1 resume is submitted for consideration. A-13 - RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL - 2 vacancies; no recommendation has been received. B-23 - LONG RANGE WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY COMMITTEE - Recommendations have been received from Orange-Alamance Water System, inc. , OWASA, Town of Hills- borough and Economic Development Commission. Nine (9) resumes are submitted for consideration. B-24 - RESERVOIR SITE COMMITTEE - Recommendations have been received from Orange-Alamance Water System, Inc. , OWASA and Town of Hillsborough. 1 RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. MMEMMEMMEMEmmmommr NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, • • MEMORANDUM TO: Board Chairmen, County. Commissioners, County Managers, - County Attorneys, and •Affiliate Presidents FROM: C. Ronald Aycock, Executive Director DATE: ' December 18, 1986 . SUBJECT: 1987 Proposed Legislative Goals Enclosed are the following materials, to be reviewed in preparation for the Legislative Goals Conference, January 14-15 at the 'Holiday Inn, Fayetteville: 1. "Procedures for Adoption of Legislative Goals;' 2. A list of Priority Goals (13) adopted by the Board of Directors for presentation at the Legislative Conference; 3. A list of Supplemental Goals (33) adopted by the Board for presentation at the Legislative Conference; - 4. A "Statement of Purpose" written to embody the Association's general legislative position and to provide guidance for positions taken on issues not part of the lists of Priority or Supplemental Goals, also adopted by the Board for - presentation at the Legislative Conference; and, 5. Copies of eight (8) Resolutions approved at the - Association's Annual Conference in August, 1986 that relate to legislative issues. - Both priority goals and supplemental goals are listed by subject area: Taxation and Finance, Education, Human Resources, Intergovernmental Relations, and Environmental Protection and Economic Development. (The Board has not recommended adoption of any supplemental goals in the area of Environmental Protection and Economic Development.) At its meeting in North Wilkesboro- in October, the Board adopted the following "Procedures for Handling Annual Conference Resolutions Having State Legislative Implications" : -OVER- ALBERT COATES LOCAL GOVERNMENT CENTER 215 N.DAWSON ST. • P.O.BOX 1403 • RALEIGH.NORTH CAROLINA 27602 • TELEPHONE 919/832-289a MEMORANDUM -2- 1 . A state legislative goal embodied in a resolution ea sptedea an Annual Conference of the Association shall be the legislative policy of the organization unless it Goals changed by action of the membership at a Legs Conference or subsequent Annual Conference. 2. The Board of Directors'may recommend changes in legislative es hang , must - policy as set out in paragraph 1; but any such changes be approved by the membership at the Legislative Goals _ Conference or subsequent Annual Conference. _ _ 3. . 4 n however ,All legislative goals of the Association, established, shall cease upon the final sinedie adjournment of the biennial session of the General Asse y As indicated in the "Procedures for Adoption of Legislative t�ls," copies of the Resolutions are included with the addition, the;,"Be it Resolved" paragraph of each resolution has been included below each appropriate recommended goal (marked with an-- asterisk) ." The wording of the legislative goal represents the Board's recommendation as to the wording of the Association's position on each issues addressed in Annual Conference Resolutions, consistent of those i - with the above policy. These g oals represent the work and recommendations an f Association's Legislative Goals Committee, as reviewed a modified the Board of Directors. The Legislative Goals Committee, co-chaired by Bob Ewing of Moore County and Mike Wilkins of Person C County, 1st four times in October and November and reviewed submitted by individual Boards of Commissioners and rthe .Ass Association's e eight affiliate organizations. The Committee also adopted prior the 1985 legislative session, recommendations of the P P Association' s Steering Committees, �,ssuesro ed at Axinual Conference. committees and, as noted, resolutions app The Legislative Goals Conference rep resents thefinal stage in ment of a set of realistic goals upon which members�ersto€generate development the Association can agree. This process is also understanding of these goals and the fissues mino lvissand is of critically important to the continuing success o Association. We hope you will be able to join us at the Conference others urge you to discuss thers prior to and during the these goals and issues with your colleagues and o and we urg Y Legislative Goals Conference. , Le g.Goals.Cong. /JB2A • STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners hereby affirms its constitutional premise that counties, like individuals, cannot profitably and happily exist in isolation. Their destinies are intertwined. They must progress or fail together. Their problems are . largely the same; if they are to be solved speedily and effectively, all counties must band- themselves together to work for the common good. Many common problems exist among the counties of North Carolina and, where common problems exist, cooperation is necessary. The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners establishes as a principle the goal of providing control of essential services- at the level of government most capable of delivering them. Counties cannot be effective partners with the State and Federal governments if their primary revenue source, the property tax, is eliminated or is further eroded without replacement with revenue sources that are secure and predictable. Any restructuring of responsibilities should he coupled with a restructuring of revenue sources for counties in order that the sources of , revenue are reflective of the economy in the same proportion as those of the State. The Association believes strongly in maximu=m local authority consistent with attainment of statewide objectives. To this end, we believe in flexibility of form, function and finance. County officials recognize their responsibilities to carry out policies formulated by the General Assembly. At the same time, state policy makers should recognize the limitations of the county revenue base and the variations in revenue producing capabilities among counties. The Association believes that every child should have equal access to a high quality basic education program designed to prepare students for successful living, work, and good citizenship in a modern society. Recognizing that the responsibility for public education in our country is that of the states, the Association believes that adequate state resources must insure equal access to the Basic Education Program for all North Carolina children. The Association supports a continued Federal role in the funding of educational services. The Association further believes that citizen control of public schools is essential to guarantee continued widespread understanding and support for this major responsibility of government: the education of its people. Joint cooperative action between boards of county commissioners and local school boards is essential to the successful delivery of excellent public education. The free exchange of information and ideas among the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, the North Carolina School Boards Association, and the North Carolina Department of Public Education is likewise necessary to promote understanding of the variety and complexity of issues related to public education. -2- Comprehensive and efficient human services, including social services, health and mental health programs, are essential to human well:being in our present society. These services must be clearly defined and adequately funded. State mandated services delivered at the county level should be financed from state revenue sources in order for every citizen of North Carolina to receive a substantially similar degree of :. service. Because the counties are impacted by state salary increases ' and by inflation in non-salary .items in human service programs, the Association will continue to support funding' of the Jordan-Adi®as provision which acknowledges this state impact on county budgets_ The Assopiation supports legislative efforts to improve: and.-assoare adequate availability of quality long-term care facilities for elderly, and disabled citizens and the Association will offer its general. support for budget requests which would provide additional local program funds in human services programs., provided that such requests do not obligate additional county funds. r - The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners has • traditionally maintained that its lobbying efforts should not be utilized on behalf of individual counties seeking legislative remedy: for problems not statewide in nature. The Association will direct Its lobbying efforts toward the support of sound legislation beneficial to the administration of all counties' affairs, and to the- opposition of... legislation injurious to the counties as a body. • Statement of Purpose/goals LE01SLATIVI1 RE90LUTIONS APPROVED AT 1966 Al►iNUAL CONFERENCE AND C0RItESp0NDjV0 LEGISLATYVE GOALS 1�ESOLUTIO REFUND Or UTILITY SALES TUSS , (T&F) SALES TAX REFUNDS (Supplemental) E SALARIES poR EDUCATIONAL PERSONNEL COUNTY SUPPLEMENTS POR EDUCATIONAL (Supplemental) pLRSOI�NEL , R hECOVERY OF ADMINISTRATIVS COSTS FUNDING Or ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 09' (H � (supplemental) MANDATED SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS FUNDING OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF (HR) RECOVERY OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS DAY CARE SERVICES (Supplemental) HR TRANSPORTATION FOR ELDERLY AND • ft TRANSPORTATION OF MEDICAID RECIPIENTS ( ) DISABLED (Supplemental) FORMULA FOR SECONDARY ROAD FUNDING (IR) SECONDARY ROAD FUNDING (Supplemental) ' LAW OFFICER RETIREMENT- BENEFITS (IR) SEPARATION ALLOWANCES FOR LAW OFFICERS (Priority) (IR) LAW OFFICER RETIREMENT BENEFITS (Priority) STATE LANDFILL AND GROUNDWATER REGULATIONS (EP) SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL(T&F) _ Goal found ZNANCE AREA. . . (E) Goal fo und in-EDUCATION AREA (HR) - Goal found in HUMAN RESOURCES AREA. (IR) - Goal found in INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AREA. (EP) - Goal found in ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA. Dd goals/GOALS" 1987 LEGISLATIVE GOALS PROPOSALS -- PRIORITY (As adopted by the Board of Directors - 1211 0186) TAXATION AND FINANCE •o • LOCAL REVENUE SOURCES Seek legislation to authorize a menu of revenue sources which-will ': allow local governments to enact the revenue producing options suited to the unique circumstances and needs of their citizens, such as taxes on land transfers, hotel, and motel accommodations, personal income, or employer payroll or through the extension of sales and use taxes to services. Such a menu will give localities the flexibility needed to provide services to their diverse populations. In authorizing options, it is important that: 1) the proceeds coae. to local governments; 2) the distribution of these revenues recognize not only need, but local effort and innovation; and 3) the purposes of the, revenue continue to remain flexible so that they meet the actual needs and priorities of the enacting local governments MORE FLEXIBLE BORROWING Seek legislation to give local governments the option of borrowing up. to one-half of. one percent of their assessed property valuation without a vote of the people, in addition, to the authority local governments now have to borrow up to two-thirds of the amount. by which indebtedness was reduced during the previous fiscal- year. - AUTOMOBILE PROPERTY TAXES Seek legislation to enable governmental units to recover revenues lost as a result of unpaid property taxes on motor vehicles. EDUCATION CLARIFICATION OF. FUNDING RESPONSIBILITIES Seek legislation clearly defining_the_ -respective responsibilities of the state and county governments for financing public elementary and secondary education. In general, this clarification should provide for the state to finance instructional expenses and other required expenditures for current operations from state revenue sources and counties to provide for facility needs. The property tax should not be used as an equalizer in this effort. STATE-FUNDED SCHOOL SYSTEMS Seek legislation to provide state funding for no more than one school system per county in order to better utilize school facilities and financial resources. HUMAN RESOURCES FLEXIBILITY IN HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS - Seek legislation to Amend G.S. 153A-77 to remove- population threshold, enabling any county to develop a single portal Of entry, a - consolidated case management system, and a common dates base for human services. • HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING - Support appropriation of $5 million block grant to assist counties in the provision of mandated human services programs. - • AREA MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING Support appropriations to provide "catch up" funds to reduce the tremendous disparities in state funding of area programs by providing supplemental, non-categorical funding to those programs, below the statewide per capita mean. - INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS RADIOACTIVE WASTE SITE SELECTION Seek legislation to assure that counties which are: potential sites for the low-level radioactive- waste depository are erectly involved in the site selection process and receive fair and equitable treatment in the selection process. - SEPARATION ALLOWANCES FOR LAW OFFICERS* _ Support legislation to provide state assistance in funding the special separation allowance granted to local law enforcement officers by the General Assembly in 1986 and to provide for state administration of the separation allowance program. - . LAW OFFICERS RETIREMENT BENEFITS* • Support legislation to mitigate the consequences of action by the General Assembly in granting retirement benefits to local law enforcement officers that are unavailable to other local employees. '* Annual Conference Resolution provided: : "NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners calls on the 1987 General Assembly to mitigate.. the consequences of the legislature' s action in enacting House Bill ` - is 2130 in 186, by redressing financial and managerial impac of the bill. "If the legislation is left unchanged, the General-. Assembly slcl provide funding necessary to ameliorate the effect on local - governments as well as that necessary to redress the imbalance between local law enforcement officers and other local employees,, and should provide for administration of these benefits through the normal retirement system mechanism. " (Full text of Resolution included in your packet.) JAIL CONSTRUCTION AND COURT COSTS Seek legislation to provide state assistance for much needed jail construction, to increase facilities fees imposed as a court cost and to clarify the authority of judges to access certain misdemeanants the cost of alternative incarceration. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL* • Support legislation to provide state assistance for solid waste collection and disposal projects at the local level and in developing reasonable and enforceable groundwater regulations that allow counties to adequately dispose of solid waste while also providing a reasonable amount of environmental protection. * Annual Conference Resolution provided: "NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners calls on the appropriate regulatory agencies and 1 the North Carolina General Assembly to recognize the impractical I nature of groundwater regulations as- the apply to landfills and to take the necessary corrective measures to allow counties to dispose of solid waste while also providing a reasonable amount of environmental protection." (Full text of Resolution included in your packet-) ADOPTED/GOALS • priorities -- pgs 2-4 • 1987 LEGISLATIVE GOALS PROPOSALS - SUPPLEMENTAL (As adopted by the Board of Directors-- 12/10/86) TAXATION AND FINANCE -. DISTRIBUTION OF STATE-COLLECTED LOCAL SALES TAXES Seek legislation to provide for more frequent distribution of state-collected local sales tax revenues. If more frequent distribution: is not feasible, interest should paid to local. governments for the period during which the funds are held by the state. _ REFUNDS* SALES TAX R ` _ Seek legislation to assure that state sales tames paid by local governments are refunded to those local governments. *Annual Conference Resolution provided: - "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners calls on the North Carolina General Assembly to enact legislation which provides that counties, public school systems, community colleges, technical institutions, as well as any other entities currently authorized to receive refunds of state sales taxes, shall receive refunds of utility sales taxes in the same fashion as is provided in G.S. 105-164. 14 (c) for other sales taxes." (Full text of Resolution included in your packet.) ABC REVENUES - Seek legislation which would return greater revenues to county government from ABC sales. SINGLE AUDIT Seek state legislation to allow for single audit implementation for local governments so that local governments will have clear policies and procedures to follow in the administration of the required single audits and to avoid the duplication-of efforts that occur with agency-by-agency implementation and interpretation of various requirements. RISK FINANCING BONDS Seek legislation to allow governmental units individually or jointly to issue bonds to fund self-insurance risk financing programs. BUDGET INFORMATION Seek legislation to create a legislative study committee to consider ways in which counties could be given more accurate and timely information on the impact of state legislative actions upon the annual county budget. The study committee should include representatives of counties and other local government units. The study would include - examination of changes in the county fiscal year, improved state budget, information flow, and strengthened fiscal note requirements for- state legislation. • EDUCATION t, BASIC EDUCATION PROGRAM Support continued funding of the Basic Education program and to provide adequate compensation from state revenues for school personnel. In addition, support legislation providing for reasonable statewide standards for the provision and maintfi*+* ,e of school facilities. SALARIES FOR EDUCATIONAL PERSONNEL* Support legislation to place on the ballot of Ircmremdmr, 1987. a Constitutional amendment that prohibits counties from using local tax . - funds to compete with other systems for the employment of educational personnel. *Annual Conference Resolution provided: p NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners calls on the General Assembly of North Carolina to place on the ballot of November, 1987, a Constitutional amendment that prohibits counties from using local tax funds to compete with other systems for the employment of educational. personnel." • (Full text of Resolution included in your packet.) CAPS ON HANDICAPPED EDUCATION FUNDING - Support legislation to remove internal caps on handicapped education funding and seek appropriations sufficient to educate handicapped children up to 12.5 percent of total enrollment in each county, without regard to categories of disability. • SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION LOAN FUND Support legislation to establish a statewide fund front which counties could borrow to finance school construction. HUMAN RESOURCES - RECOVERY OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS* - Support appropriation of additional state funds to provide increased support of the non-federal share of the administrative cost for social. services, public health and mental health. *Annual Conference Resolution provided: "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners urges the North Carolina General J.ssembly to appropriate funds to raise the state level of participation in these administrative costs to 50% of the non-federal share in all programs in any fiscal year (increase from 7.4% to 18.4%I .. AND "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners calls on the North Carolina Department of Human Resources to allocate funds to reduce the counties' costs of the administration of Day Care services. " - (Full text of Resolutions included in your packet.) SOCIAL SERVICES STUDY Support legislation to establish a Legislative Study Commission for Social Services to examine the program requirements, funding arrangements, general aims, and population covered, and to recommend a comprehensive plan for the delivery and funding of social services in North Carolina. + ' FUNDING OF ICF-MR COSTS Seek the appropriation of sufficient state funds to pay the total non--federal costs of Medicaid patients in state-owned institutions and community residential facilities. TRANSPORTATION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED* Support an appropriation of state funds to provide additional transportation services for the elderly and disabled. *Annual Conference Resolution provided: " NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the North Carolina Association of County. Commissioners respectfully urges the Governor of the State of North Carolina to direct the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources to. make available to the various counties of the State of North Carolina for 'implementation of the Consent Order monetary resources in an amount equal to the State of = North Carolina' s fair share of the operation of this program" (The_ _ - resolutign addressed only medicaid transportation, whereas the goal addresses all transportation services for the elderly and disabled.) (Full text of Resolution included in your packet_) CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES Seek increased state funding of child protective' services,, increasing both the number of counties receiving funds and the amounts available to counties. ADOPTION CONSENT Support legislation to amend the adoption statutes to require the consent of the Director of Social Services before separation of a child under the age of six months from the custodial parent for purposes of adoption. MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT Support legislation to expand Medicaid reimburseament to case management services. STATE MALPRACTICE COVERAGE Seek legislation which would provide legal defense for and limit the liability of physicians working in public health clinics.. DEFENSE FOR SANITARIANS Support legislation to provide for the defense of local health department sanitarians enforcing state public health rules.. MIGRANT HEALTH FACILITY INSPECTIONS Seek an appropriation of additional funds to aid local health departments in inspection of facilities for migrant laborers. CERTIFICATE OF NEED REQUIREMENTS Oppose legislation to remove Certificate of Need as a prerequisite for establishing a new home health agency. • MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING SYSTEM ,Support actions of the Mental Health Study Commission to restructure ' the mental health funding systemp provided that these actions do not impose mandated levels of local financial support and do not binder local flexibility. . SUBSTANCE ABUSE Support appropriations to provide new state funding for expansion and development of community-based intervention and treatment programs for- substance abusers, with particular emphasis on services to adolescents. ALCOHOL ABUSE SERVICES - Support the levy of an additional state tax on beer and wine sales to help fund alcohol abuse services. SERVICES FOR MENTALLY ILL, MENTALLY RETARDED AND EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED Support increased state funds for community services for children, including the emotionally disturbed as well as the mentally retarded for whom assistance is needed in the transition into adult programs, and for the chronically mentally ill. MENTAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE Support legislation to require private health insurers to provide for adequate mental health coverage. _ • INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS - - STATE REIMBURSEMENT FOR COUNTIES HOLDING FEMALE PRISONERS Seek legislation to require the state to reimburse counties for holding female misdemeanants when the sentence _is confinement for 31. to 180 days. CIVIL PROCESS FEES Support legislation to increase the state-established service fees for civil process papers. ECONOMIC-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDING FOR LROs Support continued state appropriations to Lead Regional Organizations (LROs) to allow them to provide technical assistance in the area of. economic and community development activities, provided such funding- is optional. • DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ARRESTS _ Seek legislation to allow local law enforcement officers to make warrantless arrests in domestic violence situations, similar.to authority given law enforcement officers in shoplifting cases. LAND RECORDS SYSTEMS Support increased appropriations to provide financial assistance to counties in updating and improving Land Records Management Programs_ SECONDARY ROAD FUNDING* Seek legislation to increase the pool of funds available for secondary roads without a change in the formula. *Annual Conference Resolution provided: "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners calls on the North Carolina General Assembly to change the funding formula for secondary roads to reflect the variety in the per mile cost in road construction." (Full text of resolution included in your packet.) DEFERRED COMPENSATION FOR LOCAL EMPLOYEES Support legislation to provide that taxation of benefits received by state and county employees under deferred compensation plans is . comparable. ADOPTED/GOALS supplemental - pgs 5-10 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING REFUNDS OF UTILITY SALES TAXES WHEREAS, Chapter 1097 of the 1983 Session Laws changed the utility excise tax to a sales tax on utilities; and WHEREAS, G.S. 105-164.14 (c) provides that counties, municipalities, and certain other units of local government may receive refunds of state sales taxes paid by such units; and_ WHEREAS, the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners - in February,. 1985, at its Legislative Goals Conference adopted as a priority goal the passage of legislation which would authorize the refund of sales taxes paid on utilities by local governments; and WHEREAS, such legislation was introduced .in the 1985 Session of - the General Assembly but was not enacted. - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Worth Carolina Association of County Commissioners calls on the North Carolina ..General Assembly to enact legislation which provides that counties, public school systems, community colleges, technical institutions, as well as any other entities currently authorized to receive refunds of state sales taxes, shall receive refunds of utility sales taxes in the same fashion as is provided in G.S. 105-164.14 (C) for other sales taxes. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the appropriate State and federal officials. Adopted this 16th day of August, 1986, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Attest: - • d a Presiders Virginia T. Oliver • C 440 • I • Executive Direc o , C. Ronald Aycock ---__.___.i A RESOLUTION CONCERNING COUNTY SUPPLEMENTS FOR EDUCATIONAL PERSONNEL WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina is responsible for the basic ' education of North Carolina pupils; and . WHEREAS, the Constitutio .g n, uarantees each pupil the, right to an equal opportunity for an education; and _ ~ WH;BEAS, the payment of supplements by counties to -teachers promoted an unequal opportunity by causing counties to bid against one another for teachers and other educational. persgenal; anud. . WHEREAS, a statewide pay schedule for teachers and other educational personnel, adequate to attract and hold qualified personnel without payment of a local supplement, should be adopted by the General Assembly; and . WHEREAS, such a uniform statewide pay plan-would assure the ability of any county in North Carolina to attract -qualified . educational personnel; and WHEREAS, failure to adopt such a p▪ lan would ptet all counties on. notice that in order to attract personnel they nay have to supplement 1i, the salary allocation to the state's teachers and other educational j personnel. ; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that▪ the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners calls on the General Assembly on North Carolina to place on the ballot of November, 1987, a Constitutional amendment that prohibits counties from using local tax fiends to compete with other systems for the employment of educational personnel. FURTHER, BE. IT RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the appropriate State and federal officials.. ' Adopted this the 16th Day of August, 1986, in Winston-Salem , North Carolina. Attest: - ' , 62/...a0 AL PresidenirV2ginia T. Oliver 0 i 1;.._. 11 A _ 1.. 4A Executive Direc'or C. - -nald Aycock A RESOLUTION CONCERNING FUNDING OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF MANDATED SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina by law car regulation requires counties to administer certain Public Assistance Programs_and. to provide certain Social Services Programs; and WHEREAS, the counties. in North Carolina are currently required to provide $50,405,483 (29.4%) to administer these benefits and to deliver these services; and WHEREAS•, counties are increasingly being required to fund,. at 100%, more of these mandated Social Services Programs each year due to federal budget cutbacks and freezes; and WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina only provides $12,664,831 (7.4%) to counties to administer these mandated program and Social Services; and WHEREAS,' an increase in the State's share of the non-federal costs of administering social services programs was a Priority ''Legislative Goal during the 1985-86 Session of the North Carolina General Assembly. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners urges the North Carolina General Assembly to appropriate funds to raise the state level of participation in these administrative costs to SOS of the non-federal. share in all programs in any fiscal year (increases fro! 7.4% to 18.4%) . FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the appropriate State and federal officials. -. Adopted this 16th day of August, 1986, in Winston-Salem, North. Carolina. - Attest: .. e;)_ae4tz4r. Presides , Virginia T.. Presi_AO hi n Executive Directo , C. Ronald Aycock • A RESOLUTION CONCERNING MEDICALLY NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION OF MEDICAID RECIPIENTS WHEREAS, on June 19, 1978, the State of North Carolina entered into a consent judgment agreeing.to provide medically necessary transportation to Medicaid recipients: and WHEREAS, within the Consent Judgement, ther North Carolina Department of Human Resources has acknowledged its responsibility _ under current federal regulations implementing Title = of the - Federal, Social Security Act (Medicaid) to provide medical transpdrtation for Medicaid recipients in North Carolina; and - WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina has since that time required the counties to pay the entire non-federal share, of the cost of • providing transportation to Medicaid recipients; and WHEREAS, General Statute 108A-19 establishes the dirty'and . responsibility of the County Director of Social Services to act as agent of the Social Services Commission and Department of Human. Resources in relation to work required by the State; and WHEREAS, the County Director of Social Services must now make available medically necessary transportation to all eligible Medicaid recipients in North Carolina without recourse. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners respectfully urges the Governor of the State of North Carolina to direct the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources to make available to the various counties of the State of North Carolina for implementation of , a the Consent Order monetary resources in an amount equal to the State 1 of North Carolina°s . fair share of the operation of this program.. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that copies: of this resolution be . forwarded to the appropriate State and federal officials. Adopted this 16th 'day of August, 1986, in:Wanston--Salem, North Carolina. - Attest: . (9A:frtt __.._' .../. .V.€...4--.415'"?-4-4K°-Presid , Vi .i.ni\T . Oliver Ci 1 I• , , • Executive Director, Ronald. Aycock. A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE FORMULA FOR SECONDARY ROAD FUNDING • WHEREAS, the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners recognizes that good roads are essential to the development and economic growth of any county; and . WHEREAS, the percentage of secondary road funds for a county is determined by dividing the mileage of secondary roads in that county by the total mileage of secondary roads in the state; and WHEREAS, the current statewide formula for the distribution of secondary road funds does not take into consideration the extra -cost of road construction in the mountains and coastal areas of North Carolina; and WHEREAS, the cost of constructing and paving a mile of road is not uniform throughout the state but varies depending on location, topography and soil type. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners calls on the North Carolina General Assembly to change the funding formula for secondary roads to reflect the variety in the per mile cost in road construction. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be . forwarded to the appropriate State and federal officials. - Adopted this 16th day of August, 1986, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Attest: !E Z.;A:4 t- C 4 I 612- Z# • President, Virginia T. Oliver r e. /Pond ikA,Executive Director, F. Ronald Aycock • A RESOLUTION CONCERNING ADDITIONAL RETIREITMft BENEFITS FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly enected House Bill 2130 in the last days of the 1986 Legislative Session; and WHEREAS, this legislation requires local governments to provide contributions to the Special Retirement Income PT-oilman for local law enforcement officers and to pay a special separation allowance to local law enforcement officers who retire early; and • WHEREAS; the cost to counties and cities of the additional . retirement contributions is estimated by legislative fiscal staff to be $9 million in the first full, year in which the full -five percent (5%) of salary is to be contributed; and WHEREAS, the cost to local governments of the required separation. allowance is impossible to estimate but will be substantial; and WHEREAS, companion legislation enacted to defray the cost to local governments of the new mandated retirement contribution will be insufficient to do so; and - WHEREAS, enactment of this legislation represents a state mandate. levied on local government without provision of finances to carry out the mandate; and WHEREAS,. provision of these additional benefits is a responsibility not heretofore that of county and city governments and' will place law enforcement personnel in a position separate and apart from other local employees, thus having a detrimental effect on the morale of other local employees and placing local elected officials in an untenable .position. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the North: Carolina Association of County Commissioners calls on the 1987 General Assembly to mitigate. the consequences of the legislature' s action in. enacting House Bill 2130 in 1986, by redressing financial and manageria.1 impacts of .the bill. If the legislation is left unchanged, the General Assembly should provide funding necessary to ameliorate the effect on local governments as well as that necessary to redress the imbalance between local law enforcement officers and other local employees, and should provide for administration of these: benefits through the normal retirement system mechanism. • • a -2- ' FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be _ forwarded to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and the Speaker of the House as well as appropriate officials charged with administration of the state's retirement system. Adopted this 16th day of August, 1986, in Winston-Salem. Worth Carolina. • Attest: _ • • P- resid�5�sT. Waxer - - Executive Dir C. al$ Aycock • • • • • • • • • • • A RESOLUTION - ' CONCERNING FUNDING OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF DAY CARE SERVICES WHEREAS, the one hundred (100) ' County Departments of Social Services are legally responsible for the delivery of' a vast array of human services within the State of North Carolina ii cl%tding Day Care .. Services to Children; and WHEREAS, in 1979, the Day Care Services for Children Program was removed from the control and. Oversight of the State Division. of Social Services and an 'Office of Day Care Services for Children within the Department of Human Resources was established at which tip,.. no Administtative funds for the provision of Day Care Services. were- - allocated to the counties; and, WHEREAS, since 1983, Day Care funding, has increammadbylmxre than 72% to approximately $26,000,000; and ' WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly coaatinues to provide additional money to expand Day Care Services; and WHEREAS, in fiscal year 1985-86, approximately $800,000 in • appropriate. Day Care funds were reverted; and WHEREAS, approximately ' $3,000,000 in Service Deli.iv+ery_ costs - directly related to the administration of Day Care was identified by the one hundred (100) -counties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners calls on the North Carolina Department of Human Resources to allocate funds to reduce the county costs of the administration of Day Care services FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the appropriate State and federal officials. Adopted this 16th day of August, 1986, in Winston-Salem,, North Carolina. Attest: q7;: i.cit. (1. 1;:rip-e4- Presiden r irg" a T. Oliver (N 44111 • Executive Direct.. ., . Ronald Aycock RESOLUTION CONCERNING STATE LANDFILL AND GROUNDWATER REGULATIONS WHEREAS, counties are empowered by North Carolina General Statutes with the authority to operate solid waste collection and disposal facilities; and WHEREAS, counties operate solid waste disposal facilities for their citizens and these solid waste disposal facilities are regulated by numerous state rules and regulations including, but not limited to, groundwater contamination standards as specified in. Section 2L of Title XV of the North Carolina Administrative Code; and WHEREAS, several counties have recently received notice from the State of rejection of applications for new or expanded solid waste disposal sites, or have experienced frustration in gaining timely action on such applications; and the stated reasons for rejection or non--approval were groundwater rules which require zero percent (0%) contamination of groundwater; and WHEREAS, The North Carolina Association of-County Commissioners is duly concerned about the maintenance of a sound environment, including safe and qualitative groundwater supply; and wishe* to maintain a sensible balance between environmental protection and the need for a solid waste disposal site; and WHEREAS, until the development of stringent state groundwater regulations in 1985, counties were able to comply with Environmental Management Commission guidelines; and when the new regulations were formulated, state officials recognized concerns of local officials and assured those concerned local officials that revised groundwater regulations would not serve to prevent landfill site applications from being approved; and WHEREAS, several counties have, in fact experienced the rejection of their solid waste disposal facility (landfill) based upon those: revised groundwater regulations; and. WHEREAS, the need for newly revised groundwater regulations have completely frustrated the permitting of solid waste disposal facilities, including the imposition of exorbitant costs for contamination prevention measures, in a manner inconsistent with the spirit and intent of such laws as passed by the North Carolina General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the need for new and expanded county solid waste disposal facility sites has reached a critical point._ NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners. calls on .the__appropriate regulatory agencies and the North Carolina General Assembly to recognize the impractical nature of groundwater regulations .as they apply to landfills and to take the necessary corrective measures to allow counties to adequately dispose of solid waste while also providing a reasonable amount of environmental protection. • 1 -2- • FURTHER, BE XT RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the appropriate State and federal officials Adopted this . 16th day of August, 1986,, in Winston- Salem, North Carolina. Attest: • Pres3"den,V�rg a T. •Oliver _ • Executive L ect rp • . . Aycock.. • • • _ 1 PETITION jANIfAI Y S Ci mossioNERs COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - January 5, 1987 meeting at Hillsborough , N.C. I hereby petition the commissioners to amend the zoning ordinance and atlas as necessary to return immediately to the one-acre minimum lot size which has prevailed over the past years until such time as investigation has conclusively proven that it is overwhemingly advantageous from all aspects to make a change from the one-acre minimum. Respectfully su- te - 1 / if H-nry *. Whitfi d, Jr . Resident and taxpayer UMLOP OT 1,101TIT39 , c q1-71rn - 3:,-431/101. 1MCTI :- ; no . ' tIsq iterim ; vlk . 1.:- I1 Efid icf sin,F- 7mc .E•- I1LJ ! - i LI yl *ellt 4-11 ,311t rnoi ir1 e 9AArn o, 117 i,7 :f . .W.11.1.E. P ,,115 , Gi � We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lots,sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons: 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE n A r 7110-4i eipiLeAZ/ ? .q-X3 • • 400'6 ) /011'4--12/4.4.6. �d r / , 1 ,, „,___,1 ., ...j.,.."_,c__ /4z7 _ , 6, : We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County (''''' Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons: 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE r e � / -41 e JcA 4� 9.0- 532_ 4P-,9?"-- L.ilim'v - -rte �,► *:47/4( • - ' );54,-16) 9O y 6_ , ' ,,4‘24..,1_ l 9'47--IJa I KI 7- _4i,,er /c.3-A OM,r - :,_7- L9F'�k' X),C. 96 7-E3 9 i.1-- e:.-40t-tig,zzior-e:" 9 7- 3 ),--3 L rof A ,..,,i Yv4.-1- --- ,Urut .. a IT 4-,-,____ .,,r...x ., „ .. rf , 5; /I 7 7 . _ " We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the. zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons: ______._._�—_-___ 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the ti opportunities to� rovide- land by. reas�.nz land values and limiting PP future generations. — - 2. Affordability of- Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due - to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. • NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE /4/Z. - .... - AjLi._:d.k._.e... -t--." 44r:,ft, 144' ' 1/4( - 901115174:"."‘ -lrgeff". _ --' 414/4 -11Kirde. itP ,..- .-/...4" Ae:•29_2„,,, /9 --- .. (-� . Nk 44-4. _ 9- --. s.7d7 Cr - : y 1 _ ..' /c,i-. L 4,749:V t; i �' 4■ • L..../�'lai'APIAIFAMINW eg ,arAr DZ / l'� ` / -, I r -/ „. .4�1./r // 4 // . , '77�P ✓ ytei �4, - � .art.. � �- I /��- � ,-,�1�c�.�_ ,ys � _. . , . �` ...�._ tip;--r__ ,�... ier.r• We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow I ONE ACRE lots in the RE (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons: 1 -Property!.Rights .- A ctutrIng-- -two -acs--iot wjn-ja ,-irxi-riffs- on-t e -- - -- - - rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. • NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE r I It/ L`:�:....r ;/�. ► 44,0 /4 1plf'5/,1, -/Ir ' 4,1fAr 'I 112,9.41 6 , v,./, ?- 9,4- /32._. --_.4........_„ .*:=7.. -,..29-21 7 - ''- ' • AI r' -- if / ' _,4 .A te - L4, -`044 AU c 96 - J.Z..-.1,AlliMillibAlr---L AIL ir A /1 • ' -0 - -3 ).--?) v 0-'.4 ./ :._.AL. l.gelA:_ . 4.41,1/ .. "61r 30,7 I ,41/"'phi,,?, I/4 Y r. . /241'4- , ,,c 'f..-4 = rt ) 5; ii I 7 /41-7/21,/,--e--- .".,./4,4i/4371t' We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the. zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow j ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons: 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting „ opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases -- Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. i NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE /4///AL,, - AAL..__/1_..e., AL-J 4‘1;VI &OldotO )4/1 19202117 ' ,Plir - cif' C - •, 4( /Ile-4 i Ifie-- :, v.,-A.. A9- 9.4- .1..?2-- - - .......--- _...... • eV2/2.4r-e-a.r.1 riP if‘e,:::71:::." 9.2 9--2--/V„.9 i- // -00-ANP7411‘7 . ,- - /c/r-A 0 J:: .,,..,,-.1 ._ (.-:-:,t.f_: "..e,aig=7;_a :/ i.),_C', 96_7-3 cs-7),,_3;_,-;s.. • ' L,^_1° ' � O ' ''.r NOTICE OF AWARD To Laramore Construction Company, Inc. P.O. Box 1656 Danville, VA 24543 PROJECT/CONTRACT • Fairview Park Community Construction The Owner has considered the Bid submitted by you for the above. Work In response to its Advertisement for _ Bids dated October 20, 1986 1986, and Information for Bidders. You are hereby notified that your Bid has been accepted in the amount of One hundred four thousand, nine hundred ninety dollars ($104,990) . You are required by the Information for Bidders to execute the Agreement and furnish the required Contractor's Performance Bond, Payment Bond, and certificates of insurance within ten calendar days from the date of this Notice to you. If you fail to execute said Agreement and to furnish said Bonds within the days from the date of this Notice, said Owner will be entitled to consider all y ur. rights arising out of the Owner's acceptance of your Bid as abandoned and a a forfeiture of your Bid Bond. The Owner will be entitled to such other rig is as may be granted by law. You are required to return an acknowledged copy of this Notice to the Owner. Dated this 5th day of January, 1986. OWNER County of Orange BY Ch • Board of Commissioners Shirley E. Marshall Enclosures. =- = = == RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED .this day of 1986. BY TITLE NOTICE OF AWARD TO Laramore Construction Company, Inc. P.O. Box 1656 Danville, VA 24543 PROJECT/CONTRACT Fairview Park Community Construction - 1 The Owner has considered the Bid submitted by you for the above. Work in response to its Advertisement for _ Bids dated October 20, 1986 1986, and Information for Bidders. _ You are hereby notified that your Bid has been accepted in the amount of One hundred four thousand, nine hundred ninety dollars ($104„990) . You are required by the Information for Bidders to execute the. Agreement and furnish the required Contractor's Performance Bond, payment Bond, and certificates of insurance within ten calendar days from the date of this Notice to you. If you fail to execute said Agreement and to furnish- said Bond within the d ys from the date of this Notice, said Owner will be entitled to consider all your rights arising out of the Owner's acceptance of your Bid as abandoned and as a forfeiture of your Bid Bond. The Owner will be entitled to such other rights as may be granted by law. You are required to return an acknowledged copy of this Notice to the Owner. Dated this 5th day of January, 1986. OWNER County of Orange /(� BY „...4a...471 e . ' / Board of Commissioners Shirley E. Marshall Enclosures. = = === -= RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED 'this day of _, 1986. BY TITLE C We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons : 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases' to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions _creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. N / 14,, ADDSS TELEPHONE RE eei„- wifiva .„4,./eogers#C. 4,62.„(-zs-ziF AO �-► /44,4_ / r- /316- / 7 e cu 3-s7 7 P • Ng _ � 1 � PETITION TO COUNTY COhMI SSI ONERS JANUARY 5, 1987 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - January 5, 1987 meeting at Hillsborough , N.C. I hereby petition the commissioners to amend the zoning ordinance and atlas as necessary to return immediately to the one-acre minimum lot size which has prevailed over the past years until such time as investigation has conclusively proven that it is averwhemingly advantageous from all aspects to make a change from the one-acre minimum. Res.ectfully su -d ".70Yeri-trx e- r / H my Whi tfie d, Jr . Reside t and taxpayer • • ,...'9,11i,•11.■ 22 i 141h103 YTI1U07.) Q 610 IT3ci • 1r • 1.11' f 1^1-L1:2 •c-: 6• •,!`: . • VI • •• . • .• 9, •• ,F• . s. r •. • • ;,r, •••• . . • , 7 .:.. 9 7. ' • 7:C • ;77 71:.1;•• • I" '.1 • 0 • ).. • • •'• ? i • ',I, !-; 4 0'1 • . '1• r. 4.• • •-• r' LI' q' _ .■■■■ ■7■1 ‘=MEIMIMMEMEMEIMME.111.111 - •- PETITION TO AMEND JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN WHEREAS, the Orange county Board of Commissioners adopted the Oran County-Chapel Hill -Carrboro Joint Planning Land Use Plan on October 13, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Land Use Plan contains a land use classification of Rural Residential and describes said classification as a low-density area consisting of single-family homes situated on large lots two acres in size or greater ; and x WHEREAS, Orange County has required compliance with the two-acre lot size standard through application of its Subdivision Regulations; and WHEREAS, Orange County conducted a public hearing on November 24, 1986, for the purpose of amending its Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas to conform with the Joint Planning Land Use Plan , including the establishment of a Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district and dimensional requirements applicable therein ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot substantially increases the cost of housing and is therefore directly contrary to any intention the county has of providing affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot imposes hardship on the majority of land owners, most of whom have struggled for many years to pay for their land and the taxes thereon , and would like to use the land for their children or realize some benefit to themselves rather than lose the value thereof ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot standard makes the extension of public water and sewer lines to new developments uneconomic , thereby encouraging the use of septic tanks and wells, both of which are already causing increasing health and sanitation problems; and WHEREAS, as more and more people settle in the county, public water and sewer will of necessity have to be extended to both old and new lots at a cost that will be devastating if lots are large ; and WHEREAS, there are other ways to obtain open space such as public parks and cluster developments with dedicated open space ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum standard has made most of the platted lots in the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning non-conforming and therefore less valuable since fiduciary institutions have reservations about making loans on non-conforming property; and WHEREAS, under the present two acre standard, existing structures on non-conforming lots, if damaged by catastrophe , might not be rebuildable in a manner suitable to the owner's needs: THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS LIVING WITHIN THE PROPOSED RURAL BUFFER (RB) ZONING DISTRICT AND ELSEWHERE IN ORANGE COUNTY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY ROARn OF r_PMMMTcciru,Iroc �....... - PETITION TO AMEND JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN WHEREAS, the Orange county Board of Commissioners adopted Count �-Cha el Hill -Garrboro Joint Plann + opted the Orange October 13, 1986; and �—~-- . .n Land Llse P1 an on WHEREAS, the Joint Plannir - classific and Use Plan co ._ tains a land use fl ation of R Rural Residential and Je classification as a scribes said single-family homes �w-density area ca)sisting of ituated on large 1 pats two acres i n size or grngter ; and WHEREAS, Orange County has required compliance wit t size standard through application of its Subdivisionwo-acre lot Regulations; and i WHEREAS, Orange 9 County conducted a public hearing on November 24, 1986, for the purpose of amending its Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas to confc,rm with the loint_flannino Land Use Plan including the establishment of a Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district and dimensional requirements applicable Plan , pplicable therein ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot substantia- ly increases the cost of housing and is therefore directly contrary to any intention the County has of prc u i di ng affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot imposes hardship on the majority of land owners, most pf whom have strugt;I ed for man y yes pay for their land and the taxes thereor, , and would likertotuse the land for their children or realize * ome benef i t to themselves rather than lose the value thereof ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot standard makes the extension of public water and sewer lines to new developments uneconomic , thereby encouraging the use of septic tanks and wells, both of which are already causing increasing health and sanitation problems; and WHEREAS, as more and more people settle in the count and sewer will of necessity have Y, public water new lots at a cost that will be devastatingnifdlotsbare large ;d ol and WHEREAS, there are other ways to obtain open space such as public parks and cluster developments with dedicated open space ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum standard has made most of the platted lots in the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning nor-conforming and therefore less valuable since fiduciary institutions have reservations about making loans on non--conforming property; and WHEREAS, under the present two acre standard, existing structures on non-conforming lots, if damaged by catastrophe , might not be rebuildable in a manner suitable to the owner's needs: THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS AI'`D PROPERTY OWNERS LIVING WITHIN THE I PROPOSED RURAL BUFFER cap) 71-thaT"- -,____ __ Q Ol �(�mea, C We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons : 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. NAME ADDRESS 141.-- /J - �.y r TELEPHONE _ 1 9fl.Z ,s-0 C( Oblit`- 4�� / ��' 1( rJ l , / Ii/1 /'C ROL...1_1_ iv\ zr Cis c.0,9131 6,r- G. r4. - k y 4•10" 046:0:32b4 RT. a eiosei.Ne �d�, C,i-, . 9 eie.a-7703 ru a, $7 9a9-SS2 J0 Y 9 PETITION TO AMEND JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN WHEREAS, the Orange county Board of Commissioners adopted the Orange County--Chapel Hill -Carrboro Joint Planning Land Use Plan on October 13, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Land Use Plan contains a land use classification of Rural Residential and describes said classification as a low-density area consisting of single-family homes situated on large lots two acres in size or greater ; and WHEREAS, Orange County has required compliance with the two-acre lot size standard through application of its Subdivision Regulations ; and WHEREAS, Orange County conducted a public hearing on November 24, 1986, for the purpose of amending its Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas to conform with the Joint Planning Land Use Plan , Including the establishment of a Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district and dimensional requirements applicable therein ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot substantially increases the cost of housing and is therefore directly contrary to any intention the county has of providing affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot imposes hardship on the majority of land owners , most of whom have struggled for many years to pay for their land and the taxes thereon , and would like to use the land for their children or realize some benefit to themselves rather than lose the value thereof ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot standard makes the extension of public '.water and sewer lines to new developments uneconomic , thereby encouraging the use of septic tanks and wells, both of which are already causing increasing health and sanitation problems ; and WHEREAS, as more and more people settle in the county, public water and sewer will of necessity have to be extended to both old and new lots at a cost that will be devastating if lots are large ; and WHEREAS, there are other ways to obtain open space such as public parks and cluster developments with dedicated open space ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum standard has made most of the platted lots in the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning non-conforming and therefore less valuable since fiduciary institutions have reservations about making loans on non-conforming property; and WHEREAS, under the present two acre standard, existing structures on non-conforming lots, if damaged by catastrophe , might not be rebuildable in a manner suitable to the owner's needs: THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS LIVING WITHIN THE PROPOSED RURAL BUFFER (RB) ZONING DISTRICT AND ELSEWHERE IN ORANGE TF COUNTY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OP Grimm t COUNTY t T R E ... TF �.._ • 7n7 thr4:1417 171i•in p4e /3erp C4A/c2-9-/ /4--c-ee AMEM Mr . a __( TA) V W.Di�' . (____._)_, We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the._.zoning ..ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RE (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons : 1. Property Ri hts - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housin to the extra costs of acquirin Individual lot prices will increase due standard, further reducing thegpracticalityiof affordablethousing.acre 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of c problems, a two acre.lot minimum seems irresponsibleurrent funding 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regul to water and sewer extensions creates urban atory public health problems. NAME ADDRESS 4 . TELEPHONE LA/ c / kk ) ii,/ 8 1 44 1' 14 (..„ 6 -6 a) - 3- is?s7 ze / 4.....fkr - , e. rt . Air CKA R D i , T. r) ' /,� 18j/� s ic_1 _ • e _ Te Aar a A al_ AO 0 e • . . .... er 2 et ..-0 h 6 7 a qa L .�� �� 1 �ox 3S� y • a13 �� 11/0tWORRIAT ' :: OP• lib to gya-v3-701 va.. elMEMM C We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the...zoning. ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support, the concept of maintaining rural features but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significantradverse, consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons : I. Property Ri hts - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housin - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre. lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. NAME ADDRESS �, TELEPHONE I,„e " �; • if �, 1 it y 3 ?- 9 a '7 Z 8'd w' �.t .ter —.� �' f Ad diVrAir . OS, 711 4660d, e_ c`t 7 Am We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, ure Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissigons the . rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the-..zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons : 1. Property RI hts - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housin - Individual lot prices to the extra costs of acquiring and developinglandtoialtwocacree due standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light f problems, a two acre-lot minimum seems irresponsibleurrent funding 4. Environmental Impact - Setting u to water and sewer extensions creates urban regulatory public health problems. . NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE ---. /JINX •� �, 009- 4 , ii @ , I qa5 Qgoo p e ,y � / ''� ,. . .. �1 �1 t% 1iv:G; rte_ if/it" � . J• I eery (i ,,,/ _642 dr , ' -( /7-:et/ 60,(x/ ‘ ..---1 i �7. �Atilein,r-- r,�✓ ke / 3-'Y G°A , • / .,�,- . a ' ri!.. A/ // / • `ii I1_,A, ._ ... , ... „ ____..., A,...-...4.6116,.",—,-z. - Ale.Ar: _......t if z 218 Q67-4-Z45 We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots to the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons : - - - .. - 1. Property R.i. hts — Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers - -to-wote-F-a4.1d-guer_tpellsOns creates urban sprawl and. ,� r public health problems. _ . . . _ __ . _. _-�. NAME _ ADDRESS TELEPHONE _. ' " tt% C o l ► 7� -q-mac ki ' It A 0 C 111,0k3 C, C. . 2T� c � C 3 �.. .�.. fOg Rob, - �d a9- ,AD 4 / yo , ft eCAv112/3 C f. ck 7- 24.76• J2# "---- /OF T r./ �% 0.3 /�ir/iYlOd'/e p,a .P Ova- ios- Or...P.- _...., d'v Ar ,• . - "��.�[.,.1c o$ , CS 6rrx�[(*. lave) 4%-?a- ,�GC� OM... / .� t ter, / ~/ /1 __ AM c We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision. regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons: 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housin -- Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre.lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE;. !. ,� y .-41/_., % - 4 ' . • i_',_ '_ • Cr -Is .. - 7 i ��,. I: '7e �.%••�:.r. / ,,_ , �¢�C7` C/y A.? -533, `.�.. - ! , __ - 003 f Cdr /4-e c_. 967—er r �- i , 94,_.5 617 98 • We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons: 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing ,densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE IL -L-1 .. /I S .�7 - / / ., c * . • ...,.5.-/ if " � _ 1 (�� ,- _/ ,‘ .-5-- _ ._ s L 1 � .Al —'7(15 _ �: Vii../ ' / /� ` p ,� � L 'i�,F 9µm- a , - /271.7_a.,_.,___.) oee_e _ cgi-b-/ , id,, ‘,,e.nre/ 9''-I2 -/4.41- 6 e 1,,-1 -% ' C � f / Yf/.64, �6 �-9 243 • � We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County t Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed .amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB ,(Rural Buffer) district. • - We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, , but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons : 1. Pro ert Ri hts - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordabillt of Housin - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide_ County a two acre lotnminimumiseems irresponsible. funding 4. Environmental Im act - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. • _ ADDRESS TELEPHONE 7 ,.. ..„,_ . , Mire..,w er-e 2' Alf ' gf p r � r s — / -/ e � C- 7 . v • .e, J -c 2-7r77 - -- ie.6-", -k--- 7...'•--:',--7:,::2c, -Arr.AV ca.4ex4.:4342 ..., 1f� i FY i►it. • ► -� —! 043 ca _- 4 7 IAIIINFADAPIA r / A i##./., _.... -- AO,AO. .411..,/ , , G • i We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the amendment to the, zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request proposed ONE ACRE lots in the RB aueBu you amend the Land Use Plan to allow (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse 6....-1/ consequences for the people and government of the Count reasons : County for the following 1• Property RI hts - rights of current la- Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the oighrsuo owners by decreasing land values and limiting rjr ide land for future generations. 2f d ity f Housin to the ;tire. costs of acquirin Iandvidual lot prices will increase due to then g developing land to a two acre further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing values will reduce the tax base, therbdensities and decreasing land increases to provide County services. In blight of substantial rre fun fn future tax problems, a two acre. lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4.4• Environmental Impact - Setting to water and sewer extensions creates urban regulatory public health problems. NAME ADDRESS ry�'1 TELEPHONE ---A,/e)11 Ai AI ,,, 2 ei `5/ I NW L Z — 4 .1Z i/ z-20 S'--- ANIP~, _.__ Air 1 -- ._.---15,... mit ... il / , ' .2-51633/ c." Wiz.', '_ _ , 2i3 �� — 63 1. ..3. 0 4 .;1-'":.1 s 4 0 74 24.0 i , e ,,-;7,-,iimil.0-. ..----- i..., or, _ f A,/,,,/ ::. ids, wp.,,,,, ,,,,_...., ,,,.. „el /6 L1 . - _ , IT'- /0 1,0x!, 1,4 X;le IAMOMM I We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision. .. regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons: 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordabilit of Housin - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 1011:_d 1111/.6. AOF dirri71.•A .-L . .. /6 • ekkji,AL erki.Ammatt ito ti ' -d yew 1)-t . 4 q,.- JS,--_ _CA,d,d_f.y Ze„..a e, $2.0 :. ?J. (e.A` 233 H1---......, 4 • 1 o 1 l - \ 119.0 Pko_ca,_ ck 3-3-21,c4,0 I , „Apr , / ...-- A, - 7 W ... ,-- ..7,'- '6--fl> 9;7?-5-33z 1% /01r . - �—" 003 il, /d e, ,er _ .�... . . � \ • I.,- • / f ..�I i .. FV/ We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Co rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating$ to prtpon amendment to the..zoning. ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivisionropsed regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons : 1. Property RI hts - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Rousing - Individual lot to the extra costs of acquiring and developingplandstoialtwocacree due standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre.lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. , NoADDRESS TELEPHONE &XI:-!— — 14 i l3 le- �c P 2- wa. L _�; • � r W A MffilliW Limm. .0'KO- _ . 6C (1, I , 9,? 3- co -71 - /2...:71- 6,x / ?7-6 C 4_ %i sc 3 43.13' ■/ A,', w72 4/0 N__..) AK E7.1 4_,, 294 — I 0-c1(01 , -.• Ilv•• + V •iii/imprit-IL.A1711114f.tidihmilimimim'_...iihm,d1% _..40±,•■- ',..1,,,.. ., . , i .40°F • 7307-990 We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, ure Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissigons the . rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the_.zoning_ ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons : 1. Property Ri hts - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housin - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing values will reduce the tax base, thereby densities tax increases to provide County services. In light of problems, a two acre-lot minimum seems irresponsibleurrent funding 4. Environmental Impact - Setting u to water and sewer extensions creates urban regulatory public health problems. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE Ali: !IA 1-- + , I046 At Tt UR I.ANe 2-2 L /�—,s 2�- �. 17 ,_-mile �'• .' .IC . I Lag QQ•7-syKe, Airr'-- . /t /1444..41!O CT C -- i / / ,29-c e9 '''' re, 11/7-c#,,-0./ ...v. 6-: -‘ k 5, . ✓ r �r�r ynrwrr �zr r MP 11 LA) - ' . 0 112--i`c Cci3-6 11/6,1q,-1-e_ N_C. S-6?--2-77 91.1 / AIL. .1, ---... bit - /a_ '' /0,1 cc , / "y/U INV ems,. // s �f y We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons : 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. -- 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. ) ADDRESS 1 TELEPHONE _. �J. . /tic:-, 'T. 4 ' 4 , /u &;r, if 3Z-63 Y ♦ O / i �.. air r��i ����»7VVV/// \///VV�/// 41 _ Ii r, Z /1r if `• .• ,s .,r .,its_ -GAO ! 'f 7 Of (Natiiko1/4_ Aaticatr,_ WaLc ic-i-li'll ik-1._.:,.....„.. • ' ' � X335 IN .A ' _..0 1 .s__•a� _a _ _ -i .4- —« _.• 9 9.-:45)? -+..- _ Z /; i� c . ,fir " ...b.L._+_,�� i 4-,11.1 `---+i . -" V J / �� �w.� See._• 1 .er•�..n'►..JZb 2-- � . .. .1 , .• 1 1610 A ,..ii,p_ _d_Le ,r-f,... , `v .._,,, ......_ We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons : 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. N dr ADDRESS TELEPHONE 1711' t Scc. to 65i.k- ►lS' .z, 1l ems ` " (r3.q, 44234 -1 am o ( 7_ Su Am r2CLt: Cu&Pa..Utu, RV-6619 614.4 __ &AiG. .) --- s' ,lc, s.,, 44:I (1111'2-5 7--1 ' !, 3/.r- o cp /gar- ce_- eA lieu_ oy2 raw /Ate, G P Po 'ivy rGLroLs 9c - .., IL. . 'ee-0 S i %// . - / // 992--?-/P7 ii,,,,:_eteri if°. 6 7'K 6 rks/ehv o / ' /mod .7 f�,/� 4 C C/rr "�O.p 1,y f T.2 C��. �� We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons: 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. . NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE lei -1-4143119 --/7/6111/-/-416Yrtd401044-11 9 tZ421ff-3 Wa J _ GaWI&SZa-( fF (7,14. 9'a --oS- M Gre c4_J /o Bu iia_. /// Cif q 7- 147(p ,./(re:tey kr_40.4- • • "424_,,L... „4- 1,e_ X0,5 2e)-(.4 9,-/a - 6-6/d f -; X,..1.04(' /oG 94,att aLet 933-a8' R ° .23 I X 33-c)9 w:AT: o�...s L'a c • II , ..A 47_CI� 3 L r� r WI it�ill� i1 / - erte4 / r- r Or 99a3 c t' 90,9-x360 PETITION TO AMEND JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN WHEREAS, the Orange county Board of Commissioners adopted the Orange County-Chapel Hill -Carrboro Joint Planning Land Use Plan on October 13, 1986 ; and WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Land Use Plan contains a land use classification of Rural Residential and describes said classification as a low--density area consisting of single-family homes situated on large lots two acres in size or greater : and WHEREAS, Orange County has required compliance with the two-acre lot size standard through application of its Subdivision Regulations ; and WHEREAS, Orange County conducted a public hearing on November 24, 1986, for the purpose of amending its Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas to conform with the Joint Planning Land Use Plan , Including the establishment of a Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district and dimensional requirements applicable therein ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot substantially increases the cost of housing and is therefore directly contrary to any inte-ntion the county has of providing affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot imposes hardship on the majority of land owners , most of whom have struggled for many years to pay for their land and the taxes thereon , and would like to use the land for their children or realize some benefit to themselves rather than lose the value thereof ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot standard makes the extension of public water and sewer lines to new developments uneconomic , thereby encouraging the use of septic.. .t.anKs_an.ELYmi 1.s_ -.b.oth- of which are already causing increasing health and sanitation problems ; and WHEREAS, as more and more people settle in the county, public water and sewer will of necessity have to be extended to both old and new lots at a cost that will he devastating if lots are large ; and WHEREAS, there are other ways to obtain open space such as public parks and cluster developments with dedicated open space ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum standard has made most of the platted lots in the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning non-conforming and therefore less valuable since fiduciary institutions have reservations about making loans on non-conforming property; and WHEREAS, under- the present two acre standard, existing structures on non-conforming lots, if damaged by catastrophe , might not be rebuildable in a manner suitable to the owner's needs: THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS LIVING WITHIN THE PROPOSED RURAL BUFFER (RB) ZONING DISTRICT AND ELSEWHERE IN ORANGE COUNTY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD ri r.rw..a7 [.!" !rY.II r A&.r-I.111 t11r r11'9, 1, P'AI<MV MII�wr1 ■1.1 1 i . PETT Tr ON b revoke +ke m;n; h'iurr, a 4 vuv acres-FOr b . d a c�` nl m A w "i i ' `' ' 9 . ai I ol t , h in � z AA mss�t�rd��(�`�( o 2-- � r/ p/�g(, 4. / Acke-detZ7-e( ' , - ® 5‘-e,„.4_,,e,%,.. oar -2 7 �_ �-�- r .10-e---e----.11-0-Li � '4/ 7°V t � �� ' " Es spa Z / c 6/.-- 1.5-/--?5, Vt. r ' a te , - ,/ -;AjZZ,,, _ , 6e>,. _ .CI ..r.cau. izew-el /71-/o/f JO% /8-5:side,"! , _ .,/zic ht k 3 .--6-- Cam,►a 64 ; C1_1144,0 a 51) -a:,-I? iVilk,Q4.1‘ /!{-- 5 , ox (Al? Mi 01 '4 ccit',04 pot 0 ' .....- _ .. . ..5,.. ..._.,,„,.. .___.A.,.5 .,,,,,,.. . -iorv, N .0 - `, ,• g • '‘-P I A •f:. A ..,,- (0 , 4/_,-/ , y,), . ----' e 44-- -zy , c). /K? 1 e .411 -,- )4 _, -ii 00 ai/X / , x 12"---//-,/ ,,/ G ii . - _ *41101•1 Pu di L.61,6) 4--ll ‘ . aez'i, = //,'-e'l (77 /A '' l - _ .4011- b . I I : ./ Xi X "IL 41 q ') 044147114: 1 ,_e• Pfir, //,_ or wil is?, w.,/ &, - .i. ,,e0e0,e_ 6, r_ , 4p, 41 a // As,-/' "ir g , /_1636A_6, .9_. ,._,2zef,_ Jraty. _ _t? 1 / pa-)e z_t ...,/,‘7_,,6 0 ).,,,, e0- _.77--2.4.42....‘........._ lodwiir, , 121--- LI _13e2-_y_ ike < , -,2,‘,7_,_.,_ _xi.„, c _ _ _ , _ „e_7z , _,e,:,..< c, (_. , ,,,,/ ,,,,,, 6-0Z i %/ir 1 - // i3 t_- Ly_ _ .# • ,/ _A" -/ 6 P qr*10," c : tV 1 . _ -. ..._ _ ...,:. _... \ ut k.tii,/, 4 „ 4 1 IcII. - , 0,11 / / / ■tr 7 "-21) /S4,, , 17q- _-_ /alitew, _ L'y ,"/ - - / - - ' - 1 1 i_I- AR47reta KeN ei0130-4 4 4/a 4 4.0 1/t/ t)-)il' 1„fr, ; ,, - 4,-'_ ....*Eit.i. __, ___ , /4 do?c,_471_,Le,,,1 __. , / ' . df we . Jo= ir-- ' _zio.40,_, _ / _ 4 g _,1 0,- Lsz, 01,_,,- ,M.P_e*e. ,e4Y/4-e,ai,, 9/ 0 - -ie&• -/-(/-116 65- re-fleet/lie,cl.&_ _ __ 1.12 )9 - _ A. Y.:gimp; lei //_ _,1'4,b+s ,_01.04a eraf Mc _(_,2141_,Eize.fii__ _felted. Ai // 130*Lit 1 aliAtael Ala, w.e- __-___�____-_�_ _ __ - -- '-_-� _-- _- A 729---r—w Al;-00% q.- aL , ,-(-4-7` ..e....-).-%.. 1-ce-v-e_, , _ 6).i..Lf A..c.A..e. )414:...4;?...e... %.c._ -?/._‘A 0 *-'\\et,._.e._.u, . , \\ '6'?‘,-( 1 2 i . .44 6 3$l 6 cie lac 0709 ►►,; ■, Ike 434.-- x.33 I, . • x11 1.1c. d '7614 Li A 0 ,,,;,,, g -. 4 goo ss'-A °;€141). 11, /NI. C.. 7 i / • - 1 / i / .11J dirl /l�.(. 2 2.t-/C) 7) a I l es L , Si 2/0 Brô a u L / • CGS - -kor , Al.( 27J 76 Y f 'r, Z pLb ,til_ F(o Aix 772 af,ea_ t.[. .u_ a737q 967_z_ - cl-a' 164- Gt-- OSS-646 /, i)- -" liiiAlr- b) c ..R# 4 - 13.0st- 3 C C.e., Jfc .0* 1! V N.-t-. /964 XI 4 c?llp/VL !4.G. ,vi c )z_ p l/a .I ,d `C i ueyc�,°Lf.c- 13 . ? mod ..t)C 774 S CBS g . — J-1 eft- c,.__, •Noieciev._ ?I4'' is1- 5. . . . L12 . P I 7 i-5 6 c9ouviia.i.v. c-. 3,alfi- o/i Wi.i i5 (12( / ' 4 ' It/49q9,e-e 16 G 7 - ,f // ,23i- /7 Zll�: c. -.7 /6 (141 ILA iii ? 1/171 q » 21x/2 /1 I /9 N 5,4 6/ ao (1 /A' . ,e_ ate i,eer .5s`Ae � ;1 a� e� 12)4, J_ p307, S3 / ciii4 I / J /I .23 ....3 SW l 4J472' ,__',J ,P,4",„,,, 100(--,3 4(-4-1g.4-4-1. -7k. 91 - C. ,k )12A-1,--. 3 Are.&4-44- ‹.7-7.c . ,1 R7` C a29 /---.9-7/ I 3 e t _ ooffd , C4,2A--=-6 Agitct, &3 2.2( • _ _ .17e c;.Ze 000F072-c_4_, tiz_62ar„,..„_cio(7-7,c „z 0,441f-Le "ii` 4f 33/ rxr___, /,9.c.e,'• 2 / - ilezdy'n eier.e./ /i-Ze 2.1C. =Z95/4 3S C__;430 1-tit . ► LAIL �. -- -- PETITION TO AMEND JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN WHEREAS, the Orange county Board of Commissioners adopted the Orange County-Chapel Hill -Carrboro Joint Planning Land Use Plan on October 13, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Land Use Plan contains a land use classification of Rural Residential and describes said classification as a low-density area consisting of single-family homes situated on large lots two acres in size or greater ; and WHEREAS, Orange County has required compliance with the two-acre lot size standard through application of its Subdivision Regulations; and WHEREAS, Orange County conducted a public hearing on November 24, 1986, for the purpose of amending its Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas to conform with the Joint Planning Land Use Plan , including the establishment ishment of a Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district and dimensional requirements applicable therein ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot substantially increases the cost of housing and is therefore directly contrary to any intention the county has of providing affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot imposes hardship on the majority of land owners, most of whom have struggled for many years to pay for their land and the taxes thereon , and would like to use the land for their children or realize some benefit to themselves rather than lose the value thereof ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot standard makes the extension of public water and sewer lines to new developments uneconomic , thereby encouraging the use of septic tanks and wells, both of which are already causing increasing health and sanitation problems; and WHEREAS, as more and more people settle in the county, public water and sewer will of necessity have to be extended to both old and new lots at a cost that will be devastating if lots are large ; and WHEREAS, there are other ways to obtain open space such as public parks and cluster developments with dedicated open space ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum standard has made most of the platted lots in the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning non-conforming and therefore less valuable since fiduciary institutions have reservations about making loans on non-conforming property; and WHEREAS, under the present two acre standard, existing structures on non-conforming lots, if damaged by catastrophe , might not be rebuildable in a manner suitable to the owner's needs: THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS LIVING WITHIN THE PROPOSED RURAL BUFFER (RB) ZONING DISTRICT AND ELSEWHERE IN ORANGE COUNTY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD / ` � � /�%/� ��u��� _7_"_ , 1 _ ' . _' f -.1.• - _/P _,./kgi9r a .i-- ? c 4. 1444c., . 3 - , 4ilf _....,.. , , ied--) . ,a_.32t CM7-',,g, --,,,e. _ " "'14:2/./ ',/4__,4Le.,, Li - AI,r-,..wgr■ / Ae 41,-)-re011■ Agoe ae.eideLA 5.-- 0 ,. I d _ 4/0 33VALt÷ilic.__,Rd 4.11 , 4 6 j_ac-x,-Z a-AIZ•141,,( gt fi .044A-f--"- -/ 4 e 7- f.14 re-, (-e-s-r.A.? .-,,,_ /Q7 1/61e/Zi r :e7:776 59..--- e r _ -AK',7 .-- &C-, , / 8/ eiriL.2116 iz __ /- , , . :219 14.11.4) , ."''-'4"1"tiLICII'a-" 62/ 11-41- a_ , ' iiii ,__, s .44 - / 0, /. ' //:, I . )044 ao_ __ , ViiiiWri: E4_6"- . •_, __ . , -e 1 1? (>€773 .1A, .A-6,L. __ k712,,,c4---r ei 9 e. ., ' ../.-/ -- e:- _I'r . f/a..e. i &zi. ,e_az i y;z--5-..,!,a,8,6-0.‘ ot.:e,,e_.4.4L /F ae"_ cA„,:y1 II ti 1 I 2\c, - ).3.,.:.i_ ' , ..., _:,, )1-;.....-2,-- 4 7-, )3 , B c-y L4---y, 6 ii,../',../ 1.1, 1_, --- / /.- 2., / - . . 67.4.-eiz------ /k/ 5_ ,Iiji ze44.zek' o' vv.e.:eive,z7,)--/5-- apz, a, - // , I ( , _ - - _ • , ,,cs_ie-- *-7 474, 6 ci r W,,----€ 1(...2 Aix ar -7 ' f--f--4, -- 'Iy-!;-fr--r— /J- / _...A.,. /- - ' ,le,:f--w--c, e,m, 7-j-,_,,,,. ' _dk _e4,471,.. cf-,e, z_L‘z1d --- ax/ ..A;44.- it) /_ ____ .:42-7-71'?C-4-2-1-4-7 *L'aza-A. L0 k gle3 - 6-J1- 2e-e. 74,62--,)_Ld... 3/-- -7--e ' r_ e,-- °F i,,e,17- ii —gAz_k . -_r_.; //tiesc, __ _ iz f ge _ ___ _LiuLt.e.e,a/ /76t_zz.„*,_,/(0 .1 , , / w--k-e:e.. _)7 e , ----------- ----------- -- ----' ------------------'------ - ----' '----- , 79.7 zewriffrcer,_ jef. e 33 3!-/ .„0,.. , Le&'. A,:14 •■•4°Ir *-.'•A'''I _ile4 AL -01511,- - C.42/01'-- elea #-Y1 6 / 6- i /),.../ • -R.1 u_ 64 ,_3_ -6 6iyel .„4:-0 , AL- 3 7 --- ..) ••Z .a.,e i--s 2.A 2 -c--C- '10- ' _ Rie a sEar ..,Lcii Q ( & /L/ju.c v0..4 Ca Cr A wii. i 3 q i 0____ _ /_.?_ A,L.7 7 6-;//, - _ _ . - _ _ - -- - _ _ _ . _,_///44141 "Zkildeth2C7'' '1 ..,.., ._. .........__ _ ___ / 11111" -1..........Q. ..•-•"--.- .•-•"-- -___.3)-- _ ... . . _ _...... . „... ............_ _ _ .. . . _ _ _ .e- , , ._ ... .___ 1,4,1 _,,,t‘zc;ee. . ,____ .. .. / .., - 1 mfg. ,..„ gEL _Iy . --- , , 9t77 '.. 1-)i-e47 , e);1 a•-- --a-it,_/ 76_ c/6782.41) f_,,. _...„/ ._c_s-.4,re i 7cp_61614,-a.2e .- ... _ -_ (■! _ --,-,,--,,,,,---, ., , r s , e-x_x0 4a ,4,l2 14Al , ' w YS li 7y 0 16 -e-- - . .13.0fro_t_i-e._ e0- 5_1-6 s,..x tr_k_ct„,„e-1 All I.. 6i c,_XIS 1 I_____ _ 41(11 /T Di -r- 3- , I2s--. Naitd /4(42dt_ ,„4_azirn _RA.4.4z&W 1 ' :/ . i 5--- /3 d - ii- ,=._. --- ezi . ._...r., .----cv--- ---.7<e„ v-cy eitl.r / /441:&10) AWN* . LA zqn(0 ' A Pip- I 'gal)ilk/ t21S15 r - )" d=1--a44.4.4tfr - 7 -7cee 44 A-2 I' -0; ,/V 74- 1 I/ ., 9'.. c kti'&71tfrgi-e4 4-4r- . .-, -/dw-Err-F-he• V41,_/fr ‘ i; 4 /18 4Lered0)42,eig_Y 67-yr rI r# i,-/ .e g.6 5.-- t / ,,, 1 , . _ ....... c3e,x.4(6 /. .,,,, , , ,, g .21.5_,),v ' - ' ,' _ _ _.--?M --A•v 0-- - -- /1=i14,5- :'C !.,,, 1 ' Al -_i - i-i f - _. e-76f-q247)/, 46.-6z1,7 tY -9-C- 6T,7_6-_e1l_y1-eA47e,1Ac1t/-4.d1:L4/ 117 2 zt.s■,A7 Z y Mike ' - . - zei v, A ix Vei 4 + /el AL,f/ A/C ,z, 75-Lr- -n . , - t ' -h_e__ _ __taik 9 _5' . _ -. . _._ -0-63 '' -- ° • °'7?-1 %_t , _ Vil ° 4---(-4--'-- ( pi_ ,,, _ _, . e--.-___,F,- -.tai6.1.24px_o_3_4 i-/ , . . _gpy.,_•_ .4.i. • , #. s- ex (31:44// ii _- ,9 7 (5%,I 4.. 19 A. 4I_, if _.,, 1 _t. - I. a R Oci_ oi/64.2.2 : / 4:4.-c-711-- 87-4Aft/kyi.))-# ' _ ` if. t x/ c,11" / ',, ; 1 k if" , . - c . CoacA woo el peg ://shorn, kff hg� 421 „ „■,,_;, 7v,,,..:,_.1.;,, /44..,,L , /:-.0),/26, „ i_II: ■ ,/II'. 11.Q, n, 4-- 1140,e/K 11- ort?--tx-4.4-e *e ' 1Y 44 e 1- i” ' / .4 `fl va- etc �'� I' o 3a 1-1 � �s �i�.�c G 7(.,..,4,.., 6., , va,44,,,r --Lcf g3 T� "4 •�.i r - / J -"/ ' - 11 i . rzs i �' '>�'_ -/ rr,.: r i 40 4 / fit! 7 /0- ',"► Y, ~ ,, a, 'iY / irCr -/ € ele 466441 U) ' II ' . , . 1 I _ dt,re_tr,..40- 2 „a4a*. . 471524_ 45.1 - ° 4//a l 1415-. . . ._. rte, C#27,57511 #40-7e.____ , . ..---., , ear-,,,Q, _ p , 7 fg c7? -14g7 ''.. " // 441d/ 4' 7( /�/C / ,%//%'. c„...,_,A,1/4.7--- ---\-t-y.---, -kt )4 a, kii:L wc._0-c.p..„..._:------ ‘1,...,.ir Rr 4 , Cive,-11,-i /-4--,_ .,),_!.' ind._e.e--,/__ .442-tere.z. e-eziar---ed.i i &,j ON Y elieloo-ildep (-, ‘r 70405.--=----1--__ __,-;.-1---___i - 00 /". 40 iilr'f ' , ••1941/24 t/ __-__ c 0,..A\NA., . \*- tv()_11,6_ Ip-) - i fttaiz 1 ,- ( elle/1 ) .--- (7_ 3 (5.0Y, 4di 2Zsev ... 1/— 01 1 • . . Z47 '0) 4C. 1466 61.1apet.14‘..11 (c/ fir .. . � � •• . 4 . . . T4, cA # r Q,. .. .„ . •. .y . . • ••, •• • • ..• .. • • • •••..•• . ..... . .. . .,. . ., . . . . . • ... .. . .. .. . . .. • , • . . . . . • • • • . . • ••, . . • . • . ••• • .. • • • . • • • • , ...„ . .,...• . .. . ... .. . . . . r. Vie: . _. , „-, (II\ cie9-171 ,e11/ Ttz- g , e ---•- -144- -h,C__ 71L jf-,_11# 11-4-44-°1-4--- , __•.-4,,e2441_?■- 2d. /134esi *Zlq- l- 1-4494- 17 A , ...._ t( _ l_zi CbA -7e J ‹. - i 44 . _. -g f_ . ” .. • e• r ___ __ 111Z,. .AAtit10/..af A', , . __ 7 - - , 2A‘,/ e. --.1 • . .-..- - il / t- ' / yr-7 ,.- • , ...... . . . A. ..-- . _., . • ,c1/.A76 _ 4,-,, •..,'_. ---_..,-..f.,._., , .eo, Ni06,1— AT S .4-3 g z ',xi/ 4 Lf:‘Lce i d,e y e 9 , A -t. If-edii 1 4 6111611 7:si_ -I- ---- /cii>1 ° g r#. l-- ... , .... A . . . / _., -id Z- ...._.., .,......• ,-t ,tijil 1... ' , . . „, ..._ . . ... _ 411) 1,, L7e- , 8)r-, I - 6 4- • /ae lee?'" I (1)-7, Alt.) ay -ale fes" att, /(cd I1 (ZtL E/5 6 2- N-9 e 4 -i i A z i-g, 97-e- (-4 .64-Q-A-L- 14- 5---,t4 clz, aka, - /414 , AlS -D 47,-) 297,24 is /30)e . Lsr zi 4e * Mr-6 101`-'" -5;—b-P-k 0_59 ,Le_21_5; aki-p4 /V4)7_ 7_571c/ 47671 e --t° , a„0,31.41,) gox_01 3 R 5; 6.09-PEL 257/ c &P JJC a .4 441Lte_ k/- 4()K_ a36 A 1- ,i)cotts-/,' I k).. 1,A;zlivAk_ 4- •2.14, .4.1 ii /4.44gi AL/4"(/ JLALi 1/j6/k 5;) 76a- fiX.7,-m_pnalsiazilulogveerNz. Pe) 6(561 67 3I7 -3e, ci(L„)1( ( 14-(XL Ey A7 7)3+•.__Np P-,( c A-pEti tu.., c>L4-12_ pr(V- ;2- 3 y Aa/. /(7 - 4(Ltzt-. R4 ‘i- / ehzad __ 29-4 LL (- / „11/4_13‘4, 2) ! 'm -q---C-I-eff-g5 71 991/2- 7- 4 , t4 13-41(74 A 6, _ I -1117C; I /L/2-1.71 /71 ) L c) /11 _ _0 _ L (9_2_ 7 3 , - • - / i%/ / --, ./irdirjAz, ,i e , _,- (it 1 0 (il IS , liA-...P--1--- 111-1---- fa /() /11A-/ 1 0 Utdg-tif iti P, c?_Li_a__. i dit. 7y _LLi441,vEkc., 7 5 i Li a/X/14-Q- 1 1 0,6t?l/4/L.',i ive zsit !„ _ ., kt-ewlvwle- i_ pir to 6-1-(- 1(06 Ckurt atket nic ;?-iicf„.._ 6 , .--3-71/t1.4.70k , . _1 I .,.,,,,.4 ..... „..,-,. 4 Cle/j1 a-4 II ..d.9 - .,v 9 ,..ac 7 c ,a. . _/ -/A.41, _2-" X ii__ yA 7 Az .P C3/6- le_./ /L / AIWF i i< / .4 a ,c / Z Lk' ' • / C- _,_1_, it I 84 -3 l'Z._r_CL,..fr,x,O_h;A-L12.5 WC-- __ ■ /el' . ,Al_ , .. . 1 0,6.,9A_,5 3_9 ,.... alll ... _ (-3 . •3__ _ -(1414 r2 (>00.---c-- IS,reic____. -/-4 t / .. -- ‘ 1 I - - - ?j2 ' J &-. 77,-1 _ 7- 4: ./.-3--il ._c_te-4;2,- __ ,/,,,__4__ .,_ s.-__, .._ 1 J/<114, /. il_c_, - :iyu c4,+ / w.' ., ,L. , r -- -- --- --- R-t-- / 2-:. ,--7 5 LA..e:_---) (/ ALc( Al c_- - / • / - / ;3,, _,-:..._.s— ,:: ,, -, .( //, 4/ ,c ,_____ CA/ 4/C. : _ce.;.- .( ,/-- isii I , _, 1 _4eX_ 1 cizv- - -41jit A4L_L- / ti-s,-0/6-'1 00 az a, / . ' 1i)/(:, ._ ,_ :t- A t (141/ `, a---) IL 1 _i_. f 11C — # , 4 id „ L_ .. ..___ ._.. • 1/ • / / . ell V-L . 11, • ,, -• „. d ,,-_, /_ .. / - ,/ / . ..____ i .._.'_ _ tx_.5.— / ( I 1 IL ,_ 7 i_::-.. •-,0_ ,.. . . _ ...., 44 4/7 ‘o OAOLii 411■r1 _ . . CALPYVL.1... '°;e5"-.714 4122 ,C4es_ alp< ;Art! ea/1A' 5E7 „.. czsozjeze.e.r:4611_47iief , I „ „...... ..... ______. ...._.„._. .. „ 7 . ...„... __ _ .......„. _.. _ , ... ,. 7" _Ar„.5._ _Sew.54_0 hgli.ad-J24.4.64_ —.2-9_24-S -- —--- — • ----- — ti .,,, - - -4 -'-r=- .-:311'- / 2 2 2:- 7 l .. ..,,,,e_,-2.-_< ,.,...... , , 2.Z(., ,i j,,- -.,-.Ls"--,/s.) / _ __ _ e z/ , 7 ,) 7 F' __ ,,, zZ... —14/ -7---- -- ....----y72-- -,- i_..., -,f7e 3 67 ----i/ 44Z/ ' -17_ '2 27 ....41.,/ (5 014,-- --.12 / A P-1-- ■ts-- ' 3/ i./ • r _2 - _ - ^ .lor ^aAJ _ ���� _--� _--_-----__ __ __--' __---- ___-_-__�_-_'�__--._ - - _ .- '_ � -- . _ . - - - ^ ° • ._„ t) 8a 4 oza-? C440-104-Q _ 4:k3,9 6 L. PijI) 41.cir" -.1241.- -67._‘4_- • PETITION TO AMEND JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN WHEREAS, the Orange county Board of Commissioners adopted the O Count -Cha el Hill -Carrboro Joint Plannin Land Use Plan on October 13, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Joint Plannin Land Use Plan contains a land use classification of Rural Residential and describes said classification as a low-density area consisting of single-family homes situated on large lots two acres in size or greater ; and WHEREAS, Orange County has required compliance with the two-acre lot size standard through application of its Subdivision Regulations ; and WHEREAS, Orange County conducted a public hearing on November 24, 1986, for the purpose of amending its Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas to conform with the Joint Plannin Land Use Plan , including the establishment of a Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district and dimensional requirements applicable therein ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot substantially increases the cost of housing and is therefore directly contrary to any intention the county has of providing affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot imposes hardship on the majority of land owners , most of whom have struggled for many Years to pay for their land and the taxes thereon , and would like to use the land for their children or realize some benefit to themselves rather than lose the value thereof ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot standard makes the extension of public water and sewer lines to new developments uneconomic , thereby encouraging the use of septic tanks and wells, both of which are already causing increasing health and sanitation -pr.obl e.ms rid WHEREAS, as more and more people settle in the county, and sewer will of necessity have to be extended to bothcoldtand new lots at a cost that will be devastating if lots are large ; and WHEREAS, there are other ways to obtain open space such as public parks and cluster developments with dedicated open space ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum standard has made most of the platted lots in the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning non-conforming and therefore less valuable since fiduciary institutions have reservations about making loans on non-conforming property; and WHEREAS, under the present two acre standard, existing structures on non-conforming lots, if damaged by catastrophe , might not be rebuildable in a manner suitable to the owner's needs : THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS LIVING WITHIN THE PROPOSED RURAL BUFFER (RB) ZONING DISTRICT AND ELSEWHERE IN ORANGE COUNTY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AMFNn Tuc nb..&or"- _ __ • _ .? iti-bilDR e'SS'. ;T e LY i 1 1)14/ ,fidaY ik P 8- I i ': MI / w • _a, c0446, Cez2 109- elLacts-g._ I t - (06(cc- 14a46&tetteL) /V, e: - i cric- Por 4)Iiir , / /r ,/ /3 • MIim,,-. ,1,- , ,/ ,&Ys ,e7k. 2/ -/ (7#• / - / ._ /rex , / /,-5-4) CAVE" 4 (( Yi C--6- / ber i CST8 f ar-e 1 g Ai C___, . , 4 '-' •••- -7c...14, / . i tet2 ,.. 44_ 51, Airy 33.a e.,,e2....ae) 17. 0 2 , 2.4€ 440.8244 -a- , 1 (1 titj ■ i;V-' - ' *- , ii 3-2,)(:)?-r.i.. c.vjag:4- ,})71;1/4-4,,i3O; • .4 r 4;77' )/_ ,;,, /it ,,,,, ei /6, si„,A-J5 '■LiVa..eed/4e/1L19__LO' I 4: .,-3P e-- ' &) -IL .1-2,( aclia4,6631 r egce _ // I. AV .C.,14400._ °- e.-4---6-4-e-K- ,e' /5 /6.v ) ; // -- i_ ..2,ti/i f, A PI, fk6 k.001-0--r-ii-ti,' 6.Xe".0-,244:_&.., 1-1 I- -3) .- .= -.o. //eZedice.„2.,."1.4.1.L., ciAA:e. ie'eT..44 ,; cu 5 e1-- ,_5-• -c) /7/ 7.1,4a.4.4 Azativ.4..,r, cu 5 ,eoviaie_ ,- /-a-t-Z . ekallaci /1/4 41 PETITION TO AMEND JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN WHEREAS, the Orange county Board of Commissioners adopted the grange Count -Cho el Hill -Carrboro Joint Plannin Land Use Plan on October 13, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Joint Plannin Land Use Plan contains a land use classification of Rural Residential and describes said classification as a low-density area consisting of single-family homes situated on large lots two acres in size or greater ; and WHEREAS, Orange County has required compliance with the two-acre lot size standard through application of its Subdivision Regulations; and WHEREAS, Orange County conducted a public hearing on. November 24, 1986, for the purpose of amending its Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas to conform with the Joint Planning Land Use Plan , including the establishment of a Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district and dimensional requirements applicable therein ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot substantially increases the cost of housing and is therefore directly contrary to any intention the county has of providing affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot imposes hardship on the majority of land owners, most of whom have struggled for many years to pay for their land and the taxes thereon , and would like to use the land for their children or realize some benefit to themselves rather than lose the value thereof ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot standard makes the extension of public water and sewer lines to new developments uneconomic , thereby - ef►couragi ng the use of- septic tanks and wells, both of which are already causing increasing health and sanitation problems; and WHEREAS, as more and more people settle in the county, public water and sewer will of necessity have to be extended to both old and new lots at a cost that will be devastating if lots are large ; and WHEREAS, there are other ways to obtain open space such as public parks and cluster developments with dedicated open space ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum standard has made most of the platted lots in the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning non-conforming and therefore less valuable since fiduciary institutions have reservations about making loans on non-conforming property; and WHEREAS, under the present two acre standard, existing structures on non-conforming lots, if damaged by catastrophe , might not be rebuildable in a manner suitable to the owner's needs: THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS LIVING WITHIN THE PROPOSED RURAL BUFFER (RB) ZONING DISTRICT AND ELSEWHERE IN ORANGE COUNTY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY Rneion OF COMM 1 sR T r cac ~ • . _ • _- - ._ Y\ I'," ii//,4040-- i. _ , - ,, . , --- -------- -14 2., -CLa.,,__6,3 __(_,„4„,,,,te_,V-1) :i _ _ tiowar ' 6\71,1( a ito( ifio4ca e±0,-,Aeik h_ __ fie-14 4 /3 65 1C_3/c2) C4Q-Ct/C171_a.{0 _ __ 1` . •■■ A _(411[..1'\ 4i_. okqe.1_ 01,1) . 1 ' -t A c KT c 6-ox *AAP ci-o-vpkt FIxt/ii.c, i106 T it' , I )''"t Ci 4111 4ft'4n- -30Y2q4) q\\. ‘z,Q‘c)1/44 , ‘,i - _, Vi 1 IP 7(40-1 64L 6A-ett t LA _./."----...-ps- 40_,.,,,e. , _ ,_ _i,tg_/2- *if 4f7rei -// _ic-,r, ,- _ A ° t■ t-‘ /-// e _ ,r _ V■1- 1 t 4 a)Coo _C fga bCit #.°C; _FS/ 'f / .414,17?„. ; - ----- -,- 2e.fx A., , ,, //r,K,/,-Iir. /40101P7% Avir', / ,-s-7 _,_d,,,,1 e-,12, _:‘ `- - ' - 7‹..___ JO, / .1,- ,,,,, , ,7-3 0 7 !,, ,, j:-., c —C 1 .1 \)p art O c c IA \s 7 c, ) \, ck d_ (-___( c :Irc__ ) e_ .4e-' // PIAJ1DA _ p 71.S 13- GI( getc-n 3 4±.?.e /iiie ti. C._ _ et-J'‘ . _KU-- _ 1P7,--41, 8°K 37P e#4644 f/iUt ,O..C. H. , "I, 'A*1; ice.a_tdox fo--4 e,-, , / _ rY, ,eif -li _a _ - .._ .- _ Jol--- -/---4414„__ori_ ca_kci(-_b_ rxii_. , c_ .--..4- a„76i4t.,/ , p_i, _q_LeAl _ /2.-k/_, 02e-. _ _ /2, 1_,/, ,44/.._ _ ,/eA..i.x..,- _ _,(2-f- _iec.)x F3/9- ,#zifs6 -6134__,./VC__-_, ' , . -(9--- --7 — /1 , / it.„., // 011 _ - 0 °-■r . / ■ -L k ( i e/ 76_ ell-He6c bfr.i_c__ ' '.- _ Ar7litir/a _ow_ a. rroAw ki 05,( 44 9 r -in, _eu ,.. __ / -- v , -/ , 14- 3 —8 04 ..5..Li ,, , , 4 i ! ......- _ . , B_Xo_ '77 ( - ' _...., ..1...6.3.____....._.N.7.77___ „ill, f Tc_li -6 ,_m_c_ch.... temiu_A)!_c_,_ _ 4 S IP ,/ : ..„.„._, --.- i -- 9 A RI. Bo4A_ 27,,iad 4-,7 " liii ,1 a P Ze.nozeY g _sZgl. .2 e ci ej-0--)SieW 1 , )c f/- -- ?1-,11:: _e_./gpeoe_Ar.r--it , --A- -/ , ,-1-- li 3.9X. gik t CArl 4 I/4 NC I , -0- ,er.f -- ---- -- - 0 Fr 31"\linm II11II 71)6, ;174/751&0' 4-7 _ _ L✓ PETITION TO AMEND JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN WHEREAS, the Orange county Board of Commissioners adopted the Or ange Count -Cha el Hill -Carrboro Joint Plannin Land Use Plan on October 13, r=86; and WHEREAS, the Joint Plannin Land Use Plan contains a land use classification of Rural Residential and describes said classification as a low-density area consisting of single-family homes situated on large lots two acres in size or greater ; and WHEREAS, Orange County has required compliance with the two-acre lot size standard through application of its Subdivision Regulations ; and WHEREAS, Orange County conducted a public hearing on November 24, 1986, for the purpose of amending its Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas to conform with the Joint Plannin Land Use Plan , including the establishment of a Rural Buffer (Rg) zoning district and dimensional requirements applicable therein ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot substantially increases the cost of housing and is therefore directly contrary to any intention the count y has of providing affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot imposes hardship on the majority of land owners , most of whom have struggled for many years to pay for their land and the tares thereon , and would like to use the land for their children or realize some benefit to themselves rather than lose the value thereof ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot standard makes the extension of public water and sewer lines to new developments uneconomic , thereby encouraging the use of septic tanks and wells , both of which are already causing increasing health and sanitation problems ; and WHEREAS, as more and more people settle in the county, and sewer will of necessity have to be extended topbothcoldtand new lots at a cost that will be devastating if lots are large ; and WHEREAS, there are other ways to obtain open space such as public parks and cluster developments with dedicated open space ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum standard has made most of the platted lots in the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning non-conforming and therefore less valuable since fiduciary institutions have reservations about making loans on non-conforming property; and WHEREAS, under the present two acre standard, non-conforming lots, if damaged bycatastrophe , n might unot rbe on rebuildable in a manner suitable to the owners needs: THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS LIVING WITHIN THE PROPOSED RURAL BUFFER (RB) ZONING DISTRICT AND ELSEWHERE IN ORANGE COUNTY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AMEND Tur nnnwtrte. „ - �. r ' --) -C.,_-?-7 (IL- -c I49 ..., ,,, 0-4,---iez742_,_<_,jz...4.„ _..1 V iii • , - ,, -741,. /Y A,D :- )30,,y 4,1, ./e. ; ?/LAP s U/2u �, -7/47-7--L--- -7)t-c--,-,----- wz:7-. 14,--4_,2„- ao. , 0,7c-di:-44:- o ff_, ,a ( ''cLe7<_,,,;:_,, eale_/. ./C: e - --- / -/-L■1 j'''*c-,/ 6L-Le c2i frD6) . 3Oj (-)e. 2”, a6*(- ' y J 0:07P1-(6,-, 3 g _ " `�'[ ma '41u-it 4-1/2-' 424. -- lc-‘,..47s-- Charek_ titi2-1L-- - ,' 7&z:t W )Z4/ 1 04e-7/ 41F - Afs,..t..L • _ R. - ioell /7 Cit4 R $ Cti14• 4 Ci J471.=:},All / /ak-P-e---- 62() E__-,f.A! 71.74-v, (161,:- -s--4---/ --hr z--(74/'' ,,,,,4,,,,,,j._ _g c---Z.:, C ,iff (c (/ :(_?- cal'-' (Q,RJ , of 1 �d q ���� / UGC 9.a.K:Le. , /e ,tf.--,--) 11/ Wie-64-1,4./.4 Vd.r, &. , . ' 14 ..7-, (0) xt- ■_,t_tAc7 jeie 1?Aer. _6 4Ge 6-- Cier21704-7_/ptec-c- orZ' 7 ftI . Pt ( 67,,f_ C PETITION TO AMEND JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN WHEREAS, the Orange county Board of Commissioners adopted the Ora n e Count -Cha el Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Land Use Plan on �� October 13, 1 '`46, and WHEREAS, the Joint Plannin Land Use Plan contains a land use classification of R ural Residential and describes said classification as a low-density area consisting of single-family homes situated on large lots two acres in size or greater ; and WHEREAS, Orange County has requir,ed compliance with the two-acre lot size standard through application of its Subdivision Regulations ; and WHEREAS, Orange County conducted a public 1986, for the purpose of amendii ng i tshZon i ng Ordinance eand4, Zoning Atlas to conform with the Joint Plannin Land Use Plan , including the establishment of a Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district and dimensional requirements applicable therein ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot substantially increases the cost of housing and it therefore directly contrary to any intention the county has of providing affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot imposes hardship on the majority of land owners , most of whom have struggled for man y pay for their land and the taxes. thereon , and would like rtotuse the land for their children or realize some benefit to themselves rather than lose the value thereof ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot standard makes the extension of public water and sewer lines to new developments uneconomic , thereby encouraging the use of septic tanks and wells, both of which are already causing increasing health and sanitation problems ; and WHEREAS, as more and more people settle in the county, public water and sewer will of necessity have to be extended to both old and new lots at a cost that will be devastating if lots are large ; and WHEREAS, there are other ways to obtain open space such as public parks and cluster developments with dedicated open space ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum standard has made most of the platted lots in the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning non-conforming :and therefore less valuable since fiduciary institutions have reservations about making loans on non-conforming property; and WHEREAS, under the present two acre standard, existing structures on non-conforming lots, if damaged by catastrophe , might not be rebuildable in a manner suitable to the owner's needs: THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS LIVING WITHIN THE PROPOSED RURAL BUFFER (RB) ZONING DISTRICT AND ELSEWHERE IN ORANGE COUNTY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE ORANGE Cot IIrtTY Dnnnr► OF COMMI SSI t`lhlt±'RG nr,.irmn -------" Immummmil..1111...1.11 Aitvki-c--e / ..--- - 4fiyal QXMAte--■C--- ‘.5-7 -7 /1/a42free.X...C./ // 1 • , , , . l ,_ / . ,,,,,i ‘?4( ,(46-1.211 .,f // 1 ' 0 , / , - dV ,. , ;_,,9-,e, Ri2-4-1--d_e--/-___ R/, /a Ar /'��. ' rte, S1�.��'4.--cl.. �- , .16 , . Li . �`/ , t _.. • 47x)o&r:1;i-J ._s alq-u9( ' � / el,a7k - s9-fiz) 1 o ---.)/ n 6' A4_,ii __,_I_axe' , .-c L - 11,e_c2.-Prz-e., ,__„/ex_y. ?<2.6_-e_..L____.1z9-6776'--,71 Iir,_ .6)0-4- 'e/ , c- N . , 4/..c... • 744 1224,‘Veri,_ - .� r6 11.0-K 7 7 g' -_42:4--,k342.0.-4.47„ -C-.a 4/ . ?d 4-491L/ er ouLe ;_e6d p(2. L 946'2 33 //te 1(j-' Ll �d1Q�~-C'fx- c1-4r 1 , -z-olipli— "Rt-346--y 9 -43' /7744acittc_,66(74 ,or A f , • - ficavy /tw 0-7 c:_, d ofie- ,11.4./ ,/sel .. ficz-z, xe,t4i " c___;4 4 zfri---- 14„7-72,t__ g140,41A4ctez.,_(.4‘.. 29_1). oitrie42 Ait-ce - , -„- c2_74f-Lt_t_x, w /-1 k t - pezz.(_re,,,. 6 ‘•= /64.- --!---d- rfr-t.vie_ _ _ A C/1.0,e.,z, ,,-4--F,}V ' L/'�/j _ Z 7._r- ' -le /7 2J G/�r//.. C/] .. • ! _ � / it / V V r �- - A- CD. . e-1-7/ . •_ • ,:40 • • • • • • • • • • AIN PETITION TO AMEND JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN WHEREAS, the Orange county, Board of Commissioners adopted the Or Count -Cha. el Hill -Carrboro Joint Plannin . Land Use Plan on an October 13, 1 ?86; and WHEREAS, the Joint Plannin Land Use Plan contains a land use classification of Rural Residential and describes said classification as a low-density area consisting of single-family homes situated on large lots two acres in size or greater ; and WHEREAS, Orange County has required compliance with the two-acre lot size standard through application of its Subdivision Regulations ; and WHEREAS, Orange County conducted a public 1986, for the purpose of amendii ng itshZoning Ordilnanceeand4, Zoning Atlas to conform with the Joint Plannin Land Use Plan , including the establishment of a Rural Buffer RB ( ) zonin district and dimensional requirements applicable therein; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot substantially increases the cost of housing and is therefore directly contrary to any int.e:ntion the county has of providing affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot imposes hardship on the majority of land owners , most of whom have struggled for many years to pay for their land and the taxes th ,the land for their children or real izeosomenbenefit toke to use themselves rather than lose the value thereof ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot standard makes the extension of public water and sewer lines to new developments uneconomic , ... thereby encouraging the use of -septic - tanks 9 9 and wells, both of - -which -are -a.ir�e Jy` caus i ng, i ncreas i ng health and sanitation problems ; and - WHEREAS, as more and more people settle in the county, and sewer will of necessity have to be extended to bothcoldtand new lots at a cost that will be devastating if lots are large ; and WHEREAS, there are other ways to obtain open space such as public parks and cluster developments with dedicated open space ; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum standard has made most of the platted lots in the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning non-conforming and therefore less valuable since fiduciary institutions have reservations about making loans on non-conforming property; and WHEREAS, under the present two acre standard, existing structures on non--conforming lots, if damaged by catastrophe , might not be rebuildable in a manner suitable to the owner's needs: THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS LIVING WITHIN THE PROPOSED RURAL BUFFER (RB) ZONING DISTRICT AND ELSEWHERE IN ORANGE COUNTY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY Ronan OF COMMI SSI ONERg a►-cmn _ _ - ' ■. - - - ' _ -_ .� | - - - NN ' ~ - - -- - - - -- - --�-- --___ / ,� _ _ _ _ _ �� _' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ '�- - -r - -,r �.- - - - _ _ _ -- '_ _ � _ _ 1 q fr; t_ -'- - -- -- -- »�� ' ~- '^~ \' ^- --+--'� -�_&�.�'_ � � 1 / ~-' / ��~' -' � - - - ! -- - _-� -- _ _ ---' - -- --� �� C W ��� i���"�^ � - J��� v�' �� �- ( | -- - - _1 i. IPASAkr 61.1040416:74.. li z- ee-3e 644 A CLI.J ilt, Z 7 5- ift - -- -- - b."44"-e Lu'l )-el#6-4"-I14"71 4-sk4'4.0 AA. 4 le.4 16•4t- t_c nr _ ---C-e-44;. , , / - 0-1Filepe- -g"4- 101-4-44szill--"Ira, _ _ _ _ iz. Aoy,<Ad. •.775 ,4 - z/ AK-dr,t ,d' ' // x ' /YAM/9674_ -- Cia,060 V e , t1 44 yiL4kiz (,‘)e) / , 4:4 t __ _ _ _ e -. - 0 CIA.4 . p A i ig / . 47V94041,./7,d;reel) 1/ 1 -,4"1" 4;f7. ' -4/ " - 1' -1 Al:4/ ME.41 4fieie p) ., / -..... __U) , , 4(4.1;0,4- -3 - AfleW‘l C-1/4149 deetse t .1-114b7/7 _eciiielgt/Li _itat, -;, le, Akli scsf-e-i i _I ! ° _I I I le-/-e■sC, 0.12,J ,94 Jai- i41 (34,41" z/V4/ e—hAlice 11-20; 111e , 441/'4 A"-"-fee4r I L,s, S. ieci.be--5.1- 3,1 CA, #0-4. (-- 66%(,.., -(/Lii,-- -c-,-,- - i -a-f- i' Ay HI Roo( all (2.421/,d),, ,, P'ee-e__--43,5---se --w yol -eyoslif 1111111166._ , - - _�__*-�+_^_� �� � ��� F: I RESOLUTION TO INVITE THE CAPITAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CEDCO) TO EXPAND THE TERRITORIES OF ITS SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA) APPROVED CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM BOUNDARIES TO INCLUDE ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Board of the Orange County Commissioners sees the need to help small businesses in Orange County by improving the availability of Long—term fixed asset financing to small businesses at affordable terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the Board of the Orange County Commissioners believes that expansion, growth and viability of small businesses in Orange County will expand employment opportunities for Orange County Citizens, expand the tax base, increase business ownership opportunities and expand the economic base of the community; and WHEREAS, the authority of this program is found in the July 2, 1980 amendment to the Smell Business Investment Act; and WHEREAS, the Capital Economic Development Corporation, hereafter known as CEDCO, is an authorized Certified Local Development Corporation with the resulting capabilities to provide Long—term, fixed asset financing through section 504 Loans to certain businesses and individuals owning or leasing property located within designated boundaries of the CEDCO service area; therefore BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: 1 . That Capital Economic Development Corporation (CEDCO) is invited to expand its service territory to encompass Orange County, condi- tional upon the following: a) That CEDCO would make the SBA 504 program available to Orange County at no cost, and no time or other commitment or input from the County; and b) That CEDCO would inform area bankers of the program and keep regular contact with Orange County bankers, and with the Orange County Economic Development Commission. 2. That the County Clerk furnish to CEDCO a certified copy of this Resolution. Adopted this 5 day of January, 1987. .., , - //' e: 414.4.44...4-e--- /V Shir . - ■Marshall, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners r r i ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CAREY,JR. STEPHEN H.HALKIOTIS JOHN HARTWELL SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL DON WILLHOIT February 6, 1987 Ms. Janneke Hermans Capital Economic Development Corp. 812 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, NC 27601 Dear Ms. Hermans: The Orange County Board of Commissioners at their meeting held January 5, 1987 approved a resolution which will make available to Orange County firms the Small Business Administration (SBA) 504 loan program. I have attached a certified copy of this resolution for your files. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call my office or Sylvia Price. Thank you. Sincerely, Mrs. . . . Beverly A. Blythe Clerk /bab File Attachment We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons: 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting g u p regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE m,A-FiNy rIzs ( T �X`f i4 t -�=f�(! "' ! - , -___ / / ® /1 or20-•z- O?01/4,4 3 11 Ak•1.1.4,40-4o- ,,v, 6, 9(07-S 1 44\-27 A3'' , max-s/zs c4 i.,y, 9 '?.a . AA /'l' 1 ago d 4+0,141 hp_ 4 ' ,2-rtr,23 WOW I 0, / 929 - )02Y (L - r �, 5 . ( , q_ >3 D or k. ' 401. 9241.-2 2feeirega.4.0....ettee. 114 - .r ��...614 A s CrAr%-401 II • l /, At CrbX).Sg (44 N c 1Ur _ 9 09 r e 174/Lice_ 0--e-144417-)_____ We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County 9 Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons: 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE /-L /elf - C•i1. 47?3 .� 5 Cm.‘b/J7yv-to i-Vf c i ` ai C z , / i , ,. Pg.'. r 110 J - roe 9a2--3 3 Alar,ci.n !1 _ L ,',. - _ . - qty` iii it I i; Q c i t I, , a,// - V707 /. c , dSrt .... /~7(vie4441; /©� 91t,it iv f'y -!�` - 9.r-.- Z/1,� 010 ,K , v/G7L # i® k ? (i J/p i `C /y Lynd ///916"'"- .(q Fetik.0-) S1 . earihoyo 1,.). C. - 0 7 4i g- 2-1a, ryi 3(6 We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural de sities to one acre. minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government Hof the County for the following reasons: 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE iR/ ; 1/ 7ek . a- 1, ,oz 4 Alk Ig eta � .�. 41OF /■-•11fr. ° F Aor. ?„ 6--digle 017emozcia 1 )1c ,1/4f27..0.5-1.__ G...,,. '' ei 3 13 U-7_447 4o 7 Yz 16 411 y)Liz.Gt_, ����J N G .2720 4.,ad-STY-4" i3.0A4 e <rd iltA4 2. 1 s 19 174 z. ilex 7 &011-A4//,‘,4e .z 7,/ Ta°6 11# •ids 6 (---V► i la( /�i�!=Jr�� ,�: -y, Lh41 A et a 1% r ./ 1. .. We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining-rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons: 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE ' it 7z u.i. Q4 /14ex /143, , 7 4/e. 9 7rz-G 773 /� / . � - e -0 ' 1-c,,4 9 ct z F e-c0 \ fit/14A' '1.•i--6-.) 641,1,—r— /Gam- '66.4c5-14-S i,,r X c.,-- .ve.e 51 ',frfrac, .17- ger-4 Ri 6 Awf G29, - 94,2 i7e®Q , . ,p�.® 41 &x 3 2 e /4- i s �i • "j I pr:if 6x 9 L.AKAIRL 4LE fa APEL y r L L� Al _�, �-. 4 Sao [I � Sul /� L. .. 7„--.-, 4, s0 14,41.,,) fiteter. � ,/ , f y-duo. �`� r ':!�. '�__ A/, 3�! • c twee, See 6, • 773j J. We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons: 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks "future public health problems. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE - lei 7*he 3—A d%,1_ --_____, co"... . . , x 5j4 - Jfills 9V1.-0C -C 1. R+ 3 Peyr0 - ►�,:t . / . _ : ...f , _ 4 • / 0_ ,_1/fg?-fi(fir' 4 %,,.. g# 2 soy 151 re 1 4ii 4 qz -(, i , .�- `� all ...11 .044,11 ,57...... ...••1,1" „0 --4... -^" C I / 1_i - /o C. 2_ • - ile vi 4 Alin 1111" Mr ;I • We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons: 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum,infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and'sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks future public health problems. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE _�► C9 �JC 1� ���., \ lu S4d/ ���s c-4 /15- ,e's,,pera a- gex arart#4 9-”."4.2-' � l 729-p��� igxiA 92 ? • 41 } �I . f�.. ,s- Coa 4 9 le 7 - g6-4/A. . E - � 1 ,o,,� = /� /�+lam �♦.;r • E14.1 �1,49yri„ rffli ax 7 It, 7 r(018, /f - f-� �~ .2d i 1 Ch/Nc 71.s • i • / i ` / /sSbg 67- 4:4;.,� / 1 : 23' it —re" ,. t. ' ag. rL / �;.. / -197/ L -3/ '- c);{ 4137 ,el/s- / 0 " . ._dy. ii, , , _ , _i_ii_a‘z.,2,_ . 2t9 .. . Di,.. IL eati ealc _ _ ifiro".• Is: . .2--2-.. . , . ., I, Tit • A.111C-A-Hti'v a II 13_aff3 7.' °—'1 -- c_-_. . 13 1-- _' /- *4 , _,410 ro. 4.dx _ ___ /‘X-0--/„4i, _ 7."4' 1...,..s . _ _ lik I. 1/6- c Ciloill tr_c_p/ e-, #015beyou6-1 , Pt ()-- a ox 6d,4'',e/- 4. - ,0 / / ' p-/A_ A . _ , _ ., ,.,:de ' a a_,&,43c, 6,,,,,37A,7_-_-/Ad _ ___ _ - - , - . _ _ . . _ _ , 1 , _ _ _ , . - _ _ __ _ _ ., _ _ __ _ _ _ _ . ___ , _ . _ , _ _ ___ _ , _ , . _ . _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ , ,__ (.-_ , 1 APPROVED FEBRUARY 2 , 1987 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 5, 1987 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on January 5, 1987, 7 : 30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Shirley E. Marshall and Commissioners Moses Carey, Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell and Don Willhoit. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Assistant County Managers Albert Kittrell and William Laws, Recreation and Parks Director Mary Anne Black, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Purchasing Director Pamela Jones, Department on Aging Director Jerry Passmore, Economic Development Director Sylvia Price, Planner Greg Szymik, and Personnel Director Beverly M. Whitehead. A. BOARD COMMENTS Chair Marshall announced that a public hearing on "capacity use" will be held by NRCD at 7: 00 p.m. in Superior Courtroom on January 13 . On January 12, at 4 : 00 p.m. in the Commissioners' Room , the Board will hold an executive session with the County Manager as a followup to some of the concerns and priorities for team management as identified at the goals and objectives meeting held in December. Chair Marshall reiterated the policy of the Board that the press should receive copies of all reports received by the members of the Board. Commissioner Carey added to the agenda a discussion on the Livestock Market (item 8a) . B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Henry A. Whitfield, Jr. , resident and taxpayer, presented and read the following petition to the County Commissioners: "I hereby petition the commissioners to amend the zoning ordinance and atlas as necessary to return immediately to the one-acre minimum lot size which has prevailed over the past years until such time as investigation has conclusively proven that it is overwhemingly advantageous from all aspects to make a change from the one-acre minimum. Whitfield presented petitions with 643 signatures thereon. Chair Marshall announced that those citizens who wish to speak to items on the printed agenda will be recognized at the time their agenda item is discussed. 2 . MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA None. C. MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the minutes for December 16, 1986 as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Chair Marshall to approve the minutes for December 19, 1986 as circulated. 2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. D. REPORT- PUBLIC PROCLAMATIONS TO RESCIND WATER RESTRICTIONS On December 23 , 1986 the following proclamation to rescind the Voluntary Stage II water restrictions in the county portion of the OWASA service area was issued by Chair Marshall: "Orange County has been notified by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority that the water supply situation has continued to improve. The return of near normal precipitation has restored University Lake to about 2" below full and along with added water to the Quarry Reservoir and the Cane Creek impoundment has reduced the overall system demand and increased the water supply to more than three months. As Chair of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, I hereby rescind the voluntary Stage II water restrictions for those citizens who live in the County portion of Orange Water and Sewer Authority service area. I thank the citizens of Orange County in the OWASA service area for their cooperation during the drought of 1986 and ask that you continue to practice good stewardship of our natural resources. " On December 29, 1986 the following proclamation to rescind the voluntary Stage II water restrictions in the county portion of the Orange/Alamance and the Town of Hillsborough service area was issued by Chair Marshall: "The management of Orange County has determined that with the combination of available water sources and the forecast of normal rainfall for the forthcoming winter months, the water level of Lake Orange is now at the Stage I level in accordance with the County' s Water Conservation Ordinance. As Chair of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, I hereby rescind the voluntary Stage II water restrictions for those citizens who live in the County portion of the Orange/Alamance and the Town of Hillsborough service area and use water obtained from any raw water supply within Orange County. I thank the citizens of Orange County in the Orange/Alamance and the Town of Hillsborough service area for their cooperation during the drought of 1986 and ask that you continue to practice good stewardship of our natural resources. " E. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA Item two was removed from the consent agenda for separate consideration. The following action was taken by the Board: 1. PUBLIC MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING POLICY To adopt a policy that County management and County departments will set general public meetings or public hearings only at such times as the Board of Commissioners is not regularly scheduled to meet or is not expected to be absent from the County, as a group, for County-related events. 2 . ANIMAL SHELTER - CHANGE ORDER - removed for separate consideration. 3 . AMENDMENT TO COMMISSION FOR WOMEN BYLAWS To approve an amendment to the Commission for Women bylaws which will increase membership on the Executive committee and make provisions 3 for resolving a tie vote. The changes were made to Article V, Section 1 as written below. The underlined portions constitute the amendments. " Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall consist of the Chair, the first Vice-Chair, the Second Vice-Chair, the immediate past Chair (who must be a current member) , and the Coordinator, who shall serve as a non-voting, ex-officio member. The Executive Committee shall have the authority to Should a tie vote occur, the issue shall be brought before the entire Commission. All business . . . . " Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve items 1 and 3 of the Consent Agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2 . ANIMAL SHELTER CHANGE ORDER After discussion by the Board the Animal Shelter change order was deleted. The work will be performed by the County maintenance personnel after completion of contract. F. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA 1. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT/ATLAS AMENDMENT -- RURAL BUFFER PRESENTATION Director of Planning Marvin Collins presented a petition from Mr. Whitfield which will become a part of the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Collins presented the proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance text and atlas which would establish a new zoning district classification, Rural Buffer (RB) ; establish criteria for its application; set interim dimensional requirements for lot area and rezone approximately 38, 000 acres from Rural Residential (R-1) and Agricultural Residential (AR) to Rural Buffer (RB) . The Planning Board recommended that no action be taken at this time on the RB proposals and that a public hearing be held on March 10, 1987 jointly with the Town of Chapel Hill. The County Attorney recommended against delaying the adoption of the proposed amendments because of the strong relationship between the Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. He recommended against leaving all lots less than two acres in their present R-1 zoning classification because of prohibitions against "spot zoning. " He suggested that the "combination" issue be handled through an amendment to Article 11.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. BOARD COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS_ In answer to a question from Commissioner Hartwell, Collins explained that a Commercial Feeder Operation would be an operation where a person has livestock available on site, provides feed on site and raises them for sale/resale. Commissioner Halkiotis questioned the urgency of voting on this item at this time instead of waiting until after the public hearing. County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill explained that Orange County has a comprehensive plan which is regulated by the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. If one is changed the other must be changed to conform. In this way the actions by the Board are more defensible and less arbitrary in a court of law. Gledhill stated that the County has approved the minimum lot size of two acres in the RB district on its Comprehensive Plan and any delay in conforming the ordinances to the Comprehensive Plan puts that decision at 4 risk. Commissioner Willhoit proposed that a study be done of the design standards to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan that would ultimately provide the open space that is desired in the RB and still have minimal impact on the property owners. The Board asked the County Manager to put this item on the next agenda for further discussion. Gledhill explained that the continuous frontage requirement could not be eliminated for only the RB area but would need to be done countywide. In answer to a question from Commissioner Carey, Collins stated that the two acre standard was discussed along with 5 and 10 acre standards. The two acre standard was a recommendation from Chapel Hill for the Joint Area Plan. COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIR BARRY JACOBS Jacobs reiterated concerns raised by the Planning Board Members. He stated that the Planning Board attempted to address in their recommendation the concerns of those individuals who spoke at the public hearing. The Planning Board recommended that the two acre minimum lot size remain in effect for future development and that the concerns of those with preexisting lots be addressed. They recommended that the Board consider maintaining the same setbacks in the RB as presently in the R-1 districts and that the amendments and concerns be aired at a public hearing to be scheduled for March 10. Commissioner Carey stated his concerns for the equity issues which have not been addressed but stated the importance of protecting the relationship between the Zoning Ordinance and the Land Use Plan. PUBLIC COMMENT Regina Nobblett, Henry Whitfield, Roy Stroud, Helene Ivey, Melvin Parrish, David Parrish and Randy Danziger spoke in opposition of the of the 2 acre lot minimum in the Rural Buffer. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chair Marshall to approve the staff recommendation with a moratorium on the enforcement of the contiguous frontage regulation. The staff recommendation is that the Zoning Ordinance text/atlas amendments be adopted to conform with the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The proposed amendments, including recommended changes to address staff concerns as well as others expressed at the public hearing, are as follows: 1. Permitted uses in the Rural Buffer district would be identical to those permitted in the Agricultural Residential (AR) district except for the following: Change "cemetery" from a Permitted Use to Class B Special Use. Delete "extraction of earth products" as Permitted Use. Delete "non-profit educational cooperative" as Class A Special Use. Delete "greenhouses (on premises sales) " as Permitted Use. Delete "commercial feeder operation" as Permitted Use" . The proposed changes would make the list of permitted uses identical to those permitted in the Rural Residential (R-1) zoning district. A complete listing of permitted uses in both AR and R-1 districts is provided in the attached Article 4 . 3 Permitted Use Table. 5 • 2 . Adopt proposed Rural Buffer "Intent" statement and "Application Criteria" as presented at public hearing. 3 . Adopt proposed renumbering of Articles 4.2 . 1 through 4.2 .4 as presented at public hearing. 4 . Adopt dimensional requirements for proposed Rural Buffer district as shown on the accompanying tables. Contrary to what was earlier recommended, the dimensional requirements of the Rural Residential (R-1) zoning district would apply in the proposed Rural Buffer (RB) district except for "minimum lot area per dwelling unit" which would be two acres or 87, 120 square feet and "minimum gross land area (planned developments only) " . In the latter case, the minimum gross land area for a nonresidential planned development, and residential planned developments 1 and 2, would be four acres or 174,240 square feet, while the gross land area required for a mobile home park planned development would be 20 acres or 871,200 square feet. The required gross land area for planned developments is consistent with the practice in AR and R-1 districts of requiring twice the minimum lot area per dwelling unit for nonresidential and residential planned developments 1 and 2 . The gross land area required for mobile home parks is likewise consistent, requiring 10 times the minimum land area per dwelling unit. 5. Adopt amendment to Zoning Atlas as proposed at public hearing rezoning approximately 38, 000 acres of land from AR and R-1 to RB. Coupled with the above recommendation is another directing the Planning Board/staff to study other concerns voiced at the public hearing. These concerns, including provisions requiring combination of nonconforming lots, are listed on the accompanying sheet. As many concerns as possible should be addressed and proposed ordinance amendments presented at public hearing on March 10, 1987. In this respect, the approval of standards for the Rural Buffer area would be an interim action followed by additional investigation and refinement of adopted standards. Commissioner Hartwell expressed concern that the two acre minimum lot size provision was not publicized and endorsed the Planning Board recommendation to allow time to put together a package that will work. Marvin Collins concurred in that no standard per se was brought out at the Joint Planning public hearings but the concept of large lots was discussed. Chair Marshall and Commissioner Willhoit spoke in favor of the Planning Staff recommendation indicating that approval will speed up the time for consideration of alternatives and protect the County against undesirable development that may occur. Commissioner Halkiotis stated his opposition to the motion indicating the Planning Board recommendation would allow additional time to resolve the concerns expressed by the citizens in the RB. VOTE: Ayes, 3 ; Noes, 2 (Commissioners Halkiotis and Hartwell) 6 2 . SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENT -- LOT STANDARDS Proposed revisions to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations were presented. The revisions will bring the Subdivision Regulations in compliance with the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan that was adopted on October 13 , 1986. The Planning Board recommended that the following wording be added to the first sentence in the first paragraph of Section IV-B-1. "The minimum lot size shall be as required by the Orange County Land Use Plan, Orange County Zoning Ordinance or the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance, whichever is applicable. " Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3 . ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - TELEPHONE EXCHANGES A proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance was presented. The text amendment would establish a minimum lot size requirement for telephone exchange facilities (without offices) , subscriber loop huts, pressure regulator stations, and water and sewer pump stations in all zoning districts. The Planning Board recommended to add to Article 6. 16. 12, subsection d) "The minimum required lot area for such uses shall be 5, 000 square feet. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4 . WALKER'S LANDING II - PRELIMINARY Planner Greg Szymik presented the Preliminary Plan for Walker's Landing II. The property is located in Cedar Grove Township on SR 1383 (Eno Cemetery Road) . Nine lots are proposed out of a 24.53 acre tract. The tract is designated as Agricultural Residential and Water Supply Watershed on the Land Use Plan. The Planning Board recommended approval subject to the condition that all property lines below the 620 elevation must be removed and the property designated as Lake Orange Inc. Alois Callemyn, surveyor for the developer, asked that the property line be left at the 615 elevation. He stated that by approving the Planning Board recommendation the County would be setting property lines. County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill indicated that the problem with using the 615 elevation is that it encroaches on the land owned by the County and it would not be in the County' s best interest to approve a subdivision that sets lot lines that encroach on County property. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Planning Board recommendation. Bobby Nichols of Lake Orange Inc. stated that the land between the 615 and 620 elevation has never been deeded to the County. The County has a temporary flood easement for that land between the 615 and 620 elevation. He expressed his desire for the property owner to have control of the land between the water and the adjacent lot. He asked that the title be warranted to the 620 ' elevation but deeded to the 615 ' elevation. 7 Gledhill pointed out that in seven (7) years the people who have deeded non-warranty deeds down to the lake front would have a claim of ownership to the lake front which would oust Lake Orange and oust perhaps the County's easement. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5. STACY HEIGHTS SECTION II - PRELIMINARY Planner Greg Szymik presented the Preliminary Plan for Stacy Heights Subdivision Section II, property of George Tate, Jr. The property is located on the east side of Rogers Road. Seven lots are proposed out of 6.787 acres. The property is zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) and located in the Transition area of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Joint approval by the Board of Commissioners and the Chapel Hill Town Council is required. The Health Department has granted approval on lots 2 , 4, 6, and 7. Lots 1, 3, and 5 are regarded as having restricted development potential because of the unsuitability of the subsurface soil for the installation of an on-site soil absorption sewage disposal facility. The Chapel Hill Town Council recommends denial of the Preliminary Plan as does the Orange County Planning Board. Submittal of a revised plan after consultation with Town and County Staffs is also recommended. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, second by Commissioner Carey to approve the Planning Board recommendation to deny the Preliminary Plan. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 6. PERSONNEL ORDINANCE REVISIONS (The recommended changes are in the agenda abstract in the permanent agenda file) Director of Personnel Beverly Whitehead stated that effective January 1, 1987 the State reimbursement for meals is $18.00 and out- of- state reimbursement is $23 . 00. With reference to Article III, Section 6.2 it was decided that language would be added to indicate that in the event that placing an employee on leave without pay conflicts with the Hatch Act, leave would not be granted. In that case in order to seek office, the employee would need to resign. The County would make the determination at the time the employee requested the leave. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve Articles I, II and III through Section 6. 3 of the Personnel Ordinance as amended. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Article III Section 7. 1. 1 - the word "official" was deleted from this section. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve Article III, Section 7. 1. 1 as amended. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Article III Section 9 (Travel) After extensive discussion, it was decided that Commissioner Willhoit would meet with the Personnel Director to work out appropriate language for this section of the Ordinance. Article IV Section 3 . 1 (Adverse Weather Regulations) 8 Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to delete Section 3 . 1 in its entirety. Discussion ensued and it was decided to have this section reworked and resubmitted to the Board. Article IV Sections 5.3 , 5.4, 9.3 , and 15. 1. 1 Article V Sections 5.2 and 7.0. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chair Marshall to approve the Sections listed above. Article IV, Section 9.5 will be reworked and submitted again to the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Article VI Section 3 . 14 Article VII Section 3 . 2 Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the two sections listed above with Article VII, Section 3 .2 to be effective through June 30, 1987 . VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 7 . NORTHERN FAIRVIEW PARK CONSTRUCTION - BID AWARD The presentation was made by Purchasing Director Pam Jones. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to award the bid for construction of Fairview Park to Laramore Construction Co. , Danville, Virginia for the negotiated sum of $104,990 and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 8 . SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION LOAN PROGRAM The presentation was made by Economic Development Director Sylvia Price. Janneke Hermans from the Capital Economic Development Corporation (CEDCO) answered specific questions and explained how the SBA 504 loan program operated. Sylvia Price stated that the Economic Development Commission heard the presentation from CEDCO and after a lengthy discussion passed a resolution requesting the Board of Commissioners to approve the program and adopt a resolution to that affect. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the resolution as stated below: RESOLUTION TO INVITE THE CAPITAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CEDCO) TO EXPAND THE TERRITORIES OF ITS SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA) APPROVED CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM BOUNDARIES TO INCLUDE ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Board of the Orange County Commissioners sees the need to help small businesses in Orange County by improving the availability of long-term fixed asset financing to small businesses at affordable terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the Board of the Orange County Commissioners believes that expansion, growth and viability of small businesses in Orange County will expand employment opportunities for Orange County Citizens, expand the tax base, increase business ownership opportunities and expand the economic base of the community; and WHEREAS, the authority of this program is found in the July 2, 1980 amendment to the Small Business Investment Act; and WHEREAS, the Capital Economic Development Corporation, hereafter known as CEDCO, is an authorized Certified Local Development Corporation with the resulting capabilities to provide long-term, fixed asset financing through Section 504 loans to certain businesses and individuals owning or leasing property located within designated boundaries of the 9 CEDCO service area; therefore BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: 1. That Capital Economic Development Corporation (CEDCO) is invited to expand its service territory to encompass Orange County, conditional upon the following: (a) That CEDCO would make the SBA 504 program available to Orange County at no cost; and no time or other commitment or input from the County; and (b) That CEDCO would inform area bankers of the program and keep regular contact with Orange County bankers, and with the Orange County Economic Development Commission. 2 . That the County Clerk furnish to CEDCO a certified copy of this Resolution. Adopted this 5th day of January, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 8a. LIVESTOCK MARKET Commissioner Carey referenced a letter from the Cattlemen's Association announcing a special meeting on 8 January to discuss the livestock marketing situation. After discussion Commissioner Halkiotis volunteered to attend the meeting. The Board stated that they are interested in doing whatever is appropriate to work with the farming community and economic development in determining the need to maintain a livestock market in Orange County. 9 . PROPOSED RECYCLING PROGRAM (The program narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk' s Office) The presentation was made by Assistant County Manager Bill Laws. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the interim recycling program as proposed by W. Lee Burgess, Jr. , Sanitation Superintendent for the Town of Chapel Hill with funding to come from the landfill revenues to the extent that costs are not covered from the sale of recyclable material. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 10. FINANCING OPTIONS FOR LONG RANGE CAPITAL NEEDS The presentation was made by Finance Director Gordon Baker. The State has requested that local Boards of Education prepare a survey of public school facility needs. The Board of Commissioners will be asked to review the capital needs and to submit a proposal for funding. Chair Marshall pointed out that the survey must identify those needs that are necessary to meet the criteria outlined in the Basic Education Plan. Additional figures will be available from the School Boards for the January 20 meeting. Discussion ensued on the financing of the long-range capital needs. It was the consensus of the Board that the long-range capital needs cannot be funded entirely with the pay-as-you-go method but will need to be funded with a combination of pay-as-you-go and bond issues. Before a bond issue is pursued, an agreement must be reached between the Board of Commissioners and the two school boards on the package that will be funded and how it will be presented to the citizens of Orange County. 11. SPACE ALLOCATION PLAN (Short-term Needs) (A copy of the entire report is in the permanent agenda file) Toni Mason from CHR presented Section IV of the report which addressed the short-term needs. The renovations would take place immediately with the relocation of some of the offices to the Carr Store Building. 10 Commissioner Carey questioned the space that the Health Department would occupy at Northside. This issue will be discussed at the next meeting. Commissioner Hartwell questioned the move of the telephone equipment and the permanency of the location. Mason indicated that the intent is that the location will be temporary for approximately five years at which time the equipment will be moved. After a brief discussion it was the consensus that the telephone equipment -- once moved -- should remain permanently and not be moved a second time. The third floor plan in the New Courthouse was discussed. It was the consensus of the Board to relinquish use of the Commissioners ' Room to allow for additional office space and that further consultation should take place with the employees before approval of the space as presented. 12 . SEWER OPERATING RULES REVISION (A copy of these rules is in the permanent agenda file) Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the deletion of Section XI, Item G from the Efland Sewer System Rules and Regulations. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 13 . RECONSTITUTION OF THE HSAC (A copy of the corrected charge and composition is attached to these minutes) Albert Kittrell made the presentation. Motion was made Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the HSAC charge and composition policy as revised and corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 14 . CABLECASTING BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETINGS Albert Kittrell made the presentation. He reiterated the offer made by the Village Companies and noted that the deadline for receipt of a formal reply from the County is January 15. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to (1) decline the Village companies ' grant offer since matching funds are not yet available, and (2) decide on when to start cablecasting once permanent meeting rooms are selected for Hillsborough and Chapel Hill and funding is available for the equipment purchase and operating cost. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 15. LEGISLATIVE GOALS CONFERENCE There was no discussion of the legislative goals and no specific instructions given to the delegate. 16. PUBLIC CHARGE Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to adopt a public charge to be read following "Minutes" at each meeting. The public charge is stated below: "The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. " VOTE: UNANIMOUS. G. APPOINTMENTS MENTAL HEALTH BOARD T • Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to reappoint Dr. William Huffines for a four year term to the Mental Health Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Additional appointments will be considered at the January 20 meeting. H. ADJOURNMENT With no further business for the Board to consider, Chair Marshall adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on January 20, 1987 in the Courtroom of the old Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk