Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-19-1987 f ._ ' ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING MAY 19, 1987 7: 30 P.M. OLD POST OFFICE CHAPEL HILL, N.C. A. BOARD AND MANAGERS COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda (We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked. ) 2 . Matters not on the Printed Agenda C. MINUTES PUBLIC CHARGE 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 indivi- dual 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. PAGE # D. RESOLUTIONS OR PROCLAMATIONS 002 1. OWASA' s Water Quality Study 004 2 . Health and Medical Care Advisory Council 1) Dissemination of Information 2) Prohibition of Smoking 007 3 . Foster Parent Appreciation Month 009 4. Law Enforcement Torch Run E. REPORTS 011 ' 1. Environmental Affairs Board Report 016 2 . Tax Settlement Preliminary Report 017 3 . Report on Town of Mebane Proposal to Change the ETJ (Extraterritorial Jurisdiction) 024 4. Status Report on Water and Sewer Policy Development 029 5. Thoroughfare Plan for the Durham Chapel Hill- PAGE # Carrboro Urban Area 0.30 6. Livestock Market Report 031 7 . Emotionally Troubled Pre-Schoolers Report F. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) 045 * i. Budget Amendments 049 * 2 . Agreement for Construction and Maintenance of the Gage on the Eno River 051 * 3 . Resolution of Participation in the State's Land Records Modernization Grant Program G. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA 056 1. Hunters' Woods Preliminary Plan 066 * 2 . Proposed JPA Land Use Plan Text Amendment o97 3 . October Woods: Division of Tract #3 - Preliminary Plan 1o9 4 . Winton Place - Preliminary Plan 1i9 5. Blackwood Forest Subdivision - Preliminary Plan 131 6. Lloyd Subdivision - Preliminary Plan 149 7. Archie M. Graham, Jr. - Preliminary Plan 158 8 . San-Reba Woods - Preliminary Plan 176 * 9. Policy--Application of Amendments to Section IV-B-8 of Subdivision Regulations 186 * 10. Renewal Application for Special Use Permit-- Chandler Concrete 189 * li. Cable Television System Ordinance Proposed Amendments 190 * 12 . Proposed Alert Cable Ordinance Franchising Amendments - First Reading 191 * 13 . Proposed Carolina Cable Ordinance Franchising Amendments - First Reading 192 * 14. OWASA Proposed Legislation to Repeal G.S. 162A-7 196 * 15. Proposed Rural Buffer Workshop H. APPOINTMENTS 198 I• EXECUTIVE SESSION - Property Matter J. ADJOURNMENT (*) Indicates items that need immediate attention. • 1 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 8 , 1987_ MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING MAY 19 , 1987 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on May 19, 1987 at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the old Post Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair iotis,Shirley Hartwell Marshall and Donand Will oitsioners Stephen Hal Jr. , Ste Moses Carey, P ATTORNEY PRESENT:, Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Assistant County Managers William T. Laws and Albert Kittrell, Recreation and Director Mary Anne Black, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe,e, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Tax Collector Johnny Extension Director William Mainous and Economic Development Director Sylvia Price. A. BOARD AND MANAGERS COMMENTS Chair Marshall announced that action is needed by the Board to ratify the Rencher Street Community Development Block Grant authorizing Orange County to file the Orange County Small Cities Community Development Block Grant application. This will be added to the agenda. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Those persons who wish to speak will be recognized at the time their particular item is discussed. 2 . MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA None C. MINUTES seconded by Commissioner Motion was made by Commissioner Carey Hartwell to approve the March 10, 1987 minutes as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. PUBLIC CHARGE, The Public Charge was read by Chair Marshall. D. RESOLUTIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS 1. OWASA'S WATER QUALITY STUDY Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to endorse the resolution as stated below: A RESOLUTION ENDORSING ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY'S PROPOSED WATER QUALITY STUDY OF UNIVERSITY LAKE AND CANE CREEK RESERVOIR PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAINTAINING DRINKING WATER QUALITY ity WHEREAS, development activities Lake and Cane Creek R increasing; and WHEREAS, increased development within these watersheds will result in 2 increased pollution of the drinking water supply, thereby presenting increased threats to public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, there is a need for a comprehensive water quality assessment of University Lake and Cane Creek Water Supply Watersheds and recommen- dations for maintaining the quality of local drinking water supplies; and WHEREAS, as the organization responsible for treating and providing a safe, reliable supply of drinking water withdrawn from University Lake, Orange Water and Sewer Authority is the governmental unit most appropriate to commission the study of the University Lake Watershed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Board of Commissioners of Orange County hereby endorses Orange Water and Sewer Authority's proposed study of the University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir Public Water Supply Watersheds. 2 . That the study efforts should initially address the University Lake Watershed as development pressures are more intense in that watershed. 3 . That the findings and recommendations of said study should be carefully reviewed and considered in the development and further refine- ment of local water supply protection programs by all appropriate local governing bodies having planning and zoning jurisdiction in these watersheds. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2 . HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS Ed Crowe, Chairman of the Health and Medical Care Advisory Council, introduced the following resolution: DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY COUNCIL RESOLUTION The Health and Medical Care Advisory Council recommends to the Board of Commissioners that, through the County Health Department, the Board should facilitate the development and/or distribution of public service announcements on family life education, prevention of sexually- transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy. We recommend further that the Board of Commissioners give its support to the two county education boards in their efforts to develop and improve a family life education curriculum in the public schools of this county. Crowe explained the rationale for this resolution by stating that education received in the school is the best way to address the issues of teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the resolution as presented. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Ed Crowe presented the following resolution: PROHIBITION OF SMOKING RESOLUTION The Health and Medical Care Advisory Council recommends to the Board of Commissioners that smoking be prohibited in all county buildings to protect the health and safety of county employees and other persons who make use of these buildings. Crowe gave statistics substantiating the resolution. 3 After a brief discussion it was decided that a survey should be conducted of County employees to determine how many smoke and how many who do smoke would be interested in a voluntary smoking cessation program that the County would sponsor. Albert Kittrell was requested to conduct a survey and report the results back to the Board. 3 . FOSTER PARENT APPRECIATION MONTH Chris Nutter, Chair of the Social Services Board, presented the following proclamation on behalf of the Department of Social Services and the Social Services Board: PROCLAMATION FOSTER PARENT APPRECIATION MONTH IN ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, Foster Parents share their homes, family life, love and guidance with neglected, abused and dependent children who have become the placement responsibility of Orange County; and, WHEREAS, Foster Parents volunteer their time as substitute parents on a twenty-four hour basis to help children grow and mature in a healthy home environment; and, WHEREAS, Foster Parents are special people whose greatest reward comes from the satisfaction of helping a youngster in a time of crisis, from giving a child a better change in life, and from watching that child succeed and become a productive citizen; and, WHEREAS, Orange County wishes to set aside a special month to recognize the vital contributions of foster parents in Orange County; and, NOW THEREFORE, We, the Orange County Board of Commissioners proclaim May, 1987 as Foster Parent Appreciation Month, AND, further do encourage all citizens to join us in honoring our foster parents. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the proclamation and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4 . LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN Chair Marshall presented the following proclamation for approval by the Board: PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Special Olympics International is the world's largest sports program for children and adults with mental retardation which offers year-round training and competition in twenty-two official sports to over one million special athletes in over 20, 000 communities in the United States; and WHEREAS, the first North Carolina Law Enforcement Torch Run in support of the Special Olympics will begin May 20, 1987, in Charlotte and finish at Fetzer Field at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on May 22, 1987, for the kickoff of the state Special Olympics Summer Games; and WHEREAS, Twenty Orange County citizens will participate in the Special Olympics and WHEREAS, members of the Orange County Sheriff's Department will carry the lighted Special Olympics Torch through Orange County on May 21, 1987, in support and recognition of the accomplish- ments of the Special Olympians NOW, THEREFORE, THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM MAY 21, 1987, AS A DAY OF RECOGNITION FOR 4 THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Proclamation and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E. REPORTS 1. ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS BOARD REPORT (A copy of the report is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office) . David Moreau, Chair of the Environmental Affairs Board presented the report along with specific recommendations. 2 . TAX SETTLEMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT Tax Collector John T. Horner presented a report as required by GS 105-373 of the Lien Sale held May 6 and 7, 1987 and a list of persons whose personal property taxes are unpaid as of May 6, 1987. This rep7r, is attached to these minutes in the official minute book on pages I1-1ao: Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to accept the report and enter the report in the minutes. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3 . REPORT ON TOWN OF MEBANE PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION Planning Director Marvin Collins presented this report to inform the Board of the Town of Mebane's proposal to change its extraterritorial jurisdiction. The Town of Mebane has developed a proposed change in its extraterritorial jurisdiction boundary that would redefine the extraterritorial jurisdiction boundary to follow property lines. The proposed change would affect 23 property owners. All or a portion of six (6) parcels would shift from Orange County's jurisdiction to that of Mebane, while all or a portion of 17 parcels would shift from Mebane's jurisdiction to that of Orange County. The Town Council will be considering this change at their meeting scheduled for June 1. The Orange County Board of Commissioners must concur with and authorize the extraterritorial jurisdiction change before it can take effect in Orange County. A public hearing will be required to receive citizen comment on the proposal. 4. STATUS REPORT ON WATER AND SEWER POLICY DEVELOPMENT (A copy of the report is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) . Marvin Collins presented a status report concerning a water and sewer extension policy which applies to land use planning issues in Orange County. The report included proposed policy statements on (1) water supply, (2) delineation/protection of watersheds, (3) sewage disposal/alternative systems, (4) delineation of water/sewer service districts, and (5) evidence of service capability/capacity. 5. THOROUGHFARE PLAN FOR THE DURHAM CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO URBAN AREA (A copy of this plan is on file in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) Ed Johnson, Thoroughfare Planning Unit, N.C. Department of Transportation presented the report for discussion and for receipt of comments from the Board. He explained that a plan is being developed for an area that has not previously had this level of study applied to it. The plans for Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Durham are based on a very elaborate travel forecasting model that is predicated on the projections of land 5 use, housing and employment projections for the year 2,000 and year 2010 and serve as the basis for traffic projections. Hillsborough's plan will not be based on the same criteria but more of a common sense approach. He stated that the study involving Durham, Chapel Hill and Raleigh will be completed before the study involving the northern end of the County because of the environmental sensitive areas and projections of long-range transportation areas where it is clearly evident those needs are there. Chair Marshall stressed that the Board cannot consider the Hillsborough's plan without the completion of the remainder of the plan for the rest of the County. 6. LIVESTOCK MARKET REPORT (A copy of the report is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) . Commissioner Halkiotis thanked the members of his committee for their work and dedication in compiling the information for the report. He briefly went over the recommendations, the proposal for funding the project, and the estimated cost for the land, buildings and equipment necessary to operate such a facility. Dean Deter endorsed the report. He stated that the closing of the livestock market and the farmer's market will have an adverse affect on the farmers and the economics of the County. For the small farmer, the lost of these two markets could be devastating. This new facility would be a multipurpose building which will provide a place for other farm and rural related enterprises to come together. The proposal has the support of the Orange County Cattlemen's Association, the Orange County Agribusiness Council and the support of the Orange County FAA Alumni Association and the informal support of every group he has contacted. Bill Mainous, Agricultural Extension, praised Dr. Halkiotis for his work on the committee. He introduced Karen McAdams of the Agricultural Extension staff who explained the feasibility study that was done. She reiterated that the center would be a joint venture and that the breakeven point is attainable. Director of Recreation and Parks Mary Anne Black gave an overview of attachment "D" in the report which listed program ideas for the Agricultural/Rural Education Center. Director of Economic Development Sylvia Price spoke about the economic advantages that the facility would provide. She emphasized the importance of maintaining the livestock function while introducing the horticultural market to the County. It also enhances the quality of life in every way for Orange County. She endorsed the public/private method of financing and operating the facility. Motion was made by Chair Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to forward the report to the Manager with a request that it be incorporated into the budget process. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 7. EMOTIONALLY TROUBLED PRE-SCHOOLERS REPORT (A copy of the report is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office) . Commissioner Willhoit spoke in support of this program and introduced Dr. Jean Chapman. She described a three-year old emotionally troubled preschooler and his affects on the other preschoolers at the day care center. She explained the process by which the needs of these children are identified by the committee. Eighty children have been identified by 31 day care centers in the County as being emotionally troubled. The first priority is consultation services -- observing children in the centers, consulting with the teacher, coordinating teacher and parent training with other community resources, recommending 6 intervention in the classroom to help problem behavior, helping to set up developmental assessments, setting up counseling for the parents and facilitating communications between parents and staff. The recommendation is for one and one-half consultants with one being a part-time coordinator with appropriate administrative support and a backup counselor in psychology. This service would be housed in Orange Person Chatham Mental Health. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to refer this request for funds to the Manager for consideration in the budget. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. F. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA The County Manager recommends that the following action be taken by the Board: 1. BUDGET AMENDMENTS To approve the following amendments to the 1986-87 Budget Ordinance: GENERAL FUND Appropriation-Social Services $ 10,500 Source-Income Maintenance AFDC-EA $ 10,500 Appropriation - Social Services $ 13,775 Source - Long Term Care - CHORE $ 13,775 Appropriation - Social Services $ 19,000 Source - Income Maintenance - Medicaid $ 19,000 Appropriation - Social Services $ 14,507 Source - Subsidy - IV - E $ 14,507 Appropriation - Economic Development Commission $ 5, 000 Source - Contingency $ 5, 000 Appropriation - Transfer to County Capital $ 13,500 Reserve Source - Elections $ 13,500 COUNTY CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Appropriation - Vote Tabulator Reserve $ 13 ,500 Source - Transfer from General Fund $ 13,500 2 . AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE GAUGE ON THE ENO RIVER To approve the maintenance agreement for construction and maintenance of the gauge on the Eno River and authorize the Chair to sign. 3 . RESOLUTION OF PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE'S LAND RECORDS MODERI- ZATION GRANT PROGRAM To adopt a resolution stated below indicating the desire of Orange County to participate in the State's Land Records Modernization grant program for 1987 which qualifies the County to receive grant funds for the remapping project and forward it to the State Land Records Office. RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners, that it recognizes and appreciates the Land Records Management Program of the 7 State Department of Natural Resources and Community Development and its assistance to counties through matching grants, and desires to participate in the modernization program of land records for the 1987-88 fiscal year. It further agrees to abide by the agreements and contracts with the program that are mutually adopted. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the forgoing action by the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. G. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA 1. HUNTERS' WOODS PRELIMINARY PLAN Planner Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for the division of lots 3 and 4 of Hunters' Woods. The property is located in Bingham Township south of Orange Grove Road and adjacent to Collins Creek. Three lots are proposed out of 20.06 acres. The tract is zoned Residential-1 and is designated as Rural Residential on the Land Use Plan. The Planning Board recommended approval subject to four (4) conditions. The Manager concurs with the recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Preliminary Plat for the division of lots 3 and 4 of Hunter's Woods subject to the four conditions listed below: (1) Designation of a 50-foot stream buffer adjacent to Collins Creek as required by Section IV-B-9-b of the Subdivision Regulations. (2) A clear delineation of the 100-year flood plain boundary as the building setback line on the plat. (3) Removal of the pre-existing cul-de-sac radius where lots 3A, 3B and 2A and tracts intersect to provide a uniform right-of- way radius. (4) Provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2 . PROPOSED JPA LAND USE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT Planning Director Marvin Collins stated that on March 10 a Joint Planning hearing was held with the Town of Chapel Hill to consider a citizen petition to amend the text in the Joint Planning Land Use Plan. The petition requested that the two acre minimum lot size standard that was adopted as part of the plan and which is applicable in the designated Rural Buffer be reduced back to one acre. On April 13 , the Chapel Hill Town Council passed a resolution which stated (1) that a density of one dwelling unit per two acres of land is appropriate for the Rural Buffer and (2) that the Orange County Board of Commissioners not change zoning designations in the Rural Buffer. On April 27, the Orange County Planning Board recommended approval of the citizen petition for a reduction in the Rural Buffer lot size from two acres back to one acre. The Manager recommends: (1) Board action at this time inasmuch as recommendations have been received from the other party to the Joint Planning Agreement and the Orange County Planning Board, and (2) retention of the two acre minimum lot size standard in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as originally adopted October 13, 1986 and made a part of the Zoning Ordinance on January 5, 1987. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Manager's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 8 3 . OCTOBER WOODS: DIVISION OF TRACT #3 - PRELIMINARY PLAN Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for October Woods - Division of Tract #3. The property is located in Chapel Hill Township on the east side of Damascus Church Road. Three lots are proposed out of 10. 64 acres. The zoning designation is Rural Buffer with an overlay district of University Lake Protected Watershed. The Planning Board recommended approval subject to five conditions and the Manager concurs with this recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Manager's recommendation with the attachment of five conditions as listed below: (1) Show existing structure(s) on the plat. (2) Provide for dedication of recreation space (greenway) equivalent to 3/20th of an acre of land (6.534 sq. ft. ) and located adjacent to Prices Creek. Further recommend that the developer meet with the Recreation and Parks Director to discuss voluntary dedication of additional property adjacent to Prices Creek for additional greenway. (3) Show location of 100-year flood boundary adjacent to Prices Creek and provide notation, "Use of land within a floodway or floodway fringe is substantially restricted by the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. " (4) Calculate stream buffer as required by Article 6.23 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance and show location of stream buffer boundary, including the notation, "No building or structures are permitted within the stream buffer as shown hereon, and the stream buffer shall remain in its natural state as required by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. (5) Provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4. WINTON PLACE - PRELIMINARY PLAN Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for Winton Place. The property is located in Hillsborough Township on the north side of Orange Grove Road. Nine (9) lots are proposed out of approximately 40 acres. The zoning designation is Rural Residential with an overlay district of Upper Eno Protected Watershed. The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential and Upper Eno Water Supply Watershed. The Planning Board recommended approval with three conditions. The Manager concurs with this recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the Preliminary Plat for Winton Place subject to three conditions: (1) Indicate the adjoining property owners south of the subject property (lot 9) . (2) Provide impervious surface data for each lot shown on the plat. (3) Provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5. BLACKWOOD FOREST SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAN Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for Blackwood Forest Subdivision. The property is located in Chapel Hill Township on the north side of Mt. Sinai Road 9 approximately 1/4 mile east of N.C. 86. Thirteen (13) lots are proposed out of 30.75 acres. The property is located in the Joint Planning Area and is designated Rural Buffer on the Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas. The Planning Board recommended approval with six (6) conditions. The Manager concurs with this recommendation. In answer to a question from Commissioner Hartwell, Szymik stated that the Subdivision meets the criteria for a public road since there are more than ten lots. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Manager's recommendation with six conditions: (1) Submission of payment-in-lieu in the amount of $2,226. (2) Provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. (3) Label buffers "land use buffers". (4) Provide typical planting detail plans for Type D and Type B buffers. (5) Identify typical lot detail drawing as such. (6) Revise note to read "Access to all lots is restricted to Hathaway Lane" . VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 6. LLOYD SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAN Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for the Lloyd Subdivision. The property is located south of Greensboro Road and is divided by the Bingham/Chapel Hill Township line. Nine lots are proposed out of 126.5 acres with an average lot size of 5.6 acres. The property is located in the Joint Planning Area and is designated Rural Buffer on the Land Use Plan. The zoning designation is Rural Buffer and PW-II Protected Watershed. The Planning Board recommended approval of the subdivision subject to seven conditions. The Manager recommends approval revising condition #2 and adding an eighth condition. Carl Lloyd, part owner of the subdivision, made reference to the pedestrian greenway easement located adjacent to Neville Creek and requested that the subdivision be approved as recommended by the Planning Board. Tony Whitaker, Philip Post and Associates, made comments about the stream buffer and the recommendation for the pedestrian easement equal in width to the stream buffer. He questioned the revised condition and asked when it was added. Marvin Collins explained the revised condition was the result of an agenda review meeting with the County Manager and County Attorney. The revised condition addressed one of the criteria for a private road and the added condition addressed the condition concerning DOT standards but also addressed the condition that there be some kind of restriction in the covenants to preserve the open space character of the subdivision. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Manager's recommendation with eight conditions: (1) Calculate stream buffer as required by Article 6.23. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance and show location of stream buffer boundary based on calculation, including the notation, "no building or structures are permitted within the stream buffer as shown hereon, and the stream buffer shall remain in its natural state as required by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. " (2) Provide pedestrian greenway easement located adjacent to 10 Neville Creek and equal in width to the required stream buffer along Neville Creek. A maintenance agreement shall be submitted and approved by the County Attorney which shall provide for the dedication of the easement to an appropriate governing body or public agency at the time the easement becomes part of a public greenway system. (3) Provide pedestrian access easement 30 feet in width, centered on the property line dividing lot 7 and lot 8, and extending from the cul-de-sac to Neville Creek. (4) Provide road name for proposed Class A Private Road. (5) Provide a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. (6) Clear sight triangle on east side of proposed Class A Private Road at its intersection with Old Greensboro Road. (7) Provide 15-inch drainage pipe under proposed Class A Private Road at its intersection with Old Greensboro Road. (8) Revise the proposed restrictive covenants to prevent further subdivision of lots 1-9. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 7. ARCHIE M. GRAHAM, JR. - PRELIMINARY PLAN Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval the Prelimi- nary Plan for the property of Archie M. Graham, Jr. The property is located in Cheeks Township on the east side of Efland-Cedar Grove Road. One lot is proposed out of 3 .7016 acres. The zoning designation is Rural Residential with the overlay district of Upper Eno Protected Watershed. The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential and Upper Eno Water Supply Watershed. The Planning Board recommended approval subject to the applicant indicating the lot size excluding the right-of-way and the provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B- 8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. The Manager concurs with this recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Manager's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 1 8. SAN-REBA WOODS - PRELIMINARY PLAN Rick Prince, attorney for San-Reba Woods, indicated that the problems as identified in a letter from Mike Brough have been worked out. Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval the Prelimi- nary Plan for San-Reba Woods. The property fronts on Craig Road in Eno Township and is split by the Orange-Durham County line. Thirty-five lots are proposed out of 50 acres. The property is zoned A-R and designated Agricultural Residential in the Land Use Plan. Durham County has given approval of the lots located in that County. The Planning Board recommended approval with five (5) conditions. Rick Prince, in response to a request from Mike Brough, requested that a sixth condition be added as a requirement for approval. Mike Brough's office indicated agreement with this condition. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Preliminary Plan with the following six conditions: (1) Submittal and approval by the County Attorney of a maintenance agreement for the recreation site and facilities. (2) Lots 3, 22, 34 and 35 must be combined with another lot or be labeled as being of restricted development potential as required by Section III-E-5-e of the Subdivision Regulations. (3) Roads must be named. (4) The phasing line between phases II & III must be moved to include the pedestrian easement in phase II. (5) Provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. (6) Upon final approval of phase 1 that the road that runs through phase 2 and phase 3 also be approved. At the time of recording of the final plat of phase 1, then that phase 1 plat should include dedication not only of the phase 1 streets but also dedication of phase 2 and phase 3 streets. This is based on the further condition that it not be necessary to build the phase 2 or phase 3 road or to post a bond to guarantee the building of that road until the plat that places a record of lots in phase 2 and phase 3 are actually recorded. The posting of the bond for phases 2 and 3 will be waived until the final plat is recorded. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 9. POLICY - APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION IV-B- 8 OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval a policy for applying landscape requirements to subdivision applications that were in process when the new standards went into effect. On March 24, the Board of County Commissioners approved amendments to Section IV-B-8, Landscaping and Buffer Requirements, of the Subdivision Regulations. Enforcement of Section IV-B-8-c-1 was suspended by a moratorium passed by the Commissioners on December 1, 1986. This moratorium was no longer valid when the amendments were adopted. The Planning Board recommended approval of the following policy and the Manager concurs with this recommendation: (1) In the case of major subdivision, preliminary plan approval was obtained between December 1, 1986 and March 24, 1987. (2) In the case of minor subdivision, sketch plan approval was obtained between December 1, 1986 and March 24, 1987. The County Attorney recommended that the Ordinance amendments be 2 effective December 1, 1986, less the landscaping requirements, and that the moratorium be from December 1, 1986 to March 24, 1987. After further discussion, this item was referred back to the staff and the County Attorney for further review and recommendation. 10. RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CHANDLER CONCRETE County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson referred to the public hearing set for Chandler Concrete on June 1, 1987 and presented three alternatives for Board consideration. Mr. Chandler has requested additional time in which to submit an application for a new special use permit. Ms. Betsy Rhine stated it has been six months since the courts decided that the use of the land in question by Chandler Concrete is illegal. She noted that Chandler has had ample time to withdraw his business from the land or submit a revised application for the May hearing and asked that a further delay not be granted. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to authorize the Manager through the Planning Director to notify Chandler to submit an application for the next regular quarterly public hearing in August and postpone authorizing the County Attorney to begin legal proceedings unless the application is not received by the July deadline for items going to hearing in August. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 11. CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM ORDINANCE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 12. PROPOSED ALERT CABLE ORDINANCE FRANCHISING AMENDMENTS - FIRST READING 13 . PROPOSED CAROLINA CABLE ORDINANCE FRANCHISING AMENDMENTS - FIRST READING At the request of two cable companies and by consensus of the Board, the three cable television agenda items were postponed until the June 1, 1987 meeting. 14 . OWASA PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO REPEAL G.S. 162A-7 (A copy of the resolution from OWASA is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) . The OWASA has requested county support for adoption of legislation to repeal G.S. 162A-7 which requires that water and sewer authorities receive the additional approval of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission prior to exercising the power of eminent domain to obtain land. Commissioner Carey stated his concern with appointed officials exercising authority over the property of taxpayers. This kind of authority should be lodged with elected officials who are accountable to the citizens in the County. Chair Marshall stated that eminent domain should be used very sparingly and only by elected officials. Everett Billingsley from OWASA stated that the statute puts an extra burden on water and sewer authorities and the utilization of the eminent domain powers that they already have. The process is laborious and expensive and he endorsed the repeal of this General Statute. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Chair Marshall not to support the resolution as presented by the OWASA Board which would repeal G.S. 162A-7. VOTE: AYES, 4 ; NOES, 1 (Commissioner Willhoit) . 15. PROPOSED RURAL BUFFER WORKSHOP Chair Marshall referred to a workshop scheduled at the Institute of Government for June 19 which will discuss rural buffer issues and Pr 3 indicated the cost to the County would be one third of the $1, 000 cost for the workshop. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to confirm County participation in the workshop. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ADDED ITEM RENCHER STREET Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to ratify authorizing Orange County to file the Orange County Small Cities CDBG application FY 1987, Rencher Street improvement area. This authority includes all undertakings and assurances therein and directs its Chair to sign the application and to act, unless some other Orange County office is approved for this purpose by the Board and approved by NRCD, in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may be required including all assurances and certifications contained in the application. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. H. APPOINTMENTS No appointments were made. I. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PROPERTY MATTER Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adjourn into executive session for discussion of a property matter. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Chair Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to adjourn back into regular session. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. J. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, Chair Marshall adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on June 1, 1987 at 7: 30 p.m. in the old Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk { r /9'V7 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING MAY 19, 1987 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on May 19, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the old Post Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Shirley E. Marshall and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr. , Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell and Don Willhoit. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Assistant County Managers William T. Laws and Albert Kittrell, Recreation and Parks Director Mary Anne Black, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Tax Collector Johnny Horner, Agriculture Extension Director William Mainous and Economic Development Director Sylvia Price. A. BOARD AND MANAGERS COMMENTS Chair Marshall announced that action is needed by the Board to ratify the Rencher Street Community Development Block Grant authorizing Orange County to file the Orange County Small Cities Community Development Block Grant application. This will be added to the agenda. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Those persons who wish to speak will be recognized at the time their particular item is discussed. 2 . MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA None C. MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Carey seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the March 10, 1987 minutes as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. PUBLIC CHARGE The Public Charge was read by Chair Marshall. D. RESOLUTIONS AND PROCLAMATION$ 1. OWASA'S WATER UALITY STUDY Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to endorse the resolution as stated below: A RESOLUTION ENDORSING ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY'S PROPOSED WATER QUALITY STUDY OF UNIVERSITY LAKE AND CANE CREEK RESERVOIR PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAINTAINING DRINKING WATER QUALITY WHEREAS, development activities and pressures within the University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir Public Water Supply Watersheds are increasing; and WHEREAS, increased development within these watersheds will result in increased pollution of the drinking water supply, thereby increased threats to public health, safety and welfare; and presenting WHEREAS, there is a need for a comprehensive water quality assessment of University Lake and Cane Creek Water Supply Watersheds and recommen- dations for maintaining the quality of local drinking water supplies; and WHEREAS, as the organization responsible for treating and providing a safe, reliable supply of drinking water withdrawn from University Lake, Orange Water and Sewer Authority is the governmental unit most appropriate to commission the study of the University Lake Watershed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Board of Commissioners of Orange County hereby endorses Orange Water and Sewer Authority's proposed study of the University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir Public Water Supply Watersheds. 2. That the study efforts should initially address the University Lake Watershed as development pressures are more intense in that watershed. 3 . That the findings and recommendations of said study should be carefully reviewed and considered in the development and further refine- ment of local water supply protection programs by all appropriate local governing bodies having planning and zoning jurisdiction in these watersheds. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2. HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS Ed Crowe, Chairman of the Health and Medical Care Advisory Council, introduced the following resolution: DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY COUNCIL RESOLUTION The Health and Medical Care Advisory Council recommends to the Board of Commissioners that, through the County Health Department, the Board should facilitate the development and/or distribution of public service announcements on family life education, prevention of sexually- transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy. We recommend further that the Board of Commissioners give its support to the two county education boards in their efforts to develop and improve a family life education curriculum in the public schools of this county. Crowe explained the rationale for this resolution by stating that education received in the school is the best way to address the issues of teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the resolution as presented. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Ed Crowe presented the following resolution: PROHIBITION OF SMOKING RESOLUTION The Health and Medical Care Advisory Council recommends to the Board of Commissioners that smoking be prohibited in all county buildings to protect the health and safety of county employees and other persons who make use of these buildings. Crowe gave statistics substantiating the resolution. After a brief discussion it was decided that a survey should be conducted of County employees to determine how many smoke and how many who do smoke would be interested in a voluntary smoking cessation program that the County would sponsor. Albert Kittrell was requested to conduct a survey and report the results back to the Board. 3. FOSTER PARENT APPRECIATION MONTH Chris Nutter, Chair of the Social Services Board, presented the following proclamation on behalf of the Department of Social Services and the Social Services Board: PROCLAMATION FOSTER PARENT APPRECIATION MONTH IN ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, Foster Parents share their homes, family life, love and guidance with neglected, abused and dependent children who have become the placement responsibility of Orange County; and, WHEREAS, Foster Parents volunteer their time as substitute parents on a twenty-four hour basis to help children grow and mature in a healthy home environment; and, WHEREAS, Foster Parents are special people whose greatest reward comes from the satisfaction of helping a youngster in a time of crisis, from giving a child a better change in life, and from watching that child succeed and become a productive citizen; and, WHEREAS, Orange County wishes to set aside a special month to recognize the vital contributions of foster parents in Orange County; and, NOW THEREFORE, We, the Orange County Board of Commissioners proclaim May, 1987 as Foster Parent Appreciation Month, AND, further do encourage all citizens to join us in honoring our foster parents. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the proclamation and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4. LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN Chair Marshall presented the following proclamation for approval by the Board: PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Special Olympics International is the world's largest sports program for children and adults with mental retardation which offers year-round training and competition in twenty-two official sports to over one million special athletes in over 20,000 communities in the United States; and WHEREAS, the first North Carolina Law Enforcement Torch Run in support of the Special Olympics will begin May 20, 1987, in Charlotte and finish at Fetzer Field at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on May 22, 1987, for the kickoff of the state Special Olympics Summer Games; and WHEREAS, Twenty Orange County citizens will participate in the Special Olympics and WHEREAS, members of the Orange County Sheriff's Department will carry the lighted Special Olympics Torch through Orange County on May 21, 1987, in support and recognition of the accomplish- ments of the Special Olympians NOW, THEREFORE, THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM MAY 21, 1987, AS A DAY OF RECOGNITION FOR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkioti,s to approve the Proclamation and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E. REPORTS 1. ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS BOARD REPORT (A copy of the report is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office) . David Moreau, Chair of the Environmental Affairs Board presented the report along with specific recommendations. 2. TAX SETTLEMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT Tax Collector John T. Horner presented a report as required by GS 105-373 of the Lien Sale held May 6 and 7, 1987 and a list of persons whose personal property taxes are unpaid as of May 6, 1987. This report is attached to these minutes in the official minute book on pages Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to accept the report and enter the report in the minutes. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3 . REPORT ON TOWN OF MEBANE PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION Planning Director Marvin Collins presented this report to inform the Board of the Town of Mebane's proposal to change its extraterritorial jurisdiction. The Town of Mebane has developed a proposed change in its extraterritorial jurisdiction boundary that would redefine the extraterritorial jurisdiction boundary to follow property lines. The proposed change would affect 23 property owners. All or a portion of six (6) parcels would shift from Orange County's jurisdiction to that of Mebane, while all or a portion of 17 parcels would shift from Mebane's jurisdiction to that of Orange County. The Town Council will be considering this change at their meeting scheduled for June 1. The Orange County Board of Commissioners must concur with and authorize the extraterritorial jurisdiction change before it can take effect in Orange County. A public hearing will be required to receive citizen comment on the proposal. 4. STATUS REPORT ON WATER AND SEWER POLICY DEVELOPMENT (A copy of the report is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) . Marvin Collins presented a status report concerning a water and sewer extension policy which applies to land use planning issues in Orange County. The report included proposed policy statements on (1) water supply, (2) delineation/protection of watersheds, (3) sewage disposal/alternative systems, (4) delineation of water/sewer service districts, and (5) evidence of service capability/capacity. 5. THOROUGHFARE PLAN FOR THE DURHAM CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO URBAN AREA (A copy of this plan is on file in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) Ed Johnson, Thoroughfare Planning Unit, N.C. Department of Transportation presented the report for discussion and for receipt of comments from the Board. He explained that a plan is being developed for an area that has not previously had this level of study applied to it. The plans for Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Durham are based on a very elaborate travel forecasting model that is predicated on the projections of land use, housing and employment projections for the year 2,000 and year 2010 and serve as the basis for traffic projections. Hillsborough's plan will not be based on the same criteria but more of a common sense approach. He stated that the study involving Durham, Chapel Hill and Raleigh will be completed before the study involving the northern end of the County because of the environmental sensitive areas and projections of long-range transportation areas where it is clearly evident those needs are there. Chair Marshall stressed that the Board cannot consider the Hillsborough's plan without the completion of the remainder of the plan for the rest of the County. 6. LIVESTOCK MARKET REPORT (A copy of the report is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) . Commissioner Halkiotis thanked the members of his committee for their work and dedication in compiling the information for the report. He briefly went over the recommendations, the proposal for funding the project, and the estimated cost for the land, buildings and equipment necessary to operate such a facility. Dean Deter endorsed the report. He stated that the closing of the livestock market and the farmer's market will have an adverse affect on the farmers and the economics of the County. For the small farmer, the lost of these two markets could be devastating. This new facility would be a multipurpose building which will provide a place for other farm and rural related enterprises to come together. The proposal has the support of the Orange County Cattlemen's Association, the Orange County Agribusiness Council and the support of the Orange County FAA Alumni Association and the informal support of every group he has contacted. Bill Mainous, Agricultural Extension, praised Dr. Halkiotis for his work on the committee. He introduced Karen McAdams of the Agricultural Extension staff who explained the feasibility study that was done. She reiterated that the center would be a joint venture and that the breakeven point is attainable. Director of Recreation and Parks Mary Anne Black gave an overview of attachment "D" in the report which listed program ideas for the Agricultural/Rural Education Center. Director of Economic Development Sylvia Price spoke about the economic advantages that the facility would provide. She emphasized the importance of maintaining the livestock function while introducing the horticultural market to the County. It also enhances the quality of life in every way for Orange County. She endorsed the public/private method of financing and operating the facility. Motion was made by Chair Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to forward the report to the Manager with a request that it be incorporated into the budget process. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 7. EMOTIONALLY TROUBLED PRE-SCHOOLERS REPORT (A copy of the report is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office) . Commissioner Willhoit spoke in support of this program and introduced Dr. Jean Chapman. She described a three-year old emotionally troubled preschooler and his affects on the other preschoolers at the day care center. She explained the process by which the needs of these children are identified by the committee. Eighty children have been identified by 31 day care centers in the County as being emotionally troubled. The first priority is consultation services -- children in the centers, consulting with the teacher, coordinating observin cher and parent training with other community resources, recommending intervention in the classroom to help problem behavior, helping to set up developmental assessments, setting up counseling for the parents and facilitating communications between parents and staff. The recommendation is for one and one-half consultants with one being a part-time coordinator with appropriate administrative support and a backup counselor in psychology. This service would be housed in Orange Person Chatham Mental Health. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to refer this request for funds to the Manager for consideration in the budget. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. F. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA The County Manager recommends that the following action be taken by the Board: 1. BUDGET AMENDMENTS To approve the following amendments to the 1986-87 Budget Ordinance: GENERAL FUND Appropriation-Social Services $ 10,500 Source-Income Maintenance AFDC-EA $ 10,500 Appropriation - Social Services $ 13,775 Source - Long Term Care - CHORE $ 13,775 Appropriation - Social Services $ 19, 000 Source - Income Maintenance - Medicaid $ 19, 000 Appropriation - Social Services $ 14,507 Source - Subsidy - IV - E $ 14,507 Appropriation - Economic Development Commission $ 5,000 Source - Contingency $ 5, 000 Appropriation - Transfer to County Capital $ 13,500 Reserve Source - Elections $ 13,500 COUNTY CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Appropriation - Vote Tabulator Reserve $ 13,500 Source - Transfer from General Fund $ 13,500 2. AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE GAUGE ON THE ENO RIVER To approve the maintenance ofthegaugeon the nEno aRiver aand eauthorize the n Chair tton and sign. 3 . RESOLUTION OF PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE'S LAND RECORDS MODERI- ZATION GRANT PROGRAM To adopt a resolution stated below indicating the desire of Orange County to participate in the State's Land Records Modernization grant program for 1987 which qualifies the County to receive grant funds for the remapping project and forward it to the State Land Records Office. RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners, that it recognizes and appreciates the Land Records Management Program of the State Department of Natural Resources and Community Development and its assistance to counties through matching grants, and desires to participate in the modernization program of land records for the 1987-88 fiscal year. It further agrees to abide by the agreements and contracts with the program that are mutually adopted. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner • Carey to approve the forgoing action by the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. G. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- REGULAR AGENDA 1. HUNTERS ' WOODS PRELIMINARY PLAN Planner Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for the division of lots 3 and 4 of Hunters' Woods. The property is located in Bingham Township south of Orange Grove Road and adjacent to Collins Creek. Three lots are proposed out of 20.06 acres. The tract is zoned Residential-1 and is designated as. Rural Residential on the Land Use Plan. The Planning Board recommended approval subject to four (4) conditions. The Manager concurs with the recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Preliminary Plat for the division of lots 3 and 4 of Hunter's Woods subject to the four conditions listed below: (1) Designation of a 50-foot stream buffer adjacent to Collins Creek as required by Section IV-B-9-b of the Subdivision Regulations. (2) A clear delineation of the 100-year flood plain boundary as the building setback line on the plat. (3) Removal of the pre-existing cul-de-sac radius where lots 3A, 3B and 2A and tracts intersect to provide a uniform right-of- way radius. (4) Provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2. PROPOSED JPA LAND USE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT Planning Director Marvin Collins stated that on March 10 a Joint Planning hearing was held with the Town of Chapel Hill to consider a citizen petition to amend the text in the Joint Planning Land Use Plan. The petition requested that the two acre minimum lot size standard that was adopted as part of the plan and which is applicable in the designated Rural Buffer be reduced back to one acre. On April 13, the Chapel Hill Town Council passed a resolution which stated (1) that a density of one dwelling unit per two acres of land is appropriate for the Rural Buffer and (2) that the Orange County Board of Commissioners not change zoning designations in the Rural Buffer. On April 27, the Orange County Planning Board recommended approval of the citizen petition for a reduction in the Rural Buffer lot size from two acres back to one acre. The Manager recommends: (1) Board action at this time inasmuch as recommendations have been received from the other party to the Joint Planning Agreement and the Orange County Planning Board, and (2) retention of the two acre minimum lot size standard in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as originally adopted October 13, 1986 and made a part of the Zoning Ordinance on January 5, 1987. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Manager's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3. OCTOBER WOODS: DIVISION OF TRACT #3 - PRELIMINARY PLAN Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for October Woods - Division of Tract #3. The ert is located in Chapel Hill Township on the east side of Damascus pro Road. Three lots are proposed out of 10. 64 acres. The zoning designation is Rural Buffer with an overlay district of University Lake Protected Watershed. The Planning Board recommended approval subject to five conditions and the Manager concurs with this recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Manager's recommendation with the attachment of five conditions as listed below: (1) Show existing structure(s) on the plat. (2) Provide for dedication of recreation space (greenway) equivalent to 3/20th of an acre of land (6.534 sq. ft. ) and located adjacent to Prices Creek. Further recommend that the developer meet with the Recreation and Parks Director to discuss voluntary dedication of additional property adjacent to Prices Creek for additional greenway. (3) Show location of 100-year flood boundary adjacent to Prices Creek and provide notation, "Use of land within a floodway or floodway fringe is substantially restricted by the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. " (4) Calculate stream buffer as required by Article 6.23. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance and show location of stream buffer boundary, including the notation, "No building or structures are permitted within the stream buffer as shown hereon, and the stream buffer shall remain in its natural state as required by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. (5) Provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4. WINTON PLACE - PRELIMINARY PLAN Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for Winton Place. The property is located in Hillsborough Township on the north side of Orange Grove Road. Nine (9) lots are proposed out of approximately 40 acres. The zoning designation is Rural Residential with an overlay district of Upper Eno Protected Watershed. The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential and Upper Eno Water Supply Watershed. The Planning Board recommended approval with three conditions. The Manager concurs with this recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the Preliminary Plat for Winton Place subject to three conditions: (1) Indicate the adjoining property owners south of the subject property (lot 9) . (2) Provide impervious surface data for each lot shown on the plat. (3) Provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5. BLACKWOOD FOREST SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAN Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for Blackwood Forest Subdivision. The property is located in Chapel Hill Township on the north side of Mt. Sinai Road approximately 1/4 mile east of N.C. 86. Thirteen (13) lots are proposed out of 30.75 acres. The property is located in the Joint Planning Area and is designated Rural Buffer on the Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas. The Planning Board recommended approval with six (6) conditions. The Manager concurs with this recommendation. In answer to a question from Commissioner Hartwell, Szymik stated that the Subdivision meets the criteria for a public road since there are more than ten lots. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Manager's recommendation with six conditions: (1) Submission of payment-in-lieu in the amount of $2,226. (2) Provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. (3) Label buffers "land use buffers". (4) Provide typical planting detail plans for Type D and Type B buffers. (5) Identify typical lot detail drawing as such. (6) Revise note to read "Access to all lots is restricted to Hathaway Lane". VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 6. LLOYD SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAN Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for the Lloyd Subdivision. The property is located south of Greensboro Road and is divided by the Bingham/Chapel Hill Township line. Nine lots are proposed out of 126.5 acres with an average lot size of 5. 6 acres. The property is located in the Joint Planning Area and is designated Rural Buffer on the Land Use Plan. The zoning designation is Rural Buffer and PW-II Protected Watershed. The Planning Board recommended approval of the subdivision subject to seven conditions. The Manager recommends approval revising condition #2 and adding an eighth condition. Carl Lloyd, part owner of the subdivision, made reference to the pedestrian greenway easement located adjacent to Neville Creek and requested that the subdivision be approved as recommended by the Planning Board. Tony Whitaker, Philip Post and Associates, made comments about the stream buffer and the recommendation for the pedestrian easement equal in width to the stream buffer. He questioned the revised condition and asked when it was added. Marvin Collins explained the revised condition was the result of an agenda review meeting with the County Manager and County Attorney. The revised condition addressed one of the criteria for a private road and the added condition addressed the condition concerning DOT standards but also addressed the condition that there be some kind of restriction in the covenants to preserve the open space character of the subdivision. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Manager's recommendation with eight conditions: (1) Calculate stream buffer as required by Article 6.23 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance and show location of stream buffer boundary based on calculation, including the notation, "no building or structures are permitted within the stream buffer as shown hereon, and the stream buffer shall remain in its natural state as required by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. " (2) Provide pedestrian greenway easement located adjacent to Neville Creek and equal in width to the required stream buffer along Neville Creek. A maintenance agreement shall be submitted and approved by the County Attorney which shall provide for the dedication of the easement to an appropriate governing body or public agency at the time the easement becomes part of a public greenway system. (3) Provide pedestrian access easement 30 feet in width, centered on the property line dividing lot 7 and lot 8, and extending from the cul-de-sac to Neville Creek. (4) Provide road name for proposed Class A Private Road. (5) Provide a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. (6) Clear sight triangle on east side of proposed Class A Private Road at its intersection with Old Greensboro Road. (7) Provide 15-inch drainage pipe under proposed Class A Private Road at its intersection with Old Greensboro Road. (8) Revise the proposed restrictive covenants to prevent further subdivision of lots 1-9. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 7. ARCHIE M. GRAHAM, JR. - PRELIMINARY PLAN Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval the Prelimi- nary Plan for the property of Archie M. Graham, Jr. The property is located in Cheeks Township on the east side of Efland-Cedar Grove Road. One lot is proposed out of 3.7016 acres. The zoning designation is Rural Residential with the overlay district of Upper Eno Protected Watershed. The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential and Upper Eno Water Supply Watershed. The Planning Board recommended approval subject to the applicant indicating the lot size excluding the right-of-way and the provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B- 8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. The Manager concurs with this recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Manager's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 8. SAN-REBA WOODS - PRELIMINARY PLAN Rick Prince, attorney for San-Reba Woods, indicated that the problems as identified in a letter from Mike Brough have been worked out. Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval the Prelimi- nary Plan for San-Reba Woods. The property fronts on Craig Road in Eno Township and is split by the Orange-Durham County line. Thirty-five lots are proposed out of 50 acres. The property is zoned A-R and designated Agricultural Residential in the Land Use Plan. Durham County has given approval of the lots located in that County. The Planning Board recommended approval with five (5) conditions. Rick Prince, in response to a request from Mike Brough, requested that a sixth condition be added as a requirement for approval. Mike Brough's office indicated agreement with this condition. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Preliminary Plan with the following six conditions: (1) Submittal and approval by the County Attorney of a maintenance agreement for the recreation site and facilities. (2) Lots 3, 22, 34 and 35 must be combined with another lot or be labeled as being of restricted development potential as required by Section III-E-5-e of the Subdivision Regulations. (3) Roads must be named. (4) The phasing line between phases II & III must be moved to include the pedestrian easement in phase II. (5) Provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. (6) Upon final approval of phase 1 that the road that runs through phase 2 and phase 3 also be approved. At the time of recording of the final plat of phase 1, then that phase 1 plat should include dedication not only of the phase 1 streets but also dedication of phase 2 and phase 3 streets. This is based on the further condition that it not be necessary to build the phase 2 or phase 3 road or to post a bond to guarantee the building of that road until the plat that places a record of lots in phase 2 and phase 3 are actually recorded. The posting of the bond for phases 2 and 3 will be waived until the final plat is recorded. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 9. POLICY - APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION IV-B- 8 OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval a policy for applying landscape requirements to subdivision applications that were in process when the new standards went into effect. On March 24, the Board of County Commissioners approved amendments to Section IV-B-8, Landscaping and Buffer Requirements, of the Subdivision Regulations. Enforcement of Section IV-B-8-c-1 was suspended by a moratorium passed by the Commissioners on December 1, 1986. This moratorium was no longer valid when the amendments were adopted. The Planning Board recommended approval of the following policy and the Manager concurs with this recommendation: (1) In the case of major subdivision, preliminary plan approval was obtained between December 1, 1986 and March 24, 1987. (2) In the case of minor subdivision, sketch plan approval was obtained between December 1, 1986 and March 24, 1987. The County Attorney recommended that the Ordinance amendments be effective December 1, 1986, less the landscaping requirements, and that i the moratorium be from December 1, 1986 to March 24, 1987. After further discussion, this item was referred back to the staff and the County Attorney for further review and recommendation. 10. RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CHANDLER CONCRETE County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson referred to the public hearing set for Chandler Concrete on June 1, 1987 and presented three alternatives for Board consideration. Mr. Chandler has requested additional time in which to submit an application for a new special use permit. Ms. Betsy Rhine stated it has been six months since the courts decided that the use of the land in question by Chandler Concrete is illegal. She noted that Chandler has had ample time to withdraw his business from the land or submit a revised application for the May hearing and asked that a further delay not be granted. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to authorize the Manager through the Planning Director to notify Chandler to submit an application for the next regular quarterly public hearing in August and postpone authorizing the County Attorney to begin legal proceedings unless the application is not received by the July deadline for items going to hearing in August. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 11. CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM ORDINANCE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 12 . PROPOSED ALERT CABLE ORDINANCE FRANCHISING AMENDMENTS - FIRST READING 13. PROPOSED CAROLINA CABLE ORDINANCE FRANCHISING AMENDMENTS - FIRST READING At the request of two cable companies and by consensus of the Board, the three cable television agenda items were postponed until the June 1, 1987 meeting. 14. OWASA PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO REPEAL G.S. 162A-7 (A copy of the resolution from OWASA is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) . The OWASA has requested county support for adoption of legislation to repeal G.S. 162A-7 which requires that water and sewer authorities receive the additional approval of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission prior to exercising the power of eminent domain to obtain land. Commissioner Carey stated his concern with appointed officials exercising authority over the property of taxpayers. This kind of authority should be lodged with elected officials who are accountable to the citizens in the County. Chair Marshall stated that eminent domain should be used very sparingly and only by elected officials. Everett Billingsley from OWASA stated that the statute puts an extra burden on water and sewer authorities and the utilization of the eminent domain powers that they already have. The process is laborious and expensive and he endorsed the repeal of this General Statute. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Chair Marshall not to support the resolution as presented by the OWASA Board which would repeal G.S. 162A-7. VOTE: AYES, 4; NOES, 1 (Commissioner Willhoit) . 15. PROPOSED RURAL BUFFER WORKSHOP Chair Marshall referred to a workshop scheduled at the Institute of Government for June 19 which will discuss rural buffer issues and indicated the cost to the County would be one third of the $1, 000 cost for the workshop. p • Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to confirm County participation in the workshop. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ADDED ITEM RENCHER STREET Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to ratify authorizing Orange County to file the Orange County Small Cities CDBG application FY 1987, Rencher Street improvement area. This authority includes all undertakings and assurances therein and directs its Chair to sign the application and to act, unless some other Orange County office is approved for this purpose by the Board and approved by NRCD, in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may be required including all assurances and certifications contained in the application. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. H. APPOINTMENTS No appointments were made. I. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PROPERTY MATTER Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adjourn into executive session for discussion of a property matter. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Chair Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to adjourn back into regular session. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. J. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, Chair Marshall adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on June 1, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in the old Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk . = - 001 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agen BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS it No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE May 19, 1987 Subject: MINUTES 1 Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I 1 Public Hearing: Yes I no Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under Separate Cover Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-1501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: March 10, 1987 - Joint Planning Public Hearing BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the governing Board has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's proceedings. RECOM ENDATION: As the Board decides. 002 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS it No. ., 0.. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE May 19. 1987 Subject: RESOLUTION OF ENDORSEMENT - OWASA' s WATER QUALITY STUDY Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: Yes X no Attachments: Information Contact: Shirley Marshall Resolution or Pat Davis at OWASA Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To endorse a resolution endorsing Orange Water and Sewer Authority' s proposed water quality study of University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir public water supply watersheds and recommendations for maintaining drinking water quality. • • RECOMMENDATION: To endorse the resolution and forward a copy to OWASA' s Board. Aimmomommmiml OV 4 DRAFT A RESOLUTION ENDORSING ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY'S PROPOSED WATER QUALITY STUDY OF UNIVERSITY LAKE AND CANE CREEK RESERVOIR PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAINTAINING DRINKING WATER QUALITY WHEREAS, development activities and pressures within the University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir Public Water Supply Watersheds are increasing; and WHEREAS, increased development within these watersheds will result in increased pollution of the drinking water supply, increased threats to public health, safety and elfare and presenting WHEREAS, there is a need for a comprehensive water quality assessment . of University Lake and Cane Creek Water Supply Watersheds and recommendations for maintining the quality of local drinking water supplies; and WHEREAS, as the organization responsible for treating and providing a safe, reliable supply of drinking water withdrawn from University Lake, Orange Water and Sewer Authority is the governmental unit most appropriate to commission the study of the University Lake watershed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Board of Commissioners of Orange County hereby endorses Orange Water and Sewer Authority's proposed study of the University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir Public Water Supply Watersheds. 2. That the study efforts should initially address the University Lake watershed as development pressures are more intense in that watershed. 3. That the findings and recommendations of said study should be carefully reviewed and considered in the development and further refinement of local water supply protection programs ' all appropriate these local governing bodies having planning and zoning jurisdiction in these watersheds. Adopted this the — day of , 1987. ORANGE COUNTY 004 Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. Da, ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE MaY 19, 1987 Subject: RESOLUTIONS FROM THE HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY COUNCIL Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: Yes X no Attachments: Information Contact: Shirley E. Marshall 2 RESOLUTIONS Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-1501, 227-023]. PURPOSE: To present for endorsement two resolutions: (1 ) Dissemination of information (2) Prohibition of Smoking RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. 00 ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY COUNCIL RESOLUTION The Health and Medical Care Advisory Council recommends to the Board of Commissioners that smoking be prohibited in all county buildings to protect the health and safety of county employees and other persons who make use of these buildings. Adopted March 19, 1987 006 ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY COUNCIL RESOLUTION The health and Medical Care Advisory Council recommends to the Board of Commissioners that, through the county Health Department, the Board should facilitate the development and/or distribution of public service announcements on family life education, prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy. We recommend further that the Board of Commissioners give its support to the two county education boards in their efforts to develop and improve a family life education curriculum in the public schools of this county. Adopted March 19, 1987 0 Pi ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A nda Item No. 3i ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 19, 1987 SUBJECT: Foster Parent Appreciation Month DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes x No Social Services ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marti Pryor-Cook, Director Proclamation TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To proclaim May, 1987 Foster Parent Appreciation Month in Orange County. NEED: To recognize the vital contributions foster parents make to Orange County children. BACKGROUND: Orange County has sixty four foster parents who care for approximately thirty-five foster children. Foster parents serve children of all races and economic levels. They care for children who may have physical or emotional problems. Being a foster parent means providing an experience of a secure family to children whose own families are trying to work out problems which cause the stress that results in the abuse and neglect of children. It means giving love and acceptance without replacing the child's natural parents. Finally foster parenting means giving understanding, guidance and physical care, on a voluntary basis, in the foster parents on home to children who need a temporary substitute parent. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Proclaim the month of May as Foster Parent Appreciation Month and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation. 008 ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 108 EAsr MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. MOSES CAREY,JR. 27274 STEPHEN H.HALKIOTIS JOHN HARTWELL SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL MA DON WILLHOIT A P R D C L A M A T I O N FOSTER PARENT APPRECIATION MONTH IN ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, Foster Parents share their homes , family and guidance with neglected , abused adldep, lant children who have become the dependent of Orange County; and, Alacement responsibility WHEREAS, Foster Parents volunteer their time as subst parents on a twenty-four hour itute grow and mature in a healthy home enis vi ro help children ronment; and, WHEREAS, Foster Parents are speoial comes from the satisfactionpofphe whose greatest reward time of crisis, from helping a Youngster in a life, and from watching a child a better chance in produc.tive bitizen• g that child .succe.ed and become a . and. ,. WHEREAS, Orange Coun:ty _wishes .to set aside a especial month t recognize the vital .contributiar�.s of :foster Orange Count to Y, and parents in NOW THEREFORE, . We, th e Orahg. County Board of Commissioners ya Yr 19 87 . . .....: .: :... ....: . : - Foster Parent Appreciation Month AND, further do encourage all citizens to join us in honoring our foster parents . GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ON THIS THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MAY IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SEVEN. Shi�ey Marshall , Chafr ---- Orange County Board of Commissioners 009 ORANGE COUNTY Action da BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS it No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE May 19, 1987 Subject: SPECIAL OLYMPICS LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN IDepartment: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS E Public Hearing: Yes % no l Attachments: formation Contact: SHIRLEY MARSHALL EXT. 505 Phone Numbers: 732-8181,968 14501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: Proclaim May 21 , 1987 as a day of recognition for the Law Enforcement Torch Run in Orange County. • RECOMMENDATION: Proclaim this date and authorize the Chair to sign. 1 010 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Special Olympics International is the world's largest sports program for children and adults with mental retardation which offers year-round training and competition in twenty-two official sports to over one million special athletes in over 20, 000 communities in the United States; and WHEREAS, the first North Carolina law Enforcement Torch Run in support of the Special Ol 20, 1987, in Charlotte and finish hat Fetzer bFieldMat the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on May 22, 1987, for the kickoff of the state Special Olympics Summer Games; and WHEREAS Twenty Orange County citizens will the Special Olympics and the in WHEREAS, members of the Orange County will carry the lighted Special lfOlympics s Department through Orange County on May 1987, n Torch and recognition of the accomplishments of Special Olympians of the NOW, THEREFORE, THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM 2 , 987, ORANGE OF RECOGNITION FOR MAY 21, 1987, AS A DAY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this 21st. day of May, 1987. SHIRLEY E. MARSHALL, CHAIR oil ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. _ ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: MAY 15, 1987 SUBJECT: REPORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS BOARD DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S REPORT OFFICE,X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Presentation of the report. BACKGROUND: The Board has been meeting monthly since August of 1986 to develop information and recommendations to define what Orange County's approach should be regarding hazardous materials, natural resources, water resources and solid waste. Apart from reporting on the results of its committees, a work- shop in January and other means used to explore environmental issues, it will recommend continuation of the Board. A rota- tion in appointed members is desired as a part of any decision to continue the board. By one-third of the members rotating off the board the fourth year, one third off the fifth year and the balance the sixth year there would be continuity in dealing with matters. The Board Chair, Mr. David Moreau, will answer any question. RECOMMENDATION(S) : 1. Accept report. (However, since some of the recommendations relate to matters which are underway or under the responsibility of their agencies, Manager recommends that the Board defer taking specific action to implement the recommendations until the status of each matter is outlined. 2 . Decide on continuation and membership rotation. 14 012 ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY 19 , 1987 Respectfully Submitted , Pete Andrews Don Cox Carol Crumley Francis de Friess Victor Germino Tim Hubbard George Johnson Ted Latta Laila Moustafa Robert Peck Larry Reid Frank Sheffield Carl Shy Jerry Taylor Norman Weatherly David Moreau , Chair Jonathan Naimon , Staff 1 o1 Hazardous Materials. 1 . The EAB recommends that the County Commissioners promptly establish a Local Emergency Planning Committee ( LEPC) as required by Title Ill of the federal Superfund Ammendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 . This Committee shall be responsible for collecting information on hazardous materials used in the county and for preparing an emergency management plan for the county . The EAB recommends that the County and city fire departments report to the LEPC on the types , quantitites , and locations of hazardous materials contained in buildings in the County . 2 . The County Plannning Department should be directed to identify areas of the county that are particularly sensitive to unplanned disposal of hazardous materials . 3 . The County Health Department should be directed to develop public education programs regarding : a . the existence and functions of the County Emergency Response Team, b . requirements of the Right to Know law regarding hazardous materials , c . identification and disposal of farm and hazardous wastes . Natural Resources. 1 . The County should appropritae funds for a comprehensive , survey of natural resources in the county according to the guidelines of the North Carolina Natural Heritage program. The EAB should have an advisory role in defining the scope and maintaining oversight of the project . 2 . The Commissioners should request the Orange County Planning Board to formulate alternative approaches for protecting and enhancing natural areas as identifietiin the survey into the Long Range Plan for the County . The alternatives should include at least the following options : a . dedications , b . fee purchases , c . real estate tranfer fees , d . preferential tax policy , e . developer contributions in lieu of on-site dedications . 3 . Special attention should be given to protection of the North Carolina Botanical Garden and those sections of Duke Forest located in Orange County . 2 U14 Water Resources 1 . The Board of Commissioners should direct the Orange County Reservoir Siting Committee to develop a proposal for the management of the water of the Upper Eno River during drought conditions . The proposal should include an operational definition of a drought , a set of rules for allocating available resources under a range of conditions that may exist during a drought , and a rule governing the release of water from upstream reservoirs to maintain appropirate levels of instream flow. That committee should report its findings to the Commissioners for review on or before December 31 , 1987 . Z . The Commissioners should consider the adoption of ordinance requiring the posting of a performance bond of sufficient size to provide a reasonable guarantee that private wastewater package plants will continually satisfy their effluent limits . 3 . The Commissioners should direct the Health Department to conduct a sanitary survey of county watersheds in 1987 and repeat that survey at intervals not exceeding three years . The survey should identify any activities on the watersheds that pose a risk to health; either activities that continuously discharge to streams in those watersheds , activities from which stormwater runoff could reach the streams , or activities that could accidentally discharge to streams . Results of that survey should be made available to purveyors of public water supplies both in the county and to others who may be affected . 4 . The Commissioners should authorize and direct the County Sediment Control Officer to conduct a review of the adequacy of existing enforcement of the sediment control ordinance , and the adequacy of present staff resources to manage sediment and erosion in the county . The sediment control officer should be directed to deliver a report of its findings and recommendations to the EAB by December 31 , 1987 . 5 . The Commissioners should authorize and direct the County EAB to undertake a study of the options for stormwater mangement . The study should include a review of policy and practices in neighboring communities and states . The LAB should be directed to deliver a report on its findings and recommendations to the Commissioners no later than May 1 , 1988 . 3 i 1 015 Solid Waste 1 . The County Commissioners should authorize the EAB to provide continuing oversight of the bi -county Solid Waste study and make recommendations , as appropriate , concerning the progress of the study and its findings . 2 . The County Commissioners should authorize the EAB to recommend appropriate steps to enhance the County's coordination with Chapel Hill and Carrboro concerning their recycling program. 3 . Since the planned U . N .C . power plant may contribute additional solid waste that will shorten the useful life of the landfill , the County Commissioners should strongly urge U . N . C. to consider the use of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) in the powerplant planned for the Chapel Hill campus . Future of the Environmental Affairs Board 1 . The Commissioners should continue the EAB indefinitely . Membership of the EAB should rotate through staggered three year terms with one third of the present membership being replaced annually , beginnning July 1 , 1988 . The EAB should be directed to adopt by- laws governing the conduct of its meetings and the annual selection of its chair . 4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Ag Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: MAY 19, 1987 SUBJECT: TAX SETTLEMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT DEPARTMENT: REVENUE PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: JOHN HORNER DOCUMENTS (2) X432 (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To receive reports from the Tax Collector regarding the annual tax lien sale which gives the total amounts of unpaid real property taxes for 1986 and the list of those having unpaid personal taxes for 1986. BACKGROUND: Mandated by General Statutes 105-373 which states: Settlements.--(a) Annual Settlement of Tax Collector.--- (1) Preliminary Report. On the second Monday following the tax lien sale, the tax collector shall make a sworn report to the governing body of the taxing unit showing: a. Action taken with respect to the lien sale; and b. A list of the persons not owning real property whose personal property taxes remain unpaid. (To this list the tax collector shall append his statement under oath that he has made diligent efforts to collect the taxes due from the persons listed out of their per- sonal property and by other means available to him for collection, and he shall report such other information concerning these taxpayers as may be of interest to or required by the governing body, including a report of his efforts to make collection outside the taxing unit under the provisions of G.S. 105-364. (2) Insolvents. Upon receiving the report required by subdi- vision (a) (1) , above the governing body of the taxing unit shall enter upon its minutes the names of persons owing taxes (but who listed no real property) whom it finds to be insolvent, and it shall by resolution designate the list entered in its minutes as the insolvent list to be credited to the tax collector in his settlement. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Accept the report and enter the lien and insolvent lists into the minutes. r,: O R A N G E C O U N T Y 1 ! BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date May 19, 1987 Action A enda Item # 3 SUBJECT: REPORT ON PROPOSAL OF TOWN OF MEBANE TO CHANGE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION ACTION BY: No immediate action necessary DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No ATTACHMENT( S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Szymik ETJ Map TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To inform the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Mebane' s proposed change in its extraterritorial Jurisdiction. BACKGROUND: The Town of Mebane had developed a proposed change in its extraterritorial jurisdiction boundary that would redefine the extraterritorial Jurisdiction boundary to follow pro- perty lines. At present, the boundary cuts through properties, dividing them between the Town of Mebane and Orange County with regard to zoning, subdivision, and building inspection responsibilities. The proposed change would affect 23 property owners. All or a portion of six (6) parcels would shift from Orange County 's Jurisdiction to that of Mebane, while all or a portion of 17 parcels would shift from Mebane' s Jurisdiction to that of Orange County. ( See attached list. ) The Town of Mebane presented the proposal at a public hearing on May 4, 1987 . It is scheduled for Town Council consideration on May 18, 1987 . The Orange County Board of Commissioners must concur with and authorize the extra- territorial Jurisdiction change before it can take effect in Orange County. The Town of Mebane will contact Orange County with such a request. In addition to authorizing any change in Mebane's Jurisdiction, the Commissioners must apply Orange County 's jurisdiction into areas where Mebane' s existing Jurisdiction is being revised. A public hearing ( at a later date) will be required to receive citizen comment on the proposal . 018 RECOMMENDATION: Receive as information. 019 TOWN OF MEBANE '� r� am* ems .�-......... CURRENT E TJ .w., .r ems 4.pRoposED ET 4 J I I r.1 r . 1 _... Il' took-7 .. . +.4 :: ro ;24 low" . r- : .:. ,, , ;......„.,. :,..,_., iis - ''""''..-'./,' - . _ Z'Vr;-=147■1 ' ,..„6,40.110*, _ ...... ,--.i.H. ex_41. vs • .. ._r„,. T.......::,..::.. v,. ..... zator,,.. _ _ ... . . , NA: :.:-. 1t.. t.----_-..-- .1, w.CL iltin r-er7ati i. u.........z illitaiii,winizitzik . - . 17± , -,*-4•4=4._ -:-_, ,,54--i-jf=; iiri-- .,,,.__. 40,,ta ail . . , i 7000,,, . 7-0- r . 11,- . - - c',,IIN Li 4*,.."-al- 7'---_.-1.14 ------LIP Ani Iflors'Lli,,,,1116:, _______ "*---4.- , ...., ,,,,,,!..„ ,......„.„... ...... r ...-. -- ■ ; L ._.__.. --ff ts.:V" -s, '°!Lk ' .. 11 I rorfON ,,1111° -All. ... ' 1 ' - \ \ \ \ �. 1 . 020 SRO' PARCELS - FROM ORANGE CO NTY TO TOWN OF MEBANE 3.6 . .35 J .D. Yancey Rt. 5, Box 650 Mebane, NC 27302 3 . 11 . .24 Tyson Patterson 730 Heather Rd. Burlington, NC 27215 3. 11 . .34A Leo G. & Beulah Hoover Rt. 5 , Box 222 Mebane, NC 27302 3. 11 . . 18D Leo G. & Beulah Hoover Rt. 5, Box 222 Mebane, NC 27302 3. 23.C. 14 Mary S. Wood Box 264 Mebane, NC 27302 3. 11 . .4 Town of Mebane 021 SPLIT PAECELS. = FR.M TOWN OF MEBANE ID STANGE COUNTY 3. 1 . .37 Beckner, Winifred E. & Betty 4641 Pinedale Drive Durham, NC 27705 3. 1 . .38 Beckner, W. E. & Betty 4641 Pinedale Drive Durham, NC 27705 3. 1 . .39 Thompson, Archie H. Rt. 5, Box 129 Mebane, NC 27302 3. 1 . . 21 Shields, Odell Rt. 5, Box 132 Mebane, NC 27302 3.6 . . 8 Kenton, John J . Hrs. c/o Viola Grubbs 8668 Richmond Hwy. Alexandria, VA 22309 3.6 . . 34 Shanklin, David Rt. 5, Box 648 Mebane, NC 27302 3.6 . .33 Carter, Frances Rt. 2 Mebane, NC 27302 3.6. .29 Edwards, A.G. Rt. 5, Box 617 Mebane, NC 27302 3.6 . .25 Freeland, James Rae, et al & Betty James M. P. 0. Box 896 Hillsborough, NC 27278 022 3 .6. . 11 Ashley, Douglas C. & Ilene H. Rt. 5, Box 642A Mebane, NC 27302 3. 11 . .4 Town of Mebane 3. 11 . .6 Deloache, Thomas B. & Sarah 2918 S. Fairway Burlington, NC 27215 3. 11 . . 18 Adams, Clarence H. & Mary Frances P. Rt. 5, Box 238 Mebane, NC 27302 3. 21 .A.24 Martin, Dennis J . Rt. 2, Box 643 Mebane, NC 27302 3.21 .A.25 Wynn, Fred J . & Bernice Rt. 2 Mebane, NC 27302 3 .6. . 10 Hauser, James P. 919 Turrentine St. Burlington, NC 27215 3.42. .5 Wilson, Ben F. Sr. Hrs. Rt. 6, Box 37 Mebane, NC 27302 .F�h�er,. �Hr I,.iS 4 : Z �r limit . BY Mary Lhowe of the limits was the "eamel's nose has expressed interest in buying t: boundary - around Brookholiow The Mebane city council On- under the tent," or the first hint . those proportion for an unspecified are now being targeted as the new Monday held off its plena to, that the town plane to annex his commercial use, and would want - extrstarritgrial zoningjurisdiction. formally , extend the town's extraterritorial zoning hounds � ' ` - . ,. to am an industrial zaae in #w area ,! The new zoning jurisdiction would as several affected ]and owns o �; . A seat Patate broker, N. N i �tO pursue a purchase o#%r:1 �[ � `also include most of Carolina asked q Fleming III, apok4. on behalf. of a Under. the la. w� p ounicipal {ty i . Central Industrial Park. . appeals for the future Bonin c of thre! clients of hiP Who owp legd' !any extend its zgniag authority John An:ony, a }bate planner 8 aortheast of I -8§ and NC lafi one mile out iiom'ite corporate who is aeeiaking the city in their �' Fleming asked that the land be' l?oundariee into an area knoam as redraws the Bonin ma 'said One man : who lives on ;,zoned industrial rather thp: 'its, . extratsrriftorial I zoning that he and engineer Darryl Brundage Lane, southwest of I -86 'residential, as is now proposed jurisdlction.' The city council is Russell drely thq extraterritorial and NC 119, asked if the extension Fleming said a bueineas group now working to redraw its zoning .`; inning base so that the new zoning map to conform to th3 annexation ' boundary would not cut through 'of new land into the:gity that Was ymprties. Ip other,vyorde, if the completed in late 1985: . . line went through a property, the Part of that annexation included property would be wholly brought Brookhollow on NC 119 South; so in or left out me@'within a mile ii'om the new : la answer to a euestim. f ...,, Paul Lein of Brundage Lane on whether this zoning map redrawing was a first step toward a new annexation project, Anthony said, 'The city is exercising its authority to go out one mile" to control land use outside its boundaries. "It is not necessary for the municipality to take this step before it annexes." Anthony added, "This does not extend the tax base. The sole purpose is to extend land -uee controls." Fleming; representing the three owners of land just northeast of the intersection of I -85 and Nei 19, said he wanted to "strenuously 3IFi:, . t F.; ...: • .:,i:. object" to the town's proposal to -- - zone that area R -20, which is C ��� residential lots of at least 20,000 square feet. He Paid the land could fetch a price of $20,000 to $25,000 an acre sa an industrial or commercial zone, but probably no more than $4,000 to $6,000 an acre as a residential zone. Further, he said a commercial developer is interested in buying the land for a commercial use, and would need a commercial or industrial zone. Fleming Paid his clients want a designation of M -1, which allows - induatrial'usea. Fleming said after the meeting that he is fairly confident the city council would designate his clients' land M -1, and emphasized that in nearly three decades of business in Alamance he had never seen a residential zone designation at the 8e0 COUNCIL on Page 8 ti Cdntianed from 4 Page 4 lnteclian4o !qf'' "an' interstate the designation of zones in 'the .s - In other business, the council: area. The second public hearing -- voted to install 12 new street' The council agreed to hold was agreed upon so that council lights at NC 110 and Dogwood thy{'pgbilo hearing on May 18 members could study the matter Place, Eleventh and Oakwood A zt p t odrarlinc . more thoroughly and land own are Streets, Eleventh Street between f oning 'W% and could be prepared to attend and Cedar Hill apartments and Park. ask questione.:, ....., i : Steat, US 70 near the A&M Grill; { , US 70 near Foust Road, Foust City Attorney Charles Bateman also reiterated the city's position goad, Lebanon Church Road, and on a whole pew annexation that 1q. five sites on Stagecoach Road; now in the planning stage.; .+ +— rezoned from industrial to residential a property on the west – - - -- a Last July, the city •council' 'side of North Second Street just adopted a 'resolution ;; of north 'of Crawford Street. 1 consideration to annex a tract of Councilman Jesse Rice, who owns land south of town, including the property adjoining the rezoned Carolina Central Industrial Park-;,j lend; stepped down from the and a portion of the West End 'r disoassion and offered to answer { neighborhood. Bateman add that..s questions about the re4uast and thin July, after the required year'�;;.the portion iq favor of razoning; ' has elapsed, the city. may adopt a`;ih'which hs grad pignsd. The rasoned . �esglutloq of tgRg ' t "p those prgpr3rty+'- belongs to 14i¢banp Land 'arei ii1tId wild shy waulfd'heva "aj end -hnprdvoment Company and j formfil4anexIM40 i4u0 Fe44N in ,' kb1QRARdR481lDifnPiliPFi e f duly. -. set tap foss for people wanting. Included in the proposed new' to tap into the town water system annexation are the industrial park, i ; for irrigation needs only. The fee { including the Walter Kidde plant will be $400 for a three- quarter- €` on South Third Street Extension, inch line and $600 firm a one -inch and any parka of the Weal End that line. Water rates will be the can be served by existing trunk existing rates in town; s lines for water and sewer service. ' agreed to use $30,000 of 4` In March, the council heard a $50,000 state recreation grant for report that annexing a much renovating the fieldhouee at larger portion of the West End Walker Field, $8.Q0D to start a fund would cost a little more than to light the tennis courts, and i $900,000 to extend water and $12,000 for a pontoon boat for sewer services. Lake Michael. r V 029 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date May 19, 1987 Action & da Item SUBJECT: WATER/SEWER POLICY STATUS REPORT ACTION BY: No immediate action necessary DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No ATTACHMENT( S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins Planning Director 5-13-87 Memorandum TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of a status report concerning a water and sewer policy which applies to land use planning issues in Orange County. BACKGROUND: The Board of Commissioners asked the Planning Board to prepare recommendations concerning a water and sewer policy for Orange County. On May 13, 1987, the Planning Director presented background information regarding a policy draft to the Natural Resources Subcommittee of the Planning Board. Proposed additions and amendments to the Planning Director's draft will be presented to the full Planning Board at it' s May 18, 1987 meeting. RECOMMENDATION : Receive as preliminary information the report of those aspects of a water and sewer policy which apply to land use planning issues. The Manager and Attorney will propose financing and eligibility aspects at a later date. O R A N G E C O U N T Y 026 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8704-1810 TO: Orange County Planning Board FROM: Marvin E. Collins, Planning Director SUBJECT: Water/Sewer Policy DATE: May 13, 1987 COPIES : Ken Thompson, County Manager The Board of Commissioners have asked the Planning Board to prepare recommendations concerning a water and sewer extension policy for Orange County which applies to land use planning issues . As an initial step, I ha ve compiled adopted and draft policies, by topical heading, for your consideration. After each policy statement is an abbreviation, the source. The index of abbreviations is as followsndicating LUP Land Use Plan ZO Zoning Ordinance SR Subdivision Regulations Please review this material and note those policies which should be expanded, clarified or deleted. Note also policies which are absent from the list. ( 1 ) Water Supply ( a) Provide clean and safe water supplies available and adequate to meet future needs of the residents of Orange County. (LUP) ( b) Manage Orange County 's water supplies so that available resources are balanced with existing and projected needs. (LUP) (2) Delineation/Protection of Watersheells ( a) Designate prime reservoir sites, based on an evaluation of water resources throughout the County, to protect those areas from adverse development impacts and to insure that inappro- priate restrictions are not placed on a large population of the land area and land resources of the County. ( LUP) (b) Adopt and implement policies which specify land use patterns and intensities of development in water W 02t INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8704-1810 Water/Sewer Policy May 13, 1987 Page 2 supply watersheds and water quality critical areas that will minimize potential adverse impacts on water quality. (LUP) . (c) Support programs which help to protect water quality, such as the Soil Conservation Service and Sedimentation and Erosion Control Programs. ( LUP) ( d) Encourage efforts to monitor the quality of water in Orange County streams. ( LUP) (3) Sewage Disposal /Alternative Systems ( a) Provide adequate and appropriate sewage disposal facilities for all current and future residents. ( LUP) ( b) Identify the type of sewage disposal facilities appropriate for an area as a function of the magnitude of present and future demand ; the distribution of users; and the capacity of the natural environment to absorb the impact. ( LUP) (c) Develop a process to ensure that buyers of property in the County are fully informed about the on-site sewage disposal characteristics of the sites on their property. (LUP) ( d) Allow on-site disposal in low-density and rural areas where soil conditions are acceptable. In rural areas with unacceptable soils, State-approved on-site sewage disposal systems will be required. (LUP) ( e) Facilitate the use of alternatives to the traditional septic systems on land unsuitable for septic tanks and not served by public sewer. Elimination of administration and informational barriers to the use of safe, sanitary alternative on-site disposal systems within the County should be encouraged. (LUP) ( f ) Allow ground absorption sewage disposal systems of 3000 gallons per day or more design capacity and package treatment plants with a design capacity of 3000 gallons per day or less as appropriate only in the areas designated Ten and Twenty Year Transition and Rural Residential . ( LUP) (g) Develop and implement a process whereby the responsibilities and duties adjunct to the operation and management of package sewage ...my • - :t INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8704-1810 Water/Sewer Policy May 13, 1987 Page 3 treatment plants are specified as a requirement to the permitting process for such facilities. (LUP) ( h) Prohibit package sewage treatment plants in the areas designated Water Supply Watershed. (LUP) ( i ) Establish an on-site wastewater treatment inspection program within the portions of water supply watersheds designated as Water Quality Critical Areas . (LUP) ( J) No permitted use in any district shall discharge any waste contrary to the provisions of G. S. 130- 160. (Z0--6. 14. 10) ( k) No permitted principal use, special use or accessory use shall discharge into the OWASA, Durham or Hillsborough sewage treatment facilities any waste that cannot be treated by biological means . (Z0--6 . 14. 10) ( I ) Ground absorption systems with a design capacity of 3,000 gallons per day or more and package treatment plants for sanitary sewage disposal are expressly prohibited in the AR districts and Rural Buffer districts as shown in the Land Use Plan except as may be approved through a Special Use Permit or a Planned Development District. (Z0-6 .20) ( 4) Delineation of Water/Sewer Service Districts ( a) Provide water and sewer lines in those areas which can be practically and efficiently served by these facilities . (LUP) ( b) Develop and implement a cooperative joint planning process among the County municipalities and those organizations responsible for water and sewer lines to guide the extension of lines in accordance with the land use plans and policies of the affected Jurisdictions. ( LUP) (c) Establish Urban Service Areas for Chapel Hill , Carrboro, Hillsborough, Mebane and Durham which will correspond with the 10-year and 20-year Transition Areas. Water and sewer lines should be directed to those areas which contain and are appropriate for higher density levels of residential , commercial and industrial development. ( LUP) ( d) Identify ( sewer) service by centralized water and ! . . . INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8704_1810 Water/Sewer Policy May 13, 1987 Page 4 sewer systems (Towns of sewer systems Hillsborough and Mebane, Orange Water an Water Systems Incorporated and Orange at Sewer Authority) as occur in the UrbanhandhTrransitiioniAreas. (LUP) most Y levels which (e) Prohibit the LUP) establishment of public water and sewer services in the areas designated Water Quality Critical Area, except to address emergent situations. (LUP) emergency (5) d- 1 - • - ( a) Urban services, including water sewage collection mains, are not distribution 10- 20 years. (Z0-4.2. 1 ) likely within 10_ (b) Water and sewer lines be assured of installation uas exist at the site or Part of the develop- ment process. (ZO-4.2. 4) (c) Lot size for individual uses shall be appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal . (Z0-4.2.9) ( d) In cases where the the subdivision completion and development of tgency, that agency require permits granted by an certificate or y shall officially approve b (SR- III-D-4_a) Permit the subdivision proposal ( e) Plans for a system shall be proposed public or community sewage Dircos or the proved by the Health Department Management of Natural of Environmental whichever is a and Economic Resources, completed according to approved system shall be that where said improvements Pare vto bea installed dor constructed subsequent to the a Plat, plans and approval of the Final improvements shall de a specifications for said the iate agencies and referencespptovsaidbimprovementsPshall be made a part of the Final Plat as Section III-E-5-d herein. (SR_V-C-1-a) Provided in ( f) Plans for proposed communit shall be approved by t Y water supply systems y he Health Department Director or by the Division of Health Services, Department of Human Resources, whichever is appropriate. (Requirements for approval of proposed public or community Sewalens same as for (SR-V-D-1 ) sewage systems. ) 02121 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agen4A. Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 19, 1987 SUBJECT: THOROUGHFARE PLAN FOR THE DURHAM, CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO URBAN AREA DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 REPORT #1: ANALYSIS OF PROJECTIONS, DEFICIENCIES, AND NEEDS (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To discuss the Thoroughfare Plan for the Durham Chapel Hill- Carrboro Urban Area. BACKGROUND: On April 2, 1987 the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee hosted a meeting which featured a presentation by local and state transportation staffs who have been involved in the preparation of the Thoroughfare Plan. The presentation focused on the attached report. Ed Johnson, Thoroughfare Planning Unit, N.C. Department of Transportation and Al Willford, Director of Traffic and Transportation, City of Durham will be present to discuss the plan. RECOMMENDATION(S) : For information purposes only. O3®' ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Age a Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: MAY 19, 1987 SUBJECT: LIVESTOCK/HORTICULTURE MARKET AND RURAL EDUCATION CENTER DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER AND COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 REPORT STEPHEN HALKIOTIS, X505 (Under Seperate Cover) TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To receive a report from the Livestock Market Feasibility Study Committee. BACKGROUND: In response to the possible loss of the Hillsborough Livestock Market, the Board established a study committee to examine the feasibility of keeping a livestock market in the County. Since March, 1987 the study committee has researched the Live- stock Market issue culminating into the attached report which addresses a livestock/horticulture market and rural education center. Members of the Feasibility Study Committee will pre- sent their findings. RECOMMENDATION(S) : 03i ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agengik Item No. girl ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: MAY 19, 1987 SUBJECT: PROJECT TO DEVELOP SUPPORT FOR EMOTIONALLY TROUBLED PRESCHOOLERS DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER AND COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, 501 1. FACTS ABOUT TROUBLED PRESCHOOLERS DON WILLHOIT, X505 2 . GOALS FOR SERVICES 3 . PARENT AGENCY OPTIONS TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To receive a report concerning emotionally troubled pre- schoolers. BACKGROUND: On September 27, 1987 a broad spectrum of local community agencies sponsored a forum to look at the needs of emotionally troubled preschoolers, their families and the child care pro- grams that serve them. The forum concluded with a view of what services are needed. Representative from various commun- ity agencies have met regularly since September to develop more complete descriptions of goals for services. Jean Chapman, a member of the committee studying the need of emotionally troubled preschoolers will detail the support necessary to provide services. RECOMMENDATION(S) : 034 SOME FACTS ABOUT TROUBLED PRESCHOOLERS IN ORANGE COUNTY How Big is the Problem? Estimates of the number of troubled preschoolers vary according to the definition used, and most estimates are for "children under 18", inclusively. However specific surveys of preschool populations have agreed generally with the figures for all children. • Frequently used estimates of the % of children who are emotionally disturbed and in need of mental health services include: Federal Joint Commission on Mental Health & Illness ( 1969) 13.6% President's Commission on Mental Health ( 1978) 5-15% (5% being the very severely disturbed group) Madelyn S. Gould (review of major U.S. prevalence studies, 1981) 11 .8% Commonly used figure of those children needing mental health services 12% What About Orange County? While no information is readily available at a state or county level regarding precise numbers of preschoolers in need of services, a rough extrapolation from nation figures would suggest: ( 1980) 3994 children in Orange County ages 4 and under 12% a 479 children age 4 and under in need of services Another way to develop a picture of the size of this group is to look at the K-3 grade population in the public schools. In the Spring of 1986, the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools had approximately 24 of 2,000 K-3 grade children in self-contained classrooms for the "Behaviorally/Emotionally Handicapped". An informal study of Orange County system KG teachers at that same time estimated that about 10-12% of children in their classrooms had behavioral or emotional problems. Why Focus on Children in Child Care Centers? Staff in child care centers, caring for children of preschool age from 4-10 hours a, day are in a unique situation to be aware of the needs of troubled children. In. the Spring of 1986, all licensed day care centers were surveyed (35 centers-preschools were not surveyed at that time) concerning the children in their programs who they considered to have problems using this definition: "For our purposes, a child with a significant behavioral or emotional problem is: a child. who is ( 1) so overly active or aggressive, (2) so quiet and withdrawn, or (3) so otherwise bizarre in their behavior that he or she is seriously disruptive to your program and other children, or is unable to participate in your program. : (Examples of troubling behavior were provided.) 1 034 The results were as follows: 31 respondents identified 80 troubled children 2-5 years of age 10 centers had "expelled" a preschooler in the past year because of these problems. In addition, an unusually high percentage of preschoolers with working mothers in Orange County are in center-based child care (as opposed to informal arrangements such as rela- tives, sitters, day care homes, etc.) Of the conservatively estimated 2000-2500 Orange County children 5 and under in need of child care (with mothers in the work force) 2078 were in day care centers or preschools in 1986. What Has Been Done? An extensive needs assessment and resource survey carried out in the spring of 1986 led to the creation of a Planning Committee in June. Planning Committee members, repre- senting a broad range of individuals and agencies, met over the summer and planned a county-wide forum to focus attention on the issue and to draw together people committed to working to develop services. Seventy-five persons met September 27 for "A Community Wide Forum to Look at the Needs of Emotionally Troubled Preschoolers, their Families, and the Child Care Programs that Serve Them". Co-sponsored by eighteen county organiza- tions and agencies, the forum presented a range of speakers, ( 1) describing the troubled child, (2) discussing what is already available in the county, and (3) looking at other program models in use in nearby areas of North Carolina. The majority of those in attendance signed up for further work groups. At the initial follow-up meeting on November 17, four working committees were set up to begin formulating proposals; ( 1) Coordinating/Fundraising (2) Resource Assessment/Coordination (3) Consultation, (4) Therapeutic Preschool. Each committee will meet and report back to a full group meeting in February. - r What is The Next Step? At the September forum, all participants worked in small groups to develop suggestions for "what should be our first step?" It was clear that the top priority was to develop on-site consultation (for treatment and prevention) for child care programs (preschools and day care centers), their staff, and the families of troubled children. Other major concerns were coordination of available resources for parents and professionals and the development of services for more seriously disordered children. The work of the four committees focuses on these areas. In all efforts undertaken, the committees are committed to the premises developed for the forum (see attachment.) EMOTIONALLY TROUBLED PRESCHOOLERS 034 Goals for Services: Year One As an outgrowth of a Community Forum held September 27, 1986, where issues related to supporting the emotionally troubled preschooler were discussed,four committees began working to develop goals for consultation services,a therapeutic preschool, resource development and the coordination and funding of all services. While each committee covered different content,all committees worked with the following premises: 1. All children and families have strengths. All professionals working with them should seek to recognize these strengths. 2. A wide variety of family forms(single parent,extended family, etc.)and cultural traditions(urban, rural, Black,Asian,etc) are valid and appropriate settings for raising physically and emotionally healthy children. Resources for troubled children and their families should respect diversity of family form and culture. Services should be culturally appropriate and acceptable. 3. Services must recognize the needs of low income children and families and therefore be both affordable and accessible. 4. Resources must be developed to serve all of Orange County and not be limited to the Chapel Hill- Carrboro area. 5. The child must be seen as "embedded" in an ecological system involving her/his family,day care/preschool staff and significant others. Therapeutic interventions must address the child and family in these contexts and work with those "others." 6. While there is a commitment to the development of broad programs that are preventive in nature,the initial focus of this effort is children in child care(day care or preschool) settings who are seen as having troubling behaviors. Resources for child care staff are a top priority. 7. While there is much to be done to develop the full array of services that are needed, there is a recognition that this initial effort must start small,develop a few services well and then expand. 8. Significant effort must be made to involve minority professionals and citizens in this effort. The following is a summary of the goals for service developed by each of the four committees: A. Coordination And Funding of All Services An Interagency Advisory Committee should be formed to support and evaluate the development and operation of services for emotionally troubled preschoolers. This committee should maintain the broad representation involved in this planning process and include but not be limited to membership from both school systems,OPC Mental Health Center, the Mental Health Association, the Orange County Day Care Coalition, NCMH Department of Psychiatry,a pediatrician or other child health professional,other agencies involved in the delivery of services to preschool children,and some individuals who served in this planning process. 2. While services may be initially targeted to children,family and staff in child care centers in the county, no child, family or child care teacher should ever be denied services. In particular, no mental health services should ever be denied to a child, her/his family or child care program because of income. No barriers should impede a low income family's ability to access these services. 3. While ideally the goal would be for the simultaneous development of consultation services and a therapeutic preschool,the creation of coasultation services is seen as the to priority because the greatest number of chilicirtafmilabelpesiatthelost cast. However; in order or he consu to ion serVi es to ave the necessary support,a therapeutic preschool needs to be develo,r' wi i• six months of the b nimof consultetim ya • se -c i 'ren who can not adequately be sei'ye"by co ultaton serves provided in a regular chi [fie setting. 4. At the end of the first year of service delivery to emotionally troubled preschoolers and their families and child care centers,a thorough evaluation should be completed that includes recommendations for changes in the current delivery of services as well as the development of additional services. This evaluation should also reflect the recommendations of this planning process for second and third year services. • 5. use services for ldr_eaand.their.families_ba mented in Oran County,all aci to be�ministratively bi i d under existing one n usin uluple 4J�CesQf p Lbbiig in rivete fundin n. Gogrdinated by one full time early childhood specialist whose sole respon. ijility is tooversee this entire program by: a. Developing d-coordinating ell services; b. Hiring and supervising all staff; c. Promoting good public relations and awareness; d. Developing funding resources; e. Evaluating and planning services;and f. Promoting interagency cooperation. B. Consultation Services 1. Initial contact should be made with each day care center and preschool in Orange County. 2. Services to child care centers should then be prioritized based on the severity of need. 3. A minimum of 1.25 full time equivalent consultants are needed to serve all of Orange County. 4. Consultants should have child care teaching as well as assessment and treatment experience. 5. Consultant services should have the consistent involvement of a single psychologist and a single family counselor. 6. Consultant services should combine a wide variety of interventions including observing children experiencing emotional problems in child care settings,consulting with child care teachers about classroom management,coordinating teacher/parent training with available community resources, recommending and evaluating classroom intervention strategies to help reduce problematic behaviors,conducting developmental and behavioral assessments,and facilitating communication and coordination of services between the parent,center staff and other community agencies and professionals involved with the child. C. Therapeutic Preschool 1, Two part-day therapeutic preschool classrooms should be developed to serve 5-6 children each,one to operate in Southern Orange County and one to operate in Northern Orange County. Staff should be shared between the two sites. 2. The goals of these classrooms should be to: a. Provide millieu based group treatment to seriously emotionally/ behaviorally disordered preschoolers in the least restrictive environment; b. Provide milieu based group treatment to children who have experienced serious environmental trauma and/or those at risk for serious emotionally disturbance, in the least restrictive environment; c. Prevent the hospitalization of seriously emotionaly disturbed preschoolers;and d. Return the preschoolers with emotional/behavioral problems to the "normal"setting as soon as possible. 3. An extended day capacity needs to developed initially for all enrolled children and for nonenrol led children within one year. 4. Classroom teachers should include both a clinical social worker and a early childhood special education teacher, both supported by the services of a psychologist. D. Resource Development 1.. In the development of new services for emotionally troubled preschoolers,care should be taken to not duplicate, but rather enhance,existing services. 2. Wherever possible, public resources should be maximally used. 3. Efforts should be made to encourage the contribution of private resources to support consultation and therapeutic services and thus increase the availability of these services to low income families. 4. A compendium of resources currently available in Orange County has been completed and should be updated and used as a resource as additional services are developed for emotionally troubled preschoolers, their families and child care programs. 03'1 PARENT AGENCY OPTIONS FOR THE PROJECT TO DEVELOP SUPPORT FOR EMOTIONALLY TROUBLED PRESCHOOLERS IN ORANGE COUNTY Disclaimer This document was prepared and reviewed by the coordi- nating committee of the task force for Emotionally Troubled Preschoolers as a working paper for discussion. Representatives of each agency were interviewed; however the final paper was not officially approved by them. There- fore, the paper represents opinions of the committee and agency may not necessarily agree with the conclusions. In particular, Child Care Networks has concerns that "the minus marks noted for their agency for items 7, 8, 10 are not accurate for the following reasons": 7) Child Care Networks' staff have over 13 years combined experience in early child education. 8) Child Care Networks works with a wide variety of families and services are available to any families who request them. 10) The Child Care Networks board includes minority board members and the agency serves minority families. 4 V PARENT AGENCY OPTIONS FOR THE PROJECT TO DEVELOP SUPPORT FOR EMOTIONALLY TROUBLED PRESCHOOLERS IN ORANGE COUNTY This position paper was developed by the Coordination and Funding Committee of the above-mentioned Project for the purpose of considering the best parent agency for the program model. In order to gain a realistic view of the possibilities, the Committee asked each potential parent agency to contribute information in the form of an Input Paper. The purpose of the Input Paper was to provide a means to acquire each agency's perspective regarding its advantages and disadvantages as the Project 's parent agency. All of the seven agencies contacted provided responses. The Project greatly appreciates their participation: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools/Orange County Schools Child Care Networks Day Care Services Association Mental Health Association in Orange County Orange County Department of Social Services Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health Center All agencies mentioned problems in obtaining space for the project; none could divert funds to pay for it. In order to simplify the comparison of agency options, the Committee compiled the attached chart which lists the criteria that the ideal parent agency would possess. These criteria were generated from the Project 's own stated premises and from the agency Input Papers. Each agency's checklist of ratings was compiled using that agency's Input Paper plus the Committee's knowledge of the agency's services. This was an attempt at an objective assessment as to whether or not the criteria were met. It was by no means a judgment of the value of the services that each agency provides. It is critical that the parent agency be able to align with the project 's positive working premise of recognizing and building upon the strengths of all children and families. Each agency's past experience in providing services to child care programs countywide, and it 's stated committment to providing adjunct services for emotionally troubled preschoolers and their families were important considerations. Following the chart is a brief description of each agency with its special qualifiers which were additional factors considered in the assessment. The final summary statement includes a recommendation for a parent agency based on this com- parative assessment and the agency's own commitment to supervising the delivery of these services. AGENCY COMPARISONS criteria OPC MHA Schools DSS CCN DCS A c MHA 1. Administrative structure capable of sup- porting a major service delivery program + 2. Experience prioritizing and providing ser- vices to children and families with special needs + 3. Experience prioritizing and providing ser- vices to low income families + 4. History of and concerted effort in providing accessible and equal services to citizens in all parts of the county 5. History of providing consultation to center - based child care programs 6. Expertise in providing or accessing mental health or therapeutic counseling services 7. Expertise in early childhood education and programming 8. Experience working with a wide variety of cul- tural traditions and family forms 9. History and /or experience working with emotion- ally troubled preschoolers 10. Involvement of minority professionals and cit- izens ,in the overall structuring of the agency 11. History of providing case consultation or indi vidual /family assessment services that could b expanded to services for emotionally troubled preschoolers, their families and center -based child care programs ++ - Criteria OPC Schools DSS CCN DCSA MHA 12. Stated commitment to parent education + + + + _ + M 04 AGENCY DESCRIPTIONS 1. T lg argnsg E2Ig4i; aatham LgDtal Hgglt 3 Cgatgx provides comprehensive mental health evaluation and treatment services to citizens in this three county catchment area. This organization has expertise in providing services to preschool children and their families through their current experience of operating the PACT program to screen high risk children from infancy through two years of age, and by providing counseling services to preschool children and their families. In addition, in the past this agency has operated a consultant model of services to child care programs (Project Early Aid) . OPC Mental Health Center seems very interested in coordinating services for emotionally troubled preschoolers and envisions how these services can be integrated with the ongoing services the agency already provides. Issues of space and funding seem to be of greatese concern, although the agency is concerned about what impact expanded services will have on services provided in all three counties. Finally, OPC MHA may be underutilized because of a public stigma about mental health services. 2. The Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools and the Orange County schools completed their input paper together. The schools have primary responsibility for the education of children and are committed to the premise that all children have the right to a free and appropriate public education. The schools feel that they are not trained in providing services to young preschool children and currently do not serve this population. In addition the schools have no current working relationship with day care/preschool providers and feel they are not a part of the networking that is essential to this project. Finally the schools are administered by two distinct and independent structures that would make singular administrative responsibility difficult. 3. The Orange County Department of social services provides preventive casework and subsidy for day care to families needing child care in order to work or receive training, to meet the developmental needs of the child or as a result of a protective services plan for a child who has been abused or neglected. The agency also provides technical assistance, training and consultation with day care centers and community agencies and investigates abuse and neglect referrals on day care programs. Finally, the agency also provides social casework to families of emotionally troubled preschoolers who are at risk for abuse or neglect. Recent changes in administration resulting in possible reorganizational changes and refocusing of priorities may prohibit the agency from assuming a supervisory role at this time. In addition, social workers within the agency are already overloaded with cases. 4. Child Care Networks is a private nonprofit agency providing information and referral services to families seeking child care and other children's services programs. The agency publishes a number of guides for parents and the comunity covering a wide 1 04d range of service areas. In addition the agency works with family day care homes to help them upgrade the care they deliver to young children. While this agency has neither the administrative nor the mental health support back up, CCN does know well the resources that are available for children and families in the community. CCN would welcome discussing where such services could fit in their agency but recognizes that providing such services their neutral, nonjudgemental philosophy toward making referrals would be jeopardized. The agency does see that their neutral, nonmental health image could be seen positively by some members of the community. 5. Day Care Services Association is a private nonprofit agency that provides subsidy to low income families needing help paying the full cost of day care. In addition, the agency advocates for improved standards and increased subsidy option for children in child care programs and offers scholarships to low income child care teachers to continue their professional education. Virtually all of the agency's $89,000 budget is used to provide services. Currently the agency has no paid staff but is ran by a volunteer board made up of child care professionals. While the agency has a history of working with minority and low income families and hcild care centers, DCSA does not feel that it has the administrative or mental health back up to provide the wide range of coordinated services emotionally troubled preschoolers, their families and child care programs need. 6. The Mental Health Association is a private nonprofit agency advocating for improved care and treatment for persons with mental illness and promoting sound mental health in the community. The agency's work includes sponsoring support groups, public education and legislative advocacy. Because this agency primarily provides community education and advocacy, it does not feel that it has either the administrative or professional expertise to coordinate this program. 2 044 RECOMMENDATION After reviewing the agencies' input, evaluating each agency in terms of the criteria and discussing the relative strengths of each option the Funding and Coordination Committee has come to consensus about the best suited agency to serve as the "parent" for these services. While arguments could be made for each of the six agencies, the Orange Person-Chatham Mental Health Center was seen as the agency that could best coordinate and deliver services to emotionally troubled preschoolers, their families and center-based child care programs. In the past this agency has actually provided consultation services for emotionally troubled preschoolers in the center-based programs in the county through Project Early Aid. OPC MHA also has previously operated a therapeutic preschool in this county and currently operates one in another county in their catchment area. The agency as part of its range of services provides counseling services to families and this service could help support the provision of services to emotionally troubled preschoolers. In addition the agency already screens and provides services to preschoolers with developmental delays. This service would also nicely complement services to children with emotionally troubling behaviors as often such children exhibit miltiple disabilities. Finally the agency has an administrative structure that can support such a program, if given the necessary funds. 3 04t ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agend Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE: MAY 19, 1987 SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENTS DEPARTMENT: FINANCE PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: FINANCE OFFICE,X496 PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENTS TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Consideration of proposed budget amendments. BACKGROUND: 1. The Department of Social Services will receive additional State and Federal funds. These funds will be used to administer the mandated AFDC-Emergency Assistance Program. The additional funds to be budgeted total $14, 000. The Department will receive $7, 000 in Federal funds, $3,500 in State funds and the remaining $3,500 (currently budgeted County funds) will be transferred from the Title XX program. 2 . The Department of Social Services is entitled to receive additional State and Federal funds to administer the Long Term Care Screening program. The additional funds to be budgeted total $14,500 and are to be used for Chore Worker Wages. The Department will receive $9,860 in Federal funds, $3,915 in State funds and the remaining $725 (currently budgeted County funds) will be transferred from the subsidy program. 3. The Department of Social Services will receive additional State and Federal funds to administer the Medicaid program. The additional funds to be budgeted total $20, 000. The Department will receive $13, 600 in Federal funds, $5,400 in State funds and the remaining $1, 000 (currently budgeted County funds) will be transferred from the Title XX program. 4. The Department of Social Services will receive additional State and Federal funds to administer the IV-E Foster Care Program. The additional funds to be budgeted total $17,271. 00. The Department will receive $11,744 in Federal funds, $2,763 in State funds and the remaining $2,764 (currently budgeted County funds) will be transferred from the Title XX program. 04t 5. On May 4, 1987, the Board of Commissioners approved the funding of a preliminary Economic Development Commission Study that will cost $5, 000. The source of funding is the Contingency account. 6. The Board of Elections has $13,500 budgeted in 1986-87 for the purchase of 3 vote tabulators. Due to unsatisfactory maintenance received on the vote tabulators currently in service, the Board wishes to change vendors. A local (North Carolina) vendor has developed a vote tabulator that is compatible with the existing tabulators; however, the final product will not be ready for purchase until after July 1, 1987. Therefore, this amendment will trans- fer funds to the County Capital Reserve fund where they will be held in reserve until July 1, 1987. On July 1, 1987, the funds will be re-appropriated to the Board of Elections. The Board of Elections has requested the change in vendor. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve motion to amend the 1986-87 Budget Ordinance by the proposed amendments. ORANGE COUNTY 0 4 PROPOSED 1986-87 BUDGET AMENDMENT The 1986-87 Budget Ordinance as adopted on July 23, 1987, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows: Before After Amendment Amendment Amendment 1. General Fund Appropriation: Social Services $3 ,453,690 $10,500 $3,464, 190 Source: Income Maintenance- AFDC-EA 45,000 10,500 55,500 To accept Federal and State AFDC Emergency Assistance grant. 2 . General Fund Appropriation: Social Services $3 ,464, 190 $13,775 $3,477,965 Source: Long Term Care-CHORE 133, 315 13,775 147, 090 To accept Federal and State Long Term Care grant. 3 . General Fund Appropriation: Social Services $3,477,965 $19, 000 $3,496,965 Source: Income Maintenance- Medicaid 86,826 19, 000 105,826 To accept Federal and State Medicaid grant. 4. General Fund Appropriation: Social Services $3,496,965 $14,507 $3,511,472 Source: Subsidy-IV-E 200 14,507 14,707 To accept Federal and State IV-E grant. 5. General Fund Appropriation: 040 Economic Development Commission $ 64,757 $ 5, 000 $ 69,757 Source: Contingency 15,523 5, 000 10,523 To budget for preliminary study. 6. General Fund Appropriation: Transfer to County Capital Reserve $ 297, 000 $13,500 $ 310,500 Source: Elections 123,439 3 ,500 109,939 7. County Capital Reserve Fund Appropriation: Vote Tabulator Reserve $ 0 $13 ,500 $ 13,500 Source: Transfer from General Fund $ 297, 000 $13 ,500 $ 310,500 To reserve funds for the purchase of vote tabulators. Approved this 19th day of May, 1987. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agen a Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: MAY 19, 1987 SUBJECT: AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE GAGE ON THE ENO RIVER DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Renewal of construction and maintenance agreement with Geological Survey United States Department of the Interior, for maintaining the gaging station on the Eno River located at the end of Cameron Street in Hillsborough. BACKGROUND: This is a joint agreement between Orange County and Geological Survey to maintain the gage. New tapes are installed every +� six weeks and a copy of the reading is available to Orange County. The new gaging station was jointly funded by both Geological Survey and Orange County in 1985. RECOMMENDATION: Approve maintenance agreement and authorize Chair to sign. Form 9.1368 (REV.686) Department of the Interior 0 0 Geological Survey Joint Funding Agreement FOR THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of he er Resources Investigations Y of Jul UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, party of the first part 1987 b and the y the GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Orange County 1. The parties hereto agree that subject to the availability of appropriations and in accordance ' there shall parties be maintained in cooperation a party of the second part. gage on Eno River, North Carolinaw�ththeirrespectiveauthorities 2. The following amounts shall be contributed to cover all of the cost 2. this following but excluding any bureau level general administrative or accounting hereinafter cored ree program. of the necessary.geld and office wore directly related ounting work in the office of either party. (a) $ 2,900.00 by the party of the first part during.the period July 1, 1987 to June 30, 19$8 (b) $ 2,900.00 by the party of the second part during the period July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988 . • (c) Additional amounts by each party during the above period or succeeding periods as may be determined by mutual agreement and set forth in an exchange of letters between the parties. 3. Expenses incurred in the performance of this program may be paid by either party i regulations respectively governing each part P y n conformity with the laws and paid in the first instance by the party of the first part with appropriate reimbursement there y, provided that so far as may be mutually agreeable all expenses shall be part. Each party shall furnish to the other party such statements or reports of expenditures a fiscal rachiparty sh. thereafter by the party d the second satisfy 4. The field and office work pertaining to this program shall be under the direction of or as may be needed to satisfy an authorized representative of the party of the first part. 5. The areas to be included in the program shall be determined by subject to periodic review by authorized representatives. The methods employed in the field and office shall be part authorized insure the required standards of accuracy in the field modification y mutcel agreement between the parties thparty hereto or their 6. During the progress of the work all operations of sit er party those adopted by the party of the first 6. the During the party, and of if the work all is not being tio carried on r - a n n this mutual am shall agreement. r P y pertaining ti tau program shall eibe ther open party, the inspection termin to this agreement upon 60 days written notice to the other party!nutually. satisfactory 7. The original records resulting from this program will be deposited in the office of origin manner, either party,may terminate copies of the original records will be provided to the office of the other party. 8. The maps,records or reports resulting from this program shall be made avails ongin of those records. Upon request, The maps, records or reports normally will be published by the party of the first part. However, part reserves the right to publish the results of this program and, if alrea ble to the public as ram tl as P P Y possible, part eserves, be right to p b the party of the first part, r cost, d, if impressions p bP pa the party first the second upon to on that for which the original copy was prepared. The maps,co, record already suitable u of by the purposes reproduction fiuct onrt shall,l a statement which the cooperative rigina copy py was between the parties. lis purposes of reproduction o twin records or reports published by either party shall contain 9. Billing for this agreement will be rendered after the billing date. If not paid by the due date, nterest will be charged at the current Treasury period, or portion thereof, that the payment is delayed beyond the due d Payments of bills are due within 60 days 3-212222, August 23, 1983.). ate. (31 USC 3717; Comptroller General File GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR By Orange County By (SIGNATURE 8 TITLE) By James F. Turner, District Chief (USE REVERSE SIDE IF ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES ARE REQUIRED) ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Ac�e,nda Item No. 1'. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: SUBJECT: Resolution of Participation in the State ' s Land Records Modernization Grant Program DEPARTMENT: Central Land Records PUBLIC HEARING: Yes x No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Roscoe Reeve Resolution TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: to adopt a resolution indicating the desire of Orange County to participate in the State ' s Land Records Modernization grant program for 1987 . The resolution qualifies the County to receive grant funds for the re-mapping project. BACKGROUND: Counties seeking grant funds from the State for improving their land records must pass a resolution of participation each year to qualify for the grant award. Orange has particpated in the State program since 1979 , and has received matching funds which it has been able to use in its Land Records Program, a multi-year, multi- phased program of re-mapping, and computerization. The grant program is administered through the Land Records Office of NRCD, and the fund amount is determined each year by the General Assembly. RECOMMENDATION(S) : that the Board of Commissioners adopt a resolution of desire to continue Orange County's participation in the':Land Records Grant program, and that said resolution be forwarded to the State Land Records Office upon approval . Authorize Chair to sign. O5 BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners , that it recognizes and appreciates the Land Records Management Program of the State Department of Natural Resources and Community Development and its assistance to counties through matching grants , and desires to participate in the modernization program of land records for the 1987-1988 fiscal year. It further agrees to abide by the agreements and contracts with the program that are mutually adopted. North Carolina Deperlmenl p0FMRIM. l of Wawa' atr��1 a tft�y rlsa I arts a t.r HLttygyr(ay and Contriam i y o. ioplttant _ STATE O F F t i E u S 1 t)N l Y 11ATfE RECEIVED: DAlI [FELCTI�'E: LAM-, RLGORUy MANAGEIMEN1 GRANT APPLICATION MOIR rttk COMMON OF GIMPT619 t1tali MOM LAM&1fAf DATE OFFERED; AMOUNT: AN AGT 10 Kamm saasaTsma TO CQMTts FOR rtE aPnLIVEMINT OF LASp i*ECOmi r 1•1• 1't '' 1.-..,. .i,i� I,r. .:I .r.-�n.. r I.,•t , DATE ACCEPTED N.C. Deparundnl of NRCQ, bind Records W•tram P.O. Bar 270117, , N.C. 27e11 Hi hrIART; OF COUNTY ( C.MMIS`'(;Nt=fr5 OF: AREA CODC-"TM. Oran• e Count • 1 • e LSt-(street or tor, re,y ,own, rip [ode) 1I . E ma_ • . _ + - • • • • • , PROJECT TYPE:(check all applicable)r� TOTAL GRANT REQUEST: TOTAL EST. PROJECT COST: ®BASE MAPS LJPARCEL IDENTIFIER $ 47 ,277 - $ 94, 554 ❑CADASTRAL MAPS ❑AUTOMATED SYSTEM CERTIFICATION: The attached statements and exhibits ore hereby made port of this application and the undersigned representative of the applicant certifies that the information contained therein is true, correct, and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief. He Further certifies that: he has been authorized to file this application by formal action of the Board of County Commissioners of said County as is evidenced by the attached certified copy of authorization mode by the Board of County Commissioners; the applicant agrees that if a State Grant for the project is made pursuant to the Act to Provide Assistance to Counties for the Improvement al Land Records the opplicont will arrange financing for all remaining costs of the approved project; the applicant will provide proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the approved project after completion thereof; grid the applicant has substantially complied with or will substantially comply with all State and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the project. N P"ESENTATIVE: SIGNATURE: DATE: Roscoe E. Reeve, LRM �_,�,�+r4 F. 1 5-1-87 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (to be attached to application) - This item shall briefly define the work to be accomplished with the assistance of the grant funds requested herein. Such work shall be as outlined in the applicant county's Long Range Plan far Modernisation at Land Records broken down into convenient units or projects to be funded separately and in logical sequence, Projects should generally be scheduled to be completed within 3 years or less. Describe the proposed project in terms of man months, work elements and related costs. Indicate where additional personnel, consulting services. and equipment purchases may be required. Office spare and additional overti.ad expenses should be noted. Other details that will further define the project should be included to assist the Department , , .. ,y :Jr a most favcrahle aSLessnient ct the desci,bed project. I .•■nrr REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION (the folk.-,ny documents are required as fart of application, explain briefly if-they are not attached) 1. Resolution(s) of Board of County Commisrion..rs pr• v,ding required assurances and iyreeme.its. 2. Long Range Plan for Modernization of Land Records (see Keys to Modernization of County Land R•cords). 3, Agreements with affected county officials. 4. Name and address of Land Records Manager. 5. Resolution establishing capital reserve Fund(if applicable). - i + GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Enter number of parcels in County as of dote of application; Enter date of next revaluation: 3. Enter estimated project costs far appropriate protect: A. BASE MAPS (1) AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY I (2) CARTOGRAPHIC BASE MAPS (3) ORTHOPHOTO BASE MAPS $ 94,554 B. CADASTRAL MAPS C. STANDARDIZED SYSTEM OF PARCEL IDENTIFIERS F$ D. AUTOMATION OF LAND RECORDS TOTAL: H 94, 554 (3/6,) 054 Name and Address of Land Records Manager: Roscoe E Reeve Central Land Records Office 208 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Plan: This grant request is part of the on-going participation of Orange County in the State ' s Land Records Modernization Program throught the Department of Natural Resources_ & Community Development . This request is for the completion of Phase 3 orthophoto base maps of the six other townships of Orange County than Chapel Hill , and 'a.. small strip of Chapel Hill Township. (Resolution of Participation by Board of Commissioners to follow) FINANCIAL INFORMATION • 1, Suurr-e(s) of ,wide -- r�+� A, Funds to be made available by the uppltcanr: AMOUNT' 5 V DATE AVAILABLE CASH $ 47 ,277 7-1-87 • GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS $ OTHER Ispectly) $ B. STATE GRANT REQUESTED $ 47,277 C. FEDERAL GRANT—IN—AID $ TOTAL: $ 94,554 2. Nome sources and amounts of Fedepal grants and loans requested. Indicate status of each request: 3, If bond financing is required for Project: A.cYES Has bond issue been authorized by governing body' If yes, give amount& dote. ONO If nc, explain: B.QYES Is referendum required to opprove bond authorisation ? ONO 1. Eh ES Has referendum been held? If yes, give results and date: l 1PASS[jFAIL ONO If no, explain plans and proposed referendum date: 5, Estimate debt service to• increase caused by protect: 4. Most recent official rural tax rare; $ 0 . 65 per $100 assessed value $ per $100 assessed value 6. Outstanding bonded debt excluding bonds for this pro ect 7. Total appraised property valuation: $ $ 2,398, 285,351 8. Proposed project of $ , —hen added to existing indebtedness, does ••teed lesenr p debt limit provisions of the general laws of the Store. E•plain: dr AIMOr 051 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date May 19k 1987 ActionAtida Item SUBJECT: HUNTERS WOODS - PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: June 23, 1987 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment( s) Information Contact: Emily Crudup Application Vicinity Maps Preliminary Plan Preliminary Plan Certification Agency Comments Draft Planning Board Minutes ( 4-27-87) Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of the preliminary plan for the division of lots 3 and 4 of Hunters ' Woods. BACKGROUND: The property is located in Bingham Township south of Orange Grove Road and adjacent to Collins Creek . The total acreage of lots 3 and 4 is 20.06 acres. Three ( 3) lots are proposed; two lots are 3.58 acres in size, and the third is 12.9 acres. The tract is zoned Residential -1 and is designated as Rural Residential on the Land Use Plan. All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. Extension of an existing Class B private road is proposed to provide access to the site. A private road is justified as follows : 1 . The subdivision consists of less than than 10 lots. One ( 1 ) additional lot is to be added to eight ( 8) existing lots for a total of nine (9) lots. 2. The subdivision does not include or abut any part of a thoroughfare or street shown on the Orange County thoroughfare plan or the thoroughfare plan of an Orange County municipality. 3. The subdivision joins an existing subdivision where the • O5r DIVISION OF LOTS 3 AND 4 OF HUNTERS ' WOODS PRELIMINARY PLAN PAGE 2 streets are private or unpaved. Charles Lane is a Class B private road and unpaved. All lots would front on the extension of the existing private road. At its April 27 , 1987 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of preliminary plan subject to the following conditions: ( 1 ) Designation of a 50-foot stream buffer adjacent to Collins Creek as required by Section IV-B-9-b of the Subdivision Regulations . (2) A clear delineation of the 100-year flood plain boundary as the building setback line on the plat. ( 3) Removal of the pre-existing cul -de-sac radius where lots 3A, 3B and 2A and tracts intersect to provide a uniform right-of-way radius. (4) Provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted . RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends approval of the preliminary plan as recommended by the Planning Board. The Board of Commissioners has thirty-six ( 36) days within which to act on this application. The deadline for action is June 23, 1987 . 056 11/85 r ' A ORANGE COUNTY GATE; 2, SUBDIVISION NAME: ■ ),.., e, _4J*- j . *F LDCATTON: y N [ OWNER/DEVELOPER: ADDRESS: • TELEPHONE NO. : AGENT/CONTACT: ‘ TELEPHONE NO. : A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tax Ms Zoning Districtls] : p jai._ Stook ... ! Latta] ■l To+rnahlp 'l (p Tout Number of Acres: ,d Total Number of Lots: ..,1_,.. Phases ; Number/Type of Structur (existing) Lot Si xe' {� Minim Lot SIZE 3.T� Lineal Feet in Streets: _ ± lot ropoaed)ylNGtc �►..�� v Meter Supply: —� Acres in Open Space Water Supply: Disposal: Public(specify) Community y -.Individusl Community ..X—Indsriduol General Land Use, in Are.: Fire District: Criticei Areas; str.am/drsinegeweys watershed(apecl�)flood prone erase athariexplain] __historic sites S. ALL plats Bust be submitted on sheet no sae hundred .feet Ii "#2001I end. LLsr then . one inch ague La tMa- (1 d=SDi ) end must contain the fo llowingrinformation; inch aqua la lift y feel rerdielelew weer ' building set back lines easy et owwerla) r ' notation or typical Cot eGC items nrwe ' �ler. awplwrrr or t:. . layout lend planner 4::.: sainting end proposed crew- mot l e ted) w [title) 'reli•lnrry PL.. ,:vg manta la rstn rpe. utilities, - seals. nrr error lhorew et resits, eta.)top of raw) existing. proposed •wd. ditty Ziralydtup revision dates] •eJeinin p r1 ghte—ofwrJry . torwNi P• !e ••P—r trek—lee. inalydinp dimension* and 4.- references stray? nwrrw rwr •tltw reed reeuw•ry ewwwrieud with Se�! Peering. awe dtetrwwrs members i tasal ••re �'° • end efr of the erect «w. arising end p �,� servings of lots. few lee/wp utilities. :... end se vrdlw type. size!, including r1 pte�t 0 area within :?^^"- y -':-: P trey �,} hyrreetw, q tome and eewlrel earner ' •nwwelee +L :A_ &renewer let linos with • : : ihiw stinting end dieewelewe kY i•aLua/n proposed srLverL ids ermear• typical itrweseerees..!•ction• se.t- —�'V...: yv .: abasing ?twee {^: : ewe intsnrrct•i•n •b..i epwy et tat fleet (10) $ tlrtb �.. , r:: iwwl•diwp design one rletb : , 1w!•rrrla et t►swetrry and •haYldars ester eN1•s. etrw••r bsrizentel ewe rod ties. et ee . ?toed— 'alignment" end +:t Oeh•rsl array seta (public Stromlo buffers end notation re•rr) lneia•tiwp rwwsriifteq P•atrnrnL f f. !•?errs such 7?� dw•a/ePrf•nt k $ buildings, en : trrnakl Prtsweiel '` gs, 000000rine. &. nerparrsr end nitre— L ti.y histiri! lwwerrrt•. •Yri':: territerlel planning adJoiklwp leL Ju►ISdtwt7en tiara ekleh nor of adjoining wfrut / •:; Crop the P'OPerty cancan •wtl rr6divgeyp.ertr• lunation end size of de cs;:O in OOepn Parau/r dedicated ter pYrlic Yaw er rs•rrrsd ir. lewrttrr and rizr of leer of f fix• notation en plat ruperdlnp •e•e rewtrlotro aavleprrnt P wwlrr ern 1!t Inc tire? 1/2 iwehegf erwp51.. Inrl•stina Provision impervious for ecnerdl of Lh• rYr ■ur/ear• (GRAY AREAS me Orr' 05 C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: 1 . Twenty—six (28) copies of the preliminary plat 2. Two full size copies of en Orange County Tax map (one copy with to parcels involved clearly marked) . 3. Where municipal or OMASA sewer 1 • not ovallablr, • Letter from the County Health Department certifying the proposed system arena each lot. I , the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application i • ■ccu rate . I understand that a 8210.00 cts o its ss, or a #370.00 fre (subdivisions of 18 fee (subdivisions of 15 iota or leas; •ppllcat ion . A 86.00 lots or more) 1s due at the time v� • par lot tae 1s due at the time the final plat presented for recordation , i � / # APPLI ANT'S SIGNATURE OWNER 'S SYGhATURE 27 1 DATE • • • OAT E FEES: Amount O5 Date Paid 2.2- •V7 Receipt l21 3g /i 1 ... . _ ._ ,tt 9 FU MAP VA •' ..J. P4 R/S, ;�i �- 060 ,.../, I o v 151 O 1a OF L2T5 3 AA17 4 . 1\ ,\ _ 6 or 44 V Jll' 1tt1O4P5 �, -- 'Pi DF : aattV�1�o .p SL.LI `. yr. .. —..—— - - - a i i i-r • • / r -ry 27c ,, 1 - ... . .I I (KELLY • ;; ;- I I THOMAS) I I • a II I _ r. rAOPRAzN» PAR..T.S T may. 1 GE ti 11 44 , 7-- • • ) .1. . I 1 1472 ,r . Oil' • • ./ . .. 30 • .. .,_ 1 _ .• .., . . _ . . . . .. . w ;1 . ... ,...,! . .. ._- HUNTERS' WOODS 41,4'c::: . . . fty\ . &Wiwi T$ MANSE CO..NORTH CAROutio OCTOBER 29, AS1.96 .... • •, scoLE Arcy' .• . . . . v lb. i„roL,,, 51_ ,....._aa ... ,?0 - • .• - t• " 06 1 . 1.... 1;,_. . .2:, - ---..-- Erimnp rep Stal. ....••■-...0••■••■•• MDR AVIN•Sel .e. • • -IT% - . ii0M•••42//07/PI. . • .,;et•Zreslt,t4. • 6 ° •, • ' ' • • . i 5:. La,, a . ..a e . t . . . • . ' e St • 9.' - • . .1:• LW,w has- ..k. 14 • . .91 . . . . e La.ail . . CI . • ;:: • I I . 1 il ------ • . . 'Amara,wl fpgr away pARrNevisrem•.1• 1 II WA 199.10.A9 E % PS MAW I - IL& I I ' I LW EE 4-5 a) 4w WI li • I I . . .. . .• • - • sv" . 1 6.7.86.0 Ad 24.•/0-50—f7..I. . thia.r7 , v. . livro&K- I -" • ESESIZ - maw OW _ • le . • CAtaik..E5 LANE, 191.47 ' la - S . . • 7,.. ; -• II- : .. z, • • _ ;„,r. 10-95 aa e.' • • . .p. ' 4 - t . le May awn t : • . . ct3$13 simi tl • i Z ODE s 0 ..9 k .0 ( ,,,., 3FY I i at"-" '4 4ggb \ . 1\iao,f : • :r, % . iaol Ae. r ey.z. %2, 4t•NeNt 40, • 44.. 390.00 t • ••■• ..."-- SV-e2-z3 w 549.46 a.m. A '2. ••••• •ww %. Zr. 4...., w t••• • !,• s. • • .r. _ 4544.,,C..,00.o. GE:71-a•La .,a •■ (.7.,‘, C." 41 g . - ,i-t• 1 0 i ---..,1 cal c4 " t ....., 2 a his War'..."• • a V.°. C.9 , ii • •°.°•:;•.‘A...■a.,6114)(X., ft 14 Ca., ",e5WIC.?.."•7'n. C-P9 C." Ea9 L 2193A4 . . a C.L9 FAO N.. C.E * ‘ - =,. • ::;.PAP Gal 7.11 ' PPS, 0 ; \C•r0 - ••••-- l'• . •• l• • -- ••• •••• 12 mom g•dr woo a irogeny kw, 05 Ac x i ar• :e 7. . . 1 • l: • bon . . MIS . - ••• • ... . . • • &ZS COLLINS CREEK DATA a,,•• [-I a 66-53-54 o 124.11 C-15 S 24.31-23• • . :••;•• ... C-? I.•1•1••01• S4.21 C-16 S WWI?e • 'at ••••-e,1 E•: 4 4,12-57■ 91.151 C•I, 5 12•43.5:• ' - e c..p. .:•• 5.4.:•11.:.• .24. :-■i 5 41-:•••:•• • 1 A - c.a., . . DIVISION OF LOTS 3 AND 4 OF HUNTERS ' WOODS O6 11 /85 ORANGg COUNTY DERTIFICATIO11 ABD APPR^VALS - PRELIMLNARY PLAI STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Emily Crudup SKETCH PLAN: Received Reviewed PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 2-27-87 _ Reviewed 3-11-87 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received Reviewed NCDOT: DATE CERTIFICATION SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill -Carrboro) : DATE 3-23-87 CERTIFICATION N/A UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE Certification OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council _(Date ) Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel Hill (Date) Carrboro (Date) Hillsborough _(Date) Durham (Date) Other S & E W. Faircloth. 4-l-87_(Date) Health T.Konsler, 3-26-87 (Date) PLANNING' BOARD : Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS : Date Approval _ Approval with Conditions Denial ORANGE CO NTI PLANNING DEPARTMENT O b 4 mLLSBOROtTGS NOP^_'H CAROLINA 27276 1 a• y...4.,...%, ;7i~ IS: MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Crudup, Planner FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Stormwater Management Plan for Hunter ' s Woods DATE: April 1 , 1987 The plan for this subdivision proposes to meet the Ordinance requirements by using large lots, limited impervious surface on each lot, and a buffer of vegetation around the perimeter of each lot to filter and absorb runoff. The plan meets the Ordinance requirements. (1 hAxiieli14.1h11 MM 064 The application for preliminary subdivision plat approval was received on January 30, 1987 . The 85-day review period expired on April 24, 1987 . The plat would have been considered by the Planning Board on April 20, 1987, but the meeting was postponed to April 27 , 1987 due to a County holiday. Crudup continued noting that in regard to condition #2, the Orange County Recreation Parks and Recreation Director had negotiated with Mr. Lloyd for dedication of the entire stream buffer area. However, Mr. Lloyd responded that he does not wish to dedicate additional area. ( See copy of attached memo) . The applicant, Carl Lloyd responding to a question by Yuhasz, said that he had no problem with the 30 foot pedestrian easement required in condition #3. In regard to condition #4, the road name is Holly Creek Lane. Jacobs inquired if the owner-maintained tracts 1 , 2 and 3 were developed, would the road be upgraded to State standards and dedicated public. Szymik responded that, as the private road assessment indicated, development density in the subdivision would not meet NCDOT requirements for State main- tained roads. With as few as five (5 ) additional lots created by further subdivision, the density requirement would be met. The subdivision was designed, by keeping the road easement in single ownership, to facilitate public dedication. MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval with staff conditions. Seconded by Walters. VOTE: Unanimous. Jacobs stated that the applicant might wish to consider a conservation easement on the stream buffer. This would also provide a tax break for the owner. g. Hunters Woods - Preliminary Plat (Bingham Township) Presentation by Crudup. This plan is for the division of lots 3 and 4 of Hunters ' Woods. The property is located in Bingham Township south of II A /A IF If 13 060 Orange Grove Road and adjacent to Collins Creek. The total acreage of lots 3 and 4 is 20.06 acres. Three (3) lots are proposed, averaging 6.39 acres in size. The tract is zoned Residential -1 and is designated as Rural Residential on the Land Use Plan. All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. Extension of an existing Class B private road is proposed to provide access to the site. Approval of preliminary plan subject to the following conditions: ( 1 ) Designation of a 50-foot stream buffer adjacent to Collins Creek as required by Section IV-B-9-b of the Subdivision Regulations. (2) A clear delineation of the 100-year flood plain boundary and building setback lines on the plat. (3) Removal of the pre-existing cul -de-sac radius where lots 3A, 3B and 2A and tracts intersect to provide a uniform right-of-way radius. The application for preliminary subdivision approval was accepted on February 27, 1987 . The pi$5 day review period expires on May 23, 1987. Crudup noted that the actual lot sizes are two lots at 3.58 acres and one lot at 12.9 acres. Jacobs asked for clarification of condition #2. Szymik responded that this refers to the use of the floodplain boundaries as the setback lines. There should be a clear designation on the plat indicating this. MOTION: Swann moved approval with staff conditions. Seconded by Hubbard. VOTE: 7 in favor. 1 abstained (Yuhasz - due to conflict of interest) . h . Sunset Ridge - Preliminary Plat ( Cheeks Township) Presentation by Kirk. The . property is located in Cheeks Township south of West MEML 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date May 19, 1987 Action da Item SUBJECT: PROPOSED JPA LAND USE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT ACTION BY: May 19, 1987 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No ATTACHMENT( S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bell Citizen Petitions JPA Land Use Plan Text 4-27-87 Planning Board Minutes 3-10-87 Public Hearing Minutes 4-13-87 Memo to Chapel Hill Council from Town Manager TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel HiII - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of the two-acre minimum lot size standard for the Rural Buffer as set forth in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan . BACKGROUND: On October 13, 1986, the Orange County Board of Commis- sioners and the Chapel Hill Town Council adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Denoted on the Plan map and in the text residential use gy, described s low-density least two acres in size. To conform the Orange County Zoning Ordinance ( and Atlas) with the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, a public hearing was held on November 24, 1986. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a proposed Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district and accompanying dimensional requirements, including a two- acre minimum lot size requirement . On January 5 , 1987 , the Board of Commissioners adopted the RB zoning district designation and dimensional requirements applicable therein. At the same meeting, petitions with 643 signatures were received, requesting that the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan be amended to reduce the lot size stan- dard in the Rural Buffer from "one dwelling unit per two acres" to "one dwelling per acre" . Subsequently, a joint public hearing was Town public comment on Chapel plr for . The purpose 06'' PROPOSED JPA LAND USE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT PAGE 2 matter was then referred to the Town and the Orange County Planning Board for recommendation . On April 13, 1987 , the Chapel Hill Town Council adopted a resolution which indicated : ( 1 ) That a density of one dwelling unit per two acres of land to be an appropriate density for the Rural Buffer; and (2) That the Orange County Board of Commissioners not change zoning designations in the Rural Buffer as requested by citizen petitions. The Planning Board met on April 27 , 1987, and recommended approval of the citizen petition for a reduction in the Rural Buffer lot size standard as contained in the text of the JPA Land Use Plan. The Planning Board recommends that the lot size standard be reduced from two ( 2) acres to one ( 1 ) acre. The Planning Board approved this recommendation by a vote of 5-3. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends : ( 1 ) Board action at this time inasmuch as recommendations have been received from the other party to the Joint Planning Agreement and the Orange County Planning Board; and ( 2) retention of the two-acre minimum lot size standard in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as originally adopted October 13, 1986 and made a part of the Zoning Ordinance on January 5, 1987 . 066 - PETITI3N TO AMEND JOINT PLANNING LAND U=E PLAN WHEREAS, the Or ,e county Board of Commissioners ..dopted the Orange_ County-Chap Hil -Carrboro Joint Planning L=,_• 1 Use Plan on October 13. 986; and WHEREAS, the /RI _ planning Land Use Plan contains a land use classificat n of Rural Residential and descr;ues said classificat yn as a low-density area consisti..; of single-family homes situated on large lots tw;, acres in size or greater; an,; WHEREAS, Orange aunty has required compliance wit.: the two-acre lot size stands; .1 through application of its Sub.. vision Regulations; and WHEREAS, Orange (. )unty conducted a public hearing ...1 November 24, 1986, for th- 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 ar, dimensional requirements applicable therein; and WHEREAS, the two- -cre minimum lot substantially in..-eases the cost of housing :d is therefore directly contrary to any intention the county tzs of providing affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot imposes hardship on the majority of land ovine's, most of whom have struggled for many years to pay for the ;.- and and the taxes thereon, and would like to use the land for their children or realize some b:sref i t to themselves . ..ther than lose the value thereof; and WHEREAS, the two .cre minimum lot standard makes t... extension of public water and sewer lines to new developme.ts uneconomic, thereby encc .raging the use of septic tanks ar.d wells, both of which are a'-•f ady causing increasing health ar.d sanitation problems; a, . • WHEREAS, as more nd more people settle in the coui. Ly, public water and sewer wi I of necessity have to be extendi. 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 cl _ster developments with aedicated 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 reservation: about making loans on non-conf or:::ng property; and WHEREAS, under th_ present two acre standard, exis'_4.1g structures on non-conformi -,g lots, if damaged by catastrophe, might not be rebuildable in a manner suitable to the owner's needs: THE FOLLOWING RESTDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS LIVING WITHIN THE PROPOSED RURAL BUFFER (RB) ZONING DISTRICT AND ELSEWHERE IN ORANGE COUNT: RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIC •ZRS AMEND THE ORANGE COUNTY-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBDRO JOINT PLANNI -.S LAND USE PLAN TO CHANGE THE MIN:MUM LOT SIZE PER DWELLING FR(p TWO (2) ACRES TO ONE (1) ACRE WITHIN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE PLAN CLASSIFICATION: SIC• aTURE ADDRFeS .3 61) / 1.4 ,< fr. r kr Q6� 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: r • 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 Rousing 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:. - I 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks suture public health problems. ADDRESS '' '"-'''r TELEPHONE (7. 6/7/...ift .<4.11.1-Z, 7.:;0 7 lier 2-4 2-7 -72 /2- l/etfy.:_-,ef - S-7°0-2 z .3.f2r9 -5 '$'l_ 4 ' /J cl't 7 .• ��� 1 1/4.1L- 46- / &I( 4-I, 3r5• 7 7 ( 'T ;LJ. i, y ., 7- c 71/47f 1111 • :� 1-1 .s ,�• _A- ± . _ .c VI • FUTURE LAND USE - JOINT PLANNING AREA `� In this section, anticipated patterns of future land development are outlined for the Joint Planning Area, exclusive of Carrboro and Chapel Hill . The future land use patterns described In this section are based, in part, on the population, economic and existing land use trends identified in background studies. Also considered in the formulation of these patterns were environmental features, infrastructure and service concerns, operating principles, locational standards and concept/strategy maps developed for the Joint •Pianning Area or currently existing In the Orange County Land Use Plan . Finally, comments received at two public hearings, six public Information meetings, and the recom- mendations of town and county advisory and governing boards were con- sidered in the formulation of the plan. The discussion of the Plan centers on four broad categories of land use - Residential , Commercial , Industrial and Resource Conservation. Resident i t Lan Three categories of residential land have been depicted on the Land Use Plan - Rural Residential , Suburban Residential and Urban Residential . The three categories are discussed below. Rum ResUert1D1 _. The first of the categories Is Rural Residential , a low-density area consisting of single family homes situated on large lots two acres in size or greater. The• Rural Residential designation is identical to the Rural Buffer category . contained in the current Orange County Lend Use Plea. The Rural Buffer category is described in the Plan as land adjacent to an Urban or Transition area which is rural . In character and which should remain rural , contain very low-density residential uses and not require urban services (water and sewer) during the Plan period. The Town of Carr- bore, while supporting the concept of a Rural Buffer, has gone on record 1 n favor, of large tract cluster dove l opmetnt as opposed to a two acre lot size restriction . At ttie time of the second public hearing In April , the entire Bolin Creek Basin was designated as transition area. Plan revisions made following the hearing resulted in a southward extension oftheRural Buffer into a sizable portion of the transition area.. Three primary rea- sons are advanced for this redesignatlon: ( 1 ) Protection of Duke Forest - The Duke Forest Manager requested that all lands bordering Duke Forest be .-given the lowest in- tensity uses possible to lessen potential impacts. Suburban Residential areas bordering Duke Forest were redesignated as Rural Residential . (2) Deletion of the Celvender Commercial/ Industrial Node - It was felt that deleting the sizable area designated for light manu- facturing, retail , and Office/Institutional would likewise 71 07i. D538Fir MINUTES JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 10, 1987 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Joint session with the Orange County Planning Board on March 10, 1987 at 7 :30 in the Cultural Arts Center, Chapel Hill High School , Chapel Hill , North Carolina for a quarterly Joint planning public hearing. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT, Chair Shirley E. Marshall and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr. , John Hartwell , Stephen Halkiotis and Don Willhoit. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT; Barry Jacobs (Chair) , Chris Best, Dan Eddleman, Peter Kramer, Mike Lewis, Betty Margison, Sharlene Pilkey, Brenda Swann, Prince Taylor, Carl Walters, Steve Yuhasz. • A. BOARD UMMENT/ Chair Marshall apologized for the notices being sent out late to those citizens who' reside in the Rural Buffer area. She stated that 'otices . had been published in the newspapers. AUD LENCE QPMPENTS. 1 - MATTERS_ ON T95 PR I j(TED AGENDA Those who had signed up to speak will be recognized at the appropriate time. 2. MATTERS NOT ON Ti5 PRINTED AGENDA None. PUBLI; CHARGE Chair,. Marshall read the Public Charge as contained in the agenda. County Attorney Geoffrey .Gledhill made reference to the provision in -he Rural Buffer Study that would allow property owners of record in the RB -o create one lot for each child which would be exempt from the size equlrements of the RB zoning classification . He stated that there are = 1s0 two other amendments that are related to that exemption and they would :ot be necessary If the Board accepts ey recommendation to not permit an -xemption for special consideration for children or family members. He -ontinued stating reasons for his recommendation against allowing the xemption, is that in his opinion the County would be either without uthority to do that or would in other ways violate the laws of the United totes and North Carolina. he cited the 14th amendment of the U.S. onstitution which requires equal protection under the laws that regulate and use. The focus of the power of that legislation is on the use of the roperty rather than on the ownership. There is no rational basis under ne law for distinguishing between owners of property when the property is dentical . The North Carolina Constitution hes a similar provision rticle 1 , Section 19 says that no person shall be denied equal protection 072 2 of the laws. Article 1 , Section 32 states that no person or set of persons is entitled to exclusive or separate ambience or privileges from the :ommunity but in consideration of public service. There is no public service Involved in this provision which would exempt family members from dimensional requirements of the Ordinance. Therefore, there Is a likelihood that any exemption for family members would likewise violate the constitution. The enabling legislation which allows counties to zone is contained in Chapter 153A of the North Carolina General Statutes. There are two sections - ( 1 ) Grant of Power which allows the County for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals or the general welfare to regulate the height and the number of stories, the percentage of the lot that may be occupied, lot sizes and densities, etc. (2) Purposes - zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan and designed to lessen congestion in the streets, to secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers, to promote health and the general welfare, to provide adequate light and air, to prevent the overcrowding of land, to avoid undue concentration of population, and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer, schools, parks and other public requirements. None of these purposes have anything to do with ownership of the property. Therefore any classification of property in regard to ownership would be beyond the authority of the County. The Supreme Court of North Carolina has expressed concern with legislation that would have the same effect as this legislation in a number of ways. One of the limitations on zoning restrictions is that you cannot create zoning districts which are not consistent with the comprehensive plan . This restriction is known as the limitation on spot zoning. Spot zoning would -be the result of such an exemption and would very probably be invalidated yy the courts. The theory behind the limitation on spot zoning is that the _.aecislon is arbitrary and not based on the general purposes of the zoning enabling legislation. Gledhill continued that the problem is there would be no legal reasonable basis for distinguishing between the property that would be owned by the family members and the property owned by other people. For this reason, he recommended to the Board that they not create this special fam 14•y exemption. ";Commissioner Willhoit asked about similar prohibition against exempting minor subdivisions from these provisions since they are exempt from other aspects of the Ordinance. • Gledhill responded that minor subdivisions under the County Sub- division regulations are subject to all the substantive provisions of major subdivisions. The difference between minor and major subdivisions is the process. They are required.'-to meet all the same standards. In answer to a question from Council Member Julie Andresen, Gledhill stated that he did not have enough information or background on the Chesapeake County, Maryland case to comment as to whether or not it would be subject to a federal constitutional attack. The risk is that the people who will complain will not be the family members but those who wish to develop the property in higher density who would complain of unfair -eatment. Chair Marshall assured the public that even though a few lots are involved that the Board is concerned and determined to find a solution for 074 those families affected. 3 Planning Director Marvin Collins informed the public of changes which had been implemented to help make the public notices in the newspaper easier to locate such as the logo which has been added to the top of the notice and the addition of bold print for each topic that will be heard. in addition, he has been working with the news reporters to have lead stories as well as articles in other areas of the papers concerning the public hearing items. He indicated that the Durham Morning Herald , 'jag the News an. Observer and the dews of Orange are those newspapers in which the public hearing notices are placed. He noted there was a miscommunication about the mailing of the postcards. It was decided to send them out late rather than not send them at all . DPFNIpe STATEMENTS Marvin Collins explained that there are two items scheduled for public hearing. The first item has to do with a rural buffer study that was prepared by the Orange County Planning Department at the request of the Board of Commissioners. The second item has to do with a citizens ' petition that was presented to the Board of -Commissioners on January 5, 1987 which requested the Joint Planning Land Use Plan (plan for the southeastern portion of the County) which was jointly adopted by the Board of Commissioners and the Town of Chapel Hill be amended to change the text. The specific text provision requested for amendment is the minimum lot size standard in the Rural Buffer. That minimum lot size standard was set at one dwelling unit per two . acres when the plan was jointly approved on October 13, 1986. The requested amendment is to reduce that standard back. to the original one dwelling unit per 40,000 square feet (0.92 acre) . Because both items are separate but interrelated they will be considered at the same time. Collins indicated the staff members who would be involved in the presentation were Greg Szymik (current planning) , Gene Bell and Brad Torgan (comprehensive/ long range planning) , and Emily Crudup (current planning ) . =ollowing the Orange County presentation, the Chapel Hill Planning Director Roger Weldon would make a brief presentation of the Chapel Hill perspective -egarding the Rural Buffer concept. Collins began the presentation highlighting some of the points in the iistory of joint planning. On October 13, 1986, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the , own of Chapel Hill adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. On dovember 24, 1986, a public hearing was held by the Orange County Board of 3ommissioners to consider the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning itias to create the Rural Buffer District and to apply that district designation to 38,000. acres of land surrounding the Chapel Hlll -Carrboro area. The most significant change proposed was an increase In the minimum -esidentlal lot size requirement from 40, 000 square feet (0.92 acre) to two 2) acres. One of the concerns of the residents who live within the rural buffer as the issue of property rights. The owners felt that the two acre inimum lot size requirement denies them reasonable use of their land. The oncern presented by the County Attorney previously was also raised by some 074 4 of the residents. Nonconforming lots was also a concern. Many owners felt it was unfair to require the combination of contiguous lots to meet the 'wo-acre minimum lot size since these lots had been created under existing legal ordinances. Affordable housing was another major issue. With the increase in minimum lot size requirement and the increase in land cost, many families would be unable to create building lots for children . Environmental. Impacts was another concern. Soil conditions in the Rural Buffer are limited with regard to their capacity to absorb septic tank effluent. It was felt that with these limitations, there would be a real threat for groundwater contamination . It is the current policy not to allow public . water and sewer into the rural butter except in emergency situations. Tax Increases and the ability to fund services in the Rural Buffer was another concern. There was also a concern that the more stringent requirements of the Rural Buffer would encourage leap frog development. On January 5, 1987, the Board of Commissioners approved the Rural Buffer zoning district designation and applied that designation to the 38,000 acres of land. Also at that meeting, a petition was presented by approximately 650 citizens having to do with the reduction of the two-acre minimum lot size to 40,000 square feet (0.92 acre) . Collins stated that because the Rural Buffer is a part of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and because of the existence of the Joint Planning Agreement between the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County, both Boards were required to sit jointly at the hearing and both Boards were required to take action on the requests. Collins explained that the Rural Buffer Study was broken down into three •maln sections, DATA AND ANALYSIS, POLICY ANALYSIS, and IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM. • Concurrent with the preparation of the study, a new Joint Planning Agreement was signed by Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill on February 3, 1987. The agreement establis$ ithin the Rural Buffer, the Chapel Hill Joint Development Area (CHJDA) which lies north of I -40 and - east of a north-south line adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Blackwood Division of Duke Forest. . Within this area, Orange County standards and ordinances are in effect and the Town of Chapel Hill Is granted courtesy review. Orange County may not vote to issue or deny to development permit until it has received the recommendations of Chapel Hill or until the expiration of forty-five (45) days after Chapel Hill has received the application, whichever occurs first. The new agreement becomes effective upon adoption of a zoning map and the Chapel Hill Land Development Ordinance by Orange County. The first draft of the Rural Buffer Study was completed on Februar 1987 and distributed to the Orange. County Planning Board and Chapel ell ' and Carrboro Planning Department for review. Following this review, a revision of the study was produced on March 4, 1987 . Major recommendations 070 contained in the study include: 5 1 . Retain the two-acre minimum lot size requirement. Collins indicated the following reasons for retaining the two- acre minimum lot size requirement: a) The Rural Buffer concept as adopted by the County is an important growth management strategy in terms of defining the growth boundaries for the Chapel Hill /Carrboro area and preventing the sprawl of the urban area in the southeastern portion of the County. b) Equally important is the issue of environmental protection and open specs. As well as University Lake Watershed, there is a substantial portion of Duke Forest and a significant amount of environmentally sensitive areas in the Rural Buffer. There are farms that are in operation or under use value taxation that contribute greatly to the open space , surrounding the Chapel Hill /Carrboro area. For these reasons, the Planning Staff feels it is critical to - maintain the two-acre minimum lot size requirement. 2. Retain the policy prohibiting extension of water and sewer . facilities into the Rural Buffer except in emergency situations. Collins indicated that allowing public water end sewer - extensions the potential for increased density is much greater. 3. Delete Article 11 .7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, Non-Conforming Lots. The amendment would allow owners of adjacent, undeveloped lots less than two (2) acres in size to develop their lots without combining them to create conforming lots. 4. . Amend Article 4.2. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, Rural Buffer (RB) Zoning district. The amendment would allow property owners of record in the Rural Buffer to create- -, ne lot for each child. such lots would be exempt frOm RB dimensional requirements, but would conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-1 Residential zoning district. The proposed amendment would add the . following paragraph to Article 4.2. 1 . e) Exempt Lots A lot created for use for a one-family residence by a child, or spouse of a child, or an owner of property 0713 6 zoned Rural Buffer would be exempt from the dimen- sional requirements of the Rural Buffer zoning district. Such a lot would be created in accordance with the dimensional requirements of the Rural Residential (R-1 ) Zoning District. This exemption will apply only if the property owner can establish that he had legal title on or before January 5, 1987 and shall apply to only one such lot for each child of the property owner. Collins reminded the Boards of the County Attorney's comments on this recommendation. 5. Amend Section IV-B-10 of the Subdivision Regulations, Cluster Developments. The amendment would prohibit exempt lots created under Article 4.2. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance from being further " reduced In size under the provisions of this Section . The amendment would consist of . the following changes: Renumber paragraphs 1V-B-10-C-a/b/c/d to 1V-B-10-C-b/c/d/e respectively. Add the new paragraph . IV-B-10-C-a a. Exempt- lots created in accordance with Article 4.2. 1 may not be further reduced In size by application of the provisions of this Section. 6. Amend the Zoning Atlas by applying the Public Interest District (PID) Zoning District to applicable lands. Collins indicated the PID zoning district is one designated for lands which are in public ownership. It also addresses private lands which represent designated open space areas such as the Duke Forest holdings. The minimum lot size requirement within the PID district is 400,00D square feet (approximately five (5) acres. Planning Staff would recommend seeking application of the PID district throughout the County. 7. Initiate a Purchase of Development Rights program by author- izing the Planning Department to prepare an Implementation Plan. Collins explained that acquisition of development rights means that the County would seek to acquire development rights for individual property owners for their property in such a manner that a lower density than permitted would be achieved. The County would compensate the property owner for the acquisition of the development rights. 8. Pursue special legislation to allow Transfer of Development Rights. 07 ' 7 Collins explained that for each individual property within an area there 1s a value placed on those development rights which may be on an acreage or per lot basis and the value is assigned by the County working with the individual property owners. The rights are then transferred to another portion of the County. Receiving areas are identified. He noted that this had been an successful program in Montgomery County, Maryland in relation to agricultural preservation. He also noted it had been successful in the Pinelands of New Jersey for environmental protection as well as agriculture preservation . 9. Amend Cluster Development provisions to encourage its use. Collins stated that this would promote the provision of open space In the Rural Buffer. 10. Collect additional data on : a. environmentally significant areas; b. septic system failures; c. techniques to maintain visual quality. Collins indicated a more in-depth study should be done to more accurately determine the situation with septic tank failures. The need for an inventory of environmentally sensitive areas in Orange County has also been indicated. Planning Staff also feels the need for a study to ascertain the visual characteristics of the area and what design standards could be implemented in order to maintain that visual quality. Commissioner Hartwell asked If a mechanism was in place to tax the :roperty .owner at a lower tax rate after having sold development rights. :ollins responded that the impact aspect would be reviewed as a part of the iuthorizat,i,on to prepare an implementation plan. Hartwell indicated that orsyth County has an implementation plan whereby only the County Is flowed to purchase development rights and the property owner 1s taxed at se value. Chapel Hill Town Council Member, R. D. Smith asked what the regula- -ions were governing non-conformities -in - the Rural Buffer and how many lots .ould be nonconforming under this regujetion. Collins responded that ,rticle 11 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance addresses nonconforming ots. He indicated that of the 4500 lots in the Rural Buffer approximately elf of them would be nonconformin uld n onstitute 5 to 10% of the total acreage inHthevRuralhBuffer Qts would only Mr. Smith continued asking the consequences of having a nonconforming ot. Collins responded that the nonconforming status stayed with the land ntil such time as the ordinance is amended to make it conforming or the roperty owner acquires additional land or takes whatever steps necessary o make the lot conforming. 0Th Roger Weldon, Chapel Hill Planning Director 8 Perspective on Rural Buffer Issues. presented Chapel Hill ' s Weldon began his presentation by commending the Orange County Planning Department on the Rural Buffer Study document. He indicated that felt the of key points of the Rural Buffer recommen- dations. He stated that from a c some good policy s in staff perspective, Chapel Hill is in support of the recommendations as presented by Collins and that adoption of those recommendations would achieve the successful implementation of the Rural Buffer concept. Weldon stated that the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan and the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan have as a foundation the concept of urban area surrounded by a low-density rural buffer. n a fixed such a concept would encourage urban development to occureinndareasdwhich that can be most easily served by the urban services it will require. Such plans preserve the low-density nature of Central Orange County. Weldon listed four points in answer to the question of "Why a 2-acre minimum lot size?" 1 ) When water and sewer are extended, development at urban occur; ban type 2) the concept of a low-density rural buffer demands that - and sewer not be extended into the Rural Buffer; 3) water a two-acre minimum lot size will insure that water and sewer are not extended, that the character of Central Orange County will be preserved and that there will be ample land for individual wastewater disposal systems now and in the future; 4) If the minimum lot size requirement was one-acre, this would create a sprawling development pattern at such a density which would demand urban services. Mary Ellen Priestly Mrs. Priestly stated that she owners and taxpayers in Orange County and her husband had been.. property for being able to live in a rural sett ingcwith97treeshandotwildlife. She expressed concern with the impact that will be created by the opening She She encouraged maintaining the rural atmosphere of those rural of the Count Y. She continued citing examples of the loss of rural commun- itiee"she had witnessed in other areas. e the growth and she felt that the creation of the She and then acre of twoi re minimum lot size to be a good step forward in this effort. John P. Sherron Mr.. Sherron asked that the reduction of the minimum lot size re quir- anent be reduced to one acre. 1 u7 Clara P. Trice 9 Ms. Trice also indicated the desire for a one-acre minimum lot size. James Bumphus . Mr. Bumphus asked that the minimum lot size be one acre. Delois Turner Ms. Turner indicated the desire for a one acre lot size. Regina Nobb l i tt Mrs. Nobblitt stated that her desire was to give her son one of the two acres belonging to her and thus was in favor of the one acre minimum lot size. Brian Yeargan Mr. Yeargan indicated the property owned by his family had been in their ownership seventy years. He stated that young people were needed in the communities in Orange County. He felt that the regulations of the Health Department regarding septic tanks was sufficient for regulating lot sizes. He expressed a concern that perhaps the Rural Buffer is simply a means for future annexation by the Town of Chapel H111 . He asked that decisions be made which would help all the citizens have homes in Orange :ounty. Lois Herring Ms. Herring indicated she was in favor of the two acre minimum lot size especially in the University Lake Watershed. She noted that increased 3ensity in a watershed decreases water quality. She Indicated that "she elt the right to use land carries many responsiblltles such as protection )f the water supply and to pass the land on undamaged to those who follow . 3r i an Lessl-ey Mr. Lessley, a Durham attorney, indicated he represented a property ,weer who owned land in 'the Rural Buffer which abuts Duke Forest. He :xpressed concern that his client received his mall too late to submit a )resentetion. He asked if the creation of the P1D district going to be the extent of the protection of the forest or is there a possibility of a 'offer zone being created around the forest. ,roposal is made, will there be an opportunity He also asked 1f such a iarshall responded that for any recommendatiosfadoptedicthereenwouldhabe •dequate study and adequate opportunity for public response.. She continued hat the actual change being considered at this hearing is the citizen etition to return the minimum lot size in the Rural Buffer to one acre. urman Herring Mr. Herring expressed the concern with stewardship of the land and ated he Is in support of the two acre minimum lot size in the Rural uffer. • 060 10 Charles W. Johnston Mr. Johnston stated he had been living in the same location for 65 years. He indicated he felt that a one acre lot requirement had been a successful and noted that he felt a county-wide sewer system was a need that should be met. He expressed the concern that a landfill had been allowed but the extension of water and sewer was not allowed. Edward S. Johnson Mr. Johnson stated he was a resident of Bingham Township and Chair of the Bingham TAC. He noted that residents of Bingham Township were greatly concerned with leap-frog development into Bingham if development is restricted in the Rural Buffer to a two-acre lot size requirement. He was concerned that leap-frog development was not seen as the problem he felt it to be. He reminded the Commissioners that they represented all of the citizens in the County and not gust Chapel Hill and/or the Rural Buffer zone. He asked that the Planning Staff be directed to study the issue of leap-frog development and inform the citizens of Bingham Township if there Is cause for concern. He also suggested that a way be found to access opinions from the rural townships to determine their concerns and whether or not development is desired. Commissioner Marshall commented that the Board is in the process of updating the Land Use Plan and those things the public has asked for such as poten- tial growth and the feelings of citizens should be done township by town- 'hip. She noted that Mr. Johnson as Chair of Bingham Township Advisory .ouncil should be. Involved in such meetings that take place on the update of the Land Use Plan. She continued that the whole effect of growth throughout the County should be studied and brought together in one document which should be adopted after public hearing. The Rural Buffer is a background study to the problems that have been brought up and the specific amendment for consideration at this time is the request to reduce the minimum lot size requirement in the rural Buffer from two acres to one acre. Henry Whitfield Mr. Whitfield expressed concern and possible confusion with the number of things happening in County planning at the same time and the magnitude of those things. He Indicated he felt sufficient time had not been allowed for an in depth study of the Rural Buffer and the recommendations listed therein. He particularly noted the lack of data available on septic tank failure. He continued that he felt the existing ordinances were sufficient for the provision of orderly progression of urban and municipal development. He indicated he felt a checkerboerd 'orid of two acre lots without public water and sewer would surely emerge and would impact far more on the -natural environment- than one acre lots or cluster lots which would encourage extension of public water and sewer and would promote larger tracts of unused land. He stated that he felt the one acre lots had left sufficient open space and het the Only reason for a two acre minimum lot size requirement was to 'duce density. He questioned the ability of newer residents to know more about stewardship • 081 11 of the land than those long time or lifetime residents. He indicated he felt there were still many questions to be answered about a two-acre minimum lot size requirement. He felt the majority of the citizens had not been considered in this requirement. Mr. Whitfield stated he felt excessive regulations and planning beyond that which is needed for a high quality of living is being implemented. He felt this would tend to destroy the desire to own property and pay taxes. He expressed the feeling that the City and County governments should institute a long range policy for acquiring the open space and park land needed for the future growth of the County. John Cates Mr. Cates Indicated he has been a property owner and taxpayer of Orange County over sixty years. He was not in favor of the two-acre minimum lot size requirement. He felt that one acre was sufficient for many home owners. yep rge L, Wheless Mr. Wheless expressed confusion with the watershed around Morgan Creek and indicated a desire to have the Board address those questions. Mary Le May Ms. LeMay indicated she Is a property owner in the extra territorial jurisdiction. She expressed the desire that the larger community be considered and protected. She also expressed support for the Rural Buffer ' recommendations. David Marten Mr. 'Merten expressed support for the Rural Buffer and urged the Board of Commissioners to support the buffer and watershed protection . flav10 Pa~— rash Mr. Parrish expressed the desire to be able to subdivide his four acres of land to give one acre to each of his three children. r Mr. Cowan indicated he was in the process of looking for land to purchase on which to build a home. He felt that young people as well as poor people were being restricted from owning property and homes due to the increased cost with larger lot sizes. Helene Ivey Mrs. Ivey expressed concern with expanding development in the form of apartments. She noted that she felt a bond issued should be held to acquire open space and parks that were needed. She indicated she felt the Rural Buffer was unfair to those desiring to build homes. 084 ' 12 90by „Snaunb Mr. Spaugh expressed concern with the regulations and the procedures to be able to build a home and indicated he was not In favor of a two-acre minimum lot size requirement. He stated that he felt a rural setting was being provided for a metropolitan area for those to enjoy at the property owners ' expense. 7beo CpntwelJ Mr. Cantwell expressed concern with the lots that are not buildable due to perk test failure. He noted it is important for young people to be able to purchase land and build homes. He was in favor of one-acre minimum lot size. Robert Mays Mr. Mays stated that he owned a one-acre nonconforming =lot. = He expressed concern that if his home were destroyed by fire that he could not re-build due to being a nonconforming lot. He continued that he felt he should be due a reduction in tax value since he had a nonconforming lot. Marvin Collins, Planning Director, responded that the Orange County Zoning ardlnance permits a home destroyed by fire to be rebuilt. :ounty Attorney, Geof Gledhill , responded that the only requirement to be met would be setback requirements. Mr. Mays continued that the only way he could be assured that his rights were being protected would be for the Board to change the two-acre minimum lot size requirement to one acre. eme Pivmtre "1r. Plym'ire indicated he felt there were still some unanswered questions about the.:Rural Buffer and some of the recommendations of the study are nval id. '' -le stated he felt a moratorium should be placed on the recommendation of the -wo-acre minimum lot size until such time as a complete study could be made. _ i?_ O1 tva , Triangle Land Conservancy -Ir. Olive indicated he was in favor of the Rural Buffer and preserving the duality of the environment but expressed the idea that perhaps it should extend farther to the north. He stated that he felt it was en invalid premise that public water and sewer could be prevented in the Rural Buffer. ,e felt the 38,000 acres could be substantially reduced by an agreement with uke University regarding restriction on Duke Forest properties. He felt -here were those large property owners who would be willing to build on only wo-acres on possibly five acre lots and this would reduce problems. ir. Parrish stated he felt more people are better served by a one acre V8t minimum lot size requirement. He indicated that he felt the two 13 acre ninimum lot size requirement was unfair to many residents of the County. He felt there would be sufficient open space since much of the land in the Rural Buffer would not perk. Jeff CoJJ ins Mr. Collins stated he was the Conservation Chair of the Sierra Club and that the club was in favor of the two acre minimum lot size requirement. He expressed the feeling that there had been much public input. He indicated he felt the Joint Planning Agreement was a plan that would manage growth in a wise way. He stated that he was also against the extension of water and sewer into the Rural Buffer. Public Brad Walters Mr. Walters stated he Is the owner of a nonconforming lot in the Rural Buffer. He expressed concern for those who wished to pass land on to children but would be unable to due to legalities as presented by the County Attorney. He expressed approval of the recommendation to not extend water and sewer into the Rural Buffer. He felt that was essential to maintain the- buffer. Mr. Walters asked Mr. Collins the percentage of the 38,000 acres which would not perk. Collins responded that information is not available. Commissioner Marshall noted that that information would be very difficult to obtain. Mr. Walters continued that he felt a bond issue would the best way to acquire open space and parkland. . J4ick Tennyson Mr. Tennyson stated he is president of the Homebuilderis Association of Durham/Chapel Hill . He Indicated he felt that one acre lots are needed in order that housing can be provided. Ruth •Wliliamc Ms. Williams opposed the two acre minimum lot size requirement. Mrs. W. M. Burnetts Mrs. Burnette indicated opposition to the two acre minimum lot sire require- ment. uire- q r Mr. Walters indicated the farmers in the Rural Buffer had not been spoken to about the recommendations for the area. He noted that Mapleview Farm had received national recognition . He stated there were three contiguous farms totaling 1000 acres. if Carrboro and Chapel Hill really need open a Rural Buffer/open space, how much are they willing to pay for it? He suggested that If we want things to stay agricultural /open, that it be left in the ands of the farmers who know how to protect it. Mr. Walters stated that a 15% slope is not reasonable. He noted the state of Maine has encouraged farmers to preserve level areas and clear slopes. Ogg 14 No one has come up with a number of acres greater than 15% and unperkabie. Mr. Walters asked that if that number of acres plus several full -time dairy farms (Cheeks, Hogan , Dodson b Cates) , is considered, Just how much land is left to develop? Walters stated he did not feel enough information was available to "put anything down in concrete". If the desire is to preserve farmlands for open space, let' s give some incentives that are more than just suggestions. C ei I GLif� in Mr. Griffin stated that higher density is needed to lower the costs of governmental services. He asked why the two acre minimum lot size require- ment should Just apply to the Rural Buffer rather than the entire county. He indicated he felt it was illogical to expect that two acres is sufficient for wildlife and a rural environment. Mr. Griffin noted that on two occasions the Orange County Planning Board had recommended a one acre minimum lot size and the Board of County Commissioners voted for a two acre minimum lot size. He asked why the Planning Board is not recommending one acre now. Spence Dickinson Mr. Dickinson indicated he felt that everyone will not be represented no matter whether the minimum lot size requirement would be one acre or two acres. He felt that those lands owned by Duke University should not be developed as many of those lands had been donated in order that it would be 1 preserved.. He indicated that development costs are high and create many problems. 1paek iph Dodson Mr. Dodson stated he was a former sanitarian and that 40,000 square feet was sufficient .for a septic system as well as an alternative system. He also stated he' was concerned that the municipality would tell those citizens living in the watershed that public water and sewer would not be provided to taxpayers.,i He stated that public water and sewer is the best way to protect the watershed. James Austin .1r. Austin indicated opposition to the two acre minimum lot size -equirement. Ar. Lloyd stated . that he was on the Board 'of County Commissioners when the Two acre minimum lot size requirement was adopted. He indicated that he now -eit the two acre minimum lot size was a mistake which would make affordable lousing unavailable. Lloyd wondered if those responsible for the study ould be affected by the two acre minimum lot size requirement and asked .hat the minimum lot size requirement be changed back to one acre. • 080 Ms. Herview indicated she favored the two acre minimum lot size and felt it vas important to protect the rural setting of the area. larry Re ig Mr. Reid expressed concern that the study is not yet complete. He stated that he felt the information was desperately needed as to how many of the 19,000 two acre lots would perk. Mark O'Neil Mr. O'Neil expressed opposition to the two acre minimum lot size. Perhaps there is some type of transition that could be done from one acre to two acres. Mr. Smith stated that as a member of the Affordable Housing Task Force, he felt that the two acre minimum lot size is a crucial issue in providing affordable housing. He indicated the Affordable Housing Task Force had decided to wait for a decision as to the two acre or one acre minimum lot size. He continued that it was a waste' of his time if decisions were going to be made that would not allow for affordable housing. He that zoning should not create more nonconformities but eliminate nonconformdities. He noted that many of those persons speaking tonight were having severe problems making such changes so late in life for the provision of homes for family members. .4uncil Member Smith moved, seconded by Council Member Preston, to refer the issue to Chapel Hill Town Manager for recommendation. Commissioner Halkiotls moved, seconded by Commissioner Carey to leave the public hearing open until April 6, 1987 to receive the recommendation from Chapel Hill . VOTE:. Unanimous. Meeting: adjourned (Time ? ) 08t AGENDA #14e MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: David R. Taylor, Town Manager SUBJECT: Rural Buffer Recommendations DATE: April 13 , 1987 The attached resolution would recommend that the Orange County Commissioners retain present zoning designations in the Rural Buffer, recommend that the Board accept a Rural Buffer Study, and recommend that the Board direct staff to pursue the implementation measures outlined in the Rural Buffer Study. Background On March 10, 1987, the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners held a Joint Public Hearing. There were two items on the Public Hearing: (1) Consider a draft Rural Buffer Study (2) Consider a citizen petition to rezone land in the rural buffer, from one unit per two acres to one unit per acre. At the hearing, staff presented the highlights of the study, including recommendations for implementation of the Rural Buffer concept. Extensive citizen comment followed. Rural Buffer Study The study, prepared by the Orange County Planning Department, has three main sections: "Data and Analysis," "Policy Analysis, " and "Rural Buffer Implementation. " Citizen comments mainly focused on implementation recommendations. Specifically, comments focused on the rural buffer density. Currently, the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, adopted by Chapel Hill and Orange County, calls for a density of one unit per two acres in the rural buffer. Orange County zoning reflects this density for this area. The Rural Buffer Study recommends that that density be retained. Orange County and Chapel Hill staff members presented arguments on behalf of retaining this density. 08't -2- Citizen comments were focused almost exclusively on this density question, and opinions were mixed. Most citizens speaking favored returning to a one unit per one acre density. Others spoke in favor of retaining the lower density designations. Attached is a summary listing of the recommended implementation measures of the Rural Buffer Study. We recommend that the Orange County Board of Commissioners accept this study, and direct its staff to pursue the outlined implementation measures. Some of these items will need to be scheduled for consideration at upcoming public hearings. Others will need further study before specific proposals can be made. We note that at the public hearing, the County Attorney indicated legal problems with recommendation #4. He noted constitutional issues that might prevent exemptions for lots created for family members. We believe that further study of this point is appropriate in an attempt to address "family" concerns in some manner. Rural Buffer Zoning Citizen comments focused on whether a one-acre or two-acre minimum lot size is most appropriate in the rural buffer. Comments were mixed; most citizens speaking expressed opposition to the present two-acre minimum. Others expressed support. The staff recommendation at the hearing was to retain the present zoning, requiring a two-acre minimum lot size. We continue to believe that the concept of a rural buffer is critical to the future of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Urban Area. It has been a component of the Orange County Land Use Plan for years, and is the cornerstone of the new Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. We believe that a 2-acre minimum lot size is critical to the success of the rural buffer concept. (Please see attached 2/8/87 memorandum from Chapel Hill Planning Director Roger Waldon to Orange County Planning Director Marvin Collins) We recommend that the Town Council recommend retention of the existing 2-acre minimum lot size in the rural buffer. Summary We recommend that the Town Council recommend that the Orange County Board of Commissioners take two actions on the rural buffer study: (1) Accept the study; and (2) Direct its staff to pursue consideration of the imple- mentation measures contained in the study, to the extent allowed by law. -3- U8e We further recommend that the Town Council re-affirm its support for the present zoning in the rural buffer, and recommend that the zoning not be changed. Adoption of the attached resolution would do so. -4- OW A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE OF A RURAL BUFFER STUDY, AND RECOMMENDING AGAINST ZONING CHANGES IN THE RURAL BUFFER (87-4-13/R-13) WHEREAS the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County have adopted a Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area; and WHEREAS that Land Use Plan calls for a Rural Buffer surrounding the Chapel Hill and Carrboro Urban Area; and WHEREAS a Rural Buffer Study has been prepared by the Orange County Planning Department that outlines measures to implement the Rural Buffer Concept; and WHEREAS one of those suggested implementation measures is to retain existing low-density zoning in the Rural Buffer; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council recommends that the Orange County Board of Commissioners take the following steps with regard to the Rural Buffer Study: (1) Accept the study; and (2) Direct its staff to pursue consideration of the imple- mentation measures contained in the study, to the extent allowed by law, including conducting further study as necessary, and scheduling appropriate items for consideration at future public hearings. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council considers a density of one dwelling unit per two acres of land to be an appropriate .density for the Rural Buffer. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council recommends that the Orange County Board of Commissioners not change zoning designations in the Rural Buffer, as requested by citizen peti- tion at the March 10, 1987 Joint Public Hearing. This the 13th day of April, 1987. Excerpt from 2/87 Rural Buffer Study 4q ' RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION 0 y U Recommendations • g 1 . Retain the two-acre minimum lot size requirement. i r I ; a • 2. Retain the policy prohibiting extension of water . � i and sewer facilities into the Rural Buffer except - In emergency situations. f 1 '$. ' 3. Delete Article 11 .7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, Non- 3. Conforming Lots. ,' _ The amendment would allow owners of adjacent, undevel oped lots less than two (2) acres in i size to develop their lots without combining them to create conforming lots. • 4. Amend Article 4.2. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, Rural . Buffer (RB) Zoning District. The amendment would allow property owners of record in the Rural Buffer to create one lot for each child. Such lots would be exempt from RB dimensional requirements, but would conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-1 Residential zoning district. The proposed amendment would add the following paragraph to Article 4.2.1 . c) Exempt Lots A lot created for use for a one-family resi- dence by a child, or spouse of a child, of an owner of property zoned Rural Buffer would be exempt from the dimensional requirements of J the Rural 'Buffer zoning district. Such a lot would be created in accordance with the dimensional requirements of the Rural Residen- tial (R-1 ) Zoning District. This exemption will apply only if the property owner can establish that he had legal title on or before January 5, 1987 and shall apply to only one such lot for each chL d of the property owner. 5. Amend Section 1Y-B-10 of the Subdivision Regula- tions, Cluster Developments The amendment would prohibit exempt lots created under Article 4.2. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance from being further reduced In size under the provisions of this Section. E r 5o E 1 The amendment would consist of the following r ow ng 1 / O91 changes: ii Renumber paragraphs IV-B-10-C-a/b/c/d to IV-5- 10-C-b/c/d/e respectively. r/ , Add the new paragraph IV-B-10-C-a ,' a. Exempt lots created in accordance with L Article 4.2.1 may not be further reduced . in size by application of the provisions �..— -1 1 of this Section. . + 6. Amend the Zoning Atlas by applying the Public Interest District (PID) Zoning District to appli- sr cable lands. flhof 7 . Initiate a Purchase of Development Rights program / by authorizing the Planning Department to prepare an Implementation Plan. 7_ J . 8. Pursue special legislation to allow Transfer of r Development Rights. 10.1 9. Amend Cluster Development provisions to encourage `1', ; its use. . 4 10. Collect additional data on: I a. environmentally significant areas; : b. septic system failures; ,` e c. techniques to maintain visual quality. : 1 • A ft • U9 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director Roger Waldon, Chapel Hill Planning Director SUBJECT: Comments on Rural Buffer DATE: February 8, 1987 This memorandum is written to confirm and emphasize Chapel Hill' s perspectives on several Rural Buffer issues under examination. BACKGROUND Chapel Hill and Orange County have been working cooperatively for over two years in the context of a Joint Planning Agreement. The summer of 1986 was a critical time in the life of this Joint Planning Agreement, as our two governments came together to jointly adopt a Land Use Plan for the areas surrounding Chapel Hill. Perhaps the most important concept of this Land Use Plan was designation of a Rural Buffer around the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Urban Area. This cornerstone of the Land Use Plan has been questioned in recent weeks, and will be discussed at - upcoming Public Hearings. I wanted to take this opportunity to restate some of the reasons why we believe the Rural Buffer is so critically important. KEY ISSUES Why a Rural Buffer? Chapel Hill began this round of Land Use Planning by adopting a set of Goals and Objectives, articulating a vision for the future of the Chapel Hill area. Several themes emerge from these Goals and Objectives; of particular relevance here are the following: - We want to retain the basic form and scale of Chapel Hill. We do not want to become a large city. We want to grow at a moderate, orderly pace, with the rate of development being consistent with the expansion of the community's ability to support new development. • Uyg:1 - We want to be able to serve efficiently the new development that does occur; we do not want a sprawling pattern of development that will require and demand urban services. - We want to be able to maintain the identity of Chapel Hill as a distinct and unique area. We have seen the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan and the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as key instruments in achieving our basic Goals and Objectives. The concept of a geographically fixed urban area, surrounded by a very low-density rural buffer, achieves these purposes. We drew an "Urban Services Boundary; " this is the area where we think we can efficiently provide urban services in the future (water, sewer, police and fire protection, parks and recreation services, etc. ) . We took the position that development within this urban services area should occur at urban densities, and be developed to allow for provision of urban services (water and sewer extended, streets built with curb and gutter, etc.) Outside of this area, in the Rural Buffer, we would expect that urban services would not be provided; development would occur at very low densities, if at all. Water and sewer lines would not be extended into the Rural Buffer. There would be no effort to annex any of these areas. We believe that, if development occurs in a manner as called for in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, we will achieve a desirable result. Development in the Urban area will occur according to urban standards, and will receive the benefits of all urban services. Development in the rural buffer will be of a very low density. Urban services will not be provided, and urban development standards will not be enforced. These areas will not be annexed, and will not pay municipal taxes. The low-density nature of central Orange County will be preserved, and the environmentally sensitive Duke Forest and University Lake watershed will be protected. We believe it is a sound concept. Why a 2-Acre Minimum Lot Size? The question of how low is "low density" was extensively discussed during preparation of the Land Use Plan. Proposed densities in the Rural Buffer ranged from 1 unit per acre to 1 unit per five acres. We believe that the concept of "no water and sewer" in the Rural Buffer is key to the Buffer's success. We believe that when water and sewer are available, development pressures are irresistable. Therefore, we believe that development should occur at densities that will not require public water and sewer now or in the future. 1 094 Given the poor nature of soils in this area, we believe that a 2-acre minimum lot size will help assure that public sewer will not be required in the future. We also believe that development in this low-density pattern will make extension of water and sewer lines infeasible. And with development occuring at this low density (if at all) , we believe that the nature and character of central Orange County will be preserved. During our discussions on this point, we rejected the concept of a 5-acre minimum lot size as being too restrictive. We believe that a 2-acre minimum is a compromise that still achieves the purposes of the plan. We believe that, if development were to occur at a higher density (eg. , 1 unit per acre) , we would have the worst of both worlds. We would have a sprawling pattern of development at near-urban intensities, which would inevitably be followed by demands for urban services. Providing urban services to a large geographic area developed at a density of 1 unit per acre would be disastrous. Development Standards • Chapel Hill's Development Ordinance contains a set of standards for areas called "Rural Transition. " This is roughly equivalent to the Joint Planning category of "Rural Buffer. " Standards in our Rural Transition zone are as follows: - Minimum Lot Size: 100,000 square feet - Mimimum Lot Width: 200 feet - Floor Area Ration: .031 - Street Setback: 30 feet Maximum Height: 35 feet We have a limited amount of Rural Buffer currently in our Extraterritorial Planning Area. The Town Council will be considering rezoning these areas "RT" in April. SUMMARY we believe that the concept of a Rural Buffer is critical to the future of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Urban Area. It has been a component of Orange County's Land Use Plan for years, and is a cornerstone of the new Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. We are basing all of our plans upon this cornerstone (annexation, expansion of community facilites, etc. ) . We believe that a 2-acre minimum lot size is critical to the success of the Rural Buffer concept. D 25 Adjournment time was reached. MOTION: Pilkey moved to extend the meeting for consideration of the Rural Buffer Study. Seconded by Walters. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #8: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING 3-10-87 E',› a. Rural Buffer Study Presentation by Bell . This agenda item is to formulate a recommendation to the County Commissioners on the RURAL BUFFER STUDY which was presented at Public Hearing on March 10, 1987. Planning Staff recommends approval of Executive Summary recommendations 1 , 2, 3, 6 and 9 ( See attached on pages of these minutes) . Planning Staff also recommends the addition of Executive Summary recommendations 7, 8, and 10 to the Planning Department work program for Fiscal Year 1987-88. Bell referenced the resolution from the Chapel Hill Town Council (copy included on page of these minutes) . Eddleman stated that he would have liked to have seen the question of leap-frog development better addressed in the report. He expressed Concern that if the two-acre minimum lot size requirement did cause leap-frog develop- ment, it would occur in the Dodsons Crossroads area where there is poor suitability for septic tanks . Walters stated that with the slopes and wetlands in the area, he felt those limiting factors would create lot sizes larger than two acres. He indicated he felt too much emphasis is being placed on the two-acre lot size rather than the total area natural constraints. Yuhasz stated that he felt establishing an urban services district would be the way to ultimately control the extension of water and sewer. He indicated those that could not afford or did not desire two -acre size lots should not be required to do so. He also felt there would be large tracts due to the natural constraints. Taylor agreed with Yuhasz noting that affordability is an issue. He also indicated that he felt utilizing one acre lot sizes and establishing an urban services district is the answer. EIM1C 26 Hubbard indicated su size stating that it did for preclude establishing Ian urban services district. Torgan noted that there is already an OWASA defined services area. Pilkey stated that she felt a defined urban services area is long overdue from Hillsborough and Orange-Alamance system. Jacobs stated he wished to add that Staff address leap- frog development as a part of the work plan. He noted he felt the preservation of the land was better addressed by the two acre minimum lot size. He asked that an item 110d be added which asked that additional data be collected on environmental constraint system to limit densities. MOTION: Yuhasz moved to delete recommendation /1 (To retain the two-acre minimum lot size requirement) . Seconded b Taylor. by VOTE: 5 in favor (Yuhasz, Taylor, Walters, Swann, Eddleman) . 3 opposed ( Jacobs, Hubbard, Pilkey) . Discussion followed on encouragement of cluster develop- ment and open space. MOTION: Hubbard moved approval of recommendations 2, 3, 6 and 9. Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Pilkey moved the investigation for possible implementa- tion of recommendation 07, the addition of recommendations 8 and 10, adding 10d-additional data on environmental constraint system to limit densities and add 011 -methods of controlling leap-frog development to the Planning Department work program for Fiscal Year 1988-89. Seconded by Swann. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Yuhasz moved to recommend to the Board of Commissioners that they reduce the minimum lot size in the Rural Buffer from two acres to one acre. Seconded by Swann. VOTE: 5 in favor (Yuhasz, Taylor, Walters, Swann, Eddleman) . 3 opposed ( Jacobs, Pilkey, Hubbard) . Meeting adjourned 11 :25 p.m. O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS O9 r ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date May 19, 1987 Action Agenda Item /W3 SUBJECT: OCTOBER WOODS - PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: June 23, 1987 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment( s) Information Contact: Jane Garrett Application Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Preliminary Plan Certification Agency Comments Draft 4-27-87 Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for October Woods- Division of Tract #3. BACKGROUND: The property in question is located in Chapel Hill Township on the east side of Damascus Church Road ( SR 1939) . There are three (3) lots proposed out of 10.64 acres, the average lot size is 3.33 acres excluding the rights-of-way. The zoning designation is Rural Buffer (RB) with an overlay district of University Lake Protected Watershed (PW- I1 ) . The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Buffer and University Lake Water Supply Watershed. All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. Section IV-B-7-b of the Subdivision Regula- tions requires the dedication of 0. 15 acres of land or 6,534 sq. ft. in that a greenway is proposed along Prices Creek in the JPA Land Use Plan. Given the property line distance ( 867 ft. ) along Prices Creek, the resulting greenway would be 7 .5 feet in width . 096 OCTOBER WOODS - DIVISION OF TRACT #3 PRELIMINARY PLAN PAGE 2 Voluntary dedication of an additional 45,486 sq. ft. ( 1 .04 acres) would provide a 60-foot wide greenway adjacent to Prices Creek. Since slopes adjacent to the creek range from 15% to 25%, and the area is unbuildable due to stream buffer provisions, a voluntary dedication may be possible. The Recreation and Parks Director has requested an opportunity to pursue such a voluntary dedication for additional greenway. The N.C. Department of Transportation stated that their policy is to require all public and private roads that intersect with a State-maintained road at right angles. October Woods Road is a pre-existing Class B Private Road. A private road is justified as follows : 1 . The subdivision consists of less than ten ( 10) lots. Two (2) additional lots are being added to three (3) existing lots served by the private road for a total of five ( 5) lots. 2. The subdivision does not include or abut any part of a thoroughfare or street shown on the Orange County thoroughfare plan or the thoroughfare plan of an Orange County municipality. 3. The subdivision represents the division of a lot in a subdivision where streets are private or unpaved. October Woods Road is a Class B private road and unpaved. All lots would front on the existing private road. At its April 27 , 1987 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan subject to the following conditions : ( 1 ) Show existing structure( s) on the plat. (2) Provide for dedication of recreation space ( greenway) equivalent to 3/20th of an acre of land (6, 534 sq. ft. ) and located adjacent to Prices Creek. Further recommend that the developer meet with the Recreation and Parks Director to discuss voluntary dedication of additional property adjacent to Prices Creek for additional greenway. (3) Show location of 100-year flood plain boundary adjacent to Prices Creek and provide notation, "Use of land within a floodway or floodway fringe is substantially restricted by the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. " (4) Calculate stream buffer as required by Article 6 .23 . 1 OCTOBER WOODS - DIVISION OF TRACT #3 09 PRELIMINARY PLAN PAGE 3 of the Zoning Ordinance and show location of stream buffer boundary, including the notation, "No building or structures are permitted within the stream buffer as shown hereon, and the stream buffer shall remain in its natural state as required by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. (5) Provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends approval of the preliminary plan as recommended by the Planning Board. The Board of Commissioners has thirty-six (36) days within which to act on this application. The deadline for action is June 23, 1987 . PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ( INK ONLY) 11/S5 loe APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL ORANGE COUNTY DATE: January 29,1987 SUBDIVISION NAME: H.C. & Barbara Kirkhart Division of October Woods (Tract 3) LOCATION: Damascus Church Rd. (SR 1939) OWNER/DEVELOPER: H.C. & Barbara Kirkhart ADDRESS: 100 Westbury Dr. TELEPHONE NO. : (919)96%=354v Chapel Hill, NC 27514 AGENT/CONTACT: Did-.tom. TELEPHONE NO . : A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tax Map , 7.120 Block 'R- a PIN= Total �� Township Chapel Hill Zoning District(s): Total Number of Acres: 10.64 Acres Tote L Humber of Lots: �_� Avers a Lot Size: phas$s : 1 g Minimum Lot _LAZAc. Number/Type of Structures : (existing) Lineal Feet in Streets: as A 0' _(proposed] ( 9rq tee Water Su L cres in Open Space • pp y: PubtiC(apecify). • Community , y _Individual - Wastewater Di sposa 1: ,ice+pub Li c(Bpeci fy) . Commun i t . Schoo L District: Chanel Hill y �Indi vi due L General Land Uses in Area: Rural Fire District: 80014 a1'�AU6+. Critical Areas: ,x stream/dreinageways ,flood prone areas 'L. 'Pwa watershed(specify) otber(expLain] _�..histnric sites S. ALL plats must. be submitted on sheet no smaller then one inch equals two— hundred feet (1 n=2D0 i ) and. no larger than one inch equa Ls fifty feet (1 ma50 ) and must contain the following information : J subdivision nem* f nsra of dsaerle] bslldlnp sasaaek Lines .'•heck items _IL r lame of survoyer, engineer or J { layoutotioa or typical loo =ompleted) ✓ p asletla ■nd t Leltle_ Preliminar P g proposed anew- + r esela. nor'Ca arm , £north et ft�..$�: agents (tlretnapa, ut1 Lilies, top of nap) ✓ • rotati Ott.] '� date (including raviolaa dates) " adioinin. r1;bt.ad antl r tarneplo, tax asp—DLOOk•tot Including rlpata+pt�sy sfaremeu including almea*leaa end crndary iced ettA *treat noses and state rood bearing■ aad distenoaa �( ' essoorn tosel aarsepe of tho tree! sainting and proposed `K" 'Fr li ti as and scrooge of lots, laeludia • 'k`'.+= • tnCLatlinO aad amalmdlnp area r1lhln p type• attar. Pipbts-eftisy asanoles. rag/raga aad y� ._,� central corner M Stec ezieciaa vi= i``'ce,,. ^mob `' p Proposed ember! w proposed Ltlt L1aas wito r< a:iosii swd dlsoneiea■ ✓ Y:"::, 1nbLud/ng site• end grapes Las ausperm ; typical stress crass. .ctlone . +� Phaslag Line* and int 'Clan details d 44a topography at ten fact (10) •^ lncleding design ahtl noel La �a ��,.�.� : at travel*ay rnd ehoul maser aotliaa. ssrasss. fteoa— : t ; barizbnsal aLignment and J ray and flOodpleine .,Y^::•:$.: roods]l Carve date (pus11e stream buffers and notation ; roetlr) fit intlloesing ressrlesrd :ride POPE000ns features such ■s / devil potential utldlne l r1er. _ _ •' '' touasblp. carporsts and .;:: adatCMn l ` territorial planning a Era+ y adjalning let jerlsdlatloa liana wales aces of adjoining proeurtye cross the property esaera amtl euatllrisiena .•• . LOostltln and sits of parcels dedicated for public use br rosorrsd i a =mane location end slim of LOSS Of •reatrICtad development potential end nosatlon on plat regarding aan■ stemmata? minim len indicatin first 1/2 inch of runoff frees f puriaces far can'Crel df the io s ue urfaao • 101 C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS : 1 . Twenty—six (26) copies of the preliminary plat 2. Two full size copies of en Orange County Tax map (one copy with tax parcels involved clearly marked] . S. Where municipal or OMASA sewer is not available , a letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system for each Lot . I , the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate . I understand that a $210.00 fee (subdivisions of 15 Lots or less] or a $370.00 fee (subdivisions of 16 Lots or more] is due at the time of application . A $5.00 per lot fee is due at the time the final plat is presented for recordation . APPLICANT-S SISNATURE OWNER 'S SIGNATURE /25/2-7 / 2S /P 7 DATE' DATE • FEES: Amount 't/r75 Date Paid Receipt S4"7 = �-. • faCTOBRM /OOD5JVI9ION- �- •f. ' : ..T'' __ ,.. . - ,+N`- • - - ... - _ «.tip -r -. , • -� ..t _•- ^- r ;-APPLICAA1T. WtrPF kiRkFFa ---:.• � _ .-,,. • • •{..--- _ -4 -Y -- - _: - Y'_ Zt7N tit f : ItU�.�4>~: l3LlF�'k�t: P2di cr W.47F7IsH `fl :�:'"-- *"- - : .,. _ *.x.. :„ • _-� si&1A w&l= Rut2.4L B•u FEt2.JjkAilli-S I Mks- _...: _ -. L P w 1•+ .�: Ass r •,-fi;. �Y • ...�: _ r -ti- +�.. '''',",; ;.''.....----•-•'' mo -_ .;tr".. - - '_-"�r�..:.� _ _tic•,�; _ } ..�..r• am'.t— ..K,n.,�-�.. .- _ _, - ..:. "� - _ . rw:.- 11-'-',-..-:::-. � �' 4'4qt „h•.>.....�"K.�` •3•=. ' a�' i�• y•' ',t^-.�'''''. - -",—.;.' .---....40-...-.-,..:_S - - >-'M'F w!'�,- �ij.-T -:iJ" -.•ri:.r.. : ...... :. _-_-ems^-_, �,y'r''- ._u.- .-�F'„ ,F�:'_`_'1�L�•"':��'+!•:���J,•;x.•� � •� - +�`,��: 'e.."�.��i=�� � •-l. 3': 'w rrst^_''":4�''•e- .dr ;: -f 4-:;.1:-.4'._•F-�r::,2 fi'C Win. ,,,r�---' ••v..7 . Y -�r .: = -aJ..• -,,rv: -- 1 :�:. w• :••y+'t�r-<c.%, x _ d7::.-.:7?J _: =,ar3...-----;•••• :-7 -�• :..•. ' 'rM:. �: .:-��,.▪ .. .,.r,w►nalF•::: `ra'#t^�� ,...,,..1.7--r�-•�". :' eti�-',1•-�.i� �►.^+•+r_ -M1 • •`'•.. x:r- . :"~''.• 4�W+:�y,: _ �. :r•±►rye+_;•'- _._.. -• �1t.-�:�•' `.'� ..'.+a-•'� '�` '�'�•' •. : "'4?'- -r �,:.y•K"r?'i.•F.\11,65 �: :-1.1 r_'� ^' .- sy+•i_,,ii, a ,; ':�cµ - ▪ - .,;;..7.,,-,...---_ } �yY •: f '.�,*�.F :afi r.. ...�. f' ' •f...:. }`M� 'eD...▪....�K:K.•. '1,:,,,-,-744..A C"w.:•...v.�:... ∎• .-- 2 [ yam. r, as w -rte .•.� ....-- _ L ' .4.... ."7,41.'.'A p- S■ —fS^•r.p -yAi47r � ` 'W.ti-i�r: .•.j:s!4.YX-. yM ,d:.i5.''::1'!Y�.^�_'�T _'.^tr '_M•1t•,_ . .1.. - _ .a<<: ... "qr, 'aGin' y[.±a'•,..-.rT. nl,,- �tf_="!5. .n'-' y• C.S�`.. r' '�• ¢ly,, t•.. �/► 7 .5.y:. w_t:ar.•;- _�.. •;-;L,°�.-:<; 'ice: n_ - ? 'A •�7L:'7 ...yM y.�«"• _.�y,;.r ryd_w '•v ._ ]y. J.. , - • [.ar�.r.::�- ••r�...�µa.•. _ - -.. _ .sue.. �.y.ar.�"•ca+�-ry � 1 �-.� -» - .rt... --- '-•c:-m ... _ '._ w'•""'"�. -✓ -- �- y. ,,-,--- _ •mss. �--_�O / 'r -• . . ..Jrt+.: -; •- - _r.:w�` �=:u- ..: . ' -- -:C_;Y'�^1,'::.z." "* X124_"•,� ;�ter. K w'.a.; ,,,, ,:•T� �..r. 'a 127: -. fir_ y' � Y mo .k -? w� t" _ - - +~.��•p _ •t - ".1 'r., ..0 ._--, - .:.0,,- - - .,_•-_.p8 w"} _ _ .A - • •fir: ----. �_ 4 _ a� �,...yr•�-N•_+-.' ,ice , �...d .. -r--- A 'g� .�. .--- r_ . • c~ 'hi t- pi -�'. . -•.. ?'� '► - - �75�i� _ :s _ ' _ -,.w..7...,.`-''' nog, .. - -..- 3y ''• ± c .:..J -s -..w,-- ., _ _ ,-,- h..' •+v...' . xil•t k" .\..o �+ _ _ :c.... :.V sw .. �i x F y• x 4� '=`►YA .� :rr ri Y�� ' ='• •S:, "�;:` Ord_--,?- -�,.. fi .. . •.. - _ .. : 1,Y H=�•+j.i _ •.. x.' _=`.,.. ; -4‘.....1:-..--- �_ • X438'-_- :: Ql� 846, _ yY -4.....1' 9 :: 4".: .1: October Woods:D;vision of Tract #3 11/85 ORANGE OPNTY STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Jane Garrett SKETCH PLAN: Received 4-23-8b Reviewed -$6 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 1-30-87 Reviewed REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received Reviewed NCDOT: DATE 3-2-87 CERTIFICATION J.M. Mills, District En ineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill-Carrboro) : DATE 2`20`87 CERTIFICATION NA UTILITIES (OWASA/Billsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE Certification OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council 3-10-87 MA Black Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel Hill (Date) Carrboro (Date) Hillsborough (Date) Durham (Date) Other SSE 2-20-8 WFa i rc 1 oth (Date) Wealth Department (Date) 6-20-86 VPBurns (Date) ?LANNING BOARD: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial ;OARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date Approval Approval with Conditions ------,_„�_ Denial 1U'1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT BZLLSBOROH?GH NORTH CAROLINA :7_78 4 17 - 52 4 A'•is 6.x!' MEMORANDUM TO: Jane A. Garrett. Planner FROM: Warren Faircloth. Erosion Control Officer- SUBJECT: October Woods II Stormwater Management Plan DATE: February 20. 1987 The plan for this subdivision proposes to meet the Ordinance infiltration requirements by using large lots. a buffer of vegetation around each lot to filter and absorb runoff. a gravel road. and grassed swales along the road to filter runoff. The plan for this subdivision meets the Ordinance requirements. , / 1 117)1,r r n 7,7 5\ Lrui Air `Tvd 10b STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN February 26, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS,P.E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Ms. Jane A. Garrett Orange County Planning. Department 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: October Woods Subdivision Off SR 1939 (Damascus Church Road) Dear Ms. Garrett : I have reviewed the preliminary plan for the above referenced subdivision as you requested in your letter of February 12, 1987. It is the policy of the N. C. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways to require all public and private roads that intersect with a State maintained road to do so at a right angle. This policy is a result of the sight distance and safety problems that normally accompany arrangements other than right angles. I hope this helps with the planning of this development. If • .you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours very truly, ! J. M."dills /DISTRICT ENGINEER Jr4M/SPI:jbh -. _ _� r' An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employe T al�:� 1 i- r .. �: . `/// 300 ��i G.i 71y011 SIfGC: a r. ��• • .,. 3.-��t I I i T. r MILLSEOHOuGh. u.C" 272Th Lie.. :Sr t,1.1fy Amid biul;E,, DiseCIL1 . MEMORANDUM 7 i�. 1---: iItt -, i TO: Jane Garrett, Planner FROM: Mary Anne Black DATE:. March 4, 1987 RE: Courtesy Reviews -- Winton Place • McAdams Estates — Section Two October Woods — Division of Tract #3 Upon review of the preliminary plans for the above-mentioned proposed subdivisions, I offer the following comments from a recreation and park perspective. WINTON PLACE No element on plan warranting comments, unless subject property's location is within the Town's planning jurisdiction. If this is indeed the case, I would recommend payment-in-lieu of dedication of land for public recreation/open space in that no area on the property is designated for greenway and/or park purposes. McADAMS ESTATES -- Section Two Payment-in-lieu of dedication is recommended, with calculation based on all eight lots (1-8). OCTOBER WOODS --- DIVISION OF TRACT #3 Areas on the subject property are designated as proposed greenway. The .dedication requirement would constitute too thin of a strip of property `along Price's Creek to be usuable as a greenway, thus, I would like the opportunity to discuss with the developer the possibility of her/his interest in dedicating a wider strip along this creek. I will do so at my earliest convenience and forward comment to,you. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these staff comments. I will present my recommendations to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council at their April 7th meeting and will forward comments they have, if any, to you immediately. MAB/pbl CC: RPAC Planning Committee IIil{:;t,,Ji�14h, 732.91361 - Durham. Cd5-73 Hi l!, ..,, �� 41.:'11.1 rlii., .v.{••I.i 4�� I�.....a..�1�. ��. �/ ;ii::, 0:.;1C J i J t 5 10' 1 abstained (Yuhasz - due to professional conflict of interest) . Several Board members indicated concern with the manner in which water and sewer is extended by the Town of Hillsborough. r),), b. October Woods - Preliminary Plat (Chapel Hill Township) Presentation by Garrett. The property in question is located in Chapel Hill Township on the east side of Damascus Church Road ( SR 1939) . There are three (3) lots proposed out of 10.64 acres, the average lot size is 3.33 acres excluding the rights-of-way. The zoning designation is Rural Buffer ( RB) with an overlay district of University Lake Protected Watershed (PW- Il ) . The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Buffer and University Lake Water Supply Watershed. All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. Section IV-B-7-b of the Subdivision Regulations requires the dedication of 0. 15 acres of land or 6,534 sq. ft. in that a greenway is proposed along Prices Creek in the JPA Land Use Plan. Given the property line distance ( 867 ft. ) along Prices Creek, the resulting greenway would be 7 .5 feet in width. Voluntary dedication of an additional 45,486 sq. ft. ( 1 .04 acres) would provide a 60-foot wide greenway adjacent to Prices Creek. Since slopes adjacent to the creek range from 15% to 25%, and the area is unbuildable due to stream buffer provisions, a voluntary dedication may be possible. The Recreation and Parks Director has requested an opportunity to pursue such a voluntary dedication for additional greenway. The N.C. Department of Transportation stated that their policy is to require all public and private roads that intersect with a State-maintained road at right angles. October Woods Road is a pre-existing Class B Private Road. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan subject to the following conditions: ( 1 ) Show existing structure( s) on the plat. mmilummmmmi lO0 e 4 � � U 6 (2) Provide for dedication of recreation space (greenway) equivalent to 3/20th of an acre of land per dwelling unit (6,534 sq. ft. ) and located adjacent to Prices Creek. Further recommend that the developer meet with the Recreation and Parks Director to discuss voluntary dedication of additional property adjacent to Prices Creek for additional greenway. If voluntary dedication is not possible, recommend payment- in- lieu of $1 , 096 (3/20th of acre x $7,310/acre - 1987 valuation) . (3) Show location of 100-year flood plain boundary adjacent to Prices Creek and provide notation, "Use of land within a floodway or floodway fringe is substantially restricted by the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. " (4) Calculate stream buffer as required by Article 6.23. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance and show location of stream buffer boundary, including the notation, "No building or structures are permitted within the stream buffer as shown hereon, and the stream buffer shall remain in its natural state as required by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The application for preliminary subdivision plan approval was received on January 30, 1987 . The 85 day review period expired on April 24, 1987. The plat would have been considered by the Planning Board on April 20, 1987, but the meeting was postponed to April 27, 1987 due to a County holiday. Yuhasz expressed concern with the recommendation of payment- in-lieu if voluntary dedication is not possible. He indicated he felt that the effort should be made to obtain additional greenway noting that payment- in- lieu would not allow an opportunity for further greenway acquisition from subsequent owners. Jacobs noted that the words "per dwelling unit" should be deleted from the first sentence of condition 12. MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval deleting the last sentence of condition #2: " If voluntary dedication is not possible, . . . . ". Seconded by Taylor. VOTE: Unanimous. O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date May 19, 1987 Action g Ada Item SUBJECT: WINTON PLACE -- PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: June 23, 1987 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X_ _ No Attachment( s) Information Contact: Jane Garrett Application Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Preliminary Plan Certification Agency Comments Draft 4-27-87 Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for Winton Place. BACKGROUND: The property in question is located in Hillsborough Township on the north side of Orange Grove Road ( SR 1006) . There are nine (9) lots proposed out of approximately 40 acres, the average lot size is 4.4 acres excluding the rights-of-way. The zoning designation is Rural Residential ( R-1 ) with an overlay district of Upper Eno Protected Watershed ( PW- II ) . The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential and Upper Eno Water Supply Watershed. All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. NCDOT has recommended that a flare design be provided for the Winton Drive - Orange Grove Road intersection. 110 WINTON PLACE PRELIMINARY PLAN PAGE 2 At its April 27 , 1987 meeting, the Planning Board recom- mended approval of the Preliminary Plan subject to the flare intersection design recommended by NCDOT plus the following conditions : ( 1 ) Indicate the adjoining property owners south of the subject property ( lot 9) . (2) Provide impervious surface data for each lot shown on the plat. (3) Provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends approval of the preliminary plan as recommended by the Planning Board. The Board of Commissioners has thirty-six (36) days within which to act on this application. The deadline for action is June 23, 1987 . 11/85 il-i PRANGE COUNTY, 7 DATE: /3e9- ¢'7 SUBDIVISION NAME: A/it/7e Al 744Ie LOCATION: O r r- S _,4,0 ,icis-, C0-,1 nr 7/71,e,.r r-s Some r OWNER/DEVELOPER: , / His ,q �,Q.2. d ADDRESS: Arg,. G t.r 9,2-1- TELEPHONE NO. : 7.3.7- 77i.4.q f./.l/S.y^�.r,.F// ,tZ' . . 79 f AGENT/CONTACT: -- /4.--,P 9 _ TELEPHONE NO . : 73,- 44s/ A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: 2c Orange County Tex Nap `47 Block '7 Lot(s) # Township T Zoning District(s) : I I S.iunAL UnitI 1unAL Pen Total Number of Acres: , •ter+?! t Phases: 00'r Total Number of Lots: `; Average Lot Size: Minimum Lot Size .La_. Number/Type of Structuree:Cexisting) , (proposed), Lineal Feet in Streets: Acres in Open Space . Witter Supply: - Public(specify) Community Individual Wastewater Disposal:, Public(specify] Community TIndividu■ L School District: ,E v •' Fire District: 012/416.E. 12uahc. General Land Uses in Area: , 21E5SD<7ff?AL Critical Arses: stream/drslnegeways flood prone areas , fn. E!0 wetershsdtspeclfy) �r historic sites othertaxp lain], S. ALL p lets• must be submitted on sheet no sae L ter then - one inch squats two— hundred ' •feet (16=200, 3 and. no larger than one inch equals fifty feat (1 "=5O' ) and must contain the following information: ✓ ,,. awbd/e1flaw ammo / batLding setback lines - 1: :• some of manorial ti :� by notation Sr tip/sal let Check items , "-- eons of surveyor. aag/waar Sr leywos ii: Laud pioneer •� :l r ..r saute (d one(drainage. utilities. teas. completed) .. p ..r -- (Mimi prelim/wary plan owns• (doming.• astllllos. ..` %-: saute. earth error (berth et . roads. etc.] • tee of oral existing. ' .4 ': date (lisladlag ravish . dates( proposed rid V . enjoining rtphssret-ray tosedhlp. tea sup•�aleek•tet Including diaaaalaws and reformation Sara.; names end State road batettery d.a.rlbed with eemberS j.beeping. awe dietanaaa s.• •01011e, p tats, aairas,o of she tract etItItI... including 5:'?',...:,, sod ssreaoe at late. Inbladle, �.,t: typo. sizes. 0 -.. end sealants, nree w1thln r! bydrent.. valves and v*;' rlphta�t�.y umbeis. f .-• *antral, earner f ou esistlwg sad prooesen aulvart a proposed lot lieg with lwelading alt.. Sid frees* j d/maaa laws • I typical s;rust aroas+esatlane 4. .-.5 Let iuwbert "' � and i ion octal la a pbeeleg Liege - .+¢.: Insledltg design and width .L tepsgrspey at tee riot (101 / of tray.lany sod shoulders � �` Interval. ; horizontal elig and `;" enter bedlam. streams. flood.. a gsn•r.l date (paella { ray sod flomdplein• r 1 stress buffers sad notation prrwunant fautarw• Such as ionisation romtrlatad buildings, tar/as. •evlsea.wt petsatisl / hiaterie laa.narta. • taeaabtp. earparese and Mom.- • •� ' territorial planning •.+.c adjoining lot layout Jadediet/oe lined welsh owner of d evad1w9 property ?��� cross the owners god 0ted1v1e70ae proparsy leant/ow end size of pare.le dedicated for paella esa or rasarvad .' in enemas - • •, Losutien sod wits at lots of restrl•ted daustapnent potential and 1/ '• nstatlw• an plat rtgsrding noes - Y ■taruast.r senegewoet plow Iedlcating provision for Control of the first 1/2 'nen of runoff fro. leeervioua surface' (GRAY AREAS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) 11 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 ta: parcels Involved clearly marked] . 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not oval Lab la, ■ Letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system to ! each Lot. I , the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application i ■ camp lets anc accurate. I understand that a 11210.00 fee (subdivision• of 15 lots or lass ] or a $370.00 fee (subdivisions of 18 Lots or more) is due at the time a1 application . A 86.00 par lot fee is due at the time the final plat 1i presented for recordation . APPLICANT 'S SIGNATURE OWNER 'S SIGNATURE DATE DATE • • FEES: Amount /Q.04 Date Paid /'3Cf-'7 Receipt I�40 If • - -tip: x,: 1 +a >" ._ 986 •_ WIIJTOP4 P • -._ __ .- `.- LUP D CAAn0hi• R.0 L R ES DE�LnALi �w w• .: �- _�. y • WAisn. stoPly 11041z11-614E° . - .- `i - _ { • . N.-.. - _•-.� may _ _ - ..._. .. : n.."- - .� - - , =• .4-7 f ' _ -- .•.7 : !?rte.".�'"N` r=r .- - -n_.:: .:. WE MAP 46 ": � • ', ';; . V= `......r..-`, I$.67' AC. .� . •,..-" "_...-.n see MAp x+11` _.....-.4..!..1-.:-. ..-..-1 .. '`. . - • `. .03 L _ 8184 p r pj y�•• - / / 947E -" j ;A :. 6 78 AC. - / 2.49p�, " ?�'-'Yf_ ` ':: :.- ` .. . . A SEE MAP - .;„ �iy A = r _ 33.0 B$20 O�� 0 :7797 � - 0 era: ' •r. �:_7.,,f_.1.4 4 1: H: _:. . . _eigo— . . • ,.-04Ac, /. . __ , .. •,..„_„,.. .,...._,...,...,....„,..,,, , . ,,, 7 ..,. . f--.4.-• , • ; ▪ ° t- �q�. �_:T _ any; Z 4393 \ CO/..;" b)1;9,, d. 62--.4r7,— . ..-.4,,,--•-'--ezr.6- .4-.,"• rill .-. t - -_.7. ..7. ...-"•" .-.0"7-•=3.': -g..,.7.".7 7.,•.r. I,.... .- (111 •" % - sf1k4� 114 - 8100 11 0.835S C. / •d �- -."e f V" • +� ,.. j #-: �• n . m /, TJF/ Ids •• /,," • 8:,-- D b ,- • -, • 4,/, . ill •J 17.094C. // (;'...1 rp , a, / '� Winton Place 11/85 114 ORANGE COUNTY CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Jane Garrett SKETCH PLAN: Received Reviewed PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 1-30-87 Reviewed 2-4-87 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received Reviewed NCDOT: DATE 3-5-87 CERTIFICATION .1.M_ Mills. District Engineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill—Carrboro) : DATE 2-20-87 CERTIFICATION NA UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE Certification OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council 3-10-8] MA Black (Date) Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel Hill (Date) Carrboro (Date) Hillsborough (Date) Durham (Date) Other SITE 2-25-87 WFaircloth (Date) Health Department 1-29-87 TKonsler (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial • • 11 ORANGE COL'T1\'TY PLANNL' G DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 4 .� �. . •r at !. 17 it/ '52 ---✓ *.r 8a a,00\• MEMORANDUM TO: Jane A. Garrett, Planner FROM: Warren Faircloth. Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Winton Place Stormwater Management Plan DATE: February 25 . 1987 The plan for this subdivision proposes to meet the Ordinance requirements by using large lots. limiting the addition of impervious surfaces to a small portion of each lot► and retaining existing vegetation to filter and absorb runoff. The proposed plan meets the Ordinance requirements. "W'' E7P1- Z LL: A . «►5th o .. ri 11�: 11*2 4y Yw�a‘ , STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G.MARTIN March 4, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS, P.E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Ms. Jane A. Garrett Orange County Planning Department 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Winton Place Subdivision Off SR 1006 (Orange Grove Road) Dear Ms. Garrett: I have reviewed the preliminary plan of Winton Place as per your request and conclude the sight distance is adequate and a driveway permit will be required. In the future, please include a detail of the driveway entrance from a state road on your preliminary plan. I have attached a detail for your use. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours very truly, . M. Mills DISTRICT ENGINEER JMM/SPI:jbh - Atte. J 2fa Eifin^-Er� ' #T •_. 1 j An Equal Opaorlunity/Affirmative Acton Employer • • 1 1 I 61.m6M. 25 - 25 PLAFf!:. A..r 7Z.R..7.:.:ClICIN WITH PLIS!.;2 1!a ° 7 "'' c. Winton Place - Preliminary Plat yyyy ( Hillsborough Township) Presentation by Garrett. The property in question is located in Hillsborough Township on the north side of Orange Grove Road ( SR 1006) . There are nine (9) lots proposed out of approximately 40 acres, the average lot size is 4.4 acres excluding the rights-of-way. The zoning designation is Rural Residential ( R-1 ) with an overlay district of Upper Eno Protected Watershed ( PW II ) . The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential and Upper Eno Water Supply Watershed. All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. The Orange County Recreation Department request is not applicable, since the project is located in an area where a plan for recreation and parks has not been adopted. NCDOT has recommended that a flare design be provided for the Winton Drive - Orange Grove Road intersection. Approval of the Preliminary Plan subject to the flare intersection design recommended by NCDOT plus the following conditions: ( 1 ) Indicate the adjoining property owners south of the subject property ( lot 9) . ( 2) Provide impervious surface data for each lot shown on the plat. The application for preliminary subdivision plan approval was received on January 30, 1987. The 85 day review period expired on April 24, 1987 . The plat would have been considered by the Planning Board on April 20, 1987, but the meeting was postponed to April 27, 1987 due to a County holiday. MOTION: Walters moved approval . Seconded by Swann. VOTE: 7 in favor. 1 abstained (Yuhasz - due to professional conflict of interest) . d. Archie Graham, Jr. - Preliminary Plat O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date May 194 1287 Action ends Item I SUBJECT: BLACKWOOD FOREST SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: June 23, 1987 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment( s) Information Contact: Emily Crudup Application Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Preliminary Plan Certification Agency Comments Draft Planning Board Minutes 4-27-87 Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for Blackwood Forest Subdivision. BACKGROUND: The property is located in Chapel Hill Township on the north side of Mt. Sinai Road ( SR 1718) approximately 1/4 mile east of N. C. 86. The tract is bordered on the north by the Southern Railroad . There are 13 lots proposed out of 30.75 acres. The average lot size is 2. 17 acres. The property is located in the Joint Planning Area and is designated Rural Buffer on the Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas. The subdivision will be served by Hathaway Lane, a proposed public road. All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. The Town of Chapel Hill has raised concerns regarding a stub-out to the eastern property line and addi- tional right-of-way for Mt. Sinai Road. The Orange County Planning Department addressed these concerns during develop- ment review as follows: ( 1 ) Service to the property east of Blackwood Forest would best be provided by a road paralleling the long axis of the tract. A stub-out, perpendicular to the common property line, would not efficiently serve all of the tract. 12U BLACKWOOD FOREST SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN PAGE 2 (2) Mt. Sinai Road (existing 60-foot right-of-way) is presently classified as a collector road (70-foot right-of-way standard) . of the applicant hs provided of-way one-half ((5 ( 10 o feet) needed. The Recreation and Parks Department has recommended a payment- in- Iieu in the amount of $2,226 ( 13/35th of an acre x n 1987 valuation) . sites Land Use Plan. showown n o o At its April approval of the PeelimgnarytPlan PforniBglack oard recommended app wood Forest subject to the following conditions : ( 1 ) Submission of payment- in- Iieu in the amount of $2,226. ( 2) Provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. (3) Label buffers " land use buffers" . ( 4) Provide typical planting detail plans for Type D and Type B buffers. (5) Identify typical lot detail drawing as such . (6) Revise note to read "Access to all lots is restricted to Hathaway Lane" . RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends approval of the preliminary plan as recommended by the Planning Board . The Botodact onmthisioapplicationthirty-six days Thedeadlinefo for r action is June 23, 1987 . ■ eL&A E-TY OR PRINT (INK ONLY) • 121 - •1/BD APPLICAT?ON FO SUB IIVTCTCN 6..a VAL ORANGE COUNTY DATE: , LI t7 187 SUBDIVISION NAME: ZI..4041r40' • ..C:::Rc•ST LOCATION: QFF MT. ns 1 'RD. 'FAST OF )rl C. %' OWN ER/DEVELOPER:.L- 4l‘.1. I T7$Nr *--R4f2TNEILS ADDRESS: , TELEPHONE NC. : •484-77`& AGENT/CONTACT:. &.n$1 1.as.A Swvecy, lac . TELEPHONE NO . ; T Z-4•Z(oZ A. SUMMARY INFORMATION:' Orange County Tax Map )4 BLack Lot(s) 5 Township , 7 • Zoning District(s) : Total. Number of Acres: 30.75 Fhas,s: + 1 Total- Number or Late:- .1./._ Average Lot Size: •Minimum Lot Slze Z.07 Number/Typa of Structures.: Leal sting) (proposed)5J $u. cAmMY Lineal Feet in Streets: _ 1100Z Acres in Open Space Water Rupp Ly:, • Pub Li c(speci fy3 Community ,jCC ,�.Indi vi due L Wastewater Di spass L:• Pub Li c(spalai fy 1 _ .Community Z..;ndi vi duo L. Schoo L Di stri et: , Fi re District-: Genera L Land Uses in Area: TEMTIE-1411051, Critic.L Areas: �atream/d-re.inageweye �fLaod prone. areas watershed(spool fy) ____historic sites. otbsr(sap Lai n)• B. ALL p..Lats must. be submitted on sheet no sma'L Ls r than one inch equa Ls two— hundred feet (i "Ii2D0 ' l and. no Larger than one inch aqua Ls fifty feet. (16=504 3 and suet contain the ft; lLawing information : . .•• ssbdlv1sleu emu peso of snarlpl �S. •"•, bs1 tdlaq sosbaaa Barr .g,,•„:. by motorise se typical lot eck items ', sass- at surveyor. seglnasr sr Layout lesd planner ti+urta twisting sod proposed ass•■ mpleted) ':' r (sltLel prstiwlnary Plea . pants (drainage. sti 11tiss. i .4. w+:•+ @eels, meta arrow (Marta as -:� : made,- etc.] top of semi ='•` r:lsting, prepared end -:s": date tine/gains moisten eased adjolaleg Agate—f■ ay y,64.. }=)5 tasd.Alp, taa pop-eLSC tat • IsoLadlog dieuesiees and •". refammoss straat Rats0 obi' state rune - '• bwaenery desaribd alto embers ^' bearing* sae dletaaaua f_ raletles end proposed••• «..� +r tesaL #arwrpe of tee tltlLitl•#♦ 1etiLreinq 4N.:::•:: red rrrragO Of lets. locLsdlsy type, sizes, sod eadtadisg eras vitals ifflq hydrants, wolves sad '• :•?'; rigbta—fmoy wane ise ::2-• ssetrol earner le.. • 4;�, aaletteo sad proposed culvert proMad let llama pith J issLadta9 signs' sod graces wa dleensla - typical Street cross-soothe■ ` Lou 4 Moberg. sd wsrr 's`• ousels; flare ',//: saaegrapay es tea seer (t01 '. sad ieeeeenation entails 4:.,:• including elision sod eldta : dt erawalay and snealdrrs -7,:,.• interval' r hurl mass l •Li oas#nt and • motor hod's. streams. flood+ ' goners'. carve dots (pusLic '� �-'-. suessdbrt�rs lsadanotatioa • roads'. t� permanent fertaets such es . ,twdlsatlwa restricted ;'•-r:= buildings. asestaries, darsleemost potential ��:� historic Laaesueks, tousable. sow spate end metro.- edjalniag LOT Layout %erritorls( pLennieg - asses of ed.01e 11g property . jurladletisa (lase sales sunset ORO subdivisions �/ •'' > cross tea property +.. w ... Location sad size Of parusLi dedia/trd POP public use Or reeeeeed le is 500050 LOestioa and ,size of Lots- of restricted dsveLopoont potential and / Y natation on plat regorging seam aterrgtsr asnagssast plea Indicating prevision few eantrei .0 -±. fi rat 1/7 4 nafp ^' •-•••. • C. DINER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: 1 . Twenty—six (28) copies of the preliminary plat 2. Two toll size copies of an Orange County Tax map (one copy with ta 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 syetsm for each lot. I , the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete accurate. I understand that a $21O.O0 fee (subdivisions of 15 p and or a $370.0Q fee (subdivisions of 16 lots or more) is due at lots or lase] application . A t6.QQ per Lot fee is due at the time the final time is of :resented for recordation . plat i s (/;Zt.-- 4)4 P P LI CA ' i/ "4�/ -mac NT 5 SIGNATURE OWNER- SIGNATURE �/ LATE .� F DATE• • FEES: Amount TSn Date Paid Receipt tz__ • LACIkwooP -Foe sr Li- 1N.V TMttiLT F� G �u ZQ 15 u FFzz. . ID. 0 *CC O I °i ` ! 4' o Q ( gyp 1 ti_ r aD e_ 6 an;:- < CC 11 0 . PI- f,' `J • _ a . *I1, v,l® C.•�o ; . c I i 211 : • cn j N. ( . i ■ • Jo co - '',1 0-- 4 V" m\ Sp,. LU "- LW ci qi.- ' 'a- 0 a) -0... le ap `vim N. - c' �. "�6d, 7b N . v� J. 7 >\ 0 -44, on ....2,, \, � � _ rrp \ U O 0 _ ti to N c rFa i I O CV �w ti N D r, _ M 'two 7 yr c0.. • 14 a • l co_ �) E..;1 'c 1...? '1 1 .1 1` 1 • 124 BLACKWOOD FOREST SUBDIVISION 11 /85 ORANGE COUNTY STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Emily Crudup SKETCH PLAN: Received Reviewed PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 2-27-87 Reviewed 3-5-87 REVISED PRELIMINARY. PLAT: Received 4-16-87 Reviewed N/A NCDOT: DATE 3-25-87 CERTIFICATION J. M. Mills, District Engineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill -Carrboro) : DATE 3-4-87 CERTIFICATION N/A UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE Certification OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel Hill Kay (Date) Carrboro - - (Date) Hillsborough (Date) Durham (Date) Other S & E W_ F (Date) Health T. Konsler, 3-16-87 Date) (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date Approval �_ Approval with Conditions Denial _ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date Approval _ Approval with Conditions �_ Denial TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL k.eli 3106 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET G CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27514-3699 L 7 1 / / 7 CAROLINA April 13, 1987 Telephone (919) 968-2700 Emily Crudup Planner II Orange County Planning Dept. 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Emily, Here are our comments on Blackwood Forest Subdivision: 1. We agree with your requirement of buffers at Mt. Sinai Road and the railroad track (30' and 50' respectively). . We hope you will consider road stub-outs to the east due to the narrow lot on the east and the possibility of having another street inter- secting Mt. Sinai just 200 feet to the east. 3. What will the ultimate classification of Mt. 5inai Road be? Should additional right-of-way be dedicated now? 5' AvplTLOtitQL t~tcf.rr OF. W,GH i s 4 w.I Oki `('f-F=- ?LAW. Thank your for sending us the plat and information for our Courtesy Review. Si cerely, ,' -�ce�✓1.C. Ka Maltbie,ie, AICP Planner I KM?/gp N Tub 417JOL t 114.11 er.oPEL'T-! TO T44 . .AsT OF BL_r.WoDD r-oz=zT Wolk-9 655T E:. "5EzV1✓47 5...( 4 ezi,4 p 4LICM P PAe.4f.La1.. LOk4 1X15 OP= Ti4a rAPGML . . A 5TU5-CUT BP_O l4ET by 7D � To T# Cv?1HOJ! PPOPPLZTY L.1A11✓ WOULD e.L rjou Am pi uw PAL Bi,,1- eakr2 A�LC,u+i r Tit�4`r coUL.p ,,uar )�l �41�1 S e�� ALU OF C.oT g41 �fi�1C(ir,�1TLY 2 ct 12 t STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN March 25, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON SECRETARY GEORGE E.WELLS, P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Ms. Emily Crudup Orange County Planning Department 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Preliminary Plan for Blackwood Forest. Subdivision Off SR 1718 (Mt. Sinai Road) Dear Ms. Crudup: Please be advised that the subject prelimina is approved. I foresee no sight distance problems. rY plan This approval pertains only to the preliminary plan submitted and should not be construed as final approval If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours very truly, J.. 'M. Mills DISTRICT ENGINEER JMM/SPI:jbh An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH gg NORTH CAROLINA i 27277 este or rrni q Sf� S] MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Crudup, Planner FROM: Warren Falrcloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Blackwood Forest Subdivision Stormwater Management Plan DATE: April 1 , 1987 The plan for this subdivision proposes to meet the Ordinance requirements by dividing large lots, limiting the amount of impervious surface on each lot, and retaining a buffer of vegetation around the perimeter of each lot to filter and absorb runoff. The plan meets the Ordinance requirements. pay 8 126 (Cheeks Township) Presentation by Garrett. The Township ipont question the eastsideof Efland-Cedar Cheeks Cedar GroveRoad ( SR 1004) . There is one ( 1 ) lot proposed, the lot size is 3.7016 acres. The zoning designation is Rural Residential (R-1 ) with the overlay district of Upper Eno Protected Watershed (PW II ) . The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential and Upper Eno Water Supply Watershed. All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the proposal . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the subdivision subject to the applicant indicating the lot size excluding the right-of-way. The application for preliminary subdivision plan approval was reviewed on February 27, 1987 . The 85 day review period expires on May 23, 1987. MOTION: Walters moved approval . Seconded by Yuhazs. VOTE: Unanimous. e. Blackwood Forest - Preliminary Plat ( Chapel Hill Township) Presentation by Crudup. The property is located in Chapel Hill Township on the north side of Mt. Sinai Road ( SR 1718) approximately 1/4 mile east of N.C. 86. The tract is bordered on the north by the Southern Railroad. There are 13 lots proposed out of 30 .75 acres. The average lot size is 2. 17 acres. The subdivision will be served by Hathaway Lane, a proposed public road. All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. The Town of Chapel Hill has raised concerns regarding a stub-out to the eastern property line and additional right-of-way for Mt. Sinai Road. The Orange County Planning Department addressed these concerns during development review as follows: C7 a 12 - 0 ( 1 ) Service to the property east of Blackwood Forest would best be provided by a road paralleling the long axis of the tract. A stub-out, perpendicular to the common property line, would not efficiently serve all of the tract. (2) Mt. Sinai Road (existing 60-foot right-of-way) is presently classified as a collector road (70 foot right-of-way standard) . The applicant has provided one-half (5 feet) of the additional right-of-way ( 10 feet) needed. The Recreation and Parks Department has recommended a payment- in- lieu in the amount of $2,226 ( 13/35th of an acre x $6,000/acre - 1987 valuation) . No recreation sites are shown on the tract in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Blackwood Forest subject to the following conditions: ( 1 ) Submission of payment- in- lieu in the amount of $2,226. (2) Revision of preliminary plan or provision of separate landscape plan identifying stands of existing trees and those trees to be preserved upon project completion, specifying location, species, and approximate size. (3) Delineate the location of land use buffers on the preliminary plan, both by buffer type and " land use buffer" notations. (4) Provide typical planting detail plans for Type D and Type B buffers. (5) Identify typical lot detail drawing as such. The application for preliminary subdivision plan approval was received on February 27 , 1987. The 85 day review period expires on May 23, 1987 . Crudup distributed a memorandum from Orange County Recreation and Parks Director, Mary Anne Black, recommending payment- in- Iieu of dedication in that no park sites or greenway areas are designated within the property on the Land Use Plan. Jacobs asked the location of this property in relation to Duke Forest. Szymik responded it is approximately one-half mile west of Duke Forest. I3L& fl 1.30- 10 Pilkey inquired about the access for Graystone. Crudup responded it was approximately 300 feet west of Hathaway Lane. Jacobs added the condition that all lots access Hathaway Lane. Staff agreed with this condition. MOTION: Walters moved approval with conditions. Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: 7 in favor. 1 abstained (Yuhasz - due to professional conflict of interest) . f . Carl Lloyd - Preliminary Plat (Bingham/Chapel Hill Township) Presentation by Crudup. The property in question is located south of Old Greensboro Road (SR 1005) and is divided by the Bingham/Chapel Hill Township line. The total acreage of the tract is 126.5 acres. Nine (9) lots are proposed, averaging 5 .6 acres in size. The re maining acreage in tracts 1 , 2, and 3 will be retained by the owners and has been designated for future development. The property is located in the Joint Planning Area and is designated Rural Buffer on the Land Use Plan. The zoning designation Is Rural Buffer and PW- I1 Protected Watershed. All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. The property is to be served by a proposed Class A private road. The Planning Department feels a Class A private road is justified given the character of the development and the lot sizes proposed ( see attached Staff evaluation) . The N.C. Department of Transportation has indicated that sight distance at the intersection of the proposed private road and Old Greensboro Road is adequate provided clearing is done east of the intersection. A 15- inch drainage pipe is also recommended at that location . The Town of Carrboro has provided courtesy review comments which indicate development standards applicable in its jurisdiction. Whereas the Town ' s permitted lot area would be 40,000 square feet, the location of the property in the Rural Buffer requires a two-acre lot size in the County 's jurisdiction. Impervious surface restrictions and buffer standards are also required in the County 's jurisdiction. O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS i ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date May 19, 1987 Action nda Item �p SUBJECT: LLOYD SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: June 23, 1987 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment( s) Information Contact: Emily Crudup Application Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Preliminary Plan Certification Agency Comments Draft Planning Board Minutes 4-27-87 Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for the Lloyd Subdivision. BACKGROUND: The property in question is located south of Old Greensboro Road ( SR 1005) and is divided by the Bingham/Chapel Hill Township line. The total acreage of the tract is 126.5 acres. Nine (9) lots are proposed, averaging 5 .6 acres in size. The remaining acreage in tracts 1 , 2, and 3 will be retained by the owners and has been designated for future development. The property is located in the Joint Planning Area and is designated Rural Buffer on the Land Use Plan. The zoning designation is Rural Buffer and PW- II Protected Watershed . All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. The property is to be served by a proposed Class A private road. The Planning Department feels a Class A private road is Justified given the character of the development and the lot sizes proposed ( see attached Staff evaluation) . The N.C. Department of Transportation has indicated that sight distance at the intersection of the proposed private road and Old Greensboro Road is adequate provided clearing is done east of the intersection. A 15- inch drainage pipe is also recommended at that location . LLOYD SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN 13'4 The Town of Carrboro has provided courtesy review comments. which indicate development standards applicable in its jurisdiction . Whereas the Town ' s permitted lot area would be 40,000 square feet, the location of the property in the Rural Buffer requires a two-acre lot size in the County 's jurisdiction. Impervious surface restrictions and buffer standards are also required in the County 's jurisdiction . The Recreation and Parks Director has indicated a desire for a greater land area dedication than required by application of the recreation standards ( see attached memorandum) . At its April 27 , 1987 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval subject to the following conditions : ( 1 ) Calculate stream buffer as required by Article 6.23 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance and show location of stream buffer boundary based on calculation, including the notation, "No building or structures are permitted within the stream buffer as shown hereon, and the stream buffer shall remain in its natural state as required by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. " (2) Provide for dedication of recreation space ( greenway) equivalent to 9/35th of an acre of land ( 11 ,201 sq. ft. ) and located adjacent to Neville Creek. Further recommend that the developer meet with the Recreation and Parks Director to discuss voluntary dedication of additional property adjacent to Neville Creek and its tributaries for additional greenway. (3) Provide pedestrian access easement 30 feet in width, centered on the property line dividing lot 7 and lot 8, and extending from the cul -de-sac to Neville Creek. (4) Provide road name for proposed Class A Private Road. (5) Provide a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. (6) Clear sight triangle on east side of proposed Class A Private Road at its intersection with Old Greensboro Road. (7 ) Provide 15- inch drainage pipe under proposed Class A Private Road at its intersection with Old Greensboro Road. The applicant has indicated a willingness to provide a pedestrian easement adjacent to Neville Creek equal in width to the required stream buffer (varies 701-100 ' ) . The deed restrictions will also be revised to prevent further subdivision of the lots ( average of 5 .6 acres in size) . LLOYD SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends approval of the preliminary plan as recommended by the Planning Board with condition #2 revised as follows : (2) Provide pedestrian greenway easement located adjacent to Neville Creek and equal in width to the required stream buffer along Neville Creek. A maintenance agreement shall be submitted and approved by the County Attorney which shall provide for the dedication of the easement to an appropriate governing body or public agency at the time the easement becomes part of a public greenway system. An additional condition, #8, is also recommended. (8) Revise the proposed restrictive covenants to prevent further subdivision of lots 1 -9. The Board of Commissioners has thirty-six (36) days within which to act on this application. The deadline for action is June 23, 1987 . • .."'�... i get UK rilINT ( INK ONLY) • 11/85 laid ORANGE COUNTY DATE: _i129/87 SUBDIVISION NAME: Llo d Pro ert Subdivision LOCATION: SR 1005 OWNER/DEVE LOPER: Mr. and Mrs. Carl Llo d and Paul Lloyd ADDRESS• Route ox L.h2pei {.•ilk TELEPHONE NO. AGENT/CONTACT: . TELEPHONE NO . : 929-3839 A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Look 1 Chapel Hill Orange County Tax Map 37 8 Zoning Olstrictls) : .' "` PW _ III~" Lot (a) 3 � Township B_ hami Total Number of Acres: 1 6.5 Total Number of Lots: Q Phases : Total Number/Type Average Lot Si xe: 5.7 aCMin imam Lot Size 5. 1 ac. of Structures: (existing) '~~ Lineal Felt in Streets: 4500 IaposedJ Hole f m. Water Supply: Acres in Open Specs •Wastewater Disposal: PubLlclapecify) Community 5 _,�PubLic(apecif ) Y Individual School District: Y Community ... _Indi vi due L Schoo Ll Land Uses in Araa: Fire District: Critical Arses: X stream/drainageways Re i flood c�y) prone arses wetarshed[ape other(explain) ..r—�histaric sites 8. ALL pLate must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch a ua hundred feet (1 "=200i1 and no q Ls ttro- (1 "m50' ) and must contain the fallewingrinformation; inch equals fifty feet ` , Subdivision name -'L '" awe of osnerle) +� � building setback lines� :heck items , •— : asre of serve's', engineer Sr by notation or typical lot =ORIp 1 e led) „/ ¢ lead p l layout '� (title) Preliminary P esleslwg red prapoaad esa.- •- seats. worth array (North as (drains**. sea et real S utiliti.a. :. r steel + des. (including revision dates) •slating, proporrd and A' township, Las rao■bLOOk�lbi adjoining rlphs dimensions references including tllrahalep. sad L �c bauad.ry described with ears.! aarss sad asses road Ky'• bearings and diet.na.r nurbar. • ?� « tots/ acreage of the erect .•}}e' existing and p • - ..:3- red acreage of Iota 'including etllisle.. including and excluding ere• eliniq type. sizes, valves v :, N rlgbte..f-cry • ayd , ••lees and pairs t corner nonliving �� �°'' proposed lee lines with - A .. , existing and proposed eulirsrs " dot lowborn g else. and grao.r +�• Let Au"bera _ 1 typical street-Cruse•-sections - phasing lines `'C ass intrreeestbn dria/le eldth s at tun foes 1101 including g g deal a ■ntl hoold jv laterirale t: of frreelar� and ehoYls.re hatt sator bodies. streams. flood- •k,i horizontal aliQ ' ''•`'• may and floadpLain. g )l curve data (public stream' indicatinpfreairld notation �/ ;:� permanent restores such as daeslrpmeni potential :'' buildings. tee, township, corporate end ass•.- .� o-. hlrterin laromrrka. ::',/', territorial planning .dJbininp toe Jurisdiction liars .bich n Mss Sf etlJoiniw l ''' g property cross the proarrty Scours end subtlisiaiona -. t.e.tigo and site of parcele d.dicasad for public use or resarvald ? �. In Sermon ✓ ` location and aids of lots of restricted development potential and ' notatlen ea plat r.gerding ease aseroretor rrnegor.nt plan indicating provision for control of the first 1/2 loch of runoff from impervious surfaces (GRAY AREAS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) C. OTNER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: p 130 1 . Twenty—six [E6) copies of the preliminary plat B. Two full size copies of an 0 rsn e parcel• involved clearly marked] .g County Tax ex map Iona copy with tax 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer County Health Department certifying othaavailable , a each lot. letter from the Orange proposed wastewater system for I , the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing I , the accurate. I applicant, hereby 9 n9 application is complete or • aS70.00 tun (subdivisions of $210.00 fee (subdivisions of 15 plate and application . A $5.00 iv lots or more) is lots time lees) presented for recordation .per Lot Tea is due at the due at the time of Y ._... _. time the final plot is APPLICANT 'S SIGNATURE / ■ r OWNER 'S SIGNATURE DATE DATE FEES: Amoont 3290 .vo Date Paid _2:LEL Receiptl 12 .42.9 • • 1 _ �, 3s SVI6t7IvlSlo� °" 32.23E PZT ' CAPLi PdUL LLorp Z� Y 2' Ha bAC see \ II RIOT To SCALD 1 PIA 11 MAP 36-10 kik i \ AL\ ________ I 11.7 r67S Fzi lillisilhi F4 . 3 I�� x 3157 q0 40 AG. Ali\il 6eS \\;11D I50 1 6.53 1...: ; • 111111111/4\ \ '-- I 3r l I I 4234:. I a y ISECOrs •E6 v L Fu � r 2: • `mss i _ 1�A-. SB7'6 I I II E5 ill; SSW I i (3L1621 ;II IE 17.83 A:. 71/ f35B + ,A� II2S3 !7 , LLOYD SUBDIVISION 11/85 : , I : 1, 1 1 " : 0 ORANC;: Cniinrry STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Emily Crudup SKETCH PLAN: Received 1-9-87 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Reviewed 1-15-87 Received 1-30-87 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: 3` Reviewed 2-4-87 Received 2-87 Reviewed 3-5-87 NCDOT: DATE 3-4-87 CERTIFICATION Mike Mills, District Engineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill -Carrboro) : DATE 2-26-87 UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/grange Alaman ce/DurhCERTIFICATION N/A am) : DATE OTHER: Recreation Advisor Certification Carrboro Fire Department M.A. Black, 3-4- 7 (Date) Chapel Hill (Date) Gar. p rboro (Courtesy Review) (Date) Hillsborough rker 4-2-87 (Date) Durham Other S & E (Date) W. (Date) Health Dept. To _- - 7 (Date) - 7 (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date Approval with Conditions Denial 30ARD OF COMMISSIONERS; Date Approval with Conditions Denial Me ldt MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Planning Board FROM: Orange County Planning Department SUBJECT: Lloyd Subdivision - Preliminary Plan Private Road Evaluation DATE: April 24, 1987 BACKGROUND Private roads may be allowed in a subdivision when the following conditions have been found to exist. 1 . The nature and location of the subdivision, includ- ing such considerations as topography, the surrounding area, present and future road plans, and public safety access Justify private roads, and 2. One or more of the following conditions exist: a) the subdivision consists of less than ten ( 10 ) lots; b ) the subdivision preserves a natural area through deed restriction and special design features; c) the subdivision does not include or abut any part of a thoroughfare or street shown on the Orange County thoroughfare plan or the thoroughfare plan of an Orange County munici- pality, or does not Ile within a designated transition area determined by the County; d ) the subdivision Joins or extends an existing subdivision where the streets are private or unpaved and when the new subdivision shall be platted to connect with the streets of such existing subdivision and be compatible with 134 and in harmony with the surrounding community area; and e) the subdivision roads, even if constructed to State Standards, would not be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or some other State requirements that the subdivision cannot meet. EVALUATION In applying these conditions to the Lloyd Subdivision, the Planning Department notes the following: 1 . The proposed subdivision is located in the western portion of the University Lake watershed. The subdivision recognizes this in several design features : large lots (at least 5 acres in size) and a road that minimizes stream and drainage way crossings. The road is designed so as to limit its extension to adjoining properties. This is felt to be desirable since such extension would increase the number of stream crossings. There are no developments on adjoining property that contain roads which should be connected with the road proposed for this subdivision. 2. a) The subdivision consists of nine (9) lots less than ten ( 10 ) acres in size. Three (3) tracts over ten ( 10 ) acres in size are not considered to be subdivision lots by State law and County regulation. b) The subdivision does not preserve a natural area. The proposed road does minimize cross- ing streams and drainage ways. c) The subdivision does not include or abut any street shown on any thoroughfare plan adopted in Orange County and it is not in a transition area indicated in any Orange County Land Use Plan . d) The subdivision does not join or extend an existing subdivision. e) Even if the road were constructed to NCDOT standards, the State would not accept the road for maintenance. The proposed density (0 .56 houses per 528 feet of road) do not meet the State density minimum (2 houses per 528 feet of road) . 14U RECOMMENDATIONS The evaluation of the proposed private road in the Lloyd subdivision indicates that a private road is appropriate. The road as designed incorporates beneficial aspects. The design also limits its use to this subdivision, an essen- tially private use. Changing the design to expand its use to adjoining areas would involve incorporating undesirable features ( stream or drainage way crossings) . The subdivision satisfies two (2) of the five (5) conditions in item 2. The most significant factor is that the State would not accept the road for maintenance because of density requirements. Based on this evaluation, the Staff recommends that the proposed subdivision road be approved as a private road. Further subdivision of Tots served by this road may produce a situation where a public road should be required. At that time, the applicant would be required to construct the road to State standards. N atillAkC %� 300 West Tryon Street cr s� HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 r `— life.Beira it. Mary Anne Black, Director r MEMORANDUM 1 TO; . Emily Crudup, Planner II FROM: Mary Anne Black ` }jg DATE: March 4, 1987 RE: Carl Lloyd Subdivision Upon review of the preliminary plan for the ro p paste Carl Lloyd Subdivision I see two elements warranting comment from a recreation and park perspective: 1. the subject property's location within the JPA, requiring dedication of land for public recreation purposes unit, equalling y 2 � the ratio of 1/35 acre per 9 approximatel 11,201 1 f•ft22.. 2. the 22,900 ft2 designated along Neville Creek as "recreation/open space". Although only required to provide approximately 11,201 ft2, the developer is proposing a strip of land approximately twenty (20) feet wide along the creek. It is my concern that this area's width would make this strip of land unusable for greenway this creek is designated for such in the Land Use Plan. yet I would like the opportunity to "walk" the suitability for a greenway and/or dedication property do at this area's convenience. my earliest Thank you for the opportunity to offer these staff comments. I will off these comments, and those forthcoming to to the Recreation g you after walking the property, to and Parks Advisory Council for review at their April 7th monthly meeting. i will then forward to you any other comments, if any, they may have. MAB/pbl Hillsborough, 732-9361 • Durham, 688-7333 • Chapel Hill, 968-4501 • Mebane, - 7 Ares Code 919 2�7 2Q3_ t il, ,.: g ,, C .... 1 3?' �� 3_' Wes' Mai- 5rree' :.arr^.Or'v h NMI.c..r.as.w'w.•-'+L:..�:.._w w.-�..':.: "�,a��:....-..,rte. ... -....�... - $Of. -o; ,c,;+ 942-E5a- April 2, 1987 Emily Crudup Orange County Planning Department 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Lloyd Subdivision Courtesy Review Dear Ms. Crudup: In reference to the above referenced plans the following comments are offered. If this subdivision were located within the Town of Carrboro it would m than likely be zoned R-40 for residential development. This zone has more density and impervous surface restrictions with respect to watershed protection, and additional information such as buffer areas would be required. Please find enclosed a copy of the sections of Carrboro L Use Ordinance covering these requirements, and Any roads in Carrboro which serve more than three lots would be to be paved. A six foot shoulder would also be required. required If you have any questions, please call . . .5 erely „AT. ai,tibe„L„ di 'Amy Parker Development Coordinator AMP:sgm ,w5rilTEo. • 14 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN March 4, 1987 GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E. HARRINGTON SECRETARY GEORGE E.WELLS, P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Ms. Emily Crudup Orange County Planning Department 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Lloyd Subdivision Off SR 1005 Dear Ms. Crudup: I have provided the following cowmentson the subject development.: 1. Sight distance is adequate providing clearing is done (see attachment-). 2. A 15-inch pipe is required for drainage (see attachment). 3. A driveway permit will be required accompanied by a fifty ($50.00) dollar inspection fee. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact. this office. Yours very truly, J. M. Mills ISTRICT ENGINEER JMM/SPI:jbh At-ta. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer 5 ,t �� 14q •„,..,, 1 - 1 i • • • -jj 7 fi - , P 15.r . p,e'• i - _- • • w. - � \S.o k` ao ir. • Fe, mac .,. }T! x p r; w• ',-7-', r _n % / ' ..^Z C.:: • • r+w.rrr.w.r..rr.r f t J"...\� y +sr r..r.wr...rrM.r.w...... 3 3 .t • -• ORANGE COUNTY PLANK LNG DEPARTMENT t. III LLSBOROUGH lv NORTH CAROLINA 27278 .r e ,.r 1 II tr 'S2 'Ii (Sr.0 MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Crudup, Planner FROM: Warren Faircloth. Erosion Control Officer SUBJECT: Carl Lloyd Subdivision Stormwater Management Plan DATE: February 20. 1987 The plan for this subdivision proposes to meet the Ordinance requirements for the infiltration and detention of stormwater by using large lots. a buffer of vegetation around each lot to filter and absorb runoff. a ravel swales along the road to filter runoff. rThe�plandmeetssthee Ordinance requirements. iL)OMci1h1 .r � d 14t. 10 Pilkey inquired about the access for Graystone. Crudup responded it was approximately 300 feet west of Hathaway Lane. Jacobs added the condition that all lots access Hathaway Lane. Staff agreed with this condition. MOTION: Walters moved approval with conditions. Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: 7 in favor. 1 abstained (Yuhasz - due to professional conflict of interest) . f . Carl Lloyd - Preliminary Plat (Bingham/Chapel Hill Township) Presentation by Crudup. The property in question is located south of Old Greensboro Road (SR 1005) and is divided by the Bingham/Chapel Hill Township line. The total acreage of the tract is 126.5 acres. Nine (9) lots are proposed, averaging 5.6 acres in size. The re maining acreage in tracts 1 , 2, and 3 will be retained by the owners and has been designated for future development. The property is located in the Joint Planning Area and is designated Rural Buffer on the Land Use Plan. The zoning designation is Rural Buffer and PW- II Protected Watershed. All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. The property is to be served by a proposed Class A private road. The Planning Department feels a Class A private road is justified given the character of the development and the lot sizes proposed ( see attached Staff evaluation) . The N. C. Department of Transportation has indicated that sight distance at the intersection of the proposed private road and Old Greensboro Road is adequate provided clearing is done east of the intersection. A 15- inch drainage pipe is also recommended at that location. The Town of Carrboro has provided courtesy review comments which indicate development standards applicable in its jurisdiction. Whereas the Town ' s permitted lot area would be 40,000 square feet, the location of the property in the Rural Buffer requires a two-acre lot size in the County 's jurisdiction. Impervious surface restrictions and buffer standards are also required in the County 's jurisdiction. ho Al fir 14i 11 The Recreation and Parks Director has indicated a desire for a greater land area dedication than required by application of the recreation standards (see attached memorandum) . Planning Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: ( 1 ) Calculate stream buffer as required by Article 6 .23. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance and show location of stream buffer boundary based on calculation, including the notation, "No building or structures are permitted within the stream buffer as shown hereon, and the stream buffer shall remain in its natural state as required by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. " (2) Provide for dedication of recreation space (greenway) equivalent to 9/35th of an acre of land per dwelling unit ( 11 ,201 sq. ft. ) and located adjacent to Neville Creek. Further recommend that the developer meet with the Recreation and Parks Director to discuss voluntary dedication of additional property adjacent to Neville Creek and its tributaries for additional greenway. (3) Provide pedestrian access easement 30 feet in width, centered on the property line dividing lot 7 and lot 8, and extending from the cul -de sac to Neville Creek. (4) Provide road name for proposed Class A Private Road. (5 ) Revise preliminary plan or provide separate landscape plan identifying stands of existing trees and those trees to be preserved upon project completion, specifying location, species, and approximate size. (6) Provide typical landscaping detail plans in accordance with Section IV-B-8-c of the Subdivision Regulations for those areas where existing landscaping is not available. (7 ) Clear sight triangle on east side of proposed Class A Private Road at its intersection with Old Greensboro Road. ( 8) Provide 15- inch drainage pipe under proposed Class A Private Road at its intersection with Old Greensboro Road. 14b © W U 12 The application for preliminary subdivision plat approval was received on January 30, 1987. The 85-day review period expired on April 24, 1987 . The plat would have been considered by the Planning Board on April 20, 1987, but the meeting was postponed to April 27, 1987 due to a County holiday. Crudup continued noting that in regard to condition #2, the Orange County Recreation Parks and Recreation Director had negotiated with Mr. Lloyd for dedication of the entire stream buffer area. However, Mr. Lloyd responded that he does not wish to dedicate additional area. ( See copy of attached memo) . The applicant, Carl Lloyd responding to a question by Yuhasz, said that he had no problem with the 30 foot pedestrian easement required in condition #3. In regard to condition #4, the road name is Holly Creek Lane. Jacobs inquired if the owner-maintained tracts 1 , 2 and 3 were developed, would the road be upgraded to State standards and dedicated public. Szymik responded that, as the private road assessment indicated, development density in the subdivision would not meet NCDOT requirements for State main- tained roads. With as few as five (5 ) additional lots created by further subdivision, the density requirement would be met. The subdivision was designed, by keeping the road easement in single ownership, to facilitate public dedication. MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval with staff conditions. Seconded by Walters. VOTE: Unanimous. Jacobs stated that the applicant might wish to consider a conservation easement on the stream buffer. This would also provide a tax break for the owner. g. Hunters Woods - Preliminary Plat (Bingham Township) Presentation by Crudup. This plan is for the division of lots 3 and 4 of Hunters ' Woods. The property is located in Bingham Township south of O R A N G E C O U N T Y 146 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date May 19, 1987 Action A nda Item SUBJECT: ARCHIE M. GRAHAM, JR. - PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: June 23, 1987 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment( s) Information Contact: Jane Garrett Application Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Preliminary Plan Certification Agency Comments Draft 4-27-87 Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for the property of Archie M. Graham, Jr. BACKGROUND: The property in question is located in Cheeks Township on the east side of Efland-Cedar Grove Road ( SR 1004) . There is one ( 1 ) new lot proposed ; the lot size is 3.7016 acres. The zoning designation is Rural Residential ( R-1 ) with the overlay district of Upper Eno Protected Watershed ( PW- II ) . The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential and Upper Eno Water Supply Watershed . All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the proposal . At its April 27 , 1987 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the subdivision subject to the applicant indicating the lot size excluding the right-of-way and the provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted . RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends approval of the preliminary plan as recommended by the Planning Board. The Board of Commissioners has thirty-six ( 36) days within which to act on this application. The deadline for action is June 23, 1987 . LASE TYPE OR PRINT"'O'NK ONLY) . ,8E AP CATIONi EOR_ SUaDIVISZON AP_aROVkL ORANGE,COUNTY DATE: 2-2 b-07 _ SUBDIVISION NAME: A Pc I rn. �.<' "r^--,94, �, p LOCATION: ,£4t / ' • 00 i 'f ' !i - jAM. 7tU-i e- Ir OWNER/DEVELOPER: , fLk4&alk• I 1 941-, ADDRESS: l l TELEPHONE NO . : •'7 "2-- T 3 • , ti . 7 AGENT/CONTACT:. /2Lj _Js/ TELEPHONE NO . : A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tax Map 4 4 B Lock , A Latta) , /e . Township (#.1-/..-A5 Zoning Districtis) : , A / _ PW-ic Total Number of Acres: ?. 7niit, Phases : 1 Total. Number of Lots: / Average Lot Size: 3. 7e>' Minimum Lot Size 2...2.2 Number/Type of Structures-: (existing] ?VOA e- _.(proposed) / .46_.r ..._ Lineal. Peet in Streets: ' re.0 if Acres in Open Space water Supply:,,, ..• e.-La.,4 ubLic(specify) Community _____Individual Wastewater Disposal: - Pub Li c(apeci fy l Community Indi vi,dua I. Schoo L District: 7v 'oG i11 Fi re District: F-e.[,.., 0, 1(4414.41-, t. General Land Uses in Area: Critical. Areas: +stream/dreinegeways flood prone areas CIA L & 4 K.d-• watershed(spool fy3 _ _historic sites otbei'(exp lain 3, 8. ALL. p.Lets must be submitted on sheet no smeLLer than one inch squats two- hundred feet i1 6u2013' 7 and• no larger than one inch aqua La fifty feat (l "=50' J and must contain the foI.Lowing information : • .�� subdivision mums Z but lding setback lines - - ' • name of ownerta) by notation or typical lot 'heck I tems name of S per, engineer or lapods lead pl _� existing and pre••••• uu+ Z0171pI8tBd) • [title] Prett•inary PLsa wants (drsinega, utilities, somas, north arrow (North at Z 4 roads, atc.1 . ` Sap of 5501 — _ ■xi sting, 0 ropenad and , ;' data Cinoluding revision diet's) cyf:l: adjoining rightsrof-.ay loenehtp, tat sap-b Lock-tot tnoladlag dimensions sad references ' street names sat ss.sa rasa boundary d i0ed with numbers • - rer•-. bearings and di _ <= axiss/ng and p LOW. go of the tract f utilities, - including sad eorrege of lets, Inc Loading n type, spas, sad excluding area within `• hydrants, vs twos and•', rights-oftisp :" amino lea �. control corners alistiag sad proposed Culvert .� - -" proposed lot lines with , �;fiavt. Including slcos and grades •ti• ' dimensions �„� —: typical street cross-sections "-- Lot numbers and intarsaction natal la ;inswing lines • including assign and width t0pogr$phy at tan fact (101 $Y' .; 0f travetery and shoulders Insert■Lr — 2E: heelsante& aLlg and •' enter bodies, at , ?loco+ z.: general curve oat. (public • say end flaadpLains M: roads) • • `• !Irene buffer* sod notation Jai perw.nsa: raw such as ,{h.' indicating restrieced '"`" buttaiegs, peseta ries, •' ' dove tenement p 1.l �. historic landasrks, .- township, numerate sod extra. • adjoining Los layout territerisl planning names of adjoining property : Jurisdiotlon lines which owners and subdivisions cross the property location sod sire of percale dedicated for public use or roasrrad in cbpan ` ' ,. . - '- `Looatlon sad Sits of lots of restricted dwelopmaat patentt•l and if: ' nossti on on plat regarding saes _,_ a,,;.. etarseater aansgrw.nt plan indicating provision for control of the first 1/2 inch of runoff free ! loos serf Ai UST 13E 6116MiTIED C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS : rJ l 1 . Twenty—six (25) 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 OMASA sewer is not available , a letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system for each Lot . I , the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete end accurate. I understand that a $210.00 fee (subdivisions of 15 Lots or less) or a $370 .00 fee (subdivisions of 15 Lots or more) is due at the time of application . A $5.00 per Lot fee is due at the time the final plat is presented for recordation . APPLICANT 'S SIGNATURE OWNER ''S SISNATURE 2 _ 2 (-9 DATE DAT E 0 FEES: Amount 41069-- Date Paid Receipt )2L4 •-e � AC :-... - _ _ .r-.. i- 19855 ,.,. .~r :. d _ w/z.,-- -- ,, 9845 :.:_0, 0 02 -'''''fiL2 A R.CRIE-..a _ in 0 - ZDN u G + Q-� j Pw-7r Rum:Rzs r va on L., �: ma A�rEcv W.4rrs Hm W� LLAP-: DFS►6 T1DN : tiRA1. RES.IDEMnAL I . •- 1 4 . .. . . .. .,.., •w __ . . ,. ...,. ',4 .,,,,,-. - --:::.,-- `r-- - --- : ,-- . - . { S} - - "lwM''.-'.:14" - 'sir. _ _:,y- �, a.n": :'�,e-:.'r--- -` - _ - r .. _ ';e• _:..rte _ :. =✓ -'_ - 4_. '4.may ..-::4+-1..• ,?1• FU. ��. 0 . ;,' . . :y rig 1 7 5517. -se.•: , .�.;;.'.. ;,�:0. .. " _M...., REEK.FOREST _"'`.. r1- - - :`-• -\ - - _ - ✓ .- _. _" - . . :; :�__" tea:. 17 . b :j7R:: . ' s0 M _-- ....1....,= 00 I I A C. 1 • - -:c - - . - a 8749 t 1 .. . _. p y y{ 7 1617 t 1 % 0 1 I 5. - SEE �4.74AC. 8S5 At. :C54-1? MAP 38 7700 -. .,. .` Ov�SI 4'.58 . .‘:1 1 -8.88 AC. j AC,'. CO 1 - I 1 n. . I la= _ `°Y`= 3.4 AC- _ - ,_ ( 1 ,- _ : .A _ E ! �- r_ _� �! (� 1 ./ 3A --: _ j _ ! e \ .- - _ I 1\��/ 2.70 , ::s�.LE• 1 u=4001-0" �j 4.3TAC. V` ' '• =ri = 8.42 A� 4891 seat el_,._ I fn UZI LIS WO/WM/ , 1 I . - 0 :-.i..-- I I 70 A a_ ,�•as 1 .. I , r �- 4 - 1 1 "" i■ . • . • Archie M . Graham, Jr. 1 5 £L/85 ORANGE COUNTY CERTIFICATION AND_ APPROVALS - PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Jane Garrett SKETCH PLAN: Received 12-16-86 Reviewed 12-22-86 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 2-27-87 Reviewed 3-5-87 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received Reviewed NCDOT: DATE 3-23-87 CERTIFICATION J.M. Mills, District Engineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill-Carrboro) : DATE 3-13-87 CERTIFICATION NA UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE Certification OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council 4-15-87 MABlack (Date)no comment(verbally) Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel Hill _(Date) Carrboro (Date) Hillsborough (Date) Durham .(Date) Other S&E 2-26-B7 WFa%rcloth (Date) Health Department 2-4-87 DHecht (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial ORANGE COT.TNTY PLAX LNG DEPARTMENT t. i HILLSBOROUGH 15 4 NORTH CAROLINA 27278 bra -.i • = lit w 17 7 �� S2 * • /i •14 coo'. MEMORANDUM TO: Jane A. Garrett, Planner FROM: Warren Faircloth► Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Stormwater Management for Archie M. Graham Jr. Property DATE: February 26 . 1987 Stormwater from this property will be controlled by the large lot, the limited impervious surface added to the site► limited disturbance► and the retention of a buffer of vegeta- tion around perimeter of the lot to filter and absorb runoff. The subdivision meets the Ordinance requirements. (A)C1A101&*(M4 PLA10 d �ww�O Ib 153 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G.MARTIN March 20, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS,P.E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Ms. Jane A. Garrett Orange County Planning Department 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Preliminary Plan for Proposed Archie M. Graham Lot Off SR 1004 Dear Ms. Garrett: After review of the subject plans, I do not foresee any sight distance problems. However, since the proposed drive- way is not shown on plans, it is impossible for me to make an accurate decision. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours very truly, /4 Ar J M. Mills DISTRICT ENGINEER JMM/SPII:jbh An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer 7 1St c. Winton Place - Preliminary Plat (Hillsborough Township) Presentation by Garrett. The property in question is located in Hillsborough Township on the north side of Orange Grove Road ( SR 1006) . There 40are res,1ethe9) avebage proposed lotse out is 4.4 approximately acres excluding the rights-of--way. The zoning designation is Rural Residential ( R-1 ) with an overlay district of Upper Watershed ( PW II ) . The Land Use Plan ano designation enpis Rural Residential and Upper Watershed. All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. The Orange County Recreation Department request is not applicable, since the project is located in an area where a plan for recreation and parks has not been adopted.provided d T recommended that flare ovied for the Winton Drive ive - Orange design Grove Road intersection. are Approval of the. Preliminary Plan subject to the plus l the intersection design recommended by following conditions : ( 1 ) Indicate the adjoining property owners south of the subject property ( lot 9) . (2) Provide impervious surface data for each lot shown on the plat. The application for preliminary subdivision plan approval was received on January 30, 1987 . The 85 day review period expired on April 24, 1987 . The plat would nsidered by the Planning Boa on to on April 20, 1987, but the meeting was postponed April 27 , 1987 due to a County holiday. MOTION: Walters moved approval . Seconded by Swann. VOTE: 7 in favor. 1 abstained (Yuhasz - due to professional conflict of interest) . d. Archie Graham, Jr. - Preliminary Plat 11 IF 1 (Cheeks Township) Presentation by Garrett. The property in question is located in Cheeks Township on the east side of Efland-Cedar Grove Road ( SR 1004) . There is one ( 1 ) lot proposed, the lot size is 3.7016 acres. The zoning designation is Rural Residential (R-1 ) with the overlay district of Upper Eno Protected Watershed (PW II ) . The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential and Upper Eno Water Supply Watershed. All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the proposal . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the subdivision subject to the applicant indicating the lot size excluding the right-of-way. The application for preliminary subdivision plan approval was reviewed on February 27, 1987 . The 85 day review period expires on May 23, 1987. MOTION: Walters moved approval . Seconded by Yuhazs. VOTE: Unanimous. e. Blackwood Forest - Preliminary Plat (Chapel Hill Township) Presentation by Crudup. The property is located in Chapel Hill Township on the north side of Mt. Sinai Road ( SR 1718) approximately 1/4 mile east of N.C. 86. The tract is bordered on the north by the Southern Railroad. There are 13 lots proposed out of 30.75 acres. The average lot size is 2. 17 acres. The subdivision will be served by Hathaway Lane, a proposed public road. All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented. on the application. The Town of Chapel Hill has raised concerns regarding a stub-out to the eastern property line and additional right-of-way for Mt. Sinai Road. The Orange County Planning Department addressed these concerns during development review as follows: 158 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date May 19, 1987 ActionAgAnda Item # _ SUBJECT: SAN-REBA WOODS - PRELIMINARY ACTION BY: June 23, 1987 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment( s) Information Contact: Eddie Kirk Application Preliminary Plat Certification Vicinity Map Agency Letters Preliminary Plan History of San-Reba Woods 1 /30/87 Letter of Phil Post Draft 4/27/87 Planning Board Minutes Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for San- Reba Woods. BACKGROUND: The property is located in Eno Township on Craig Road ( SR 1450) . The tract is split by the Orange-Durham County line. A total of 50 .0 acres is in Orange County and thirty-five (35) lots are proposed. The property is zoned A-R and designated Agricultural Residential in the Land Use Plan. The developer originally received preliminary plan approval on 5/21/85 for this subdivision, however, the approval expired. All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. The developer proposes public roads built to State standards. The Durham County Board of Commissioners approved that portion of the subdivision in Durham County on March 9, 1987 . At its April 27, 1987 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions : 15 SAN-REBA WOODS PRELIMINARY PLAN PAGE 2 1 . Submittal and approval by the County Attorney of a maintenance agreement for the recreation site and facilities. 2. Lots 3, 22, 34 and 35 must be combined with another lot or be labeled as being of restricted development potential as required by Section III -E-5-e of the Subdivsion Regulations. 3. Roads must be named. 4. The phasing line between phases II & Ill must be moved to include the pedestrian easement in phase II . 5 . Provision of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees, land use buffers, and areas to be planted. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends approval of the preliminary plan as recommended by the Planning Board. The Board of Commissioners has thirty-six (36) days within which to act on this application . The deadline for action is June 23, 1987 . `PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ( INK ONLY) 16U 11/85 "MANGE COUNTY DATE: April 16, 1987 SUBDIVISION NAME: San-Reba Woods (formerly named Heart's Ease) LOCATION: Northeast Orange County / Northwest Durham County OWNER/DEVELOPER: William L. Sneed. Jr. ADDRESS: Route 6. Box 122 TELEPHONE NO. : 383-1b7S Hi 1 1 chrj.r lgh N.C_ 27278 AGENT/CONTACT: Chuck Sneed TELEPHONE NO . : 383-1678 Route 6. Box 122 Hillsborough, N.C. . 27278 A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tax Map 16 BLock N/A Lots) 24A Township Eno - Zoning Districts) : AR Total Number of Acres: 2'; 7 Total Number of Lots: .14... Average Lot ,Size: j..AL'Minimum Lot S1 ze 4 .000 ' Number/Type of Structures : (existing) ; N/A (proposed) Single Family Lines !. Feet in Streets: 4.000 Acres- in Open Space 2 Water Supply:,lnrlividi)al Wellc Public[specify) • �.. Communit y X Individual . Wastewater Disposal: Sept i r Publics eci f ] Community X Individual School District: Firs District:General Land Uses in Area: Critical Areas: X stream/dreinageways VA flood prone !frees N/A Llretershed(speclfy) N/Ahistoric sites other[expLainl N/A B. ALL plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two— hundred feet [1 "=2D0 ' ) and no Larger than one inch equals fifty feet (1 " 5D' ) end ".must contain the following information : ✓ �� aebd1r1a1en Hers Harr of eanerial �+ building setback Linu . :heck items ' .. - name of •urrayor, engineer or by notation br erp/ael Lot �L7RI� E ttrti) lend P Lonna. ✓ layout• (title) Prsliminery Plan ae1tling and ge proposed sees. seals, north errou Mirth at aentr (tlralnapa. utilities. ^' top of rapt . eta.) dose (ieatuding rer1910o eases) adjoining proposed and = sosaabiP. sat ■aprbleak.les °; including dissensions pd .�. .bauadary daear76rd with Suns% Penes and stets road ✓ a bearings and 41st -' r @slating total Is of the tree: utilities end P I and aerargr of lets, including including and asoladiwg Ores within ' 0 hyPn. Slum. rlghwv f-oay �r.d rnlrea end y control las ' l rarhrr ,/ {' '• oontp prepense! Las lieu with ! •a1stlnp and propound enllrart dieepoiana Inotodlap ■isms and graces +lam 'n.10 let numbers tlPlaal street arose-motions .`+' phasing liner - sad i inn oaeal U Z. Zial topography et tan foot 1701 ioclading design end width rr: i is of luny spa shorldare ti rasa. 5001.., .•,•,, hurl l alignment and ` toy and bodies, , flood- ..� snsrsl •:: g I data (public ' *tree. buffers and notation ✓k parnOnent Tortures such as lndicstiag restricted ✓ ■eralOPmen: bietaelga, 1sa " towanhl POtentlel aioterle landmarks, P. abrPOrate P.O Metre- ?' :•S adjoining lot territorial planning layout jurisdiction liars which oleos of adjoielag property cross the property ewnrra end subdivisions -r =. Looatidn and side of p La dedidatsd for public use or reeorro0 1n common o— Location iiw t, and size of lots of acted dotal Opmsnt P 1s and st netetiOO en plat regerdlns ens* ■torrsater auaegarrnt plan iOdicatlnc provision for control of the fuses 1/2 inch of ff from 1 boos surfaces rte.,... ...- ._ ...,. ..-�. ..� .._. _... .. • C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: 1 . Twenty--six (28) copies of the preliminary plat 2. Two full size copies of en Orange County Tax ma parcels involved clearly marked) . map lone copy with tax 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available , a letter County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewateromSyst Orange each Lot. y am for I , the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application i accurate. I understand that a •210. s complete or and or a $870.00 fee !subdivisions of 1B$210.00 fee !subdivisions of 15 lots or less) application . A $5.00 per lot fee is s due rataothe itimeuethetfin l time of Presented for recordation . • al plat is APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE �� r OWNER 'S SIGNATURE DaTE DATE E FEES: Amount Date Paid '��,� Receipt r C' r: __C. _ ' r„///: .... ..... . / / r .e.• :- / et am'` % j_ A R-' /1 t .../ e wr .... .% c M+. -s Tr ....• A ' (67,,) ,1:._ (1) / \Z;-• u•■ 4 r / / / r. ; W •L Z r C Q :. — n . Et:...\ C=1 U �‘ cG. 1 'i Q .. 1 11 cc)r� I �LLI C II r- �i N �U C Q 0 1.i+ , Q N v�i e • TTTT: 'a '` ^`� =c` 1 e• A c $.�L 1�f i G RL?MIl _• S X11 / _._.___..... .. �. _. y _ - — 1t SAN-REBA WOODS 11 /85 ORANGE CDOTY CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS - PRELI (+1INOY PLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Eddie Kirk SKETCH PLAN: Received 4-4-85 Reviewed 4-15`85 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 2-27-87 Reviewed 3-4-87 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received _ Reviewed 3-20-87 NCDOT: DATE 4-3-87 CERTIFICATION J. M. Mills SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill -Carrboro) : DATE 3-11-87 CERTIFICATION NSA UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE 4-10-87 Certification Health Dept. OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council _ (Date) t Carrboro Fire Department Chapel Hill (Date) Carrboro (Date) Hillsborough (Date) Durham 3-9-87 __(Date) Other _(Date) (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS : Date Approval _ Approval with Conditions Denial ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERT ROAD I b q HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 1 M E M O R A N D U M TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: EDDIE KIRK L2/2( SUBJECT: HISTORY OF SAN-REBA WOODS DATE: APRIL 23, 1987 • January 22, 1985 Oakwood Estates submitted as a Planned Development-Housing (Mobile Home Park) request ▪ April 4, 1985 Name changed to Heart's Ease Sub- division and preliminary plan submitted • April 15, 1985 Planning Board recommended Prelimi- nary Plan Approval • May 6, 1985 Board of Commissioners continued consideration to May 21 , 1985 meeting '- May 21 , 1985 Board of Commissioners approved the Preliminary Plan for Heart' s Ease with four conditions ( 1 ) submittal and approval of a maintenance agreement of the recreation site and facilities (2) specification of tot lot details, including size, equipment, and construction materials, on the plat (3 ) specification of the basketball court details, including size and hard surface, on the plat (4 ) specification on the plat that the remaining recreation area will be grassed MEMORANDUM ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD APRIL 23, 1987 PAGE 2 - May 23, 1985 Letter written to Chuck Sneed by Susan Smith informing him of preli- minary plan approval • January 30, 1987 Received letter from Engineer requesting simultaneous review of the Preliminary and Final • March 2, 1987 Preliminary for entire project submitted with Final plat for Phase 1 ▪ March 9, 1987 Durham County Board of Commissioners approved portion of subdivision in Durham County ▪ April 6, 1987 Fees paid for subdivision ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMEr'T � HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 1P) MEMORANDUM TO: Eddie Kirk, Planner FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: San-Reba Subdivision Stormwater Management Plan DATE: March 27, 1987 This subdivision meets the Ordinance requirements by dividing. large lots, limiting the amount of impervious surface on each lot, retaining a buffer of vegetation around the perimeter of each lot to filter and absorb runoff, and grassed swales along the new road. • • L d."*, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN March 20, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON SECRETARY GEORGE E.WELLS, P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: San-Reba Woods Subdivision Off SR 1450 (Craig Road) in Durham County Dear Mr. Kirk: In reference to the subject development, this office has spoken with Mr. Bob Dozier, Highway Maintenance Engineer for Durham County. He indicated the subdivision entrance and other sections in Durham County had been approved. For approval of sections in Orange County, please submit the following: 1. Revised plans showing stub-out on west end of develop- . ment. (See attachment.) Include vertical alignment and drainage for entire development. 2. Drainage calculations for entire development. Include drainage area used in. calculations. This office and Durham District Office will be involved in the final approval process, each approving their respective section. If you have any further questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, M. Mills 'STRICT ENGINEER JMM/SPI:jbh Atta. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer _ ITT FCC - N E.0.17 c 1.1 \ J -r Eel D 5TU OLr -4 .. Z ��f �. s4_.;; ' -is z .' • P .. �C s� �F WG C • . 6 ADEL Ran 0 / % \ C Pr'7EQ Qop.D\ 1 .; IS ET NDE•D ,.--, 1 S EVcr rJ DED ' , �L I F'... ;1.0.14,1 \ . )1 / ) 1' II / r / . / / ..--.."--'''. ....1.'"ji/1 4..,..g.g.,-.1 • / / , • 7..... ‘k- ,N114 . / / r' ) * •4-, j 1. �. s ( : ( I .. \ \ --wK T- . ) . ' ''..\:) ! ')) \ -:` ; \ \\\) x diet••' • \ � •Y C..- ' • s_ , . , \ II:\ —'-- - ,,_ . — '' 0 ,.... crs a E s''''■ -( ) i I. az (E, \ ,..,... ...._., I/ / I . .7..u.; \? 4 \\\ i r rri—4 ''\ ) . 1 III 1 N t , It.' •.\ ) i 1 i a ■ I \ 1 1 � � .\-----:\ �J /; / \\ ) •,.. , ( --7:-..---..."-\.\\ \ • ■ \ ■ A , i 1 I ♦I Q v 1.._ N s \ . . APeit:147 '' \\--...------..\\ 'le-.•"147, \ . ‘. ..., k • 5' lit n, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN April 3, 1987 GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E. HARRINGTON SECRETARY GEORGE E.WELLS, P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County planning Department 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: San-Reba Woods Subdivision Off SR 1450 (Craig Road) in Durham County Dear Mr. Kirk: This is to advise that it is permissible to construct the stub-out. on Street B in lieu of Street A, as long as the cul-de-sac involved is removed if this street is extended. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours very truly, 3. M. Mills DISTRICT ENGINEER 3MM:jbh An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS/PLANNERS/SURVEYORS #50501 30 January 1987 Mr. Marvin Collins Planning Director Orange County Planning Department 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Hand Carrjed Re: Heart's Ease Subdivision Dear Marvin: Reference our phone conversation on Januar asked me to furnish you with a summary s on the 1987 above You Y °f efforts development since late May 1985, abovve e After receiving Susan Smith's letter of May 23, I met. with Mr. Bill Sneed on May 30. 1985 to outline a agreed to prepare street and erosion ndat of work. We plans but the immediate need was and the final County line was, to determine where the Orange/Durham Mr. Sneed agreed to have the surveyor who had done his boundary survey also locate the county line. I do not know all the problems that entailed, but I do know it quite a bit of work and we did not receive informationrabouted county fine until mid-October 1985. I met again with Mr. Sneed on October 31, 1985. In early December 1985 we submitted Haynes (Orange County NCDOT engineer) cause and believed to Joe County would review the road since about 85% believed Orange County, of it is in Orange There ensued a period of uncertainty and in early 1986 we were instructed that Durham County NCDOT (Bob Dozie-y/ Billy Timberlake) would handle the entire subdivision. Even though both officee are part of NCDOT, criteria. etc. are very the procedures, design different.between the two offices. We then revised the plans to meet all the Durham County NCDOT procedures. 401 PROVIDENCE ROAD a SUITE 200 n POST OFFICE BOX 2134 a ,7;-1APEL HILL, NC 27514 (919)929-1173a (919)493-L300 171 - PHILIP POST Er ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS/PLANNERS/SURVEYORS Mr. Marvin Collins 30 January 1967 Page Two On March 3, 1986 we submitted all Morton. Larry had Just replaced Billy Timberlake to Larry Durham office in January 1986. Timberlake who left the and we did not receive any Larry was subsequently replaced 1986. y NCDOT review comments until July 2. We received final NCDOT plan approval on August 5, 1986. Meanwhile, the erosion control permit was issued on April 23, 1986 and work on the site began immeda'at . The following is the approximate construction schedule amounts expended: Jule and Date Date tem Sted art APProx. • 1 . ed Cam feted Cost Naffs Street & Erosion 11/85 Plans 3/86 $4.600 2. Clearing 3. Erosion Control `1/86 5/86 x8.000 1 4. Grading 5/86 5/86 X2,300 5. Storm Pipes 7/86 9/86 1 8/86 000, 5 6 6. Seeding 8/86 OQQ 1 7. Fine Grading 9/86 9/86 0 ..200 8. Base 11/86 11/86 $ Begin 12/86 Stopped 10,000 2 Peed by 820,00Q 2 9. Paving Not Started NCDOT 10. Atty Fees, Permits, _22,000 2 . etc - e2.300 TOTAL: s82. 1QQ Notes: 1 . Chuck Sneed, Bill Sneed's son, did for clearing, erosion control and storm pipe.e. They �os the labor reflect costs for hired labor, �Pe- The costs shown they do not reflect any •.w • equipment rented. gas, etc. and value of not items n ages.. far Chuck Sneed. The actual higher than the stated amounts. • • PHILIP POST Er ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS/PLANNERS/SURVEYORS Mr. Marvin Collins 30 January 1987 Page Three 2. Bank financing for base and paving was obtained on August 6, 1986 and loan fees were paid. A contract was signed with REA Construction on November 1 . 1986 for 550,000 to do fine grading. base and paving. The Durham County NCDOT office does not permit road construction to proceed generally between December 1 and March 15, therefore the fob is now "shut down- for the winter. Summary 1 . Mr. Sneed is a full-time employee of Liggett and Meyers. This development is his first single family subdivision. It is a family endeavor by people who are not "developers". 2. The initial delay on locating the county line was very costly. We could not do lot layouts or final "pert" testing until we knew where the line was. 3. The snafu with NCDOT was unfortunate; we were bounced around for several months. then arrived in Durham County just after Billy Timberlake left and the plans sat in Durham for almost four months before being reviewed. Work on the site began in April 1986. By May 1986, everyone was very busy in construction and trying to pry loose the final approvals from NCDOT. No one thought about the expiration date of the preliminary. plat. I respectfully request that the original preliminary plat approval be extended. We will submit the final plat to you on or before February 20, 1987, if final you concur- We would record the plat as soon as the County approves it. The 5needs are prepared to post a letter of credit for the street work remaining. Since learning the news last Monday that hie, preliminary plat may have lost approval. Mr. -Sneed experienced heart trouble and is confined to bed . All correspondence or phone go through his wife at home (732-4403) or at work C383-1678) . • PH 17 e- ILIP POST Er ASSOCIATES �s ENGINEERS/PLANNERS/SURVEYORS Mr. Marvin Collins 30 January 1987 Page Four His doctor has ordered that mater as it may Mr. Sneed not be involved yoking, y trigger a life-threatenin in this g event. I am not I will appreciate your help. Since .ly. /;)(1;;;;;) "hilip At. Post. P.E. PNP/sdb 17q 17 address all those concerns and bring the project back to the Planning Board for further consideration. MOTION: Yuhasz moved to defer further consideration of Sunset Ridge Subdivision until the regular Planning Board meeting on May 18, 1987. Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: Unanimous. Jacobs stated that Board policy is not to consider preliminaries and finals at the same meeting. Therefore, only the preliminary will be considered on San-Reba Woods . Rick Prince, attorney for San-Reba Woods indicated the applicants needed final approval of Phase I in order to put into place the agreement the applicant has with neighboring property owner in order to allow access. i . San-Reba Woods - Preliminary Plat (Eno Township) Presentation by Kirk. The property is located in Eno Township on Craig Road (SR 1450) . The tract is split by the Orange Durham County line. A total of 50.0 acres is in Orange County and thirty-five (35) lots are proposed. The property is zoned A-R and designated Agricultural Residential in the Land Use Plan. The developer originally received preliminary plan approval on 5/21/85 for this subdivision, however, the approval expired. All applicable agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. The developer proposes public roads built to State standards. The Durham County Division of NCDOT estimated a traffic count of 500 700 average daily traffic on Craig Road in 1985 . The addition of 35 lots would add approximately 340 trips per day. The Durham County Board of Commissioners approved that portion of the subdivision in Durham County on March 9, 1987. Planning Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1 . Submittal and approval by the County Attorney of a maintenance agreement for the recreation site and facilities. 2. Lots 3, 22, 34 and 35 must be combined with ommmiew D ° a IF 18 another lot or be labeled as being of restricted development potential as required by Section III-E 5 e of the Subdivsion Regulations. The application for preliminary subdivision plat approval was accepted on February 27, 1987. The 85 day review period expires on May 23, 1987. Pilkey asked why the drainage easement changed from fifty feet to thirty. Kirk responded that this requirement was placed on the plan by the S 8 E Officer. MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval with conditions. Seconded by Swann. Michael Brough, attorney for adjacent property owner, Cultivation, Inc. , indicated that his client's property is landlocked. This problem would be resolved if a condition was attached to preliminary plan approval which would require Road "A" to stub-out to the western property line to allow access or if the Planning Board would require all streets in the development to be built as part of the Final Plat for Phase I . He indicated that an agreement had been reached between his client and the owner of San Reba Woods to this effect. Prince concurred. Brough asked the Planning Board to add such a condition to its recommendation. Jacobs informed Mr. Brough that such a condition could not be attached to this preliminary plan. The Final Plat as submitted is only for Phase I and the roads go through Phase II and III . Yuhasz also responded that such a requirement is not one that the Planning Board usually requires. Jacobs stated that if the applicant wished to present a different Final Plat which would address these concerns, that would perhaps provide a better opportunity for the compromise that the attorneys are working toward. Two conditions were added by consensus : that the roads be named on the plan and that Phase 2 line be moved to include pedestrian easement. VOTE: Unanimous. k. Spring Crest Meadows - Final Plat (Little River Township) Presentation by Szymik. The property in question is located in Little River Township on the north side of Pearson Road ( SR O R A N G E C O U N T Y 1 7t BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date May 19, 1987 _ Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: POLICY - APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1V-B-8 OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ACTION BY: MAY 19, 1987 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes , X _ No Attachment( s) Information Contact: Emily Crudup Approved amendments to Section IV-B-8, Subdivision Regulations Exempt Subdivision List Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of a policy for applying landscape requirements to subdivision applications that were in process when the new standards went into effect. BACKGROUND: On March 24, the Board of County Commissioners approved amendments to Section IV-B-8, Landscaping and Buffer Requirements, of the Subdivision Regulations. These amend- ments allow more flexibility in the installation of required plant materials. Plant sizes at installation were reduced to minimize cost to the owner/developer. The amendments apply to all new subdivision applications. Enforcement of Section IV-B-8-c-1 was suspended by a mora- torium passed by the Commissioners on December 1 , 1986 . This moratorium was no longer valid when the amendments were adopted. At its April 27 , 1987 meeting the Planning Board recommended the following policy. Subdivisions will be exempt from compliance with Section IV-B- 8-c-1 , Required Landscaping if : ( 1 ) in the case of major subdivisions, preliminary plan approval was obtained between December 1 , 1986 and March 24, 1987 . (2) in the case of minor subdivisions, sketch plan approval was obtained between December 1 , 1986 and March 24, 1987 . lT RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends adoption of the policy recommended by the Planning Board. 176 well to allow the tree to breathe and to allow water to reach the roots. Vehicular traffic, storage of heavy equipment and stock- piling of soil or other materials shall not be permitted within the drip lines of trees to be retained. Except for sidewalks and curb and gutter , no paving with con- crete, asphalt or other impervious material within the drip line of trees to be retained shall be allowed. 1V-B-8-c *Amended Where a subdivision is proposed either on unforested 3-24-87 land or trees have been approved for removal under one or more of the exceptions listed in Article IV-B-8-b-2 above, new trees shall be planted in accordance with the provisions of this Section . 1V-8-8-c-1 Beouireb Landscaping *Amended As a requirement of subdivision approval , the subdivider 3-24-87 shall plant trees along the frontage of both sides of all existing and proposed streets in the subdivision . In calculating the number of trees required per lot frontage, tree types have been assigned a value In linear feet based on the average mature canopy spread. The values are forty (40) feet for large, deciduous trees and twenty-five (25) feet for small trees. Each lot, including approved recreation/open spaCe areas, must have at least one ( 1 ) large tree per street frontage (value of 40 feet) . The number of trees to be planted on the remaining frontage (total frontage less value for one large tree) is determined by dividing the remaining frontage by the value( s) assigned to tree types selected for planting by the subdivider. For example, the number of trees required on a lot having a frontage of 130 feet would be calculated as fol lows: TOTAL LOT FRONTAGE 130 feet LESS : VALUE/REOPIIRED LARGE TREE 40 feet EQUALS: REMAINING LOT FRONTAGE 90 feet Option 11 : ALL SMALL TREES 90 feet divided by 25 feet (value for small tree) = 3.6 or 4 trees. Required number of trees = 4 small trees + 1 required large tree. 90 feet divided by 40 feet ( value for large tree) = 2.3 or 2 trees. -50- 1 "/ Required number of trees = 3 large trees ( 1 required + 2 optional ) . 90 feet - 40 feet ( 1 large tree) = 50 feet. 50 feet divided by 25 feet = 2.0 or 2 small trees. Required number of trees = 2 large trees ( 1 required + 1 optional ) + 2 small trees. Upon installation, trees shall be spaced at least fifteen ( 15) feet apart, but preferably no greater than the spread of the canopy normally achieved by the tree species upon maturity. Street trees shall be planted within the required front yard setback area. Selection and location of trees shall consider existing and future site conditions including, but not limited to, overhead and/or under- ground utility lines, vehicular access drives, the location and extent of existing vegetation, and soil suitability . Selection of tree types shall be made from the list of acceptable plant materials provided in Appendix C. In addition to street trees, there shall be at least one ( 1 ) tree for every one thousand ( 1 ,000) square feet of land area located in required recreation or open space area, and side and rear yard setback areas as required by this Ordinance or the Orange County Zoning Ordinance ( see sketch below ) . Approved play fields, building sites and other similar recreational facilities are exempted from landscaping requirements. For the purpose of calculating the number of trees to be planted In unzoned townships, a forty (40 ) foot front yard setback shall be used, and required trees shall be planted within that setback . A twenty (20 ) foot setback shall be used along side and rear property lines for the same purpose. -51- • STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY •. FRONT YARD 40' 11111111) 0111 SIDE , SIDE 1 YARD YARD 90' 150' • REAR YARD 20' • • r 6D'----120' IOU' SIDE YARD AREA - 20' z 90' . i800 SQ.FT. z 2 SIDE YARDS 3600 SQ.FT REAR YARD AREA - 20' z 100' - 2000 SQ.FT. TOTAL-SIDE/REAR YARDS - 5600 SQ.FT. DIVIDED 8Y: 1 TREE/1000 SQ.FT. - 5.6 OR =6 TREES Trees to be planted within recreation and open space areas, and side and rear yard setback areas shall be installed to reflect the natural growth patterns of materials selected . Tree species shall be spaced in a manner which permits full spread of the canopy upon maturity and shall be selected from the list of accept- able plant materials in Appendix C. When buffers, as required by Section IV-B-8-d, or approved utility and drainage easements overlap or cross setback or recreation and open space areas, those areas shall be exempted from computing the number of required plant material to be installed . Existing vegetation may be used to meet the requirements of this Section, pro- vided, however, use of such vegetation will be deter- mined by site inspection by Planning Department personnel . -52- 181 IV-8-8-d Buffer ReQUJrements Buffers shell be required to separate a proposed sub- division from adjacent major streets and different land uses or zoning designations in order to protect, pre- serve and promote the visual appeal , character and value of the proposed subdivision and/or surrounding property; to provide for the separation of spaces and provide for a sense of privacy; to promote the and welfare through minimizin Public health, safety as the transmission of noise, podor, idust, litter and glare of lights; and to provide screening between incom- patible land uses. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Ordinance, the type of buffer required between a pro- posed subdivision and adjacent streets, land uses or zoning designations shall be specified in Article IV-B- 8-d-3 of this Ordinance. 1B-B-8-d-1 1.Dca_t i on and Use of Byf fern Required buffers shall be located along the interior or street lot lines nearest the adjacent streets, land uses and/or zoning designations. Buffers shall not be lo- cated on any portion of an existing or proposed street right-of-way or utility easement. No building or structure of any type shall be erected, constructed or installed in a required buffer area. IV-B-8-d-2 Designation of Juffor, A required buffer shall be designated as a part of platted lots and shall have the following restriction lettered on the face of both the preliminary and final plats of the subdivision : "Land Use Buffer: The use and maintenance of this buffer and the building of structures thereon is restricted pursuant to Article IB-B-8-d of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. " The nature of the street, land use and/or zoning desig- nation adjoining the subdivision and/or the required buffer shall also be noted on the plat. -53- RQU1RP LAki PSCA Pzjj 0 REFER TO :EZTION Right-or-way line/Property line "..i—m--� • Bui.ldi.n 9 setback ck 1 i ne • • • V -xis:ing Proposed Proposed tree tree (=5 ' value) (40 7 value) . • I• 1 1 Existing I . 1 ..rtes / /4' / Sid r Se-ba cx ■•■• f 101 / • • t5e back _ • OPTION tl STREET R1 &HT-01^-WAY OPTION F` • OPTION r3 . (- Ae / 1 Reau i red :refs in 4. \l • side and f (....11,4 I rear se:ha-Ft.) / • j - (1/1000 5q. ..) ) de4 ) m... L2/4P4'7 • -514- 18 IV-B-8-d-3 Schedule of Reouired Buffers The type of buffer required between a proposed sub- division and adjacent streets, land uses and/or zoning designations shall be as specified in the following table. The type of buffer required is determined by the existing and/or proposed principle use(s) in the sub- division for which approval is requested. To determine which type of buffer is required adjacent to an existing and/or proposed land use, identify the existing and/or proposed principle use( s) in the subdivision, then identify the adjacent existing and/or proposed land uses. The type of buffer required is identified at the intersection of the two columns. To determine which type of buffer is required adjacent to land which is vacant and designated in a particular zoning district, identify the existing and/or proposed principle use( s) in the subdivision, then identify . the adjacent vacant land zoning designation . The type of -55- 18 ( 1 /3 ) larger than the root ball . if the soil is poor, holes should be dug two (2) or three (3 ) times larger than the ball and backfilled with rich top soil . (b) Plants should be planted in their permanent location immediately upon delivery to the site. Plants should be installed so that the top of the root ball is one and one half ( 1 1/2) inches below ground level . String around the stem of the plant should be removed and the burlap around the root ball folded from the top after the plant is in the hole. Soil around the plant should be tamped to remove air pockets, and a good mulch applied to help retain moisture. (c) All trees should be staked to prevent winds from loosening the roots. (d) All plants should be soaked thoroughly with water immediately after planting and once a Meek ( unless soaking rains occur) thereafter during the first growing season. (e) Deciduous trees and shrubs should be cut back to between one-half ( 1/2) and one-third ( 1 /3) their original size following planting. Evergreens are required to have only light pruning and shaping after transplanting. Where new landscape materials are to be installed, the type of landscape material to be used in meeting the requirements of this Article should be compatible with plant materials existing both on the property to be subdivided and on adjoining properties. No synthetic plant materials should be used to satisfy the require- ments. *Amended At installation, trees should not be less than six (6 ) 3-24-87 to eight (8) feet in height with a caliper of three- fourth (3/4) to one and one-fourth ( 1-1/4) inches. Shrubs should not be less than eighteen ( 18) inches in height after installation . Installation and construc- tion practices should be utilized which preserve and replace existing topsoil . The owner of the property will be responsible for the continued proper maintenance of all landscaping materials and should keep them in a proper, neat and orderly appearance, free from refuse and debris, in accordance with the provisions of Article V of this Ordinance. -59- 180 11 MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS EXEMPT FROM LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS Fox Meadow Sec. 4 Huntsman Trace Sec. 2 J & J Property Tlmberwood Farms Elm Grove Esoderrick Gates Sunnyfield Five Forks Woodbrooke Meadows of Eno 20 MINOR SUBDIVISIONS EXEMPT FROM LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS Shields, Robert S. & Betty Branson, Donald A. - Sketch Haughton, Steven L . - Sketch GIlland, Ellison Wilkerson - Sketch Parrish, Theodore - Sketch Terrell , Judy & Paul Jacobs - Sketch Morris, Nell T. Ray, Delores & Kerry Yeargan, Brian Jackson McAdams, Howard Parker, S.J . Rigsbee, Robert & Mildred McCullock, Tony Watkins, Edna Tinnin, Lacy & Viola Parrish, Theodore Poole, Jeanne ORANGE COUNTY " ' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A na Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: MAY 19, 1987 SUBJECT: RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT--CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S Correspondence OFFICE,X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Consideration of what action to take on the company's intent to file an application on a later date. BACKGROUND: Since the courts have ruled that the previously approved special use permit is invalid the company has been faced with discontinuing concrete activity on the unapproved adjacent property or seek approval of a new special use permit. The Board recently established June 1, 1987 as the date for public hearing on the matter. Attached is a May 11, 1987 response from the Company. The Board's alternatives include: 1. Hold the hearing as planned, or 2. Authorize the County Attorney to initiate legal proceed- ings to end the non-conforming use of the land for con- crete related activities, or 3 . Authorize the Manager through the Planning Director to notify Chandler concrete to submit an application for the next Regular Quarterly Public Hearing in August. Also authorize the County Attorney to begin legal proceedings if the application is not received by the July deadline for items going to hearing in August. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve alternative 3 . 1 8"i CHANDLER CONCRETE CO., INC. READY MIXED CONCRETE POST OFFICE DRAWER 1239 BURLINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 27216-1239 i (919) 226-1181 D E C E FIVE D May 11, 1987 Mr. Greg Szymik Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Szymik: On May 5, 1987 you informed Ms. Joyce Garrett as attorney for Chandler Concrete Company that the Board of Commissioners had scheduled a Special Public Hearing to be held on June 1 to consider an application for a PDI-III for the property adjoining the present Chandler Concrete Plant. Upon learning of your conversation with Ms. Garrett I immediately contacted you. The purpose of this letter is to confirm my discussion with you. As you are aware, I met with Mr. Jeffrey Gladhill and Mr. Marvin Collins after learning that the Orange County Courts had ruled that the Special Use Permit issued to Chandler Concrete was invalid. Since that time, I have made diligent efforts to evaluate the course of action to be taken by Chandler Concrete so as to best accommodate the needs of both Chandler Concrete and the community. One primary need of Chandler Concrete is the prevention of water run-off into an adjoining stream and the implementation of a reclamation operation. I have had extensive discussions with the North Carolina Environment Department and with Mr. Allen Jackson of J & H Equipment, Inc. concerning the most appropriate methods for environmental control and reclamation. One goal which we wish to accomplish is to have an efficient method of. operation which will not have an undesirable effect in the community. Mr. Jackson has now recommended a specific piece of equipment. This past week I visited a job site and observed the equipment. This is the first job site to have the recommended equipment in operation and I wished to be assured of its performance during actual operation. From our past experience I am fully aware that the Board of Commissioners wishes to have as many details on the specifics of the Chandler Concrete operation as can be provided. Managing the environmental matter and reclamation are important aspects to Chandler Concrete ' s renewed application for a Special Use Permit. AMMMEIMMMM • Mr. Greg Szymik May 11, 1987 Page -2- I am in the process of having my architect revise as appropriate the necessary plans and drawings to be submitted with the completed application. Also I am taking steps necessary to be able to have expert testimony presented to the Board concerning the effect of the proposed use on value of adjoining land. Based on the commitments I have received from my architect and appraisers, I anticipate having a completed application to you during June and will be prepared to appear at the necessary hearings in July. I respectfully request that you inform the appropriate parties that it is not possible for Chandler Concrete to have a completed application by May 15 or to be prepared to appear at a June 1 hearing. I appreciate your courtesy in this matter and look forward to having your assistance in the review and preparation of our application. Yours very truly, Thomas E. Chandler, President Chandler Concrete Company, Inc. TC:lbw 18i ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No._02Z ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 19, 1987 SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM ORDINANCE 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: Consideration of proposed amendment to Cable Television System Ordinance. BACKGROUND: Recent Board action (expanding Alert Cable Service Area) affecting the service areas of the County's Cable T.V. franchises necessitates changes in the existing Cable Television System Ordinance. The deletions and additions will update and make the ordinance more consistent with proposed Cable T.V. Franchise Amendments. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve amendments to Cable Television System Ordinance. 191! ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Ag a Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 19, 1987 SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ALERT CABLE T.V. FRANCHISE 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: Consideration of proposed amendment to Alert Cable T.V. Franchise. BACKGROUND: On March 2, 1987 the Board approved Alert Cable T.V. service area expansions as recommended by the Cable T.V. Citizens Advisory Committee. The Board also directed the County Attorney to prepare an Amendment to Alert Cable T.V. Franchise. RECOMMENDATIONS (S) : Approve amendment to Alert Cable T.V. Franchise. 1 91 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A dig Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: MAY 19, 1987 SUBJECT: CAROLINA CABLE ORDINANCE FRANCHISING AMENDMENTS - FIRST READING DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Geoffrey Gledhill Under Separate Cover TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Consideration of proposed amendment to Carolina Cable T.V. Franchise. BACKGROUND: On March 2, 1987 the Board approved Alert Cable T.V. service area expansion and directed the County Attorney to prepare an amendment to Carolina Cable T.V. Franchise which would reflect changes in the County's Cable T.V. service areas. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve amendments to Alert Cable T.V. Franchise. 19e ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Allfip Wmt ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: MAY 19, 1987 SUBJECT: OWASA PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO REPEAL G.S. 162A-7 DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OWASA Correspondence OFFICE,X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To decide what position, if any, to take on the bill BACKGROUND: The OWASA has requested county su legislation introduced by RepresentativeorAlbert S. Lineberry, Sr. to repeal G.S. 162A-7. Enacted in 1955 it requires that water and sewer authorities receive the additional approval of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission prior to exercising the power of iminent domain to obtain land. OWASAs reasons for seeking the repeal are embodied in attached April 23, 1987 resolution and May 4, 1987 letter. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. . 19 Orange Water and Sewer Authority arta 406 Jones Ferry Road MAY [OWASAIP.O. BOX366 198? Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 May 4, 1987 Mr. Kenneth Thompson County of Orange Orange County Courthouse 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Thompson: Your support is requested for adoption of proposed legislation introduced by Representative Albert S. Lineberry, Sr. in this session of the State legislature which will significantly assist the conduct of operations for water and sewer authorities. The proposed legislation to repeal G.S. 162A-7 simply puts water and sewer authorities on comparable status with other public organizations operating water and sewer facilities for their citizens. The proposed bill will provide to water and sewer authorities condemnation powers consistent with that of cities, counties, county water and sewer districts, and sanitary districts. The application of G.S. 162A-7 singularly to water and sewer authorities is an inappropriate and unique burden to those communities which determine that formation of a water and sewer authority is the preferred institutional form by which water and/or sewer services should be provided to their citizens. G.S. 162A-7 requires that water and sewer authorities must receive the additional approval of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission prior to exercising the power of eminent domain to obtain water, orr land with water rights attached. Experience has proved to us that this added requirement is extremely burdensome in both time and money. It is our opinion that these impediments do not add significant protection to property . owners, but do unfairly penalize water and sewer authorities in efforts to obtain water supplies. It is apparent that subsequent environmental laws such as the State Environmental Policy Act, The National Environmental Policy Act, and the Corps of Engineers' 404 permitting process provide very adequate protection from the environmental standpoint. The statutes on condemnation powers for cities, counties, county water and sewer districts, and sanitary districts were updated and recodified in G.S. 40A in 1982. This updating provided additional protection to property owners to assure full protection of their rights in the condemnation process. The interesting point is that several other public agencies operating under appointed boards must only comply with G.S. 40A. Examples are housing authorities, airport authorities, and port authorities. Additionally, private utilities such as power companies, gas companies, telephone An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Kenneth Thompson 1 9 q May 4, 1987 Page 2 companies, water companies, and railroads have condemnation powers under G.S. 40A. These private companies are accountable to private corporate boards which would, in turn, be accountable to an appointive body, the State Utilities Commission. As you see, it is a very clear matter of equity that G.S. 162A-7 be repealed. I shall be glad to discuss with you the experience of Orange Water and Sewer Authority's proceedings under this statute to acquire an urgently needed public water reservoir site. Although the statute was enacted in 1955, as far as we know our situation was the first instance that it had been applied. This experience and the fact that subsequent laws and regulations now satisfactorily address the original purpose of the statute dictate that it is in the best public interest that the proposed legislation for repeal be approved by the legislature. Very truly yours, Everett Billingsley Executive Director mw Enc. cc: (w/enc.) OWASA Board of Directors (w/enc.) Robert Epting, Esquire (w/enc.) The Honorable Anne Barnes (w/enc.) The Honorable Joseph Hackney (w/enc.) The Honorable Wanda Hunt (w/enc.) The Honorable Russell Walker (w/enc.) The Honorable Albert Lineberry, Sr. (w/enc.) Mr. Lindsey Cox (w/enc.) Mr. Bradley Barker minnAWIDON SOPPONTINT ADOPTION 411 TIM *J. STAIN= ID sum 0.S. 2A-7 1p �r� lye 1 vuoms, the general Stems of North Carolina authorise water and sewer authorities to acquire land or rights in Lend water rights attached, iacludi�t lands with same manner as is provided for cities and counties of under the o the Chapter 44A; sad pr+ovirions of 1 WHEREAS, as a prerequisite to the exercise of the power domain to acquire water, water rights or land having gh of tached, C.S. 162A-7 requires that water and sewer authorities water obtain from they Environmental Management Commission • certificate authorising such 1 acquisition; and WHEREAS, other general and special purpose units of local government, including cities and counties, city and county sanitation districts, and city and county sewerage districts, are authorised to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire water, water rights and lands having water rights attached without first obtaining any certificate of authority from the Environmental Management Commission, but rather, by compliance with the provisions of Chapter 40A of the Ce neral Statues; and WHEREAS, compliance with the provisions of G.S. 162A-7 has occasioned unnecessary delay and great expense in the Authority's provision of essential governmental services to the detriment of the general public within the Authority's service area; and WHEREAS, various Federal and State regulatory requirements adopted since the original adoption of G.S. 162A-7 now stake adequate provision for the purposes that statute was intended to serve. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY: 1. That the provisions of G.S. 162A-7 create an unnecessary impediment to the Authority's acquisition of land for provisions of mater and sever services in the Authority's service area. 2. That the Authority's power to acquire land by way of eminent domain ought to be consistent with the authority of cities, counties, water and sewer and sanitation districts and sewerage districts; and to that end, the Board of Directors supports the adoption of legislation to amend Chapter 162A of the General Statutes so as to delete G.S. 162A-7.- Adopted this 23rd day of April, 1987. Edward ei .I rd I. Mann, Jr., ". :, roan ATTEST: r ' i W. L. Aderholt, Jr. • Secretary-Treasurer 15t ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agsndsw. Item No. I ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: MAY 19, 1987 SUBJECT: PROPOSED RURAL BUFFER WORKSHOP DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Determine the extent of County participation in the workshop. BACKGROUND: David Godschalk, Chapel Hill Town Council Member, has by separate correspondence invited area elected and appointed planning officials to a workshop to discuss rural buffer issues. It is planned to have a nationally known consultant to present how other communities have dealt with the matter. The agreed upon date is June 19. Cost to the County would be one third of the $1, 000 cost for the workshop. Other details having to do with site, specific agenda and schedule are yet being determined. RECOMMENDATION(S) : 1. Confirm County participation. 2. Decide which Commissioners will attend (who will attend from the Planning Board and County staff has already been determined. Also the funding has already been arranged) . KA/41*0 �j�ofl r..a 19' {,6M' 714 44wite- MEMORANDUM TO: / Chairman Marshall and Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners Mayor Porto and Members of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen Mayor Wallace and Chapel Hill Council Members Planning Board Chairpersons: Ms. Robin Lackey Mr. Barry Jacobs Mr. Al Rimer FROM: David R. Godschalk Alzei;d4telwi, RE: Scheduling a Rural Buffer Workshop DATE: May 4, 1987 As part of the rural buffer study, i propose that we have a 1-day workshop with a consultant and perhaps a planner in local government. I have spoken with Mr. Lane Kendig, a nationally-known consultant, and he would be available on Friday, June 12 and 19 to make a presentation on rural buffers. He has made this presentation to other groups already, and it is excellent. The cost to us would likely be less than $1,000, and we could share the costs equally or on the basis of participation (e.g. , $20 to $30 per person attending) . I anticipate the Joint Planning Committee at its next meeting will discuss arranging a workshop. It would be very useful if the County and Carrboro governing bodies would have their staffs contact Greg Feller in the Chapel Hill Town Manager's Office. (968-2745) to indicate the number of Board members who are interested in attending and whether June 12 or 19 would be preferable. Chapel Hill Council Members are also asked to call the Manager's office to indicate their interest and preferred date. The Planning Board Chairs and Planning Directors are also requested to cont- •irect ough their staffs. Please with u- by Thurs•ay, May 14. get in touch cc: Managers and Planning Directors I 4 19 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS H Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MERIING DATE May 19, 1987 I Subject: APPOINTMELITS IDepartment: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 11 Public Hearing: Yes % no C Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Under Separate Cover �Y AB],ythe Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards. The following vacancies are announced for the first time: A-1 - ABC BOARD - 1 vacancy due to expiration of term for Tom Bacon, A-4 - COMMISSION FOR WOMEN - 3 expiration of terms for Alice Holt, Judith Eastman and Cathy Callemyn. A-5 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - 3 expiration of terms for Elaine Parker, Maury D. Klein and Pat Crawford. A-8 - OWASA BOARD OF DIRECTORS - 3 expiration of terms for Scott Herman-Giddens, William Aderholt, Jr. and Betty Sanders. B-1 - BOARD OF HEALTH - 3 expiration of terms for Anne Gross, Ruth Royster and Winifred Prysock. B-3 - CAPITAL HEALTH SYSTEMS - 1 expiration of term for William Petasnick. B-4 - COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS BOARD - 1 expiration of term for Henry Atwater. B-5 - DOMICILIARY HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - 4 expiration of terms for Paul Leung, Ernie Mills, Anne Brown and Larry Carter. B-18 - TRIANGLE J EMS COUNCIL - 2 expiration of terms for Victor Germino and G. Kenneth Morgan. B-22 - LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING TASK FORCE - 2 resignations from Joseph Herzenberg and Alvin Oakley. C-3 - CHAPEL HILL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - 1 expiration of term for Marcia Herman-Giddens. DOGWOOD ACRES SANITARY DISTRICT BOARD - 1 vacancy. The following vacancies are announced together with the indication of the status of securing candidates for possible appointment consideration. A-13 - RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL - 1 vacancy. No recommendation has been received. a � i J.9 APPOINTMENTS PAGE .2 8-2 - BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES - 1 expiration of term. No recommendation has been received. 8-7 - HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION - 1 vacancy. No applications have been received. B-15 - AIRPORT ISSUES TASK FORCE - a recommendation has been received from the Town of Hillsborough and from Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education. One additional application has been received. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. NTOFp • ` 4P4 United States Department of the Interior I GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Post Office Box 2857 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 June 30, 1987 Mrs. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Orange County Commissioners 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mrs. Blythe: In accordance with the agreement between the U. S. Geological Survey and Orange County, North Carolina dated July 1, 1987, the Geological Survey accepts the offer of $2,900 to maintain a gage on Eno River, North Carolina. The Geological Survey also agrees to contribute $2,900 to support this investigation, subject to the availability of Federal matching funds. It is understood that the results of this work will be available to the U. S. Geological Survey for publication and use in connection with related work. You may expect a bill for this work May 1, 1988, to enable your department time to process the billing before June 30, 1988. Your support in this important investigation is greatly appreciated. We look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely yours, istrict Chief NAW/rl Attachment Pogo 9-1366 Department of the Interior REV.6/86) Geological Survey Joint Funding Agreement FOR THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the ter Resources Investigations 1st day of July 1987 by the GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, party of the first part, and the Orange County 1. The parties hereto agree that subject to the availability of appropriations and in accordance with heir respective the second part.s there shall be maintained in cooperation a gage on Eno River, North Carolina pective authorities hereinafter called the pgram. 2. The following amounts shall be contributed to cover all of the cost of the necessary field and office work d rect yrrel t d to this program, but excluding any bureau level general administrative or accounting work in the office of either party. (a) $ 2,900.00 by the party of the first part during.the period July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988 (b) $ 2,900.00 by the party of the second part during the period -- — --- - _ - - July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988 (c) Additional amounts by each party during the above period or succeeding periods as may be determined by mutual agreement and set forth in an exchange of letters between the parties. 3. Expenses incurred in the performance of this program may be paid by either party in conformity with the laws and regulations respectively governing each party, provided that so far as may be mutually agreeable all expenses shall be paid in the first instance by the party of the first part with appropriate reimbursement thereafter by the party of the second part. Each party shall furnish to the other party such statements or reports of expenditures as may be needed to satisfy fiscal requirements. 4. The field and office work pertaining to this program shall be under the direction of or subject to periodic review by an authorized representative of the party of the first part. C. 5. The areas to be included in the program shall be determined by mutual agreement between the parties hereto or their authorized representatives. The methods employed in the field and office shall be those adopted by the party of the first part to insure the required standards of accuracy subject to modification by mutual agreement. 6. During the progress of the work all operations of eitjier party pertaining to this program shall be open to the inspection of the other party, and if the work is not being carried on in a mutually satisfactory manner, either party,may terminate this agreement upon 60 days written notice to the other party. 7. The original records resulting from this program will be deposited in the office of origin of those records. Upon request, copies of the original records will be provided to the office of the other party. 8. The maps, records or reports resulting from this program shall be made available to the public as promptly as possible. The maps, records or reports normally will be published by the party of the first part. However, the party of the second part reserves the right to publish the results of this program and, if already published by the party of the first part shall, upon request, be furnished by the party of the first part, at cost, impressions suitable for purposes of reproduction similar to that for which the original copy was prepared. The maps, records or reports published by either party shall contain a statement of the cooperative relations between the parties. 9. Billing for this agreement will be rendered annually . Payments of bills are due within 60 days after the billing date. If not paid by the due date, interest will be charged at the current Treasury rate for each 30-day period, or portion thereof, that the payment is delayed beyond the due date. (31 USC 3717; Comptroller General File B-212222, August 23, 1983.). GEOLOGICAL SURVEY /� UNITED STATES By d / eititaite-e_p DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR � Orang- .. my By Shirley E. Marshall By .-e.4.--( MATURE & TITLE) By James F. Turner, District Chief (USE REVERSE SIDE IF ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES ARE REQUIRED) ORANGE COUNTY oa BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 19, 1987 SUBJECT: Foster Parent Appreciation Month DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes x No Social Services ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marti Pryor-Cook, Director Proclamation TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To proclaim May, 1987 Foster Parent Appreciation Month in Orange County. NEED: To recognize the vital contributions foster parents make to Orange County children. BACKGROUND: Orange County has sixty four foster parents who care for approximately thirty-five foster children. Foster parents serve children of all races and economic levels. They care for children who may have physical or emotional problems. Being a foster parent means providing an experience of a secure family to children whose own families are trying to work out problems which cause the stress that results in the abuse and neglect of children. It means giving love and acceptance without replacing the child's natural parents. Finally foster parenting means giving understanding, guidance and physical care, on a voluntary basis, in the foster parents own home to children who need a temporary substitute parent. 0 RECOMMENDATION(S) : Proclaim the month of May as Foster Parent Appreciation Month and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation. - ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 V April 28. 1987 Mr. Tony Whitaker Philip Post and Associates P.O. Box 2134 Chapel Hill. NC 27514 Re: Carl LLoyd Subdivision Dear Tony: Last night the Planning Board recommended approval of the preliminary plan for the Lloyd Subdivision based on the following conditions: (1) Calculate stream buffer as required by Article 6.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and show location of stream buffer boundary based on calculation. Include the notation, "No building or structures are permitted within the stream buffer as shown hereon► and the stream buffer shall remain in its natural state as required by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance." (2) Provide for dedication of recreation space (green- way) equivalent to 9/35 of an acre (11►201 sq. ft.) located adjacent to Neville Creek. (3) Provide pedestrian access easement 30 feet in width, centered on the property line dividing lot 7 and lot 8, and extending from the cul-de-sac to Neville Creek. (4) Provide road name for Class A private road. (5) Provide a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Section IV-B-8, including location of existing trees. land use buffers► and areas to be planted. (6) Clear sight triangle on east side of Class A private road at its intersection with Old Greensboro Road. (7) Provide 15-inch drainage pipe under Class A private road at its intersection with Old Greensboro Road. Mr. Tony Whitaker April 28, 1987 Page 2 Since the Lloyds were at the meeting last night► they are aware of the conditions of approval. I realize that many of these conditions warrant explanation, so call me at 967-9251 extension 574. I am also sending the recent amendments to the Subdivision Regulations regarding landscape and buffer requirements. We don't need a "planting plan" at this point, just an indication that you are aware of the requirements and how they will affect the Lloyd Subdivision. The Planning Board' s recommendation of the Lloyd Subdivision will be considered at the County Commissioners meeting on Tuesday, May 19, at 7 :30 in Chapel Hill. Sincerely, G'?;,/ ie/ Emily Crudup Planner II EC/dmg Enclosures ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS toe EAsr MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 p MOSES CAREY,JR. May 20, 1987 STEPHEN H.HALKIOTIS Y JOHN HARTWELL SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL DON WILLHOIT James F. Turner, District Chief U.S. Dept. of the Interior Geological Survey P.O. Box 2857 Raleigh, NC 27602-2857 Dear Mr. Turner: The attached agreement was approved by the Board of Commissioners at their meeting held last evening. Please return one signed copy to my office to be filed with the minutes of said meeting. Thank you, for.:,your .cooperation......: :. Sincerely, Mrs. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk -Board of Commissioners /bab File Attachments (3) orm 9-1366 Department of the Interior _MEV.6/815) Geological Survey Joint Funding Agreement FOR Water Resources Investigations THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 1st day of July 1987 by the GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, party of the first part, and the Orange County party of the second part. 1. The parties hereto agree that subject to the availability of appropriations and in accordance with their respective authorities there shall be maintained in cooperation a gage on Eno River, North Carolina hereinafter called the program. 2. The following amounts shall be contributed to cover all of the cost of the necessary field and office work directly related to this program, but excluding any bureau level general administrative or accounting work in the office of either party. (a) $ 2,900.00 by the party of the first part during the period July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988 (b) $ 2,900.00 by the party of the second part during the period July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988 (c) Additional amounts by each party during the above period or succeeding periods as may be determined by mutual agreement and set forth in an exchange of letters between the parties. 3. Expenses incurred in the performance of this program may be paid by either party in conformity with the laws and regulations respectively governing each party, provided that so far as may be mutually agreeable all expenses shall be paid in the first instance by the party of the first part with appropriate reimbursement thereafter by the party of the second part. Each party shall furnish to the other party such statements or reports of expenditures as may be needed to satisfy fiscal requirements. 4. The field and office work pertaining to this program shall be under the direction of or subject to periodic review by an authorized representative of the party of the first part. 5. The areas to be included in the program shall be determined by mutual agreement between the parties hereto or their authorized representatives. The methods employed in the field and office shall be those adopted by the party of the first part to insure the required standards of accuracy subject to modification by mutual agreement. 6. During the progress of the work all operations of either party pertaining to this program shall be open to the inspection of the other party, and if the work is not being carried on in a mutually satisfactory manner, either party,may terminate this agreement upon 60 days written notice to the other party. 7. The original records resulting from this program will be deposited in the office of origin of those records. Upon request, copies of the original records will be provided to the office of the other party. 8. The maps, records or reports resulting from this program shall be made available to the public as promptly as possible. The maps, records or reports normally will be published by the party of the first part. However, the party of the second part reserves the right to publish the results of this program and, if already published by the party of the first part shall, upon request, be furnished by the party of the first part, at cost, impressions suitable for purposes of reproduction similar to that for which the original copy was prepared. The maps, records or reports published by either party shall contain a statement of the cooperative relations between the parties. 9. Billing for this agreement will be rendered annually . Payments of bills are due within 60 days after the billing date. If not paid by the due date, interest will be charged at the current Treasury rate for each 30-day period, or portion thereof, that the payment is delayed beyond the due date. (31 USC 3717; Comptroller General File B-212222, August 23, 1983.). GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UNITED STATES By DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Orange ounty By By (SIGNATURE & TITLE) By James F. Turner, District Chief (USE REVERSE SIDE IF ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES ARE REQUIRED) ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CAREY.JR. STEPHEN H.HALKIOTIS JOHN HARTWELL SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL DON WILLHOIT PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Special Olympics International is the world's largest sports program for children and adults with mental retardation which offers year-round training and competition in twenty-two official sports to over one million special athletes in over 20, 000 communities in the United States; and WHEREAS, the first North Carolina law Enforcement Torch Run in support of the Special Olympics will begin May 20, 1987, in Charlotte and finish at Fetzer Field at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on May 22, 1987, for the kickoff of the state Special Olympics Summer Games; and WHEREAS Twenty Orange County citizens will participate in the Special Olympics and WHEREAS, members of the Orange County Sheriff's Department will carry the lighted Special Olympics Torch through Orange County on May 21, 1987, in support and recognition of the -accomplishments of the Special Olympians NOW,COU1dTYTHNORTH�CARO CAROLINA, COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, ORANGE COUNTY, A, DO .HEREBY PROCLAIMMAY,.23., 1987, AS A DAY OF RECOGNITION FOR THE � ENF.ORCEMENT TORCH RUN IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this 21st. day of May, 1987. S - SHIRLE MARSHALL, CHAIR . „ .�.' 1 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO ALERT CABLE TV OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ORDAINS: Section I. Grant and term. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Orange County Cable Television System Ordinance as amended and as it may be amended , (hereinafter "the ordinance) which ordinance is incorporated herein by reference, and the other terms and conditions of this ordinance (hereinafter "the franchise") , Alert Cable TV of North Carolina, Inc . , it successors and assigns, (hereinafter "grantee" or "the grantee") is hereby granted the right, privilege and franchise to construct or have constructed, operate and maintain a cable television system and to operate a cable television service in the unincorporated areas of Orange County, North Carolina (hereinafter "county" or "the county") for the purpose of providing cable television service to the citizens of the unincorporated areas of the county, and for that purpose to erect, install and construct upon, across, beneath and along any street or road all necessary cable and other equipment and facilities as may be necessary and appurtenant to the cable television system. In addition, this right , privilege and franchise shall extend to property rented or leased from other persons, including but not limited to any public utility or other 2 grantee, franchisee or permittee, in order to do business in the unincorporated areas of the county. The CATV system and service herein franchised shall be used and operated solely and exclusively for the purpose expressly authorized by ordinance of the county and no other purpose whatsoever. The term of this franchise shall commence upon the acceptance by the grantee, as provided in Section VI of the ordinance, of this franchise and shall terminate at midnight, February 24, 1996. Section II. Renewal. The franchise may be renewed for an additional period of ten (10) years upon terms satisfactory to both the county and the grantee. Section III . Nonexclusive. The franchise shall be nonexclusive, and the county reserves the right to grant similar franchises to any person or persons at any period during the present franchise or any extension thereof. Section IV. Construction of system. Grantee shall obtain the proper permission and authority from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, or other agency of competent jurisdiction, and where appropriate, private land owners before any cable or other equipment necessary and • 3 appurtenant to the cable television system may be placed within any street or road. All highways, roads, streets, sidewalks, avenues, alleys, bridges and other public and private places that may be disturbed or damaged in the construction or maintenance of the cable television system shall be promptly repaired or replaced by the grantee at its own expense. All poles, wires, cables or other facilities to be constructed or installed within the streets or roads shall be constructed or installed only at such locations and depths and in such manner as to comply with all federal and state statutes, county and other local ordinances and rules and regulations of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, or other agency of competent jurisdiction. All such units of government and governmental agencies with approval authority over the construction and . maintenance of the CATV system must approve the construction and maintenance. All facilities constructed or installed within the streets or roads shall be so constructed and installed so as to cause minimum interference with the proper use of said streets or roads, and 1 minimum interference with the property rights of property owners adjoining said streets or roads. Such facilities shall be constructed or installed so that, after construction or installation is complete, they shall cause no interference with proper use of said streets or roads, and no interference with the property rights of owners of property adjoining said streets or roads. In the event the grantee shall fail to replace or repair any of said Y public and private facilities within ten (10) working days after written notice to do so from the county manager, the W r 4 same may be replaced or repaired by the proper authorities of the county, and in that event, the grantee shall forthwith pay to the county the cost of such work. Section V. Relocation of facilities. In the event (at any time during the franchise period or any extension thereof) the county, the North Carolina Department of Transportation or any other unit of government or public agency, by reason of traffic conditions, street closing, or highway or street construction changes in or the establishment of any street grade, the installation of sewers, drains, water pipes, power lines, signal lines, or any type of structure or improvement, the grantee shall, at its expense, protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate in the same street or other place any of its properties, owned or leased, upon reasonable notice by the agency involved in the work. The county, the North Carolina Department of Transportation or any other unit of government or agency shall not be liable for any disturbance of the grantee' s installation resulting therefrom. The grantee shall carry out instructions • and directions of the North Carolina Department of Transportation District Engineer or his designee whenever it is necessary to raise or remove any of the grantee 's wires or cables temporarily for the purpose of moving or removing structures on the public streets or roads of the county. The y. grantee shall do such tree trimming or other maintenance work as shall be necessary to maintain its lines and cables and other property in good working 5 a • order , and where necessary, with the prior approval of the appropriate public or private agency and person. As between the county and the grantee , all actions herein required to be performed shall be performed at the expense of the grantee and the grantee shall hold the county free and harmless from all damages or claims for damages, including attorneys fees and other litigation expenses necessary to defend any such claim, arising from such actions of the grantee. Copies of all joint use of poles and right-of-way agreements and encroachment agreements which authorize grantee to use poles and right-of-ways within the unincorporated areas of the county shall be provided to the county manager within thirty days of acceptance by the grantee of this franchise and thereafter within thirty days of their acquisition. Section VI . Ordinances applicable. The grantee shall be subject to all laws and ordinances relative to the use of all public facilities, relative to cable television systems and operations, and where appropriate, planning ordinances, policies and procedures. • Section VII. Location maps. The grantee agrees to maintain in the office of the Orange County Manager copies of all maps showing the location of all 6 wires , cables and other fixtures situated within the unincorporated areas of the county. Section VIII . Hold harmless. The grantee, its successors and assigns, shall indemnify and save harmless the county, its officers and employees as expressly provided in Section XIV of the ordinance. Section IX. The system and its operation. A. Except as otherwise required by this franchise or unless otherwise required by the ordinance, grantee agrees to build and operate a cable television system in the unincorporated areas of the county as described in its proposal dated December, 1986 and as revised. The technical standards described in the proposal of grantee, including those recommended by the Orange County Cable TV Advisory Committee and offered by grantee in revisions of its December 1986 proposal have been examined and approved by the county. The grantee, by its acceptance of this franchise, acknowledges that any such technical standards which exceed FCC requirements are freely offered by grantee. These standards shall apply to all new construction within the county. These standards shall apply to all portions of grantee' s system and plant presently in place in the unincorporated areas of the county when this system and plant is upgraded as provided in this franchise. .- 7 Alert shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the the county manager that its system meets the minimum technical standards offered in its December 1986 proposal and prescribed in this franchise by providing test results from tests performed at the terminus of its system and at random points along its system. These tests shall be performed weekly with each weekly test including the test results performed at the terminus of the system. Random testing results shall result in the entire system being tested every three months. In all other respects the procedures outlined in the monitor tests and monitor point tests contained in Alert's December 1986 proposal to the County shall be followed. B. In addition to the other service area and line extension commitments contained in its proposal, grantee shall construct and activate at least 7.2 miles of plant as indicated in the "TO BE BUILT IN 1987" portion of its proposal before the end of 1987. Construction shall begin as soon as practicable and as prescribed in Section X of the ordinance. This 7 . 2 mile portion of the system of grantee shall be activated no later than December 31, 1987. Notwithstanding the extension policy required herein and as proposed by grantee, grantee ' shall not be required to "overbuild. " The term "overbuild" as used herein shall mean paralleling with Feeder Line the Feeder Line of another franchised cable operator in the unincorporated areas of the county in order to serve dwellings along the paralleled Feeder 8 Line already served by the other franchised cable operator. This authority not to overbuild shall not: 1. relieve grantee of its responsibility and duty to parallel Main Trunk Cable in order to serve all areas of the unincorporated areas of the county which meet the density standards of this franchise; 2. relieve grantee of its responsibility and duty to build the 7.2 miles of plant as proposed by it "TO BE BUILT IN 1987" in its proposal to the county; and 3. relieve grantee of its responsibility and duty to parallel with its Feeder Line the Feeder Line of another franchised cable operator in order to reach areas of the unincorporated areas of the county where there are no parallel Feeder Lines which areas when reached will satisfy the density standards of this franchise. The following construction practices shall be followed: 1. Sag. To avoid or at least minimize the danger of cable breaks, grantee shall specify that TV cables shall sag at least as much as the telephone cable below it, and should never be allowed to sag less than 1% of the spanned length. Preferred sag will be 1.5% to 2% (22-30 inches in a 125-foot span) . 2. Sleeved connectors. ' To minimize interference due to signal infiltration from mobile transmissions, CB, amateur transmissions and strong local TV signals , connectors with integral internal sleeves will be used. 3. Connector seals . Cable splices and housing connectors shall be sealed against moisture either by properly 9 applied shrink tubing, or by means of sealant tape such as Bi- Seal, or Aqua-Seal or equivalent. 4. Lightening and power surge protection. The following, or its equivalent as certified to the county by a qualified engineer, shall be done to provide lightening and power surge protection. Adequate grounding, at the first, last and every tenth pole, and at every repeater or power supply location shall be installed. Adequate bonding to telephone strand and electric neutrals shall be done . Careful attention shall be given to the proper use of surge protection devices, resetting circuit breakers, and gas ionization devices to protect equipment and maintain service during abnormal power situations . Particular attention shall be given to the regulated dc power packs at repeater stations through the use of adaptive regulator circuits, surge protection modules, transient absorbing diods , or `. 3-terminal regulator hybrid specially designed to provide current limiting, thermal overload protection, and maintain operation within safe limits . 5. Installation standards . Each subscriber shall have a separate drop from the residence to the Feeder Line. Buildings with more than four units may be treated as apartments. Installation methods shall be explained to all subscribers. No drop lines shall ,be spliced . All installation standards and practices shall be "state-of-the-art." All installations shall be done in a workman-like manner using "state-of-the-art" techniques and "state-of-the-art" materials. 10 • 6. Construction manual. Grantee shall provide its construction crews and any contract construction company with a construction manual detailing each stage of the construction process. A copy of this construction manual shall be provided to the county manager before construction commences. Any comments and recommendations made by the county manager concerning this manual shall be considered by grantee and if necessary to meet the requirements of the franchise or the ordinance, the manual shall be revised by the grantee . All installations shall be supervised and inspected by grantee's engineers. C. Channel capacity and system design . Grantee shall install and maintain a "state-of-the-art" system and abide by all reasonable requests of the county to upgrade the system. Without limiting the g generality of this requirement: 1. All new construction of plant in the unincorporated areas of the county shall be 400 MhZ capable and be two-way capable. 2. Grantee shall operate its is existing plant in the county and all new plant in the county to 300 MhZ, 35-channel capacity. 1 3. Grantee shall provide a trouble feed-back system which allows the monitoring' of all active elements of all Main Trunk Cable of the system. 4 . Within three years of acceptance of this franchise grantee shall have completed all work necessary to upgrade its entire system within the unincorporated areas of the county and shall have activated its entire system to 400 MhZ, 54- 11 channel capacity. 5. Grantee shall design and operate its system so that it is compatabile with any existing franchised cable operator within the unincorporated areas of the county and provide verification to the satisfaction of the county manager of this compatability. 6 . Grantee shall make available, upon request, to all subscribers deluxe set-top converters which shall be "state-- of-the-art" and shall have a lighted channel number display and an infra-red remote control unit for channel control and on-off control. Section X. Programming and Access. A. Grantee shall provide at least three public service and/or access channels. These three channels shall be reserved for and used for such things as community billboard , local origination programming and educational access programming other than PBS . B. Grantee shall provide a local origination studio, together with the necessary equipment and personnel, to enable members of the public to create and broadcast programming . Grantee may satisfy this requirement to provide local origination studio and necessary equipment and personnel by contracting with Art School. However, the responsibility to provide the local origination studio and necessary equipment and personnel is that of grantee. At a minimum the equipment provided for the studio . 12 J shall be that contained in the December 1986 proposal of grantee. Air time shall be provided free of charge to everyone except "for-profit" entities and declared political candidates. Fees may be charged for equipment and labor supplied by grantee in assisting persons in developing programming , except that no charge shall be made for live studio cable casts of five minutes or less by public access users or for the broadcasts of such special events as are designated by the board of commissioners of the county. C. Not later than the third year after the acceptance of this franchise, grantee shall complete all work necessary to fully activate its system bi-directional from the site of the "old" and "new" Orange County courthouses. Thereafter grantee shall provide at its cost live coverage of all regularly scheduled board of county commissioners' meetings held in either the old or the new Orange County courthouses . Alert shall provide onsite at each such meeting the personnel and equipment necessary to ensure that the viewer receives a satisfactory audio and visual transmission of all proceedings before the board of county commissioners. Grantee may satisfy the requirement in this subsection for bi-directional capability with contracts with other franchised cable operators in the county which contracts provide for the free-to-the-county live coverage of board of county commissioners ' meetings from the old and new courthouses. Any such contract or contracts shall be for a term or terms extending for the duration of this franchise and any extensions of this franchise. At the end of the second year following 4... R r . 13 acceptance of this franchise, grantee may petition the board of county commissioners to be relieved of the obligation in this subsection if it appears that the extent of interest in bi- directional capability and the broadcasting of board of county commissioners ' meetings is not significant and that the interest does not warrant the cost of providing this capability. Any such petition shall include a subscriber survey which demonstrates the lack of interest at the increased subscriber costs. In the event the board grants relief from this requirement as specified herein, it shall set a new deadline for grantee to meet the requirements of this subsection and the same procedure shall be followed thereafter on an annual basis during the term of this franchise until it expires or the bi-directional capability is achieved, whichever first occurs. D. Grantee shall make its local origination and public access channel programming available to any other franchised cable operator in the county at the time that cable operator makes its local origination and public access channel programming available to grantee. Grantee shall carry any other franchised cable operators local origination and public access programming when it becomes available to grantee . Grantee shall not be required to carry such programming if it is commercially sponsored. Any charge made by grantee to another franchise cable operator as a price for grantee making its local origination and public access channel programming available shall be commercially reasonable and shall be at no charge provided the other franchise cable operator provides its local origination and public access • 4, J , 14 • channel ro rammin available P g g fable to grantee at no charge. Section XI. Effective date. Subject to the provisions of Section VI of the ordinance, this franchise shall become effective on the date on which grantee files the acceptance, bonds, fees and expenses, and proof of insurance required by the ordinance. Section XII. Repeal of Preexisting Permitted Use Franchise. Upon acceptance of this franchise as provided herein the Preexisting Permitted Use Franchise effective May 12 , 1982 granted to Alert Cable TV of North Carolina, Inc. is repealed. First Reading. The foregoing ordinance received the following vote and was duly adopted this day of , 1987: Ayes: Noes: Absent or Excused: Second Reading. The foregoing ordinance received the following vote and was duly adopted this _ day of _ , 1987: Ayes: Noes: 1 .",t C 15 Absent or Excused: ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE Alert Cable TV of North Carolina, Inc. hereby accepts the foregoing franchise and voluntarily agrees to conduct its operations as a grantee in accordance with this franchise and the Orange County Cable Television System Ordinance as it now exists and as it may be amended from time to time. This agreement is accepted and filed with the Orange County Manager this day of _ 19 _. Also filed herewith are the proofs of insurance, bonds and letters of credit required by Section XIV of the Orange County Cable Television System Ordinance. ALERT CABLE TV OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. By: President ATTEST: Secretary STATE OF COUNTY I , a notary public of said county and state, certify that personally came before me and acknowledged tha. he 9 � (she) is secretary of Alert Cable TV of North Carolina, Inc . , a corporation, and that by authority given and as the act of the corporation the foregoing franchise was signed by the president of the corporation, sealed Ii 1 O. WILLIAM FAISON LAW OFFICES CHARLES GORDON BROWN FAISON, BROWN, FLETCHER & BROUGH GEORGE L. FLETCHER GEORGE B. BKUUGH SUITE 1400 RALEIGH OFFICE WILLIAM W. BUNCH, W UN1VERSEl'Y TOWER SUITE 210 A. REXFUR WILLIS. 111 3101 PETTY ROAD NORTH CAROLINA FEDERAL BUILDING RALPH B. STRICKLAND,JR. POST OFFICE BOX 2800 ayuu FALLS OF rv1 uSE ROAD BRENDA M. FOREMAN DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27705 POST OFFICE BOX 19419 W. ROBBINS COX RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27619-9409 WILLIAM D. BERNARD TELEPHONE(919)489-9001 TELEPHONE 19191 s78-130w A. VANN IRVIN TELEPHONE (919)968-1111 TELECOPY ON/878-8U62 TIMOTHY C. BARBER TELECOPY (919)489-5774 JEFFREY N. MASON REGINALD B. GILLESPIE,JR. MARTHA LEANN NE.AM FLOYD B. McKISSICK,JR. JOHN C.SCHAFER JAMES E. HARDIN,JR. FRAYDA S. BLUE.STEIN ROBERT E. HAGEMANN May 15, 1987 THOMAS N.COCHRAN Commissioner John Hartwell Orange County Board of Commissioners Route 4, Box 1540 Lawrence Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Commissioner Hartwell : I represent Cultivation, Inc., the owner.of a 48-acre parcel of land located in Eno Township. My client is keenly interested in a matter on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting Tuesday, May 19, 1987. This matter is the consideration of preliminary plat approval for the San- Reba Woods subdivision, located on a parcel of property adjacent to and immediately east of my client' s property. My client' s interest and concern arises from the fact that, as shown on the enclosed reprint of a portion of Eno Township tax map 16, the property owned by Cultivation, Inc. •(lot 26) is presently landlocked. Good planning practice demands that, throughout the subdivision approval process, an effort be made to ensure that the street system of a proposed subdivision will be developed so as to ensure adequate access to surrounding properties and to coordinate with existing and proposed streets. It is this consideration that I am asking you to give to my client' s situation. As your agenda packet reveals, the San-Reba Woods project is a 34-lot subdivision on approximately 35 acres (lot 24A on tax map'16). Access to the project is from Craig Road on the east. The plan proposes three streets within the subdivision, but none would be constructed to my client' s property line. Phase III does, however, contain a right-of-way which would conceivably provide access. In your review of this subdivision proposal, I respectfully request that you consider imposing one or more of the following requirements to ensure the access for my client that I believe is consistent with sound planning practice. • • Commissioner John Hartwell Page 2 May. 15, 1987 My first request is that the Board of Commissioners require that Phases II and III of the San-Reba Woods subdivision be consolidated. Prior to the April 27, 1987 Orange County Planning Board meeting, it was our understanding that the proposed San-Reba Woods subdivision consisted of two phases, with Phase II comprising current Phases II and III. At that meeting, it first came to our attention that the developer had revised the plans to designate the area of the westernmost part of former Phase II as a separate Phase III. However, the land contained within Phase III is not divided into separate residential lots, the reason being (so we are informed) that sites for septic tank systems could not be located within this portion of the development tract. Since Phase III is not developable as the project is currently proposed, there is no incentive for the developer ever to seek final plat approval for this Phase. And, without final plat approval for Phase III, there will be no right-of-way dedicated to provide access to my client' s property. Therefore, we request that, at a minimum, the Board of Commissioners require the consolidation of Phases II and III, a requirement which we understand is agreeable to the planning staff. Our second request is for the Board of Commissioners to place a condition on preliminary plat approval requiring that, in conjunction with final plat approval of Phase I, the developer must record a right-of-way extending to my client' s property as indicated on the preliminary plat of Phases II and III. This request is made in light of our concern that Phases II and III may not be developed. The fact that the developer previously obtained preliminary plat approval for a project virtually identical to the one before you, and then allowed this approval to expire, clearly warrants our concern that Phases II and III may never reach the final plat approval stage. Such a condition would ensure my client access upon final plat approval of Phase I. Finally, we respectfully request that the Board impose a condition on preliminary plat approval requiring that when Phases II and III (Phase II should the Board require the consolidation of Phases II ai,J III) are developed, the developer construct a street on the right of way shown on the southern half of the preliminary plat all the way to the western boundary of the developer' s property. Such a requirement is standard procedure for several nearby jurisdictions. In response to our inquiry, the Town of Chapel Hill has indicated that it would always require a developer to construct a road within a subdivision to an adjacent landlocked property. The City of Durham' s traffic engineer informed us that it is the city' s general practice to require streets within a subdivision to be built to the property line, and at a minimum to ensure that a right-of-way provides some access. Durham County Stated that, with rare exceptions not applicable here, they normally would require the construction of a street to the property line. Finally, the Town of Carrboro by ordinance requires that a street within a subdivision be constructed to the property line. Therefore, we believe that a condition on preliminary plat approval requiring the developer of the San Reba Woods subdvision to construct a road to the property line in conjunction with final plat approval of Phases II and III is consistent with practice in the 1 . Commissioner John Hartwell Page3 May 15, 1987 area and sound from a planning standpoint. (Needless to say, my client would expect to continue the road from its eastern boundary to its western property line when its property is developed). Thank you for considering our views and requests on this matter. Due to a conflict with the Carrboro Board of Aldermen meeting, it is unlikely that I will be able to appear personally on this matter before the Board of Commissioners at its meeting on Tuesday. However, one of our firm' s associates, Mr. Robert Hagemann, will be there to respond to any questions you may have. Sincerely, FAISON ROWN, FLETCHER & BROUGH 44/12-4-0/ M chael B. Brough MBB/dwc , —., • . • ,. - -, .1,..., ,I•;:.• :til•-• '7.',.:',, -"L: ':.'■ ".;kf'I 1;;;.,J1/.10, : 1 sl...#_".;03,0•■r.,«,-....,1 : i!Li;4,-,,i,:t4i4.1.. •-• ;.. . .,,, ; ;,. ".., :_,, 1 ; . i,,,,i:,tt •4 . . , ..,,.,,. .. ,..,. ., ., h'4,11:1•14Q1ttiteir P.V.1.-1,,•i.,•-6.-.mir 0,-et:t. . c -.1. •" ...:it e eq .1 . ' ..•. 4 ‘I :.,•-•,; .• 4.it:.• '' ' •.0'1'I;" if r.A,''• ' ' . 14!'.1`40,;!' 'd. "C" II t 0 ;. ' . '.... : :‘.41i-Vil.I.St 0 II■40.:re:'.). 4 ).Itie.ti:1;7itt"117.i.1,. In . - •:'I,. ''''''... --'1,‘:!i.elt' • ' ,••'1..'.:■':-.1,fr't :1;',4-:•.!:t:' ._''• .. ',.' 341:'4'.0:13 4'i,..> '141! 'i : •1 •..; ,......2._- ' Ir . 41, • . ,1.1 ..'....0.,'.4.1.0%"'V'0'••• ' i"•:••''' r -be ,„9.•'' CO . r'..i."i"Il''. ''.. ,,tc,1-• .,?'i ,;.,.,...,-,.. ...,.-. -,.:7. ,''''.' ..- ::".• -:;n, '•-•1 TO: f{ . 4'0.i ... 14t?of i 1 • , • 1 '. ' - 14'1 •- .•..'. .'T..' -:-., . : 14 At::: •■ ! id: 1,.....g L. , , , ;Li: .,,p_ . : ,.,i:4, 00...•1••; ;-.r., . v ' laril.''''f. • i ',g• ' ' - ;-!1.,:./•• • ' . • ■ •ci, 1 -1 .-"•' -. W.I.; .0';i'4::"*".;: .. - . .,$1. i . • ---.... .....„, • . 'reill°r— • ' -: ...: . ---, -...... I c 7 ------. . -, o f COUNTY $,! w, vo,4--------• -77—7,- ,7- .. .t------- ---• __.--- • . , -, CO I ■.,• o # - al -tft' • . '. ... , , . . • t .r,..4,S9 01 • ;-•• '.' ••• : . . ' 1 . a. . ' I 1 •_-: •, a). I ' ..' ; : ..., ... i; ..-- ---f • . . • ...... . ....... '' .-.. "--.. .---. .--- .--. 0 0.1 • - ..• • . • . ,. . tts • —1c1 • 0 i''' • . . . . . . . sl., . . . ..... ..: 0 I' all di . 4. . . •; `k . . . • t'''. - • . . . : ,c, . • . ..,..... ,„ . ... N •, . . . : . . r . • T .. ,.., . . . . .. .. . . • •._ . • • • • . . _....„....,_-_ . ,....._. ti 1 . , . . ..1 , • , : . : 0 . to . • , r- - . • .. . g• -: I . 1 . W. • ■ . • . ' . • ! % • . I • .• . . • • . . . , - • • • .1.■ . - • .. , . ' .. . •.:- . • . . „ . - i . •; f ■ • .. * .. ' , . i ; ' • . . . . Y ? 1 T ,..,,, ..., I I 4--74. ell i:":"-Kigi:i.):41...:I 11• w C:::.*{-ribu"-��� \i t .,0:1, a , 1:,./6,bill ORANGE COUNTY LIVESTOCK/HORTICULTURE MARKET AND RURAL EDUCATION CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT PRESENTED TO THE s.�. --mss -ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ..,4".74 MAY 19, 1987 k� ir :ilk)4 i (251:1:...:::::::::" "'157 1'.'.; :::! " %,�..J� �' • } ''•;4 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: �� .1.1 •,%:./..i...44. �, .' . ' ' _STEPHEN HALKI OTI S, CHAIRMAN CHRIS BEST MARY ANNE BLACK DEAN DETER BARRY JACOBS ALBERT KITTRELL .. KAREN MCADAMS- W. E. MAINOUS BARNEY PITTMAN SYLVIA PRICE: ,. ..i. (-..., ':;,:pil. : 41,65 !,,,. L . ,/, 3t, :Yv,..0. vi' .4 404/140 !; 2N Orange County Livestock/Horticulture Market ? and Rural Education Center Feasibility Study Committee Report The impending loss of the Hillsborough Livestock Market will represent a major financial blow to Orange County's already hard- pressed livestock producers. Its loss will also have a major economic impact on our local economy insofar as the several million dollars paid out for livestock at the market might be lost to this community. Economists agree that as money flows through the local economy, it turns over several times, and the loss of the livestock market would represent a much larger financial loss to the County's economy than the sums spent at the market. Drawing upon the historical precedent for Orange County's involvement in assuring a local livestock market and the County's obvious interest in the financial well-being of our County's farmers in particular and in our local economy in general, we propose that the Orange County Board of Commissioners take action to keep a livestock facility in the County. What began as a committee to study the feasibility of maintaining a livestock sale facility in Orange County eventually matured into a group which saw the financial necessity of providing a facility that would not be dependent only on one component for its existence. A livestock sale facility can't exist by itself, but it can be a viable component of a multifaceted facility which would provide a number of services to all citizens in Orange County. From this need to look at a multipurpose facility, there was born the "ORANGE COUNTY LIVESTOCK/HORTICULTURE MARKET/RURAL EDUCATION CENTER. " The attached documents support the following recommendations: I. A livestock sale facility can be an integral component of a multipurpose facility in Orange County. A livestock sale facility can't stand by itself. (See Attachment A, Standaert Report, and Attachment B, Responses to Survey. ) II. There is a strong interest in establishing a farmer's market in northern Orange County. (See Attachment B and Survey Sample, Attachment K. ) Survey results: 165 "yes", 5 "no", 3 "maybe". III. There is a need for a large meeting room that would be available to County government agencies which currently have to rent such facilities. This meeting room could also serve as a gallery and exhibition site for items related to the rich agricultural history heritage of Orange County. (See Attachment C, Report by Albert Kittrell of County Expenditures for Meeting Rooms. Mr. and Mrs. Quentin Patterson are most willing to help work on the gallery collection of agricultural items pertinent to the history of Orange County. ) r [ IV. There are numerous events which could be scheduled for the facility which would not only make it economically self-sustaining, but would also generate more dollars spent in Orange County by guests and participants. (See Attachment D, compiled by Recreation and Parks Department, Agricultural Extension Service and local agriculture and horticulture teachers. ) V. It makes a great deal of sense to plan now for a facility that could provide a safe firing range for all law enforcement agencies in Orange County. (See Attachments E. F. G and H. ) A central locations for rural fire departments to train could be achieved easily by adding a tower and burn house for firefigher training. it would serve as a great civil defense facility. VI. It is a "given" that any site and any and all buildings would belong forever to Orange County and would not be subject to any transfer. A Board of Directors with representation from the County Board of Commissions would serve as a governing structure. (See Attachment I. ) VII. The Chairman of the Feasibility Study Committee proposes that an increase in the property tax of 1 cent for one year be considered as a possible funding source for the site and necessary buildings. The Chairman of this committee further recommends that should some benefactor come forward with a gift of land that could possibly serve as a site for this multipurpose facility, the Orange County Board of Commissioners should consider naming this facility in honor of this patron. The estimated cost for the land (ca. 40 acres) , buildings and equipment necessary to operate such a facility is approximately $340, 000. The Orange County Livestock Market Association would also need to raise capital of $200, 000 to operate the market and meet the requirements of the Federal Livestock Marketing Act. To this end, the Orange County Livestock Market Association would sell stock in the Association. Additional Attachments: Attachment J, Economic Development Commission Briefing on Livestock Market Attachment L, Preliminary Sketch of the Proposed Facility ATTACHMENT A • AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION North Carolina State Universit: SERVICE School of Agriculture and Life Science. Extension Economics and Business Box 8109 Raleigh, N. C. 27695-8109 April 22 , 1987 Bill Marous Karen cAdams Orange County Extension Service Agricultural Bldg. 109 Court St . Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Bill and Karen, Enclosed you will find the completed version of the feasibi- lity study for an Orange County Livestock market . Karen, if you have any further changes or additions please tell me end I wi12 incorporate them. Please note a change in the revenue scale for the Siler City market. I used their 1986 schedule in the draft and during the meeting on April 21 , 1987 . A question about the level of these commissions at that . meeting caused me to go back and check with the Siler City market about their 1987 schedule . I found a significant increase in their fee scale and have incorporated it in this new version . The change reduces the projected loss to the new Hillsborough market by $1 per animal unit . The expected revenue remains negative , however . The breakeven volume is also reduced , but now is much closer to historical volume levels of the old Hillsborough sale . This new result makes the facility more feasible with breakeven volumes in an attainable range for an aggressive manager . I apologize for the mistake in the draft and urge you to share this information with those present at the meeting yester- day. Sincerely, } 'f �,c__ 11/2.4.2-- f• -.�- eg 7'c-d-ev#1►i amen E . Standaert 4 Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics T and N.C.State Universities,100 Counties and U.S.Deportment ofAgricult r 1 FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR AN ORANGE COUNTY LIVESTOCK AUCTION MARKET by James E. Standaert , Ag Economist Karen' McAdams, County Agent, Orange County North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service April 20, 1987 a + EXAMINATION OF THE DEMAND FOR AUCTION MARKET SERVICES IN THE NORTH CENTRAL PIEDMONT Animal Populations . Figure 1 presents a map of the North Central Piedmont area including a circle with a 50 mile radius around Hillsbprough , N . C . incribed on it . Table 1 presents 1986 estimates of numbers of milk cattle , beef cattle , and all hogs for the area enclosed by the circle . Table 2 presents 1986 sales of animal units for the five major auction markets within the enclosed area . TABLE 1 . Animal populations for the North Central Piedmont area , by animal specie , 1986. Category Milk Cows Beef Cows Hogs Horses a Animal Population Jan 1 , 1986 27 ,800 64 , 100 119 ,963 35, 987 b Yearly output 23 ,630 48 ,076 208 , 137 --- c Animal Units 111 , 350 a Yearly output is the stream of animals available to be sold during the year . Under a stable herd size, the calving rate is a good estimate of the number of animals sold in any one year . Milk cows calving rate is .85; beef, . 75. Hogs includes . numbers of breeding swine , feeder pigs and top hogs . The state proportion of hog inventory which is market hogs and pigs is . 855. Since market hogs and pigs are produced twice a year , . yearly output from hog inventory is twice the number of hogs and pigs Horses includes adults and foals . b One animal unit is one cow, one calf, two top hogs or sows , or six feeder pigs. Horses are not included . Since the inventory numbers do specify of hogs by age , it was assumed that the proportion of feeder pigs to mature hogs in the population was the same as were sold through the five auction markets in the area . The resulting hog and pig inventory number was converted to animal units by dividing 5. 25 into the inventory number . TABLE 2. Volume of animals units sold through auction markets in the North Cenral Piedmont area , by auction location, 1986 . Siler Hills- Danville South City Borough Oxford Va . Boston ,Va . Volume of animal unit sold , 1986 Weekly markets 143 , 468 13 ,460 10, 424 7 , 534 16 , 763 Special sales 3, 611 3, 150 2, 146 none none a Average per week 2 , 775 327 237 151 335 a Number of weekly and special sales per year : S.C . cattle 51 , hogs 50, pigs 49 , special 3; Hills. cattle 51 , hogs 50, pigs 23, special 3; Oxford cattle 49 , hogs 48 , pigs 48 , special 2. Dan- ville cattle 50, hogs 50; S.B. cattle 50, hogs 50. The number of animals sold through the five principal auctions in the North Central Piedmont area is 197 , 406 . This exceeds the amount available for sale in the area by more than 86,000. Either animals are imported into the area to be sold , or the yearly output numbers in Table 1 are underestimated due to multiple sales of some animals. The Hillsborough market is third in size in the area . Producers now using Hillsborough to market their cattle and hogs have available the markets in the other four locations . Virginia does not conduct feeder pig sales at their locations . Hills- borough feeder pigs would have available only the auction markets in Siler City and Oxford . Except for the volume of special sales , it does not appear that capacities in the four other sale locations would limit absorption of Hillsborough ' s marketings should it cease to exist . . T , Table 3 . Estimated investment costs , life, and annual costs in buildings, water system, waste treatment, roadways and equipment for a 500 animal unit auction market in NC, 1987 a Investment Annual Item cost Life cost Building Administration Bldg 33, 752 20 3, 375. 20 Support structure 135,990 20 13, 599.00 Water well , plumbing , electrical , etc . 12,863 20 1 , 286 . 30 Total 182 ,605 18 ,260. 50 Equipment Tractor and equipment 10 ,000 10 1 , 500.00 Mobile Home 15,000 10 2,250.00 High pressure washer 1 , 500 10 225.00 Pick-up and gooseneck 20,000 10 3,000.00 Office equipment 2 , 500 10 375.00 Public address system 500 10 75.00 Water heater and rest room 2 ,000 10 300.00 Squeeze chute 1 ,500 10 225.00 Scale and weight display 8 , 500 10 1 ,275.00 Total 61 , 500 9,225.00 Property tax 2, 500.00 Insurance 4 ,000.00 Bond (one weeks sales) 98, 100 Total on equip. , tax , ins. 159,600 15,725.00 Total with buildings 33 , 985. 50 Anual fixed cost per animal unit at capacity with building $1 . 28 without building S . 59 Annual fixed cost per animal unit at 1986 Hillsborough volume with building S1 . 96 without building $ .91 a Depreciation and annual interest (10%) only. Expected revenue per annimal unit. Table 5. Revenue scale for Siler City sale, 1987. Revenue Scale Gross Sales Dollars per head up to $50 2.00 $51 — $100 3.00 $101 — $150 4 .00 $151 -- $250 5.00 $251 — $350 6.00 $351 — $500 7.00 $501 — $650 8.00 $651 — up 10.00 The average animal unit is defined as worth $300 when sold . At this level of gross sales each animal unit can be expected to bring $6 .00 in auction market sale revenue. REFERENCES • Schupp, Alvin . The Costs of Operating Livestock Auctions in Louisiana . Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station , DAE Research Report No . 652 , May 1986 . NCDA . Agricultural Statistics North Carolina . North Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service . No. 159 . Oct, 1986 . • • ATTACHMENT B r ' RESPONSES TO MARKET/EDUCATION CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY POSITIVE COMMENTS 1. Much needed! (mentioned twice) 2. "I feel there is a great need for this facility. More research should be done to advance toward this project." 3. "I think there should be a strong study made, and act real soon." 4 . "Yes we do need this facility and I support it. " 5. "The present market has been a valued part of our community for many years. It is needed by our producers and the alternatives to a local market are too expensive and time consuming to benefit our struggling livestock producers. " 6. "I am in full support of this facility. This area can not afford to have a market far away." 7. "I think it is badly needed. I also think it should be managed by a different group of people with the farmers of Orange Co. as their first priority and not themselves. " 8. "I think, if built, it should also have different management than existing market. " 9. "A great idea. Would like to help in any way I can. The museum idea is wonderful and a benefit to the livestock market. " 10. "We need a facility like this desperately. Many organizations and functions could utilize a facility of this nature. " 11. "Orange County really needs this facility. The expanded use beyond a livestock market opens up all kinds of possibilities. " 12. "Sounds like ,a good idea." 13. "A very good idea. " (mentioned twice) 14. "Orange County needs a livestock market because it is to far to Siler City. " 15. "This type of facility is long overdue. However top management is needed to be successful. " 16. "Since the present livestock market will be closing, such a facility is needed and would be beneficial for the County. " 17. "I would purchase some stock or bonds. " 18. "We think this would be a wonderful thing to have come about. It certainly would be utilized both by seller and buyer. Quality vegetables are grown locally. A bit more could be planted to have to sell and make extra earnings for families with children who make the effort, also for Senior Citizens who do raise beautiful gardens and always have excess of vegetables. The buyers have to go a long way to buy at farm direct produce. They have only Super Markets to depend on. All users of buildings mentioned above would seem progressive, needful and likely to be used by surrounding communities. 19. "I think the multi-purpose agricultural facility would be an access(sic) to Orange County. 20. "Will help in any way I can. " 21. "I think the first priority should be towards the livestock market. " 22. "I think the study committee should have a couple of full-time 3 use and manipulate their needs during crisis — good idea if the fame is to be saved--and the farms. We have beef producers coming in frc other states to buy feeder calves. This helps the farmers get better price--however, price-setting must be guarded against. I properly administered, this facility could provide a positive image t the agricultural industry, and bring money into the County. Now, i we take our products elsewhere, it will not increase the County's cas flow. " 42. "Please include wood crafts in the new market. Farmers an craftsmen need a good market for their products. Some farmers ar good craftsmen. " 43. "I think a multi-purpose market would benefit consumers an farmers in Orange County. Location should be thought out well. " 44. "This is a fine idea and I support it completely. " 45 "We think it is a good idea to have a multi-purpose agricultura facility in Orange County to help the farmers market their products t the citizens of the surrounding areas and cattle farmers would no have to transport their livestock so far." 46. "Do not see a need for museum or gallery at the present time also new management very important - as I think the present managemen is part of the current problem - money has not been handled properly funds abused. " 47. "Funding for building? Funding for operating?" 48. "A facility as proposed above would certainly be an asset to no only farmers, but the entire area." 49. "A multi-purpose facility would be nice for a lot of differen things! I think that it is important for us to maintain a livestoc market in Orange County. If not we will be faced with shipping ou cattle out of the county thus costing us more in shipping - and th loss of tax revenue to the county may be another good reason fo maintaining a market of our own. " 50. "I am a cattleman and I think we need livestock marketin facilities. " 51. "Would like to see more buyers - and a better management. " 52. "This is the first intelligent decision I have known Orang County to consider in recent time. This would be an asset to all a Orange County - not just farmers." 53. "Someone said there was a possibility of loosing farmer's marke at Carrboro - Homestead Community Center Building has been turned bac to the County. I can't understand why? Nothing is being done excep to board up the windows and put it on hold. This property can be c great importance to this end of the County - and this should be take off �� (Hold) and put into (Action) (Meeting Places) (Farmer's Mkt. etc." "While I am not a livestock producer, I do have a small garden. would never produce anything for the market. The idea as stated abov seems a wonderful idea. I would support it. 55. "Let me know if I can help in any way. " 56. ""Ouality study and planning are all important. But time is c the essence. " it would seem to me just as important. As a frier said to me this A.M. , "We in this area border on "planning things t death" Believe there is merit to his comment. 57. "A multi-purpose market and agricultural facility would be c mutual benefit to both the farmers of Orange and surrounding countie and the townspeople! " 58. "Hopefully, although from Chatham County, our family caul benefit from such a facility. We presently merchandise 90% of of produce and crafts at the Carrboro Farmer's Market. " f 5 market and arena, farmer's market, meeting room and cafeteria in phase tone and put the museum and gallery in phase two. I would like to see phase one put in operation and see how well it does. If it goes well, then consider building phase two if it appears to be feasible." 2. "I think it would depend on where it is to be located. Hillsborough is not a good location for a retail farmer's market - not enough customers available. Residents of Durham will go to Chapel Hill or Carrboro to shop because there are many other places to shop. Residents of Chapel Hill do not mind paying for farm fresh produce but in many other areas, they want to haggle over price. Farmers work hard to get that produce raised, harvested and to market in top shape. We stopped selling on the Durham market because too many people though they could buy at bargain basement prices. " 3. "What a stupid question to ask. All will be for (the Market) but would they be if they knew the cost?" ATTACHMENT C ORANGE COUNTY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Commissioner Stephen Halkiotis FROM: Albert Kittrell SUBJECT: Leasing Meeting Facilities DATE: May 13, 1987 As reported earlier, four county departments leased facilities to conduct county sponsored programs, workshops, and training sessions. The lack of appropriate space in county facilities, primarily in Hillsborough, was the reason for leasing meeting facilities. The following is the extent to which space was rented during the 1986-87 fiscal year. Department Number of Number of Clients Cost Events Participating Agriculture Extension 70 3,860 $2,675 Personnel 4. 740 700 Aging 1 300 350 Recreation 1 80 350 Total 76 4,980 $4, 075 The totals above do not reflect the utilization of meeting space by non-departmental agencies funded by the county, county advisory boards, and department functions conducted in space provided free. All departments, agencies and advisory boards contacted expressed an interest in additional and appropriate meeting facilities in the northern part of the county. The recently discussed Agriculture Center would address the needs of county departments and county affiliated agencies. • ATTACHMENT D Orange iauntq Kecreatinn anb parks �e�nrtment ,11.4 300 West Tryon Street C. � 1,yy rM+'ter HILLSBOROUGH. N.C. 27278 Life.Be init. • Mary Anne Black. Director MEMORANDUM TO: Steven Halkiotis, County Commissioner FROM: Mary Anne Black DATE: March 30, 1987 RE: Agricultural/Rural Education Center; possible program ideas for My staff and X have really "brainstormed" concerning possible program ideas to aid you in your study of the feasibility of a joint public/private venture for the creation of an Agricultural/Rural Education Center in Orange County. The following is a list of our ideas, many of which would depend upon the site constraints: a. Orange County Fair site b. new Hog Day site c. BMX (bicycle race) track d. indoor or outdoor target range (Police and Sheriff use, as well) e. archery range (stationary or cross-country) f. skeet range g. ropes course h. turkey shoot site i. horseshoe pit complex (tournament calibre) j. tree farm (especially interesting to this department as we begin to do more park landscaping) • k. garden plot rentals 1. gardening classes m. landscape and architecture classes n. woodworking classes o. hunting and fishing seminars p. fishing rodeo q. small engine repair shop r. Scout camping area s. home improvement classes t. GED classes u. square dance hall v. Youth Hostel site w. cooking classes x. frisbee (disc) golf course y. par-3 golf course with driving range z. softball batting cages with pitching machines aa. equestrian events Also envisioned is an Environmental Education Center with classrooms for slide presentations, taxidermy classes, disply cases, and "hands-on" programs. This is a start at least, and we will continue to "dream!" MAB/pbl Hillsborough. 732-9361 • Durham, 688-7333 • Chapel Hill, 968-4501 • Mebane, 227-2032 Area Code 919 uses for Livestnr_k Market/ Multiuse Fnr.ilitY Pnge 2 2R. Goat Shows 29. Dog Shows 30. Poultry Shows 31. Quilt Shows 32. Mule Shows 33. Rnhhit Shows 34. Gilt and Boar Soles 35. Turf Management Shows/Seminars 3fi. Antique Cnr Shows 37. Site for Tractor Pulls 3R. Rose Shows 39. F.F.A. Local HYr.o-Federation Competitive Events (Composted bedding would he Nagged and sold ns a topsoil-- n definite renewable resource here! ) The site could also serve ns a marvelous Civil Defense facility. Y ATTACHMENT E LINDY PENDERGRASS Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 Office Phone: Hillsborough 732-2431 Chapel Hill 942-6300 Residence Phone: 929-5535 To: Commissioner Stephen Halkiotis From: Sheriff Lindy Pendergras Re: Firearms Range Availability In Orange County Date: May 12, 1987 I take this opportunity to follow up on our conversation as to (a) availability of a firing range for the Orange County Sheriff's Department here in the county. (b) the availability for the Orange County Schools and (c) the availability for the Orange County Recreation Department. The answer to AB & C is of course, there is no availability for any of these. In order for the Orange County Sheriff's Department to qualify and meet standards, our personnel must use the facilities of the Durham County Sheriff's Department. This, at times, creates problems with scheduling around the times when the range is not in use as well as the distance that we must travel and this often creates a hardship on the personnel in the department in meeting training standards for qualification. As you are aware of, firearms training is a great liability for all law enforce- ment agencies. In order for us to comply with training requirements we should have access to a range wherein we could train on a regular basis, avoiding any civil liability should we be found deficient. A Firing Range must be 'located in an area that is safe and one that would not create complaints from the citizens of the county as has been the case with the Chapel Hill Police Departments Range. Letters of need from Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough Police Departments are attached. I hope that somehow a Range can be built to accomodate all who are concerned, and one that is large enough to support the needs as it is most essential due to the mandatory training standards. LP:rf ATTACHMENT F G1� ap � 1 Ha. 11 F-olxce D�pax- tm�ra� t 828 Airport Road Chapel Hill , N.C. 27514 (919) 968-2760 April 30 , 1987 Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass Orange County Sheriffs Department 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Sheriff Pendergrass : I would like to take this opportunity to support the proposal for a firing range for Law Enforcement Officers in Orange County. I t will fill a need that has existed in the County for some time, and enhance the quality of Law Enforcement services for the residents of the County. As you know, Officers of the Chapel Hill Police Department present- ly utilize the range owned by the Chapel Hill Police Association. This facility is serving us well , and in fact , we are now in the pro- cess of negotiating with the Association for improvements at the fa- cility. Some of the improvements are necessitated because of new re- quirements proposed by the State for limited light qualification as well as combat firing qualifications . As you also know, this facility is limited to five lanes which will not be large enough too support the future needs of Law Enforcement Officers other than our own. Be- cause of the topography of the area, the cost of adding additional lanes is prohibitive, and therefore is not presently being considered as one of those improvements under discussion. I believe that the Association' s range will be able to meet our needs into the future, but with firearms being such a high liability area for all of Law Enforcement , I plan on increasing our own training even further to lessen this risk. I know that you would like to do the same, and an adequate facility to carry out this training is essen- tial . Our facility is simply not large enough to support the needs of the entire County with necessary training such as this . For all of these reasons, I wholeheartedly support this It will assist all of us in doing our job better and more safely, and proposal . is therefore a wise and prudent investment of public resources . y' Sincerely Yours , Major Arnold old Interim Chief of Police Chapel Hill Police Department ( 1 ) Ira • ATTACHMENT G a1 FL)0IC) Box 3 301 West A $!r prt Carnhpro.N?rth Carotinr. 27t,10 NCam. (pip)96P,7703 (910. 942_P.•41 May 8, 1987 Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass Orange County Sheriff's Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Lindy: At the present the Carrboro Police Department is conducting firearms training and qualification 5 times a year. At each training session the officers shoot a total of 150 rounds. One hundred reloaded rounds are used to fire two practice runs over the prescribed course of fire as listed in the Basic Law Enforcement Training Manual issued by N.C. Training & Standards Commission. The last fifty rounds are service ammunition manufactured by Remington Arms Corporation, Bridgeport, Conn. This is the type of ammunition the officers are required to carry on duty, and they must qualify using this ammunition. As you can see we have a extensive firearms program. Our departments twenty-two sworn officers enjoy this program and it is reflected in their scores. During the last session our department average was 95.6% We at present are using a portion of a small farm in Orange County near Hillsborough. We were given permission to use this area for our training by the owner 7 years ago and our contract consists of a strong handshake. Our immediate concern is that the area we are using is immediately adjacent to an exit ramp from the new I-40. The value of that land of course has now skyrocketed. I feel it's realistic to assume, sometime in the near future that land may be sold. This causes our department some serious concerns. From a liability point of view it is essential that a good firearms program be maintained. It would be a great help if the county somehow acquired land and established a range for the law enforcement departments in the county to use. This range could also be used as a training facility for any school program for small bore (rifle). ATTACHMENT H Chief Eleur#mertt L.C. Aga 127 NORTH CHURTON STREET Lieutenant Patrolmen N. &thanks HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 J. . Jacobs Sergeant 732-9381 J. G. Jacobs 1.e. Linen 732-9382. P. E. While investigator W. T. King B. R. Frederick J. H. Irwin Secretary G.B. Snowden M. E. Lock Taw May 12, 1987 SheAiiii Lindy PendeAgnaas 144 Eat Manga/Le t Lane IiLUsbonaugh,. NC 27278 Dean Shetc.L66, I support a p. Ua.0 nanga that can be used by alt Law ensoncement oig.Lcena in Orange County. At this time, we have to use the pistot range o� o#hen.depan tments. The Hittsboliough Police Vepaktment wit put South Count'y ess u vnt to obtain a pcstot range .in Gunge Since/Lay, Ch,Le� C. 8494 LC8/met • ATTACHMENT I ORANGE COUNTY LIVESTOCK/HORTICULTURE MARKET/RURAL EDUCATION CENTER Proposed Board of Directors--Structure The Board of Directors will have 14 members: 1. Orange County Livestock Producer* 2. Orange County Livestock Producer* 3. Orange County Livestock Producer* 4. Orange County Horticulture Producer** 5. Orange County Horticulture Producer** 6. At large--agriculture*** 7. At large—agriculture*** _ 8. At large--open**** 9. At large--open**** 10. Orange County Ag. Extension Chairman 11. Orange County Ag. Extension Livestock Agent 12. Member, Orange County Board of Commissioners (or their designee) 13. Director, Orange County Recreation Department 14. Orange High School Ag. faculty member***** necessarily * Must be an active (though not/full-time) Orange County livestock producer. To be elected by a vote of Orange County livestock producers; vote to be monitored like an ASCS or referendum vote. ** Must be an active (though not necessarily full-time) Orange County horticulture producer. To be elected by a vote of Orange County horticulture producers; vote to be monitored like an ASCS or referendum vote. *** Must be an active agricultural producer in Orange County. The following may vote for this office: a. agricultural producers in Orange County (certified by either ASCS or Ag. Ext. Service) ; b. stock/bond holders of the Orange County Livestock/Horticulture Market/Rural Education Center; or c. sell or buy livestock (at least 1 animal unit) at Orange County Market at least 5 times during calendar year, or sell over $100 produce 8 or more times during calendar year. **** An open/public seat; may be held by ag. related businessman, etc. , and does not have to be an Orange County resident. Election proceedure the same as for *** above. ***** Appointed by the Orange High School Principal. 1. The Executive Committee will have 5 members elected from among the Board of Directors by the Board of Directors. It will includ the Board's Chair, Vice-chair, Secretary, Treasurer, and one at large member. Officers of the Board and the Executive Committee will be elected every year. 2. The Board of Directors will serve without compensation. 3. The Board of Directors will meet at least Quarterly, and more often, if necessary. 4. Eight elected members of the Board will serve 2 year terms, with 4' being elected in alternate years. One elected member will sere a 3 year term. ATTACHMENT J ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION P.O. Box 712 • 117 N. CHURTON ST. HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 1919). 732-8181 (919) 968-4501 EX T. 279 30 December 1906 MEMO TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Chair Moses Carey, Jr., Vice–Chair Don Wit lhoit Dr. John Hartwell Dr. Steven Halkiotis FROM: Sylvia Price, Director Orange County Economic Development Commission SUBJECT: Briefing Note — Hillsborough Livestock Market Attached please find a briefing note regarding the Hillsborough Livestock Market which . Commissioner Marshall asked me to prepare for distribution to the Board. If you have questions, or if there is further infor- mation you require, please contact me and I will be glad to assist. SP:smb Encl. cc: Ken Thompson Bill Laws John McKee 2 Property Transactions. Before FCX announced its bankruptcy in September 1985, the 69 acres surrounding the market building were rw placed on the market. Following bankruptcy, Goldkist, a Georgia cooperative bought the livestock market and 12 acres of grounds upon which it and the pig barn stand. The surrounding 57 acres remained on the market, offered either as lots or as an entire tract. The livestock market site owned by Goldkist was mak on the market. In the summer of 1985, it was announced that an offer for the entire tract had been received and accepted for the 57 acres controlled by the FCX bankruptcy court. In addition, Goldkist agreed to sell the 12—acre livestock market site to the same purchasers, who are DCA General of Raleigh. The purchase contract for the Goldkist property leaves the ownership of buildings and equipment with Goldkist, but these must be removed within six months. Current Status. As of December 16, 1986, the sale transaction on the FCX property has closed, and the Goldkist deal closes on 31 December. Thus, in six months, the Livestock market will cease to operate in its present Location. ALL of the Land (except 13 acres on the south side of I-85] is in the extra—territorial jurisdiction of Hillsborough, and is zoned industrial. The purchasers have stated that they plan to develop the acreage as a business park for Light industrial, service businesses and some commercial businesses. Outlook for Re—establishment_pf the Market in an Alternative Location. The Likely closure of the livestock market has been `Proposed Board of Directors--Organizational Chart • • :4 Livestock Producers Horticulture Producers Craftspersons Ag. Extension General Public County Government County Commissioners 4, Board of Directors---14 members l Board of Directors Executive Committee---5 members 1 IManager 1 Staff I r behr Livestock/Horticulture Producer: ATTACHMENT K ,_ A75 mmittee of Orange Count County ttee of Orange ge Orange County plan to provide a long-term y government officiaPs�areestudyingga facility in Orange County, marketing and multi-purpose agricultural We are examining the feasibility of a joint featuring a publicly built, multi-purpose� agricultural public-private venture would include, in addition to a moer livestock market and are farmer's market, facility which a large meeting room and cafeteria, and an Orange County Agricultural Museum and Gallery. This facility and livestock market be operated, under a lease would corporation. The goal is to promoter maximum use of atherfacility. profit The private, non-profit corporation would hire a would be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the livestock marks professional manager who and facility, securing and increasing business, conducting special and private sales, shows, and so on. and would include elected Orange County livestock/horticultured of Directors representative of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, theceOr, a County Livestock Extension Agent, Orange and a representative of the Orange tCountynAgribusinessxCouncil.�hFundin, for the operation of the livestock market would be raised through the sale of bonds or stock. le In order to help us with our feasibility stud the attached survey and return as soon as possiblelto the Orange Co Extension Office, 306-E Revere Road, Hillsborough, NC you please fill out need to sign the form if you do not wish, and we e727o' edu do County any comments you might like to make, have provided room for Sincerely, Orange County Livestock/Horticulture Market/Rural Education Feasibility Study Committee Center W. E. Mainous, Karen McAdams, Barney Pittman, Dean Deter, Sylvia Price, Albert Kittrell, S.H. Halkiotis, Chris Best, Barry Jacobs and Mary Anne Black I would like to see a multi_purpose livestock/horticulture mar agricultural facility built in Orange County. ket and yes no Name and Address (optional) Comments: -s. I. o o �..4F-: a ::-) 4 ATTACHMENT L 11:1 .. 2 t g 1?ow ' fr r \Ilk .._ . LT6 ..4 act r \ 4/41-44:41) -..- tiL 0 ' \IIr ‘ � . 0i 1 4 4 '-'rY/ 71>,:i_ i, 3 4 /:IIi I 1-i , �i W/ )- ri' • •+ 1 . 01 0o1 azt'4 . e-- i, ■ .414 0 41- iu si vIt6 I ‘ . \‘. N o . ., --------- . 4C. ii -10Z ) \ 1:-.A)01 6 52 Ilk 1 �U . =Lg. 'off . • Hp. ' r ._.)- 4 ) 1' ' \11 -') V r r `NG E\ _ _ -4-----------h--.. 4r- Immmormmw- PRE!4 I� RE! I !'F y Durhai-Cha 1 Ai11-Carrboro Urban Area 1985 - 2010 Transportation Study REPORT #1 : ANALYSIS OF PROJECTIONS, DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS Prepared by: Transportation Study Group of the Durham-Chapel Hi l-Carrboro Urban Area Technical Coordinating Coa ittee With the assistance o f the North Carolina Department of Transportation Planning and Research Branch TABLE OF CONTENTS: CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION II. THOROUGHFARE PLANNING PRINCIPLES 1.1 III. DEVELOPMENT OF TRAVEL FORECASTING MODEL 2.1 IV. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS 3.1 V. ANALYSIS OF DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS 4.1 VI. PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 6.1 APPENDIX OP TABLES AND FIGURES NUMBER PLANNING AREA WITH DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 1985 HOUSING AND EMPLOYr BY DISTRICT FIGBLE 4.1 TAB 2 1 000 HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT BY DISTRICT TABLE 4.2 2010 HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT BY DISTRICT TABLE 4.2 1985 VS. 2000 HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT TABLE 4.3 2000 VS. 2010 HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT TABLE 4.5 1985 VS. 2010 HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT TABLE 4.5 DEFICIENCIES OF EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED FIGURE 4.1 DEFICIENCIES OF EXISTING ADOPTED PLANS FIGURE 5.2 MAJOR PROJECTS CURRENTLY PROGRAMMED BY NCDOT _ FIGURE 5.2 IMMEEDIATE UNMET NEEDS (1987) TABLE 5.1 ANTICIPATED UNMET NEEDS (1988 - 2000) TABLE 5.2 . . • • . • . TABLE 5,3 L INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of this report is to present background, principles, and used in the development of the first consolidated Thoroughfare Plan for' the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Urban Area. This report will explain the principles of thoroughfare planning, the relationship between growth and transpor- tation needs, and will describe how future land use and population projections were developed. Finally, the report will explain the process to be followed to 'obtain input on a plan from elected governing bodies and individual citizens in the urban area. History of Planning in Area The current study is the first transportation planning effort to consider the needs for Durham, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro, and comprehensive plan. Prior to this study, three major transportation n plans have been prepared for Durham, and two for Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Durham's first plan developed as-a part of the continuing transportation planning process was completed in 1959. before modern computer modeling techniques were developed. It was developed through a "sketch planning" technique which relied heavily on data and engineering judgement. The second thoroughfare planning study was undertaken by a consultant, Harlan Bartholomew and Associates. This study was based on a major data collection effort, including: origin-destination surveys, an analysis of socio-economic trends, and detailed information on the street system. It was adopted in 1967. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 required all urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 or more to carry on a continuing transportation planning process. This requirement became known as the 3-C Planning Process (Continuing,To fulfill this requirement, in the early 1970's, the�Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), and the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) structure was developed to oversee the transportation planning process. The TAC included • elected representatives of the City of Durham and Durham County, and the area's representative on the North Carolina Board of Transportation (NCBOT). The TCC included persons from those jurisdictions involved in transportation and planning. The third transportation planning study was of the TAC and TCC. This plan was adopted in 1980.yItCrelied OT under on the auspices Q igin destination models from the previous study since collection of the large amount of data had become too expensive. Up to date land use and employment collected, however. Some revisions to the 1980 study were mutually approvedwi 1985. 1.1 The thoroughfare planning process began in Chapel Hill and Carrboro in the early 1960's. A plan was adopted in 1965 and revised in 1968. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to update that plan, in 1979, the two Towns entered into an agreement with NCDOT to take the lead role in developing an updated thoroughfare plan for the community. This effort was concluded by the mutual adoption of a new thoroughfare plan in 1984. Mandate of 1980 Census The 1980 Census showed that Durham and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area had grown into one large urban area based on population density and proximity of develop- ment. As such, the Bureau of the Census declared that Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and parts of southern Orange County were part of the Durham Urbanized Area (UZA). This designation invoked the requirement that the all transportation planning should be carried on for the entire urban area. This required that the TAC and TCC be expanded to include representatives from Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County. The reason behind the expansion of the transportation planning process to include the entire urban area defined by the census was logical. Many thousands of daily trips were made between the cities, and Chapel Hill and Durham were rapidly growing together. The mandate for joint cooperation presented a challange, however, since a new Memorandum of Understanding was necessary to establish membership and voting rights of the jurisdictions represented on the committees. The new Memorandum was adopted in 1983. The Current Study The current study has been developed as a joint effort of the staffs of NCDOT and the five local jurisdictions in the urban area within the framework of the TCC. The TAC has provided input and direction to the process by reviewing land use and population data collection efforts and future projections, forecasts of travel demand, and the deficiency analysis. The area included in this study covers most of Durham and Orange Counties and portions of Chatham and Wake Counties. The Research Triangle Park and RDU Airport are included in this large area. The study area extends well beyond the boundaries of the Urban Area in order to include areas of future growth. The study began in 1985 with the collection of housing and employment information for each of the 600 traffic zones in the study area. These data was used in developing the computer model of existing traffic on the existing street system. Projections of future population and employment applied to this model generates future traffic volumes. Projections for 2000 and .2010 were made as target dates for this study. This process will be described in detail later in this report. 1.2 IL THOROUGHFARE PLANNING PRINCIPLES Typically, the urban street system occupies 20 to 30 percent of the total developed land in an urban area. Since the system is permanent and expensive to build and maintain, much care and foresight are needed in its development. Thoroughfare planning is the process public officials use to assure the develop- ment of the most appropriate street system that will meet existing and future travel desires within the urban area. The primary aim of a thoroughfare plan is to guide the development of the urban street system in a manner consistent with changing traffic demands. Through proper planning for street development, many costly errors and much needless expense can be averted. A thoroughfare plan will enable street improvements to be made as traffic demands increase, and help eliminate unnecessary improvements. By developing the urban street system to keep pace with increasing traffic demands, a maximum utilization of the system can be attained that will require a minimum amount of land for street purposes. In addition to providing for traffic needs, the thoroughfare plan should embody those details of good urban planning necessary to present a pleasing and efficient urban community. The location of present and future population, commercial, and industrial enterprises, affects major street and highway locations. Conversely, the location of major streets and highways within the urban area will influence the urban development pattern. Other objectives of a thoroughfare plan include: (1) To provide for the orderly development of an adequate major street system as land development occurs; (2) To reduce travel and transportation costs; (3) To reduce the cost of major street improvements to the public through the coordination of the street system with private action; (4) To enable private interests to plan their actions, improvements, and development with full knowledge of public intent; (5) To minimize disruption and displacement of people and businesses through long range advance planning for major street improvements; (6) To reduce environmental impacts such as air pollution, resulting from transportation; (7) To increase travel safety. 2.1 • Thoroughfare planning objectives are achieved through both: (1) improving the operational efficiency of thoroughfares; and (2) improving the system efficiency through system coordination and layout. OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY A street's operational efficiency is improved by increasing the capability of the street to carry vehicular traffic and people. In terms of vehicular traffic, a street's capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles which can pass a given point on a roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. Capacity is affected by the physical features of the roadway, nature of traffic and weather. Physical ways to improve vehicular capacity include street widening, intersection improvements, improving vertical and horizontal alignment, and eliminating roadside obstacles. For example, widening of a street from two to four travel lanes more than doubles the capacity of the street by providing additional maneuverability for traffic. Impedances to traffic flow caused by slow moving or turning vehicles and adverse effects of horizontal and vertical alignments are thus reduced. Operational ways to improve street capacity include: (1) Control of access - A roadway with complete access control can often carry three times the traffic handled by a non-controlled access street with identical lane width and number. (2) Parking removal - Increase capacity by providing additional street width for traffic flow and reducing friction to flow caused by parking and unparking vehicles. (3) One-way operation - The capacity of a street can usually be increased 30-70%, depending upon turning movements and overall street width, by initiating one-way traffic operations. One-way streets can also improve traffic flow by decreasing potential traffic conflicts and simplifying traffic signal coordination. Pedestrian safety is enhanced since traffic moves in one direction rather than two. (4) Reversible lanes - Reversible traffic lanes may be used to increase street capacity in situations where heavy directional flows occur during peak periods. (5) Signal phasing and coordination - Uncoordinated signals and poor signal phasing restrict traffic flow by creating excessive stop-and-go operation. 2.2 Altering travel demand is a third way to improve the efficiency of existing streets. Travel demand can be reduced or altered in the following ways: (1) Encourage people to form carpools and vanpools for journeys to work and other trip purposes. This reduces the number of vehicles on the roadway and raises the people carrying capability of the street system. (2) Encourage the use of transit and the bicycle mode. (3) Encourage industries, business, and institutions to stagger work hours or establish variable work hours for employees. This will reduce travel demand in peak periods and spread peak travel over a longer time period. (4) Plan and encourage land use development or redevelopment in a more travel efficient manner. • SYSTEM EFFICIENCY Another means for altering travel demand is the development of a more efficient system of streets that will _better serve travel desires. A more efficient system can reduce travel distances, time, and cost. Improvements in system efficiency can • ;be achieved through the concept- of functional classification -of streets and :development of a coordinated major street system. Functional Classification Streets perform two primary functions -- traffic service and land service, which when combined, are basically incompatible. The conflict is not serious if both traffic and land service demands are low. However, when traffic volumes are high, conflicts created by uncontrolled and intensely used abutting property lead to intolerable traffic flow friction and congestion. The underlying concept of the thoroughfare plan is that it provides a functional system of streets which permits travel from origins to destinations with direct- ness, ease, and safety. Different streets in the system are designed and called on to perform specific functions, -thus minimizing the traffic and land service conflict Streets are categorized as to function as local access streets, minor thoroughfares, or major thoroughfares (see Figure 2.1). Local Access Streets provide access to abutting property. They are not intended to carry heavy volumes of traffic and should be located such that only traffic with origins and destinations on the streets would be served. Local streets may be further classified as either residential, commercial, and/or industrial depending upon the type of land use which they serve. 2.3 FIGURE 2 . 1 IDEALIZED THOROUGHFARE PLAN 11 L wpASS ft„„.,—.-- MINOR k TNOROMMVARES al r ---.4r1 _J REETS L 1 STREE TS CIiOSSTOWN I_yC L. STREETS ■. MEM 1 11111111 .Y COMMERCIAL STREETS INNER LOOP RADIAL STREETS LAND USES OUTER LOOP commix_ RESIDENTIAL MIMI MISTRIAL 2.4 Minor Thoroughfares are more important streets in the city system. They collect traffic from local access streets and carry it to the major thoroughfare system. They may in some instances supplement the major thoroughfare system by facilitat- ing minor through traffic movements. A third function which may be performed is that of providing access to abutting property. They should be designed to serve limited areas so that their development as major thoroughfares will be prevented. Major Thoroughfares are the primary traffic arteries of the city. Their function is to move intra-city and inter-city traffic. The streets which comprise the major thoroughfare system may also serve abutting property; however, their major function is to carry traffic. They should not be bordered by uncontrolled strip development because such development significantly lowers the capacity of the thoroughfare to carry traffic and each driveway is a danger and an impediment to traffic flow. Major thoroughfares may range from a two-lane street carrying minor traffic volumes to major expressways with six or more traffic lanes. Parking normally should not be permitted on major thoroughfares. Idealized Major Thoroughfare System A coordinated system of major thoroughfares forms the basic framework of the urban street system. A major thoroughfare system which is most adaptable to desire lines of travel within an urban area and which permits movement between various areas of the city with maximum directness is the radial-loop system. This system consists of several functional elements. --- radial streets, crosstown streets, loop system streets, and bypasses (Figure 2.1). Radial streets provide for traffic movement between points located in the outskirts of the city and the central area. This is a major traffic movement in most cities, and the economic strength of the central business district depends upon the adequacy of this type of thoroughfare. If all radial streets crossed in the central area, an intolerable congestion problem would result. To avoid this problem, it is very important to have a system of crosstown streets which form a loop around the central business district. This system allows traffic moving from origins on one side of the central area to destinations on the other to follow the area's border and allows central area traffic to circle and then enter the area near a given destination. The effect of a good crosstown system is to free the central area of crosstown traffic, thus permitting the central area to function more adequately in its role as a pedes- trian shopping area. Loop system streets move traffic between suburban areas of the city. Although a loop may completely encircle the city, a typical trip may be from an origin near a radial thoroughfare to a destination near another radial thoroughfare. Loop streets do not necessarily carry heavy volumes of traffic, but they function to help relieve central areas. There may be one or more loops (spaced one to two miles apart), depending on the size of the urban area and intensity of land use. 2.5 A bypass is designed to carry traffic through or around the urban area, thus providing relief to the city street system by removing from it traffic which has no desire to be in the city. Bypasses are usually designed to through highway standards, with control of access. Occasionally, a bypass with low traffic volume can be designed to function as a portion of an urban loop. The general effect of bypasses is to expedite the movement of through traffic and to improve traffic conditions within the city. By freeing the local streets for use by shopping and home-to-work traffic, bypasses tend to increase the economic vitality of the local area. APPLICATION OF THOROUGHFARE PLANNING PRINCIPLES The concepts presented in the . discussion of operational efficiency, system efficiency, functional classification, and idealized major thoroughfare system are the conceptual tools available to the transportation planner in developing a thoroughfare plan. In actual practice, thoroughfare planning is done for established urban areas and is constrained by existing land use and street patterns, existing public attitudes and goals, and current expectations of future land use. Compromises must be made because of these and the many other factors that affect major street locations. Throughout the thoroughfare planning process it is necessary from a practical viewpoint that certain basic principles be followed as closely as possible. These principles are as follows: (1) The plan should be derived from a thorough knowledge of today's travel --- its component parts, as well as the factors that contribute to it, limit it, and modify it. (2) Traffic demands must be sufficient to warrant the designation and development of each major street. The thoroughfare plan should be designed to accommodate a large portion of all major traffic movements on a relatively few streets. (3) The plan should conform to and provide for the land development plan of the area. (4) Certain considerations must be given to urban development beyond the current planning period. Particularly in outlying or sparsely developed areas which have development potential, it is necessary to designate thoroughfares on a long-range planning basis to protect rights of way for future thoroughfare development (5) While being consistent with the above principles and realistic in terms of travel trends, the plan must be economidally feasible. • 2.6 III. DEVELOPMENT OF TRAVEL FORECASTING MODEL The Thoroughfare Planning Unit (TPU) of NCDOT the DCHC Urban Area transportation planning provides technical assistance to travel forecasting model for the study area. eThist model is as d upon parbattery of mainframe computer procedures made available by the Federal Highwa Ad - tration. A brief description of how this model operates follows. Y minis- Methodology The travel forecasting model is comprised of three major parts; trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment. Trip Generation Three categories of trips are used: (1) Interim-Intern l Trips are those in which both ends of the vehicle trip occur within -the study area. Trips are described in terms of Produc- tions and Attractions. Trip Productions produced are a function of the number and type of dwelling units nbea hsofethe area's 600 analysis zones. Housing is stratified into five categories of standard (single-family and multi-family) dwellings which have trip- generating propensities from 6.0 to 12.0 vehicle trips sixth category for group A per day (VPD). A sixth uses 1.4 for group quarters (e.g, college dormitories and boarding per unit (defined as each individual). These trips are divided into three purposes; Home-based work (HBW - 27 , Other ' home-based (OHB - 49t), and Non-home based VHB ) number of secondary NHB trips produced by non-residents are added tto the NHB Trip Productions, Trip Attractions for each internal trip purpose are based on each zone's relative "attractiveness" which is calculated as a function of its number and type of employment. As a result, each zone has estimated numbers of trips produced and attracted for each of three internal trip purposes, • (2) External internal Trips are those in which one end of the vehicle trip occurs outside the study area. These can be either b or non-residents. The trips are considered to be by residents produced area's external cordon stations and attracted to the internal analys analysis zones based its employment (non-residents) and housing (residents). (3) External-maternal (Through) Trips are those which are both produced d attracted by the external stations. These trips do not stop within ain the study area. The total traffic at any station through trips with the rest being external-internal.anel from Oo to 65% 3.1 Trip Distribution The trip distribution model is referred to as the Gravity Model because it distributes trips between zones in a manner analogous to Newton's Law of Gravity, i.e., the number of trips between any two zones is directly related to each's size (productions and attractions) and inversely related to the distance between them. The trip generation phase provides the size information. The distance information is provided by the development of an analysis network which is a computerized facsimile of the study area's street and highway system. From this network, the computer calculates the minimum path (and related travel time) between any two of the area's 600 zones and 45 stations. An important part of the process of calibrating the model includes developing travel impedance curves for each trip purpose which control the length of trips distributed. If the average trip length is too long, the network will be over-assigned with trips going too far and vice-versa. To achieve calibration, the average trip length was about ten minutes. The result of the trip distribution phase is a trip table which includes numbers of vehicle trips for all possible combinations of zones and/or stations for each of five trip purposes (Internal - HBW, ORB, & NHB, External-Internal, and Through). Trip Assignment The trips are assigned to the network in a variety of ways, some of which consider congestion and alternative routes and some of which don't. Both techniques provide useful information to the analyst. Knowing where travel desires to go if congestion were not a consideration emphasizes preferred routes whose integrity should be safe-guarded. The consequences of not providing sufficient capacity on a particular major route can be assessed by considering congestion in the assignment technique. Knowing to where traffic would shift to avoid congested facilities helps to identify measures to protect neighborhoods from cut-through traffic resulting from inadequate major thoroughfares. The model was calibrated to 1985 conditions by comparing the models synthesized traffic patterns to those actually measured and adjusting several of its parameters until these patterns sufficiently matched. The corresponding landuse data for the design years (2000 and 2010) were then similarly transferred into projected travel patterns for use in the later stages of this study. Chapter 4 discusses the development of these landuse projections. Chapter 5 discusses the related travel patterns and assesses the deficiencies in the area's thoroughfare system and current plans for its improvement. 3.2 IV. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS The necessary forecasts of zonal landuse for the study's design years of 2000 and 2010 were developed in 1986. Based on review of these data by local governing bodies, adjustments were made where appropriate prior to the building of the corresponding travel demand trip tables. Figure 4.1 illustrates the planning districts for which data were aggregated for subarea analysis. Districts 1 through 11 comprise the Durham County portion of the study area; 12 n Orange County's portion; 18 through 20 - Chatham County; and 21. 22 - northwest ke County. Table 4.1 lists housing and employment for 1985. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 contain the corresponding projected values for 2000 and 2010, respectively. Table 4.4 compares these data for 1985 and 2000. Table 4.5 compares 2000 and 2010. Table 4.6 compares 1985 to 2010. District comparisons between earlier year value being 100% Years are made by the County and study area comparisons (e.g., 00 to 200 = 200%, 100 to 1000 given in terms of annualized 1000%).s and each county's percentage share of the study area's growth rates of the landuse categories forecasted. projected increase in each DURHAM COUNTY Durham County encompasses nearly two thirds of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carr Urban Area. The following describes born employment; projections of future present patterns of population, housing and assumptions upon which the population, housing and employment; and general the specific projections of population nand employment for the eleven districts 4.3 show make up Durham County. is that Existing Patterns of Housing and Employment The population in 1985 of the Durham Coup eestimated at about 154,300 �' portion of the study area was ,600 people, who resided in nearly 56,800 housing units and group housing units. About 45 percent of these housin central area between Cornwallis Road, the US 15-501 B g units are in a (District 1 and 4). Another 27 YAass, 1-85, and L'S 70 r (District 5) and northwest (District 2) of this central area. Most f the remain n t 28 percent are scattered in suburban areas to the north. east ad south. The housing density generally decreases toward the north eastern and southe n edges of the Durham County portions of the study area. Patterns of employment in Durham County are substantially residen- tial patterns. Of the 94,600 jobs in the Durham County different form resirea, nearly 27 percent are located in and around the Research Triangle Park (District 4.1 7). The downtown and the Duke University and Medical Center areas (Districts 1 and 4) are also major employment bases, together accounting for nearly 47,800 jobs, or 51 percent of the County's employment total. Other employment centers are generally focused around commercial corridors, such as the South Square Mall anchoring the Chapel Hill Boulevard corridor, and the Northgate and North Duke Malls anchoring the Duke Street-Roxboro Road Corridor. General Assumptions Below are listed the general assumptions that guided the development of housing and employment projections. (1) The projections of housing and employment are based upon the written policies and future land use maps of the Durham 2005 Comprehensive Plan and the draft Durham County General Development Plan, 2005. (2) The urban growth area (UGA) as defined in the City's Plan represents the outer limited of sewer and water line extensions. (3) Urban intensity land uses will occur inside the UGA boundary. (4) Development will be restricted on publicly-owned land, floodplains, and other environmentally sensitive areas. (5) Intense pressure for growth and development will generally follow public infrastructure investments in Durham County, as follows: a. Downtown and southern Durham between 1985 and 1995; b. Downtown and northern Durham between 1990 and 2000; c. Downtown and eastern Durham between 2000 and 2010. (6) Southern Durham County and adjoining Wake County will continue to be the largest employment center in the region with research, office, and industrial activities. (7) Treyburn will develop as a major employment center in northeastern Durham and will stimulate housing demand in northern Durham. (8) Downtown Durham will experience moderate but steady increase in office, commercial and housing development (9) The Glenn School/I--85 area and the Hamlin Road area will develop as major industrial employment center in the latter portion of the 25-year planning horizon. (10) The persons per unit will decrease from 2.62 in 1985 to 2.5 in the year 2000 and 2.4 in the year 2010. 4.2 Future Housing and Population Growth Projections of population for the Durham County portion of the study area indicate an annual average growth rate of about 3.5 percent over the next 25 years. Over the next 15 years. the rate of growth will average about 4.3 percent per year, then slow to about 2.4 percent for the next ten years. The population is anticipated to grow about 286,000 by the year 2000 and to 363,000 by the year 2010. The number of housing units is expected to increase to 125,000 by the year 2000 and to 158,000 by the year 2010. The rate of housing growth is slightly larger than for population reflecting a gradual decrease in the number of persons occupying each housing unit. The largest increase in the number of housing units constructed in the next 15 years is expected to be in two general areas: between the Eno River and I-85 on the north, and between Cornwallis Road and I-40 on the south. These future high growth areas reflect the availability of large tracts of undeveloped land and present or anticipated sewer treatment capacity. Housing demand in these areas is expected to be stimulated by the development of new jobs in the Treyburn area and the continued expansion of businesses in and around the Research Triangle Park. Future Employment Growth Employment is expected to grow faster than housing in the next 25 years as Durham County continues to be a regional importer of labor. Durham County employment is expected to grow at an average rate of 4.0 percent per year, increasing to 190,000 by the year 2000 and to 254,000 by the year 2010. Employment growth is antici- pated to be higher in the first 15 years, at nearly 4.7 percent annual average, and lower in the following 10 years, at 30 percent annual average. The growth in employment in Durham County will not be uniformly distributed around the County, but rather will be concentrated in several existing and planned activity centers. The Research Triangle Park and the area between the Park and the RDU airport will continue to dominate the region's employment geography. The southeast corner of Durham County is expected to almost triple its employment in 25 years. Treyburn in the northeastern area of Durham County is anticipated to become a new significant employment center with as many as 39,000 jobs by the year 2010. Other growing employment activity centers will include downtown Durham with significant new office developments north and south of the Loop, the Chapel Hill Boulevard corridor, and Duke University and Medical Center. A major new employment center is expected to develop generally along I-85 in the vicinity of Glenn School road to accommodate heavier industrial activity. 4.3 ORANGE COUNTY Chapel Hill Existing Conditions District 14 includes the existing corporate limits of the Town. 11,455 residential units and 9,514 group housing units were included in the base year survey for District 14. Employment within this area totaled 29,661. General Assumptions The development of population and employment projections for the Town of Chapel Hill was guided by the principles adopted in the Town's recently revised land use plan. This plan identifies an urban services area in which Chapel Hill anticipated the majority of development to take place. District 14 approximately conforms to the urban services area identified in the land use plan. Beyond this urban services area an area of rural buffer has been designated. This rural buffer is anticipated to experience scattered low density residential growth. Chapel Hill's future growth will be directly related to the anticipated expansion of the University of North Carolina campus facilities. UNC will continue to play a dominate role as a primary employer and will generate strong growth patterns. The majority of this growth will occur in non-academic areas such as medical and research activities. The UNC student population is expected to grow at a much slower rate than the medical and research activities. The growth of the UNC complex will generate considerable associated employment in the Town Center and at the mixed use areas adjacent to I-40. The growth in residential population will also generate significant retail and service employ- ment. Total employment in the Chapel Hill urban services area will increase to 63,397 by 2000 and to 78,176 by 2010. Approximately 65% of this employment will be in the services sector and 19% in office related functions. This growth in UNC-Town employment will maintain a strong demand for housing within Chapel Hill. The recently adopted Town land use plan reflects that expected demand and identifies new areas for residential development. It is anticipated that 12,608 additional residential units will be added in the Chapel Hill urban services area by 2000. An additional 3,704 units will be added between 2000 and 2010. 4.4 While the majority of this growth in residential growth will be concentrated in single family development, multi-family and retirement housing areas have also been identified. It is anticipated that the Town Center area will provide increased opportunities for residential development because of its proximity to employment, entertainment and the UNC campus. Carrboro Existing Patterns of Housing and Employment The population in 1985 of the Carrboro portion of the study area was estimated at about 14,200 people, who resided in almost 6400 dwelling units. Three-fourths of these units were located in district 15, which includes most of the incorporated area of Carrboro north of Morgan Creek, as well as the area north to Eubanks Road. District 16, also in the Carrboro area, includes the newer housing units south of NC 54, and continues to the Chatham County border. Carrboro is considered a bedroom community, with most residents working in Chapel Hill, the University of North Carolina, and Research Triangle Park. Carrboro's employment base is centered in six zones in the downtown area. • • General Assumptions • Below are listed the general assumptions that guided the development of housing and employment projections: (1) The projections of housing and employment are based upon the policies and future land use projections made by the Carrboro 2000 Task Force. (2) Only low density development will be permitted in the University Lake watershed area. The current zoning will be continued. (3) Growth and development will generally continue in the existing regions of the Town, and gradually spread to contiguous areas to the north and south of the Town. The northern regions will generally grow faster than the southern area. (4) Employment will still generally be outside of the Carrboro study area. Downtown Carrboro will continue to grow modestly. (5) The persons per unit will decrease slightly from about 2.1 in 1985 to just over 2 persons per dwelling unit in the year 2010. 4.5 Future Housing and Employment Growth Projections of population for the Carrboro area indicate an annual average growth rate of about 4 percent over the next 25 years. Over the next 15 years, the rate of growth will average about 5.4 percent, and slow to just under 2 percent from 2000 to 2010. This is due to the limited amount of land still available for growth in the existing portions of the Town. The largest increase in the number of housing units constructed in the next 15 years is expected to be in two general areas: south of NC 54 west of Smith Level Road, and north of the Town towards Interstate 40 and its interchanges with Old NC 86 and Airport Road. Housing will increase in district 15 from 4806 units in 1985 to 10,495 in the year 2000 and 12,710 by 2010. District 16 will go from 1576 completed units in 1985 to 3605 units in 2000 and 4150 in the year 2010. Employment in Carrboro will grow modestly in the downtown area, where new commercial structures are expected to replace old, less attractive buildings. The NC 54-Main Street area will see a small increase in employment. A small light industrial node is zoned on the east side of Old Fayetteville Road. District 15 is expected to increase its employment to 4459 by the year 2000 and to 5919 by 2010. District 16 will grow to 630 by 2000 and 1085 by the year 2010. Southern Orange County Residential development will predominate growth in the areas of southern Orange County outside the Chapel Hill-Carrboro planning areas. District 12 is located in the northeast corner of the Orange County area included in the thoroughfare planning region. Development in this area is regulated by the 1981 Orange County land use plan. Housing in this District will increase from 638 in the base year to 1.048 in 2000 and 1,479 in 2010. This growth will result from anticipated expansion of employment in Chapel Hill, and Durham. Employment in this zone will increase from 45 in the base year to 59 in 2000 and 64 in 2010. District 13 lies within the jurisdiction of the Chapel Hill-Orange County Joint Planning Area. Residential development will be restricted to rural densities. Total housing in this District will rise from 1.366 units to 2,611 in 2000 and 3,525 in 2010. Strong commercial-retail development was projected for the area near the I-85/US 70 interchange. This commercial area has been identified in the City of Durham's 2005 land use plan for annexation. Base year employment within this zone was 160. It is anticipated to increase to 3.061 in 2000 and 6,718 in 2010. 4.6 District 17 is located south of Chapel Hill and includes transportation zones identified for inclusion in the Town's urban services area. This District currently has 627 residential units and is projected to include 2,031 in 2000 and 2,702 in 2010. This District will experience an increase in employment related to neighbor- hood commercial expansion and further development of the Star Point area. Employment in this zone will grow from 137 in the base year to 1,949 in 2000 and 2,344 in 2010. CHATHAM COUNTY Northern Chatham County is included in the regional thoroughfare planning area. This area will provide additional housing for individuals working in southern Orange County and the Research Triangle Park. District 18 currently has 1012 dwelling units. Housing is projected to increase to 1820 by the year 2000 and 2695 units by 2010. This district is expected to continue to have little employment. In 1985, only 65 people were employed in this district. This is expected to increase to 95 in the year 2000 and 155 by 2010. 953 residential units currently exist in District 19. Housing is projected to increase to 2,039 by 2000 and 2,502 by 2010. This increase in housing will result in a related increase in commercial-retail employment near the Orange-Chatham County line. 2000 employment is anticipated to be 1.299 and 1.767 in 2010. WAKE COUNTY Northwest Wake County (Districts 21 and 22) includes the rapidly growing Raleigh- Durham Airport area and yet-to-be developed portion of the Research Triangle Park. Both have the potential to experience substantial spin-off development, particularly office and commercial activities with some industrial usages as well. The potential for residential development, while significant, is relatively small as compared to the adjacent areas of Cary, southern Durham and northwest Raleigh. Districts 7 (in Durham County), 21 and 22 will become the major employment center of the entire region. These districts' combined 1985 employment of 28,359 (21.6% of the area's total) is projected to increase to 97,995 by the year 2000 (32.4% of the area's total) and to 137,426 by the year 2010 (33.3% of the area's total). The area between the Airport and the Park will experience dramatic change with the provision of necessary urban support systems, particularly west of the Airport (District 22) and the Kit Creek basin north of Morrisville (District 21). The plans for these systems are currently being developed. Forecasts of travel patterns and traffic congestion areas arising from this study, which assist the process of planning transportation elements, are described in the next chapter. 4.7 V. ANALYSIS OF DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS The resulting travel forecasts for 1987, 2000 and 2010 were developed as described in Chapter 3 based upon the projections of landuse described in Chapter 4. To determine the deficiencies of the area's thoroughfare system, an assessment was made of the area's existing system including committed improvements which are currently under construction or programmed (e.g., I-40, Durham East-West Freeway, widening od I-85 and Chapel Hill Bypass, etc.). Also the currently adopted individual thoroughfare plans for Durham and Chapel Hill - Carrboro were analyzed. Existing Plus Committed (E+C) System Assuming no improvements to the area's roads were made beyond what was currently programmed by NCDOT or the municipalities, deficiencies were assessed for the years 1985, 2000 and 2010. Figure 5.1 illustrates which facilities would be inadequate to handle traffic projected to use them for each of these years. Traffic volumes are some of these deficient facilities are given below. 1987/E+C Some of the area's major routes which are currently inadequate include: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (VPD) FACILITY (Location) - 1385 2020 2310 (1) Durnam-Chapel Hill Boulevard (US15-501) - 33,700 63,300 80,500 (2) NC 85 (South of I-40 <if open>) - 9,500 29,200 51,800 (3) L'S 15-501 South (at Chatham Co. Line) - 14,100 26,300 34,30 (4) Columbia Street (South of Franklin) - 20,100 40,400 52,000 (5) Main Street (Carrboro; East of Weaver) - 20,500 38,400 46,700 (6) I-40 (East of Page Road) - 43,200 67,400 86,800 (7) Aviation Parkway (West of RDU Airport) - 12,000 27,200 44,100 (8) NC 54 (East of Davis Drive) - 8,500 1,700 16,100 (9) Alexander Drive (East of Durham Frwy.) - 8,400 23,600 31,000 (10) Cornwallis Road (East of NC 55) - 8,800 16,600 20,700 (11) NC 55 (North of I-40) - 12,700 36,300 49,700 (12) NC 55 (Alston Ave., North of E-W Frwy.) - 19,700 23,200 26,400 (13) NC 98 (East of U5 70) - 20,100 24,700 36,600 (14) Mineral Springs Rd. (North of US 70) - 5,500 16,300 30,400 - (14) Roxboro Road (South of I-85) - 15,800 23,200 26,400 (15) Guess Road (at Eno River) - 13,700 17,000 24,300 (16) Hillandale Road (S. of I-85) - 11,700 15,800 19,7,13 (17) University Drive (at Forest Hills Park) - 16,000 22,500 26,100 5.1 2000/E+C By the year 2000, several more roads would become deficient, particularly those serving areas currently experiencing rapid growth such as south Durham, northwest Wake County, north Chapel Hill, and north Durham. Some of these corridors include: FACILITY (Location) - 1987 2000 2010 (1) 1-40 (west of NC 55) -(Not Open) 55,800 89,303 (2) NC 54 (West of NC 55) - 18,800 18,100 2:,100 (3) NC 55 (South cf NC 54) - 8,100 33,900 45,GC - ("-) Cornwallis Road (West of NC 55) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (VPD) 8.000 12,900 15.600 (5) Fayetteville Street (South of NC 54) - 800 24,300 35,200 (5) Garrett Road (South of Chapel Hill Blvd.)- 7,300 11,700 14,600 (7) US 15-501 9ypass (around West Durham) - 35,800 59,500 74,400 (3) Hiiisoorough Road (West of US 15-501) - 19,500 34,400 40,500 (9) Co:e :Mill Rcad (North cf 1-85) 27,400 35,100 (10) Duke Street (North of I-85) - 29,000 34,500 44,500 (11) I-85 (Northeast of US 70 East) - 22,200 43,300 59,500 (12) Red Mili Road (at Eno River) - 200 11,600 23,100 (13) Old Oxford Highway (at Eno River) - 2,800 22,200 31,100 (14) Roxboro Road (at Eno River) - 25,600 ' 39,500 50,700 (15) Cole Mill Road (at Eno River) - 5,700 16,400 25,430 (16) Orange Factory Road (East of US 501) - 1,500 14.900 42,900 (17) Weaver Dairy Road (East of NC 86) - 7,200 18.400 30,500 (18) homestead Road (West of NC 86) - 3,800 10,100 18,200 (19) Estes Drive (East of NC 86) - 14,000 20,600 22,700 (20) Airport Road (South of Estes Drive) - 17,800 35,730 52,400 (21) Merritt Mill Road (South of Cameron) - 8,500 13,200 21,000 (22) South Road (East of Columbia) - 8,900 18,200 28,500 (23) East End Avenue (Nest of CS 70) - 4,500 13,00 17,500 (24) US 70 (west of South Miami Blvd.) - 28,000 52,200 70,300 (25) US 70 (East of Southern Parkway) - 21,000 47,600 77,000 (26) Page Road (East of 1-40) - 4,800 19,600 28,500 (27) Lumley Road (West of Aviation Parkway) - 200 11,100 19,100 (28) Globe Road (hest of Aviation Parkway) - 600 9,000 14,500 (29) Airport Blvd. (Northeast of I-40) - 8,400 12,000 19,600 (30) NC 54 (South of Page Road) - - 5,300 19,500 28,700 5.2 2010/E+C By the year 2010, practically every major thoroughfare in the area would be considered deficient to adequately handle its projected traffic. Several minor roads would experience dramatic increases in traffic due to anticipated urban development. Some are listed below. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (VPD) FACILITY (Location) - 1987 2000 2010 (1) Sherron Rd. (East of Mirera; Springs Rd.)- 2,30C 7,40C 115,400 (2) Angier Avenue («est of South Miami Blvd.)- 3,200 10,500 15,500 (3) Leesville Road (Northeast of US 70) - 600 6,500 11,200 (4) E'iis Road (East of Durnarm Freeway) - ',300 2,600 12,300 (5) Glover Road Wrest of Angier Avenue) - 2,900 9,200 12,70 (6) Barbee Road (North of NC 54) - 2,200 12,400 18,000 (7) NC 751 (South of 1-40) - 2,000 7,400 11,100 (8) Farrington Road (South of NC 54) - 3,100 6,400 10,400 (9) NC 54 (West of I-40) - 15,430 40,700 52,900 (10) NC 54 (East of US 15-501 Bypass) - 21,3C0 46,100 56,200 (ii) US 15-501 Bypass (East of Manning Drive) - 22,503 46,500 56,700 (12)• Erwin Road (west of 1-40) - 2,500 8,300 11,300 (13) NC 751 (West of US 15-501 Bypass) - 11,500 16,900 24,700 (14) I-85 (West of Hillandaie Road) - 59,500 70,200 87,200 (15) 1-85 (West of US 70 East) - 50,200 72,700 97,230 (16) Pleasant Green Ch. Road (N. of US 70) - 800 6,200 10,700 (17) Cole Mill Road (West of Umstead Road) - 700 8,400 13,600 (18) Umstead Road (West of Bivens :ioao) - 4,000 6,400 9,500 (19) Bivens Road (North of Umstead Road) - 2,900 7,200 11,300 (20) Snow Hill Road (East of US 501) - 14,600 ) 1,500 8,700 14,60 (21) Milton Road (at Carrington Junior High) - 4,500 7,800 10,530 Conclusions The transportation needs associated with the area's projected growth will become increasingly evident in the near future, more severe than generally acknowledged, and very expensive to adequately address. The currently adopted thoroughfare plans for Durham and Chapel Hill - Carrboro contain several recommended improve- ments which will need to be implemented quickly if intolerable congestion levels are to be avoided. The remainder of this chapter analyzes those plans. 5.3 The Existing Thoroughfare Plans One of the chief advantages of using travel forecasting models is the ability to logically test new roadway schemes for their ability to reduce traffic on existing thoroughfares. Assuming that the municipalities' existing thoroughfare plans were completely implemented, an analysis of projected traffic for the years 2000 and 2010 was made to determine the adequacy of these plans. Figures 5.2 (four different maps of the area divided into quadrants with the existing thoroughfare plans as currently adopted) graphically illustrate the conclusions of this research. As the figures illustrate, the existing thoroughfare plans do contain sufficient recommended improvements to deal with most of the projected travel within the areas they cover. The problems lie primarily on the fringes of these plans and in the areas which are not covered at all, especially southwest Durham, southeast Durham, northeast Durham, northwest Durham, and central Orange County. Of immediate concern is the adequacy of the roads near I-40. Each interchange will be the subject of intense development pressure while creating radical shifts in travel demand on what are generally two-lane rural roads. Attention to this feeder system is vital. The radial facilities serving north Durham will become critically deficient before the turn of the century. New avenues of access to the interstate system both east and west of Durham could do much to address these deficiencies. The thoroughfare plan for Chapel Hill and Carrboro is significantly different from that of Durham. Durham's gridiron-based street system includes a variety of ways (albeit confusing to the occasional visitor) to drive across town. As such. motorists can avoid traffic tie-ups and thereby balance out demand on the network. The Chapel Hill-Carrboro system contains more cul-de-sacs and fewer collector streets and major thoroughfares. For this reason, the inadequacies of the major thoroughfare system are less avoidable and more demanding of sufficient attention. Table 5.1 lists all projects which are currently programmed for construction by the NCDOT. These projects total nearly $335 Million. Table 5.2 lists those projects which are needed immediately, but unprogrammed. These projects total over $180 Million. Table 5.3 lists those projects which are anticipated to be needed before the year 2000. These projects total 5334 Million. These combined unmet needs, totalling over a half billion dollars include only the areas covered within the existing thoroughfare plans. The needs associated with the uncovered areas will be developed during this study's next phase. 5.4 VI. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS The governing bodies of the jurisdictions within the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area will meet on April 2, 1987. Following the meeting members of the technical staffs working on the thoroughfare study will meet with each elected body individually to answer questions and receive comments on the deficiency analysis at regularly scheduled meetings of the various elected boards in April. The technical staffs will then formulate various alternative thoroughfare plans using the existing plans for Durham and Chapel Hill-Carrboro as a framework from which to expand or alter. The plans will be analyzed with regard to social and environmental impacts to the extent possible, probable cost, potential impact of transit and paratransit utilization, and stated growth management goals of the various local governments. A recommended preliminary Thoroughfare Plan will be prepared based on these factors and presented to the elected policy boards. After the recommended Plan has been presented to the boards and comments received, a series of Public hearings will be held throughout the planning area. In order to keep the hearings manageable, assure that there is ample opportunity for public input. and focus each hearing on concerns in one general area, the planning area will be divided into four quadrants and one or more public hearings will be held in each quadrant. If some areas move forward in the process faster than others, the plans for each quadrant could be adopted separately if necessary. The four areas are: . (1) SOUTHWEST - This area includes southwest Durham and all of the planning area in Orange County including Chapel Hill and Carrboro. (2) SOUTHEAST - This area encompasses southeast Durham including the Research Triangle Park and the areas near the Raleigh-Durham Airport. (3) NORTHEAST - This area includes northeast Durham. Treyburn, and the Little River, Lake Michie, and Falls of the Neuse watersheds. (4) NORTHWEST - This area encompasses northwest Durham including the Eno River State Park and the areas between Durham and Hillsborough. One or more public hearings will be held in each area to present the recommended plan and receive citizen input. Comments from citizens and the various governing boards will then be reviewed and alternatives and impacts again evaluated. If no major problems are identified during the public hearing process, a final recommended Thoroughfare Plan will then be prepared and presented to the Govern- ing Boards for adoption. Depending on the comments and perceived problems, the final recommended Thoroughfare Plan for each quadrant may be submitted for adoption separately. It is recommended by the technical staffs that this be done 6.1 in the order listed above, if necessary, since this is the order of urgency for having an adopted plan to guide imminent development. The purpose of adopting the plan in segments, if necessary, is twofold. One reason is a compelling need to have an adopted plan in areas under active development where we do not currently have one, most notably the I-40 corridor and the RTP/Airport area. The second reason is to avoid the possibility of having adoption of the entire plan held up by controversy on one particular proposed facility. It is recognized the plans for quadrants separately is only gat ed that oversial facility or its potential replacement do not cross possible u the controversial quadrant boundaries. After all segments of the plan are adopted on the local level, the entire plan will be submitted to the N. C. Board of Transportation for approval. The final adopted Thoroughfare Plan will serve as a basis for reserving rights of way for future roads and for guiding orderly development throughout the urban area. 6.2 1 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO ALERT CABLE TV OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ORDAINS: Section I. Grant and term. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Orange County Cable Television System Ordinance as amended and as it may be amended , (hereinafter "the ordinance) which ordinance is incorporated herein by reference, and the other terms and conditions of this ordinance (hereinafter "the franchise") , Alert Cable TV of North Carolina, Inc . , it successors and assigns , (hereinafter "grantee" or "the grantee") is hereby granted the right, privilege and franchise to construct or have constructed, operate and maintain a cable television system and to operate a cable television service in the unincorporated areas of Orange County, North Carolina (hereinafter "county" or "the county") for the purpose of providing cable television service to the citizens of the unincorporated areas of the county, and for that purpose to erect, install and construct upon, across, beneath and along any street or road all necessary cable and other equipment and facilities as may be necessary and appurtenant to the cable television system. In addition, this right , privilege and franchise shall extend to property rented or leased from other persons, including but not limited to any public utility or other 2 grantee, franchisee or permittee, in order to do business in the unincorporated areas of the county. The CATV system and service herein franchised shall be used and operated solely and exclusively for the purpose expressly authorized by ordinance of the county and no other purpose whatsoever. The term of this franchise shall commence upon the acceptance by the grantee, as provided in Section VI of the ordinance, of this franchise and shall terminate at midnight, February 24, 1996. Section Ii. Renewal. The franchise may be renewed for an additional period of ten (10) years upon terms satisfactory to both the county and the grantee. Section III . Nonexclusive. The franchise shall be nonexclusive, and the county reserves the right to grant similar franchises to any person or persons at any period during the present franchise or any extension thereof. Section IV. Construction of system. Grantee shall obtain the proper permission and authority from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, or other agency of competent jurisdiction, and where appropriate, private land owners before any cable or other equipment necessary and • • 3 appurtenant to the cable television system may be placed within any street or road. All highways, roads, streets, sidewalks, avenues, alleys, bridges and other public and private places that may be disturbed or damaged in the construction or maintenance of the cable television system shall be promptly repaired or replaced by the grantee at its own expense. All poles, wires, cables or other facilities to be constructed or installed within the streets or roads shall be constructed or installed only at such locations and depths and in such manner as to comply with all federal and state statutes, county and other local ordinances and rules and regulations of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, or other agency of competent jurisdiction. All such units of government and governmental agencies with approval authority over the construction - and , maintenance of the CATV system must approve the construction and maintenance. All facilities constructed or installed within the streets or roads shall be so constructed and installed so as to cause minimum interference with the proper use of said streets or roads, and minimum interference with the property rights of property owners adjoining said streets or roads. Such facilities shall be constructed or installed so that, after construction or installation is complete, they shall cause no interference with proper use of said streets or roads, and no interference with the property rights of owners of property adjoining said streets or roads. In the event the grantee shall fail to replace or repair any of said public and private facilities within ten (10) working days after written notice to do so from the county manager, the 4 same may be replaced or repaired by the proper authorities of the county, and in that event, the grantee shall forthwith pay to the county the cost of such work. Section V. Relocation of facilities. In the event (at any time during the franchise period or any extension thereof) the county, the North Carolina Department of Transportation or any other unit of government or public agency, by reason of traffic conditions, street closing, or highway or street construction changes in or the establishment of any street grade, the installation of sewers, drains, water pipes, power lines, signal lines, or any type of structure or improvement, the grantee shall, at its expense, protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate in the same street or other place any of its properties, owned or leased, upon reasonable notice by the agency involved in the work. The county, the North Carolina Department of Transportation or any other unit of government or agency shall not be liable for any disturbance of the grantee 's installation resulting therefrom. The grantee shall carry out instructions and directions of the North Carolina Department of Transportation District Engineer or his designee' whenever it is necessary to raise or remove any of the grantee's wires or cables temporarily for the purpose of moving or removing structures on the public streets or roads of the county. The grantee shall do such tree trimming or other maintenance work as shall be necessary to maintain its lines and cables and other property in good working 5 order , and where necessary, with the prior approval of the appropriate public or private agency and person. As between the county and the grantee, all actions herein required to be performed shall be performed at the expense of the grantee and the grantee shall hold the county free and harmless from all damages or claims for damages, including attorneys fees and other litigation expenses necessary to defend any such claim, arising from such actions of the grantee. Copies of all joint use of poles and right-of-way agreements and encroachment agreements which authorize grantee to use poles and right-of-ways within the unincorporated areas of the county shall be provided to the county manager within thirty days of acceptance by the grantee of this franchise and thereafter within thirty days of their acquisition. Section VI . Ordinances applicable. The grantee shall be subject to all laws and ordinances relative to the use of all public facilities, relative to cable television systems and operations, and where appropriate, planning ordinances, policies and procedures. Section VII. Location maps. The grantee agrees to maintain in the office of the Orange County Manager copies of all maps showing the location of all 6 wires , cables and other fixtures situated within the unincorporated areas of the county. Section VIII . Hold harmless. The grantee, its successors and assigns, shall indemnify and save harmless the county, its officers and employees as expressly provided in Section XIV of the ordinance. Section IX. The system and its operation. A. Except as otherwise required by this franchise or unless otherwise required by the ordinance, grantee agrees to build and operate a cable television system in the unincorporated areas of the county as described in its proposal dated December, 1986 and as revised. The technical standards described in the proposal of grantee, including those recommended by the Orange County Cable TV Advisory Committee and offered by grantee in revisions of its December 1986 proposal have been examined and approved by the county. The grantee, by its acceptance of this franchise, acknowledges that any such technical standards which exceed FCC requirements are freely offered by grantee. These standards shall apply to all new construction within the county. These standards shall apply to all portions of grantee' s system and plant presently in place in the unincorporated areas of the county when this system and plant is upgraded as provided in this franchise. 7 Alert shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the the county manager that its system meets the minimum technical standards offered in its December 1986 proposal and prescribed in this franchise by providing test results from tests performed at the terminus of its system and at random points along its system. These tests shall be performed weekly with each weekly test including the test results performed at the terminus of the system. Random testing results shall result in the entire system being tested every three months . In all other respects the procedures outlined in the monitor tests and monitor point tests contained in Alert's December 1986 proposal to the County shall be followed. B. In addition to the other service area and line extension commitments contained in its proposal, grantee shall construct and activate at least 7.2 miles of plant as indicated in the "TO BE BUILT IN 1987" portion of its proposal before the end of 1987. Construction shall begin as soon as practicable and as prescribed in Section X of the ordinance. This 7 . 2 mile portion of the system of grantee shall be activated no later than December 31, 1987. Notwithstanding the extension policy required herein and as proposed by grantee, grantee shall not be required to "overbuild . " The term "overbuild" as used herein shall mean paralleling with Feeder Line the Feeder Line of another franchised cable operator in the unincorporated areas of the county in order to serve dwellings along the paralleled Feeder 8 Line already served by the other franchised cable operator. This authority not to overbuild shall not: 1. relieve grantee of ' its responsibility and duty to parallel Main Trunk Cable in order to serve all areas of the unincorporated areas of the county which meet the density standards of this franchise; 2. relieve grantee of its responsibility and duty to build the 7.2 miles of plant as proposed by it "TO BE BUILT IN 1987" in its proposal to the county; and 3. relieve grantee of its responsibility and duty to parallel with its Feeder Line the Feeder Line of another franchised cable operator in order to reach areas of the unincorporated areas of the county where there are no parallel Feeder Lines which areas when reached; will satisfy the density standards of this franchise. The following construction practices shall be followed: 1. Sag. To avoid or at least minimize the danger of cable breaks, grantee shall specify that TV cables shall sag at least as much as the telephone cable below it, and should never be allowed to sag less than 1% of the spanned length. Preferred sag will be 1.5% to 2% (22-30 inches in a 125-foot span) . 2. Sleeved connectors. ' To minimize interference due to signal infiltration from mobile transmissions, CB, amateur transmissions and strong local TV signals , connectors with integral internal sleeves will be used. 3. Connector seals . Cable splices and housing connectors shall be sealed against moisture either by properly 9 applied shrink tubing, or by means of sealant tape such as Bi- Seal, or Aqua-Seal or equivalent. 4. Lightening and power surge protection. The following, or its equivalent as certified to the county by a qualified engineer, shall be done to provide lightening and power surge protection. Adequate grounding, at the first, last and every tenth pole, and at every repeater or power supply location shall be installed. Adequate bonding to telephone strand and electric neutrals shall be done . Careful attention shall be given to the proper use of surge protection devices, resetting circuit breakers, and gas ionization devices to protect equipment and maintain service during abnormal power situations . Particular attention shall be given to the regulated dc power packs at repeater stations through the use of adaptive regulator circuits, surge protection modules, l transient absorbing diods , or 3-terminal regulator hybrid specially designed to provide current limiting, thermal overload protection, and maintain operation within safe limits. 5. Installation standards . Each subscriber shall have a separate drop from the residence to the Feeder Line. Buildings with more than four units may be treated as apartments. Installation methods shall be explained to all subscribers. No drop lines shall ,be spliced . All installation standards and practices shall be "state-of-the-art. " All installations shall be done in a workman-like manner using "state-of-the-art" techniques and "state-of-the-art" materials. 10 6. Construction manual. Grantee shall provide its construction crews and any contract construction company with a construction manual detailing each stage of the construction process. A copy of this construction manual shall be provided to the county manager before construction commences. Any comments and recommendations made by the county manager concerning this manual shall be considered by grantee and if necessary to meet the requirements of the franchise or the ordinance, the manual shall be revised by the grantee . All installations shall be supervised and inspected by grantee's engineers. C. Channel capacity and system design. Grantee shall install and maintain a "state-of-the-art" system and abide by all reasonable requests of the county to upgrade the system. Without limiting the generality of this requirement: 1. All new construction of plant in the unincorporated areas of the county shall be 400 MhZ capable and be two-way capable. 2. Grantee shall operate its existing plant in the county and all new plant in the county to 300 MhZ, 35-channel capacity. 3. Grantee shall provide a trouble feed-back system which allows the monitoring' of all active elements of all Main Trunk Cable of the system. 4 . Within three years of acceptance of this franchise grantee shall have completed all work necessary to upgrade its entire system within the unincorporated areas of the county and shall have activated its entire system to 400 MhZ, 54- 11 channel capacity. 5. Grantee shall design and operate its system so that it is compatabile with any existing franchised cable operator within the unincorporated areas of the county and provide verification to the satisfaction of the county manager of this compatability. 6. Grantee shall make available, upon request, to all subscribers deluxe set-top converters which shall be "state- of-the-art" and shall have a lighted channel number display and an infra-red remote control unit for channel control and on-off control. Section X. Programming and Access. A. Grantee shall provide at least three public service and/or access channels. These three channels shall be reserved for and used for such things as community billboard , local origination programming and educational access programming other than PBS . B. Grantee shall provide a local origination studio, together with the necessary equipment and personnel, to enable members of the public to create and broadcast programming . Grantee may satisfy this requirement to provide local origination studio and necessary equipment and personnel by contracting with Art School. However, the responsibility to provide the local origination studio and necessary equipment and personnel is that of grantee. At a minimum the equipment provided for the studio MMIIMMEMmEmmmommommrmw 12 shall be that contained in the December 1986 proposal of grantee. Air time shall be provided free of charge to everyone except "for-profit" entities and declared political candidates. Fees may be charged for equipment and labor supplied by grantee in assisting persons in developing programming, except that no charge shall be made for live studio cable casts of five minutes or less by public access users or for the broadcasts of such special events as are designated by the board of commissioners of the county. C. Not later than the third year after the acceptance of this franchise, grantee shall complete all work necessary to fully activate its system bi-directional from the site of the "old" and "new" Orange County courthouses. Thereafter grantee shall provide at its cost live coverage of all regularly scheduled board of county commissioners ' meetings held in either the old or the new Orange County courthouses . Alert shall provide onsite at each such meeting the personnel and equipment necessary to ensure that the viewer receives a satisfactory audio and visual transmission of all proceedings before the board of county commissioners. Grantee may satisfy the requirement in this subsection for bi-directional capability with contracts with other franchised cable operators in the county which contracts provide for the free-to-the-county live coverage of board of county commissioners ' meetings from the old and new courthouses. Any such contract or contracts shall be for a term or terms extending for the duration of this franchise and any extensions of this franchise. At the end of the second year following 13 acceptance of this franchise, grantee may petition the board of county commissioners to be relieved of the obligation in this subsection if it appears that the extent of interest in bi- directional capability and the broadcasting of board of county commissioners ' meetings is not significant and that the interest does not warrant the cost of providing this capability. Any such petition shall include a subscriber survey which demonstrates the lack of interest at the increased subscriber costs. In the event the board grants relief from this requirement as specified herein, it shall set a new deadline for grantee to meet the requirements of this subsection and the same procedure shall be followed thereafter on an annual basis during the term of this franchise until it expires or the bi-directional capability is achieved, whichever first occurs. D. Grantee shall make its local origination and public access channel programming available to any other franchised cable operator in the county at the time that cable operator makes its local origination and public access channel programming available to grantee. Grantee shall carry any other franchised cable operators local origination and public access programming when it becomes available to grantee . Grantee shall not be required to carry such programming if it is commercially sponsored. Any charge made by grantee to another franchise cable operator as a price for grantee making its local origination and public access channel programming available shall be commercially reasonable and shall be at no charge provided the other franchise cable operator provides its local origination and public access 14 channel programming available to grantee at no charge. Section XI . Effective date. Subject to the provisions of Section VI of the ordinance, this franchise shall become effective on the date on which grantee files the acceptance, bonds, fees and expenses, and proof of insurance required by the ordinance. Section XII. Repeal of Preexisting Permitted Use Franchise. Upon acceptance of this franchise as provided herein the Preexisting Permitted Use Franchise effective May 12 , 1982 granted to Alert Cable TV of North Carolina, Inc. is repealed. First Reading. The foregoing ordinance received the following vote and was duly adopted this day of 1987: Ayes: _ Noes: Absent or Excused: Second Reading. The foregoing ordinance received the following vote and was duly adopted this day of , 1987: Ayes: Noes: ---- --_______ _ r ie., 15 Absent or Excused: ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE Alert Cable TV of North Carolina, Inc. hereby accepts the foregoing franchise and voluntarily agrees to conduct its operations as a grantee in accordance with this franchise and the Orange County Cable Television System Ordinance as it now exists and as it may be amended from time to time. This agreement is accepted and filed with the Orange County Manager this day of w, l9 _. Also filed herewith are the proofs of insurance, bonds and letters of credit required by Section XIV of the Orange County Cable Television System Ordinance. ALERT CABLE TV OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. By: _ President ATTEST: Secretary STATE OF COUNTY , a notary public of said county and state, certify that personally came before me and acknowledged that he (she) is secretary of Alert Cable TV of North Carolina, Inc . , a corporation, and that by authority given and as the act of the corporation the foregoing franchise was signed by the president of the corporation, sealed