Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 01-04-1988
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 4 , 1988 7: 30 P.M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM NEW COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, 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 person 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 # PUBLIC HEARINGS 002 1. Capital Improvement Program 003 2 . McLennan' s Farm D. RESOLUTIONS OR PROCLAMATIONS 080 1. Local Government Autonomy 082 2 . JTPA Eligibility Determination Method IIMMIMOMMEMMEmmommommr PAGE # E. REPORTS 085 1. Agriculture Extension Chairman Recruitment 086 * 2 . Environmental Affairs Board Support for Capacity Use F. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) 087 * 1. Tax Refunds Request 093 *2 • Project Ordinance Amendment 095 *3 • Emergency Shelter Grant Agreement 103 4. Commission for Women By-Laws Amendments 110 *5. Section 8 Reserve Account ill *6. Economic Development Funding by the General Assembly 117 *7. 1988 Meeting Schedule--Board of Commissioners G. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA 119 1. West Corner Subdivision--preliminary 127 2 . Dark Hills--Preliminary 144 3 . Lynwood Acres Lots Two and Three, Subdivision and 168 4. Dal-Rae RaeForest--PreliminarylPlan 195 5. Draft Cedar Grove Township Land Use Plan 208 6. PD-2-87 Chandler Concrete 238 7. Increase in EDC Membership 242 8 . Response to Bains/Riggsbee Property Tax Complaint H. APPOINTMENTS I. ADJOURNMENT (*) Indicates items that need immediate attention. 001 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. C ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE January 4, 198j Subject: MIMES Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I I Publicllearing: Yes X no • Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under Separate Cover Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: November 23, 1987 - Joint Public Hearing December 1 , 1987 - Regular Meeting December 23, 1987 - Special Meeting 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. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. 002 ., ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A da Item No.rH1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: JANUARY 4 , 1988 SUBJECT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S NONE OFFICE,X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on the Proposed Five Year Capital Improvement Plan. BACKGROUND: On November 17, 1987 staff submitted to the Board the Capital Improvement Program requesting projects in the amount of $58, 713, 289 . 00. Work sessions with County departments and both school systems have been held to discuss project requests specifically; however, the public hearing will provide citi- zens their first opportunity to comment on the proposed CIP. The Proposed CIP includes: Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools Major Construction/ Renovation Projects $27, 002 , 409 . 00 Orange County Schools Major Construction/ Renovation Projects $11, 857, 300. 00 Orange County Government Major Construction/Renovation Projects and Equipment $13 , 355, 580. 00 Recreation and Parks Master Plan . . $ 6, 498, 000. 00 TOTAL $58, 713, 289 . 00 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 003 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date Januar�c_4,,_198y Actilr4Intz Item SUBJECT: PD-4-87 McLENNAN' S FARM ( Refer to November 23, 1987 agenda packet. ) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No__w—_ ATTACHMENT( S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup Application Vicinity Map General Information Agency Comments Findings of Fact Certificate of Mailing TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham -- 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on an application for a Planned Development Special Use Permit for McLennan ' s Farm. The public hearing on this item was continued from November 23, 1987 . BACKGROUND: Mr. Leon Todd has submitted an application for PD-H-RB (Planned Development-Housing-Rural Buffer) classification on 37 acres on the east side of Bowden Road ( SR 1946 ) approximately one-half mile south of Old Greensboro Highway ( SR 1005) . The proposed development would consist of fourteen ( 14 ) residential lots which average 2. 17 acres in size. Each of these lots will have individual wells and will be served by a common nitrification field for septic tank disposal . The current zoning is Rural Buffer and Protected Watershed II . The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential . The Recreation Director has recommended that payment- in- lieu be accepted rather than dedication of land. Based on 14 lots or housing units, the payment- in- lieu would be equivalent to $983. The Recreation Director has also recommended that the designated open space/nitrification field be maintained and operated by a homeowners association if exercise stations are to be installed. The proposed development is to be served by proposed public roads (McLennan ' s Farm Road and George Poe Road) constructed 004,- 2 to NCDOT standards. NCDOT has reviewed the plan and recommended the following: 1 . Property lines are to follow the sight triangles at Bowden Road ( SR 1946 ) . 2. A proposed island at the entrance to the development must be maintained by a homeowners association. Additional right-of-way must be dedicated to accommodate a six-foot wide shoulder and a ditchline with 2: 1 slopes. 3. A sight easement must be provided at the intersection of George Poe Road and McLennan ' s Farm Road. 4. Lots 8, 9, 10 and 11 must have driveways off George Poe Road. 5. If McLennan ' s Farm Road is extended, the cul -de-sac right-of-way must revert to the adjoining property owners. Both the South Orange Rescue Squad and the White Cross Volunteer Fire Department have indicated their ability to serve the proposed development. The Sheriff ' s Department has indicated that the development will result in an additional 12.3 manhours needed for responding to service calls. While the Sheriff ' s Department will be able to handle such service, the demand, combined with other developments, could cause the need for additional manpower. The Erosion Control Officer has indicated that a stormwater management plan is required for the project. Grading permits will also be required prior to the start of construction. Comments from Orange Water & Sewer Authority and the Town of Carrboro have been received. The comments as well as the Planning Staff response has been provided as attachments. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request with conditions. ( See attachment. ) 005 Article 8.2. 2 states that where a preponderance of evidence indicates compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use, and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless it is found, in some specific manner, that: 1 . The use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted ; 2. The use will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; 3. The use is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the county as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof , adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The burden of proving one or more of the above findings is on those opposing the application. The proof must also be in the form of competent material and substantial evidence. No information has been received which would establish grounds for making one or more of the above findings. The Planning Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant does comply with the general standards, specific rules, and required regulations with the exception of The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amendment of the zoning district designation from RB to PD-H-RB and the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit with the attachment of the following conditions: 1 . The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all improvements plus 10% . The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. As improvements are completed a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements. 2. Prior to the initiation of construction activity, final approval by the State must be obtained for the community low pressure wastewater disposal facility. A copy of the permit must be provided to the Orange County Planning Department. 3. A 30-foot access and utility easement shall be provided from the the right-of-way of McLennan ' s Farm Road to the nitrification field for monitoring and maintenance purposes. 4. A fence shall be provided around the nitrification field and 006 2 repair area to limit access and prevent compaction of soils. The location of the nitrification field with respect to the intermittent stream shall be denoted on the plan. 5. Documents pertaining to the creation and operation of a homeowners association must be submitted to and approved by the County Attorney. The documents shall identify all improvements which will owned by and/or will be the responsibility of the homeowners association to operate and maintain, including the estimated annual cost for same. 6 . 30-foot drainage easements must be provided on Lots 10 and 13 adjacent to the intermittent stream and spring. The water level of the existing pond on Lot 6 must be designated . 7 . Tree protection areas must be delineated on the plan as required by Section IV-B-8-b-1 of the Subdivision Regulations. Proposed street trees must be located a minimum of 15 feet from the 12-foot utility easement. 8. Construction plans for McLennan ' s Farm Road and George Poe Road, approved by the N. C. Department of Transportation and including stormwater culvert sizes and hydraulic calculations, must be submitted to the Planning Department. 9. Property lines are to follow the sight triangles at Bowden Road ( SR 1946 ) . 10. Additional right-of-way is to be dedicated at the entrance island to accomodate a 6-foot wide shoulder and ditches with a 2: 1 slope. 11 . Sight triangles are to be dedicated at the intersection of George Poe Road and McLennan ' s Farm Road. 12. Access to Lots 8, 9, 10 and 11 is to be limited to George Poe Road. 13. If McLennan ' s Farm Road is to be extended, the cul -de-sac right- of-way must revert to the adjoining property owners. A sign must be posted at the end of the cul -de-sac indicating possible future road extension. A notation must be placed on the plan indicating same. 14. Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum, and existing vegetation shall be retained wherever possible. All plans for drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation control shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County prior to the start of any construction. In addition, Orange County shall inspect the installation of control devices and the on-going work for the total project. The project shall at all times meet the requirements of the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 15. Lot line dimensions must be denoted on the plans. 007 3 16. Payment- in- lieu of dedication of recreation/open space must be submitted in the amount of $983. 00. The exact nature of the recreation activities must be denoted on the plan, including the location and type of exercise stations and the potential use of the open play area. All recreation facilities shall be constructed as shown on the approved plan. 17 . The 12-foot utility easement must be labeled as a utility and pedestrian access easement. Pedestrian crosswalks must also be provided where the jogging trail intersects McLennan ' s Farm Road. 18. All electricity, telephone and cable television (CATV franchised by Orange County to serve the development) utilities shall be installed underground. All necessary easements to permit said utility installation, servicing and hook-up to the development and to each unit within the development shall be provided at no cost to the utility. 19. Provide a legal description of the property to the Planning Department to complete the application. 20. All signs shall be erected in compliance with Articles 9 ( Signs) and 7. 14 (PD-H) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance following issuance of required sign permits. No sign may be erected in the sight triangles for the entranceways to the development. 21 . A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer. 22. The final site plan and narrative of the project, incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project, are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to remain on file with the Orange County Planning Department. Any applicable permits, upon application, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. 23 . The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions. 24. If any of the above conditions is held invalid, the special use permit shall become null and void. o ECEIVE[--11 II-Z3-97 - Q08 November 20, 1987 Mr. Marvin Collins Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, North Carolina Mr. Collins: I, Aubrey McLennan, owner of Lot 24, Map 115 in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, do hereby give authority to Mr. Leon Todd to make application for a planned housing development of 1)4 lots on said property, and also grant my approval of this action. Sincerely, Aubrey McLennan j/7 71/7‹:1( ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT 009 Date : November 17. 1987 TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested . 1 . The property is located on the East side of S .R.# 1246 ( Bowden Street/Road) between S .R .# 1005 and S .R .#_ 1942 • It is known as Lot (s) 94 , Block N/A , of Orange County Tax Map 115 - f".hAp 1 Rill Township . It has a frontage of 48].79 feet and a depth of l57'17 feet , and contains 1-825-fign square feet or 27 T9 acres . 2 . It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from RB to RB-PD-11 3 .- The •.following information has been attached in support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas (* - required on all applications) . e a. A fully dimensioned rap at a eoale of not Less than one 111 inch` equals one—hundred 11001 fast nor more than one 111 inch equals twenty 1201 feet snowing the and which I. proposed to be rezoned. eh. A Legal description of the lend proposed to be rezoned. e c. A at:tament of justification addressing one or more of the following: 111 The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such error to the Zoning Atlas and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the error. 121 The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment raaaonobly nee aesary to the promotion of the public haslth, safety and g L welfare. •I31 The wanner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent end purpose of the adopted Land Use Plen or part thereof. '141 ALL other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment Including, but not limited to. docu tion from service agencies (e.g. fire, police, rescue and utilities egencleal assuring services provision capability to the development. . d. A list of all individual., firms or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred [5001 fest of the property sought for rezoning 1s attached. The List is current as of (O•tal / I certify that ell information furnished in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge . Applicant( s) : J.enn r - .i Address : ]11 1 A J P r a n lei i rl C+r A_0x ( har1a1 14K 'Kr 97x04 Phone : 01 v _ QhQ — 1191 _ - SPECIAL',1\1, U.SE.: PERMIT 1XT 010 Notice is hereby given the Board .of Ac:I_ju:;t.ment and the Zoning Officer of an appeal f:ro:n the ruling of the Zoning Officer on the day of , 19w_ which ordered that . - or I request a Special Use Permit as provided for in Section 7 for Plftnnre_Drni lnpm pnt - 14. I•ntq _ premises located Parcel 24, Chapel"Hill Township Tax Map 115 said premises being within the area of jursicliction of a zoning Ordinance for Orange . . . County as applied to Chapel Hill and r.no Townships, adopted by the Orange County Board of commissioners. Title for this property is in the name of Aubrey McLennan Route 4, Box 477, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 • • The grounds for this appeal are as follows: `Planned Development - Housing is a permitted use under the Orange County Zoning Ordinance but is required by that Ordinance to be permitted pursuant to a Special Use Permit. • • • • . 0yember 17, 1987 Date • - . P4 [ _ • mitt re of Appellant • 4V- Eralrkli_o St.,•CbapQ1 Rill, NC 27,514 _ Address • If title to above mentioned property is not in the name of the applicant and appeal is on behalf of such property, attach a letter from the owner signifying his approval. - Appeal must be ac_osmpanied by a small sca]a vicinity map, showing exact location of of property with respect to existing streets, street numbers and sire of lots, nature of adjacent: property users, and other important features, within and contiguous to the property. The raara;•r; of the owners of all lots -within 500 feet in all direction from the property will be shown. A tax map must also accompany your request. • ,.._:, _ ....F,I „, -4 Ir:r1::!T if i.o., . .......r"- — e -.•' .........ari./ -•-""' \ - . . Ii. I • . e:/ ,..„,v • . . b (111.1.! . .,‘.. ... . . ..r. .., e . •• i •--______. •- F,—.... • 8 • Z I 1, • 0 V k \ /■, . I if.,4 / • ::.•■ 71 0 , C 1 • ,I 1 . 1 ',.. .." -•1 . ..... 2 1.. • It ... ,..••i .:..... ... ) , I • .. s - s (1) . •••••" vw - w C I t r s , . 9 ... . — . 5.1 .. •..... • , ........ .. .__ ... ) F'..: % • 0. s . . . — - ..r —,... I ■a Ilm .• 411afavat .. Y -\c): V • I. • lizi ...,:1" V Z 1 2 ! • P i ...- V ) II I I \:3:),... • ID I j k ........ ....... ... 1 I . '• IlLs, 4 . . .• i J s I , iill ...1 I i, . , ir. 91 i 1 i• •e . ...:9, 0: . d . •J ,s I s t ? , 0; \ : re) — (4) '• –, , ... . t . . t , — "f--- -•••—•■1 ;•■••• «Tr i . ! ----- ......•,7 I -'--- . •. 1 I I I 11 , CD : i 1 1111 i • 0 a i ' r--- _ ......."—` 1.. , . — 1111 ; 1 .% . ... .• .. RI] I. c:3 , . ! ; - . - .... .., ..• ., • 1111i. . ,. : . • ro".#.../...***"..,„ • : .. . ....V, :f • • ""' %.:d : • . . . ft i 47_____________"1 ----". - - i I 1 I I 'cm • . • •:-•-2.;. • ..• 1, - 1 • . . st a . 2'1; I 1 ■ .. ! ' - •.._ * r C./4 - - • . t /71 j 1 j i .4- .........41:1 • .a. li 1 C I :Pm '-• "'N., ..—....—„,„\ E- ! 1-" -, i t 5- I el - 1 i, i . _ . • ._ 1 ! • - fi 3 1 I . -. - , • ..- 4!wag ' . - ! •: • sk. 1 . . — ,.,rr.......v. ••••'" W Vg-• I 4 18 i ---- • 6 I * do UV V C 1 114 a t 1. • - PROPOSED ZONING : pr.)-H -RB /PWIL PRESENT ZONING: R.13 / -pw T.E . . • LAN!) USE T.DLAK : RVRA1, . R Pir)FAITIAL 012 1'T ' - t.�� e --••.r'-/--'T- - / • .--- -Q fns-.:7.. .w- fA -•Ii:- y� - _ _'f ^'sue , "/: , ��.`?;"q .' 7'+TY Q='� _ 0.7% °/'C..: _f a `• �• ' - y - . .r '�'/_•r'�' _r, "~ -4..1.- -- ' m � 7 jççfr t c/• J r _p% �� r': -•:-.--'•,_:. _ _"tom/-��, f_- �• • .;. it L ,i "I w `j, ,� u `�° 4 -j as ,/_ rt.•.'.° :;'�'"tiP _-yam,_ � ;tea. „-, ,•_ ��'t = -\- :;%^'s_�'"1'z I r-���- ,••_r - - _• ,„ - p.\ /t. u ,ter - :� ,._ rp ,I `'_ _ �_ p,}} � iL `�. - � z - tt _ - ---a.. _, \\ � :- jam_ . �` �� �� �:t �.�- �.' ---7"•• _ / / -rte_ 1 [ d I :'e^s:rr.�+rts �r-.- err-^_- ./ / - �f _ �� �� �./ '... � • !0 i- tiff n _� � :� _ J \ i k a. ? y� e.1� .•-may J+� s OU t EL !L_-' sue, 1 ;• � �I', ! _ -2. .- , . i1I ter_• • fie F L - - 1,• -[- 4111 Th: f-_ l.I!+I / ■ • ...-e�J • •[a.w I IP. r r :j.--r 7 �j^+ I rte-:.L ..,-7,y-..." 2.:�_ - y•- r. � - '- :<_ _,�1 3:.:44-11-.-1:1,7:4-.4•:.-- _•.:^°1•:•- egrN�47...,- -,.:wi.'JM•-./-+tr•N • __ _ -�! • CHI? ASSOCIATES • 013 -ndt vtat. • $ Arrisi*c!ute 1.74Sicir; e McLENNAN'S FARM 3 REPORT PLANNED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT/ SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION 0 OCTOBER 9, 1987 CIIR# 5774 S rgRAssacert-1_PA. =Die oveNCiaraei F-4.1Dialver 2t7C NC 24 - refer:L:Oarit1133 _ . A rhur Cogsr.T.d.FAY: :-revier H=Ln.11..1;Air; CUR ASSOCIATES 014 McLennan's Farm Subdivision Bowden Road at Old Greensboro Highway Chapel Hill Township Orange County, North Carolina Tax Map 7.115.24 General Description McLennan's Farm is a 2-acre + lot subdivision proposed for a 37-acre parcel of land which is part of the Aubrey McLennan Farm. The project is located in southern Orange County with access to Bowden Road approximately one-half mile south of Old Greensboro Highway. The site is characterized by gently rolling pasture land and wood lots. The open spaces are predominantly covered with a lush growth of common Bermuda grass formerly planted for grazing. t The wooded lots are dominated by hardwoods of the oak hickory association with sizes ranging from 6 to 36 inch caliper. Fairly light understory growth is the rule except in the lower areas along the two intermittent streams where growth is dense. The two . streams appear as intermittent on USGS Quadrangle maps and had very low flows during inspection after a few days of rain. The development is characterized by a main entrance road to be called McLennan's Farm Road. This road will have ten lots fronting on it. A short cul-del-sac to be named George Poe Road will provide access to the remaining four lots. McLennan's Farm Road terminates in a cul-de-sac but the right-of way continues to the north property line. It is anticipated that the land to the north will become available for development sometime in the future, at which time the road will be extended to serve the additional property and connect with Old Greensboro Highway at Neville Road (see appendix C) an entrance sign of stone and wood along with a low wood fence and plantings is proposed for the entrance at Bowden Road. The fence will terminate at a pair of low stone walls paralleling the road at the first stream crossing. Existing vegetation will be almost entirely preserved, with .some minor clearing at the cul-de-sacs_of the two roads. Detailed planting Plans showing street yard, side and rear yard plantings in accordance with Orange Co. standards will be submitted with final plans. • • 015 McLennan's Farm Subdivision Page 2 Utilities The project is not located in OWASA's present service area, and. . since it is in the University Lake protected watershed there are no current plans for extension of lines. Therefore, water and sewer service will be handled on site. Wastewater disposal will be handled by a low pressure system which collects wastewater at each lot and conveys it to a central community-owned nitrification field. This system is explained in further detail in the attached report by Craig Morgan, PE, our wastewater consultant. Domestic water will come from private individual wells installed by the lot purchasers. Since this area of the County does not have a good record of high flow wells, a community system is not deemed economically feasible. Electrical service will be supplied by Duke Power and will be underground along the road right-of-ways. Telephone and cable television lines will also be installed underground. A twelve foot easement is provided on either side of both roads for utilities. Storm Water Management Since the site is characterized by center slopes in the 2 to 10 percent range, we feel that stormwater will run slowly enough across land surfaces to provide infiltration for water quality purposes. Storm drainage from the new roads will be conveyed with shallow swales on the high side to numerous culverts located at natural drainways. Water flowing from the culverts will be dissipated with rip rap aprons and allowed to flow overland through areas of existing dense bermuda grass and woods, finally entering the existing natural streams. Detailed calculations of infiltration rates, swale and culvert design and outlet control will be provided with the submittal of final plans. Erosion control devices will be installed during construction operations in accordance with Orange County requirements. A detailed erosion control plan will be submitted along with final plans. Recreation/Open Space A tract of land 4.22 acres in size has been set aside for use as both a nitrification field and improved open space. This .tract is about 70% open field and 30% woods. A jogging trail will be installed to connect with Mclennan's Farm Road and loop through the open space. Numerous exercise stations and picnic tables will • 016 McLennan's Farm Subdivision Page 3 be provided thru its course. The lawn will be mowed and maintained by the Homeowner's Association for use as an open play area. This tract will be provided for the private use of the community, and the developer will pe pay a fee in lieu of dedicating public recreation space. Financing and Operation The developer will secure a loan for financing of the horizontal improvements. This loan will be paid off through sale of lots to builders and individuals. A Homeowners Association will be set up with a monthly fee. This fee will go to a general fund which will pay for maintenance of common areas and facilities such as entrance features, picnic tables, plantings, etc. Membership shall be required by all buyers. Schedule . It is anticipate that a permit will be obtained in early April and construction will commence soon after. All roads, fences, plantings, signs, utilities and recreational improvements will be installed at this time and should take two to three months to complete. The State Department of Transportation will be petitioned to take over road maintenance as soon as a sufficient number of homes are built. r APPENDIX U 1' '► Adjacent Property Owners ) T.M. 7.115.24 Aubrey McLennan Rte. 4, Box 477 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 T.M. 7.115.9 Nettie Gambill Rte. 7, Box 315 Mooresville, North Carolina 28115 T.M. 7.117.2 Sadie Jones Rte. 5, Box 3 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 T.M. 7.117.56 Charles Vincent 6083 Guild Hall Ct. Burke, Virginia 22015 018 APPENDIX B Land Areas Tract Actual Square Footage Lot 1 90,300 Lot 2 89,500 Lot 3 88,500 Lot 4 88,725 Lot 5 89,500 Lot 6 87,500 Lot 7 87,500 • Lot 8 87,900 Lot 9 • 87,600 ) Lot 10 108,950 Lot 11 91 ,5+5 Lot 12 126,530 Lot 13 107,710 Lot 14 90,300 Open Space 187,100 Dedicated to Homeowner's Association Right—Of—Way 116,500 Dedicated to State 0 TOTAL AREA 1 ,625,660 = 37.32 Acres Gross Residential Land Area = 1 , 102,800 sf Required Recreation Space (Gla x .031) = 113,487 st Provided Recreation Space = 183,500 sf 0 0 0 o - D - 1 1 I _ A I /✓,fR✓Fl ." 1 �� �" .ri�„ 019 1 .'. b • • • 1...1 w r 1 .r II w II: 1 1 N I rK ti rart•- 7-.04:-r r •i7..e, AZ. fry Dl i rc,_7 s lA 7 _C".1.1 A: ry AonD 1 I ∎ 1 171 I� .. i 1' Epic • 1° . I,Ci • /..r.'.73.Q , • It •43 w . iII o M 1 I �. � •.�; 11 q i- �.:..• •S•.'Kw••• • r r t. NY n I. 1 r. r i : .C,Mcr� - 4 + • � - MCLEN AN'S FARM ,,,..4..,.... ,t,., �.� ar r FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT n i� 47 .0 7 >c:) lil 3;"1-:1.11,11:" Lli . .020 f(No: .., , GD; ii .1. i ._ �,7 • � fu \ 4 y 1 1 :.-r• 8 ©i - ' • i t I. x o ! :: ® d. r ®y ��t t I .„ Op• ; Ii CVERRIA a i 49 -\co, croi, I ,.II I ©: Ot \ y © s r°Y t 0',. la :.;'i I 4 II1 ' C I I 1• I M 0; . ' I • 1 ; ; ; 111 -t, .., r_ ____..... © �; % 1 1 1 I , A >r � � 1II • v " Thy iii1 ;f1 4\..... ,ir-4.•Y * JjJJ 'rm. O i T 2. s >t r -1 l ?! l I. .. I I ; ;II i , i J!if!JjI I s 0 A . . E I r McLENNAN'S FARM SUBDIVISION 021 BOWDEN ROAD, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CONCERNING PROJECT DEVELOP'.IENT The following questions and brief responses have been developed as an aid to the public understanding and awareness of this project's compatability with the environmental sensitivity of the University Lake Watershed region. A. General. 1. What is McLennan's Farm Subdivision? A proposed, planned development/housing/rural buffer project con- sisting of 14 residential lots which average 2.17 acres in size. Each lot will have individual wells and will be served by an on-site central wastewater collection and treatment system. 2. Where is the project to be located? The project will be located on 37 acres along the east side of Lowden Road (S.R. 1946) about 1/2 mile south of Old Greensboro Highway (S.R. 1005). 3. What is the environmental sensitivity associated with project development? The project site lies within the secondary protected watershed of University Lake. 4. What is a watershed? A region or area which ultimately drains to a particular watercourse (river, stream), thence to a body of water (lake or pond). 5. What is the difference between primary and secondary watershed areas as may apply to University Lake? Primary watershed areas drain directly to major tributaries to University Lake. Secondary watershed areas are more remote from University Lake. These areas drain through intermittent streams and roadside ditches to the major tributaries of University Lake. Drain- age in secondary watershed areas may often traverse large rural buffer areas and is often impounded (form ponds) and used for agricultural purposes. 6. What impact will the proposed project have on increased non-point pollution? How will this adversely affect University Lake? Whenever the natural landscape is altered by construction of roads, drainage ditches and sewer systems, runoff from these areas travels to surface watercourses more rapidly. Sometimes this rapid runoff CRAIG B. MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 0 results in sedimentation and erosion control problems. Also, the pollutants used around the home (herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers) and those contributed by vehicular traffic (metals contaminate drainage runoff and are transported to, area rimpoundments, streams, lakes and reservoirs. Proper planning and design of wastewater management systems and drainage facilities will reduce the long-term adverse impacts of non-point source pollution. By itself, the McLennan's Farm sub- division will have no adverse impact upon the water quality in University Lake. 7. What regulations and laws are available to assure maximum compliance with best practice standards for sedimentation/erosion control and wastewater management? The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management monitors all projects greater than one acre in developmental size for compliance with State laws governing sedimentation and erosion control (15 NCAC 4B, 0.000). The North Carolina Division of Health Services, the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management and the Orange County Health Department control wastewater management practices within developing areas. S. What assurances can be provided that this development will not result in the degredation or contamination of public and private drinking water supplies? a) Private wells within the subdivision will receive maximum benefit by the location of the wastewater drainfields away from the residential lot sites. b) The wastewater management concept proposed is the best practi- cal method of treatment available. The only treatment system better suited for implementation is a central sewerage system extended to the subdivision by OWASA. This is not possible at this time. c) The construction site is about 1.5 miles from University Lake and surrounded by a rural, lightly developed buffer of farm land and forest. This project will have no adverse impacts on the water quality in University Lake. d) The wastewater system is being proposed with the understandin that operation and management will be by a public utility. g 9. Is the project in compliance with the County's Land Use Plan? Yes. The Land Use Plan designation for this project site is Rural Residential and the current zoning is Rural Buffer and Protected Watershed II. CRAIG B. MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 10. Does the project present a danger to 0 23 g public health and safety? No. The project is to be designed by professional engineers and architects. Due to the environmental sensitivity of the site, all development proposals must first be reviewed and approved by the N.C. Division of Environmental Management, N.C. Department of Human Resources, Orange County Health Department, OtIASA, Orange County Planning Department and the Orange County Doard of Commi.ssi.oners. Operation and management of the wastewater system will be placed in the responsible hands of a public utility. 11. Will the project development result in the devaluation of adjoining property? No. The value of rural farm land generally increases as a result of residential development, but only for residential development pur- poses with suitable wastewater management facilities. 12. Is McLennan's Farm project consistent with the primary objective of protection of the public drinking water supply? d We believe it is! The developer has committed publicly to a quality subdivision. The project is being planned and engineered under the scrutiny of County and State regulatory authorities who are rein- forcing their project reviews with the public concerns expressed at these public hearings. The emphasis of design and treatment of wastewater and stormwater runoff.onIfa all cprojectisnt were subject to such reviews, the issues of water pollution could be greatly reduced. B. S ecific About Wastewater Management 13. What agency or agencies will have jurisdictional authority over the permitting and compliance of wastewater system design and implementa- tion for the proposed project? If the wastewater system is developed as a utility, then the N.C. Division of Environmental Llanagement will be the principle State agency involved in the design review and permit process. The Orange County Health Department would be involved with the building permit issuance phase of implementation. If the wastewater system were to be maintained by a homeowners asso- ciation, then the N.C. Division of Health Services and the Orange County Health Department would be the principle agencies involved . with the project design. The project designers are currently favoring a utility management approach to wastewater treatment, which would place all design review with the N.C. Division of Environmental. :Management. CRAIG B. MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES,PA. _ - - _ - 024 -: 14. What type of wastewater management system is proposed for this project? A cluster system concept, utilizing pressure sewers and a centralized drainfield. Effluent is uniformly discharged to the drainfield under low pressure. For details as to proposed concept design, see Engineer's Report of October, 1987. 15. Is the proposed wastewater concept new? No. Cluster pressure sewer systems are extensively used in coastal areas. The low pressure pipe system for wastewater treatment and disposal was developed in North Carolina by N.C. State University and more than 5,000 low pressure septic systems have been built in North Carolina since 1932. 16. How are system design factors determined? Both the N.C. Di.VisiOn of Health Services and ronmental i�Iananer. - C, Division of :�nvi- Went have complex criteria for sizing and designing low pressure wastewater systems. A registered professional engineer is required to plan, design and oversee construction of the waste- water system. At the completion of construction, the design engineer must certify that the wastewater system was constructed in accordance with State approved plans and specifications. 17. What protection measures are designed into the system to minimize the adverse impacts of a system malfunction? a) Primary treatment is provided by individual, on-site septic tanks, thereby minimizing the impact of potential malfunction as opposed to a singular treatment unit. b) The pressure sewer system is constructed to water distribution system standards. Due to the relatively low pressure levels within the sewer system, malfunctions are rare and quickly contained and repaired. c) Prior to subsurface irrigation, the primary treated wastewater is stored in an equalization and solids filtration chamber. Approximately 24 hours of emergency storage is available at all. times. A quadraplex pumping and drainfield system is proposed to allow drai_nfields sufficient time to rest and reaerate. d) The system is operated and maintained by a responsible, certified, contractor utility. 13• What type of surface and groundwater monitoring is proposed? Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed and monitored for fecal. coliform and nitrogen levels on a quarterly basis. Results must be furnished to the State regulatory agency having permit authority over the system. CRAIG B. MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.. r 19. Does the drainfield site offer any recreational uses? 025 The drai.nfi.eld site can he utilized for athletic functions, however, permanent structures are not permitted. The site is restricted to the homeowners association use. C. Specifics About Stormwater i`ianager.;ent 20. What measures will be taken to minimize off-site impacts due to sedi- mentation and erosion during construction and after the subdivision is complete? The site drainage will be consistent with the N.C. Division at :':nv.i-- ronmental Management regulations for sedimentation and erosion control. Stormwater runoff from roadside ditches will be channeled to sedimentation traps and temporary impoundment areas for controlled release to off-site drainage ways. After construction, the controlled release structures will remain in place to provide long-term protection for downstream development. 21. Who will ultimately be responsible for maintaining the in-place sedimentation and erosion control system? We recommend that the wastewater utility or County have jurisdiction authority over maintenance. We hope the County's watershed manage- ment plan, currently in development stage, will address this issue more completely. CRAIG B. MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES, PA. 026 . • 0 McLENNAN'S FARM SUBDIVISION ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 1 J WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLANNING REPORT . rii\td. . , 1 • • Prepared for: - 0 • CHR Associates, P.A. . Bolin Creek Center Chapel Hill, North Caroina 27514 r---r.) L...1 ,....1 . _ October,1987 . • • .." ' cAR„,,,,„ . . ., JG ' •�= _ - AL = socb _ . �- •-•». ••'•��,.� - • CRAIG B. MORGAN & ASSOCIATES, PA. r vr•TS Consulting Engineers O " �°L..ut ow rP DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27707 2• cowTmou 4 e 0 � - 1 McLENNAN'S FARM SUBDIVISION . Q ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA • WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN Introduction As urban development continues to spread outward beyond the existing infrastructure support capabilities of local governments, developers must recognize their obligation to insure that their projects are planned and developed in such a manner that the environmental sensitivity of the area is preserved. When a project is proposed within known "Areas of. Environmental Concern", conventional approaches to development densities and infrastructure design may not be sufficient to the environmental preservation needs of the area. Consequently, new and more technically complex approaches must be taken to minimize adverse'environmental impacts and preserve the ecologi- cal balance within and around the project area. • The planning and design of the McLennan's Farm Subdivision reflects the developers awareness of the sites environmental sensitivity and a commitment to the development of a project which will exist in harmony with nature. Background The McLennan's Farm Subdivision, as proposed, is a 14-lot subdivision located off Bowden Road in southern Orange County. The project site is north of Neville Creek, which is a principal tributary to University Lake. Consequently, the project site is in the secondary watershed area for University Lake and thus is regarded as an Area of Environmental Con- cern relative to any land disturbance activity. The proposed development is outside the current Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) sewer service area, and based on discussions with OWASA - representatives, sewer service expansion along Jones Ferry Road to Bowden Road is not anticipated within five years. Major factors affecting the extension of OWASA sewer service to the project area are: _ 1) Current sewer and water expansion moratorium in effect until April, 1989 for all reservoir watershed areas; - 2) Project area is within the jurisdictional area for Orange County zoning. Under Orange County zoning regulations, no municipal sewers are being permitted within the watershed areas of University Lake; 3) Developers extend sewer systems at their own expense and then turn systems.over to OWASA. Due to the high cost of sewer extension, such -action is only feasible for large projects. •CRAIG S.MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES.P.A. 028 Based on the site limitations for wastewater disposal, CHR Associates requested the N.C. Department of Human Resources and Orange County Health Department to conduct on-site soils suitability evaluations for septic tank treatment. Investigations concluded that individual, on-site septic systems could not be approved due to generally poor soils suitability. However, approximately 2.75 acres of land was found to have marginal soils suitable for subsurface soil absorption. The following sections present our recommended wastewater treatment plan and the project approach methodology required to implement the proposed action. Wastewater process Recommendation The only viable alternative for wastewater treatment in this environment- ally sensitive area is a "cluster" septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) system concept with treatment by individual septic tank systems with centralized effluent collection and disposal by low pressure subsurface irrigation. The exact size of the system is determined by the area of suitable soil and the soil loading rate established by the Orange County Health Department. Wastewater collection would be provided by a small diameter, pressure sewer system. The proposed system would consist of the following components: 1) Individual residential septic tank/pump tank system (each lot); 2) Small diameter pressure sewer located in street right-of-way; 3) Central effluent processing and irrigation pumping system; and • 4) Low pressure pipe, subsurface irrigation system (LP?S). Although this is not a widely used wastewater treatment concept, nonethe- less it is in use across the State and is regarded by State regulatory agencies as an acceptable method of treatment in areas with special soil or topographic conditions. A more in-depth explanation of the STEP system . is provided in Exhibit A in the Appendix. Process Design Parameters The principal wastewater system design parameter influencing size and facility location are as follows: A. Ori in & Flow • 1) - Service Area: 14 lots 2) Source of Waste Load: - 3) No. of Bedrooms/Residence: - Single family residence 4) Waste Load Assessment: 3-l/2 2 bedrooms : 120 gpd/bedroom 5) Design Flow - -- - 5,880 gpd CRAIG B.MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES.P.A.•••••��....1, $ B. Proposed Method of Treatment s 1) Pre-Treatment (per lot): One 1.200-gal. septic tank One 1,200-gal. pump tank 2) Effluent Transport: Small diameter pressure sewer . 3) Effluent Disposal: LPsystem LPP drainfield C. Process Desicn 1) Residential Septic Tank: 2) Residential Pump Tank: 1,200 gals. p 1,200 gals. 3) Pressure Sewer System: 3" PVC 4) Irrigation Pump Station: 7,000 gal. capacity, quad- , raplex pumps and controls 5) LPP Drainfields: 4 fields at 14,700 sq. ft. } each; 1002 reserve area State recommended design criteria for STEP sewage systems is provided as Exhibit B in the 'Appendix. Process Operation Domestic wastewater generated by single family homes on lots 1-14 will be discharged to a 1,200-gal., pre-cast concrete septic tank. The treated effluent will discharge to a second 1,200-gal. septic tank, which is equipped with a submersible ejector pump and pump controls. Each lot shall have its own septic tank/pump tank system. Each pump tank will discharge to a pressure sewer collection system located in the street right-of-way. The sewer will serve all 14 lots and will transport the septage effluent to a central process pumping facility. The central process-pumping facility shall be a masonry block tank with three separate chambers. Chamber 1 shall be designed for surge equaliza- tion and emergency storage. Chamber 2 shall house three static plate separators (Zabel Filters) which will reduce the effluent suspended solids level by nearly 40 percent. Chamber 3 shall be a quadraplex pumping cham- ber equipped with mercury float level control switches. Pump operation and dosing will be regulated by a main control panel located above ground,- at the pump tank. The treated effluent is then discharged to two of four drainfields, the - _alternate dosing of which is regulated by the control panel. The drain- fields have a soil loading capacity of 0.10 gpd/sq. ft. and a total field area of 58,300 sq. ft. • • __ Operation and maintenance of the system will be provided by a private contract operation and management firm, who operates the system in accord- ance with State criteria. CRAIG B.MOpGAN AND ASSOCIATES. 1 I. - i 030 . Process Management The "cluster" STEP system concept of wastewater treatment requires that the service area establish a governing body to oversee the care and regu- latory compliance of the system. It will be necessary for the McLennan's Farm Subdivision to create a homeowners association for the purpose of maintaining the subdivision's wastewater system. The developer's attorney will draft special covenants to insure equal representation by all lot owners. A monthly service charge shall be assessed to cover contract operation, maintenance and management, as well as any capital expenditures associated with maintenance repair and regulatory compliance. Project Implementation 1 Under the "cluster" STEP wastewater management system proposed herein, the 4 developer will install the pressure sewer collection system, extend sewer service connections to each lot, construct the central effluent processing 4 and pumping station, and construct the 58,300 sq. ft. LPP drainfield system. 4 The individual on—site septic/pump tank installations will be the respon- $ sibility of each lot owner. The residential pre—treatment systems will be installed in accordance with subdivisional standard specifications, compliance with which will be monitored by the Association's wastewater system manager and the Orange County Health Department. 1 Engineer's Overview Statement The "cluster" STEP wastewater system has been successfully designed, per- 4 mitted and constructed by Craig B. Morgan & Associates, P.A. The project was a 14—lot cluster within First Flight Village in Kill Devil Hills, 4 North Carolina. The 14 lots were located adjacent to Croatan Sound and were within 100 feet of designated wetland areas. The implementation of the STEP system concepts permitted safe development of lands which were considered to be Areas of Environmental Concern. The process design and technology application was reviewed by the Dare County 4 - Health Department, Office of Coastal Area Management (CA4A), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Department of Human Resources. The "cluster" STEP system is specially suited to the project site require- ments of the McLenanan's Farm Subdivision and should comply with the goals of the Orange County Planning Board with regard to providing optimum envi- - ronmental protection within a developing Area of Environmental Concern. CRAIG B.MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES.P.A., ! i 031 4 4 4 • 4 1 • a a 4 APPS a EXHIBIT A — Pressurized Alternative Wastewater System Septic Tank Effluent Pumping y >a 3. EXHIBIT B — N.C. Department of Human Resources D Design Criteria for STEP Draft Systems 4 4 4 4 CRAIG 8.MKAGAN AND ASSOCIATES.P.A. • l • 032 I • Pressurized Alternative Wastewater a Systems • (Septic Tank Effluent Pumping) _ • FULFILLING A NEED CONCEPT DEFINITION p One of the most difficult problems Although many sanitary consulting for today's individual home builder engineers have had some ex- 0 and residential developers is finding perience with pressure sewers, there available land for building homes are others who have had little exposure that will readily lend itself to sewage to the concept. Therefore, as a start, disposal either by on-site systems let's define a pressure sewer system. or! land for development elopment price as become A pressure sewer is sometimes so expensive in many areas that become described as a potable water system ! has forced the individual builder and in reverse. By this, we mean a water the residential developers to build system will hand one inlet r of end II on what is referred to as u nation point and a number of end land. These areas to can be undesirable esnormally r l user connections, while a pressure described as rocky, contain majr sewer will normally have a pressuriz- 1 elevation differences and may have ed inlet point at each end user con- high water tables. In addition, soil nection and one discharge outlet at -� high water to many areas of the a treatment plant or discharge point. United States do not lend themselves The number of end user connections could be anywhere from a few to to on-site treatment systems. several thousand. It is universally recognized that there A pressure sewer system is made up 4 is a major need for a more econom- of three major segments.They are: ical method of collecting, transport- A. Pump package system (basin, i ing and treating sewage other than pump piping, controls, control gravity sewers.This would be espec- panel,alarm) - sally true in areas containing rock, B. Servce lines and force mains rough terrain, sparsely settled and C. Discharge treatment point high water table areas. There are two primary types of _ One of the most viable alternatives - pumps used in pressure sewers. One is referred d to gravity sewers'that has gained a the o to as a (fluent pump (GP) and the o great deal of attention over the past to an eiuen pump I several years is the concept of prey- (STEP) which is located in or behind sure sewer systems.There have been aseptic tank pump types The major difference over 150 of these systems (100-1500 between the two. is how I connections) installed since 1970 the solids are handled. - with a large number currently under In the case of GP units, the solids , evaluation, design, or installation. - Pressure sewers under the US-EPA are ground into a ointry and pumped grants program are defined as alter- p a discharge point. With a STEP native systems, but not innovative pump. the settleable solids and since their performance and reli most of the grease accumulation ability has been proven in over 14 _ *amain in the septic tank. Conse- - years of operation- Quentiy, the STEP pump conveys a. fairly clear effluent to the discharge • point. - - cFtAIG B.MOaGAN AND ASSOCIA7lS,P.A 4 4 033 4 Service lines from the pump basin Elevated Drain Fields - In this situa- to the street are usually 1-3G" I.D. tion, the soil conditions near the Type I Schedule 40 PVC solvent welded home are not acceptable for a drain pipe. Force mains will normally be field. Consequently, the effluent is SDR26 and SDR21 PVC pipe with pumped to another location on the elastomeric sealed joints running property which has acceptable soil anywhere from 1•*" to 6" I.D. in conditions. size, depending on the number of Alternate Drain Fields - In this case, a house connections. Occasionally, one drain field is not quite adequate polyethylene pipe is used for the for proper field disposal. A second force mains, especially in extremely drain field is installed and the two • Cold climates. fields are alternated by using a a valve and a STEP pump. Septic tank effluent flowing from a Cluster Concept - In this application, STEP pressure sewer can be dis- a cluster of several homes will install • charged to a gravity manhole, treat- septic tanks and STEP ment plant, lagoon or large drain pumps. The field. However, if discharging to a • effluent is then pumped by a 4 gravity manhole, care must be taken common force main to a drain held W handle potential odor and corro- located some distance from the 1 Sion problems generating from septic individual homes. ' tank effluent. Due to the reduction Dosing Fields - In this application. 4 in .organic and hydraulic loadings, it has been shown that the effluent the cost of treatment would be lower from the septic tank may not flow + in comparison to conventional gravity properly by gravity throughout the flow. drain pipe. By installing a STEP pump the drain field is dosed by pressure 4 generated by the pump insuring that APPLICATIONS FOR the effluent reaches the entire drain . EFFLUENT PUMPS field. There are basically two markets for In pressure sewer applications we 4 STEP pumps. One is referred to as normally define a pressure sewer as onesy-twosy (OT)applications. Here. a system containing at least 25 pumps 4 we mean that only one or a few discharging into a common force STEP pumps will be installed in a main. Most residential STEP pressure given application. The other market sewers are designed with one pump 4 area is pressure sewer applications. per home. In some pressure systems Specific STEP applications in the there will be multiple residential con- 0 OT market would be as follows: nections to one simplex or duplex STEP pump. � �ents/Condos Trailer Parks Small Office Due to the administrative problems Small Motels Buildings of who pays for power, where power Interstate Rest small Hospitals is connected,obtaining right-of-ways, 1 Stops Nursing Homes etc., the majority of STEP pressure Indivioual Homes Campgrounos . oeral sewers being installed are using one Intermediate Pump Slate and Fe 1 - Stations Parks pump per home. The decision on Restaurants Industrial Plants single or multiple pump connections 1 The DT applications for effluent will be up to the design engineer i - - pumps differs from grinder pump and his client based on their specif- 1 applications as they would relate to is needs. Specific applications for discharge.In OT grinder applications STEP pressure sewers are: the sewage is, in most cases, being -_ discharged to a collection system and ultimately to a treatment plant. •'I Small r rural In STEP OT applications,the effluent �Pnnanes - _ is usually being discharged to a drain field. areas) pockets within cities (low lying Dver the past severs! years, there •Fecmational lake developments have been a number of OT STEP Avanmsnpat `moe °prr'0le"e3 • plant eomp►exps - applications that have been developed •Small vanapte gravity sewers that utilize an effluent pump. Some = typical examples are: . . ♦ 2 -CRAIG S.MORGAN ANp ASSOCIATES,P.A. / s - -- 034 • EFFLUENT PUMPING For maximum corrosion resistance. EQUIPMENT FOR the discharge piping, junction box PRESSURE SEWERS and shutoff valve are made of plastic materials. Mercury ball level controls In grinder pump pressure sewer are standard.Some engineers speci- • systems there has been only one size fy a redundant check valve to be lo- centrifugal grinder pump (2 hp) avail- cared in service line for added • able for installation at the individual protection. An anti-siphoning valve home. However, in a STEP pressure is added to the internal piping if low sewer, the engineer can choose from heads or negative heads (downhill a a variety of horsepowers and sizes. runs) are expected to prevent any STEP pumps can be 1/3, .4, 1/2, 1, siphoning action. In most cases, the 1-1/2 and 2 hp, depending on the cover is made of steel so that it can head and flow requirements. The per- withstand the weight of a riding lawn formance, weight, and cost of the mower. Pump basin covers are nor- ) STEP pumps increase as horse- mally installed flush with the ground power increases. The STEP pumps level. An anti-flotation flange held that are available are basically sump by concrete is provided to prevent pumps, small hp sewage ejectors or the basin from moving upward in . modifications thereof. , highwater table areas. 1 One of the drawbacks of currently 1 available STEP pumps is that they generate much higher flows than PERFORMANCE needed. As an example, a 1/2 hp $ STEP pump can generate up to 80 Since STEP pumps are pumping a gpm with shut off heads to 78 feet. clarified liquid from a septic tank, 4 Since the peak wastewater flow there is usually very little problem generated from an average individual with the pump plugging.The risk of home is no more than 8-15 gpm, you plugging is greater if an old septic can see that the flow rates are much tank is used which is generating higher than needed. The high flow heavy flows and possibly some carry i rates make it more difficult to hydrau- over solids due to infiltration. lically design a pressure sewer and will increase pipe sizes. In addition, .At one time, it was assumed that the high flow rates of the standard a high percentage of old septic tanks effluent pumps can create problems could be utilized as part of a STEP 4 when discharging into a variable pressure sewer. Now, the consensus gravity sewer system. of opinion is that the majority of old $ septic tanks should be replaced Septic tanks can be made of fiber- with new ones. One of the problems in using old septic tanks is the clues- ) glass,polyethylene or concrete. Con- tion of how do you determine if the crete is the most readily available. tank is leaking. By the time you 4 The most common size used is 1000 pump out the septic tanks, find the gallons.although 500 and 750 gallon leak and repair it (assuming this can 9' size tanks have been used in some be accomplished), it may be less pressure systems. In commercial expensive to put in a new septic tank. applications,larger size septic tanks - i will be required. Two potential problems associated Variations of an audio and visual with STEP systems are corrosion l alarms are used, although the Most and odors. As previously indicated. - . corrosion can be overcome by 1 flashing popular aln m I st-ht emounted ion con- - choice of materials. Since the septic trol panel. Most all control panels tank is vented through the house with a disconnect switch are located plumbing system, no outside venting is required. Care must be taken to outside so they will be easily acces- . insure the Cover to the wet well is - sible to the serviceman. The prefer- sealed properly. Odors can be a able location of the panel and alarm problem at intermediate pump sta- is on the side of the home or garage tions if vented to atmosphere. This to minimize aesthetic concerns of the home owner. If desired, the can solved g installing an under- groo panel can be located at the septic ground venting system. - tank/pump basin and mounted on a pedestal. _CRAIG S.MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES,P.A.- 3 Al ., SYSTEMS DESIGN 035 CONSI DERATIONS i Once the design engineer has made where as gravity lines must be a decision to design a pressure aligned in a continuous down- i sewer system, he must then decide ward slope. Deep cuts for gravity on design parameters that would lines become quite expensive, 9 effect the operation of the system. especially where rock and high The most important considerations water tables are present. would be design flow, friction loss, C. Narrow and Shallow Trenches - ' pump.type, scouring velocity and Pressure sewer service lines and air venting. force mains can be easily installed in narrow trenches just below the frost line. in the case of the Friction losses are determined by Sunbelt states, the pipe has to be ' the Hazin-Williams method with laid deep enough for mechanical appropriate C factor. A C factor of protection. 150 is used most frequently in STEP D. Minimum Equipment & Labor - pressure sewer designs. A scouring Pressure sewers can be installed velocity of 2 to 5 f/sec. is normally with a trencher and backhoe. The recommended for the service lines force mains usually are installed and force mains. However, since a in the right-of-ways along the road. high percentage of solids and grease In comparison, gravity sewer in- is left in the septic tank. some en- stallations require large power gineers use a minimum scouring shovels and it may be necessary velocity of 1 f/sec. Air venting is to install the mains in the streets. important to prevent binding at the Labor and equipment require- high points of the pressure mains. ments to handle large diameter gravity sewer pipe in comparison There is a limit to how many homes to small PVC pipe can be substar•.- can be paralleled together in one Rally higher. system depending on pump head E. Small diameter Bridge p Crossings - capabilities and the TDH require- Smac diameter pressure sewer ments of the system. About 500 can lines and pressure mains homes would be the upper limit with can be bored under roads with relatively flat topography, minimum difficulty (assuming no rock)since precise slope and align- ment are not critical. Small force ADVANTAGES OF EFFLUENT mains can be installed across PRESSURE SEWERS bridges without the use of pump VERSUS GRAVITY - stations. If freezing is of concern. the small pipe can be insulated A.Small Diameter Plastic Pipe-One within limitations. Of the advantages of pressure F. Reduction or Elimination of Pump of the over ntaglty systems is pressure Stations and Manholes - Another ability wens over use small diameter advantage of pressure sewers is plastic the ability to eliminate manholes pipe for the service lines and pumping stations within limit- and force mains. In pressure ations of the grinder pumps head systems,the service line is normal- capabilities. Manholes are not ly 1.W' l.b. and 1-%" to 6" I.D. required with - for force mains. This is in-corn- However, vre bsure sewers. owever. a valve box is recpm- parisort to gravity service lines of - mended about every 1000 feet or 4 smelt"and gravity mains up to major 74" and 16" for a comparable change in direction. if inter- . - number of house Connections, mediate pump stations are re- um Consequently, there is e a ma or pulsed in a pressure sewer system, cost advantage in the piping col- they are usually much smaller lection system for pressure sewers pompand vents. s due to lower flow r ee versus gravity. quirements. B.Pipe Alignment - Based on the G.Infiltration & Inflow - One of the pumping capability of the pump. major problems with gravity sewers the service lines and force mains is the problem of heavy indltleaky can run up and downhill following � due to broken pipe and leaky �� the contour and downhill shutoff following joints.In the flooding seasons this treat- limitations) of the topography can cause problems at the treat- _ _ _ 4 CRAIG S.MORGAN AND ASSOCI�ATES,P.A.• i 0 ._--2-i 36 ment plant by overloading the chanical equipment which will treatment system due to the heavy have to be serviced in perpetuity. inflows. In the case of pressure This is especially true when an 0 sewers, infiltration is virtually individual pump system is installed eliminated due to the design of a at each home. However, a STEP 4 tight system throughout. pump can be looked upon as H. Service Connections - In older communities, the septic tanks are another appliance and is subject to the same ongoing service • usually located in back of homes requirements as a home furnace, with the house plumbing oriented refrigerator, hot water heater, etc. to the back.This can create a prob- Obviously, with the amount of lem of installing a gravity sewer equipment involved, it is important line to the street without changing to have a service capability estab- the house plumbing. On the other lished to handle it. This can be hand, the STEP system will utilize done by a service department the old septic tank or replace it within the sewer authority, or local with a new one. The service line service center established by the can be laid around the house to manufacturer or local pump the street at a minimum cost using representative. • small diameter PVC pipe. B: Power Outages-With the holding 1.Treatment Plant Size- If the treat- capacity of the pump basin and ment plant is being designed to the freeboard area of the septic handle flow from a pressure sewer tank, the homeowner has in system only, the size can be excess of 24 hours storage reduced over normal design require- capacity, if the power goes off. merits due to the elimination of Since the national average power infiltration and inflow, outage is around 2 hours this will J. Water Conservation -Since water provide adequate storage unless conservation is gaining a great the power is off for several days. 3 deal of attention in many parts of Hopefully, the homeowner would the country, the value of pressure refrain from washing clothes and • sewers in this regard becomes an . taking showers during this time important consideration. 6y elim- frame to minimize any problems, import infiltration and inflow, the With a gravity collections system, amount of water polluted is re- the homeowner can continue to duced considerably,Since no man- use the sewage system assuming i holes are used in pressure sewers, standby power is available to the drain wastewater from wash- operate the pumping stations and frig cars and lawn watering doesn't potable water is still available. end up being polluted by the C. Power Costs - With the ongoing domestic sewage and is returned increase in power costs, a home- • in part to the water table, owner is concerned about any K. Land Planning - Public officials equipment that will increase his ) in rural areas can limit the amount electric bill by any substantial of population expansion in a corn- amount. Since a simplex STEP aver- l munity by the amount of potential pump only operates on the , the growth that is sized into the prey- age of 10-15 minutes a day, the sure sewer mains. This alleviates - annual power cost will be under some of the fear of rapid growth $10.00 a year, based on an aver- if gravity sewers are installed: age kilowatt per hour cost of six I Since pressure sewers are more cents. adaptable to hilly, rocky and high D.Aesthetics of System - Some water table areas. the developer homeowners are concerned about 1 has more flexibility in laying out the appearance of the equipment - his lots for maximum lot-sales in their yard. Since the with basin dollars in comparison to some cover is buried flush with the restrictions with gravity. ground, it is difficult to notice from the road.Control panels with alarms DISADVANTAGES OF are attached to the sides of the EFFLUENT PRESSURE home,making them inconspicuous SEWERS VERSUS GRAVITY except if visual or audio alarm is activated. The homeowner may A.Mechanical Equipment-Probably also be concerned about the the major concern of installing a damage to the premises when in- pressure sewer system is the ad- stalling the basin and service line. dition of a large amount of me- N. 5 •CFU+IG E.MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES.P.A.• / • - Actually, restoration is less of a 037 3 problem than with installing up, the STEP pump should operate or bl gravity service line d a 4u up to 10-15 years before major over- the narrow and shallow trenches haul will be required (replace seals, required. bearings, motor). During the interim E. Operating Problems - Once a some pumps will require service but this should be in the range of 1% of pressure sewer system is started units in operation up and any initial problems are means that if you have e1,000 units hin t Corrected, the system will require ongoing service as with any other a given project service Could calls per sewer system.Occasionally a pump aPP�ximately 10 service calls per will plug when some large solid year ould increase accordingly as tyou object such as a propylactic gets approached 10 years of operation. by the septic tank baffle. However, this is a rare occurance. Grease In addition to the does not present a potential prob- be 5e pump, there will lem of fouling controls as in the service requirements for other problems, such as control failures, case of grinder pressure sewers occasional pump plugging, pump air since most of the grease remains lock, etc. These in the septic tank. It must be . types of nuisance remembered that the septic tank problems can usually be corrected at the installation site and will ac- of a STEP pressure sewer will count for another 3% of Service calls Continue to accumulate solids. per year. This, in conjunction with This will require that the septic pump failure service calls, would add service calls tank be pumped periodically, up to 4,6 Based on past experience the pump stems in o per year for pump-out cycle should be 10 P s Y Aeration. years or greater using a 1000 It is a general consensus of opinion gallon septic tank. The septage that a once a year preventive main- can be used as a soil conditioner tenance program is helpful to reduc- or fertilizer under proper treat- ment and control, ing potential service problems. This would include removing cover, oper- ate pump manually, exercise shutoff OPERATION & valve, check alarm system and meas- MAINTENANCE ure sludge level of septic tank. The most important consideration in One important step to reduce poten- tial service calls is the education o installing a STEP pressure sewer f system, aside from capital costs, is the homeowners. It is very helpful the effect and cost of ongoing main- to distribute a pamphlet to the public tenance. It is generally recognized describing how a pressure sewer that pressure sewers will require works and what the homeowner more maintenance than a convention- should do in case of a failure- A list of `Do's and Don'ts' will reduce the al sewer system due to the large amount of mechanical equipment on possibility of the user discharging 'hand. This is especially true if you unwanted items into the drain system, such as towels, panty hose and cloth- are installing a pump system at each individual home, which would be the ing articles. Although the STEP of pressure sewers case in over 8096 pump is designed to handle small installed to date, solids within reasonable .limits, it is bener to keep such articles out of Since the industry has over 14 years • either conventional gravity sewers or of field experience with STEP ores_ pressure sewers whenever possible sure sewer operation, it is possible - In the case of a STEP pressure sewer, most of the heavy solids will. to offer some Observations on their operation and sewer requirements. settle to the bottom of the septic tank. - If a pressure sewer is designed prop- Experience has indicated that the city, installed correctly and quality maintenance cost to maintain the • pump equipment is utilized, the sys- service lines and force mains is negli- tern will perform satisfactorily. The Bible. Occasionally a pipe is frozen submersible centrifugal STEP pump _ or a pipe broken due to excavation is the most reliable component with- work in the area. in the pump system. Once any bugs are worked out of system on start CRAIG B.1rtORGAN AN0 A550CIATt.5,-P.A. __ • + RECOMMENDED DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT PUMPS ► 038 . (STEP) SEWAGE SYSTEMS D► A. Septic Tank 0 1 . Use two-compartment tank, sized and constructed in accordance with ► sewage regulations. 2. Extend access manhole above sanitary tee to ground surface. B . Pump Tank 1 . Tank must be large enough to provide: - 12 inches of pump submergence, minimum; • - 3-minute minimum pump run time (15 gallon per minute minimum pump flow rate) ; • - full day of emergency storage capacity above high-water alarm on level . This may include septic tank freeboard capacity, if effluent will remain below ground and below building drain outlet invert. 2. Tank must be sealed, watertight tank (fiber glass or one-piece, precast septic tank or special provisions for assuring watertight tank indicated) . 3 . Anti-buoyancy provisions must be adequate. 4. : All pipe and wire conduits into tank must be through hubs or fittings made during the construction of the tank and installed in a watertight and gastight fashion. 5. Tank access riser must extend at least six inches above finished grade. C. Pump 1 . Must be an effluent pump capable of delivering at least 15 gallons per minute at the expected total dynamic head at each station. 2. All pumps in a single STEP system must be the same model and size. 3. Pumps must be activated by mercury level control switch(es) . 4. Pump discharge pipe must be of Schedule 40 PVC, or stronger material , and include a check valve, disconnect union, and gate valve within the pump tank. Pump must be readily removable from the ground surface. D. Aires must be conveyed to a watertight (NEMA 4X) , outside, vandal-resistant junction box through waterproof and gasproof conduits,with no splices made inside the lift station. Junction box may be mounted on the outside of the. lift station riser above the ground surface. • , • Recommended Design Criteria for Septic Tank Effluent Pumps (Cont.) Page 2 Q 3.9 I s E. Control panel must be mounted on the side of the house nearest the pump + tank and readily accessible. 1 . Panel must be in a NEMA 4X, vandal -resistant enclosure. 2. Panel must be U.L. listed and include a pump run light and hand-off- automatic (H-0-A) switch. . 3. An audible and visible high-water alarm must be provided. The visible alarm must be visible from the road. The audible alarm must be audible inside the house and may be located in the house. I 4. Two separate circuits must be supplied from• the main house electrical a panel--one circuit for the pumps and pump controls and one circuit for the high-water alarm. F. Service laterals must be of Schedule 40 PVC, or stronger material , and must inc ude a check valve and gate valve within avalve box adjacent to the property line, prior to connecting into the force main. 0 G. Force main must include a cleanout at the end and at least every 500 feet. a. Air release valves must be provided at any high spots along the line. 0 H. Surge storage tank must be provided in front of the final common dosing tank with liquid capacity of at least 10 percent the total required septic tank 1 capacity for the project as a whole to give further solids retention in case i of upset at one or more of the individual lift stations. T . Leaal Arrangements/Operation-and Maintenance'Reauirements 1 . Developer or owners association must be responsible for installing the individual lift stations and for continuous station maintenance. They 0 - must retain easements permitting access and maintenance to each lift station and to the electrical controls. 2. Developer or owners association must retain a licensed wastewater treat- 0 ment plant operator to be responsible for operation and maintenance of the entire system, including individual lift._stations and maintenance 0 of individual septic tanks. 0 3. An inventory of at least 10 percent of the active pumps, level control floats, and complete control panels must be maintained by the developer 0 - or owners association and readily available to the system operator. 1 4. The tri-party agreement among the developer, owners association, and health department must clearly indicate ownership, operation and main- * tenance requirements for the individual lift stations. 1 S9/gb Nov., 1986 1 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT u 40 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Will .1 1�U.I MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 1987 SUBJECT: PD-4-87 McLENNAN' S FARM General Intarmation Applicant: Mr. Leon Todd 133 W. Franklin Street Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Location: East side of Bowden Road (SR 1946) one-half mile south of Old Greensboro Highway (SR 1005) , Chapel Hill Township, University Lake Watershed Requested Action: Consideration of Planned Development- Housing-Rural Buffer rezoning and Special Use Permit Purpose: To allow a planned single-family housing development on 14 lots containing a minimum of 87 ,120 square feet served by a common nitrifi- cation field for septic tank disposal. Lot size: 37 acres divided into fourteen (14) lots which average 2.17 acres in size. Existing Land Use: Agricultural Surrounding Land Uses: Agricultural, Residential Land Use Plan: Rural Buffer, Water Supply Watershed Zoning: Rural Buffer/Protected Watershed II MEMORANDUM _ 041 PD-4-87 McLENNAN' S FARM NOVEMBER 19. 1987 PAGE 2 Compliance with Subdivision Regulations: The proposed plan has been reviewed by the Planning Staff as a preliminary application. It is in general compliance with the Subdivi- sion Regulations with regard to lot access. lot sizes and dimensions. recreation require- ments. and required landscaping. The system for sewage disposal is subject to approval by the Division of Environmental Management. All revisions to the plan necessary to meet preliminary approval requirements will be listed as conditions of approval. MEMORANDUM 041 PD-4-87 McLENNAN'S FARM NOVEMBER 19. 1987 PAGE 2 Compliance with Subdivision Regulations: The proposed plan has been reviewed by the Planning Staff as a preliminary application. It is in general compliance with the Subdivi- sion Regulations with regard to lot access, lot sizes and dimensions. recreation require- ments, and required landscaping. The system for sewage disposal is subject to approval by the Division of Environmental Management. All revisions to the plan necessary to meet preliminary approval requirements will be listed as conditions of approval. • g' % Orange County Recreation and Parks arks Department • 300 West Tryon Sweet • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 rowt 042 Anne Black, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Szymik, Planner III FROM: Mary Anne Black 6 DATE: November 9, 1987 RE: Courtesy Review -- McLennan's Farm ( PD-2) Chandler Concrete (PD-4) Upon review of the preliminary plan for the proposed Planned Development within the JPA (McLennan's Farm) please be advised that I would recommend that the County Commissioners accept payment-in-lieu of the required dedication of land for public recreation and park purposes. The designated ."open space/intrification field" needs to be carefully maintained and operated by some entity such as a homeowner's association, especially if exercise stations are installed. I see no element(s) on the Chandler'Concrete preliminary plan warranting comment from a recreation and park perspective. Thank you for the opportunity to offer these staff comments. I will present my recommendations to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council at their December meeting and will forward to you any changes/additional comments they may have. MAB/pbl CC: Lorraine Parker, Chair, Recreation & Parks Advisory Council Telephones: 919 732-8181 - 919 967-9251 • 919 688-7331 • 919 227-2031 r ,n'E , r 7,77 L$IDY PENDERGRASS H -`;- b' 043 Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 Office Phone: Hillsborough 732-2431 Chapel Hill 942-6300 Residence Phone: 929-5535 To: Onang a County PLann,Lng D epantment From: Shen-Lb Lindy P endengna.a,6 Re: Law Enboncement Senv.Lcea Fon McLennan'h Fanrn Date: Octobers 8, 1987 Pon FJ4c t yeah 1986, the Orange County Shenibb'6 Depanrnent ne4ponded to 17, 022 cat-L.6 ban benvice countywicLe. County Planning population bigune6 6how approximately 45,000 penbon.4 Listed w.i th,Ln the. county. Based on these bigunes the nat.Lo ob ca.f4 bon 6envice countywide .i.a .37 caLL4 pen pen6on. The pnopo6 ed McLennan'6 Fanm pna j ec t is in an undev ef.oped anew, thene- bone, a countywide average must be applied. Maten.iat bunn.iahed to Orange County Shen.Lbb'a Department indicate (15) dweLtLng6 to be conatnucted in th.i.6 6iubdivi4 i.on. Based on county i gune6 45 pen6onb wilt. tile.Qy Occupy these home.a. • U6.c.ng the county av enag a this w.LU g enena to 16.5 ca. C4 b an 6 env.Lce bon th L area bon one year. Each catt neauine.6 an average ob 45 minutes to respond and e.e1ln. This woad genenatie 7 2.3 manhaun6 bon ne.pond.Lng to cattz ion 4 env.Lce in this area. • The addition ob this project and the projected 12.3 manhoun.b wilt. not, by .ctaeib, cause a 6-Lgniaicant .impact on the. ability ob the Orange County Shen.LW W'6 Depa42nen: to provide 6 envice bon th i.4 area. However, this combined with Others pnopa4ed pro ject6 .in this area cou d caa..6e the need bon add i t i.onaL manpower to maintain, the current .Q.evetz ob 6env.Lce. LP:nb cc: Dan.L 2 A. .ewes CHR A4b o c.iate6 300 Bolin Creek Chapel?. Hitt, N.C. 27514 ORANGE COUNTY p la IIVIE HILLSBOROUGH to-,-S? 044 NORTH CAROLINA 27278 • EMERGENCY SERVICES 106 EAST MARGARET LANE Established 7752 MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Szimik SUBJECT: E.M.S. Coverage FROM: Bobby Baker X.L.A. DATE: October 7, 1987 South Orange Rescue Squad and Orange County Emergency Services will provide E.M.S. coverage for the proposed development on Bowden Road in Orange County. • cc: Daniel Jewell 300 Bolin Creek Center P.O. Drawer 2678 Chapel Hill,NC 27514 • I Tr,o- w �l WHITE CROSS 045 VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC. ROUTE ONE CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 October 9, 1987 Mr. Greg Szimik Orange County Planning Department Churton Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Project: McLennan's Farm Project # 5774 Bowden Rd @ Old Greensboro Hw. Dear Mr. Szimik After reviewing the plans and looking at the site of the above proposed subdivision, we can adequately service this subdivision providing the streets and driveways are large enough to accomodate fire department equipment. J Yours truly, � ) r Wayne Wiles President Copy: Daniel A. Jewell ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD 046 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 .:r.), 1. MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Szymik FROM: Warren Faircloth , Erosion Control ,Officer SUBJECT: McLennan ' s Farm Subdivision DATE: November 5, 1987 • This project requires the submission of a stormwater management plan for controlling the first half inch of runoff and the peak rate of the 10-year 24-hour storm. The subdivi- sion.jeets the minimum lot size for controlling the first halfnof runoff . The large lot size and use of grassed swales may contribute to controlling the peak rate of runoff , but a plan must be submitted showing how the peak rate will be controlled. The amount of disturbance to construct the new road and and nitrification field will require submittal and approval of an erosion control plan prior to the start of construction . I see no conditions that should prevent the successful design and implementation of a plan. l' Cigi61-&1247----- - I 'E 71 17,7 7 a w STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN October 29, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS.P.E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Mr. Greg Szymik Orange County Planning Department. 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Preliminary Plan for McLennan's Farm - Off SR 1946 (Bowden Road) Dear Mr. Szymik: This office has reviewed the subject preliminary plan and offers the following recommendations: 1. Have property lines follow the sight triangles at SR 1946 (Bowden Road) if possible. 2. If a divided entrance is used, enough right-of-way must be dedicated to accomodate a six (6) foot shoulder and a ditchline witb 2:1 slopes (see attached typical section). Please be aware if the island is not satisfactorily maintained by someone involved with the subdivision, the island will be removed. The Division of Highways will not maintain-any island or • median section. 3. Sight easement shall be provided at intersection of George Poe Road and McLennan's Farm Road. 4. Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11 must have driveways off. George Poe Road. 5. If McLennan's Farm Road is extended, cul-de-sac right-of-way shall revert back to property owners. An F....al I1.......r..w:...I�4G..-.,•:.,, nom•:....r—.-s....�. 048 Mr. Greg Szymik October 29, 1987 Page 2 The proposed horizontal alignment and sight distance appear to meet minimum standards. The above recommendations are noted in red on the attached plan. Please review these recommendations and re—submit revised plans to this office for further review. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours very truly, J M. Mills, P. E. ISTTICT ENGINEER JMM/SPI:jbh Atta. cc: Mr. Leon Todd with attachment. • STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA - •� %t EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION sueJECT •-- r M= ��, PROJECT 049 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS HIGHWAY- BUILDING COUNTY P. O. BOX 25201 PREPARED BY�,1 DATE RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA CHECKED BY �~ �'4TION 27611 — DATE • STR NO� SHEET OF�� I I I I I' i I I i a i 1 1 i ! I !i `I I I ; ; I""T —hHH1 , -- I ■ 1 I I ' ' i ' 1 ' ' I ! ; I I -- j I �, A- -f •�� I I d - I j ; o h!! 1 i I ~ N • ; 1 I i ! I ; I I I I 1 I ; 1 I i minimmoili 1 i ; ! t i i ! j I I I- ; ' : I I l r ; I . ! I I ++ I I C ■ ; i . iii I ! I I �� I i I ;Ni I I W i I ! 1 I! !-� I s .--.—____-*• 1 1 i . 1 _ _' I• ' ! i 1 : I ' • t i ; j I - i I J I i i I I - - j I I I' I j I ! 1 II . II1iI1 . I I 1 I I I 1 ' i • 1 I I 1 I i I i 1 i ' I • 1 I , • I I- I - I --1 . ; -i 1 I -. '�i'. � �. . .I -- + , I I I I I •��- ; I I j i I � I i ! � I 050 O R A N G E C O U N T Y INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8712-1804 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Marvin E. Collins,Planning Director SUBJECT: PD-4-87 McLennan ' s Farm - OWASA Comments DATE: December 30, 1987 COPIES: Albert Kittrell , Interim County Manager Planning Board Comments have been received from Orange Water & Sewer Authority regarding the proposed McLennan ' s Farm Planned Development. The comments are listed below, including the Planning Staff response based on information supplied by the applicant. 1 . Additional information should be provided to confirm that the proposed wastewater disposal system is properly designed and to assure its long-term reliability. This information should include a detailed site analysis to address soils which are only "marginally" suitable, the depth of the restrictive horizon, soil permeability above the restrictive horizon, and the extent of mounding that can be expected to occur. (A detailed soils analysis will be included as part of the application submitted to secure a permit to operate a "cluster" septic tank effluent pumping system. A preliminary soils analysis by the N. C. Department of Human Resources and the Orange County Health Department identified 2.75 acres of marginal soils where the nitrification fields are to be located . The remainder of the soils on site are unsuited for septic systems. ) 2. OWASA recommends a lower hydraulic loading rate not exceeding 0. 075 gallons per square foot per day, and a lower pollutant loading rate to protect long term ground and surface water quality. (The proposed hydraulic loading rate is 0. 10 gallons per square foot per day. This is 0. 025 gallons per square foot per day more than OWASA recommends. The soils on site are Appling Sandy Loam. The maximum recommended loading rate for such soils is 0.40-0.30 gallons per square foot per day. ) 3. Install a dual , alternating absorption field system and provide an additional undisturbed reserve area in case either system fails. (Treated effluent is discharged to two of four drain fields. The INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8712-1804 O Ci PD-4-87 McLennan ' s Farm U1 December 30, 1987 Page 2 alternate dosing of remaining fields is regulated at a main control panel . A 100% reserve area is provided. ) 4. Provide adequate measures to prevent the accidental discharge of wastewater from the proposed facilities into surface and ground waters. ( Primary treatment is provided by individual , on-site septic tanks, thereby minimizing the impact of potential malfunction as opposed to a singular treatment system. The pressure sewer system is constructed to water distribution system standards. Due to the relatively low pressure levels within the sewer system, malfunctions are rare and quickly contained and repaired. Prior to subsurface irrigation, the primary treated wastewater is stored in an equalization and solid filtration chamber. Approximately 24 hours of emergency storage is available at all times. A quadraplex pumping and drainfield system is proposed to allow drainfields sufficient time to rest and reaerate. ) 5. What is the impact of recreational uses of the area on the long term suitability of the soil absorption area? (The drainfield site can be used for athletic functions, however, permanent structures are not permitted . ) 6 . Establish appropriate monitoring of surface and groundwater. OWASA also recommends that a detention pond be built for stormwater runoff to further protect water quality. (Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed and monitored for fecal coliform and nitrogen levels on a quarterly basis. Results must be furnished to the State regulatory agency having permit authority over the project. ) 7. The proposed system should be constructed and inspected according to acceptable standards. Sewer and utility easements should be reserved for construction and maintenance of the system. (Both the N. C. Division of Health Services and the N. C. Division of Environmental Management have complex criteria for sizing and designing low pressure wastewater systems. A registered professional engineer is required to plan, design and oversee construction of the system. At the completion of construction, the design engineer must certify that the wastewater system was constructed in accordance with State approved plans and specifications. Drainage and utility easements have been denoted on the plan. ) 8. Provide assurance that disposal of solid wastes from septic tanks and from process-pumping facility will be carried out by a 052 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8712-1804 PD-4-87 McLennan ' s Farm December 30, 1987 Page 3 certified party in accordance with State regulations. ( If the wastewater system is developed as a utility, then the N. C. Division of Environmental Management will be the principal State agency involved in the design review and permit process. The project designers currently favor a utility management approach to wastewater treatment; i . e. , a firm licensed as a public utility and with a responsible record of operation and maintenance would manage the system. A monthly service charge would be collected for operation and maintenance of the system similar to the utility bills currently charged by OWASA. If the wastewater system were to be maintained by a homeowners association, the N. C. Division of Health Services would be the principal agency involved in the design review and permit process. Covenants would be prepared which insure equal representation by all lot owners. Operation and maintenance of the system would be provided by a private contract operation and management firm, operating the system in accordance with State criteria. A monthly service charge would be assessed to cover contract operation, maintenance and management, and any capital expenditures associated with maintenance repair and regulatory compliance. ) 9. All components of the system should be periodically inspected. ( See #8 above. Components of the system would be periodically inspected as required by State criteria. ) 10. The system should be operated by a technically qualified party. ( See #8 above. ) 11 . Pump life, repair, and replacement costs should be addressed. ( Recommended design criteria for septic tank effluent pumps have been provided. All pumps would be installed and operated in accordance with said criteria. ) Regarding the development layout, OWASA had the following comments: 1 . Development in the watershed should be consistent with the primary public objective of protection of the public drinking water supply. ( See 11 -11 above. ) 2. A detailed investigation of site suitability and consideration of the need for dual absorption fields may result in the need for greater absorption field area, which in turn could require modifications to the proposed subdivision layout and developmep- density. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8712-1804 053 PD-4-87 McLennan ' s Farm December 30, 1987 Page 4 ( If a detailed investigation revealed modifications were necessary, minor changes could be approved by the Zoning Officer in accordance with Article 8 .7 of the Zoning Ordinance. If major modifications were necessary, an amendment to the special use permit would be required. ) 3. Provide assurance that open space areas will not be developed. (Open space areas, including recreation space and nitrification fields, must be maintained permanently for wastewater system and special use permits to remain valid. Provisions could be required as part of the restrictive covenants will restrict development of open space areas. ) 4. Provide assurance that sedimentation and erosion control measures will be installed in a timely manner and permanently maintained. ( Sedimentation and erosion control plans must be submitted and approved prior to any site disturbance. The applicant has proposed that the wastewater utility or the County provide maintenance to permanent control measures. The County will not . access responsibility for such maintenance, thus requiring the wastewater utility or a homeowners association to provide permanent maintenance. ) 5. Public utility easements should be obtained to facilitate the provision of public sewer services in the event such extension is determined necessary in the future. (Orange County ' s current policy is to prohibit the extension of public water and sewer service into protected watersheds and the Rural Buffer. Should this policy be amended, the County may then proceed to seek utility easement reservations. ) 7.---644 Orange Water and Sewer Authority .z - , • 400 Jones Ferry Road 7 OWASA P.O. Box 366 -Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 November 16, 1987 Mr. Marvin E. Collins Director Planning Department Orange County 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Marvin: Thank you very much for providing Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) with the site plan and subsurface wastewater disposal system information relative to the proposed McLennan's Farm Subdivision project. CWASA staff has reviewed this proposal and comments relative to the project are described in the attached report. The Board of Directors of NASA has not had the opportunity to review and consider the proposed project and the enclosed staff comments. However, the Board of Directors has previously expressed concern about the increasing dependence upon community wastewater disposal systems, such as that proposed for this project, and may wish to submit additional comments relative to the project. Your consideration of these continents is appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning 04ASA staff's position on this project. Sin re , Patrick K. Davis wp Assistant to the Executive Director Enclosure cc: OWASA Board of Directors Everett Billingsley Albert Kittrell, Acting County Manager, Orange County Robert Morgan, Town Manager, Town of Carrboro David R. Taylor, Town Manager, Town of Chapel Hill An Equal Opportunity Employer ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY 055 CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON McLEMLA?J'S FARM SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL INCLUDING THE PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM November 16, 1987 Introduction Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) has reviewed plans for the McLennan's Farm Subdivision project, including preliminary information describing the proposed wastewater disposal system. This 14-lot residential development is planned to be located west of Carrboro, within the University Lake watershed. The project is located near Neville Creek, a major tributary to the lake which serves as the Chapel Hill - Carrboro community's primary drinking water supply. The project will result in increased nonpoint pollution from additional automobile traffic, soil disturbance and other activities. Additionally, the wastewater treatment and disposal system proposed to be utilized could result in adverse impacts on surface and ground water quality. Full assurances must be provided that this development, including the wastewater disposal system utilized, will not result in degradation or contamination of public and private drinking water supplies. OWASA staff offers the following comments and recommendations concerning the development plan and proposed wastewater treatment and disposal system for the McLennan's Farm Subdivision. Many of these comments are applicable to all development projects which propose to utilize subsurface and alternative wastewater disposal systems in public water supply watersheds. Comments on Wastewater Disposal System: 1. OWASA is not opposed to the utilization of subsurface soil absorption systems in public water supply watersheds where it is fully documented that the system is properly designed and long-term assurances are provided that the system will be well operated and maintained. The information provided on the proposed wastewater disposal system is inadequate to assure the long-term reliability of this system. Additional investigation is needed. The project engineer has reported that soils within -the project area are only "marginally" suitable for subsurface wastewater disposal purposes. Furthermore, these soils are located in an environmentally sensitive area- the University Lake public water supply watershed. The proposed location for the wastewater absorption field area appears to be less than desirable for such a system due to soil limitations, slopes and close proximity to natural drainage channels. It may be difficult to orient and maintain trenches parallel to ground contours. The design factors utilized should be based on a detailed site analysis of soils, topography, hydroaeology, long-term acceptable rate of soils, system hydraulic loading, and anticipated agronomic rates of uptake. Prior to the consideration of a permit for the proposed system, a detailed site evaluation must be performed by a registered professional soil scientist/hydrogeologist experienced in the siting and design of large soil absorption facilities, with appropriate assistance provided by the Agricultural Extension Service, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and other 4_. 056 agencies or firms with expertise in this field. Detailed inspections of the soil morphological characteristics to a depth of at least 6 feet below the infiltrative surface must be conducted and a full evaluation made of both the vertical permeability characteristics and the horizontal flow potential of the site. Some of the specific questions which the applicant should be required to address include: (a) the depth of the restrictive horizon; (b) the soil permeability above the restrictive horizon; (c) the extent of mounaing that can be expected to occur. 2. The preliminary design has been based upon a soil hydraulic loading rate (HLR) of 0.1 gallon of wastewater per square foot per day. This rate may be acceptable for subsurface absorption systems serving single family units on lots which have an assimilative area of one acre or more. Based on discussions with other parties who design these systems, CXWASA recommends that an HLR not exceeding 0.075 gallons per square foot per day be utilized in designing the proposed system, provided there is sufficient documentation showing that the design loading rate will not result in surface or ground water contamination problems. OWASA staff has completed a basic evaluation of the hydraulic loading rate and nitrogen loading rate for the proposed system. The proposed system would be designed to receive nearly 2.15 million gallons of wastewater per year. This equals an application rate of about 59 inches of wastewater per year over the proposed absorption area. That rate is about 1.2 times greater than the annual rate of precipitation for this area and would be in addition to rainfall absorption. Assuming the wastewater has a Total Nitrogen concentration of 25 parts per million (the actual concentration will probably be greater) and it is applied over an absorption field area of about 1.35 acres as proposed, more than 330 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year would be applied on the site. Even if it were assumed that the vegetative cover on the absorption field surface could utilize a substantial amount of that nitrogen, that rate would greatly exceed the expected rate of uptake by any established cover crop. Fescue 31, a common grass cover, has an uptake rate of approximately 150 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year. Even if Tifton 44 Coastal Bermudagrass is used to provide about the highest nitrogen uptake rate that could be expected for grass cover crops in the Piedmont (300 pounds per acre per year) , the nitrogen loading rate would be considerably more than the plant uptake rate. However, actual plant uptake rates would be :much lower because subsurface wastewater disposal is utilized. The excess nitrogen not taken up by plants will be carried away from the site by surface water runoff and/or seepage into the groundwater table. Higher nitrogen levels in surface waters can lead to algal growth and increased eutrophication in University Lake as well as bitter taste in drinking water. The present drinking water standard for nitrogen is 10 parts per million. Excessive nitrogen concentrations have been reported to cause health problems in infants and children. Similar concerns exist relative to excessive loadings of chlorides and sulphates. -2- From this analysis, it appears that the proposed hydraulic and pollutant 057 loading rate may be too high for the proposed absorption field area, given the concern for long-term protection of the quality of surface water and groundwater supplies. This concern is heightened by the fact that soils are only marginally suitable for wastewater disposal and the proposed nitrification field is located near a natural drainage channel. 3. The proposal to reserve a backup soil absorption area equal in size to the initially installed absorption field provides only an "after-the fact" approach to correcting future wastewater disposal problems. Under that approach, if a failure of the primary system occurred it would continue while the replacement system was being installed in the backup field. A greater degree of reliability and operational flexibility should be incorporated into this community system since a failure of the system would create a greater problem than failure of a single septic tank. To provide added assurance that the system will have a long, useful life, the primary soil absorption area should be periodically rested. This will allow the absorption field to gradually drain, thereby exposing the infiltrative surfaces to the air allowing bacteria to restore the field's infiltration capability. Periodic resting requires that a second absorption field exist to allow continued disposal while the first is in the recuperative phase. The systems can be alternated on a yearly basis (Reference 41) . This approach is required in Fairfax County, Virginia and other areas. OWASA recommends that at a minimum a dual, alternating absorption field system be required to be installed and utilized for this project. Additionally, the need for reserving an undisturbed backup area should be considered in the event either of the dual absorption areas fails. The combination of a lower hydraulic loading rate and redundant absorption facilities, together with a good maintenance and operation program should provide substantially greater reliability of the community waste disposal system functioning adequately and properly. As recommended in the literature, this conservative approach is justified "because (1) it is more difficult to achieve even distribution of effluent in large systems, thus making localized overloading more likely, (2) groundwater mounding may be a problem with these large systems, and (3) surface failures of these systems may present larger environmental and health consequences because of their size." (Reference 44) 4. Adequate measures must be taken to prevent the accidental discharge of wastewater from the proposed facilities into surface and ground waters. It is recommended that: a. A reserve storage tank be constructed to store the volume of wastewater which would be generated during a 24-hour peak day period. That would provide backup storage in the event a pump station failure occurred; b. The pump station must be capable of handling peak hour flows with the largest pump out of service; and c. Emergency standby power and alarm systems be installed at the pump station. -3- 058 5. The impact of the recreational uses of the area on the long-term suitability of the primary and back-up soil absorption area is not addressed. 6. When system failure does occur from soil clogging and wastewaters do seep to the surface, overland flow from rainfall may carry contaminants directly to a stream or lake. Another type of failure is when pollutants move too rapidly through soils. NASA recommends that appropriate surface water and groundwater monitoring be established to provide for early identification of system operating problems. The level of monitoring required should be reflective of the intensity of loading proposed. Stormwater runoff from the absorption field should be routed through an adequately sized detention pond as a further means of protecting stream quality. The detention pond can serve as a polishing lagoon and a sampling point. 7. The project developer has proposed to construct a small diameter pressure sewer system. CWASA recommends that because these lines are an important component of the system, the County or DEM should require that they be constructed to acceptable standards. This will help to reduce the potential for problems resulting from failure of the collection system. Utility construction should be properly inspected to assure compliance with the required standards. G. ASA also recommends that sewer utility easements be reserved so that such lines can be properly maintained. The easements must permit the lines to be maintained, repaired, constructed or reconstructed by the operating utility, in the event that it becomes necessary. S. A frequent cause of early failure of soil absorption systems is the use of poor construction techniques. Regular inspections during construction of the system must be undertaken by the Division of Environmental Management, Division of Health Services and/or the County Health Department to assure proper construction techniques and compliance with the approved plans. 9. The disposal of. the residue in the individual septic tanks is a concern. Also, the disposal of the solids separated in the central process-pumping facility has not been addressed. Will these solids be disposed of at the - County landfill? The developer should be required to provide assurances that septage will be pumped out on a regular basis and that it will be disposed of by a certified party in accordance with applicable State regulations. -4- C: 5:9 10. Operation and maintenance of the system, including pressure mains, includes periodic cleaning, repairing of leaks, and major replacement of pipe sections. The proper long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed system must be assured. It is stated that The individual on-site septic/pump tank installations will be the responsibility of each lot owner." This is, in essence, no control over major components of the system. CM+ASA recommends that periodic inspections be conducted by the Division of Environmental Management, the Division of Health Services and/or the County Health Department during ongoing operation of the system. Such inspections should include an evaluation of all components of the system, including gravity collection lines, pumps, tanks, and distribution piping. 11. Assuming that the system is ultimately installed as approved, assurance should be required that the operating organization is well-qualified with a sufficient history of satisfactory experience.- The'system engineer has stated that there will be a "homeowners association for the purpose of maintaining the subdivision's wastewater systems." This will be necessary for providing for the ongoing financing of the system, but the actual operation and maintenance of the system should be the responsibility of a technically qualified party. 12. The useful life of the proposed pumping units, and the associated costs of pump repair and replacement, should be addressed. Comments on Development Layout: 1. O'JASA is not opposed to development activities within the University Lake watershed, provided that such development does not impair University Lake water quality. Development activities in the watershed should be consistent with the primary public objective of protection of the public drinking water supply. 2. The subdivision plan is based upon the preliminary design for wastewater disposal. A detailed investigation of site suitability and consideration of the need for dual absorption fields may result in the need for greater absorption field area, which in turn could require modifications to the proposed subdivision layout and development density. 3. Full assurance must be provided that those areas identified as conservation and open space areas will remain as such and not be further developed. 4. Construction of the roads and dwellings will result in the disturbance of sloped areas, some of which are fairly steep (by Lots 1, 13 and 14 and Lots 8 and 11) . O.IASA has previously expressed concerns relative to the need for effective sedimentation and erosion control measures during and after project construction. Erosion problems exist at other recent subdivisions within the watershed and are of continuing concern to O,TPSA. Assurance must be provided that sedimentation and erosion control measures will be installed in a timely manner and permanently maintained. -5- oho 5. Public water and sewer service extensions into this area are not presently anticipated; however, public utility easements should be obtained as shown on the enclosed site plan to facilitate the provision of public sewer services in the event such extension is determined necessary in the future. By obtaining these easements in advance of site development, the costs, difficulty and timetable for extending public water and sewer lines into the area can be reduced. REFERENCES: 1. USEPA. Design Manual: Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems. 1980. 2. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. On-Site Wastewater Treatment: Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium. 1985. 3. Canter, Larry W. and Know, Robert C. Septic Tank System Effects on Ground Water Quality. .1985. 4. Cogger, Craig G. and Rubin, A. Robert. General Guidelines for Subsurface Treatment of Wastewater. 1983. -6- O R A N G E C O U N T Y INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 061 8712-1805 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Marvin E. Collins, Planning Director SUBJECT: PD-4-87 McLennan ' s Farm - Town of Carrboro Comments DATE: December 30, 1987 COPIES: Albert Kittrell , Interim County Manager Planning Board The Town of Carrboro has provided the following courtesy review comments regarding the proposed planned development. The comments are based on Carrboro--designated watershed zoning district requirements. Orange County Planning Staff comments are shown in ( ) . 1 . A fifty-foot buffer would be required on either side of the intermittent streams located on the site. (According to Orange County standards, stream buffers are not required along intermittent streams except in Water Quality Critical Areas. The site is not located in such an area. ) 2. Proposed plans for the tract of land to the north would be required ( i . e. , as a phased development) . (The applicant has provided a sketch of the proposed development of the tract to the north. The applicant is not required, however, to submit plans for the entire tract. A new application would be required if the tract to the north were proposed for development. ) 3. Impervious surface limitations (maximum allowed and proposed) should be on the plans. ( Impervious surface limitations have been denoted on the plans. ) 4. Trees having a diameter greater than 18" should be located on landscape plans. ( Neither the Zoning Ordinance nor the Subdivision Regulations require that trees with a diameter greater than 18 inches be located on the plan. ) 5. The agency or organization which will be responsible for maintenance of the proposed sewer treatment facilities should be clearly noted on the plans. 062 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8712-1805 PD-4-87 McLennan ' s Farm - Town of Carrboro Comments December 30, 1987 Page 2 ( Responsibility for maintenance has not been established by the applicant. Either a homeowners association, contracting with a private firm, or a public utility will be responsible for operation and maintenance of the wastewater system. ) 6. Copies of all State permits required for the sewage disposal systems should be submitted prior to issuance of any building permits. (The Planning Staff has recommended that this be a condition of approval . ) 7 . The exact nature of all potential recreation activities ( passive or active) expected for the recreation space should be addressed on plans. Also the distance between the edge of the nitrification field and the existing stream is not clear. (The narrative indicates that a Jogging trail will be installed , including numerous exercise stations and picnic tables. The open area will be mowed and available for use as an open play area by the residents of the development. The comments have, however, been included as a condition of approval . ) 8. Proposed grading and clearing limit lines would be needed . (Grading and clearing limits will be defined on sedimentation and erosion control plans. A condition of approval has been added to address this concern. ) 9. Proposed stormwater culvert sizes should be indicated , and hydrologic calculations verifying their adequacy should be provided . Detailed drawings of the culvert and road crossings are also needed. ( Stormwater culvert sizes and hydraulic calculations will be provided with detailed plans for road construction submitted to NCDOT. A condition of approval has been added to address this concern. ) 10. If the road is to be extended, a notation to that effect should be on the plans, and signage should be installed at that end of the cul -de-sac when the road is built. (A condition of approval has been added to address this concern. ) 11 . Proposed house locations and driveways are needed to verify proposed impervious surface areas. (House locations and driveways are denoted on applications tur INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8712-1805 063 PD-4-87 Mclennan ' s Farm - Town of Carrboro Comments December 30, 1987 Page 3 building permits. Compliance with impervious surface requirements is determined on a lot-by- lot basis at that time. ) 12. Proposed well sites should be indicated . ( Individual well sites are proposed and would be approved by the Health Department. ) The Town of Carrboro also recommended that State permit records be reviewed for previously approved LPS sewage disposal systems to ascertain if there have been problems with failures of such systems. This information will be provided at the public hearing. ?c Iv D 064 arrbor N.C. Wt,F u g4 _8544 November 18 , 1987 Emily Crudup Orange County Planning 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: McLennan' s Farm Courtesy Review Dear Emily: The Town of Carrboro would have the following comments on this proposed development : If located within a Carrboro designated watershed zoning district , the following items would be needed on plans: -- a fifty foot buffer would be required on either side of the intermittent streams located on this site - proposed plans for the tract of land to the north would be required ( ie. , as a phased development ) - impervious surface limitations (maximum allowed and proposed) should be on the plans - trees having a diameter greater than 18" should be located on landscape plans - the agency or organization which will be responsible for maintenance of the proposed sewer treatment facilities should be clearly noted on the plans - copies of all state permits required for the sewage disposal systems should be submitted prior to issuance of any building permits -the exact nature of all potential recreation activities (passive or active) expected for the recreation space should be addressed on plans. Also the distance between the edge of the nitrification field and the existing stream is not clear. -proposed grading and clearing limit lines would be needed -proposed stormwater culvert sizes should be indicated, and hydrologic calculations verifying their adequacy should be provided. Detailed drawings of the culvert & road crossings are also needed. McLennan' s Farm 065 November 18 , 1987 Page 2 --if the road is to be extended, a notation to that effect should be on the plans, and signage should be installed at that end of the cul-de-sac when the road is built -proposed house locations and driveways are needed to verify proposed impervious surface areas -proposed well sites should be indicated. It is recommended that state permit records be reviewed for previously approved LPS sewage disposal systems to ascertain if there have been problems with failures ,of such systems. It is my understanding that the upcoming November 23 , 1987 meeting is to receive preliminary information and comments, and that a formal decision will not be made on that date . We would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on future plan submittals for this project if substantially revised plans are submitted to the County prior to the public hearing for final approval . Per their request , a copy of these comments will be forwarded to our Board of Aldermen and Planning Board. Sincerely, Amy Pa ker Development Coordinator cc: Carrboro Planning Department Carrboro Board of Aldermen Carrboro Planning Board Robert Morgan, Town Manager r i NJ i NUS OF ML ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARiMEIII PERTAINING TO APPLICATION PD-4-87 Me-Lennan's Farm Planned developments must comply with general and specific standards as set forth In Article 8 for Special Uses as well as those set forth in Article 7 for Planned Developments. Article 8.2.1 b) requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: (1) Specific regulations governing individual Special Uses as set forth in Article 8.8. These regulations are divided into two (2) sections which include: (a) Application components; and (b) Specific standards for Planned Developments (Article 8.8.23 refers to Article 7 standards) and Special Uses (Article 8,2,4) (2) Other requirements as set forth In the zoning Ordinance, including the -provisions of Article 5 (Dimensional Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements) ' Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department regarding the application in question. The findin( have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Planning Board in Its deliberations. ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8,8 APPLiCATION 'COMPONENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" Indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings_ Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings 8.6-Application submitted on forms x Yes No Submittal includes application forms, Yes No providing full and accurate preliminary plan, narrative, including decsription of proposed use, Includ- report on wastewater facilities. ing location, appearance and opera- tional characteristics 8.8 a)-Seven (7) copies of the site Yes No p p provided Yes No plan prepared by a registered N.C. "X' ?_O copies of- the site Tan were by Dan Jewell of CH:, Associates. land surveyor or engineer containing: 1 . North point, scale and date X Yes No Shown on the site plan. Yes No 2, Extent of area to be developed X Yes No Site plan indicates extent of area to be developed. Narrative includes concept for Yes NO 3. Location!.and width of all ease- Yes X NO future development not shown on preliminary plan. ' meats and rights-of-way within ii A 12-foot utility easement is shown parallel Yes No or adjacent to the site and adjacent to the right-of-way for McLennan's' �i Farm. Drainage easements will be required, including 4 access/utility easements for nitrification fields . i ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support findings Findings r 4, Location of all existing or pro- Yes X No Exercise stations are indicated on the plan Yes No posed structures on the site for recreation purposes. No residential structures are showns. 5. Location of all areas on the site X Yes No Development is not within flood hazard area . Yes No subject to flood hazard or inunda- and is so indicated by note on plan. tion as shown on flood maps or r. soil maps 6. Location of ail water courses X Yes No All intermittent streams and a spring with on the site, including the direction of flows are provided. A pond Yes No direction of flow is shown on lot A, but the water level is not indicated. 7. Existing topography at a contour X Yes No Topography at a 5 foot contour interval is yes No interval of five (5) feet based provided. (A note should reference source) on mean sea level datum $. Proposed or existing fencing, x Yes No Existing fences are indicated on the plan Yes No screening, gates, parking, as well as proposed fence at entrance. service and storage areas Fencing around nitrification field needed to limit vehicular access and avoid com- paction of soils. �. Access to site Including sight X Yes ' No Sight distances at Bowden Road and Yes No distances on all roads used for McLennan's Farm Road are provided. The sight access distances are not shown at the intersection of McLennan"s' Farm and George Poe Road. 10, Elevations of all structures Yes ' X No Elevations were not included with the proposed to be' used in the application. Elevations of structures Yes No development within a single-family residential development are not required. 11 . Names and addresses of owners " ' X Yet ' No Provided on the plan. Y ' No and applicants Yes ' A fee, as set by the Board of " X Yes " No $650.00 application fee paid on 10-9-87. Yes No County Commissioners ARTICLE 8,2.4 SPECIFIC STANDARDSALL SPECIAL USES ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted. To Support Findings Findings Article 8.2 .4 requires the applicant to address the following: a) Method and adequacy of provision Yes -X No Applicant has provided on the plan and in for sewage disposal facilities, the narrative a description of the system Yes ORo solid waste and water service proposed for sewage disposal , Effluent from individual septic tanks on each lot will be pumped to a common nitrification field for ' disposal. The applicant has net with representatives } from OWASA to address concerns expressed by OWASA in their review of McLennan's Farr. (see attached comments) Water will be supplied from individual wells. No information was provided regarding collection and disposal of-solid-waste. b) Method and adequacy of police, X Yes No Letters from the Orange County Sheriff, Yes fire and rescue squad protec- Emergency Services, and White Cross No tion Volunteer Fire Department were provided with the application. All agencies will be able to provide services to McLennan' s Farm. e) Method and adequacy of vehicle " ' Yet "X No McLennan's Farm Road with-access to the yes No access to the site and traffic -.State Road and George Poe .Road are conditions around the site indicated on the plan. A statement has been' provided in the narrative which indicates the roads will be build to State standards. of construction. NC Department of Transportation has reviewed the plan with comments and requested revised plans. Information on traffic conditions around the site -was riot submitted with the application., ARTICLE 8,$,23-SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Article 8.8.23 Indicates thbt the application shall comply with the applicable sections of Article ]-Planned Developm ARTICLE ]-SPECIFiC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVtCOPMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance-"Noll indicates n n o com 1i Ordinance Requirements Planning Staff Findings ENidd-hce Submitted To Support Findings Planning Article 7,4 Indicates the applica- tion must first comply with oii requirements specified in Article 20 - Amendments. Those requirements include; 20.3.2 a) Map showing affected x Yes No property at scale of not less 1" Site plan provided at a scale of l"=60' , than i" = 100' nor more than Yes No 20' , 20,3,2 b) Legal descritptlon of Yes property X No No legal description was provided, Yes NO 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged Yes No N/A error, if any, to be corrected by - No error alleged. Yes No proposed amendment 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, if Yes No N/A - Changed conditions not alleged. any, which make amendment reasona- Yes No bly necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare 20•3.2 e) Manner In which proposed X Yes No The property is located in 'an area amendment wi l l carry out purpose Yes No rehensi�e and intent of adopted Com designated as Rural Buffer in the Plan p Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan which permits low density residential development where urban services are not likely .to be extended. The site is also within a water supply water- shed, and the development will consist of large lots (greater than two acres) with limited amounts of impervious surface. ARTICLE ] - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article �.2 identifies the ' criteria which will normally be used to determine the appal- CD cation of a zoning district -11 designation. The applicant has O applied for a _Planned Development-Housing Rural Buffer designation. The criteria for that district are set forth in Article 4.2. 1 and are as follows: _ a) Designated by the adapted X Yes No The property is designated as Rural Yes No countywide Land Use Plan as Buffer and Water Supply Watershed on Rural Buffer or by the both the County Land Use Plan and the adopted Joint Planning Area Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Land Use Plan as Rural Residential or both. b K Yes No Current County policy discourages the Yes No Urban distribution including extension of water and sewer lines water distribution and into watershed and rural areas. OWASA sewage collection mains are not likely within does not anticipate expanding service to this area. C) 10-20 years. Yes No • Yes No d) Yes No Yes No e) Yes No Yes No r , ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planninq Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 1.4 then indicates the application must comply with certain specific requirements common to all Planned Develop- ments. These include: 1.4 . 1 So located with respect to X Yes No Direct access is provided via proposed Yes No major streets and mass transit McLennan' s Farm Road and George Poe Road facilities and designed so as not to Bowden Road (Sii. 1946) . No minor to create traffic an minor streets residential streets will be affected by in residential districts this project as designed. 7.4 .2 So located with respect to X Yes No The proposed development will not have Yes No water, sewer and storm drainage access to public water, sewer or storm ' facilities that enlargement or drainage facilities; therefore, no extension will not result in higher net public cost will result. higher net public cost or earlier incursion of public cost and So located with respect to X Yes No Letters regarding adequate service' Yes No police fire and rescue services provision have been received from the and schools and parks so as to Sheriff's Department, and fire, and have access in the same manner rescue services. as permitted under the existing zoning No flood plain exists on the site, The applicant will be required to provide 1.4.3 Site suitable for develop- X Yes No drainage easements on the spring as Well Yes 406' ment without hazard from flooding, as on the intermittent "stream. Slopes range erosion, and soil subsidence or from less than 2% to 27%. An erosion control slipping. plan and stormwater management plan will be required to ensure protection of slopes. Ak 1 i LLL ji LL 11 IL S i ANUARUS FOR LYALUA 1lUN/PLANNLU UEVELOPMENi S (continued) Planning Staff Planning 8oar( Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findin s Article 7.14.3 sets forth "site planning" standards with which an applicant must comply. Standards . 0 regarding "external relationships" are as follows: 01 . Access points provided to X Yes No Access will be provided via a proposed road encourage smooth traffic Yes No g off State Road lg�b, Bowden Road. NCDOT has flow with controlled turn- made comments and requested revised plans. ing movements and minimum No minor streets will be affected by this hazard to vehicular or development. George Poe Road will serve only pedestrian traffic. Use of four lots. minor streets by substan- tial traffic is discouraged. 02. Safe and convenient. routes Yes X No Pedestrian routes have not been shown. A Yes No provided for pedestrians 12 Foot utility easement could serve as and motorcyclists. Crossings pedestrian access easement. safely marked, located and controlled. a)3. Visibility provided at inter- Yes X No Sight distances and sight triangles are Yes seetions , (pedestrien and shown on the plan at the intersection of No vehicular) in accordance with McLennan 's Farm Road and Bowden Road. MCDOT Article 6.$: has requested dedication of the sight triangles. Sight distances are not indicated for George 3)4. 100-foot open space provided Yes No Poe Road. Yes No along perimeter of PD-H N/A-J OO foot open space not required. PD-H will —� district. Recreational use be developed only for uses permitted in adjacent and off-street parking set Rural Buffer district. back at least 75 feet of district boundary. 3)5. Yards, fences, walks or X Yes' No Additional landscaping is proposed at the Yes No vegetation provided to entrance, along the streets, and in the screen aff undesirable setback areas. views, lighting, noise, etc. Parking/loading areas and refuse collection/storage areas screened. 1 ►� JIAvUOMU5 I urt LVALUA11U1v/1'LAWNLU ULVLLUI'HLN15 (LonLjnued) Planning Staff Planning Boar Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Findings Article 7.14.3 standards continued: , 06. Maximum building Yes X No Maximum building height in RB district is 25 feet. Yes height complies with No elevations of proposed structures were standards set forth Compliance of individual units will be determi�nedd. in Article 6.72.3 end Article 5.1 .1 upon issuance of a building permit. 8)7. Signs to be erected in Yes x No Sign location is indicated on the plan. Mo accordance with Article 9. Yes No dimensions were given on the sign. The maximum sign area is 16 square feet. Compliance with Standards regarding "internal dimensional requirements will be determined upon relationships"are as Follows: issuance of building pgrmits. b)1 . Streets, drives and parking x Yes No Site plan indicates that steets are so designed as Yes No areas provide safe and con- to provide safe and convenient access. A cross venient access For dwellings walk is recommended at the recreation area. and emergency vehicles, and do not create small block sizes. 02. Vehicular access controlled as follows: a) Streets serving 50 or X Yes No Each lot will have private drives to access parking. Yes No less dwellings provide direct access to-parking/ service areas, 02. b) Streets serving greater Yes No Not applicable. Yes No than 50 dwellings provide access to parking areas so located, designed and controlled as to channel traffic without interruption. 03. Walkways form safe, con- —Yes X No No system of walkwaysis shown. A 12-foot utility Yes No venient system of access to easement can serve as a pedestrian access easement dwellings, facilities and to connect lots with the recreation area. off-site designations. Maximum walking distance between dwellings and parking; delivery and refuse collection areas does not exceed 100 feet,' ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings findings Article 7. 14.3 standards , continued: Walkways used as play X Yes No The jogging trail is confined. to -the Y* No areas or school routes recreation/open; space. - A crosswalk by children located and can be prodded where -.the jogging ..t.rai 1 designed to minimize meets Mc Len nan'S' Farm:Road..' :.. . contact with vehicular traffic. Crossings appropriately marked and safeguarded. 04. Protection of visibility- See 03. and W. above. b)5. Open space and spacing between buildings- See Article 6 standards. . ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No". indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Planning Boarc Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Findings Article 5 lists standards for minimum lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building height and lot coverage, and development intensity. The applicant has applied for a PD-M-RB designation. The standards ' for that district are set forth in Article 5.1 . 1 and are as follows: a) Minimum lot area per X Yes No Minimum lot size shown on plan is 87,600 Yes No dwelling unit - 87, 120 sq. ft. Maximum lot size is 126,530 sq. ft. sq.ft. b) Minimum lot s width - X Yes' No . • Minimum lot width shown on plan for conven- Yes No q ft' tional lot is 185 feet. c) Required front setback - Yes NO Typical 40-foot front yard setback shown on Yes No 40 -f L. plan. d) Required side and rear Yes. No Typical 20-foot side and rear yard setbacks Yes No setbacks - 20 -ft. +shown on plan. e) Maximum building height - Yes . X No Maximum building height is 25 feet, No proposed Yes No �5 Ft. building elevations have been provided. Com- pliance with building height requirements will be determined for each lot upon issuance of a Compliance with lot coverage building permit. and development intensity .. standards is addressed in Article 6 O ch ARTICLE 6 - APPLICAITON OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 6 lists specific , standards which apply to various- types of development applications. Article 6.12 contains those development intensity standards which apply to group developments controlled by the Land Use Intensity (LUI) system. ' 1 a) Minimum gross land X, Yes No Applicant's site son'tains 37 acres or Yes No area - 174,240 sq. Ft. 1 ,611 ,726 sq.ft. b) Maximum gross land Yes No Article 5. 1 . 1 of Zoning Ordinance. Yes No area - Hone sq. specified 0,-Maximum Floor ratio - X _Yea No Maximum permitted by ordinance is 94,288 sq.ft. Yes No 6058 Applicant's plan indicates (in table) maximum Maximum floor area floor area limit of 94, 801 sq. ft. permitted - 94,288 sq. ft. d) Required minimum open x Yes ' NO Applicant's plan indicates 1 ,372,979 minimum Yee No space ratio - .84 sq, ft. of open space. Required minimum open space - 1 ,365,554 sq. ft: Note: See Appendix A For "Definitions", \RTICLt 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) • Planning StafF '� ' � � Planning Board ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings article 6.12 standards continued) Required minimum live- Yes No Applicant's submission indicates 1 ,225,874 Yes No ability space ratio - minimum sq.- ft. .75 Required minimum liveability space - 1 ,219,245 sq. rt. f') Required minimum recreation x Yes NO Applicant's plan lndlcatesrecreation areas totaling Yes No space ratio - .031 i83,500sq.ft. which exceeds the minimum requirement Required minimum recreation by- 264%. The applicant is 'also required to submit space - 50,395 sq. Ft, payment {$983} in lieu of dedication bf recreation open space according to the Subdivision Regulations. 1) Required minimum open Yes No Yes No space adjacent to Not applicable in case of detached single-family building wails " units. Primary walls rt. Secondary walls ft. Tertiary walls ft. Article 6.13.1 requires that Yes No Not applicable in the case of detached single family Yes No -init ownership of condominium units. ievelopments be declared and.. prepared in compliance with the "unit Ownerhsip Act of North Carolina," Vote: See Appendix A for "Definitions". ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (continued). Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements +Findings Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Findings Article 6.23 Lists extra requirements for Protected Watershbd Districts (PW-II ) V 6.23.1 Stream buffers required Yes No Not applicable. Streams on property Yew No along perennial streams are intermittent, not perennial . Drainage easements will be required. 6.23.4 Impervious surface X Yes No Impervious surface areas are listed Yes No Regulated in Protected Watersheds for each lot on the plan. Road surfaces Maximum allowed impervious surface have been included. The total proposed is 12% of each lot area. impervious surface for the project is 11 .91%. Site plans for each lot will be required prior to issuance of building permits. 6.23.5 The minimum residential X Yes No Limited suitable sites for septic tank Yes No lot size shall be determined by disposal prompted the proposal of an the wastewater treatment system alternate system for treatment of waste applicable. water. Lot sizes exceed the 2-acre minimum established as part of the Rural Buffer. 6.23.7 Within the Protected Water- Yes X No A stormwater management plan will be Yes No shed It district the first one-half required. inch (I") of runoff from all impervious surfaces in new develop- ments shall be controlled. 6.23.8 Within Protected Watershed Yes X No An erosion control plan will be required. Yes No II districts, a minimum of the amount Site plans for each lot required for of undisturbed area necessary to meet building permits with designated areas impervious surface requirements to remain undisturbed. provided in 6.24.4 shall remain undisturbed during the construction process. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT `~ 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 679 lif.!II CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Marvin E. collinz , Zoning Officer,, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about November 6 . 1987. I mailed by certified mail, postage prepaid. a Notice of Public Hearing to be held on the request for a planned • -v- o• e t-s. - U - •- m't • c - , , - u, • _ - • DD Old Greensboro. Highway SSR 1005) B9w_den Road_ (BR 1946) , in Chapel Hill Township, to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20.6 .3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning Classification change. WITNESS my hand. this the 20th day of November, 1987 . lil` G8 E MARVIN E. COLLINS ZONING OFFICER A 080 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No_ Zj ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE January 4, 1988 Subject: RESOLUTION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTONOMY I Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ( Public Hearing: Yes X no 1 I f l Attachments: Information Contact: Shirley E. Marshal • Resolution Phone Numbers: 132-8181, 968-45Ol, 227--0231 PURPOSE: To consider the adoption of a resolution to express support for the long-standing tradition of local autonomy in setting salaries and fringe benefits of County employees. BACKGROUND: There has been recent legislation which has affected the counties' . authority to determine certain local employees' benefits and salaries. The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners urges each county to consider the adoption , of a resolution urging maximum local autonomy in setting salaries and fringe benefits of County employees. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution and authorize the Chair to sign. Copies of the resolution will be sent to the County Commissioners' Association and to the State Legislators. 081 A RESOLUTION URGING MAXIMUM LOCAL AUTONOMY IN SETTING SALARIES AND FRINGE BENEFITS OF COUNTY EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, North Carolina has a national reputation for its strong and effective county government; and WHEREAS, that national recognition includes an acknowledge- ment of the large amount of home rule afforded counties by the North Carolina General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the National Advisory Committee on Intergovern- mental Relations in a recent survey ranked North Carolina among the top states in the nation for the amount of home rule afforded counties and cities; and • WHEREAS, recent actions of the General Assembly have restricted this local autonomy in that the General Assembly has enacted special mandated retirement systems for law enforcement officers and most recently registers of deeds; and WHEREAS, at a recent meeting of the Social Services Study Commission, the Social Services Association in testimony before the committee recommended mandatory salaries for social workers; and WHEREAS, it is not in the best interest of an effective and strong county government system for continued deterioration of home rule relating to county employees salaries and fringe benefits be continued. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that: — - 1. The General Assembly of North Carolina is commended for the high degree of local authority which has been granted to county government in North Carolina. 2. It is desirable for this high degree of local authority to be continued. 3. Deterioration. in this local authority such as was evidenced in the recent law enforcement and register of deeds retirement action is of great concern to county government. 4. The General Assembly is urged to refrain from additional restraints and restrictions so that the strong tradition of county government authority may continue to serve the citizens of North Carolina. This the _ day of January, 1988, Chair Attest: ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NOI1 MEETING DATE JANUARY 4, 1988 082 SUBJECT: Resolution regarding -JTPA eligibility determination method • DEPARTMENT: Commission for Women J I PUBLIC HEARING: YES Y NO ATTACHMENT(S) : Resolution INFORMATION CONTACT: Andi Reynolds PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 • CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 . = MEBANE -- 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To transmit a resolution to the Board. • • . Background: The Commission for Women is studying issues of women and aging. The Employment Committee of the Commission has learned that the NC Job Training Council 's Older Workers Committee will soon consider the issue of determining income eligibility of persons aged 55 and over for participation in the Job Training Partnership Act. The current method of determining eligibility for JTPA in North Carolina does not include Social Security and Title V . payments, the income of separated or divorced spouses, and the income of adult children living with and primarily supporting the potential participant. However, the income of spouses is still counted. For many women of the particular generation now aged 55 and over, this presents a considerable barrier to participating in the JTPA Older workers Program (also known as the "3 percent" program) . . Crucial to understanding the dilemma is recognition of the - demographic fact that the average age of widowhood is 59, and that most women currently 55 and over do not possess either the work ' history or. occupational skills to be self-- or family-supporting in the case of their husband's death or disability. The ultimate -- effect of the current income eligibility is to require women (and some men) to wait until they are widowed and/or in poverty to become eligible to learn how. to support themselves. Nineteen other states, including South Carolina, have changed their state income eligibility determination methods to allow persons aged 55 .and over to be considered as a "family of one," thus excluding their spouse 's income and making them eligible earlier, . more preventively. • 083 The Orange County Commission for Women is leading other local councils and commissions for women in a lobbying effort of the North Carolina Council on the Status of Women, the Legislature and local Boards of. County Commissioners. We recommend that a resolution urging a change in the eligibility determination method described above be forwarded to the Secretary of the NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, copied to the Chair of the NC Job Training Council, and to the County's legislative representatives. Such a resolution should be sent by mid-January to be effective. Recommendation: That the Board adopt the resolution and forward it to the appropriate parties named above. • 084 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, because of the exceptional circumstances of the lives of persons aged 55 and over with regard to employment, particularly for women in this age group, and because Congress has given states the flexibility to shape the Job Training Partnership Act to meet their unique social and economic conditions, the Orange County Board of Commissioners urges the North Carolina Job Training Council to change the state's guidelines for determining income eligibility for this group. WHEREAS, an action that allows persons 55 and older to exclude their spouse' s income would prevent women, espe- cially, whose average age at widowhood is 59, from having to wait until widowhood or poverty strikes before enjoying the training and employment opportunities offered by the JTPA Older Workers Program. Such a change would positively address needs identified in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro League of Women Voters October 1987 report, "Meeting Basic Human Needs. " THUS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners resolves that the N. C. Job Training Council and its administrative arm, the N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, should change the income determination defini- tion for persons aged 55 and over from "family income" to "family of one" and urges them to do so as quickly as is reasonably possible. This the 4th day of January, 1988. Board of Commissioners Chair Attest: _ Clerk to the Board ORANGE COUNTY 085 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No Meeting Date: JANUARY 4, 1988 SUBJECT: AGRICULTURE EXTENSION CHAIRMAN RECRUITMENT DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S NONE OFFICE,X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Review of County Agriculture Extension Chairman Selection Process. BACKGROUND: Bill Mainous, County Agriculture Extension Chairman, announced his retirement in December effective February 29, 1988. The State Agriculture Extension Service has initiated the position advertisement portion of the recruitment process. However, the selection process is a joint effort between the State Extensions Service and County Government. Dr. Clyde Chesney, District Director, Agriculture Extension Service will outline, for the Board's review and comment, the selection process. All Agriculture Extension positions receive shared funding (50% State and 50% County) . RECOMMENDATION(S) : Received as information. ORANGE COUNTY 086 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Art ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: JANUARY 4, 1988 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS BOARD SUPPORT FOR CAPACITY USE DESIGNATION DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S NONE OFFICE,X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To discuss recommendation of the Environmental Affairs Board. BACKGROUND: The Environmental Affairs Board at its December 3, 1987 meet- ing, recommended that the Board of Commissioners support the Capacity Use Designation of the Eno River. David Moreau, Chair, Environmental Affairs Board, will be present to answer questions. RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. 087 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. � ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 4, 1988 SUBJECT: Tax Refunds Request DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No Tax Supervisor ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Individual Request TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill -- 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider 5, request for refund of tax bills. BACKGROUND: General Statutes 105-381 (b.) Action of Governing Body - Upon receiving a taxpayers written statement of defense and request for release or refund, the governing body of the Taxing Unit shall within 90 days after receipt of such a request determine whether the taxpayer has a valid defense to the tax imposed or any part thereof and shall either release or refund that portion of the amount that is determined to be in excess of the current liability or notify the taxpayer in writing that no release or refund will be made. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approval of refunds. ACCT # 77564 8 8 TRACTS 714280 MAP 7.17. .4o Clark, James Boyd, Jr. BALD 856611 & Cynthia P. Hansel 1 Pinetree Lane 866731 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 - COMMENT: Per. letter, 1984 Dats. Niss. was leased but was listed for 1985 and 1986. Taxes already paid for 1985.and 1986. Taxpayer requests refund on RC 07. • .Ref:Ref :General Statute 105.o381(a)(1)b. Illegal tax due to duplicate. payment on same automobile by both lessee and lessor. • ACTION REQUESTED: Refund tax on 1984 Dats. Niss. for 1985-- Value $15,040, - • - -. - 1986 Value $13610 - .. 1985. 1986 - . GO $83.48 $86.25 - - SC 3.76 4.18 - TOTAL REFUND: • CH 26.47 27.68 ' - $244.79 FD 6.02 6,96 $119.73 $125.07 RECOIINDATION: ' Approve - • • ORDER ; : DATE: • ACCT # 59382 TRACT/I 089 - NAP L. L. Hiday BZLLO 8733474 (1987) 1424 Arboretum Dr. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 • • COMMENT: Property Tax Bill paid on computer equipment by both the leasing company and the "individual. Individual-request a tax refund.for.1986 and 1987. Ref: General Statute 105-381(a)(1)b. Illegal tax due 'to duplicate - tax payment on same reported equipment: ACTION REQUESTED: Refund 1986 and 1987 taxes on leased computer . equipment. 1986 valuation: $4,050 1887 Valuation: $3,645 - • • GO $26.32 - GO $22..09' - - G2 $28.35 FJ 1.46 ' CH $ 8.06 ' CH - 6..01 - .- - $62.73 �� $29.56 . - - RECOMMENDATION: • Approve • • • ORDER : .. - DATE: • • ACCT A 4886 090 TRACT', 301884 MAP 3.28. .7 Lee W. Settle BLL# 8711298 P.O. Box 277 Mebane, NC 27243 • • COMMENT: A review of referenced property by Land Records Department - indicates subject parcel should be .3915 acres instead of the essesse¢ :s2 acres'', Property was transferred to Mr. Settle - in March 1985. • • • • Ref: General Statute 105-381(a)(1)a. Tax imposed through - clerical-error in size of lot. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund 1986 and 1987 tax overpayment p yment based on . . incorrect assessment due to an error in property- size. . 1986 Valuation $3,270 - • 1987-Valuation $8,546 TOTAL GO $21,26 - _ FB $ .82 - -GO $51.79 .. $22.08 FB 2:73 $54,52 ' ------ -- _ 76:60 $22.08 $54.52 ' • • RECOMMENDATION: Approve OER : : _ RD DATE: . • . TWP 7 ACC-1-;----1-2:;;;7---------- CCT D 124159 TRACTf 702307 - [ ] MAP 7.76.x.10 John Bachmann BILLS 8765214 920 Damascus Ch. Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 [ COMMENT: A review of subject property by Land Records.Department indicates the s1zN subject parcel should be 100 x 269 instead of the assessed 100 x 3.77: e of Ref: . General Statute'105,3$1(a)(1)a: Tax imposed through clerical error in depth of -lot.. • ACTION REQUESTED: Request 4 year tax refund as indicated below. 1987 . taxes were corrected before payment. Valuation_ $2,040 1983 1984 •1985 1986 TOTAL GO , 11.22 $11.22 $11 8 x'13.26- - 28.16 - . G2 . 13.97 - 13.97 13:97. 14.28 28.37. CH 2.97. 3.18" 3,59 4y06 29.39 $28.16 _1 31.'60 _ $28.37 $29.39 . $31.60 —.— - $117:52 • RECOMMENDATION: Approve • • ORDER : : DATE: i . • ACCT # 12298 092 • TRACTU 501040 C MAP 5.22. .3 Riley, Preston William rILL$ ' 8746132 5570 Vantage Point Rd. , Apt Columbia, MD 21044 • • • • COOGENT: 79 Chev - listed thru error. Auto actually located in Maryland._ Did not list until Feb 1987. Bill paid when discovered. - - - Bill ##8746132. • _. • General Statute 105-381(a)(1)b. Illegal- tax due to taxpayer - listing •vehcile in error which was not situated in•0range County, on Jan i,- 1987. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund tax overpayment for tax year 1987. Valuation $8,270 G0 $50.12 - FE 4.96 $55.08 . - - • • RECOMMENDATION: Approve • ORDER : : DATE: • • 093 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agen a ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: JANUARY 4+, 1988 SUBJECT: Project Ordinance Amendment DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Finance Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:Ken Chavious Proposed Project ordinance TELEPHONE NUMBER: ext. 496 Amendment Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To approve Section 8 Housing Project Ordinance Amendment. • :BACKGROUND: The Orange County Housin g and Community Development Department = receives_ Section-8 funds annually, - These funds finance the . de on a- calendar year basis . with no County matching funds required. This project Programs _ =Amendment will establish the 1988 calendar rrbudgt s for the following Housin Assistance programs budgets .for Section 8 Existing 0 ,.192 Section Moderate Rehabilitation 324 ,597 Section 8 Housing" Vouchers 146, 129. :RECOMMENDATION(S)::... Approve Project Ordinance Amendment for receipt 8 Housing Funds for calendar year 19888 of 8_ 094 ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED HOUSING AMENDMENT The 1980-81 Project Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on December 1 , 1980 , and subsequently amended , is hereby amended as follows : BEFORE _'_.-: : .__ . .. _ AFTER AMENDMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT Appropriation : Housing - 1988 Section 8--- Existing $ -0- $1,260 , 142 $1 , 260, 142 Housing - 1988 Section 8- Moderate Rehab -0- 324 ,597 324 , 597 Housing. - 1988 Section 8- Housing Vouchers 146 , 129 L146, 129 Source : 1988 Section 8 - Existing Federal Grant 70 1 ,260 , 142 1, 260,142 : 1988 Section 8 - Mod Rehab Federal Grant -0- 324 ,597 324 ,597 1988 Section 8 - Housing Vouchers Federal Grant -0- 146 , 129 146 , 129 To budget for Federal Section 8 Housing funds available to Orange County. Approved this 4 day of January, 1988, ORANGE COUNTY 095 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGEND ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. MEETING DATE SUBJECT: January 4, 1988 gay Shelter Grant Agreement *********************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: Housing & Community Development PUBLIC HEARING YES X NO ************************************************************************** ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara Pikes • 1. Funding Approval Form 2. Emergency Shelter Grant Agreement 3. Agreement with Inter-Faith Council NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8181 - HILLSBOROUGH 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL 967-9251 MEBANE 227-2031 UAM 6 -7331 *************************************************D*** ********88********* PURPOSE: To approve execution of the Emergency Shelter Grant Agreement, Funding Approval and Agreement with the subgrantee - Inter- Faith Council for Social Service. BACKGROUND: On December 10, 1987, Orange County was awarded $13,648 in Emergency Shelter Grant funds to be used for the IFC Homeless Shelter in Chapel Hill. Thus, the Interfaith Council will serve as subrecipient and expend the funds for food, clothing, maintenance supplies and furnishings for the shelter. Addition- ally, $6,551 of the total award will be used to assist with rehabilitation of the Old Police Building used by the Shelter. The County must execute a Grant Agreement and Funding Approval form in order to receive the grant funds. These documents along with the approved Grant Application and regulations constitute a contract between NRCD and Orange County. Additionally, an agreement between Interfaith and y executed which will County needs to be approved services. govern the expenditure of funds for the All documents have been forwarded to the appropriate County Officials for review. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the execution of the Emergency Shelter Grant Agreement, Funding Approval and Agreement with Interfaith Council and authorize the Chair to sign an behalf of the board. 098 EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM FUNDING APPROVAL FORM 1. Name and Address of Recipient 2. NRCD Grant Number County of Orange 87-H-1094 106 E. Margaret Lane -��- Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 (X) ORIGINAL Date: 12/11/87 3. Name of Subrecipient: ( ) AMENDMENT Date: Interfaith Council for Social Services, Inc. 4. ESGP Funds Approved for: ( ) Operations $ Services $ 0/S Total $ (X) Rehabilitation $ 6,551 5. Activities Approved for Funding: All requested Rehabilitation activities are approved as renovation. Asbestos removal should be a discrete project, with contract signed after the execution of the Grant Agreement. Secretary of N. C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development BY: - 1� Z. ZI4ArsAsi& _ Robert E. Chandler, Director Division of Community Assistance Government of Authorized Local y Government Official December 11, 1987 Date Typed Name of Local Government Official Title Date ESGP #108 (Revised 11/87) EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM 097 FUNDING APPROVAL FORM 1. Name and Address of Recipient 2. NRCD Grant Number County of Orange 87-H-1093 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 (X) ORIGINAL Date: 12/11/87 3. Name of Subrecipient: ( ) AMENDMENT Date: Interfaith Council for Social Services, Inc. 4. ESGP Funds Approved for: (X) Operations $ 6,033 Services $ 1,064 0/S Total $ 7,097 ( ) Rehabilitation $ 5. Activities Approved for Funding: See application submitted. Secretary of N. C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development BY: /ele.tr Robert E. Chandler, Director Signature of Authorized Local Division of Community Assistance Government Official December 11, 1987 Typed Name of Local Government Date Official Title Date ESGP #108 (Revised 11/87) 098 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT AGREEMENT EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM Upon execution of this grant agreement, the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD) agrees to provide the recipient the Emergency Shelter Grants Program assistance under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, as amended (P.L. 100-77) , authorized by the NRCD Funding Approval, the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grant Program Administrative Rules, applicable laws and all other requirements of NRCD now or hereafter in effect. The grant agreement is effective on the date the grant agreement and funding approval are signed by the recipient. The grant agreement consists of the rules in Title 15, Subchapter 130 of the North Carolina Administrative Code (Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules), subsequent guidelines prepared by NRCD, the approved application, any subsequent amendments to the application, and the following general terms and conditions: 1. Definitions. Except to the extent modified or supplemented by this document, any term defined in the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, 15 NCAC 130, shall have the same meaning when used herein. (a) Agreement means this grant agreement, as described above, and any amendments or supplements thereto. (b) Recipient means the entity designated as a recipient for grant assistance in the grant agreement and funding approval. (c) Certifications mean the certifications submitted with the grant application pursuant to the requirements of Paragraph (e) of Section .0301 of the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, 15 NCAC 130. (d) Assistance provided under this agreement means the grant funds provided under this agreement. (e) Program means the program, project, or other activities for which assistance is being provided under this agreement. 2. Obligations of the Recipient. The recipient shall perform the program as specified in the application approved by NRCD. The recipient shall comply with the certifications pursuant to Paragraph (e) of Rule .0301 of the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, ti 099 15 NCAC 130. The recipient shall also comply with all other lawful requirements of NRCD, all applicable requirements of the General Statutes of the State of North Carolina and any other applicable laws and Executive Orders currently or hereafter in force. 3. Obligations of Recipient with Respect to Certain Third Party Relations. NRCD shall hold the recipient responsible for complying with the provisions of this agreement even when the recipient designates a third party or parties to undertake all or any part of the program. The recipient shall comply with all lawful requirements of NRCD necessary to ensure that the program is carried out in accordance with the recipient's certifi- cations, including the certification of assumption of environmental responsibilities, under Rule .0701 of the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, 15 NCAC 130. 4. Interest of Members, Officers, or Employees of the Recipient, Members of Local Governing Body, or Other Public Officials. No member, officer, or employee of the recipient, or its agents, no member of the governing body of the locality in which the program is situated, and no other public official of such locality or localities who exercises any functions or responsibilities with respect to the program during his tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any financial interest, either direct or indirect, in any contract or subcontract, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the program assisted under this agreement. Immediate family members of said members, officers, employees, and officials are similarly barred from having any financial interest in the program. The recipient shall incorporate, or cause to be incorporated, in all such contracts or subcontracts, a provision prohibiting such interest pursuant to the purpose of this section. The assistance provided under this agreement shall not be used in the payment of any bonus or commission for the purpose of obtaining NRCD approval of the application for such assistance, or NRCD approval of applications for additional assistance, or any other approval or concurrence of NRCD required under this agreement or the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, with respect thereto; provided, however, that reasonable fees or bona fide technical, consultant, managerial or other such services, other than actual solicitation, are not hereby prohibited if otherwise eligible as program costs. 5. Reimbursement to NRCD for Improper Expenditures: The recipient will reimburse NRCD for any amount of grant assistance improperly expended. . 6. Access to Records Related to ESGP Activities. The recipient will give NRCD, HUD and the Comptroller General, through any authorized representatives, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers or documents related to the ESGP grant and will require subrecipient(s) to provide the same access to and the right to examine its records, books, papers or documents related to the ESGP grant. 100 Upon execution of this agreement by NRCD and the recipient in the spaces below, the recipient hereby accepts the assistance on the terms of this grant agreement, effective on the date indicated below, and further certifies that the official signing below has been duly authorized by the recipient's governing body to execute this grant agreement. Date: December 11, 1987 Secretary of Department of Natural Resources and Community Development By: iiehttf. Robert E. Chandler, Director Division of Community Assistance Date: Name of Recipient By: Signature of Authorized Official (Title) • • AGREEMENT 101 This agreement is entered into this day of 1988, by and between; the County of Orange ("County") and the Interfaith Council for Social Service, Inc. a non—profit corporation ("Interfaith"). WHEREAS, the County is the recipient of a $13,648 Emergency Shelter Grant; and WHEREAS, Interfaith was designated as the subgrantee in the grant application; and WHEREAS, by the terms of the Emergency Shelter Grant, the County and Interfaith must meet certain requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the premises and the mutual promises set forth below, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. As evidenced by the attached current year budget showing its source of funds, Interfaith certifies in accordance with Federal and • State Emergency Shelter Grant Program requirements that it can and will supplement or match the Emergency Shelter Grant program funds. 2. Interfaith will expend $7,097 in grant funds for Operations and Sevices by no later than June 1, 1988, and will expend $6,551 for rehabilitation services by no later than near 1, 1988. No funds will be reimbursed for expenditures incurred before the date of execution of the Grant Agreement. Interfaith will make a concentrated effort to expend all funds as rapidly as possible. 3. Interfaith will expend the funds in the following manner: 1. Operating Costs $6,033 a. Maintenance b. Appliances _ c. Furnishings d. Maintenance Supplies 2. Essential Services 1,064 a. Food b. Clothing - 3. Rehabilitation a. Asbestos removal 6,551 TOTAL $13,648 4. Upon Interfaith's presentation of receipts of expenditures made in accordance with paragraph 3, the County shall reimburse Interfaith with grant funds. 5. Interfaith will continue the operation of the shelter for the homeless for at least 3 years. 2 1026. Interfaith shall comply with all applicable Federal laws. State laws, regulations/ rules and executiOe orders cited in the attached provisions of State and Federal Administration rules (15 N.C.A.C. 13N and 24 C.F.R. 575). 7. In the event that the County is required to refund any portion of the grant due to Interfaith's noncompliance with any of the above provisions, Interfaith will reimburse the County for such refunds. This agreement is executed the day and year first above writtten. COUNTY OF ORANGE INTERFAITH COUNCIL FOR SOCIAL SERVICES/ INC. BY: BY: Chair/ Orange County Board of Rick Eden, President Commissioners ATTEST ATTEST: Clerk to Orange County Board of Commissioners This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. Finance Officer BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NOJE4 MEETING DATE JANUARY 4 I988 • SUBJECT: COMMISSION FOR WOMEN BY-LAWS AMENDMENTS 103 DEPARTMENT: I commissi on for Women I PUBLIC HEARING: YES x NO ATTACHMENT(S) : Bylaws INFORMATION CONTACT: Andi Reynolds PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 • DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To transmit Bylaws to the Board for their approval. BACKGROUND: The Commission for Women has spent several months with a management consultant and revamped its operating mode as a' result. To support desired changes in/meeting schedules and process-type activities, changes were necessary in the Bylaws. The major changes are a reduction in the number of officers (Article IV), the addition of an Article on elections (Article V), and a change in the minimum meeting cycle (Article VII) . RECOMMENDATION: Approve the amended Bylaws of the Commission for Women. Amended by OCCW 12/10/87 Adopted by OCBC / /88 104 BYLAWS ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR WOMEN Article 1. Organization Section 1. Name. The name of this organization shall be the Orange County Commission for Women. Section 2. Authority. The Commission for Women derives its authority from the Orange County Board of Commissioners through their action taken on March 25, 1976. Section 3. Term. The Commission year shall coincide with the twelve month period beginning July 1 and ending on June 30. Article II . Purpose The purpose of this Commission shall be to promote the growth and development of all Orange County women by serving as the official advisory body on the status of women to the Orange County Board of Commissioners by: 1. Identifying the status of women in Orange County by assembling information and conducting original research; 2. Disseminating information on the status of women; 3. Recommending through resolutions appropriate actions regarding the status of women; 4. Increasing public understanding of the problems, needs, and abilities of women; 5. Serving as a referral center for existing county services and as a clearinghouse of information regarding the problems of women; 6. Preparing a biennial report to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Article III. Membership Section 1. Number and Qualifications. The Commission shall be composed of 15 Orange County residents appointed by the County Commissioners. The Commission shall recommend potential members to the County Commissioners for appointment . Commission for Women Bylaws -- page 2 4 105 Section 2. Terms. The term of appointment shall be three years, beginning July 1 and ending June 30, with five terms filled each year. Vacancies resulting from a cause other than expiration of term shall be filled only with the unexpired portion of that term. Members are eligible to apply for reappointment. Section 3. Distribution. Distribution of Commission membership should be as follows: Five members should reside in Chapel Hill Township; one in Bingham Township; one in either Chapel Hill or Bingham Township; three in Hillsborough Township; one each in Eno, Little River, Cheeks, and Cedar Grove Townships; and one in any of these last five. Section 4. Removal of Members. Members are expected to attend each regular meeting. Should a member miss three consecutive meetings or a total of four meetings in one fiscal year, the Commission may ask the member to resign or recommend to the County Commissioners that they terminate the appointment of such member . Article IV. Officers Section 1. Number, Tenure, Qualifications. The Commission shall elect a Chair and a Vice-chair . Officers shall be members of the Commission. The term of office for all officers shall be for one year beginning immediately upon election during the Annual Orientation Meeting in July, ending at the next election. Unless removed for cause or through resignation, elected officers shall remain in office until their successors are qualified and elected. Officers may not serve successive terms of the same- office. Section 2. Duties. Duties of the officers are as follows: Chair: shall call and preside at Commission meetings; appoint committees and committee officers; serve as an ex-officio member of all committees; provide direction for the Coordinator by interpreting the views of the Commission; see that all resolutions and policies of the Commission are carried out; serve as the official spokesperson for the Commission; shall carry out other duties described in subsequent Articles of these Bylaws; and have the general powers and duties of supervision and management usually vested in the Chair . Commission for Women Bylaws - page 3 106 Vice-Chair : Shall perform duties as delegated by the Chair; in the absence of the Chair, preside and perform the duties of the Chair; shall carry out other duties described in subsequent Articles of these Bylaws; and shall be responsible for membership activities, including recruiting new members; assuring appropriate representation of membership as outlined in Article III, Section 1; keeping track of members ' attendance with staff assistance; and, with the Chair, be responsible for carrying out duties as described in Article III, Section 4. Article V. Elections Section 1. Majorities. Officers must be elected by a majority of the members, quorum presumed. Section 2. Process. Voting shall occur at the Annual Orientation Meeting in July. The Nominating Committee will prepare a single slate and present it to the membership two weeks in advance of the (July) Annual Orientation Meeting at which time the elections will be held. Nominees must agree in advance to serve if elected. Nominations from the floor may be made. Voting shall be done by secret ballots according to the Open Meetings Law, North Carolina General Statute 143-318 . 13. (b) ( i .e. , written ballots must be signed, made public immediately following the election, and kept until the minutes of the meeting are published, and, the minutes must contain a record of each member 's vote) . Voting shall be marshalled by the Nominating Committee Chair. The Nominating Committee Chair and the Coordinator shall count the ballots. The Nominating Committee Chair shall announce the election results immediately. Section 3. Absentee Votes. Absentee votes may be cast during the week prior to the Annual Orientation Meeting. Members expecting to be absent from elections shall contact the Nominating Committee Chair to vote. Write-in votes are permitted on absentee ballots. SECTION 4. Tie Votes. In order to break a tie vote, the Chair shall abstain from voting. Article Vi . Committees Section 1. Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall consist of no less than three but no more than five members and shall include the Chair, the Vice-Chair and the immediate past Chair (who must be a current member) . The Coordinator shall serve as a non-voting, ex-officio member. The Executive Committee shall have the Commission for Women Bylaws - page 4 107 authority to transact business between meetings; make recommendations regarding the policies and procedures of the Commission; advise the Chair; provide guidance in the development of strategic plans and annual objectives; suggest programs to carry out these plans and objectives during regular Commission meetings; recommend changes in the bylaws subject to the adoption by the Commission and approval of the County Commissioners; undertake those duties relevant to the Coordinator as described in Article VII, Section 3; and make recommendations to the Commission for Women to forward to the County Commissioners. Should a tie vote occur, the issue shall be brought before the entire Commission. All business transacted by the Executive Committee shall be reported to the Commission membership. Section 2. Nominating Committee. The Commission Chair shall appoint the Nominating Committee Chair and the Vice-chair shall appoint two additional members at the May meeting. See further duties described at Article V, Sections 2 and 3. Section 3. Legislative Committee. The Commission shall establish a standing committee to review pertinent local, state and federal legislation and to recommend appropriate actions to the Commission (such as lobbying, letter writing, phone calling, etc. ) . Section 4. Formation of Ad Hoc Committees. The Chair shall establish other committees as deemed necessary and appoint members and any officers to carry out the charges for which the committee was formed. The Chair may disband a Committee or order it reconstituted if the Committee, by vote of the majority of the rest of the Commission, fails to carry out its charge to the Commission members ' satisfaction. Section 5. Membership. Citizens who are not members of the Commission may be Committee members, however, Committee Chairs must always be Commission members, appointed by the Chair . Article VII . Coordinator Section 1. Duties. The Coordinator shall handle the daily business of the Commission; supervise office staff; prepare and present a quarterly report to the Commission; prepare an annual budget and biennial report for submission to the County Commissioners; with the Chair, update the meeting agenda; and keep members informed of current information relevant to the status of women. The Coordinator serves as a department head in Orange County government, and shall be a point of contact with public and private Commission for Women Bylaws - page 5 108 sectors and shall maintain a liaison with the news media and agencies concerned with the status of women. Section 2. Committee Membership. The Coordinator shall be a non-voting, ex-officio member of all committees. Section 3. Selection and Evaluation. The Coordinator shall be hired by the County Manager with consideration of recommendations made by the Executive Committee of the Commission. The Executive Committee shall solicit reviews from other Commission members to forward to the Manager regarding the Coordinator 's performance. This shall be done prior to the Coordinator 's Annual Review. It is the Chair 's duty to present these recommendations and reviews to the Manager . Article VIII . Meetings Section 1. Regular Meetings. The Commission shall meet at least once every other month. Committees, including Legislative and other Ad Hoc Committees, should meet at least once during the intervening months when applicable. Section 2. Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall meet at least quarterly. Section 3. Special Meetings. Special meetings may be called by the Chair or at the request of a majority of the members. The purpose of the meeting shall be stated in the call . Except in cases of emergency (when a minimum of six hours notice shall be given) , at least three days notice shall be given. Section 4. Open Meetings. All meetings of the Commission, including the Executive Committee, committees, subcommittees, and task forces are subject to the Open Meetings Law (N. C.G. S. 143-318. 13) . Individuals and/or groups who wish to make presentations should request time on the agenda from the Chair prior to the call to order . Section 5. Quorum. A majority of the members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any time. Section 6. Rules of Order. All meetings should be conducted in accordance with the latest edition of Robert 's Rules of Order . Article IX. Standards of Conduct Section 1. Conduct. In conducting Commission business, members shall recognize and follow policies and guidelines Commission for Women Bylaws - page 6 APt. 109 established by the County Commissioners and the Commission for Women. Should a member violate these policies or guidelines, the Commission may ask the member to resign or recommend to the County Commissioners that they terminate the appointment of such member . Article X. Amendments Section 1. Amendments. Recommendations to amend or repeal these bylaws may be adopted at a regular or special meeting by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the voting members present, provided that the amendment or new bylaw has been submitted in writing to the voting members not less than two weeks prior to the meeting. Section 2. Approval by the County Commissioners. Adopted changes to the bylaws must be approved by the County Commissioners. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AG NDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. MEETING DATE SUBJECT: Section 8 Reserve Account January 4, 1988 ],10 *********************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: Housing and Co®umity Development PUBLIC HEARING YES X NO ************************************************************************** ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara Pikes • PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL 967-9251 MEBANE 227-2031 DUAM 688-7331 ***************************************************** ******************* PURPOSE: To establish policy for transfer of Section 8 Reserve Funds to the County's General Fund. BACKGROUND: The Section 8 Reserve Account, known as "Section 8 Surplus" is derived from crediting all earned Public Housing Authority (PHA) administrative fees that exceed actual PHA expenditures for program administration during each fiscal year. As of the end of Fiscal Year 1986, the balance in this account is approx- imately $142,238. HUD regulations state that the PHA may use this "surplus" for other housing purposes consistent with State and local law. On April 16, 1985, the Board of Gant sioners adopted a policy for the use of the Section 8 Reserve funds with top priority for use being funding of community rehabilitation or Community Development purposes. Since this money resides in a revenue account a transfer of funds to the General Fund will be necessary in order to finance any Housing and Community Development activities. Therefore, there is a need for the County to establish a policy which allows this transfer to occur for projects approved by the Board. Specifically, only funds authorized by the Board for each project would be transferred. This process enables the County to maintain account- ability and ensure that Section 8 surplus funds are used only for housing purposes. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the following policy: The Board of Commissioners authorize the transfer of funds from the Section 8 Reserve Account to the General Fund to finance all Housing and nity Development projects at the time of approval by the Board. 111 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: JANUARY 4, 1988 SUBJECT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDING BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DEPARTMENT: COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: SHIRLEY MARSHALL, X505 RESOLUTION WORK PLAN TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider taking action to authorize the release of funds that were appropriated to councils of government by the General Assembly. BACKGROUND: A sum of $55, 000 was appropriated to each COG to assist local governments in their economic development activities. Of the amount $7, 609 . 37 is due the COG based on Orange County' s popu- lation. Attached to this abstract is a seven point work plan proposed by the Triangle J Council of Governments which can be carried out through the funding. It is open to comment and suggestion from member counties and cities before being activated. Orange County' s Economic Development Commission will discuss the plan at the next regular meeting in order to identify specific ways in which the COG can increase and strengthen support for Economic Development activities in Orange County. The EDC recommendations will be submitted to the Board of Commissioners for their approval and then forwarded to the COG. The EDC Director will coordinate implementation of agreed areas of work with the COG staff. Meanwhile Board action is needed on the attached resolution to facilitate the release of the monies to the COG. Failure to act would cause the monies to revert to the State' s General Fund. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve attached resolution and authorize Chair to sign. 112 RESOLUTION BY Orange County WHEREAS, in North Carolina the Lead Regional Organizations, as voluntary organizations serving municipal and county governments, have established productive working relationships with the cities and counties across the state; and WHEREAS, many counties and cities continue to need assistance in pursuing economic and community development opportunities, but federal assistance in the form of intergovernmental revenues has been severely curtailed in recent years; and WHEREAS,the 1987 General Assembly has again recognized this need through the appropriation of $990,000 each year of this biennium to help the Lead Regional Organizations assist local governments with grant applications, economic development, community development, support of local industrial development and other activities as deemed appropriate by their local governments; and WHEREAS, these funds are not intended to be used for payment of members dues or assessments to a Lead Regional Organization or to supplant funds appropriated by the member governments; and WHEREAS, in the event that a request is not made by a unit of government for release of these funds to our Regional Council, the available funds will revert to the state's General Fund; and WHEREAS,in Region J funds in the amount of$55,000 will be used to carry out the economic development plan approved by the COG Board of Delegates and especially to improve the economy of the counties and towns of the Region by strengthening ties to and consequently benefits of the Research Triangle Park. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County requests the release of its $7609.37 share of these funds to the Triangle J Council of Governments at the earliest possible time in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 830 of the 1987 Session Laws (HB 1515). Adopted this day of , 1987 at by: (signature) Chief Elected Official Witness (signature) Seal TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 100 PARK DRIVE P.O. BOX 12276 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK,N.C. 27709 (919)549-0551 December 17, 1987 Shirley Marshall Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners 707 E. Franklin Street Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 Dear Chairman Marshall: The Triangle J Council of Governments has received official notification that funds are again available to assist the economic development programs of this and the other seventeen regions. You were recently sent a report of the 1986/87 economic development activities that utilized the $55,000 in State funds and approximately $62,500 in local monies. The basic 7-point work plan for economic development activities carried out in 86/87 will be followed in this coming year. A copy is enclosed. The 1987 General Assembly approved$55,000 for each council of governments for both years of the biennium provided the share, based on population, of each local government is released to the council of governments. A copy of the relevant State budget information is attached as is a copy of General Statute Chapter#830, Section 105. To this end you are asked to place on your next board agenda a resolution to release your share of the economic development monies from the State Budget office to the Triangle J Council of Governments. You are reminded that just as with last year's economic development funds, money not released reverts to the general fund, it is not made available directly to local governments. The resolution to release funds is enclosed. When approved, please return the original, signed, sealed (if possible) and fully executed document to the Council of Governments at the earliest possible date. Retain a copy for your files. Should you wish a representative of the Council of Governments to attend the board meeting to provide additional information or respond to questions,please contact Pamela Davison. Your cooperation and continued support are gratefully acknowledged and appreciated. Sincerel , 4oi1111111111.1 � � pchurch • Enclosures cc: .Al Kittrell APEX • BENSON • BROADWAY • CARRBORO • CARY • CHAPEL HILL CLAYTON • DURHAM • FOUR OAKS • n� GOLDSTON • HILLSBOROUGH • HOLLY SPRINGS • KENLY • KNIGHTDALE MICRO • MORRISVILLE •. PINE LEVEL • PITTSBORO • PRINCETON RALEIGH • ROLESVILLE • SANFORD • SELMA • SMITHFIELD • WAKE FOREST • SILER CITY CHATHAM COUNTY • WENDELL • ZEBULON LEE COUNTY • DURHAM COUNTY • JOHNSTON COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY • WAKE COUNTY \1.11r W --t• 114 TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 100 PARK DRIVE P.O. BOX 12276 RLSLARCII TRIANGLE PARK,N.C. 27709 (919) 549.05S) WORK PLAN 1987 $55,000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1. Increase or strengthen support to each individual county Economic Development office. 2. Provide support to specific cities and towns requesting assistance on high priority development issues. 3. Provide assistance to companies in the Region to begin or increase international trade and promote the establishment of a World Trade Center in the Triangle. 4. Seek to connect the Region with metropolitan toll-free telephone service. 5. Continue and improve the COG's program of helping the towns of the Region to revitalize their downtown areas. 6._ Continue to promote the Raleigh-Durham Airport,international flights, Foreign Trade Zone#93, and the U.S. Customs Service as vehicles for Economic Development in the Region. 7. Strengthen the ties and consequently the benefits of the Research Triangle Park to the entire Region. APEX •• 131:NSON •• BROADWAY •• CARRBORO • CARY • CIIAPII. 11111. I CLAYTON •• DURHAM •• FOUR OAKS •• FIIQLAV-VARINA • (;ARNI R fpcp:> GOL_USTON •• HILLSBOROUGH • DOLLY SPRIN(;S • KI NI }- • I:NI(;II I DALE MICRO • MORRISVILLL • PINE LEVEL • PITI:SISORO • 1'RIN(-I'ION RALEIGH • ROLLSVILLL • SAN)ORI) • SI.I.AIA • 511.1.R CITY SMITllh;ll:I-U • WAKE FOREST • WENUI":1.L • ZEISI'1.(IN CHATHAM COUNTY • DURHAM COUNTY • JOHNSTON ('Ol'N-I1' 5-7, t.,..„4 LEI. COUNTY • ORANGE COUNTY • NAM COUNTY \v/ 115 Enabling Legislation... Council of Governments Funding Sec. 105. (a) Of the funds appropriated by Section 2 of this act to the Office of State Budget and Management, the sum of nine hundred ninety thousand dollars ($990,000) for each fiscal year shall only be used as provided by this section. Each regional council of government is allocated an amount up to fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000) each fiscal year, with the actual amount calculated as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) The funds shall be allocated as follows: A share of the maximum fifty-five thousand • • dollars ($55,000) shall be allocated to each county and smaller city based on the 1980 Federal Census population of that county (less the population of any larger city within that county) or smaller city,divided by the sum of the total population of the region (less the population of larger cities within that region) and the total population of the region living in smaller cities. Population totals shall be according to the 1980 Federal Census, except to account for cities incorporated since the return of that census, and in such case, the most recent annual estimate of the Office of State Budget and Management shall be used. Those funds shall be paid to the regional council of government to which that county or city belongs upon receipt by the Office of a resolution of the governing board of the county or city requesting release of the funds. If any city or county does not so request payment of funds by June 30 of a fiscal year, that share of the allocation for that fiscal year shall revert to the General Funds. (c) A council of government may use funds appropriated by this section only to assist local governments in grant applications, economic development, community development, support of local industrial development activities, and other activities as deemed appropriate by the member governments. (d) Funds appropriated by this section may not be used for payment of dues or assessments by the member governments, and may not supplant funds appropriated by the member governments. (e) As used in this section. "larger city"means an incorporated city with a population of 50,000 or over. "Smaller city" means any other incorporated city. 66 116 REGION NAME IS TRIANGLE J COG AMOUNT PERCENT POP 80 GOLDSTON CHATHAM $ 34.86 0.06 353 PITTSBORO CHATHAM $ 131.54 0.24 1332 SILER CITY CHATHAM $ 439.05 0.80 4446 RURAL + SMALL TOWNS CHATHAM $ 3299.81 6.00 33415 CHAPEL HILL(PART) DURHAM $ 37.82 0.07 383 RURAL + SMALL TOWNS DURHAM $ 5044.87 9.17 51086 BENSON JOHNSTON $ 275.72 0.50 2792 CLAYTON JOHNSTON S 404.00 0.73 4091 FOUR OAKS JOHNSTON $ 103.59 0.19 1049 KENLY(PART) JOHNSTON $ 135.49 0.25 1372 MICRO JOHNSTON $ 43.25 0.08 438 PINE LEVEL JOHNSTON $ 94.11 0.17 953 PRINCETON JOHNSTON $ 102.11 0.19 1034 SELMA JOHNSTON $ 470.26 0.86 4762 SMITHFIELD JOHNSTON $ 719.71 1.31 7288 RURAL + SMALL TOWNS JOHNSTON $ 6971.83 12.68 70599 BROADWAY LEE $ 89.67 0.16 908 SANFORD LEE $ 1458.87 2.65 14773 RURAL + SMALL TOWNS LEE $ 3625.99 6.59 36718 CARRBORO ORANGE $ 724.45 1.32 7336 CHAPEL HILL(PART) ORANGE $ 3163.83 5.75 32038 HILLSBOROUGH ORANGE $ 298.13 0.54 3019 MEBANE(PART) ORANGE $ 37.43 0.07 379 RURAL + SMALL TOWNS ORANGE $ 7609.37 13.84 77055 APEX WAKE $ 281.15 0.51 2847 CARY WAKE $ 2149.15 3.91 21763 FUQUAY-VARINA WAKE $ 307.12 0.56 3110 GARNER WAKE $ 994.73 1.81 10073 . HOLLY SPRINGS WAKE $ 67.94 0.12 688 KNIGHTDALE WAKE $ 97.27 0.18 985 MORRISVILLE WAKE $ 24.79 0.05 251 ROLESVILLE WAKE $ 37.62 0.07 381 WAKE FOREST WAKE $ 373.28 0.68 3780 WENDELL WAKE $ 219.43 0.40 2222 ZEBULON WAKE $ 202.94 0.37 2055 RURAL + SMALL TOWNS WAKE $14928.81 27.14 151174 TOTALS $54999.99 100.02 +*" RALEIGH AND DURHAM IGNORED NO CURRENT ESTIMATES USED FOR THIS ALLOCATION 117 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. PI ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE January 4, 1988 Subject: 198$ Meeting Schedule - Board of Commissioners Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: Yes I no Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly Blythe Calendar Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To change the 1988 meeting schedule as approved by the Board on December 1 , 1987 by the addition of a work session for December 10, 1988. NEED: Board approval in accordance with State Statutes . RECOMMENDATION: To approve adding to the 1988 meeting calendar a work session for December 10, 1988. 118 APPROVED ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1988 MEETING SCHEDULE HILLSBOROUGH CHAPEL HILL January 4 January 19 February 1 February 16 February 22 (Regular Quarterly Public Hearing) March 1 (Tuesday) March 15 April 4 April 19 May 2 May 17 May 23 (Regular Quarterly Public Hearing) June 6 June 21 July 5 (Tuesday) July 19 NONE August 16 August 22 (Regular Quarterly Public Hearing) September 6 (Tuesday) September 20 October 3 October 18 November 1 (Tuesday) November 15 November 28 (Regular Quarterly Public Hearing) December 5 December 20 December 10 -- work session on goals and objectives The meetings in Hillsborough will be held at the Old County Courthouse at 7: 30 p.m. The meetings in Chapel Hill will be held in the courtroom of the old Post Office on Franklin Street at 7: 30 p.m. NORTH CAROLINA ASSOC. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1987-88 EVENTS March 5-8 NACo Legislative Conference, Washington, DC June 16 Legislative Reception - Raleigh Marriott July 14-17 NCACC Annual Conference - Greensboro August 5-9 NACo Conference, Anaheim, California December 8-9 Legislative Goals Conference, Sheraton Imperial, RTP O R A N G E C O U N T Y 119 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date January 41 J988 _ Action genda Item` SUBJECT: WEST CORNER SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY ACTION BY : February 9, 1988 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No ATTACHMENT( S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Checklist Preliminary Plan Certification Vicinity Map Agency Letters Preliminary Plan Draft 12/21/87 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 West Corner Subdivision. BACKGROUND : The property is located at the intersection of Harmony Church Road ( SR 1341 ) and Mill Creek Road ( SR 1343) in Cedar Grove Township. The total acreage of the tract is 38.35 acres with one lot being divided from it. The lot is to be 1 . 3 acres in size and located west of the intersection . The remainder of the tract is on the east side of the intersection. The property is designated Agricultural Residential (A-R) in the Orange County Land Use Plan. All applicable agencies have reviewed the preliminary plan. At its December 21 , 1987 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the preliminary plan for West Corner Subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the preliminary plan as recommended by the Planning Board . PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT. ( iN( ONLY) 5/b7 120 f0D1 I rf' w r 1: [IIRn I V 1 C I k CDDR V f 1 •+ ORANGE COON 7Y DATE: /0-36. 67 - SUBDIVISION NAME: WEST CORNF'P Snba LOCATION: NW Corner of Harmony Church Rd. and Mill Creek Rd. OWNER/DEVELOPER: agm.Pc Nirhnl cnr. ADDRESS: $* hh Res WA TELEPHONE NO. : 56-.1"681.3 r'lebane, nc AGENT/CONTACT: Calleatyz Land Snrtravnrs TELEPHONE NO. : 7 ',-'1883 A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: 2 Orenoe County Tax Map, 4'i _Block - Lot(s) c Township. Zoning District( s) : Not Zoned Total Number of Aires: 36.5 -E_ Phases: / Total Number of Lots:_(,__Averaoe Lot Size: /-lt,Mlnlmum LOT Slze•1.3�r. Number/Type of STrucTures; (existlno), 0 (proposed), - Lineal Feet In Streets: , NA Acres in Open Space Weser Subblv•, Public ( specify) Gommunity✓ Individual • WesTeweTer DIsposal : Publle( speclty) GommunlTy_✓ Individual School District: Granny. Fire District: Cedar Greve General Land Uses in Area: 5"•n9/r f...-7), and Far,r,i^d Critical Areas: NF stream/orelhabeways , A/A _flooc prone areas weTershed (specify) . NA .historic sites other (explain), E. All Dials trust be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two«hundred feet ( 1' 2OD' ) and no laroer tnen one Inch equals fifty feet (1"r50') and must contain the following InformttIon: •:::.. ::_.::.:: La•» .re- '' sYbdl�isiOn name ;�:: bulltlinc seTDeek Imes %:- }; nom. 01 aprons! by 00T1710A Or Typical 167 ▪ :: {: nave Cf r. 1 eyou' enpineer or land _': etlstimc .S prom:sell ,/ :"":' pioneer s (Crain/50e. :: {: (TIT,.) Preliminary v/ utilities. roses. etc.) ....... Plan „ 444,...: .xisTInp. pr C WIC V .452Z::. scale, north arrbr esjoinlnsr rIpnts-09fray / M T leortn a top of map) including Olmansion5 and ✓___ Cave limolsding street fibm5S enC $Tart rerlsIOr pole.!) //;;.��Q ro.0 rmmDers ✓ : : TOrnsfilD. Tax we P^ 1� : s istin£ enC br000..0 ' b10CS-let retereases _ olIliTle.. 1nCIYCInC Type. ▪ : .: bouaoary OesCrlpeL sties, nybrenTi. valves .. : ::: ::: r ITn !moorings sac s::•:_::.' m.rho;es dIST.SCes �- >4; .$kilns eat proposed 'r f -x:•,. TeT•l 'creep* Cl Tn• Ciilrer'7 InCivCIns Sl2li Tr•CT one ocreapt 09 and proses _• 0 IOTi. InC1Yd InF bnL ; - lyp lCel cross. _: excluding ares iITnln e:_:•:::_ 5sc1ions one ineeeee CTlen l ✓ }r:,. : rlpnTS�dt-ray {'rti; oevalis 1nClmdlm; oeslpn ContrcI earner one sic-i ei Trarelra '� y ..- : prOPOIMC ICT I I ass �'„" *SC liTOU I pops ins rlth OIM6s loci r�` :,a( .:•Iiorl2o5Te1 el 1pmMnT sae E IOT wrp.bers :: pesters! Curve pets (public v la};}_ ()eosins floes ess roses) +' C � ;•r :%: Topbgrlpny eT Taa *00= =:: :: barrenenT Taetnras seen ss. ,D lip) irterw.IS - ::..:. bulleleps, Cemeteries. 'o y. �� ::: r bodies. • 1,./ k9:::i historic leeerrres C) O __ ' T IOeprey and /lobe.- eC lO l a l a; 10.! layout. eau.et r., pleln5 e 04 .CJoI? Iag property . ▪ 470 //> ..=•:::. bolters ale _ Or►gri enC iaOtl lv lS)O"i e. w COTerlen 1n1ICovin; �"- Std i Pori-fit-Tog Oeveloprent / ba7anT111 V+r ✓ Ill eormsbip. Corpora*, and extra-1-.r•rttorlal plenoinr JurJsdlc■ VJ . vies lists erpies crass Tne uTub.rty e] c — . )ocatlor ;mg 512c el Is OSOiCaleC ter public est or _. _� res C I A Common V in __ :Aix::: 1CCSTl0n enC s13e el ICI'S of reSTrICTee oerel0pment poientlal eme last on pis, repardlec sees Z.- i4e.4: Vlore Miss Inpier/1MC prOv)sian Tor Control :if.:: et ?Os ?lrs7 1/2 Inch 01 repot/ ?roe impervious surfeCes please complete reverse side C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS _ �' ii�l 1 . Twenty-seven ( 27 ) copies of the preliminary plat. 2. Two full size copies of an Orange County Tax map ( one copy with tax parcels involved clearly marked) . 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system for each lot. I , the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application 1s complete end accurate. I understand that a $105 .00 fee ( subdivisions of 1 -5 lots) , $210 . 00 fee ( subdivision of 6-9 lots) , $315 . 00 fee ( sub- divisions of 10-25 lots) or a $420 .00 fee ( subdivisions of 26 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. • R �'yye�w ��.,�/ G -, ��`� , g--- _ 1, APPLfICANT' S SIGNATURE OWNER' S SIGNATURE /C _.5d_Af7 /6. — e -- ec7 7 DATE DATE ril/057 ec FEES: Amount Date Paid d m- m-e7_ Rece l pt 1 6 EP 4-RU • L 122 1r" . 0 + +4. WEST CORNER a 0 0 .. APPLICANT : JAMES NICHOLS , . I dmio . ( • 4 _ 0 ZONING : NOT ZONED AC. . 4 36•02415 '. I X. , 7205 • LU p : A R . 6.27 tc. . 5s Ac. 0. SCALE 1 :"--- 400 1 . . ....... • ....- ..... . . ...- --- uNE .... \ _ ...... ..÷. _ , — 1 , ..-- . • /VOW? At . --c.. MO 1 .0" . ... fir .." • ....; , / t 01111.1' IIIP 25se C., ..--..., foo/". \ •0. 342 I -4441114. iiifti . . -$343 fPg? N15.4; 3-6AC' ‘ ,--"di C.) \ \"„ 31335 AC: CP 11 . • 15 AC. Ars \--16. N. I %. ...• \ .." \ . . _ - ."..... ...- de., \\ c... 2 .01 ''.. •■• ''....1 . 1 ep . .,L.•'' ,1% \ \ .._ \ A . 16b 40 ' -'27 \ . i.GAC _. • .. . 0 . . • • _ •• - \ • WM- • - - ..." • \... • -;./... . ..9_,ay." \ _ CM AC- • \ -.0%,li -2"-- • . - es'"1....-4 \ v.; ...." -4,4 \ 264 - _ \ ...- - . 105AC-:- .. • - - _ _ - \ - 1._•-:.,ii-..• . _ _ _ ._.. _ . I. ._... _ - .7..'.1,,;-.",-.•-_ 4... - _ . . 0- _ __• • - I - .. - .• 1 - - - - _ - , - _ -..4- -:-:_ . __ _ _ - _ OD - - .... _ _ al -•-.- -. _ _, -• _ . _ , . • ...„ , --,- •..L-•,- -- , , - _ _ 1 - 3476 3.2 _ •Z6 AC. .14. .... • • • ••••.., WEST CORNER SUBDIVISION 123 11 /85 N 1 . 0 . P. .• 5 — 1 .a : - A STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Eddie Kirk SKETCH PLAN: Received 10-1-87 Reviewed 107-87 ` PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 10-30-87 Reviewed 11-4-87 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received Reviewed NCDOT: DATE 11-22-87 CERTIFICATION Hike Mills SCHOOL BOARD ( Orange/Chapel Hill -Carrboro) : DATE 11 -4-87 CERTIFICATION N/A _ UTILITIES ( OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE 11-6-87 Certification Health Dept. OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council _ (Date) Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel Hill _ (Date) Carrboro (Date) Hillsborough _ (Date) Durham (Date) Other (Date) - Erosion Control 11-23-87 (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial a..su+r£„ • 124 r, l �....,•,rte� STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, N. C. 27253 JAMES G. MARTIN November 22 , 19 8 7 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS, P.E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR ORANGE COUNTY Mr . Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department _06F Revere Road Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 SU3.7ECT: West Corner Subdivision off SR 1343 at SR 1341 Dear Mr. K".k: : This is to advise that the subject preliminary plan is approved as one individual lot for residential use. Approval is given for a residential driveway only and should not be construed as approval for any other tune of entrance. -- If you have any questions, please advise. Yours Very Truly, 3 M. Mills, v. E. ISTRICT ENGINEER • An Eoual Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD 125 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 �G r lt,„._ r.:t ,.. 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Eddie Kirk. Planner FROM: Warren Faircloth. Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: West Corner Subdivision DATE: November 23 . 1987 This subdivision meets the Ordinance requirements by using large lots, limited additional impervious surfaces on each lot, and retaining a buffer of vegetation around the perim- eter of each lot to filter and absorb runoff. kibLWS4i610 31% fl6 property line should not have been drawn 0 between the existing house and existing system. (3 ) West Corner ( 1 lot - Cedar Grove Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. The property is located at the intersection of Harmony Church Road ( SR 1341 ) and Mill Creek Road ( SR 1343 ) in Cedar Grove Township. The total acreage of the tract is 38.35 acres with one lot being divided from it. The lot is to be 1 .3 acres in size and located west of the intersection. The remainder of the tract is on the east side of the intersection. The property is designated Agricultural Residential 1A-R) in the Orange County Land Use Plan. All applicable agencies have reviewed the preliminary plan. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plan. MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval . Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: Unanimous. (4) Dark Hills ( 13 lots - Cedar Grove Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. The property is located in Cedar Grove Township on Carr Store Road ( SR 1352) . The total acreage of the tract is 136.25 acres, with 13 acres proposed for division. The developer is proposing thirteen ( 13) lots with all lots being one ( 1 ) acre in size. Each lot is to have frontage on Carr Store Road with joint driveways for lots 2-13. The property is not zoned and is designated Agricultural Residential and Water Supply Watershed in the Land Use Plan. All agencies have reviewed the preliminary plan. The County Attorney suggested that Staff consider a marginal access street to serve the lots. Due to the minimum amount of traffic on Carr Store Road ( 1985 traffic count of 700) and the fact that the developer is proposing joint driveways, the Planning Staff does . not feel that a marginal access street is needed. The Staff did have a concern about the proximity of a 60-foot proposed road to NC 86. NCDOT O R A N G E C O U N T Y 127 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date JanuaLy 4 . 1988_ Action nda SUBJECT: DARK HILLS - PRELIMINARY Item ACTION BY: February 9, 1988 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X_ No ATTACHMENT( S) : _ INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Checklist Letters from applicant and owner Preliminary Plan Certification Vicinity Map Agency Letters Preliminary Plan Draft 12/21/87 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 Dark Hills Subdivision. BACKGROUND : The property is located in Cedar Grove Township on Carr Store Road ( SR 1352) . The total acreage of the tract is 136. 25 acres, with 13 acres proposed for division. The developer is proposing thirteen ( 13) lots with all lots being one ( 1 ) acre in size. Each lot is to have frontage on Carr Store Road with joint driveways for lots 2-13. The property is not zoned and is designated Agricultural Residential and Water Supply Watershed in the Land Use Plan. All agencies have reviewed the preliminary plan. The County Attorney suggested that Staff consider a marginal access street to serve the lots. Due to the minimum amount of traffic on Carr Store Road ( 1985 traffic count of 700) and the fact that the developer is proposing joint driveways, the Planning Staff does not feel that a marginal access street is needed. The Staff did have a concern about the proximity of a 60-foot proposed road to NC 86. NCDOT inspected the site and commented that the proposed road should be moved further away from NC 86 and placed between lots 3 and 4. At its December 21 , 1987 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the preliminary plan subject to the following conditions: z 128 1 . Relocate the proposed 60-foot access road from its current location east of lot #1 and place between lots 3 and 4. 2. Designate location of proposed joint driveways on the preliminary plan consistent with the relocation of the proposed 60-foot access road. 3. Provide evergreen shrubs on the landscape plan in- lieu- of deciduous shrubs. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the preliminary plan as recommended by the Planning Board . PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ( INK ON_Y) 129 A.., ir.A+ Iry^, rry:.' rl,pnl ,, ICI !�N soCiF+ �/C' .. a . ..nC^. _ CCyll -Y /, DA-E : /J6/ /9/ 77 SUBDIVISION NAME: DAt K 1// i/5 LOCATION: C Pia,- ,r C v& OWNER/DEVELOPER: ir1/ r il• C.1... *1,1 c. RG_7 ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NC. : 73 <-- Z 7S - AGENT/CONTACT: So_ nr� TELEPHONE NC. : A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: / Oranoe County Tax Map. 33 Block . Lot(s) Township C ¢r -• fr Zoning Distrlct( s) : _ 7 Wgc1 -- Total Number of Acres: /3 4 Phases: Total Number of Lois: /.,!7 A Average Lot Sire: /A Minimum Lot 512e_LE Number/Type of Structures; (existlno) No' -- ( proposed). 13 Lineal Feet I n Streets: 3.er- ,Vdte Acres in Open Space J )3 f1 Meter Supply: Public ( specify) Gommunitywe/jL-lndlvlaual Wastewater Disposal : Publlc( speclfy) Community./AE— ndlvldual School Distrlc`: J,WiL(S eike• Fire District: 4-1i1/sberal.•54. General Lend Uses in Area: Po-rrr,i wy Critical Arees:li'aKti stream/orbinaoeweys fYo:.ic f looc prone areas _ - Nance watershed (specify) /Yaks. historic sites otner ( explain) B. All plats must be 'submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch eouals Two-hundred feet ( 1' r2DD1 ) and no laroer than one inch equals fifty feet ( 1 "=5D1 ) and must contain the tollowlnc information: :.- •: Subdivision name _MA 426:::: building Setback lines name Of Owner(s) •.:-:• py not eT ion or Typ feel IOT name of surveyor, layout engineer or land _I existing and proposed - '-'kPianner •:�:"r:• easements (aralnape, ':. (title) Freliminery utilities, roads, etc.) , ,�fJ •N• PI an ! •: :•. exi51inc. DrODOSeC and - -'.Y':_: SCele, nor.rn error ediOlning rights-Of-ray (NorTn et Top of map) Includlnc dimensions end•:. --- date ( InCludin - ••;i:;•►: 9 :.:.:.x.:.:. street names end STeTe revision dates) ., ::: road numbers : : Township. Tex map- AM :• existing end DrO0OSed - ?:: "" bloek.lot references - utilities, Includinc Type, ::-ii bounpery pesCrlbad _ 512es, nypranTs, valves {.:: ��� ->::: •ITh bearings end mennoles / -• : distances existing end proposed ›' / :' : total eC re eoE of Tne • .:�. .... .::.__} Culvert including 51205 • tract enC ecreepe of : enC pretles 0 ,oT$, IncludinE and � :::,. Typical street cross- eXCiudlnC erne viThlh :.;i0,:. sec/ions end InTersettlen in ✓ :::::.%:.::"-- rights..of•-eay o07ells Including Oesion control Corner enC width of Treveivey `� : : prODosee lot JIneS r- ene snoulder V: u with dlmenSion$ • .a }: 4: hOr12On15l al5 1pneent end E ` Io7 numbers : _:: oanarel curve date (public .d,_ __ phasing I Ines : �1- roads) 0 L ToDOprephy et ten 40ot : !'t-:- permanent feeeures Sven a5 (1 0): Intervals •: Du l l p l nos. Csee7er l e5,'" - 1a r� water bodies, streams, / :- historic Ianomeres y - tl0pdwey one flood- .- '�.✓�, .• edJolnlnc lot Ieyout names plains C f1^ ♦�.� - Of eClolnlnc property fp :.:AL:et Stree,r buffers one $ owners and subdivisions ri/ • : nOTatior Inelcetinc L O - reSTrICTec OeveIopmert boTentlel u / -s- o-O : hip. Corpora/E one oxere.Terrltorlal planning jurlsdlC- 'Y /ion lines vhlen cross Tne properly V `� : IOCetlon end 512e of parcels cediceeed for '� W _ public use or �,�//e reserved In Common W ' L'!L.. : IpeeTlon one size o' lots of restricted cevelOpsent OOTentlel ene notatlor on pie' repercinc sees ,,,..._ :4 : STOrmveter meneoement pion Ind ICe.ing provision for Control __._,{ Of the first 1/2 Irian Of runoff from impervious surfaces please complete reverse side Mir / -_ t 3.3 C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1 . Twenty-seven ( 27 ) copies of the preliminary plat. 2. Two full size copies of an Orange County Tax map ( one copy with tax parcels involved clearly marked ) . 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system for each lot. I , the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. I understand that a $105 . 00 fee ( subdivisions of 1 -5 lots) , $210 . 00 fee ( subdivision of 6-9 lots ) , $315 . 00 fee ( sub- divisions of 10-25 lots ) or a $420 . 00 fee ( subdivisions of 26 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. t0 :1/4‘1■6--. C. 4- Et);_e_erja-- C. Rcr- APPLICANT' S SIGNATUREV OWNER' S SIGNATURE /6//i /7-7 `G // / r-7 DATE DATE FEES : Amount 4 is'- nG Date Paid "7" 21-87 Receipt 1. ------c-3' 4- 1 .•• . ....../ -t.7,0-.4.1 •_.g..:-.--;;."- .. '._ ._. A ..,.-•- - 4,-- ..-m--_ 5-•' "-.- ^I' , -'`"-‘;.•--s.. ' ^ —t - - ' - . •. , •1 — -.A. . ti."FT - e ' .- ,zi-, ,I • - ..7.47,1.---- i--:.-"T'''".; '3,.7 • --- :,.,,A.- AB ''a.. .01ft ' -•"• - - , ...- , ---,•-•;•0• -2-,.' :i -•,.••:•,--,,_._ -. .""- ,•-•`-., - _ 497.2* . , s ,i -A v•o w I ke. •;I1 1 I -^ - 0 - .., 410101M .. . • • - , --ff - - . DARK HILLS B A t ill • - APPLICANT : WILLIAM RAY -04. -- A • . . LUP : AR, W ATER SHED - _ SCALE : I = 400 AI I 14 -IfiiiO4/11 P.--14* ....t eak —,-.- — _ . _ ._ T 5921 z 162 11_, ii414: - L. , 0 rt./ - 7 ,.. 3.01 AC.C) r• , •t.. , _.., : • ,. ., _- _ _ - 47-4---62 AC .. ( • ' pig.:,,,,,' . - - .... .. . rill 0 co •' ;-- C) • of ''..- . _ .... , _, . ..... A . _ . . ..,-- ... -- .. -0 0 . . -...-- P. _ :..- __.....--- A 02 - -- Gikt74 r 1 ili 147 ..--- -- 4- - /At • ....■ --." --- 4.-_. ' - .--v• r -_ C) r v 53 4c- GO .1001 A 25 lkt. 3.F..) 4852 -t.- ft •• • is •0667 ic .0581.1.66AZ- I 4 C)I age. I 69-PZ. I 6 I' 180 / P777777 JO 132 DARK HILLS 11 /85 ORANGE COUNTY CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS - PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Eddie Kirk SKETCH PLAN: Received _ 9-3D-87 Reviewed 9-30-87 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 10-21 -87 Reviewed 10-28-87 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received - _ Reviewed 10-29-87 NCDOT: DATE 12-8-87 _ CERTIFICATION Mike M i l l s SCHOOL BOARD ( Orange/Chapel Hill -Carrboro) : DATE 10-26-87 CERTIFICATION N/A UTILITIES ( OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE 11 -24-87 Certification health Department OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council _ ( Date) Carrboro Fire Department ( Date) Chapel Hill (Date) Carrboro ( Date) Hillsborough ( Date) Durham (Date) Other - County Attorney , ---E` ( Date) - Erosion Control _ 1D-2E-87 (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date Approval Approval with -Conditions - Denial 133 1, REALTORtI DORSETT & ASSOCIATES TO: Orange County Planning Department FROM: Scott W. Dorsett/Dorsett & Associates DATE: October 19 , 1987 SUBJECT: Dark Bills Subdivision owned by William C. Ray The deed restrictions proposed for the Dark Hills subdivision will include no mobile homes or modular homes , and a minimum of 1200 square feet of heated living area on the ground level. The shared driveways and minimum setback requirements will also be addressed in the restrictive covenants. Sincerely, Scott W. Dorsett SWD:sld 1 1 5 N. GHURTON ST. • P.O BOX 9B7 • HILLSBOROUGH, N; 27278 191 9)732-3311 . - . 134 October. 19, 191 Dear 0range Coa::t 1 have been farming the alrud behind the proposed lots for about 20 yeart. .I intend to continue far=ming this land if I am allowed to sell the, lots. c . William C . Rey Route 2 Box L'CC Hi_ sh rou7h 2; 27` 732-2e)75 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3061E REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROt CH, 'NORTH CAROLINA 27278 135 `�1\ Cs._ MEMORANDUM TO : Eddie Kirk , Planner FROM: Warren Faircloth , Erosion Contro ! Supervisor SUBJECT: Dark Hills Subdivision DATE : October 26, 1987 The size of the lots in this subdivision meets the minimum for stormwater management using large lots , but the property has been used for agriculture and lacks the necessary vegetative cover . For a stormwater management plan, I suggest that the owner submit a revised landscaping plan that includes establishing a permanent cover of grass to filter nd abs b runof . ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD 13( HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27218 iAc VEr•1oRANDUr TO: Eddie Kirk , Planner FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Dark Hills Subdivision DATE : December 3 , 1987 I have received a letter from the owners agent, Norma B. White, stating that this subdivision has been seeded in grass and clover to provide a vegetative cover to absorb and infiltrate runoff . Attached is a copy of the letter. tic � 137 N. B . WHITE R ASSOC. , INC. 228 S. Churton Street, Hillsborough, NC 27278 • (919) 732-8528 Landscape Design Residential Land Plannine Commercial F�`++=+ "` 4. Layout Parking Oct . 28, 1987 Mr. Warren Faircloth Erosion Control Supervisor Orange County Planning Dept . 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough , N.C. 27278 Dear' Mr. Faircloth , In order to comply with the requirements of storm water management , to control run-off and adsorb and filter the run-off, the open areas of the "Dark Hill" subdivision (Mr. Wm. C Ray, developer) have been sown in fescue and red clover. Sincerely yours , Norma B. White c .c. Mr. Wm Ray COLEMAN 'BER I , DICKERSON, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. DRAWER 1529 129 E. TRYON ST. HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 919-732-2196 919-942.8000 November 5 ,HILL OFFICE r 1987 SUITE 20, FRANKLIN BUILDING 137 E. FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL, N. C.27514 919-929-7151 ALONZO B. COLEMAN,JR. STEVEN A. BERNHOLZ DONALD R. DICKERSON ROGER B. BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL Mr. Eddie Kirk DOUGLAS HARGRAVE Planner C. NICHOLAS HERMAN KIM K. STEFFAN Orange County Planning Department NATHANIEL E.CLEMENfS 306F Revere Road MARILYN ELLISON Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Of Counsel BONNER D.SAWYER 11902-19721 Re: Dark Hills Subdivision Dear Eddie: This letter is in response to yours dated October 26, 1987 . In your letter you express staff Concern about the "strip" nature of this development as proposed . Has the staff considered requiring a marginal access street pursuant to Section IV-B-3-c-8 of the Subdivision Regulations? I have no other comment concerning the subdivision as proposed. Very truly yours, eo ` •ey E. Gledhill GEG/lsg xc: Marvin Collins Barry Jacobs F�0 M p.1,,..\ 139 If STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G MARTIN October 29, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS, RE SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Dark Hills Subdivision Off . SR 1352 (Garr Store Road) Dear Mr. Kirk: Please be advised the location of Lots 1 - 13 and the dedication of a 35-foot right-of-way from the centerline of SR 1352 is approved. It will be necessary to stake out the exact location of the proposed road on the east end of the project so that the sight distance can be reviewed. If you have any questions, please advise. Yours very truly, M. Mills, P. E. DISTRICT ENGINEER JMM/SPI:jbh An Eoual O000rtunity/Affirmative Action Employer ' ' 140 t IY= P STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham , N. C . 27253 • December S , =987 JAMES G. MARTIN DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E. WELLS, P_E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR ORANGE COUNTY Mr , Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 3O6F Revere Road Hillsborouch, N. C. 27278 SUBJECT : Dark- Hil's Pr~el_._.'_nary ?.an OFF SR 1352 (Carr Store Road) Dear Mr . Kirk: As per your request , this office has made a review of the subject preliminary plans and recommends that the proposed roadway be located between lots #3 and #4 . After a field inspection of the site , it was determined the original Planned location of the roadway was too close to NC 66 and Presented a significant safety problem. Please revise the subject plans and resubmit to this office for further review. :f there are any Questions , do not hesitate to call this office . Your= Ve"v Truly J. .1. Mills , P. E. • _STRICT ENGINEER .Th M: sP atta. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer P) M LI ir 141 6 property Iine should not have been drawn between the existing house and existing system. (3 ) West Corner ( 1 lot - Cedar Grove Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. The property is located at the intersection of Harmony Church Road ( SR 1341 ) and Mill Creek Road ( SR 1343 ) in Cedar Grove Township. The total acreage of the tract is 38.35 acres with one lot being divided from it. The lot is to be 1 . 3 acres in size and located west of the intersection. The remainder of the tract is on the east side of the intersection. The property is designated Agricultural Residential '(A-R) in the Orange County Land Use Plan. All applicable agencies have reviewed the preliminary plan. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plan. MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval . Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: Unanimous. 0 (4) Dark Hills ( 13 lots - Cedar Grove Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk . The property is located in Cedar Grove Township on Carr Store Road ( SR 1352) . The total acreage of the tract is 136.25 acres, with 13 acres proposed for division. The developer is proposing thirteen ( 13) lots with all lots being one ( 1 ) acre In size. Each lot is to have frontage on Carr Store Road with Joint driveways for lots 2-13. The property is not zoned and is designated Agricultural Residential and Water Supply Watershed in the Land Use Plan. All agencies have reviewed the preliminary plan. The County Attorney suggested that Staff consider a marginal access street to serve the lots. Due to the minimum amount of traffic on Carr Store Road ( 1985 traffic count of 700) and the fact that the developer is proposing Joint driveways, the Planning Staff does not feel that a marginal access street is needed. The Staff did have a concern about the proximity of a 60-foot proposed road to NC 86. NCDOT 142 7 inspected the site and commented that the proposed road should be moved further away from NC 86 and placed between lots 3 and 4. The Planning Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: ( 1 ) that the proposed 60-foot road be relocated and placed between lots 3 and 4. (2) that the developer choose evergreen alter- natives for the deciduous shrubs which are shown as proposed plantings in the Type B buffer along Carr Store Road. Jacobs asked what was in the restrictive covenants regarding joint driveways. Kirk responded that the Joint driveways were shown on the plat and there is a letter from Scott Dorsett stating that there will be shared driveways and they will be addressed in the restrictive covenants which will be drawn up at the final plat stage. Jacobs continued asking the effect the relocation of the proposed 60-- foot road would have on the shared driveways. Kirk responded that the driveways would have to be redrawn. Collins indicated that access to lots 3 and 4 could be restricted to the 60-foot right-of-way between those lots. Best asked where the proposed road would go and Kirk responded that it would allow access behind the proposed lots. Mr. William C. Ray, property owner stated that the right-of-way was needed to allow access for him to farm the land behind the subdivision. Pilkey asked about another gravel road on the property. Mr. Ray indicated it was a farm road that had to be built when he purchased the property from an estate in order to allow the heirs access to the four acre tract of land on which the original homesite stands. Kramer asked if Mr. Ray felt there was a market for one-acre lots in his area. Mr. Ray responded that one of the larger black churches in the County was adjacent to his property and that there were several families interested in lots for homes if the price range could be held down. Lewis asked about the cost of the plantings around the lots. Mr. Ray responded that he intended to do the plantings himself at a probable cost of $4500. 00. 14a 8 MOTION: Pilkey moved approval with the staff conditions and the added condition that the joint driveways be indicated on the plat. Seconded by Swann. VOTE: Unanimous. ( 5 ) Lake Woods - Lot 9 (2 lots - Chapel Hill Township) Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for the subdivision of Lot 9 Lake Woods. The property is located in Chapel Hill Township on Jones Ferry Road ( SR 1942) . There are 4 . 6 acres in the total tract with two (2) lots proposed. One lot will be 2. 1 acres and the other lot 2. 5 acres. Both lots will have frontage on Jones Ferry Road. The property is located in the University Lake Watershed and zoned Rural Buffer. All applicable agencies have reviewed the preliminary plan. The Recreation Department indicated a need to specify that the recreation area is dedicated to Orange County for public recreation and park/open space purposes. Carrboro has indicated several concerns. A 100-foot buffer area would be required along the stream in their jurisdiction, however, the buffer proposed meets Orange County requirements. The house and existing driveway are shown for lot 9B, however, the house site for lot 9A has not been determined. The tract is totally wooded with proposed clearing areas to include the driveways and house sites. OWASA and Carrboro both indicated a need to show septic field areas. This has been designated on the revised preliminary plan for lot 9B. The Planning Staff recommends approval with the following condition : 1 . Label the recreation area as dedicated to Orange County for public recreation and park/open space purposes. b. Final Plats 144 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date January 4. 1988 _ Action ge da Item SUBJECT: LYNWOOD ACRES LOTS TWO AND THREE, SUBDIVISION AND RECOMBINATION PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY : February 9, 1988 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No ATTACHMENT( S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup Application Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Preliminary Plan Certjfication Agency Comments Draft Planning Board Minutes 12-21 -87 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of the preliminary plan for the subdivision and recombination of Lots 2 and 3 in Lynwood Acres. BACKGROUND : The property is located in Chapel Hill Township on the east side of Damascus Church Road ( SR 1940) south of Jones Ferry Road ( SR 1942) . It is also within the Water Quality Critical Area of University Lake Watershed. The zoning designation is Rural Buffer. The total acreage of Lot 2 is 5. 19 acres. Two lots are proposed with both fronting on Damascus Church Road. The applicant also proposes to recombine 0. 08 acre of Lot 2 with Lot 3. All agencies have reviewed the preliminary plan. The Director of Recreation and Parks recommends payment- in lieu of dedication of recreation/open space in the amount of $660. 00. The Town of Carrboro had the following comments: ( 1 ) Lot boundaries should not cross septic field areas. The existing septic system has been inspected and is functioning properly. The proposed site for septic tank disposal has preliminary approval from the Orange County Health Department. However, easements described by metes and bounds must be denoted on the Final Plat mmumr 2 145 and a separate easement agreement recorded for each site. (2) Grading plans for the proposed house, septic field and driveway are needed. Grading plans are not required for subdivision approval or for building permits by Orange County. (3) A fifty-foot buffer would be needed on either side of the intermittent stream. The intermittent stream is not located on Lot #2 which is being subdivided; however, a thirty-foot drainage easement has been provided. (4) Trees which will be removed should be indicated. Tree protection areas have been indicated on a typical lot diagram. In accordance with Section IV-B-8-b of the Subdivision Regulations, trees may be removed only for surveying, access, construction, or utility installation. Orange Water and Sewer Authority recommends that a dual alternating absorption field system should be installed and that an additional back-up field area should also be required . OWASA also suggested that primary and back-up septic tank sites approved by the Health Department should be clearly designated on the plat and required to remain undisturbed. In addition, OWASA recommends that property owners in the watershed or Rural Buffer should be required to provide a 30-foot wide public utility easement in a low- lying area in the event extension of public water and sewer service is determined necessary and desirable in the future. The County is restricted to the requirements of the Health Department and the N. C. Division of Environmental Management insofar as septic tank fields are concerned. There are no provisions in either the Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations which would permit the inclusion of OWASA' s comments as conditions of approval . The Health Department has approved the preliminary plan with the septic tank drain fields as shown. Current County policy limits the extension of public water and sewer service into University Lake Watershed. Should this policy be amended, the County may then pursue reserving utility easements during the subdivision process. At its December 21 , 1987 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the preliminary plan with the following conditions: 1 . Submission of $660 payment- in- lieu of dedication of recreation/open space. 2. Provide easement descriptions, by metes and bounds, on 146 3 the Final Plat for nitrification fields and septic tanks, and submit easement agreements for same for the review and approval of the County Attorney. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the preliminary plan for Lynwood Acres as recommended by the Planning Board. 147 LYNWOOD LOTS 2 AND 3 11/85 ORANGE CERT1FICATIOIJ AND APPROVALS - PRELIMINARY COUNTY STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Emily Crudup SKETCH PLAN: Received 10- 16-87 10-21-87 Reviewed PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 10`30-87 11-4-87 Reviewed REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received Reviewed NCDOT: DATE 12`17-87 J.M. Mills, District Engineer CERTIFICATION SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill -Carrboro) : DATE 11-17`87 CERTIFICATION N/A UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE 12`7`87 Certification Pat Davis OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council M.A. Black 11-30-87 (Date) Carrboro Fire Department _(Date) Chapel Hill Carrboro (Date) A.Parker 12-3-87 _(Date) Hillsborough Durham (Date) Other - S & E _(Date) W.Faircloth 11-23-87 (Date) - Health V.P. Burns 12-2-87 (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date 12-21-87 Approval Approval with Conditions X Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date _ Approval Approval with Conditions Denial IMF p•�E E TYPE R ;n , A7 i Jh. ` i _ p 140 6/E7 /J - 30 -37 Pk ti 61.ye.,: 13')' £ODD ni— Ir,lLL,,,Vt� fFc-0,/bf,v/1'r/o,J 7/ 5JePidl4 %oa rcf-- DATE : /D-28-87 - tcN SUBDIVISION NAME: LOT Z#4 Z! �� LV/ )I-)0oo c �-m� LOCATION: !' '1 L DAb fr4CU s (-i-Ji I.L e-�i.�+.D Hi V N OWNER/DEVELOPER: BI IA.- if 7Ju e �OLCr'Art : • .-. ,t. c) ADDRESS: j1 t3 8-oK181 TELEPHONE NO. : h 7- x 2 III / G) I^ rt. H.7 I C• 2 "7�,y • . '7', AGENT/CONTAC7.71-4IL'P Posr 4 A-5.5oc . TELEPHONE ND. : I Zvi -ii73 ` c. P-,L.tr -i Po 5r _ , �` w A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: • ._ . •' Grange County Tax Map Ilf3 Blo r Lot(s) ISM Township Cam'/1# v /hL L, 1.. nl 'V Zoning DlstrlcT(s) : i Wa( th -.,1.L:t7 it O"( .." '�' ioTel Number of hoes: 1e • 7 Phases: d • TcTal Number of Logs: 'Average Lo/ Sire: (o' Minimum Lor 512e 2 zC Number/Type of Structures; ( ex i st I noY' 't' it- art -' 4 roposed) 2 ^Ir- Z:)"' «,".•{ Lineal Feet I n Streets: Iti OriC Acres I n Oben Spate f'VP rIN6 d)crf._ t►.uv.+O p,...lo water Supply: Wru - _Pub Ilc ( specify) CommunIT), X Ind lvi Due 1 h'esteweter Disposal : Pub IIc(spec ISy) Commun1Ty k' Individual School District: C-Ia• Fire District: Gehere I Lend Used n Area: fMh'-L fi1/2-1)/1i Sir I+DUc,;,J Critical Areas: stream/artinepeiways flooc prone areas ✓ONCE•/-' waTersned ( specify) hlsrorlc sites other (explain) E. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller Than one inch equals Two-hundred feet ( 1^r2DD1 ) and no lerper Than one Inch equals fifty feet ( 1' r5D1 ) and must contain The fol lofl•lnc information: - ✓ subdivision name �`•' :':' bullrin rr.�:• � set Deck lines near of o•nerls) by nPTaTiOh or Typical Ion name of surveyor, IoyPYT enolawer or lone .: :: axis/ins one Oreoosed Pi : :: eeeeeenTS (Draineor. :''-•' �.':-: Iy IT I.) Prot Irinery W1111/1,1" roros, etc.) •' pion _ •xis'llnG. proDOSec one r ': stale, north erre. •' adjolnine rlpnTetot w ey -: InorTn e, Toe of deb) _ Including dimensions one : •: bete Ilheludine !,awes one i,aT! / r.vliIOn cries) row pampers JL ; 149 OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1 . Twenty-seven ( 27 ) copies of the preliminary plat . 2 . Two full size copies of an Orange County Tax map ( one copy with tax parcels involved clearly marked) . 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system for each lot. the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is pieta and accurate. I understand that a S105 . 00 fee ( sub'divlsions 1 -5 lots) , $210 . 00 fee ( subdivision of 6-9 lots) , $315 . 00 fee ( sub- isions of 10-25 lots ) or a S420 . 00 fee ( subdivisions of 26 lots or e) is due at the time of application. A S5 . 00 per lot fee is due at time the final plat Is presented for recordation. ICANT' S SIGNATURE OWNER' S SIGNATURE It 6, K7 (-(:)(1.r - /9',0 E DATE FEES: Amount �/cam Date Raid /0-1/4.30 2 Receipt /1,O7g "� � r A - . 2e.„.S' _ . :x523► '3' � - 1 _ ._ - , , _ _ 0 _ ...,9 . - Ili __. "' _ RE► _ 2 AAA ` 4190 5.02 , M4 I a PH 2k•:=- - .... 1 SyR/ - sn = _ 1 I Cr II e - -o4o1 1 i W7OOS ! 6.42 AC. _____\ _ _,, . . ? 151 <„Pit,, ' if; I Tior) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA r_err- --.,_...7� DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I D (11 K G -sr'! 7 I-LJI ^ !? - 1 Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN December 16, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS, RE_ SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Ms. Emily Crudup Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Lynwood Preliminary Plan Off SR 1940 Dal-Rae Forest -- Phase One Off SR 1127 Dear Ms. Crudup: This is to advise the Lynwood preliminary plan has been approved as shown on plan dated November 29, 1987. Approval is given for a residential drive for each lot or a combined drive to serve both lots. In addition, the revised preliminary plan for Dal-Rae Forest stands approved. It is assumed by this office the proposed roadway will be private and will, therefore, require a driveway permit. If this assumption is in- correct, please advise. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours ery truly, . r4; . M. Mills, P. E. DISTRICT ENGINEER JNM/SPI:jbh An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer Orange Water and Sewer Authority 152 400 Jones Ferry Road I OWASA P.O. Box 366 ,r,--377V1=4,7.7) Carrboro, NC 27510 ' (919) 968 421 December 7, 1987 Ms. Emily Crudup Planning Department Orange County 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Ms. Crudup: SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR DAL-RAE FOREST AND LOTS 2 AND 3 IN LYNWOOD Thank you very much for providing Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) staff the opportunity to review the preliminary plans for Phase I of Dal-Rae Forest, and Lynwood Lots 2 and 3. The following comments are offered for consideration by Orange County during the subdivision review and approval process for these projects. The O,ASA Board of Directors has not reviewed and considered the proposed projects or. the GWASA staff comments. However, the Board of Directors has previously expressed concern about: (1) the increased dependence upon on-site and cluster wastewater disposal systems without a comprehensive program in place to provide for the effective, long-term operation, maintenance and inspection of these systems; and (2) the need for effective sedimentation, erosion and stormwater control measures for all land disturbing activities in local water supply watersheds. General Comment: Based on available information, the proposed development density of one dwelling unit per 2 acres is generally acceptable from a water quality protection standpoint; provided, however, that sedimentation, erosion and stormwater control measures, and wastewater disposal systems are properly designed, installed, operated, and maintained in perpetuity. Septic Tank System Concerns: It is assumed that individual septic tanks and soil absorption fields will be utilized for wastewater disposal for these projects. Because of the nature of their design, septic tanks and subsurface absorption systems should not-be expected to give trouble-free service over the life of a house. It has been reported that they have an average effective life of 10 to 15 years, assuming no misuse, before rehabilitation, modifications or replacement is necessary. Furthermore, leaving septic tank system maintenance solely to the discretion of the typical homeowner, with the need for septic tank pumping and maintenance to be determined as they deem necessary or as problems occur, is, in essence, very limited control over the potential adverse impact of these systems on water. quality. Therefore, consideration should be given to an alternative septic tank system design and maintenance concept. OJASA staff requests that careful consideration of the following recommendations be given by the party requesting the minor subdivision, Orange County, and Orange County Health Department: An Equal Opportunity Employer Ms. Emily Crudup December 7, 1987 Page Two 1. A dual absorption field system should be required to be installed at the time each lot is developed (alternating use between the two fields on a regular basis) , with an additional back-up field area also being required. Supporting information on this approach is enclosed for your consideration. OWASA staff recognizes that this will result in increased construction costs and greater initial clearing for the system installation; however, the long-term benefits to water quality, public health and future owners of the property should offset these costs. 2. The primary and backup septic tank system sites identified and approved by the Orange County Health Department should be clearly designated on the plats and deed/survey for each lot. These sites must be required to remain undisturbed and reserved by present and future owners for such use. OWASA has been informed of one reported case where a reserve site identified by the HealthDepartment was rendered unusable due to construction of improvements after the initial residence had been completed. The Lynwood Subdivision plan shows septic tank drainfield locations crossing property lines. This would seem to present a potential problem for future maintenance work on the field area. It is unclear whether the proposed systems are individual units or a cluster. system. Sedimentation and Erosion Control/Stormwater Runoff Control: When smaller lots are created from larger lots on a "piecemeal" approach, the cumulative effect on sedimentation and erosion and stormwater runoff must be fully considered. Sedimentation and erosion controls and stormwater management measures must be required in these instances, and assurances provided that such measures will be properly maintained over the long-term. OWASA has previously expressed concerns regarding sedimentation and erosion control problems within the University Lake watershed. Reservation of Sanitary Sewer Easements: Presently, the OWASA Board of Directors has an interim policy which strictly limits the extension of public water and sewer services into the University Lake . watershed. This interim policy will be reconsidered following the completion of the comprehensive watershed study, which is in progress. Property owners in the watershed or Rural Buffer area should be required to provide a 30 feet wide public utility easement along the low-lying area of the property to facilitate the timely extension of public sewer service into and through the proposed subdivision in the event that action is determined necessary and desirable in the future. Recommended easement locations can be provided, if requested. Thank you very much for your consideration of O1ASA staff's comments relative to this proposed subdivision. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any additional information. Sin rely, Patrick K. Davis Acting Executive Director wp Enclosure 154 • DESIGN MANUAL ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Water Program Operations Office of Research and Development Municipal Envi ronmental Research Laboratory October 1980 ii.'. ..' 15.5 --, . hydraulic gradient across the infiltrative surface. In some Instances, „� deep systems can be used to reach more permeable soil horizons when the proximity of groundwater tables do not preclude their use. ik t Freezing of shallow absorption systems 1s not a .problem if kept in con- Z _ tinuous operation (4)(11). Carefully constructed systems with 6 to 12 it-e in. (15 to 30 cm) of soil cover, which are in continuous operation, will . not freeze even in areas where frost penetration may be as great as 5 ft (1.5 m) if the distribution pipe is gravel packed and header pipes lnsu- { lated where it is necessary for them to pass under driveways or other ;: areas usually cleared of snow. fix: . Alternating Systems: Dividing the soil absorption system into more than one field to- allow alternate use of the individual fields over extended periods of time can extend the life of the absorption system. Alterna- ting operation of the fields permits part of the system to "rest" peri- odically so that the infiltrative surface can be rejuvenated naturally ,y: . through biodegradation of the clogging mat (4) (11) (12) (13) (15)(16). The "resting" field also acts as a standby unit that can be put into immedi- •- ate service if a failure occurs in the other part of the system. This -` provides a period of time during which the failed field can 'be rehabili- i• - tated or rebuilt without an unwanted discharge. Y7 Y.. - Alternating systems commonly consist of two fields. Each field contains 50 to 100% of the total required area for a single field. Common prac- ti ce is to switch fields on a semiannual or annual schedule by means of a diversion valve (see Figure 7-3 and Chapter 8). Though it has not yet been proven, such operation may permit a reduction in the total system dr:. size. In sandy soils with a shallow water table, the use of alternating `. beds may increase the chance of groundwater contamination because of the tz,47. loss of treatment efficiency when the clogging mat is decomposed after :=1., resting. `--* " c. Layout of the System - Cis rrA Location: Locating the area for the soil absorption system should be ;4,. done with care. On undeveloped lots, the site should be located prior _' to locating the house, well, drives, etc., to ensure the best area is - .`= reserved. The following recommendations should be considered when locating the soil absorption system: zkL ir- -" . 1. Locate the system where the surface drainage is good. Avoid depressions and bases of slopes and areas in the path of runoff from roofs, patios, driveways, or other paved areas unless sur- face drainage is provided. . 217 FIGURE 7-3 156 ALTERNATING TRENCH SYSTEM WITH DIVERSION VALVE Septic Tank Diversion 40 Valve • • • Q 2. In areas with severe winters, avoid areas that are kept clear of snow. Automobiles, snowmobiles, and other vehicles should not be allowed on the area. Compacted or cleared snow will . allow frost to penetrate the system, and compacted soil and loss of vegetation from traffic over the system will reduce evapotranspiration i:1 the summer. 3. Preserve as many trees as possible. Trenches may be run be- tween trees. Avoid damaging the trees during construction. Configuration: Trenches should be used wherever possible. Not only do trenches perform better than beds, but they also conform to the site more easily. Trenches do not need to be straight, but should be curved to fit the contour of the lot or to avoid trees. A multi-trench system is preferable to a single trench because of the flexibility it offers in wastewater application. On lots with insufficient area for trenches or on sites with granular soils, beds may be used. If only a sloping site exists, the bed should be constructed with long axes following the contour. However, beds should not be constructed on sites with slopes greater than 10% because the excavation becomes too deep on the upslope side. In such instances, 218 dle renches with a greater depth of rock below the distribution i to increase the sidewall area is more suitable. p pe • Reserve Area: When planning and locating the absorption system, consid- eration should be given to reserving a suitable area for construction of a second system. The second system would be added if the first were to fail or if the system required expansion due to increased wastewater flows. Care must be used in constructing the second system so that the original system is not damaged by the construction equipment. The reserve area should be located to facilitate i t "nating loading of both systems. If the reserve area is used ubecause tthe initial system has failed, the failing system should not be permanently abandoned. With time, the initial system will be naturally rejuvenated and can be used alternately with the reserve system. Reserve areas can be provided very easily with trench systems by reserving sufficient area between the initial trenches as shown in Figure 7-4. D`. Dimensions: The absorption system should be dimensioned to best fit the lot while maintaining separation distances and -avoiding excessive depths :-7 of excavation. Commonly used dimensions are given in Table 7-3. The depth of excavation is determined by the location of the most perme- able soil horizon and flow restricting layers or the high water table elevation. Unless a deep, more permeable horizon exists, the trench or bed bottom elevation should be maintained at about 18 to 24 in. (46 to 61 cm) below the natural ground surface. To prevent freezing in cold climates, 6 to 12 in. (15 to 30 cm) of cover should be backfilled over the aggregate (11). If the water. table or a very slowly #_: ry y permeable layer is too near the ground surface to construct the system at this depth, the system can be .. raised. Very shallow trenches 6 to 12 in. (15 to 30 cm) deep can be in- = ,' stalled and the area backfilled with additional soil (see Figure 7-5). Adequate separation distance must be provided between the trench bottom and the seasonally high groundwater level to prevent groundwater contamination. The length of the trench or bed system depends on the site characteris- tics. The length of the distribution laterals is commonly restricted to 100 ft (30 m). This is based on the fears of root penetration, uneven settling, or pipe breakage which could disrupt the flow down the pipe to render the remaining downstream length useless. However, these fears are unwarranted because the aggregate transmits the wastewater (4) (13) -(17). To assure adequate transmission and distribution of the 219 r'" FIGURE 7-4 158 PROVISION OF A RESERVE AREA BETWEEN TRENCHES OF THE INITIAL SYSTEM ON A SLOPING SITE From Pretreatment Reserve Diversion System r Valve Drop 1.-- Box ��► I 4.17,•- Drop Ader Trenches Primary Following I _ r System Contours • I r� Drop Box Okode, 74: Drop Box • 220 i5y SEPTIC TANK SYSTEM EFFECTS ON GROUND WATER QUALITY By Larry W. Canter and Robert C. Knox 00 LEWIS PUBLISHERS, INC. 160 36 SEPTIC TANK. SYSTEt EFFECTS ON GROUND WATER QUALITY Table 13: Setback Requirements for Drainfields (Cotteral and Norris, 1969) ■ S•tbaek keqult.eent. (feet) Ped.ral Onlfora San Sant, Santa Contra hsrtn Douala Plumbing hates) Cfln Clara Coot. County authority Code County County County County j Dr.lnfleld. To: ~ building, S e S S 10 10 10 Property lines 5 S 10 S 10 5 5 i; w11, 100 50 75 100 100 50 100 iv Creek, or Stream. 20 100 50 25 - ! SO .. Cuts or embankments ■ - 20 15 « so 25 Pool. . - 25 - 25 Mater lines lD s - 5 - 10 - Valk. and drive, Large er.e, - • 10 - - 10 considered` prior to'designing the soil absorption system. Three types of drainfield loading can be utilized, including continuous ponding, dosing and resting, and uniform application without ponding. In the continuous ponding method the infiltrative surface is covered at all times with wastewater. This method has the advantage of increasing the effective infiltrative area f by submerging the sidewalls of the drainfield trenches. It also increases the hydraulic gradient across the infiltrative surface and this in turn may increase the infiltration rate. However, since clogging occurs at the infiltrative surface there will be no aeration at the surface and this may cause subsequent problems in terms of both hydraulic flow and biological decomposition. • To overcome some of the concerns related to continuous ponding, dosing and resting can be utilized. This approach provides reaeration in that periods of loading are followed by periods of resting. The resting phase allows the soil to drain and reaerate, thus encouraging degradation of the }' clogging mat which may build up at the infiltrative surface. . s The process of alternate dosing and resting of a drainfield can therefore markedly prolong the effective life of the system. For practical purposes the resting period required for restoration appears to be on the • order of several months (Cotteral and Norris, 1969). In uniform application without ponding the liquid is distributed •uniformly over the -entire infiltrative surface at a rate lower than that which the soil can accept liquid. Therefore, the soil always remains unsaturated and aerobic ..: iconditions prevail at the infiltrative surface. When these aerobic conditions prevail, the resistance of the-clogging mat is minimized. • j i • • -1;23 n � #22 ' N c Orange County Recreation and Parks Department fcifiCn` • ®�-` 16 j 100 West Tryon Street • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 eV. <041 Life.Beinit. Mary Anne Black, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Crudup, Planner II FROM: Mary Anne Black `f DATE: November 30, 1987 RE: Courtesy Review --- Dal Rae Forest (revised) Lynwood - Lots 2 & 3 Upon review of the preliminary plans for the proposed Dal-Rae Forest subdivision (revision) and Lynwood Acres (Lots 2 & 3), I recommend payment-in-lieu of dedication of property for public recreation and park purposes for both. Thank you for the opportunity to offer these staff comments. I will present my recommendations to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council at their December meeting and will forward to you any changes/additional comments they may have. MAB/pb1 CC: Lorraine Parker, Chair, Advisory Council Telephones: 919 732-8181 • 919 967-9251 • 919 688-7331 • 919 227-2031 162 a .. C Box 337 a r r b o r o 301 west Main Street �., Carrboro North Carolina 27510 1919, 968-7700 1919)942-8541 N.C. _ � :: .: .�Y. µ•. �: .. o IVE U December 3 , 1987 Emily Crudup Orange County Planning 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Courtesy Reviews: Dal-Rae Forest Lynwood Subdivision Dear Emily: Regarding the Dal-Rae Subdivision, my comments of 11/17/87 would still be valid. A 50 ft . buffer would be required on either side of the intermittent stream. I have the following comments on the Lynw000d Subdivision: -lot boundaries should not cross septic field areas -grading for the proposed house , septic field and driveway are needed -a fifty ft . buffer would be needed on either side of the intermittent stream under the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance -trees which will be removed should be indicated. If you have any questions or comments for either review, please call . Sir erely , y rker Development Coordinator 163 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 IL MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Crudup. Planner II FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Lynwood Subdivision DATE: November 23 . 1987 This subdivision meets the Ordinance requirements by using large lots. limited additional impervious surfaces on each lot, and retaining a buffer of vegetation around the perim- eter of each lot to filter and absorb runoff. 11.1 ___Liiiij4L____ 164 3 ( both two-acre lots) . Crudup responded that they both had frontage onto Borland Road. U 0 Jacobs continued that the Commissioners had u expressed concern with so many lots having access onto a state road when access was available via a lesser road and suggested that a third condition be added to restrict access for lots 1 and 2 to the private road. Yuhasz asked if lot 3 is the lot of record from which lots 1 and 2 are being subdivided. Crudup responded that the three lots are being subdivided from a 15. 2 acre tract. Yuhasz then expressed concern that lot 3 had inadequate road frontage and that an easement would need to be granted for lots 1 and 2. The developer was not available to clarify the question. MOTION: Eddleman moved approval with the staff conditions and the additional condition that lots 1 and 2 access the private road. Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed (Best - felt that a precedent was being set with piece-meal development of the tract and was concerned with who would bear the cost when and if the road was paved sometime in the future) . (2) Lynwood Acres - Lots 2 and 3 (2 lots - Chapel Hill Township) Presentation by Emily Crudup. This agenda item is for consideration of the preliminary plan for the subdivision and recombination of Lots 2 and 3 in Lynwood Acres. The property is located in Chapel Hill Township on the east side of Damascus Church Road ( SR 1940) south of Jones Ferry Road ( SR 1942) . It is also within the Water Quality Critical Area of University Lake Watershed. The zoning designation is Rural Buffer. The total acreage of Lot 2 is 5. 19 acres-: Two lots are proposed with both fronting on Damascus Church Road. - The applicant also proposes to recombine 0.08 acre of Lot 2 with Lot 3. All agencies have reviewed the preliminary plan. The Director of Recreation and Parks recommends payment- in- lieu of dedication of recreation/open space in the amount of $660. 00. 4UtJ 4 The Town of Carrboro had the following comments: ( 1 ) Lot boundaries should not cross septic field areas. The existing septic system has been inspected and is functioning properly. The proposed site for septic tank disposal has preliminary approval from the Orange County Health Department. However, easements described by metes and bounds must be denoted on the Final Plat and a separate easement agreement recorded for each site. (2) Grading plans for the proposed house, septic field and driveway are needed . Grading plans are not required for subdivision approval or for building permits by Orange County. (3) A fifty-foot buffer would be needed on either side of the intermittent stream. The intermittent stream is not located on Lot #2 which is being subdivided ; however, a thirty-foot drainage easement has been provided. (4 ) Trees which will be removed should be indicated. Tree protection areas have been indicated on a typical lot diagram. In accordance with Section IV-B-8-b of the Subdivision Regulations, trees may be removed only for surveying, access, construction, or utility installation. Orange Water and Sewer Authority recommends that a dual alternating absorption field system should be installed and that an additional back-up field area should also be required. OWASA also suggested that primary and back-up septic tank sites approved by the Health Department should be clearly designated on the plat and required to remain undisturbed. In addition, OWASA recommends that property owners in the watershed or Rural Buffer should be required to provide a 30-foot wide public utility easement in a low- lying area in the event extension of public water and sewer service is determined necessary and desirable in the future. The County is restricted to the requirements of 1665 the Health Department and the N. C. Division of Environmental Management insofar as septic tank fields are concerned. There are no provisions in either the Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations which would permit the inclusion of OWASA' s comments as conditions of approval . The Health Department has approved the preliminary plan with the septic tank drain fields as shown. Current County policy limits the extension of public water and sewer service into University Lake Watershed. Should this policy be amended , the County may then pursue reserving utility easements during the subdivision process. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plan for Lynwood Acres with the following conditions: 1 . Submission of $660 payment- in- lieu of dedication of recreation/open space. 2. Provide easement descriptions, by metes and bounds, on the Final Plat for nitrification fields and septic tanks, and submit easement agreements for same for the review and approval of the County Attorney. Pilkey asked the reason for the re-combination of lots. Crudup responded that it was most probably to provide additional area for drive- way access around the proposed septic tank easement. Eddleman asked about an alternate site for lot 2B in case of septic tank failure. Crudup responded that the site approved by the Health Department has a 100% reserve area for such a possibility. Best asked about the property lines crossing areas for septic tank disposal . Crudup responded that ownership of the septic area is preferable but due to the limited area outside the 300 foot buffer from the existing pond , an easement was approved by the Health Department. MOTION: Kramer moved approval with staff conditions. Seconded by Yuhasz. VOTE: 7 in favor. 3 opposed (Best, Pilkey and Jacobs - due to the septic easement crossing property lines) . Crudup clarified that the easement included an existing system. Best noted that he felt the 16? property line should not have been drawn between the existing house and existing system. (3 ) West Corner ( 1 lot - Cedar Grove Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. The property is located at the intersection of Harmony Church Road ( SR 1341 ) and Mill Creek Road ( SR 1343) in Cedar Grove Township. The total acreage of the tract is 38.35 acres with one lot being divided from it. The lot is to be 1 . 3 acres in size and located west of the intersection. The remainder of the tract is on the east side of the intersection. The property is designated Agricultural Residential •( A-R) in the Orange County Land Use Plan. All applicable agencies have reviewed the preliminary plan. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plan. MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval . Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: Unanimous. (4) Dark Hills ( 13 lots - Cedar Grove Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk . The property is located in Cedar Grove. Township on Carr Store Road ( SR 1352) . The total acreage of the tract is 136.25 acres, with 13 acres proposed for division. The developer is proposing thirteen ( 13) lots with all lots being one ( 1 ) acre in size. Each lot is to have frontage on Carr Store Road with Joint driveways for lots 2 -13. The property Is not zoned and is designated Agricultural Residential and Water Supply Watershed in the Land Use Plan. All agencies have reviewed the preliminary plan. The County Attorney suggested that Staff consider a marginal access street to serve the lots. Due to the minimum amount of traffic on Carr Store Road (1985 traffic count of 700) and the fact that the developer is proposing Joint driveways, the Planning Staff does not feel that a marginal access street is needed. The Staff did have a concern about the proximity of a 60-foot proposed road to NC 86. NCDOT O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS �� ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date January 4. 198&. Action g nda Item f� — SUBJECT: DAL-RAE FOREST - PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: February 9, 1988 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 12-21 -87 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of the preliminary plan for Dal -Rae Forest. BACKGROUND: The tract is located in the northeast corner of Bingham Township on the south side of Borland Road ( SR 1127 ) one half mile east of the intersection with Dodson ' s Crossroads ( SR 1102) . The total acreage of the tract is 15.2 acres. Adjacent land use is mostly residential . The property is zoned Rural Buffer and designated as Rural Residential on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Another preliminary subdivision plan was previously sub- mitted for 69. 9 acres, including this tract. Seven two-acre lots were proposed on a Class A private road. The plan was reviewed by the Planning Board on September 21 and denied by the Board of County Commissioners on October 5, 1987 . At that time, the Commissioners recommended that the plan be resubmitted with a public road designed and built to State standards. An exempt plat has been recorded which divided the 69. 9 acre tract into three 10. 1 acre lots, a 24. 4 acre tract, and a 15.2 acre lot with Dal -Rae Forest Road created as a private road. The proposal now being considered divides the 15.2 acre tract into two 2-acre lots with frontage on Borland Road ( SR 1127 ) and a third lot containing 11 . 15 acres. 169 2 All agencies have reviewed Dal -Rae Forest. The Director of Orange County Recreation and Parks recommends payment- in- lieu of dedication of recreation/open space in the amount of $113. 00. The Town of Carrboro responded that their comments on the first preliminary of Dal -Rae Forest were still valid and that a 50-foot buffer would be required on either side of the intermittent stream. Since the stream is not perennial and is not in a protected watershed, a stream buffer is not required. However, a 30- foot drainage easement has been provided. Orange Water and Sewer Authority recommends that a dual alternating absorption field system should be installed and that an additional back-up field area should also be required. OWASA also suggested that primary and back-up septic tank sites approved by the Health Department should be clearly designated on the plat and required to remain undisturbed. In addition, OWASA recommends that property owners in the Watershed or Rural Buffer should be required to provide a 30-foot wide public utility easement in a low- lying area in the event extension of public water and sewer service is determined necessary and desirable in the future. The County is restricted to the requirements of the Health Department and the N. C. Division of Environmental Management insofar as septic tank fields are concerned. There are no provisions in either the Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations which would permit the inclusion of OWASA' s comments as conditions of approval . With regard to the reservation of utility easements, current County policy limits the extension of public water and sewer service into the Rural Buffer. Should this policy be amended, Orange County may then pursue reserving utility easements during the subdivision process. At its December 21 , 1987 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the preliminary plan for Dal -Rae Forest with the following conditions: 1 . Include in Lot /1 the area south of the creek designated for septic tank disposal . 2. Submit payment- in- lieu of dedication of recreation/ open space in the amount of $113. 00. 3. Restrict the access of lots 1 and 2 to the existing private road. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the preliminary plan for Dal -Rae Forest as recommended by the Planning Board. DAL-RAE FOREST 170 11/85 ORANGE COUNTY 8 . . 0 : - • :$ M � . STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Emil Crudu SKETCH PLAN: Received 10- 14-87 Reviewed 10-15-87 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 10-30-87 Reviewed 11-4-87 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received Reviewed NCDOT: DATE 12-17-87 CERT I F I CATION J.M. Mills, District En ineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill -Carrboro) : DATE 11-20-87 CERTIFICATION N/A UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE 12-7-87 Certification Pat Davis OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council M.A. Black 11-30-87 Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel Hill (Date) Carrboro (Date) A. arker 12_g_87 (Date) Hillsborough Durham (Date) Other - S & E W.Faircloth 11-23-87 (Date) - Health T.Konsler (Date) ]2-2-87 PLANNING BOARD: Date 12-21-87 Approval _ Approval with Conditions X Denial BOARD OF- COMMISSIONERS: Date Approval Approval with Conditions - - Denial • PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ( INK ONLY) 6/87 171 APPLICATION FOR SURD I V I S IS,N APPROVAL ORANG: COUNTY DATE: f 6,-3 0 -0 7 SUBDIVISION NAME: Z)Az- `- I � Faef~s7 LOCATION: 13c4r1c.•-+--tc-) IP--C) OWNER/DEVELOPER: P4LTD&j t S - C) AIL.. `( ADDRESS: R1 . 3 , 13OX 6941.- TELEPHONE NO. : 1I1(-.r-6 w ?fi1 t4 )kL(_ AGENT/CONTACT: eC+-1l fa vYt . i.k TELEPHONE NO. : 73� ?fie 3 A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tex Map 12- Block -- Lot(s) 211K Township 'C Zoning DIstrIct( s) : i.1EAL.. 551,-)FF C Total Number of Acres: iS•Z Phases: Total Number of Lots: Z Average Lot Size: Zc..rjAl n i mum Lot Size 2G+.c_ Number/Type of Structures; (existing) (proposed) 4,v,`j w # 2 -wl, 11 Lineal Feet in Streets: Acres in Open Space J Water Supply: Public (specify) Community ✓ Individual Wastewater Disposal : Public( speclfy) Community :Individual School District: OILAAAqt CoL'iUr1 Fire District: QLAfi(GE LiO0W A-"AL General Lend Uses in Area: ft-119VtA TYL- - Critical Areas: .!stream/drelnaoeways .flood prone areas watershed (specify) historic sites other (explain) B. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two-hundred feet ( 1"=200' ) and no larger than one Inch equals fifty feet ( 1 "=50' ) and must contain the following information: w' subdivision name } I building setback lines ,C name of ownerls) ' i _ by notation or typical lot ,-1. •: name of surveyor, : layout __ engineer or land Z1..% :: existing and proposed le Planner easements (drelneoe, 3C (title) Prellminery `_: • - ' utilities, roods, etc.) `! wale. north :' existing. proposed and : ? adjoining rights-of-way (North et top of map) including dimensions and -.1e. •;; 4 date (Including :M2 street names and State revision cares) :: ::::::2 road numbers l/• : township, -•. existing and proposed p, tax map.- references utilities. including Type. ✓ � boundary described sixes. hydrants. valves ;:; ;e with bearings and .��-• manholes 7. - distances ::�Pl ' existing and proposed L�:• : towel scree a of the :7.4 p culvert including sizes tract end acreeoe of end grades 0 lots, Including and _ : typical street cross- : : excluding area within f:= sections and intersection m rights-of-ray details lneluding design 7 "/ •;; =•• Control corner _ end width of treveiwey O f : proposed lot lines and shoulders - y� V ' wlTi dimensions ;: .;•horizontal alignment end E -� Jam% lot nn*bars penerel curve care (public w 4. /�` ;,;,,,: phasing lines •4?•:: roads) .' ~- 1,� topography at ten foot : "` O peraenent features such as (10) intervals : buildings, cemeteries. >~ : rater bodies, , historic landmarks— ____ tlOOdray end f lood- v a =';, =: adjoining 10T layout homes W t.,' plains of adjoining property ep _$; stream buffers end owners and subdivisions 1�iv - . notation indicating '""" uE res-dried development C ••j7 potential 'C7 township. Corporate end extra-territorial planning ..Y di :?::. 710n lines which CroSs the jurlsdlc- U Property 0 fi _..... *M:: location and slze of parcels dedicated for public use or .0 reserved In common V 14-: location and size of lots of restricted development potential / and notation on plat regarding same ..- i�r'F-:: stormweter management plan Indicating provision for control -••-; of the first 1/2 inch Of runoff from Impervious surfaces please complete reverse side C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1 7� 1 . Twenty-seven ( 27 ) copies of the preliminary plat. 2. Two full size copies of an Orange County Tax map ( one copy with tax parcels involved clearly marked) . 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system for each lot. I , the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. I understand that a $105 .00 fee ( subdivisions of 1 -5 lots) , $210 .00 fee ( subdivision of 6-9 lots) , $315 . 00 fee ( sub- divisions of 10-25 lots) or a $420 .00 fee ( subdivisions of 26 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 SIGNATURE id'/ye/f7 DATE DATE • FEES: Amount 61o5.°d Date Paid /D' 3O- S? Receipt 16206, 5 1 ° 12A- 0 1E FORE sr ! 1 ` 7 PenrEIZTY OF: 1741..Xo&L FP_ED LIICNEL CI LEY II rn 7.-OIJIkJG: COCA!. CtuFl✓e w G W i �P,/ • 0O� �CAl_E:1'_4DD. 2.19 AC 2 .97AC. P / 5218 i 21A 926 __ I.5261 —_ ♦y I f ''�' .2159 2.18AC \ \0G „� 1 7 1.77C.y. �i ■�y co Aiiil1 3936 Aio%oiiiiiiiiiiiihk 10.2 AC. , \\-60-7-\., --- -- ----- ■ ` R\go 5.2AC. ` , F4 0\ SM� ` 0 `fT \ 24.4 eiL'. .4216 '7255 iG.1AC- r I0.2 AC. A \ tc.IG C /L. 1 Ad ----................., \ . 4B I _- 1 q16 77 98 AC ., , , . • ' , I 'fofr+-SfAT�\�� IA/�S" 174 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 0 _^ L- t2 - I? —S7 Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN December 16, 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 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject.: Lynwood Preliminary Plan Off SR 1940 Dal-Rae Forest - Phase One Off SR 1127 Dear Ms. Crudup: This is to advise the Lynwood preliminary plan has been approved as shown on plan dated November 29, 1987. Approval is given for a residential drive for each lot or a combined drive to serve both lots. In addition, the revised preliminary plan for Dal-Rae Forest stands approved. It is assumed by this office the proposed roadway will be private and will, therefore, require a driveway permit. If this assumption is in- correct, please advise. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours ery� 2 , truly, • l/ -: . M. Mills, P. E. DISTRICT ENGINEER JMM/SPI:jbh • An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road OWASA P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 919 968-4421 � ( ) December 7, 1987 Ms. Emily Crudup Planning Department Orange County 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Ms. Crudup: SUEJECT: PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR DAL-RAE FOREST AND LOTS 2 AND 3 IN LYNWOOD Thank you very much for providing Orange Water and Sewer. Authority (OWASA) staff the opportunity to review the preliminary plans for Phase I of Dal-Rae Forest, and Lynwood Lots 2 and 3. ' The following comments are offered for consideration by Orange County during the subdivision review and approval process for these projects. The G#JASA Board of Directors has not reviewed and considered the proposed projects or the NASA staff comments. However, the Board of Directors has previously expressed .concern about: (1) the increased dependence upon on-site and cluster wastewater disposal systems without a comprehensive program in place to provide for the effective, long-term operation, maintenance and inspection of these systems; and (2) the need for effective sedimentation, erosion and stormwater control measures for all land disturbing activities in local water supply watersheds. General Comment: Based on available information, the proposed development density of one dwelling unit per 2 acres is generally acceptable from a water quality protection standpoint; provided, however, that sedimentation, erosion and stormwater control measures, and wastewater disposal systems are properly designed, installed, operated, and maintained in perpetuity. Septic Tank System Concerns: It is assumed that individual septic tanks and soil absorption fields will be utilized for wastewater disposal for these projects. Because of the nature of their design, septic tanks and subsurface absorption systems should not be expected to give trouble-free service over the life of a house. It has been reported that they have an average effective life of 10 to 15 years, assuming no misuse, before rehabilitation, modifications or replacement is necessary. Furthermore, leaving septic tank system maintenance solely to the discretion of the typical homeowner, with the need for septic tank pumping and maintenance to be determined as they deem necessary or as problems occur, is, in essence, very limited control over the potential adverse impact of these systems on water quality. Therefore, consideration should be given to an alternative septic tank system design and maintenance concept. OWASA staff requests that careful consideration of the following recommendations be given by the party requesting the minor subdivision, Orange County, and Orange County Health Department: • An Equal Opportunity Employer 17b Ms. Emily Crudup December 7, 1987 Page Two 1. A dual absorption field system should be required to be installed at the time each lot is developed (alternating use between the two fields on a regular basis) , with an additional back-up field area also being required. Supporting information on this approach is enclosed for your consideration. OWASA staff recognizes that this will result in increased construction costs and greater initial clearing for the system installation; however, the long-term benefits to water quality, public health and future owners of the property should offset these costs. 2. The primary and backup septic tank system sites identified and approved by the Orange County Health Department should be clearly designated on the plats and deed/survey for each lot. These sites must be required to remain undisturbed and reserved by present and future owners for such use. OWASA has been informed of one reported case where a reserve site identified by the Health .Department was rendered unusable due to construction of improvements after the initial residence had been completed. The Lynwood Subdivision plan shows septic tank drainfield locations crossing property lines. This would seem to present a potential problem for future maintenance work on the field area. It is unclear whether the proposed systems are individual units or a cluster. system. Sedimentation and Erosion Control/Stormwater Runoff Control: When smaller lots are created from larger lots on a "piecemeal" approach, the cumulative effect on sedimentation and erosion and stormwater runoff must be fully considered. Sedimentation and erosion controls and stormwater management measures must be required in these instances, and assurances provided that such measures will be properly maintained over the long-term. OWASA has previously expressed concerns regarding sedimentation and erosion control problems within _ the University Lake watershed. Reservation of Sanitary Sewer Easements: - Presently, the OWASA Board of Directors has an interim policy which strictly limits the extension of public water and sewer services into the University Lake watershed. This interim policy will be reconsidered following the completion of the comprehensive watershed study, which is in progress. Property owners in the . watershed or Rural Buffer area should be required to provide a 30 feet wide . public utility easement along the low-lying area of the property to facilitate the timely extension of public sewer service into and through the proposed subdivision in the event that action is determined necessary and desirable in the future. Recommended easement locations can be provided, if requested. Thank you very much for your consideration of NASA staff's comments relative to this proposed subdivision. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any additional information. Sin tel , Patrick K. Davis Acting Executive Director. wp Enclosure 177 DESIGN MANUAL ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Water Program Operations Office of Research and Development Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory • October 1980 4 17 e• 2 . hydraulic gradient across the infiltrative surface. In some instances, -,- deep systems can be used to reach more permeable soil horizons when the proximity of groundwater tables do not preclude their use. ik . i Freezing of shallow absorption systems is not a .problem if kept in con- tinuous operation (4)(11). Carefully constructed systems with 6 to 12 in. (15 to 30 cm) of soil cover, which are in continuous operation, will ie not freeze even in areas where frost penetration may be as great as 5 ft (1.5 m) if the distribution pipe is gravel packed and header pipes:4- lated where it is necessary for them to pass under driveways or other ' areas usually cleared of snow. , r• Alternating Systems: Dividing the soil absorption system into more than y,.. one field to. allow alternate use of the individual fields over extended periods of time can extend the life of the absorption system. Alterna- ,=;., ting operation of the fields permits part of the system to "rest" a .: pert- •:- odically so that the infiltrative surface can be rejuvenated naturally 4i through biodegradation of the clogging mat (4) (11) (12)(13) (15) (16). ?.•° The t : "resting" field also acts as a standby unit that can be put into immedi- .• ate service if a failure occurs in the other part of the system. This `7 provides a during` p period of time Burin which the failed field can 'be rehabili- tated or rebuilt without an unwanted discharge. 4=. • Alternating systems commonly consist of two fields. Each field contains 50 to 100% of the total required area for a single field. Common prac- tice is to switch fields on a semiannual or annual - schedule by means of a diversion valve (see Figure 7-3 and Chapter 8). Though it has not yet 73. been proven, such operation may permit a reduction in the total system 'Y: size. In sandy soils with a shallow water table, the use of alternating . beds may increase the chance of groundwater contamination because of the il - . loss of treatment efficiency when the clogging mat is decomposed after resting. • c. Layout of the System itl: 15� Location: Locating the area for the soil absorption system should be _ done with care. On undeveloped lots, the site should be located prior -_:'to locating the house, well, drives, etc., to ensure the best area is- :: reserved. The following recommendations should be considered when -: locating the soil absorption system: - 1. Locate the system where the surface drainage is good. - Avoid depressions and bases of slopes and areas in the path of runoff from roofs, patios, driveways, or other paved areas unless sur- face drainage is provided. 217 ., 79 FIGURE 7-3 ALTERNATING TRENCH SYSTEM WITH DIVERSION VALVE Septic Tank Diversion Valve IIIIIIMMIMMM 2. In areas with severe winters, avoid areas that are kept clear of snow. Automobiles, snowmobiles, and other vehicles should not be allowed on the area. Compacted or cleared snow will allow frost to penetrate the system, and compacted soil and loss of vegetation from traffic over the system will reduce evapotranspiration in the summer. 3. Preserve as many trees as possible. Trenches may be run be- tween trees. Avoid damaging the trees during construction. Configuration: Trenches should be used wherever possible. Not only do trenches perform better than beds, but they also conform to the site more easily. Trenches do not need to be straight, but should be curved to fit the contour of the lot or to avoid trees. A multi-trench system is preferable to a single trench because of the flexibility it offers in wastewater application. On lots with insufficient area for trenches or on sites with granular soils, beds may be used. If only a sloping site exists, the bed should be constructed with long axes following the contour. However, beds should not be constructed on sites with slopes greater than 10% because the excavation becomes too deep on the upslope side. In such instances, 218 7 deep trenche r' ��(1 s with a greater depth of rock below the distribution pipe ....,;. to increase the sidewall area is more suitable. : Reserve Area: When planning and locating the absorption system, consid- erat on s ou d be given to reserving a suitable area for construction of a second system. The second system would be added if the first were or if the system required expansion due to a to �� flows. Care must be used in constructing the second increased wastewater original system is not damaged by the construction equipnent.so that the 4,, _The reserve area should be located to facilitate simultaneous or alter- ' nating loading of both systems. If the reserve area is used because system has failed, the failing system should not be "' se the abandoned. With time, the initial system will be naturally rejuvenated and can be used alternately with the reserve system. be provided very easily with trench systems by reserving can ,:. between the initial trenches as shown in Figure 7-4. S;�y' sufficient area +Mr . Dimensions: The absorption system should be dimensioned of a maintaining separation distances and-avoiding excessive the of excavation. Commonly used dimensions are given a depths :� _ g en in Table 7.3. _ The depth of excavation is determined by the location able soil horizon and flow restricting layers or the high most r pe table elevation. Unless a deep, more permeable horizon exists,g thblr bed bottom elevation should be maintained at about 18 to 24ein trench to or 61 cm) below the natural ground surface. To prevent (46 cold r: climates, 6 to 12 in. (15 to 30 cm) of cover should b freezing it in over the aggregate (11). be backfilled over • mow: If the water table or a very slowly permeable layer is too near the ground surface to construct the system at this depth, the system can be .. _ raised. Very shallow trenches 6 to 12 in. (15 to 30 cm) deep can stalled and the area backfilled with additional soil (see F n be i). x: Adequate separation distance must be provided between the trench e bottom t). and the seasonally high groundwater level we , contamination. prevent groundwater The length of the trench or bed system depends on the _ tics. The length of the distribution laterals is commonly erestricted it 100 ft (30 m). This is based on the fears of root penetration, to settling, or pipe breakage which could disrupt the flow down tthe� ipevto render the remaining downstream length useless. p fe to are unwarranted because the aggregate transmits the astewaterse fears (17). 7o assure adequate transmission and distribution of)(the the 219 181 FIGURE 7-4 PROVISION OF A RESERVE AREA BETWEEN TRENCHES OF THE INITIAL SYSTEM ON A SLOPING SITE From Pretreatment Reserve .11r 4 Diversion System r �� Valve Drop 1.. \•'""— Box I f4wir Drop / � Box Trenches I / r Primary Following I System Contours • I t- 41411, Drop Box �/%lam/ ' �I �d�40../ Drop Box 220 182 SEPTIC TANK SYSTEM EFFECTS ON GROUND WATER QUALITY By Larry W. Canter and Robert C Knox 00 LEWIS PUBLISHERS. INC. re ' . d i 1 i'8lr , 3b SEPTIC TANK SYSTE:1 EFFECTS ON GROUND WATER U Q ALTTY Table 13: Setback Requirements for Orainfields (Cotteral and Norris, i 1969) 1 Seebeck ke•ulrearnta I•et ! Federal Dblfore boring Plumbing S� Crnee Sant. Como. ?Urfa Authority Code county Cru. Cleo. Costa County Ce�ey Oeunc7 County County I Drainfielde To: r i \ulldipg. S e 3 s l0 1D Property line. S 10 �! W11. S 10 S ID s 5 100 SO 73 100 100 SO 100 i'y C»eke or •tra.m. SO 20 100 - SO 25 PoolCur..or erbeMe.nte - - 20 IS - so xs - 25 - - - 25 weer line. 10 S - s - 10 Valk. and drive. - - ler\a core. - - - S - 10 - - - 1D - considered' prior to-designing the soil absorption system. Three types of drainfield loading can be utilized, including Continuous ponding, dosing and .1 resting, and uniform application without pondin method the infiltrative surface is covered at allltim scwith waste ate .poning This method has the advantage of increasing the effective infiltrative area !I by submerging the sidewalls of the drainfield trenches. It also increases the '! hydraulic gradient across the infiltrative surface and this in turn may increase the infiltration rate. However, since clogging occurs at the i infiltrative surface there will be no aeration at the surface and this may cause subsequent problems in terms of both hydraulic flow and biological ' ' decomposition. • To overcome some of the concerns dosing and resting can be utilized. This approach provides reaera on in that ' i ponding, • periods of loading are followed by periods of resting. The resting phaSe j allows the soil to drain and reaerate, thus encouraging degradation of The 1 dogging mat which may build up at the infiltrative surface. The process of alternate dosing and resting of a drainfield can therefore markedly prolong the effective Iife of the system. For practical • • purposes the resting period required for restoration appears • order of several months (Cotteral and Norris, 1969). I unifrm to be on the application without ponding the liquid is distributed uniformly over the entire IL infiltrative surface at a rate lower than that which the soil can accept - liquid. Therefore, the soil always remains u conditions prevail at the infiltrative surface. When f these ated and aerobic prevail,the resistance of the dogging mat is m thse aerobic conditions minimized. k- 1__._ _I ______._ - • ' 1$4 rP.O Box 337 'i F- a i I b 0 1 o 301 west Main Street Carrboro. North Carolina 27510 t''' E-. tr .�. . y {� 4 _ (9191968-7700 (9191942-8541 '7' &'.eat v5-/I -S7 Emily Crudup Orange County Planning Dept . Revere Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Dal-Rae Forest subdivision review Dear Ms. Crudup If this subdivision were within the Town of Carrboro ' s jurisdiction, it would more than likely be zoned R-80 for residential use. The lot size and layout would be in conformance with our requirements in that zoning district . The Town would require locations of proposed septic systems and wells to be indicated on the plans. Our ordinance requires that any road serving more than three lots be paved and built to town road standards. Proposed road grading would also be required on the plans. Proposed building locations would be requested, and maximum protection of the stream area would be emphasized. If you need further information, please call. Si erely, n Amy Pa ker Development Coordinator E185 box 337 301 West M ain arrboro Carrboro North Carolina 27510 (919)968-7700 (919) 942-8541. ECEIVE D December 3 , 1987 Emily Crudup Orange County Planning 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Courtesy Reviews: Dal-Rae Forest Lynwood Subdivision Dear Emily: Regarding the Dal-Rae Subdivision, my comments of 11/17/87 would still be valid. A 50 ft. buffer would be required on either side of the intermittent stream. I have the following comments on the Lynw000d Subdivision: -lot boundaries should not cross septic field areas -grading for the proposed house, septic field and driveway are needed -a fifty ft . buffer would be needed on either side of the intermittent stream under the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance -trees which will be removed should be indicated. If you have any questions or comments for either review, please call . Si erely otor A, - ker Development Coordinator nom, #22 NOrange County Recreation and Parks Department %. Fr�j��;' 300 West Tryon Sweet • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 ro,,s Ufe.Beinit. Mary Anne Black, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Crudup, Planner II FROM: Mary Anne Black DATE: November 30, 1987 RE: Courtesy Review -- Dal Rae Forest (revised) Lynwood - Lots 2 & 3 Upon review of the preliminary plans for the proposed Dal-Rae Forest subdivision (revision) and Lynwood Acres (Lots 2 & 3), I recommend payment-in-lieu of dedication of property for public recreation and park purposes for both. Thank you for the opportunity to offer these staff comments. I will present my recommendations to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council at their December meeting and will forward to you any changes/additional cortments they may have. MAB/pb1 CC: Lorraine Parker, Chair, Advisory Council Telephones: 919 732-8181 • 919 967-9251 - 919 688-7331 • 919 227-2031 .r. 18"r ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Crudup. Planner II FROM: Warren Faircloth. Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Dal-Rae Forest Subdivision DATE: November 23 . 1987 This subdivision meets the Ordinance requirements by using large lots. limited additional impervious surfaces on each lot. and retaining a buffer of vegetation around the perim- eter of each lot to filter and absorb runoff. 1 - � range county W. 7rvon Street 186 N.C.27278 732-8181 HEALTH DEPARTMENT Ch 9e61 ext 305 Chapel Frill line 967.9251 968-4501 Mebane line 227.2032 Durham line 688-7333 688-7331 Carr Mill Mall, Suite 225 100 N. Greensboro.Street Carrboro, N.C. 27510 942-4168 Daniel Reimer, MPH Health Director MEMORANDUM TO: EMILY CRUDUP FROM: TOM KONSLER 12: DATE: DECEM1ER 16, 1987 RE: SEPTIC SYSTEM EASEMENTS VS. OWNERSHIP While in the planning stages of subdivision proposals, it would be a recommendation of this department that, whenever possible, each proposed lot would have an area approved for septic within its boundaries. When this is not possible (as in the case of detached drainfields or cluster systems) a recorded easement to the approved area would be acceptable. It would however be a preferable situation for each lot owner to have ownership and control over the area approved for his own septic system. If I can clarify this point further, please feel free to contact me. • I 189 COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, DICKERSON, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. DRAWER 1529 129 E. TRYON ST. HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 919-732-2196 919-942-8000 December 14 , 1987 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SUITE 20,FRANKLIN BUILDING 137 E. FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL,N.C.27514 919.929.7151 ALONZO B.COLEMAN,IR. STEVEN A.BERNHOLZ DONALD R.DICKERSON Ms . Emily C r u d u p ROGER B. BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL Planner II DOUGLAS HARGRAVE G. NICHOLAS HERMAN Orange County Planning Department KIM K.STEFFAN 306F Revere Road NATHANIEL E.CLEMENTS Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 MARILYN ELLISON Of Counsel BONNER D.SAWYER Re: Dal-Rae Forest Subdivision (1902.1972) Dear Emily: This letter is in response to your letter dated November 10 , 1987 . The division of the property owned by Dalton F. Riley and his wife , Rachel W. Riley into two lots of approximately two acre and the balance of the tract into lots greater than 10 acres does not exempt the portion of the tract divided into lots greater than 10 acres from subdivision review. In order to be exempt from subdivision regulations, the property must be divided into tracts all greater than 10 acres . The County is responsible under the subdivision regulations, therefore , for reviewing this entire subdivision including the tracts apparently shown on the plat recorded at Plat Book 48 , Page 86 of the Orange County Registry. Any decisions on the road requirements in the subdivision should be made with that in mind . Very truly yours, ri r_o frey : Gledhill GEG/lsg xc: Marvin Collin- • COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, DICKERSON, 'J. 19 f; BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE C � ' ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12P 87 D P.O. DRAWER 1529 129 E. TRYON ST. HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 919-732-2196 919-942-8000 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE December 23 , 1987 SUITE 20,FRANKLIN BUILDING 137 E.FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL,N.C.27514 919-929-7151 ALONZO B.COLEMAN,JR. STEVEN A.BERNHOLZ DONALD R.DICKERSON ROGER B.BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL Mr. Marvin Collins DOUGLAS HARGRAVE G.NICHOLAS HERMAN Director KIM K.STEFFAN Orange County Planning Department NATHANIEL E.CLEMENTS MARILYN ELUSON 3 0 6 F Revere Road Of Counsel Hillsborough , North Carolina 27278 BONNER D.SAWYER (1902-1972) Re: Dal-Rae Forest Subdivision/OWASA Recommendations Dear Marvin: This letter follows up our telephone conversation on Friday, December 17 , 1987 concerning OWASA' s recommendations with respect to community based septic systems . As I understand it OWASA has made three recommendations to the County either in the context of the Dal-Rae Subdivision or in some broader context . Those recommendations are as follows : 1. All community based systems should have a dual alternating absorption field system installed with an additional backup field area. 2 . Primary and backup septic tank sites approved by the Health Department should be clearly designated on the plat and required to remain undisturbed . 3 . Subdivisions located within the University Lake Watershed or in the Rural Buffer outside or within the watershed should be required to provide a 30-foot wide public utility easement in a low lying area for future extension of public water and sewer . The County subdivision regulations provide that the Health Department shall review the subdivision and certify it as to the proposed water and sewage systems . Section III-D-4-a. Section V-C-I-a calls for the approval of plans for a proposed public or 191 Mr. Marvin Collins Page Two December 23 1987 community sewage system by the Health Department Director or the Division of Environmental Management of the Department of Natural and Economic Resources , which ever agency is appropriate . There is , therefore , no basis in the County subdivision regulations for requiring that which OWASA recommends with respect to community based systems . Furthermore, in the absence of some technical support for OWASA' s recommendations in the form of Division of Environmental Management support or in the form of local Health Department regulation support, there is no factual basis for the subdivision regulations to include such requirements . On the other hand, it does seem to me that on-site waste disposal systems approved by the Orange County Health Department , including both the primary drain field and the repair drain fields , could be I required to remain undisturbed provided that is i consistent with Orange County Health Department 1 regulations on that point. 0 OWASA' s request that the County require the Q dedication of public utility easements within the watershed or the Rural Buffer within or outside of the watershed seems inconsistent with the County' s g Comprehensive Plan on this point . I think any such requirement should wait the rural buffer/watershed 1 study and amendments to the Plan that occur following g the conclusion of the watershed study. a Ver. I truly yours, At `Illtor- E. Gledhill GEG/lsg xc: Shirley E. Marsha for t , Board of County ommissi4 - ,s Dtii3 \ 1pp D R A F T PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 192 December 21 , 1987 MEMBERS PRESENT: Barry Jacobs (Chair) , Chris Best, Virginia Boland, Abbie Dickinson, Dan Eddleman, Peter Kramer, Mike Lewis, Sharlene Pilkey, Brenda Swann, Steve Yuhasz. MEMBERS ABSENT: Betty Margison, Prince Taylor (both unexcused) . STAFF PRESENT: Marvin Collins, Eddie Kirk, Emily Crudup, Brad Torgan, Joanna Bradshaw. AGENDA ITEM #7 : SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS b. Preliminary Plats ( 1 ) Dal-Rae Forest (2 lots - Bingham Township) Presentation by Emily Crudup. The tract is located in the northeast corner of Bingham Township on the south side of Borland Road ( SR 1127 ) one half mile east of the intersection with Dodson ' s Crossroads ( SR 1102) . The total acreage of the tract is 15. 2 acres. Adjacent land use is mostly residential . The property is zoned Rural Buffer and designated as Rural Residential on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Another preliminary subdivision plan was previously submitted for 69. 9 acres, including this tract. Seven two-acre lots were proposed on a Class A private road. The plan was reviewed by the Planning Board on September 21 and denied by the Board of County Commissioners on October 5, 1987. At that time, the Commissioners recommended that the plan be re- submitted with a public road designed and built to State standards. An exempt plat has been recorded which divided the 69. 9 acre tract into three 10. 1 acre lots, a 24. 4 acre tract, and a 15. 2 acre lot with Dal -Rae Forest Road created as a private road. The proposal now being considered divides the 15.2 acre tract into two 2-acre lots with frontage on Borland Road ( SR 1127 ) and a third lot containing 11 . 15 acres. All agencies have reviewed Dal -Rae Forest. The Director of Orange County Recreation and 19 2 Parks recommends payment- in- lieu of dedication of recreation/open space in the amount of $113. 00. The Town of Carrboro responded that their comments on the first preliminary of Dal -Rae Forest were still valid and that a 50-foot buffer would be required on either side of the intermittent stream. Since the stream is not perennial and is not in a protected watershed, a stream buffer is not required. However, a 30- foot drainage easement has been provided. Orange Water and Sewer Authority recommends that a dual alternating absorption field system should be installed and that an additional back-up field area should also be required. .OWASA also suggested that primary and back-up septic tank sites approved by the Health Department should be clearly designated on the plat and required to remain undisturbed. In addition, OWASA recommends that property owners in the Watershed or Rural Buffer should be required to provide a 30-foot wide public utility easement in a low- lying area in the event extension of public water and sewer service is determined necessary and desirable in the future. The County is restricted to the requirements of the Health Department and the N. C. Division of Environmental Management insofar as septic tank fields are concerned. There are no provisions in either the Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations which would permit the inclusion of OWASA' s comments as conditions of approval . With regard to the reservation of utility easements, current County policy limits the extension of public water and sewer service into the Rural Buffer. Should this policy be amended, Orange County may then pursue reserving utility easements during the subdivision process. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plan for Dal -Rae Forest with the following conditions: 1 . Include in Lot 11 the area south of the creek designated for septic tank disposal . 2. Submit payment- in-lieu of dedication of recreation open space in the amount of $113. 00. Jacobs asked about access for lots 1 and 2 194E 3 (both two-acre lots) . Crudup responded that they both had frontage onto Borland Road. Jacobs continued that the Commissioners had expressed concern with so many lots having access onto a state road when access was available via a lesser road and suggested that a third condition be added to restrict access for lots 1 and 2 to the private road. Yuhasz asked if lot 3 is the lot of record from which lots 1 and 2 are being subdivided. Crudup responded that the three lots are being subdivided from a 15.2 acre tract. Yuhasz then expressed concern that lot 3 had inadequate road frontage and that an easement would need to be granted for lots 1 and 2. The developer was not available to clarify the question. MOTION: Eddleman moved approval with the staff conditions and the additional condition that lots 1 and 2 access the private road. Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed (Best - felt that a precedent was being set with piece-meal development of the tract and was concerned with who would bear the cost when and if the road was paved sometime in the future) . (2) Lynwood Acres - Lots 2 and 3 (2 lots - Chapel Hill Township) Presentation by Emily Crudup. This agenda item is for consideration of the preliminary plan for the subdivision and recombination of Lots 2 and 3 in Lynwood Acres. The property is located in Chapel Hill Township on the east side of Damascus Church Road ( SR 1940) south of Jones Ferry Road ( SR 1942) . It is also within the Water Quality Critical Area of University Lake Watershed. The zoning designation is Rural Buffer. The total acreage of Lot 2 is 5. 19 acres. Two lots are proposed with both fronting on Damascus Church Road. The applicant also proposes to recombine 0. 08 - acre of Lot 2 with Lot 3. All agencies have reviewed the preliminary - plan. The Director of Recreation and Parks recommends payment- in- lieu of dedication of recreation/open space in the amount of $660. 00. O R A N G E C O U N T Y 195 BOARD COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date 4aruiary 4„1988_ Action da Item f_ SUBJECT: DRAFT CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No ATTACHMENT( S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bell 10-27-87 Cedar Grove TAC Minutes Draft 11 -23-87 Public Hearing Minutes Revised Section on Population and Land Requirement Projections Draft 12-21 -87 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham -- 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of a proposed amendment to the Orange County Land Use Plan, Section 3. 6 - Cedar Grove Township. BACKGROUND : When the Orange County Land Use Plan was adopted in 1981 , a five year update schedule was specified by the County Commissioners. The plan update process for Cedar Grove began officially on July 21 at a TAC meeting wherein the plan update strategy was presented. This was followed by a public information meeting on August 11 to present background data and distribute a questionnaire, a meeting on October 6 to discuss alternative plans, and a final meeting on October 27 to present the Draft Plan. With one major exception, the Draft Plan does not differ substantially from the 1981 Plan. The major change is the designation of additional water supply watersheds in the Township, in particular, the Back Creek and Little River drainage basins. This increases from 28. 5% to 88% , the amount of township land area designated water supply watershed. Township activity nodes and the designation of the entire township as Agricultural -Residential are unchanged from 1981 . The Draft Plan was presented to the Planning Board on November 16, 1987 as an informational item. Several concerns were expressed by Board members. Among these were: ( 1 ) The statement on page 3.6-1 that the "Completion of I- 40 from Chapel Hill to Hillsborough is unlikely to cause any significant change in the commuting 196 2 pattern. " ; (2) The statement on page 3. 6-1 that "no public water" exists in Cedar Grove Township. A TAC member pointed out that Orange Alamance Water Systems extended a line to three residences along Lynch Store Road last summer; and (3) That the average annual population growth rate of 1 . 25% on page 3.6-8 seems low and that the 1980 to 1987 rate of 2. 96% is more realistic. The Draft Plan was presented at public hearing on November 23, 1987 and comments were received from two Township residents. Mr. Carl Walters spoke, favorably of the Draft Plan although he felt the population projections were low and that the completion of 1 -40 would have a greater impact than indicated in the plan. He advocated zoning as a means of implementing the plan. Mr. Oscar Compton stated the population projections in the plan were high, and that he was strongly opposed to zoning as a means of implementing the plan. At its December 21 , 1987 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed amendment and incorporation into Section 3.6 of the Land Use Plan with the following text revisions: ( 1 ) On page 3.6-1 delete the sentence, "Completion of 1 -40 from Chapel Hill to Hillsborough is unlikely to cause any significant change in the commuting pattern. " (2) Reword the following sentence on page 3.6-1 , "There is currently no public water or sewer in Cedar Grove Township and no plans exist to extend such services into the Township, " to read "Currently, public water service in Cedar Grove Township is limited to a 3- inch water line extending approximately 1100 feet along Lynch Store Road. No public sewer is available, and there are no plans to extend either service in the Township. " (3) Revise the Population and J_nsi R,quirement Projections beginning on page 3.6-7 by using an average annual population growth rate of 2. 96% . This increases the year 2005 population from 4,852 to 6,564, a difference of 1 ,712 persons. The Planning Board further recommended that the Planning Department be directed to immediately pursue preparation of a watershed protection ordinance for Little River and Cedar Grove Townships pursuant to the draft Water/Sewer Policy recommendations. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment to Section 3. 6 of the Land Use Plan -- Cedar Grove Township - and authorization for preparation of a watershed protection ordinance as recommended by the Planning Board. 197 SUMMARY OF CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING HELD AT THE CEDAR GROVE RURITAN CLUB ON OCTOBER 27, 1987 ATTENDANCE TAC MEMBERS : Michael Muller, Chair Melvin Beasley Daryl Clayton Rocky Hall Elizabeth Walters PLANNING STAFF: Gene Bell Eddie Kirk OTHERS : See attached attendance sheet A quorum was established at 7 :30 and the meeting began. Bell announced that the purpose of the meeting was for the Township Advisory Council (TAC) to formulate a recommendation to the Planning Board on the DRAFT Cedar Grove Township Land Use Plan scheduled for public hearing on November 23, 1987 . Bell began by giving a brief ` review of the planning process and what had been discussed at previous township meetings. He then briefly discussed the 1981 plan and what it meant for Cedar Grove Township. In particular, he discussed the nodes and what they implied and the Upper Eno Water Supply Watershed and Water Quality Critical Area. He then shifted the discussion to the Draft Plan. First, he pointed out the additional areas designated as water supply watershed. He stated that these designations were in direct response to the Back Creek Reservoir in Alamance County and the Little River Reservoir in _ _ Durham County. Next, he pointed out the resource protection areas and indicated that they were composed of flood prone and steep slope areas. Agricultural areas were then addressed. Bell stated that showing agricultural areas on the plan did not imply that the areas would remain agricultural or that the County had any means of making them stay that way. He stated that protection of agricultural areas was a basic premise of the plan and that by Identifying such areas on the plan the impacts generated by-.developing -adjacent lands could be more - -- adequately addressed. _ -_ Next, Bell identified the activity nodes and indicated they were . the same as the 1981 plan and that proposed uses in them were unchanged from 1981 . Finally, he identified the arterial and collector road system and their importance in the determination of activity nodes. He then stated he would like to address TAC questions/concerns and after 4 that, any questions or concerns of the general public. - - There were no immediate questions by TAC members so the floor was 2 opened to the public, Mr. Compton asked how the nodes were determined and what was the process for changing them. Bell stated that the nodes were determined in 1981 . He stated that there had been a series of informational meetings, TAC meetings, public hearings and Planning Board meetings at which various drafts and discussed and that the current node plan alternatives were finally adopted. In response to changingrtheasnodetconfiguration, oBell stated that such amendments had to be approved by the County Commissioners. He stated that a proposal for amending a node could come from the Commissioners, TAC, Planning Board/Staff, or public. He emphasized the importance of arterial/collector intersections and the fact that amendments creating new nodes were only considered at the February public hearing. Mr. Compton said he thought one of the best areas for commercial use had been left off the plan and this was the intersection of NC 86 and Hurdle Mills Road. Bell stated that Hurdle Mills Road was not classified as an arterial or collector road and that this was why the intersection was not classified as a node. A member of the public , asked about the difficulty of establishing a commercial use outside of a. node. Bell stated that in the absence of zoning it was no more difficult to establish a commercial use outside of a node than in one. He stated that if zoning were implemented, commercial uses established thereafter ( with the exception of agricultural service uses) would be restricted to nodes. ' Carl Walters referenced the figure of slightly over 1% annual population growth mentioned earlier by Bell and asked why such a low rate was used. Bell responded that in doing the township, the historical record was reviewed. In projections the 1970 and 1980 census and building particular, the studied. Analysis of these figures presulted dinu the vgrowthrratessused. e Someone asked if the Commissioners could adopt the plan on November 23. Bell responded that they could not, the twenty-third was for presentation and comments tonl the hearing on that.the Planning Board would review the record of the hearingeatstheir meeting in December and make a recommendation to the _ Commissioners who could take action on the plan at their first meeting -__ _-_.i_n January ' if they so desired. meeting A member of the audience asked why was the plan update eve -- = , done-if . Cedar. Grove was growing so slowly. _ ._._ n being '-'Bell_ stated . the-- main reason was the five-year update - specified at the time of plan - adoption in 1981 . He referenced chedule ": work that. had already taken place (Little River Township- need update =. . - _ --!Planning Area) and work_I n-progress-. (Bingham, Eno, and Hillsborough p and the Jo1nt Townships).. - ... There _ were several questions concerning .soil suitabili Township and Health Department requirements, . Bell tg 1n the e - Planning Department required a Health Department stated tngt the _ there was a suitable perk site or a properly functioningcseptic1tank on a piece of property _ before a residential building permit tank be 9 P could be 199 3 issued. Beyond this, Bell said he could not address the requirements of the Health Department. Daryl Clayton asked if it would be possible to have a Health Department representative attend the next TAC meeting and address Health Department standards on perk tests. Bell said he would be glad to check into this. Carl Walters identified himself as a former Planning Board member and offered some general observations from his five years service on the Planning Board. He stated that he was a dairy farmer and intended to remain in that profession so it was immaterial to him whether or not the area was zoned. He did state, however, that a lot of land was being taken out of agricultural production and that if the owners were thinking about selling the land for residential uses they would realize a higher profit if the land were zoned. He said potential - buyers looked upon zoning as protection from undesirable adjacent uses and would be willing to pay a higher price per acre. Someone asked if Little River were zoned would Cedar Grove be zoned at the same time without the residents knowing about it. Bell stated "no", that if Cedar 'Grove were proposed for zoning it , would clearly be stated in a directive from the County Commissioners and in any subsequent legal notices. At this point TAC members convened to discuss their recommendation to the Planning Board. After a ; short period of discussion, Chair Michael Muller announced that the TAC was recommending by consensus, adoption of the plan as presented with the further recommendation that zoning not be considered at this time for Cedar Grove Township. Chair Muller further stated that the next TAC meeting would be . held in late January or early February and that a Health Department representative would be invited. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m. - -- 200 ® 15 have the opportunity to address those concerns presented. Marshall agreed, but desired the Manager to develop the process by which this would be handled. 2. alaukraTILD MPA T ORDINANCE - DELETED 3. LAND USE AMENDMENTS - CEDAR GROyE TOWNSHIP LAND UZE PLAN Staff presentation by Gene Bell . When the Orange County Land Use Plan was adopted in 1981 , a five year update schedule was specified by the County Commissioners. In accordance with this schedule, work was begun on updating the Little River Township Plan in the spring of 1986 . As the work on Little River was nearing completion in May 1987 , data collection and analysis was begun for Cedar Grove Township. The plan update process for Cedar Grove began officially on July 21 at a TAC meeting wherein the plan update strategy was presented. This was followed by a public information meeting on August 11 to present background data and distribute a questionnaire, a meeting on October 6 to discuss alternative plans, and a final meeting on October 27 to present the Draft Plan. With one major exception, the Draft Plan does not differ substantially from the 1981 Plan. The major change is the designation of additional water supply watersheds in the Township, in particular, the Back Creek and Little River drainage basins. This increases from 28. 5% to 88%, the amount of township land area designated water supply watershed. Township activity nodes and the designation of the entire township as Agricultural -Residential are unchanged from 1981 . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended text and map and incorporation into Section 3.6 of the Land Use Plan. The Planning Board will consider the TAC recommendation and prepare a recommendation on the Plan amendment at its December 21 , 1987 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on January 4, 1988. A detailed summary and analysis, included in the agenda materials, Is an attachment to these minutes on pages Planning Board member Kramer stated that the Planning Board had expressed the concern that the population projections for Cedar Grove were too low considering the impact the Board felt would occur with the completion of 1--4G. Carl Walters, resident of Cedar Grove Township, stated that he would prefer to see land In his immediate area remain agricultural . He noted, however, that he felt the growth projection of 1 .25 is too low and his expectations are that the completion of 1-40 will bring considerable growth to Cedar Grove. He continued expressing the concern that the 201 16 protection of water quality is not for the Cedar Grove area but for surrounding areas and that protection should be aimed at the individual ' s investment in house and lands. He stated that he felt the updating of the Land Use Plan alone was ridiculous and the only real help for the landowner would be the zoning of Cedar Grove Township. He urged the Board of Commissioners to follow the Update of the Land Use Plan with zoning. Oscar Compton, resident of Cedar Grove Township, began by stating that he is very much opposed to zoning. He indicated that there is no land available for sale in Cedar Grove Township and he does not foresee there being any land for sale. He noted that he felt that the population projections by the Planning Staff of 1 . 25% would more likely be Just 1 /2 of 1% rather than higher as Mr. Walters indicated. He continued that the residents of Cedar Grove Township do not anticipate any growth during the next twenty year period. He urged the Board , of Commissioners not to consider zoning for Cedar Grove Township until such time as the majority of the residents had a desire for zoning. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell , that the public hearing be closed and the Update of the Land Use Plan for Cedar Grove Township be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on January 4, 1988. VOTE: Unanimous. 4. ZONING 8TLAS AMENDMENTS e. PD-2-87 Chandler Concrete Presentation by Marvin Collins. Chandler Concrete Company has submitted an application for a PD1- I-3 ( Planned Development- Industrial -3 ) zoning classification on 2. 0 acres of property located on the south - = side of Old NC Highway 10 east of NC Highway 86. The property _ _ is currently zoned PD1-1-3 and R-1 Residential , and is designated Ten-Year Transition and Commerical industrial _ Activity Node in the Land Use Plan. The request has been made in order to bring an existing washwater recycling facility and the use of the site for truck parking into compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. A history of the request, recommendation and conditions of approval are an attachment to these minutes. Collins noted that there was no designation on the plan to indicate whether or not the recycling facility is to be served by electricity and whether the utility would be underground. Thus, a 9th condition has been added that underground utilities must be provided. 202 PO,Au Lat i on and Land gegu i remen t_ Prpj ect ions One of the initial and fundamental steps in the land use planning process is the calculation of the amount of land needed to accommodate projected growth. Generally, the amount of land required for residential growth and associated non- residential growth is a direct function of population and household size. Table 3-2 summarizes population estimates and projections for population while Table 3-2a projects the number of additional homes needed to meet the demand of new residents. The average household size will continue to decline, leveling off towards the end of the twenty year plan period. The projected average household size used is slightly higher than for other townships, reflecting a historically higher average household size in Cedar Grove. Table 3-2b , using the projected number of new households, estimates land requirements for development through the year 2005 . The population projections are based on an average annual growth rate of 2. 96%, the average annual growth rate from 1980 to 1987 , projected out from the estimated population in 1987 . Projections based on growth during tills time period differ from the approach used in other townships where the 1970 to 1987 average annual growth rate was used. However, the nature of growth in Cedar Grove Township ( static from 1970 to 1980 and then moderate from 1980 to 1987 ) differs markedly from that in the other townships. TABLE 3-2 CEDAR GROVE POPULATION PROJECTIONS, 1987-2005 a b c c c c year 1980 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 TOTAL POPULATION 3, 166 3 ,883 4 ,238 4,904 5,674 6,564 POPULATION CHANGE FROM 1980 ( NUMBER) --- 717 1 , 072 1 ,738 2,508 3,398 a 1980 U. S. Census of Population b Estimate based on building permits Issued by the Orange County Planning Department c Projections based on a standard exponential extrapolation of the 1980-1987 average annual growth rate of 2. 96% per year. 203 TABLE 3-2a CEDAR GROVE HOUSING PROJECTIONS, 1987-2005 year 1980 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 a POPULATION 3 , 166 3 ,883 4,238 4 , 904 5,674 6 ,564 AVG. HOUSEHOLD b SIZE 2.69 2. 67 2.60 2. 56 2. 50 2. 50 c d HOUSING UNITS 1 , 176 1 ,452 1 ,630 1 , 916 2,270 2,626 HOUSING UNIT CHANGE FROM 1980 --- 276 454 740 1 , 094 1 ,450 a From Table 3-2 b Assumes continuous proportional drop to 2. 5 persons/house- hold In the year 2000 c Source: 1980 U. S. Census of Housing d Based on building permits issued by the Orange County Planning Department TABLE 3-2b CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP LAND USE REQUIREMENTS, 1987-2005 time period 1987-1995 1995-2005 1987-2005 a DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED 464 710 1 , 174 b RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 1 ,285 2, 014 3,252 c TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 1 ,349 2, 115 3,415 a From Table 3-2a b Based on a density of 2.77 acres/unit, the average size of a lot subdivided between 1980 and 1986. c Based on a commercial/ institutional multiplier of 0. 05 The projected population of ,5644 residents in the year 2005 would require an estimated 1450 dwelling units beyond the housing stock that existed in 19$0. This would place an additional 3 ,252 acres of land into residential use based on the average size of a lot subdivided from 1980 to 1986. 204 In addition to acreage needed for homes, residential development creates in its wake the need for land to accommodate institutional and commercial uses, such as churches, shopping facilities, and recreational areas. The 1986 ratio of commercial and institutional land to residential land was 1 : 15. The rate of residential growth, however, grew faster than the rate of commercial growth between 1980 and 1987 . Hence, a ratio of 1 :20, or 0. of non-residentia land for every acre of residential land, non-residential is used. This brings the total land requirements to 3,415 acres. AGENDA ITEM /8: MATTERS HEARD AT 11/23/87 PUBLIC HEARING a. Master Recreation and Parks Plan r� 00. 2C J LED E° 0 .b. Land Use Plan Amendments ( 1 ) Cedar Grove Township Land Use Plan Presentation by Brad Torgan. When the Orange County Land Use Plan was adopted in 1981 , a five year update schedule was specified by the County Commissioners. The plan update process for Cedar Grove began officially on July 21 at a TAC meeting wherein the plan update strategy was presented. This was followed by a public information meeting on August 11 to present background data and distribute a questionnaire, a meeting on October 6 to discuss alternative plans, and a final meeting on October 27 to present the Draft Plan. With one major exception, the Draft Plan does not differ substantially from the 1981 Plan. The major change is the designation of additional water supply watersheds in the Township, in particular, the Back Creek and Little River drainage basins. This increases from 28.5% to 88%, the amount of township land area designated water supply watershed. Township activity nodes and the designation of the entire township as Agricultural Residential are unchanged from 1981 . The Draft Plan was presented to the Planning Board on November 16, 1987 as an informational item. Several concerns were expressed by Board members, Among these were: ( 1 ) The statement on page 3. 6-1 that the "Completion of I- 40 from Chapel Hill to Hillsborough is unlikely to cause any significant change in the commuting 2t MOTION: Kramer moved approval with the three changes proposed by staff . Seconded by Pilkey. MOTION AMENDMENT: Jacobs recommended that the Planning Staff be immediately directed to prepare a watershed protection ordinance pursuant to the Water/Sewer Policy approved by the Planning Board in June, including Little River and Cedar Grove Townships. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed (Yuhasz - felt that the Draft Plan was not sufficient to zone the Township and preferred a plan whereby it could be zoned ) . Jacobs informed the Board that a Planning Board member needed to be appointed to the Board of Adjustment and nominated Dan Eddleman. The nomination was seconded by Dickinson. VOTE: Unanimous. c. Zoning Atlas Amendments ( 1 ) PD-2-87 Chandler Concrete Presentation by Marvin Collins. Chandler Concrete Company has submitted an application for a PD- I-3 ( Planned Development- Industrial -3 ) zoning classification on 2. 0 acres of property located on the south side of Old NC Highway 10 east of NC Highway 86. The property is currently zoned PD- I- 1-3 and R-1 Residential , and is designated Ten-Year Transition and Commercial Industrial Activity Node in the Land Use Plan. The request has been made in order to bring an existing wash- water recycling facility and the use of the site for trucking parking into compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. A history of the request is as follows: 10/10/85 Chandler Concrete Company was granted a secondary Land Use Plan amendment, Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for 1 .41 acres of land on NC Highway 10. The request was prompted by State-mandated requirements to contain runoff from the existing concrete plant. 01 12/12/86, Following a challenge to Orange County ' s approvals, the court ruled that the Special Use O R A N G E C O U N T Y 08 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date January 4,1988 Action da Item jLI — SUBJECT: PD-2-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE ( Refer to 11/23/87 agenda packet for background data) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _ x No����� ATTACHMENT( S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Draft 11/23/87 Public Hearing Minutes Planning Board Findings Draft 12/21/87 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of an application for a proposed Planned Development-Special Use Permit for Chandler Concrete. This item was presented at public hearing on November 23, 1987 . BACKGROUND : Chandler Concrete Company submitted an application for a PD- 1 - 1 -3 ( Planned Development- Industrial -3) zoning classification on 2. 0 acres of property located on the south side of Old N. C. Highway 10 east of N.C. Highway 86. The request was subsequently amended from PD- 1- 1-3 to PD- I- 1 -1 at the public hearing to satisfy the minimum lot area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is currently zoned PD- I- 1 -3 and R-1 Residential , and is designated Ten-Year Transition and Commercial Industrial Activity Node in the Land Use Plan. The request has been made in order to bring an existing washwater recycling facility and the use of the site for truck parking into compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. A history of the request is as follows: 10/10/85 - Chandler Concrete Company was granted a secondary Land Use Plan amendment, Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for 1 . 41 acres of land on N. C. Highway 10. The request was prompted by State-mandated requirements to contain runoff from the existing concrete plant. 2 209 12/12/86 - Following a challenge to Orange County ' s approvals, the court ruled that the Special Use Permit was invalid since the applicant did not meet the required two-acre minimum lot size standard, and since evidence had not been presented to indicate the project would maintain the value of existing properties in the area. The effect of the court ruling was to place Chandler Concrete Company in violation of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. 10/5/87 - The Board of Commissioners approved a request by Chandler Concrete to expand the Ten-Year Transition Area and Commercial - Industrial Activity Node by an additional 0. 59 acres. Combined with the 1 .41 acres currently in the same designation, the two-acre lot size requirement could be met. NCDOT has indicated that a driveway permit will be required for driveway "D" (the easternmost driveway) . This permit has been obtained and the driveway constructed. Encroachment agreements will be required if any drainage structures or other work is performed within the right-of- way of Old N. C. Highway 10. Both the Orange Rural Fire Department and the Orange County Rescue Squad have indicated their ability to provide emergency services to the site. The Sheriff ' s Department has indicated that no additional manpower will be needed . The Erosion Control Officer has indicated that a stormwater management plan will be required for the project. The Recreation Director has indicated no elements exist which would warrant comment from a recreation perspective. At its December 21 , 1987 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of rezoning of the property from R-1 Residential and PD- I- I -3 to PD- I- I-1 and the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit with conditions. ( See attachment. ) RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the request as recommended by the Planning Board. 210 Article 8.2.2 states that where a preponderance of evidence indicates compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use, and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless it is found, in some specific manner, that: 1 . The use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; 2. The use will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; 3. The use is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the county as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The burden of proving one or more of the above findings is on those opposing the application. The proof must also be in the form of competent material and substantial evidence. No information was presented at the public hearing which would establish grounds for making one or more of the above findings. The Planning Board has reviewed the application, the site plan and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant does comply with the general standards, specific rules, and required regulations with the exception of the underground utilities requirement. The Planning Board recommends approval with the amendment of the zoning district designation from R-1 and PD- I-3 to PD- I -1 and the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit with the attachment of the following conditions: 1 . The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all improvements plus 10% . The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. As improvements are completed a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements. 2. Security shall be provided for the replacement of dead or damaged landscaping plants and planting of Loblolly Pines in the Reforestation Area. 3. Roads, parking areas and landscaping shall be maintained as constructed. All such improvements and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. 4. Screening and landscaping requirements shall be provided as 211 2 required in Articles 7 and 12 and shall be maintained as constructed, including the replacement of dead or damaged plant materials. 5. The five percent (5%) interior landscaping requirement of the vehicular use area shall be constructed as shown on the approved site plan. 6. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer. 7. The final site plan and narrative of the project, incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project, are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to remain on file with the Orange County Planning Department. Any applicable permits, upon application, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. 8. The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions. 9. All utility lines, including electrical and telephone service lines, shall be located underground. 4 . ZDN IN_G ATLAS AMl`NDMcN'S Mb 3 /IVY r +8. -1?D_2�7_ �hen�, onconc. P� ii �14 Presentation by Marvin Collins. Chandler Concrete Company has submitted an application for a PD1- 1-3 ( Planned Development- Industrial -3 ) zoning classification on 2. 0 acres of property located on the south side of Old NC Highway 10 east of NC Highway 86. The property is currently zoned P01- 1-3 and R-1 Residential , and Is designated Ten-Year Transition and Commerical industrial Activity Node in the Land Use Plan. The request has been made in order to bring an existing washwater recycling facility and the use of the site for truck parking into compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. A history of the request, recommendation and conditions of approval are an attachment to these minutes. Collins noted that there was no designation on the plan to indicate whether, or not the recycling facility Is to be served by electricity and whether the utility would be underground. Thus, a 9th condition has been added that underground utilities must be provided. Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked what the effect would be to change the proposal from PD1 - 1-3 to PDI - I-1 . Collins responded that all the uses permitted In PD- 1-3 are also permitted in Pd- I-1 . The question is one of impact. In this particular use, no structure is Involved, it is all open use of land. An I-1 district would entail slightly more restrictive control . Phil Post, consulting engineer for the Chandler Concrete Company request, reviewed for the Boards the project describing the recycling facility, parking facility and the reforestation to complete the project. He noted that the applicant agreed with the conditions imposed but stated that the only utility used would be for the single phase pump and that has been placed underground. He reviewed the reasons for the project which was to bring it into compliance with the Department of Environmental Management. John Capewell fisted his qualifications as a real estate appraiser, stating that he has been a tax appraiser for Orange County for the last year. He indicated that it is his professional opinion that the rezoning request will not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties. (A ropy of Mr. Capewell ' s report Is an attachment to these minutes) . Tom Chandler, applicant, presented his request to the Boards. CA copy of his statement and permit from DEM are included as attachments to these minutes. ) Robert E. Rhine, adjoing property owner, stated that he and 213 his two sisters ( also adjoining property owners) were the major opposition for the original rezoning request of Chandler Concrete. He stated that they no longer oppose the request and are confident that, upon approval , Mr. Chandler will reforest the area as promised. Planning Board member Pilkey asked if it is Mr. Rhine' s understanding that the land will not be reforested unless the rezoning I s approved. Mr. Rhine indicated that he felt if the rezoning is not approved, the land will not be used nor reforested. Pilkey asked if Mr. Rhine agreed with the appraiser + s statement. He responded that he really was not qualified to agree or disagree with that opinion, he had faith that Mr. Chandler would replant trees as proposed. Moreland Claytor, property owner on US Highway 70A across from the old Hines Liner Company, indicated that lack of water from the creek on her property for her cattle was her concern. She indicated that there was a significant amount of concrete in the stream which prevented the flow of water to her property. Commissioner Halkiotis asked where the concrete was coming from. Ms. .Claytor responded that concrete had been poured down from a bank and covered the stream. Mr. Chandler stated that a firm had been contracted to begin the replanting of trees as soon as the rezoning is approved. In response to Ms. Claytor, he indicated that the concrete she referred to is on private property across from the old livestock market owned by a marina. He continued that the owner had allowed the washing on that property approximately two years ago. He stated that no further washing of trucks would be conducted anywhere other than the property owned by Chandler Concrete. He also noted that the reclamation ponds have been cleaned out and the concrete removed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, that the public hearing be closed and the Chandler Concrete rezoning request be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on January 4, 1988. VOTE: Unanimous. FINDINGS OF 111E ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPART L111 PERTAINING TO APPLICATION ' PD-2-87 CiIA14DLER CONCRETE CO. Planned developments must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article 8 for Special Uses as well as those set forth in Article ] for Planned Developments. Article 8.2. 1 b) requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: (1) Specific regulations governing individual Special Uses as set forth In Article 13.8. These regulations are divided into two (2) sections which Include: (a) Application component's; 'and (b) Specific standards for Planned Developments (Article 8.8.23 refers to Article ] standards) and Special Uses (Article 8.2.4) (2) Other requirements as set forth In the toning Ordinance, Including the provisions of Article 5 (Dimensional Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Re-quirements) ' Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Staff regarding the application In question. The flndi have been presented by Article and requlrement to assist the Planning Board in its deliberations. ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLiCATION 'COIIPONENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance ; "No" Indicates noncompliance) Planning Board Board of Findings Based on Commissioners Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings findings 8.6-Application submitted on forms X Yes No Application, narrative and site plans Yes No providing full and accurate submitted by applicant. decsription of proposed use, Includ- Ing location, appearance and opera- tional characteristics 8.8 a) twenty-six(26) copies of the site X Yes No 26 copies of. the site plan submitted by Yes No plan prepared by a registered N.C. the appiicant. Site plan was prepared land surveyor or engineer containing: by Philip Post & Associates, inc. I . North point, scale and date X Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes llo Shown on site plan. 2. Extent of area to be developed X Yes No •+ Yes No 3. tocation!,nnd width of all ease- x Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No ments and rights-of-way within or adjacent to the site ; ARTICLE 8.$.23-SPECIFIC STANDARDS rOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPKENTS ' r Article 8.8.23 indicates thbt the application shall comply with the applicable sections of Article ]-Planned Oevelomf ARTICLE 7-SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVUOPMENTS t"Yes" Indicates compliance;"No" indicates noncompli Planningoarr? Board of Findings Based on Commissioners Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evido-oce Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 7.4 Indicates the applica- tion most first comply with all requirements specified in Article I + 20 - Amendments. Those requirements CJ' Include: 20.3*2 a) Nap showing affected X Yes No Provided with application. Yes No property at scale of not less than► 1" 100' nor more than i" 20' . h i a with l 20,3.1 b) Legal description of x Yes No Provided application. Yes lio property 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged Yes No Ho error alleged. Yes No error, if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment 20. 3.2 d) Changed conditions, if x Yes No Conditions within the area have not Yes Flo any, which make amendment reasona- changed other than the lack of con- bly necessary to promote public formity between the use of the site health, safety and general welfare (truck parking and detention basins) and the correct zoning designation. 20.3.2 0 Banner in which proposed - Yes No A Land Use Plan amendment was approved, Yes No amendment will carry out purpose designating the site as part of a and Intent of adopted Comprehensive Commercial-Industrial Activity Mode. Plan The Land Use Plan permits an Industrial-3 (1-3) zoning district classification. ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (Continued) "E Planning Board Board of Findings Based on Commissioners Ordinante Requirements Submitted Application -'Eyiddnce Submltted To Support Findings Findings 4. Location of all existing or pro- __X__ Yes No !Jo structures are proposed. Detention Yes No posed structures on the site basins are shown on site plan. 5. Location of all areas on the site Yes No There are no Flood prone areas on the Yes No subject to flood hazard or Inunda- site according to the FEMA-FlA maps tion as shown on flood maps or r. and soils maps. soil maps b. Location of all water course§ K Yes No Mo water courses present on site. Yes No on the site, including the direction of flow ]. Existing topography at a contour Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No Interval of five (5) feet based on mean sea level datum 8. Proposed or existing fencing, x Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No screening, gates, parking, service and storage areas �. Access to site Including site X Yes ' No Shown on site plan. Driveway "D" has Yes No distances on all roads used for received a driveway permit from NCDOT access and is constructed. Driveway "C" has been closed. - 10. Elevations of all structures Yes ' No Ho structures are proposed other than Yes No proposed to be used In the in-ground detention basins. development 11 . Names and addresses of 'ownerg _ " ' Yet " No Submitted with application. Yes ' No and applicants 12 . A fee, as set by the Board of x Yes " No $204.00 application fee paid. Yes No County ConO ssioners Q, ARTICLE - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATIMI/PLAMIED DEVELONIENTS [Continued] Planning Board Board. of Findings Rased on Commissio-aers' Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article ].ti then indicates the application must comply with ~ certain specific requirements ~' common to all Planned Develop- ments. These includes 7.11 .1 So located with respect to X Yes No Proposed use has direct access to Old Yes NO major streets and mass transit HC 10 OR 1]10) a road classified as a facilities and designed so as not collector in the Land Use Plan. Use to create traffic on minor streets will not create adverse traffic impacts In residential districts on minor residential streets. - l 7.11 .2 So located with respect to X Yes No Proposed use will not require system Yes No water, seiner and storm drainage use or expansion. facilities that enlargement or extension wits not result in higher net pubic cost or earlier Incursion of public cost and to located with respect to x Yes No Proposed use will not require services. Yes No police fire and rescue services , Appropriate letters have been received. and schools and parks so as to have access in the same manner as permitted under the existing zoning 7.4.3 Site suitable for develop- X Yes No lio critical development areas are present Yes No ment without hazard from flooding, on site. erosion, and soil subsidence or slipping. ` ARTICLE 8.2.4 SPECIFIC STANDARDS/ALL SPECIAL USES ("Yes" Indicates compliance; "No" Indicates noncompliance) Board of Planning Board Commissioners . findings Based on Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 8.2,11 requires the applicant to address the following: a) flethod and adequacy of provision Yes ' No Not applicable. Yes No for sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and water service b) Method and adequacy of. police, X Yes No Police, fire and rescue agencies have Yes No fire and rescue squad protec- indicated their ability to serve the tlon site. cy Method and adequacy of vehlclg " ' x Yet — No Access . to site is proposed via Old NC 10 Yes NO access to the site and traffic (SR 1710) . Three driveways previously conditions around the site served the site. The applicant constructed a fourth driveway referenced as Drive D and closed an existing driveway referenced as Drive C to provide a safer entranceway to the site. MCDOT previously commented that the a driveways are adequate and meets sight distance requirements. i i L y, WNUMU.) s uit LVhLUiI I I Wji LIONLU ULVLLUi IILit i� kLuiI L I IIUUUJ Planning Board Board of Findings Based On Commissioners Ordinance Rcquirement9 Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support findings Findings Article 4 .2 Identifies the criteria width will normally be used to determine the appal - IV cation of a zoning district F-r designation. The applicant has applied for a __pp-1-3 designat on. the criteria for that district are set forth ;n Article 4.2. and are as follows: ay Site is located outside the _� Yes No Applicanf received approval of a Land Use Yes No Chapel hill Joint Planning Plan amendment to Commercial-Irdustrial Area and within an area designated Transition Activity Mode. industrial Transition Activity Node, b) Water and sewer mains exist Yes No Not applicable to proposed use. Yes No or will be made available as part of the development process. c0 Access consists of direct x Yes No Site has direct access to Old NC 10 Yes No vehicular access to arterial (SR 1710) , a road classified. as a or collector. collector in the Land Use Plan. d) Yes No Yes No e) Yes No Yes No ARTICLE 4 - ESTABLISIIME14T OF PERMI TT ED USE TABLE AND SWEDULE ("Ye s" indicates comp IIancc; "No" Indicates noncompliance) Planning Board Board of Findings Based on Commissioners I Ordinance Requirements' Submitted Applicatlon Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Findings Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table Use is a permitted use or requires the Issuance of a special use permit to locate In the PO-1-3 district. X Yes No The property Is located In a Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node. This designation, allows the full range of commercial- industrial districts, upon rezoning. N N a ARTICLE 7 - 5PECIUIC STANDARDS rOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Board Board of Flndings Based on Commzssioners ORDINANCE REQUIREhENTS Submitted Application EVIDENCE SUBttITTED TO SUPPORT riNOINGS fiNDiNGS Article. 7. 17 sets forth develop- ment standards with which an applicant must comply as rollows: a) PD- I districts most be X Yes Ito Proposal satisfies provisions and Yes No established In Accordance Intent of district. with the provisions of Article 7. 7.4 - 7.9 and with the intent or the cllstrict as expressed In 7. 1 ], 1 . Proposal includes two acres or land but fronts on a road (IICIO) classified b) ItInImiirn net land area for Yes No as a collector In the Orange County Yes No the use 1s two acres, the Land Use Plan. NC to is classified min lmrmi frontage requlrement as a major thoroughfare or arterial In Is 200' on an arterial street. the adopted Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan. The frontage is 524.09 feet. c) PD- i districts must he X Yes No Applicant meets the requirements of Yes No established In accordance these districts. with Articles 1105,6,9, 10 and 12, d) t?ldctrlcal/tclenhone service Y�� ' l( No Method of electrical service to Yes No lines and underground. reclamation basins has not been shown. e) Applicant must comply with X Yes No 1lpplicant' s submittal complies Yes No site planning standards with specified standards. specified for PD-1 districts I ARTICLE ] - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOMIENTS (Continued) Planning Board Board of Findings Based on Commissioners ORDINANCE REQUiREHENTS Submitted Application EVIDEPEE SUB111TTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS i Section 7. 15. 10 provides that the application must comply with the following site planning standards: Proposed use is oriented away from a) External Relationships minor residential streets and separated 1 . Uses find structures are X Yes No from residential neighborhoods by street Yes No oriented away from minor and railroad rights-of-way. Landscaping residential streets and has been provided to screen the view of residential neighborhoods. from detention ponds and truck parking from residential areas. 2 . Vehlcular access points are X Yes No Applicant opened driveway and closed an Yes No fleslgnated to encourage s+++ooth existing driveway to reduce traffic traffic flow and controlled conflicts at the site. NCDOT has turning movements. Herging, approved this change. turn-ot+t lanes, traffic dividers etc. shall be rerluired where needed and may be Included In the required yard setbacks, except landscaped portions. Pedestrlan access Is, where practical , separated from velilcular access points. 3. External yard of 35' "lust X Yes No Applicant provides for 35' yard setback. Yes NO be provided along perimeter, along Front, rear and eastern property except w here they adjoin other lines. con.n./Ind, districts; and landscaped as follows: a. Along collector or arterial X Yes No Applicant provides for a 18' landscaped Yes No streets or frontage streets strip along the frontage of the property the nearest 15' to the ROW as shown on the site plan. sl►all be landscaped; where a ZV turn-out or merging lane is iV provided, the landscpped area ' shall be 10' . The remainder may be used for off-street parking. ARTICLE ] - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPIiENTS (Continued) rianning _Board Board of Findings Based on Commissioners }) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Submitted Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS b. Along side property lines X Yes No Applicant proposed reforestation area Yes No , adjoining a residential along eastern property line to the rear district and not separated of the proposed drainage basins. Standard by an Intervening street, requires a landscaped strip 40' in length. the nearest 15' to the property line shall be landscaped for a G distance equal to the minimum front yard depth of the adjoin- Ing residential district. c. Where a residential Yes No Not applicable. Yes No district faces this district across a minor street , the 10' nearest to the ROW within the district shall be landscaped and no off- street parking permitted. d. The nearest 10' of all X Yes No Applicant Indicates existing vegetated Yes No other yards, not adjacent strip along the rear of the property. to a commercial or Indus- The rear property line serves as the trial district, shall be centerline for a 200' railroad right-of- landscaped to reasonably way. conceal parking, service areas and undeslreable views. Fences, walls, hedges, etc, may be required to protect against adverse impacts of noise, lights or undesireable views. b) Internal Relatlonships 1 . flan provides for a unifled, X Yes No plan, as proposed, satisfies this Yes No well organized arrangement . standard. of buildings and use areas. ,lit{1CLE 5 0114l:.N51ONAL REQl1i 12EMEN i b ("Yes" indicates cur pli-ai lcu J HU L11U1l.c LL6 Board of Planning Board Commissioners Findings Based on Evidence Submitted to Support landings findings Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Article 5 lists stnndards ror minimum lot size, lot + �idt#ti, frornt, side. rand rerrr setbacks, mexlmum building heiglit end lot coveroge, and development intensity. -• 1110 applicant has applied for n PD-1-3 - designetiori. the stnndords ' For tliat district "re set- , rorth in Article 5.1 . 2 and ere as follows{ a) Minimum lot nren per- x Yes No Applicant proposes minimum lot area Yes No use - 10,000 of 2 acres or 87,120 square feet. Sq.ft. ( 1 -1 requires 80,000 sq. ft:) b) Minimum lot width x Yes' No , • Yes No No setback requirement specified for 0 sq. ft. ; , this PD-district. (Same for 1 -1 ) Yes No C) flequired frnnt setback - x Yes NU No setback requirement specified for �0 tt . this 110-district. (Same for I-1 ) Yes No (#) Required side and rear _X1 Yes, No #io setback requirement specified for setbacks - 0 ft. this PD-district. (Same for 1-1) - Yes No e) Maximum building height - Yes . Nv . not applicable. Ho structures are 115 f t. proposed. (Same for 1-1 ) Compliance with lot coverage and development intensity standards is addressed in +• ; ' s Article 6 , WICLE 6 AfPLICAIION Or DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) plannli►g :Board Board df Findings Basr.d on Commislioners Irdinance requirements- Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support findings findincf'- article 6 list" frpecific . ;tendnrds which apply to ; nrious type" of development � ,pplications. Cy lrticle 6.12 cnntnins those levelnpment It►tennity ;tartdnrds which Opply to Iroup dovelopmentq rontrolled '}y Il►e Lend Use ii►tensity • , (LUl) system. Applicant requested amendment of application from PD-1-3 to PD-1 -1 . Applicant �) 111nimum axons lnnd x` Yen No meets minimum gross land area requirement of Yes No are" - 80 00n ati, ft. (PD-I 1) 80,000 sq. ft, for PD-1-1 . Site contains two 623, 144 sq. - ft . (PD-I-3) acres or 87,120 sq. ft. linximuro grosn land Yes No No maximum specified for district. Yes No nren - - eq. ft. (Same applies for PD-1-1 district) )' IlOxlmtlm fIUOT area roll" _YES �Jo lint applicable. flo structures are proposed. Yen No .150 (Max;mum FAR for PO-1-1 is 0.200. No NaximUm floor "iea structures are proposed. ) r• permitted - Ing. i) Ye RegI11ted minimum open ., x Ya" : No .. f Yen No Applicant proposes 81 ,276 square eet of space tnLio - .650_ open space. (Required 05P• For PD-1 -1 is Required minimurn open 0.75 or 65,347 sq. ft. ) apace - 56,599.1, aq, ft. e) Required, minlne+mi pedestrian/ Ye4 . 110 landscape ratio - . 163 Applicant proposes pedestrian/landscape area Yes No Required minimum pedestrian (26,734 sq. ft. ) in excess of the minimum landscape area - 14, 193.38 square feet required. (Required P/LR for PD-1 -1 is 0. 187 or 16,283.2 sq. ft. ) ' ARTICLE 6 - Al"I'LICATION or wmNSUINAL REQUIRUIENIS (Continued) Planning Board Board of Findings Based on Commissioners llyditiance Re gu 1 rernents Submitted App_11cat i on Evidence Submitted To Support r hidings Findings = Art. ir.le► (,.24 cant.nlon tt►onr, stnr►dnrds nlipllcnble in the tITC-Major Trnnnpr,rtntinn Corridor r{intrie.t. 111"ve n t sndnrda it►clutle ti►e followlny: , a) Mit►imum of 25%, of tntal Yin No Yes No lot nre'n shall remnln uticovered. f b) 1011-font. 1111f f ct YP,n No Mot applicable. Yen No tr•rTtii rr.rl to rr{cfr. t►f 194P.1-vitnte h ighwiry r i yl,t-of-wny. . RvIA ir► tinimi-nl str►te or lnrr(trecn{►vrl in nrrrirdneice with ryproved ln�ulscr►Ir['. i►irnt. r.) t ror►t, tear, Yin No Not applicable. Yen No s i do yntil setlr:►cks required on foflowst 1 . MO feel. nrl,jncrnt to It►l.ersterte rlght- of-wiry. 2. 50 frr,l. Md.Incetit In other property 1lr+es. , ZV ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED) g Board N Plannin Board of iU Findings Based on Commissioners., ORDINANCE REQUIREI1ENTS Submitted Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Findings Article 6.24 Standards) (continued) d) Off-street parking and X Yes No Applicant satisfies requirements. Yes No loading shall conform with the requirements of Article 10. e) Signage shall conform Yet No Not applicable. No signage proposed. Yes No with the requirements of Article 9. f) Landscaping shall conform X Yes No Applicant meets all landscaping. Yes No with the requirements of Needs to replace some existing Article 10. trees that have died. ARTICLE 9 - SIGN9 ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No'.' indicates noncompliance) Planning Board Board of Findings Based on Commissioners ORDINANCE REQUiREliENTS Submitted Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Findings a. signage Is eeected outside . Yes No liot applicable. No signage proposed. Yes No of sight preservation triangles, ROWS, and districe setbacks. b. sign area does not exceed Yes No Not applicable. No signage proposed. Yes No 72 square feet C. signage is limited to two Yes No Not applicable. No signage proposed. Yes No single or double-faced signs d. signage does not exceed Yes No Not applicable. No signage proposed Yes No twelve (12) feet In height e. signage meets setback Yes No Not applicable. No signage proposed. Yes No requirements of Feet from ROW; Feet from side/rear property lines; feet from adjacent residential district. 1V N a: ARTICLE 10 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING ("Yes" indicates compliance; "loo" indicates noncompliance) Planning Board Board of Findings Based on Commissioners r ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Submitted Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Findings Off street parking shall conform with the requirements of Article 10. 1 , The off-street parking Yes ' No Applicant is proposing 10 Yes No standard for the 12 x 30 parking spaces. proposed use is as follows: Parking standard is not applicable as no structure is proposed on this parcel . I space per employee on shift of maximum employment. (Alternative standard; space per each 2 employees + I space per each company vehicle) Application of the standard results in a requirement of (see comment) spaces. 2. The off-street loading Yes No Not applicable. Yes No standard for the proposed use is as follows.. i Application of the standard results in a requirement of spaces. ARTICLE 12 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Board s Based on Board of Finding-, Com.R4_s s z one rs ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Submitted Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Findings The development shall conform with the requirements of Article 12 - Landscaping and Screening. These standards are as follows: 1 . Street frontage land- X Yes No Applicant provides an 18 foot land- Yes No scaping must include a scaped strip along the frontage of 10-foot landscaped area Old NC 10 which satisfies the planted with one tree per standard. 110 feet, a hedge or other durable landscape material at least 3 feet In height and grass or ground cover. 2. Peripheral landscaping X Yes No Applicant provides an 18 foot land- Yes No must include a 10-foot scaped strip along the eastern landscaping area planted property line which satisfies this with one tree per 60 feet, standard. a hedge or other durable landscape material at least 3 feet in height and grass or ground cover. 3. Interior landscaping must X Yes No Applicant provides for additional Yes No provide coverage of at landscaping adjoining the proposed least 5% of any vehicular parking area. use area. CN 'C' ARTICLE 12 LANDSCAPING AN SCREENING (continued) Planning Board Board of Findings Based on Commissioners ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Submitted Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Findings No more than 10 parking Yes No Not applicable. Yes 1$d spaces allowed in a --� continuous ray► without division by landscaped median strip Every fourth row of Yes No Not applicable. Yes No parking separated by 8-foot median with at least one tree for each 60-feet of median length. ll. Type A screen Is X Yes No Applicant satisfies screening require- Yes No required. Standards ment along front, side and rear pro- for that type include perty. Reforestation Area will the following; provide additional screening. A screen opaque from the grand to a height of (6) feet, with Inter- mittent visual obstructions to a height of (20) feet. May be composed of wall , fence, berm, existiiiq or planted vegetation. Intended to exclude visual contact and create impression of spatial separation. 232 MOTION: Kramer moved approval with the three changes proposed by staff . Seconded by Pilkey. MOTION AMENDMENT: Jacobs recommended that the Planning Staff be immediately directed to prepare a watershed protection ordinance pursuant to the Water/Sewer Policy approved by the Planning Board in June, including Little River and Cedar Grove Townships. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed (Yuhasz - felt that the Draft Plan was not sufficient to zone the Township and preferred a plan whereby It could be zoned) . Jacobs informed the Board that a Planning Board member needed to be appointed to the Board of Adjustment and nominated Dan Eddleman. The nomination was seconded by Dickinson. VOTE: Unanimous. c. Zoning Atlas Amendments ( 1 ) PD-2-87 Chandler Concrete Presentation by Marvin Collins. Chandler Concrete Company has submitted an application for a PD- 1 -3 ( Planned Development- Industrial -3) zoning classification on 2. 0 acres of property located on the south side of Old NC Highway 10 east of NC Highway 86. The property is currently zoned PD- I - 1 -3 and R-1 Residential , and is designated Ten-Year Transition and Commercial Industrial Activity Node in the Land Use Plan. The request has been made in order to bring an existing wash- water recycling facility and the use of the site for trucking parking into compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. A history of the request is as follows: 10/10/85 Chandler Concrete Company was granted a secondary Land Use Plan amendment, Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for 1 .41 acres of land on NC Highway 10. The request was prompted by State-mandated requirements to contain runoff from the existing concrete plant. Ol 12/12/86 Following a challenge to Orange County ' s approvals, the court ruled that the Special Use Permit was invalid since the applicant did not 23 o meet the required two-acre minimum lot size standard, and since evidence had not been presented to indicate the project would main- tain the value of existing properties in the area. The effect of the court ruling was to place Chandler Concrete Company in violation of , the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. 10/15/87 The Board of Commissioners approved a request by Chandler Concrete to expand the Ten-Year Transition Area and Commercial - Industrial Activity Node by an additional 0. 59 acres. Combined with the 1 . 41 acres currently in the same designation, the two-acre lot size requirement could be met. NCDOT has indicated that a driveway permit will be required for driveway "D" ( the easternmost driveway) . This permit has been obtained and the driveway constructed. Encroachment agree- ments will be required if any drainage structures or other work is performed within the right-of-way of Old NC Highway 10. Both the Orange Rural Fire Department and the Orange County Rescue Squad have indicated their ability to provide emergency services to the site. The Sheriff ' s Department has indicated that no additional manpower will be needed. The Erosion Control Officer has indicated that a stormwater management plan will be . required for the project. The Recreation Director has indicated no elements exist which would warrant comment from a recreation perspective. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request with conditions as listed (attachment to these minutes on pages ) . FINDINGS OF FACT MOTION: Best moved positive findings on Articles 8. 6, 8. 8 and 7.4. (These are application components and specific standards for evaluation/planned developments) . Seconded by Yuhasz. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Best moved positive findings on Article 8.2.4, ( Specific standards/All Special Uses) . Seconded by Swann. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Best moved positive findings on Articles 4.2 and 4.3 (District criteria and Permitted Use 2.34 5 Table) . Seconded by Yuhasz. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Kramer moved in support of staff findings on Articles 7 . 17 and 7 . 15 (Development standards and site planning standards) . Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Yuhasz moved agreement with staff findings on Articles 7 . 15. 10 b-d ( landscaping) , Article 5 ( lot size standards) , Article 6 (Dimensional Requirements, Article 9 ( Signs) , Article 10 (Off-street Parking) , and Article 12 ( Landscaping & Screening) . Seconded by Swann. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed (Best - disagreed with internal relationship regarding a well organized arrangement of buildings and use areas. ) GENERAL FINDINGS Article 8.2.2 MOTION: Best moved that the use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. Seconded by Pilkey. Pilkey asked Best the reason for the motion. Best responded that the general history of the case convinced him that the health and safety was not being promoted. VOTE: 1 in favor. (Best) 9 opposed. ALTERNATE MOTION: Eddleman moved that a preponderance of evidence had not been presented to prove that the use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. Seconded by Kramer. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed (Best) . MOTION: Best moved that the use will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: . 1 in favor. (Best) 9 opposed. ALTERNATE MOTION: Eddleman moved that a preponderance of evidence 236 6 had not been presented to prove that the use will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. Seconded by Kramer. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed ( Best) . MOTION: Yuhasz moved that substantial evidence had not been presented that the use is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the county as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Seconded by Kramer. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed ( Best) . MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval of the request with the eight staff conditions and the additional condition that any utilities be underground. Seconded by Lewis. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed ( Best - wished to be consistent and remain opposed to the request throughout the entire process) . rM Article 8 .2 .2 states that where a preponderance of evidence indicates compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use, and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless it is found, in some specific manner, that: 1 . The use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; 2 . The use will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; 3 . The use is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the county as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The burden of proving one or. more of the above findings is on those opposing the application. The proof must also be in the form of competent material and substantial evidence. No information has been received which would establish grounds for making one or more of the above findings. The Planning Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant does comply with the general standards, specific rules, and required regulations with the exception of minimum gross land area requirements and the underground utilities requirement. Section 7 .3 of the Zoning Ordinance permits the Board of Commissioners to make modifications of the regulations in a particular case where the Board makes findings that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree by the actions, designs or solutions proposed by the applicant. Rather than considering a modification, the Planning Staff has recommended to the applicant that the request be amended from a PD-I-3 to a PD-I-1 designation. The findings of fact provided by the Staff have indicated that the proposed use complies with the requirements of the PD-I-1 district. The applicant will indicate whether or not he is willing to accept the PD-I-1 classification at the public hearing. The Planning Staff recommends approval with the amendment of the district designation from PD-I-3 to PD-I-1 and with the attachment of of the following conditions: 1 . The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all improvements plus 10% . The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certifica- tion by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. As improvements are completed a corresponding amount of money may be released from the 23`i 2 security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements. 2 . Security shall be provided for the replacement of dead or damaged landscaping plants and planting of Loblolly Pines in the Reforestation Area. 3 . Roads, parking areas and landscaping shall be maintained as constructed. All such improvements and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. 4 . Screening and landscaping requirements shall be provided as required in Articles 7 and 12 and shall be maintained as constructed, including the replacement of dead or damaged plant materials. 5 . The five percent (5%) interior landscaping requirement of the vehicular use area shall be constructed as shown on the approved site plan. 6 . A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer. 7 . The final site plan and narrative of the project, incorporat- ing all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project, are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to remain on file with the Orange County Planning Department. Any applicable permits, upon application, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. 8. The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions. ORANGE COUNTY 238 HOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action da Item Noj ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: JANUARY 4, 1988 SUBJECT: Increase in EDC Membership DEPARTMENT: Economic Development PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Sylvia Price EDC Resolution, December 14, 1982 x279 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: The EDC requests that the Board of Commissioners amend the EDC Resolution to increase by four (4) the number of members who are appointed to the EDC. The four (4) addi- tional members should be appointed directly by the Board of Commissioners to represent the County "at large". The original terms of the four additional members should be staggered as were the terms of the original EDC members. The EDC believes that with additional members. which will bring the total membership to 13. the following purposes will be served: 1) more areas of the County and more diverse interests can be represented on the EDC; and 2) the larger number of members will make possible the creation of active working sub-groups of the EDC to tackle specific tasks. BACKGROUND: The EDC, as created by Resolution of the BOCC, dated December 14, 1982, has nine members, four of which are to be appointed "at large" by the Board of Commissioners. The remaining five members, also appointed by the BOCC, are " nominated by (and represent) the four Towns (one each for Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, Mebane), and the Chambers of Commerce (one to represent both Chambers) . RECOMMENDATIONS: The EDC Resolution of December 14, 1982 should be amended to provide for four (4) additional members to be appointed by the BOCC. The initial terms of the four new members should be staggered such that one member serves a one year term, one member serves a two year term, and two members serve three year terms. Each member would be eligible for reappointment and all subsequent terms would be for three years. RESOLUTION CREATING THE 2 3 C$ ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION WHEREAS, economic development is a county-wide concern; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners in cooperation with the municipal governments of Orange County wishes to take an active lead role in economic development efforts to directly and indirectly address the problems of economic development in Orange County (e.g. underemployment, uneven tax base, uneven geographic distribution of job opportunities); and, WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable . to achieve the goal of increased econo mic- development through clear and effective strategies and policies which stimulate development of an appropriate rate, type, location and balance to serve the public interest; and, WHEREAS, the establishment of an economic development. commission would. provide for the economic development functions and activities desired and provide a mechanism for representation of and continuous funding by the County, municipalities and business interests served by the Commission; • NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County: THAT the Orange County Economic Development Commission be established under public control as provided in General Statute Chapter 158, Article 2 and be furnished a full time staff and finances for various economic development efforts; THAT the Commission: a) Carry out an economic development program for'all portions of the County and its encompassed municipalities; - b) Formulate projects in cooperation with local governments for carrying out such an economic development program to address the need for gainful employment and upgrading skill levels for current County residents as primary goals; c) Furnish advice and assistance to existing businesses wishing to alter or expand operations, to prospects desiring to locate in the County, and to developers of office parks and shopping centers; d) Encourage-stimulation of locally--owned enterprises, small businesses and farm operations, such as through local marketing of locally produced farm goods; e) Encourage policies that take account of scarce natural resources such as water, existing and proposed water supply watersheds, and prime and locally important farmlands, and which reflect sound overall development patterns and the public costs of serviding these patterns; f) Conduct commercial and industrial surveys as needed; Carry on such other activities as may be necessary in the proper s 240 exercise of the functions described herein; THAT the Commission be made up of ulna (9)follows:otingmembers rwho ssal ►inted as the Board of Directors to the Commission by the Board of Commissioners; one each representing recommended the municipalities of M n > HllsbaroughChapel}Hilland Caxrbaxoand one r,enber representing and recommended by the Chapel Hill.-Carrboxo and Hillsborough Chambers of Commerce. One of the Orange County positions should be reserved for a member of the Industrial Facilities and Pollution Control Authority in order to coordinate actions of the two organizations; THAT the voting members of the ,Commission shall serve staggered terms such that the initial appointments of one-third of the members shall be for one year, one-third for two year, and one-third for three year terms. The terms served initially by Orange County members shall be three years for one member, two years for one member and one year' for two members. The Towns of Chapel Hill and Hillsborough members shall each serve a term of three years. The Towns of Mebane and Carrboxo members shall each serve a term of two years. The representative of the Chapel Hill--Carrboxo and Hillsborough fChae initial Of Commerce shall ssrve a term of one year. Following expiration terms served, the members may be considered for reappointment. All subsequent terms shall be for three years; THAT "ihe Town Managers and County Manager be ex-officio, non-votes members of the Commission for coordination between governments; THAT the Commission, through its Chair who shall be elected by the Commission members as provided for in G.S. 158-9, will act in a supervisory capacity to the staff. The Commission shall set policy and guidelines for operations, assist recruitment, determine the type of liaison contact to be mounted, meview the progress of the Commission, and adopt rules and revalations as necessary to perform its functions. The Commission shall meet regularly at least once every three months as provided for in G.S. 158-9. Both the Chair and County Manager shall be kept informed by staff of any major operational developments occurring between meetings of the Commission; THAT there be a budget for Commission, subject to the annual audit review for all expenditures. The Commission Chair and the County Manager shall serve as a .personal committee to determine qualifications, hire, dismiss and fix the compensation of all personnel necessary to the functioning of the Commission, including the Director of the Commission. All employees of the Commission will be considered County employees subject to the Orange County personnel Ordinance and fringe benefits applicable to all County employees; THAT the Commission may lease, rent or purchase or otherwise obtain suitable quarters. and office space for its staff, and may lease, rent or purchase necessary furniture, fixtures and other equipment as provided for in G.S. 158-11; THAT the Commission Director also provide staff support to the Industrial Facilities and Pollution Control Authority and provide contact with all other agencies and groups which may now or in the future be involved in actions affecting economic development of Orange County; THAT the Commission receive, accept and disburse any funds and services made available by local governments and their agencies and by private and civic • 241 w sources in furtherance of its functions; THAT the initial annual budget not exceed $50,000 dollars and be provided through non-property -tax funds and contributions. The prorated share of the funds for the Commission's budget shall be as follows: 56Z from Orange County, 6% from each municipality and 20% combined amount from the Chapel Hill--Carrboro and Hillsborough Chambers of Commerce; • THAT available funding sources and project initiatives be designed and pursued through available financial resources such as those provided by the Industrial Facilities and Pollution Control Authority and the Federal-State Community Development Block Grant Small Cities Fund; THAT the Commission and staff work affirmatively with the County and municipal planning agencies and in particular to rely on what the agencies provide in such areas as: a) Planning Department and Planning Board surveys and plans which • • identify resources for and constraints to economic development; b) Zoning designed to identify potential industrial and commercial sites and protect them against types of development that would lessen their attractiveness or their compatibility with surrounding uses; c) . Provision of adequate governmental facilities to serve industrial - sites thus identified. THAT the Commission and staff work affirmatively with the Triangle 3 Council of Governments, the contemplated Foreign Trade Zone, the Research Triangle Park Foundation and the Department of Commerce; THAT this Resolution takes effect upon its passage this the l4th.day of /.7 December, 1982. . , Signed by: zg C,-ir oT the Board toners Attest: A � - As/ �' Clerk to the Board of Commissioners • • • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: JANUARY 4, 1988 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO BAINS/RIGGSBEE PROPERTY TAX COMPLAINT DEPARTMENT: TAX SUPERVISOR PURCHASING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: KERMIT LLOYD X420; PAM JONES X556 NONE TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968--4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To respond to a complaint by Ms. Patricia Bains and Ms. Diane Riggsbee regarding property tax matters. BACKGROUND: Property in question: 1) Tract #702362 ; map #7. 122 .A.4 ; seventeen (17) acres, owned by Leilla Atwater Graham. 2) Tract #710280; map #7.122 .B.14C; approximately three and one-half (3 . 5) acres, owned by Estelle E. Atwater. Complaint: 1) Ms. Bains ' stated that the entire 17 acres was assessed as if it were located entirely on the western side of Smith Level Road when in fact only approximately five acres lies on the western side of Smith Level Road. She further states that the western side carries a higher assessed valuation because of its zoning designation. 2) Ms. Bains ' stated that the three and one- half (3 . 5) acres was valued as if it were 100% buildable when in fact the property is "land-locked" and has a perennial stream running through the property. Applying the law to the facts regarding these properties: 1) No request was made for an informal hearing before the Board of Equalization convened as allowed in G.S. 105-296 (i) . 2) No appeal was made to the Board of Equalization prior to its adjournment (G.S. 105-322 (e) & (g) ) . 3) No clerical or mathematical error was made (G.S. 105-325 (a) (4) ) ; and the Tax Assessor cannot justify a reduction X43 in valuation on either piece of property and therefore cannot recommend to the Board that the valuations be con- sidered for amendment (G.S. 105-325 (a) (6) ) . Note: The Board of Commissioners have power through this statute, to amend appraisals upon recommendations submitted by the Tax Assessor, subject to the provisions in 105-325 (a) (6) (a) , (a) (6) (b) , (a) (6) (c) , and (a) (6) (d) . Basis of Determination: 1) Graham Property: Western side of Smith Level Road is valued at $87, 000 base value per acre; eastern side is valued at $29, 000 per acre. Since appraising is done on a tract rather than a zoning district basis, a "blended" total was determined for the entire tract, taking into account various land factors. The "blended" value of this tract of land is $44, 000 per acre. Ms. Bains has had the property appraised at $36, 000 per acre. However, the Tax Assessor states that the Tax Department's $44, 000/acre appraisal and Mrs. Bain's $36, 000/acre appraisal are within the realm of appraising reasonable difference (18 .2% or less than 10% high-10% low) . The Tax Assessor would not change this appraisal if he had the authority to do so and will not recommend it be changed by the Board. 2) Atwater Property: Normally the value of land - locked property is valued by the amount that would be required to "cure. " That is, an appraisal value of the cost to acquire the land necessary to provide access. However, the Tax Assessor has not been presented with evidence to satisfy him that this property is landlocked. The Estelle Atwater property is a parcel cut out of a larger parcel. The larger parcel abuts a public road. The Atwater parcel, therefore, by law, may be entitled to access across the larger parcel. While the Atwater parcel does not abut a public road, it does appear that an existing road, still passable, provides access to it. The adjoining property, owned by Cleveland Atwater, was sold in November, 1987 to a land developer for approximately $27, 000 per acre. The 3 .5 acre tract owned by Estelle Atwater is appraised by the Tax Assessor at approximately $16, 000 per acre. The assessed valuation assumes only one building site on the 3 . 5 acre tract. The Tax Assessor has no reason to believe and no evidence to support a contention that there is no building site on this tract. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Receive as information. 244 ORANGE COUNTY Action Ag BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MIMING DATE January 4, 1988 Subject: APPOINTMENTS IDepartment: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS [ PUblic Hearing: Yes X no 1 Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. ' Under Separate Cover lY 67ythe Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards. A--1 ABC BOARD - 1 vacancy due to an expiration of term for Charles Etheridge who is now serving as Chair of this Board. He does desire to be considered for reappointment and is eligible. B-4 - COUNTY ADVISORY BOARD ON AGING - 1 vacancy. No new resumes have been received. C-7 - ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - 1 vacancy for an alternate position. No new resumes have been received. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. / / ewe f;tr".:�, l'"))\to I pi STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, North Carolina 27253 JAMES G. MARTIN January 4 , 1988 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS. P.E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Mr .Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 3O6F Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Subject : Dark Hills Preliminary Plan Off SR 1352 (Carr Store Road) Dear Mr . Kirk: At the request of Mr. William C. Ray, owner of the subject Property, this office has reviewed the plan with the proposed roadway between lots #2 and #3 in lieu of the previous recommendation, as stated in my letter of December 8 , 1987. This revision should present no traffic hazards and is, therefore, approved. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours very truly, M. Mills, P. E. • .LSTRICT ENGINEER JMM/SPI/acr An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: Marvin Collins, Planning Director FROM: Emily Crudup, Planner II (Current)' SUBJECT: Record of Failures of Low Pressure Systems Permitted by DEM DATE: January 4, 1988 On Thursday, December 31 , I spoke with Carolyn McCaskill , Water Quality Supervisor for the regional office of the N. C. Division of Environmental Management in Raleigh. She provided me with the s oforgsewageinformation disposalregarding low pressure pipe (LPP) systems According to North Carolina Statutes, all on-site sewage disposal systems larger than 3000 gallons design capacity, less of and all systems with a the State DivisioneofrEgvraonmental size) , are regulated by DEM must be Management. All LPP systems permitted by operated by a licensed utility company regulated by the State Utilities Commission. Currently there are forty-eight ( 48) LPP systems properly operating in North Carolina. Only two ( 2) systems of this type have failed after being issued permits from the Division of Environmental Management. In Wake County, one system overloaded due to construction problems including valves malfunctioning. This system is now within two weeks of repair; the incident will besreviewe by the State Utilities Commission. The failed is located �natDo�rha7he County UtilitieswCommissionewillytake utility company ope action against that company. Within the last six months, DEM has incorporated into its regulations of LPP systems a requirement that every DEM utirouty company operating a system under a permit issued by Submit monthly reportsthe tenth of every month, include w ncludepump must be received by AMMUMOMMEMMOM MEMORANDUM Record of Failures of Low Pressure Systems Permitted by DEM January 4, 1988 Page 2 volumes and pressure checks on the pipes to verify the system is functioning properly (refer to item #20 on the attached copy of a permit) . DEM also follows with an on-site inspection of each system at least every six months. If a system is not found to be in compliance, the Division of Environmental Management notifies the local Health Department within two days. Subsequently the Health Department suspends Issuance of any new permits for wells and septic tanks. In Orange County, an applicant would then be unable to obtain a building permit without first having the necessary permits from the Health Department. For additional information, I have attached a copy of a permit recently issued by the Division of Environmental Management for a similar low pressure pipe sewage disposal system located in Orange County. This permit outlines the specifications which the operator must follow to remain in compliance with State regulations. If you have any questions, please advise. t r. State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Division of Environmental Management 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 December 23, 1987 R. Paul Wilms James G. Martin, Governor Direcs S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary Mr. Uennis Osborne, President North State Utilities, Inc. P.O. Drawer 51729 Raleigh, N.C. 27609 SUBJECT: Permit No. 15576 North State Utilities, Inc. Piney Mountain Subdivision Low Pressure Pipe Disposal System Orange County Dear Mr. Osborne: In accordance with your application received November 4, 1987, we are forwarding herewith Permit No. 15576, dated December 23, 1987, to North State Utilities, Inc. for the construction and operation of the subject wastewater collection, treatment and disposal system. This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until January 31, 1993, „ndl shall be subject to the conditions and limitations as specified therein. If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to request an adjudicatary hearing upon written request within 30 days following receipt of oths permit. This Carolina must be in the form of a written petition, conforming Chapter General Str,tute , and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, Post Office Drawer ]1666, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604. Unless such demands are made this permit shall be final and binding. One (1) set of approved plans and specifications ispbngtaforwarded tobyou. If you need additional information concerning1this matter, p ei McKemic, telephone No. 919/733-5083, Sincerely yours, R. Paul Wilms cc: Orange County Health Department Raleigh Regional Supervisor Dennis R. Ramsey Whithers & Ravenal Mr. Rill Reid Pollution Prevention Pays P.O. Baec 17687. Raleigh, Non},Carolina 276117687 Telephone 919-733.7015 1 NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RALEIGH PERM I T For the discharge of Sewage, Industrial Wastes, or Other Wastes In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO North State Utilities, Inc. Wake County FOR THE construction and operation of a pressure sewer collection system consisting of individual 1200 gallon septic tanks and 1200 gallon pump tanks equipped with simplex submersible pumps and high water alarms, approximately 7,000 linear feet of 2 and 4-inch force mains and a two phase disposal system, phase I consisting of three (3) 3,000 gallon dosing tanks connected in series and equipped with dual alternating dosing pumps, telemetry system, programmable controller and a 1.8 acre low pressure pipe disposal site (15,548 linear feet of 1 1/4 inch laterals) to serve 24 lots in Piney Mountain Subdivision. Phase II consists of three (3) 3,000 gallon dosing tanks connected in series, dual alternating dosing pumps, telemetry system, programmable controller and a 2.7 acre low pressure pipe disposal site (23,500 linear feet of 1 1/4 inch laterals) to serve 35 lots in Piney Mountain Subdivision, pursuant to the application received November 4, 1987, and in conformity with the project plan, specifications, and other supporting data subsequently filed and approved by the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development and considered a part of this permit. This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until January 31, 1993, and shall be subject to the following specified conditions and limitations: 1. This permit shall become voidable unless the facilities are constructed in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and other supporting data. 2. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of wastes described in the application and other supporting data. 3. The facilities shall be properly maintained and operated at all times. 4. This permit is not transferable. i i 5.. Upon the availability of a municipal or regional sewerage collection system, the subject wastewater treatment facilities shall be abandoned and all wastewater discharged into the municipal or regional sewerage system. 6. This permit shall become voidable in the event of failure of the soil to adequately absorb the wastes and may be rescinded unless the facilities are installed, maintained, and operated in a manner which will protect the assigned water quality standards of the surface waters and ground waters. 7. In event the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation of nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take such immediate corrective action as may be required by this Division, including the construction of additional or replacement wastewater treatment or disposal facilities. 8. The Raleigh Regional Office, phone no. 733-23]4 shall be notified at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of backfilling of the installed subsurface disposal system so that an in-place inspection can he made of said system prior to backfilling. Such notification to the regional supervisor shall be made during the normal office hours from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, excluding state holidays. 9. The sludge generated form these treatment facilities must be disposed of in accordance with General Statute 143.215. 1 and in a manner approvable by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 10. Diversion or bypassing of the untreated wastewater from the treatment facilities is prohibited. 11. The Permittee shall employ a certified wastewater treatment plant operator in responsible charge of the wastewater treatment facilities. Such operator must hold a certificate of the grade at least equivalent to the classification assigned to the wastewater treatment facilities by the Certification Commission. 12. Any monitoring deemed necessary by the Division of Environmental Management to insure surface and ground water protection will be established and an acceptable sampling reporting schedule shall be followed. 13. The issuance of this permit shall not relieve the permittee of the responsibility for damages to surface or groundwaters resulting from the operation of this facility. 14. The facilities shall be effectively maintained and operated as a non-discharge system to prevent the discharge of any wastewater resulting from the operation of this facility. 15. No traffic or equipment shall be allowed on the disposal area except while installation occurs or while normal maintenance is being performed. 16. Adequate inspection, maintenance, and cleaning shall be provided by the North State Utilities, Inc. to insure proper operation of the subject facilities. 17. An acceptable reserve area, equal in size to the approved disposal area, shall be maintained at all times. 18. Solids, sludges, or other pollutants removed or resulting from the wastewater storage facilities shall be contained and disposed of in such a manner as to prevent any contamination of the surface or groundwater of the State. 19. The application rates shall not exceed . 1 gallon/sq. ft./day 20. Adequate records shall be maintained for, but not limited to, the following: a. Individual dosing pump operation Weekly b. Individual field rotation Weekly c. High water alarms Weekly d. Residual pressure on highest and lowest lateral on each field Monthly e. Residual Pressure on all laterals Semi-Annually This information shall be maintained on a monthly basis and submitted to the Raleigh Regional Office on or before th 10th of the following month. 21. 100% replacement area shall• remain undisturbed for the life of the subdivision (until needed for replacement) or until an alternative means of disposal is in place and operational. 22. Prior to beginning waste disposal operations at the Phase I nitrification field site, three (3) monitor wells, one (1) upgradient and two (2) downgradient shall be installed to monitor groundwater quality. Prior to monitor disposal operations at the Phase II nitrification field sites two (2) monitor wells, one (1) gradient and one (1) downgradient, must be installed at the western field (the disposal field between Lots 49 and 50) . The location and construction details for these wells must be approved by the Raleigh Regional Office, from which a well construction permit must be obtained. 23. The monitor wells must be sampled initially after construction (and prior to waste disposal operations) and thereafter every March, July, and November for the following parameters: NO3 pH Total Ammonia TOC TDS Chloride Water Levels Total Coliforms TOX (In November only) The measurement of water level must be made prior to sampling for the remaining parameters. The analytical methods used for TOX must be capable of detecting the total of all halogenated organic compounds present at a concentration of 5.0 parts per billion (ppb) or greater. In the event that a TOX concentration of 5.0 ppb or greater is detected, any individual halogenated organic compound (s) present at a concentration at or above their method detection limit (MDL) must be identified, quantified and reported with the sampling results. The results of the sampling and analysis shall be sent to the N.C. Division of Environmental Management on Form GW-59 (Compliance Monitoring Report Form) every April, August and December. 24. Permittee, at least six (6) months prior to the expiration of this permit, shall. request its extension. Upon receipt of the request, the Commission will review the Adequacy of the facilities described therein, and as indicated; will extend the Permit for such period of time And under such conditions and limitations as it may deem appropriate. 25., Upon completion of construction and prior to operation of this permitted facility, a certification must be received from a professional engineer certifying that the permitted facility has been installed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION 7:4 . Paul Wilms, Director Division of Environmental Management By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission Permit No. 15576 Engineer's Certification I , as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina, hereby certify that construction of these permitted facilities has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Signature Registration Number Date Permit No. 15576 EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM FUNDING APPROVAL FORM 1. Name and Address of Recipient 2. NRCD Grant Number County of Orange 87-H-1093 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 (X) ORIGINAL Date: 12/11/87 3. Name of Subrecipient: ( ) AMENDMENT Date: Interfaith Council for Social. Services, Inc. 4. ESGP Funds Approved for: (X) Operations $ 6,033 Services $ 1,064 0/S Total $ 7,097 ( ) Rehabilitation $ 5. Activities Approved for Funding: See application submitted. Secretary of N. C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development BY: 411....ff. til,cezze Robert E. Chandler, Director Signature7f Authorized Local Division of Community Assistance Government Official Shirley E. Marshall December 11, 1987 Typed Name of Local Government Date Official Chair, Orange Co. Board of Commissioners Title January 4, 1988 Date ESGP #108 (Revised 11/87) l � NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT AGREEMENT EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM Upon execution of this grant agreement, the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD) agrees to provide the recipient the Emergency Shelter Grants Program assistance under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, as amended (P.L. 100-77) , authorized by the NRCD Funding Approval, the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grant Program Administrative Rules, applicable laws and all other requirements of NRCD now or hereafter in effect. The grant agreement is effective on the date the grant agreement and funding approval are signed by the recipient. The grant agreement consists of the rules in Title 15, Subchapter 130 of the North Carolina Administrative Code (Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules) , subsequent guidelines prepared by NRCD, the approved application, any subsequent amendments to the application, and the following general terms and conditions: 1. Definitions. Except to the extent modified or supplemented by this document, any term defined in the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, 15 NCAC 130, shall have the same meaning when used herein. (a) Agreement means this grant agreement, as described above, and any amendments or supplements thereto. (b) Recipient means the entity designated as a recipient for grant assistance in the grant agreement and funding approval. (c) Certifications mean the certifications submitted with the grant application pursuant to the requirements of Paragraph (e) of Section .0301 of the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, 15 NCAC 130. (d) Assistance provided under this agreement means the grant funds provided under this agreement. (e) Program means the program, project, or other activities for which assistance is being provided under this agreement. 2. Obligations of the Recipient. The recipient shall perform the program as specified in the application approved by NRCD. The recipient shall comply with the certifications pursuant to Paragraph (e) of Rule .0301 of the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, S 15 NCAC 130. The recipient shall also comply with all other lawful requirements of NRCD, all applicable requirements of the General Statutes of the State of North Carolina and any other applicable laws and Executive Orders currently or hereafter in force. 3. Obligations of Recipient with Respect to Certain Third Party Relations. NRCD shall hold the recipient responsible for complying with the provisions of this agreement even when the recipient designates a third party or parties to undertake all or any part of the program. The recipient shall comply with all lawful requirements of NRCD necessary to ensure that the program is carried out in accordance with the recipient's certifi- cations, including the certification of assumption of environmental responsibilities, under Rule .0701 of the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, 15 NCAC 130. 4. Interest of Members, Officers, or Employees of the Recipient, Members of Local Governing Body, or Other Public Officials. No member, officer, or employee of the recipient, or its agents, no member of the governing body of the locality in which the program is situated, and no other public official of such locality or localities who exercises any functions or responsibilities with respect to the program during his tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any financial interest, either direct or indirect, in any contract or subcontract, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the program assisted under this agreement. Immediate family members of said members, officers, employees, and officials are similarly barred from having any financial interest in the program. The recipient shall incorporate, or cause to be incorporated, in all such contracts or subcontracts, a provision prohibiting such interest pursuant to the purpose of this section. The assistance provided under this agreement shall not be used in the payment of any bonus or commission for the purpose of obtaining NRCD approval of the application for such assistance, or NRCD approval of applications for additional assistance, or any other approval or concurrence of NRCD required under this agreement or the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, with respect thereto; provided, however, that reasonable fees or bona fide technical, consultant, managerial or other such services, other than actual solicitation, are not hereby prohibited if otherwise eligible as program costs. 5. Reimbursement to NRCD for Improper Expenditures: The recipient will reimburse NRCD for any amount of grant assistance improperly expended. 6. Access to Records Related to ESGP Activities. The recipient will give NRCD, HUD and the Comptroller General, through any authorized representatives, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers or documents related to the ESGP grant and will require subrecipient(s) to provide the same access to and the right to examine its records, books, papers or documents related to the ESGP grant. .• Upon execution of this agreement by NRCD and the recipient in the spaces below, the recipient hereby accepts the assistance on the terms of this grant agreement, effective on the date indicated below, and further certifies that the official signing below has been duly authorized by the recipient's governing body to execute this grant agreement. Date: December 11, 1987 Secretary of Department of Natural Resources and Community Development By: LUZ 64,L—s4 Robert E. Chandler, Director Division of Community Assistance Date: January 4, 1988 County of Orange Name of Recipient By: —.�L[�a.✓ f Signat• Authorized Official Chair, Orange Co. Board of Commissioners (Title) t I EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM FUNDING APPROVAL FORM 1. Name and Address of Recipient 2. NRCD Grant Number County of Orange 87-11-1094 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 (X) ORIGINAL Date: 12/11/87 3. Name of Subrecipient: ( ) AMENDMENT Date: Interfaith Council for Social Services, Inc. 4. ESGP Funds Approved for: ( ) Operations $ Services $ 0/S Total $ (X) Rehabilitation $ 6,551 5. Activities Approved for Funding: All requested Rehabilitation activities are approved as renovation. Asbestos removal should be a discrete project, with contract signed after the execution of the Grant Agreement. Secretary of N. C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development BY: ielt,27, 6/14,../!&_ Robert E. Chandler, Director Signet f Authorized Local Division of Community Assistance Government Official Shirley E. Marshall December 11, 1987 Typed Name of Local Government Date Official Chair, Orange Co. Board of Commissioners Title January 4, 1988 Date ESGP #108 (Revised 11/87) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT AGREEMENT EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM Upon execution of this grant agreement, the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD) agrees to provide the recipient the Emergency Shelter Grants Program assistance under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, as amended (P.L. 100-77) , authorized by the NRCD Funding Approval, the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grant Program Administrative Rules, applicable laws and all other requirements of NRCD now or hereafter in effect. The grant agreement is effective on the date the grant agreement and funding approval are signed by the recipient. The grant agreement consists of the rules in Title 15, Subchapter 130 of the North Carolina Administrative Code (Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules), subsequent guidelines prepared by NRCD, the approved application, any subsequent amendments to the application, and the following general terms and conditions: 1. Definitions. Except to the extent modified or supplemented by this document, any term defined in the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, 15 NCAC 130, shall have the same meaning when used herein. (a) Agreement means this grant agreement, as described above, and any amendments or supplements thereto. (b) Recipient means the entity designated as a recipient for grant assistance in the grant agreement and funding approval. (c) Certifications mean the certifications submitted with the grant application pursuant to the requirements of Paragraph (e) of Section .0301 of the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, 15 NCAC 130. (d) Assistance provided under this agreement means the grant funds provided under this agreement. (e) Program means the program, project, or other activities for which assistance is being provided under this agreement. 2. Obligations of the Recipient. The recipient shall perform the program as specified in the application approved by NRCD. The recipient shall comply with the certifications pursuant to Paragraph (e) of Rule .0301 of the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, 15 NCAC 130. The recipient shall also comply with all other lawful requirements of NRCD, all applicable requirements of the General Statutes of the State of North Carolina and any other applicable laws and Executive Orders currently or hereafter in force. 3. Obligations of Recipient with Respect to Certain Third Party Relations. NRCD shall hold the recipient responsible for complying with the provisions of this agreement even when the recipient designates a third party or parties to undertake all or any part of the program. The recipient shall comply with all lawful requirements of NRCD necessary to ensure that the program is carried out in accordance with the recipient's certifi- cations, including the certification of assumption of environmental responsibilities, under Rule .0701 of the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, 15 NCAC 130. 4. Interest of Members, Officers, or Employees of the Recipient, Members of Local Governing Body, or Other Public Officials. No member, officer, or employee of the recipient, or its agents, no member of the governing body of the locality in which the program is situated, and no other public official of such locality or localities who exercises any functions or responsibilities with respect to the program during his tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any financial interest, either direct or indirect, in any contract or subcontract, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the program assisted under this agreement. Immediate family members of said members, officers, employees, and officials are similarly barred from having any financial interest in the program. The recipient shall incorporate, or cause to be incorporated, in all such contracts or subcontracts, a provision prohibiting such interest pursuant to the purpose of this section. The assistance,provided under this agreement shall not be used in the payment of any bonus or commission for the purpose of obtaining NRCD approval of the application for such assistance, or NRCD approval of applications for additional assistance, or any other approval or concurrence of NRCD required under this agreement or the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, with respect thereto; provided, however, that reasonable fees or bona fide technical, consultant, managerial or other such services, other than actual solicitation, are not hereby prohibited if otherwise eligible as program costs. 5. Reimbursement to NRCD for Improper Expenditures: The recipient will reimburse NRCD for any amount of grant assistance improperly expended. 6. Access to Records Related to ESGP Activities. The recipient will give NRCD, HUD and the Comptroller General, through any authorized representatives, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers or documents related to the ESGP grant and will require subrecipient(s) to provide the same access to and the right to examine its records, books, papers or documents related to the ESGP grant. � y r .4 • I Upon execution of this agreement by NRCD and the. recipient in the spaces below, the recipient hereby accepts the assistance on the terms of this grant agreement, effective on the date indicated below, and further certifies that the official signing below has been duly authorized by the recipient's governing body to execute this grant agreement. Date: December 11, 1987 Secretary of Department of Natural Resources and Community Development By: 461-cAtE dde„.„.1!L1/4_ Robert E. Chandler, Director Division of Community Assistance Date: January 4, 1988 County of Orange Name of Recipient By: Signat Authorized Official Chair, Orange Co. Board of Commissioners (Title) Pte"_ day of Januar the t is entered u't° of 4 Ora wcorporation This a9re�nl for Social County ice, Inc. 1988 Interfaith Council of a �13r� Emergency is recipient t tr��t. the �� � t� aub9r�`tee in the grant Shelter Grp designated was WORMS, Interfaith Shelter Giant, � County a�1��t��. the terms °f requirements. the mutual �, t mgt certain a premises and and Interfaith of the is fol1 TUOREFORE, IN i� hereby its showing NOM,set forth below, the Part Conant year budget Fie and can evidenced attached t certifies ardan� t it Program ptam�`� the in that _ ev re � f� and source °f supplement funds, Interfaith Grant Shelter Grant for ratians State or match the 7 r 097 in gran wil funds per� $6 lS and will sal Interfaith x�t y no will expend June 1, 1988 r r 1, 1988$ ate of 2. later than later than beforenated and $avid_ services by n'D�i'turn a �th will e a rehabilitation ehabilota a he Grant for rent- possible. _ X11 be Gant � idly as • execution ° all funds as rap funds in following manner expend effort - Interfaith X11 a the $6,033 3 1- ntha. Maintenance p ianaas C. Maintoonce Supplies 1r d.2. ential wits a. good b. Clothing 6.551 3. Rehabilitation re a- Asbestos removal Tara. receipts of reimburse te�f�th�S presentation 3, of tbe County s�'1 r � 4. with Ater tor the made Interfaith with grant funs-continue ration °f the 5- Interfaith 3 years. homeless for at -------------------- ------------i PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS //7 J i r I - NAME (Please Print) Clp . McLENNAN'S f.n.n cchAe ma [/2 . / _ # ir Al , , • . , k 4 tz< I _.._. 8. 9. 10. 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17- 18. 19- 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34- 35- 36- 37. 3$- \ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS NAME (Please Print) CIp McLENNAN'S S ,P S <2- • t- DeaM 0k,7L � hoe") r� T Ur-ne►rte L 7• v , tw �� 7.� z�, 8. r/ 1 Grp` fylor M 1.1/ r f1,�GS ����-c�L 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. �pi2 I ��I 25. • 26. �> 27. �1 di 28. Crack--1613/6 . 411 - . liii . NORM CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE X70,t,he 71 ///r Procedure for Tilling County Extension Director Position 1. Letter is received from individual stating plans for retirement or resignation and setting date. 2. District Extension Director meets with Board of Commissioners and managers to discuss Extension program and procedures to be followed. 3. District Extension Director meets with county staff to explain procedures to be followed in filling vacant position. 4. Acting County Extension Director may be appointed in some situations. 5. Position is advertised for 30 days. 6. Applicants are invited in for interviews with Director, Associate Director, Assistant Director, County Operations, and appropriate District Extension Director. 7. Decision is made as far as the applicant(s) to be recommended to the Board of Commissioners. 8. District Extension Director and Assistant Director, County Operations, will discuss recommendations regarding salary level and amount being requested from county. 9. District Extension Director will make contact with county manager or chairman of Board of County Commissioners to establish meeting to discuss recommendations. 10. Agricultural Communications Project Coordinator of Press, Radio, TV will be asked to write a news release that can be taken to this meeting to be used with news personnel. News release will reflect joint action by Board of Commissioners and North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service. 11. District Extension Director will make recommendations to Board of County --Commissioners for official action. 12. District Extension Director will inform county staff of action taken by Board of Commissioners and notify Assistant Director, County Operations regarding action taken by Board of Commissioners. 13. Assistant Director, County Operations will send letter to other applicants advising them of action taken in regard to the position. 14. A letter will be sent under the Director's signature making the appointment and giving necessary information relative to the position and enclosing a copy of the one-year probationary status to be signed and returned. 15. District Extension Director and Assistant Director, County Operations will prepare an itemized resume of all steps taken during the process to be made a part of the permanent file. • • T 53 1:1 3. z r, — Ill m z M ti ..t b M = tn m c c, 0 z z • e; lib Ilik--1-1 po 6- • a m — -n 0 0 u, x us 2 ft, O f ( r+9 ,_ j' d --1 O — M of , z 'rt 01 0 A 0� O T V t --- = r► 7 Cu et "CI PC o o r o "' z N .r. ` as a rt CI a 41111. 0C1 r+ 0 up at m . r. I"% a m 1 o, VI I PP m g x h — — nr -h i d 2 9 m • - O 0 L/ ! CD rn x N rr . t/i R1 • rD V rn a, 0 PP 0 2 //v fD r: o r k e, ° ` L' In ti rn R` = a m 0 2 cn a 2 rt. o 01 a —I o C P . . v ,-k..1 • es IS m x e rr m r-. s r-- U rt X 73 (� cn w v be o a ft t t • 0 x tv + A r at _;se et C. , j 1 / : • "F = q w th 0 N. i RESOLUTION BY Orange County. WHEREAS, in North Carolina the Lead Regional Organizations, as voluntary organizations serving municipal and county governments, have established productive working relationships with the cities and counties across the state; and WHEREAS, many counties and cities continue to need assistance in pursuing economic and community development opportunities, but federal assistance in the form of intergovernmental revenues has been severely curtailed in recent years; and WHEREAS,the 1987 General Assembly has again recognized this need through the appropriation of $990,000 each year of this biennium to help the Lead Regional Organizations assist local governments with grant applications, economic development, community development, support of local industrial development and other activities as deemed appropriate by their local governments; and WHEREAS, these funds are not intended to be used for payment of members dues or assessments to a Lead Regional Organization or to supplant funds appropriated by the member governments; and WHEREAS, in the event that a request is not made by a unit of government for release of these funds to our Regional Council, the available funds will revert to the state's General Fund; and WHEREAS,in Region J funds in the amount of$55,000 will be used to carry out the economic development plan approved by the COG Board of Delegates and especially to improve the economy of the counties and towns of the Region by strengthening ties to and consequently benefits of the Research Triangle Park. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County requests the release of its $760937 share of these funds to the Triangle J Council of Governments at the earliest possible time in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 830 of the 1987 Session Laws (FIB 1515). Adopted this 4th day of Jan u a ry 1988 at Orange County. NCb : tore Chief Ele e• 'fficial // x dee, 40 f �� �'i ! or _ ature) itness f $eal TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 100 PARK DRIVE P.O. BOX 12276 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK.N_C_ 27709 (919)549-0551 December 17, 1987 Shirley Marshall Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners 707 E. Franklin Street Chapel Hill, N.C.27514 Dear Chairman Marshall: The Triangle J Council of Governments has received official notification that funds are again available to assist the economic development programs of this and the other seventeen regions. You were recently sent a report of the 1986/87 economic development activities that utilized the $55,000 in State funds and approximately $62,500 in local monies. The basic 7-point work plan for economic development_ activities carried out in 86/87 will be followed in this coming year. A copy is enclosed. The 1987 General Assembly approved$55,000 for each council of governments for both years of the biennium provided the share, based on population, of each local government is released to the council of governments. A copy of the relevant State budget information is attached as is a copy of General Statute Chapter#830, Section 105, To this end you are asked to place on your next board agenda a resolution to release your share of the economic development monies from the State Budget office to the Triangle J Council of Governments. You are reminded that just as with last year's economic development funds, money not released reverts to the general fund, it is not made available directly to local governments. The resolution to release funds is enclosed. When approved, please return the original, signed, sealed (if possible) and fully executed document to the Council of Governments at the earliest possible date. Retain a copy for your files. Should you wish a representative of the Council of Governments to attend the board meeting to provide additional information or respond to questions,please contact Pamela Davison. Your cooperation and continued support are gratefully acknowledged and appreciated. Sincerel , O. r t.441 , • , '%i pchurch C :197. Enclosures cc: Al Kittrell APEX • BENSON • BROADWAY • CARRBORO • CARY • CHAPEL HILL Ui CLAYTON • DURHAM • FOUR OAKS • FUQUAY-VARINA • GARNER GOLDSTON • IIILLSBOROUGH • HOLLY SPRINGS • KENLY • KNIGHI-DALE MICRO • MORRISVILLE • PINE LEVEL • PITTSBORO • PRINCETON RALEIGH • ROLESVILLE • SANFORD • SELMA • SILER CITY SMITHFIELD • WAKE FOREST • WENDELL • ZEBULON CHATHAM COUNTY • DURHAM COUNTY • JOHNSTON COUNTY �� \\_ri LEE COUNTY • ORANGE COUNTY • WAKE COUNTY \im/ TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 100 PARK DRIVE P.O. BOX 12276 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK,N.C. 27709 (019)549-0551 WORK PLAN 1987 $55,000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1. Increase or strengthen support to each individual county Economic Development office. 2. Provide support to specific cities and towns requesting assistance on high priority development issues. 3. Provide assistance to companies in the Region to begin or increase international trade and promote the establishment of a World Trade Center in the Triangle. 4. Seek to connect the Region with metropolitan toll-free telephone service. 5. Continue and improve the COG's program of helping the towns of the Region to revitalize their downtown areas. 6. Continue to promote the Raleigh-Durham Airport,international flights, Foreign Trade Zone#93, and the U.S. Customs Service as vehicles for Economic Development in the Region. • 7. Strengthen the ties and consequently the benefits of the Research Triangle Park to the entire Region. API'.X • BENSON • BROADWAY • ('ARRBORO • ('ARY • CIIAI'I I 11111. a� CLAYTON • DURHAM • I-OUR OAKS • EUQUAY"VARINA • (;ARNI GOI.USTON • HILLSBOROUGH • DOLLY SPRINGS • KI-NI.Y • KNI(;IIIDAIT MICRO RALI.1 • MORRISVILLE • PINK: NI.O1. • I'1"1`ISI(OA • 1'RI R ION RALI.IGII • ROL1:51'ILLI. • SANI ORU • 51:LMA • 511 L:R ('111' S!�117'I11'll.l_U • WAKE FOREST • N'I.NUL:LI. • ZEIU LON CIIATIIAM COUNTY • DURHAM COUNTY • JOIINSTON COUNTY 111V.LIT COUNTY • ORANGE COUNTY • WAKI- COUNTY Enabling Legislation. ..Council of Governments Funding Sec. 105. (a) Of the funds appropriated by Section 2 of this act to the Office of State Budget and Management, the sum of nine hundred ninety thousand dollars ($990,000) for each fiscal year shall only be used as provided by this section. Each regional council of government is allocated an amount up to fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000) each fiscal year, with the actual amount calculated as provided in subsection (b)of this section. (b) The funds shall be allocated as follows: A share of the maximum fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000) shall be allocated to each county and smaller city based on the 1980 Federal Census population of that county (less the population of any larger city within that county) or smaller city,divided by the sum of the total population of the region (less the population of larger cities within that region) and the total population of the region living in smaller cities. Population totals shall be according to the 1980 Federal Census, except to account for cities incorporated since the return of that census, and in such case, the most recent annual estimate of the Office of State Budget and Management shall be used. Those funds shall be paid to the regional council of government to which that county or city belongs upon receipt by the Office of a resolution of the governing board of the county or city requesting release of the funds. if any city or county does not so request payment of funds by June 30 of a fiscal year, that share of the allocation for that fiscal year shall revert to the General Funds. (c) A council of government may use funds appropriated by this section only to assist local governments in grant applications, economic development, community development, support of local industrial development activities, and other activities as deemed appropriate by the member governments. (d) Funds appropriated by this section may not be used for payment of dues or assessments by the member governments, and may not supplant funds appropriated by the member governments. (e) As used in this section. "larger city" means an incorporated city with a population of 50,000 or over. "Smaller city" means any other incorporated city. . i REGION NAME IS TRIANGLE J COG AMOUNT PERCENT POP 80 GOLDSTON CHATHAM $ 34.86 0.06 353 PITTSBORO CHATHAM $ 131.54 0.24 1332 SILER CITY CHATHAM $ 439.05 0.8o 4446 RURAL + SMALL TOWNS CHATHAM $ 3299.81 6.00 33415 CHAPEL HILL(PART) DURHAM $ 37.82 0.07 383 RURAL + SMALL TOWNS DURHAM $ 5044.87 9.17 51086 BENSON JOHNSTON $ 275.72 0.50 2792 CLAYTON JOHNSTON $ 404.00 0.73 4091 FOUR OAKS JOHNSTON $ 103.59 0.19 1049 KENLY(PART) JOHNSTON $ 135.49 0.25 1372 MICRO JOHNSTON $ 43.25 0.08 438 PINE LEVEL JOHNSTON $ 94.11 0.17 953 PRINCETON JOHNSTON $ 102.11 0.19 1034 SELMA JOHNSTON $ 470.26 0.86 4762 SMITHFIELD JOHNSTON $ 719.71 1.31 7288 RURAL + SMALL TOWNS JOHNSTON $ 6971.83 12.68 70599 BROADWAY LEE $ 89.67 0.16 908 SANFORD LEE $ 1458.87 2.65 14773 RURAL + SMALL TOWNS LEE $ 3625.99 6.59 36718 CARRBORO ORANGE $ 724.45 1.32 7336 CHAPEL HILL(PART) ORANGE $ 3163.83 5.75 32038 HILLSBOROUGH ORANGE $ 298.13 0.54 3019 MEBANE(PART) ORANGE $ 37.43 0.07 379 RURAL + SMALL TOWNS ORANGE $ 7609.37 13.84 77055 APEX WAKE $ 281.15 0.51 2847 CARY WAKE $ 2149.15 3.91 21763 FUQUAY-VARINA WAKE $ 307.12 0.56 3110 GARNER WAKE $ 994.73 1.81 10073 HOLLY SPRINGS WAKE S 67.94 0.12 688 KNIGHTDALE WAKE $ 97.27 0.18 985 MORRISVILLE WAKE $ 24.79 0.05 251 ROLESVILLE WAKE $ 37.62 0.07 381 WAKE FOREST WAKE $ 373.28 0.68 3780 WENDELL WAKE $ 219.43 0.40 2222 ZEBULON WAKE $ 202.94 0.37 2055 RURAL + SMALL TOWNS WAKE $14928.81 27.14 151174 TOTALS $54999.99 100.02 ***** RALEIGH AND DURHAM IGNORED NO CURRENT ESTIMATES USED FOR THIS ALLOCATION NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MMISSIONE RS .d.r.avpi`�`err` +r.r I I , MEMORANDUM I„ 41 l / TO: County Commissioners FROM: C. Ronald Aycock, Executive Director DATE: - December 16 , - 1987. _ SUBJECT: Resolution on Local Government Autonomy Concerning Employee Benefits and Salaries Attached is a copy of a resolution which our Board of Directors approved on December 8 , 1987 , concerning recent legislation affecting the counties ' authority to determine certain local employees ' benefits and salaries. The resolution expresses the concern that such legislation is contrary to our long-standing tradition of local autonomy and sets a troubling precedent. The Board of Directors urges each county to fully review the issues raised by the resolution and for your Board of County Commissioners to consider the adoption of a similar resolution. Most important, you are urged to fully discuss these issues with your legislators. cc: Affiliate Presidents Comms.Memo/mrgalt ALBERT COATES LOCAL GOVERNMENT CENTER 215 N.DAWSON ST. • P. 0.BOX 1 488 • RALEIGH.NORTH CAROLINA 27602 • TELEPHONE 919/832-2893 A RESOLUTION URGING MAXIMUM LOCAL AUTONOMY IN SETTING SALARIES AND FRINGE BENEFITS OF COUNTY EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, North Carolina has a national reputation for its strong and effective county government; and WHEREAS, that national recognition includes an acknowledgement of the large amount of home rule afforded counties by the North Carolina General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the National Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations in a recent survey ranked North Carolina among the top states in the nation for the amount of home rule afforded counties and cities; and WHEREAS, recent actions of the General Assembly have restricted this local autonomy in that the General Assembly has enacted special mandated retirement systems for law enforcement officers and most recently registers of deeds; and WHEREAS, at a recent meeting of the Social Services Study Commission, the Social Services Association in testimony before the committee recommended mandatory salaries for social workers; and WHEREAS, it is not in the best interest of an effective and strong county government system for continued deterioration of home rule relating to county employees salaries and fringe benefits be continued. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners that: 1. The General Assembly of North Carolina is commended for the high degree of local authority which has been granted to county government in North Carolina. 2. It is desirable for this high degree of local authority to be continued. 3 . Deterioration in this local authority such as was evidenced in the recent law enforcement and register of deeds retirement action is of great concern to county government. 4. The General Assembly is urged to refrain from additional restraints and restrictions so that the strong tradition of county government authority may continue to serve the citizens of North Carolina. #G-12-87/min5 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, because of the exceptional circumstances of the lives of persons aged 55 and over with regard to employment, particularly for women in this age group, and because Congress has given states the flexibility to shape the Job Training Partnership Act to meet their unique social and economic conditions, the Orange County Board of Commissioners urges the North Carolina Job Training Council to change the state's guidelines for determining income eligibility for this group. WHEREAS, an action that allows persons 55 and older to exclude their spouse's income would prevent women, espe- cially, whose average age at widowhood is 59, from having to wait until widowhood or poverty strikes before enjoying the training and employment opportunities offered by the JTPA Older Workers Program. Such a change would positively address needs identified in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro League of Women Voters October 1987 report, "Meeting Basic Human Needs. " THUS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners resolves that the N.C. Job Training Council and its administrative arm, the N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, should change the income determination defini- tion for persons aged 55 and over from "family income" to "family of one" and urges them to do so as quickly as is reasonably possible. This the 4th day of January, 1988 . Board • F• missioners Chair Attest: r 6/:0?/‘ Clerk to t(- Board A RESOLUTION URGING MAXIMUM LOCAL AUTONOMY IN SETTING SALARIES AND FRINGE BENEFITS OF COUNTY EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, North Carolina has a national reputation for its strong and effective county government; and WHEREAS, that national recognition includes an acknowledge- ment of the large amount of home rule afforded counties by the North Carolina General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the National Advisory Committee on Intergovern- mental Relations in a recent survey ranked North Carolina among the top states in the nation for the amount of home rule afforded counties and cities; and WHEREAS, recent actions of the General Assembly have restricted this local autonomy in that the General Assembly has enacted special mandated retirement systems for law enforcement officers and most recently registers of deeds; and WHEREAS, at a recent meeting of the Social Services Study Commission, the Social Services Association in testimony before the committee recommended mandatory salaries for social workers; and WHEREAS, it is not in the best interest of an effective and strong county government system for continued deterioration of home rule relating to county employees salaries and fringe benefits be continued. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that: 1. The General Assembly of North Carolina is commended for the high degree of local authority which has been granted to county government in North Carolina. 2 . It is desirable for this high degree of local authority to be continued. 3 . Deterioration in this local authority such as was evidenced in the recent law enforcement and register of deeds retirement action is of great concern to county government. 4. The General Assembly is urged to refrain from additional restraints and restrictions so that the strong tradition of county government authority may continue to serve the citizens of North Carolina. This the 4th day of January, 19 . 2.://eL4./Idide,00 Chair Attest / C1� / Apr-( �� / IV im 1 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 1988 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 4, 1988 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, January 4, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Moses Carey, Jr. , and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell and Don Willhoit. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Chair Shirley E. Marshall. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Albert Kittrell, Assistant County Manager William T. Laws, Interim Assistant County Manager Beverly M. Whitehead, Interim Management Analyst Pamela Jones, Planner Gene Bell, Recreation and Parks Director Mary Anne Black, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Interim Finance Director Ken Chavious, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Director of Housing and Community Development Tara Fikes, Tax Assessor Kermit Lloyd, Economic Development Director Sylvia Price and Social Services Director Marti Pryor-Cook. A. BOARD AND MANAGERS COMMENTS Commissioner Carey announced that Chair Marshall is ill and will not be present. He set a special meeting for Thursday, January 7, 1988 at 6: 30 p.m. in the Board of Commissioners' Room for the purpose of discussing a proposal for a market survey study and public educational program based on the proposed CIP in preparation for a November bond issue election and to discuss and/or decide the CIP work session schedule. NOTE: It was decided later in the meeting that this special meeting would be a continuation of this January 4 meeting. However, because of snow, the continued meeting set for January 7 was canceled and this topic was added to the regular agenda for January 19, 1988. Commissioner Carey informed the members of the audience that the proposal as presented by Commissioner Halkiotis on the licensing fees for animals would be discussed at the January Board of Health meeting. Item F5 was removed from the consent agenda and place at item G9. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA None 2. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Julie Linehan, President of the Orange County Rape Crisis Center, spoke on emergency funding for the Orange County Rape Crisis Center. This request for funding will be placed on the January 19 agenda for discussion and/or decision. Mary Fox, resident of Buttonwood Drive, spoke on the loud noise in the neighborhood from the music system at Roman' s Skating Rink. Commissioner Carey noted this situation is being investigated and it is hoped the problem will be addressed through the County's Noise Ordinance which is being amended and will be presented at the January 19 meeting. C. MINUTES Pf- ,. 2 Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the minutes for November 23, 1987 as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the minutes for December 1, 1987 as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOotion w a US. Ms made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the minutes for December 23, 1987 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. PUBLIC CHARGE Vice-Chair Moses Carey read the public charge. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Capital Improvement Program was presented by Interim County Manager Albert Kittrell, Superintendent of Orange County Schools Dr. Dan Lunsford and Superintendent of Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools Gerry House with a slide presentation showing all proposed CIP activities. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS SARAH STEWART , Co-President of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Federation of Teachers, spoke in support of adequate facilities which will help to create a quality educational environment. She pledged support for a bond issue. TOM BROWN , Co-President of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Federation of Teachers, asked that the leaders of Orange County make a decision for going with a bond issue by visiting the schools in the county and talk with the teachers and the students. He asked that a decision be made in favor of the children and future leaders of the county. DEAN DETER , thanked the Commissioners for their support of the agricultural and rural education center and asked for continued support for this project. The need is still there and has a broad base of support. ROBERT STRAYHORN , spoke in support of the agricultural agencies being located in one facility. The present facilities are not built to accommo- date the volume of traffic nor to provide the atmosphere to conduct effective educational programs. Many regional activities cannot be held in the County because of the lack of space and equipment. ANN TURNER , spoke on the needs and priorities of a Southern Orange Human Services Complex. She spoke of the crowded conditions at the complex and noted that the State is working on a policy concerning space accommodations and when the policy is finalized, if Orange County is not in compliance, $250,000 in funding could be lost. It would also be more efficient and cost effective to have the human services complex in one building where a client could take care of most of their needs with one trip. R. E. HILDEBRANDT , stated that the Senior Citizens Board has not had the opportunity for input into the CIP. He spoke about the inadequate facilities at the Efland Senior Center and the Cedar Grove Center and asked that the Commissioners visit those two centers before finalizing the CIP. 3 REV. DAVID HARVIN , spoke in support of and gave an update report on the Rural Agricultural Education Center. He stated that Duke University is doing an overall assessment of all properties they own and at their May meeting a proposal for possibilities of different land use will be considered. There is a new state commission which will be supporting new agricultural ventures like the proposed Center for Orange County and be allocating approximately two million dollars a year for these kinds of projects. MAX KENNEDY , member of the Orange County School Board, stated that of the items in the CIP that education is the most important. He expressed serious reservations about the 6.5 million proposed for Parks and Recreation. He stated concern that water and sewer were not addressed in the CIP. FLOYD MILLER , spoke about the dirt roads in Little River Township and asked if something could be done to improve roads in that area. BEN LLOYD , asked if there was a proposal for paying for the CIP and Commissioner Carey stated that the list of needs is a proposed list and the purpose of the public hearing is to hear citizen comments. He stated a concern about the young people being taught in the schools. Lloyd made additional comments on spending and revenues and the fund balance. RUFUS BOXTWELL , representing an elderly mother on Cole Mill Road, spoke against the greenways as proposed in the CIP and questioned why something like greenways would be considered when it affects all those who have a stream running through their property. Commissioner Carey informed Mr. Boxtwell that the County has no plans to exercise eminent domain authority to acquire any greenway property that is included as part of the plan. JOHN SCHAENMAN , spoke on behalf of the Orange Federation of Teachers. He stated that clearly a bond issue is needed and clearly a bond issue needs to pass. He feels that the way the bond issue is packaged and presented to the people is extremely important. He commented on the public hearing schedule and how the first public hearing was on a night that a school program was held and that the public hearing tonight is on an evening when everyone just returned to town the day before. He talked about the trailers at Grady Brown and the inconvenience of teaching out of trailers. JEROME HARRIS , resident of Eno Township, spoke in favor of anything that will improve the education of children, particularly in the elemen- tary schools where motivation can best be instilled. He opposed the Parks and Recreation Plan in the CIP and suggested that each issue be considered separately if they are going to be presented to the public as a referendum so the public has the opportunity to vote for those things which are top priority for them. He asked that another public hearing be held on the Parks and Recreation Plan so that the extent of controversy for certain sections of that plan present. D. W. WANE , expressed concern for the Parks and Recreation issue and asked that it be separated out and considered as a separate issue. He feels that those who live among the greenways may find some hostility when they find people coming through their areas and he asked that a plan be presented which shows what the County has in mind. LINDSEY TAPP , asked that the important needs of the schools be placed 4 first •and that County Government try to live within its means as the citizens of the County do. ROBERT NICHOLS , asked that alternatives for raising money be looked at by the County. Commissioner Carey stated that there will be funds available from other sources to help finance the CIP. TED LATTA questioned the method of financing the CIP and was referred to the document for clarification. OSCAR COMPTON stated he does not want to pay any additional taxes. A quality education cannot be bought -- a better job needs to be done with what is available without raising taxes. He asked that the Greenways be deleted from consideration. WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 2. MCLENNAN'S FARM 9. l o A- m 2,2_ �f D. RESOLUTIONS OR PROCLAMATIONS 1. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTONOMY Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the resolution as printed below: A RESOLUTION URGING MAXIMUM LOCAL AUTONOMY IN SETTING SALARIES AND FRINGE BENEFITS OF COUNTY EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, North Carolina has a national reputation for its strong and effective county government; and WHEREAS, that national recognition includes an acknowledgement of the large amount of home rule afforded counties by the North Carolina General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the National Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations in a recent survey ranked North Carolina among the top states in the nation for the amount of home rule afforded counties and cities; and WHEREAS, recent actions of the General Assembly have restricted this local autonomy in that the General Assembly has enacted special mandated retirement systems for law enforcement officers and most recently registers of deeds; and WHEREAS, at a recent meeting of the Social Services Study Commission, the Social Services Association in testimony before the committee recommended mandatory salaries for social workers; and WHEREAS, it is not in the best interest of an effective and strong county government system for continued deterioration of home rule relating to county employees salaries and fringe benefits be continued. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that: 1. The General Assembly of North Carolina is commended for the high degree of local autonomy which has been granted to county government in North Carolina. 2 . It is desirable for this high degree of local autonomy to be 5 continued. 3 . Deterioration in this local autonomy such as was evidenced in the recent law enforcement and register of deeds retirement action is of great concern to county government. 4. The General Assembly is urged to refrain from additional restraints and restrictions so that the strong tradition of county government autonomy may continue to serve the citizens of North Carolina. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2 . JTPA ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION METHOD The presentation was made by Commission for Women member Anne Johnston. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner to approve the resolution as printed below: WHEREAS, because of the exceptional circumstances of the lives of persons aged 55 and over with regard to employment, particularly for women in this age group, and because Congress has given states the flexibility to shape the Job Training Partnership Act to meet their unique social and economic conditions, the Orange County Board of Commissioners urges the North Carolina Job Training Council to change the state's guidelines for determining income eligibility for this group. WHEREAS, an action that allows persons 55 and older to exclude their spouse's income would prevent women, especially, whose average age at widowhood or poverty strikes before enjoying the training and employ- ment opportunities offered by the JTPA Older Workers Program. Such a change would positively address needs identified in the Chapel Hill- Carrboro league of Women Voters October 1987 report, "Meeting Basic Human Needs. " THUS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners resolves and implores that the N.C. Job Training Council and its administrative arm, the N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, change the income determination definition for persons aged 55 and over from "family income" to "family of one" and urges them to do so as quickly as is reasonable possible. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E. REPORTS 1. AGRICULTURE EXTENSION CHAIRMAN RECRUITMENT Dr. Clyde Chesney, District Director, outlined the selection process and the procedures that will be followed in replacing Bill Mainous who will retire February 1, 1988. After the interview process is com- pleted, Dr. Chesney will present a recommendation to the County for them to interview. If satisfactory, they will then make a formal presentation to the Board and make a decision on the salary. At that time, the Board has an opportunity to accept or reject the recommendation. Discussion can then take place if there is any question about the applicant. In answer to a question from Albert Kittrell, Chesney indicated that only one candidate will be sent to the Board to be interviewed. If the applicant is not satisfactory it will be discussed and if an alternative candidate is satisfactory deal with another candidate but usually the person recommended is the person best suited to fill the job as County Director. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS BOARD SUPPORT FOR CAPACITY USE 6 Dr. David Moreau stated that The Environmental Affairs Board has recommended that the Board of Commissioners support the Capacity Use Designation of the Eno River. If the designation is made, the State, in cooperation with the local governments, will proceed to develop an appropriate management plan for the area. Commissioner Willhoit stressed that when the request was made to the State to do the study on the possibility of designating its capacity use, it was done for informational purposes with the intention that the County would be able to devise a plan that could be administered locally. Dr. Moreau stated that with the capacity use designation, the County would then determine what the management plan would be and the State would in turn endorse the plan. Don Cox spoke in support of designating the Eno River a capacity use area and asked the support of the Board at the upcoming Public Hearing. F. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the items on the consent agenda as listed below: 1. TAX REFUNDS REOUEST Clark, James Boyd, Jr. and Cynthia P. Hansel, Acct. # 77564 in the amount of $244.79 L. L. Hiday, Acct. # 59382 in the amount of $29.56 Lee W. Settle, Acct. #4886 in the amount of $76.60 John Bachmann, Acct. #124159 in the amount of $117.52 Riley, Preston William, Acct. #12298 in the amount of $55.08 2. PROJECT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT To amend the 1980-81 Project Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on December 1, 1980 by the following Housing Amendment: Appropriation: Housing - 1988 Section 8 - Existing $ 1,260,142 Housing - 1988 Section 8 - Moderate Rehab 324,597 Housing - 1988 Section 8 - Housing Vouchers 146,129 Source: 1988 Section 8 - Existing Federal Grant $ 1,260, 142 1988 Section 8 - Mod Rehab Federal Grant 324,597 1988 Section 8 - Housing Vouchers Federal Grant 146,129 3 . EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT AGREEMENT To approve the execution of the Emergency Shelter Grant Agreement, Funding Approval and Agreement with InterFaith Council in the amount of $13,648 to be used for the IFC Homeless Shelter in Chapel Hill and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. 4. COMMISSION FOR WOMEN BYLAWS - AMENDMENTS To approve the amendments in the bylaws as presented and as contained in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Major changes included a reduction in the number of officers, the addition of an Article on elections and a change in the minimum meeting cycle. 5. SECTION 8 RESERVE ACCOUNT This item was removed from the consent agenda and placed as item G9. 6. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDING BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY To approve the resolution printed below authorizing release of funds to the COG to assist local governments in their economic development activities. S 7 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, in North Carolina the Lead Regional Organizations, as voluntary organizations serving municipal and county governments, have established productive working relationships with the cities and counties across the state; and WHEREAS, many counties and cities continue to need assistance in pursuing economic and community development opportunities, but federal assistance in the form of intergovernmental revenues has been severely curtailed in recent years; and WHEREAS, the 1987 General Assembly has again recognized this need through the appropriation of $990,000 each year of this biennium to help the Lead Regional organizations assist local governments with grant applications, economic development, community development, support of local industrial development and other activities as deemed appropriate by their local governments; and WHEREAS, these funds are not intended to be used for payment of members dues or assessments to a Lead Regional organization or to supplant funds appropriated by the member governments; and WHEREAS, in the event that a request is not made by a unit of government for release of these funds to our Regional Council, the available funds will revert to the state's General Fund; and WHEREAS, in Region J funds in the amount of $55,000 will be used to carry out the economic development plan approved by the COG Board of Delegates and especially to improve the economy of the counties and towns of the Region by strengthening ties to and consequently benefits of the Research Triangle Park. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County requests the release of its $7,609. 37 share of these funds to the Triangle J Council of Governments at the earliest possible time in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 830 of the 1987 Session Laws (HB 1515) . 7. 1988 MEETING SCHEDULE -- BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS To add to the official 1988 Meeting Schedule a work session for December 10, 1988. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. G. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA 1. WEST CORNER SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY Marvin Collins made the presentation. The property is located at the intersection of Harmony Church Road (SR 1341) and Mill Creek Road (SR 1343) in Cedar Grove Township. The total acreage of the tract is 38.35 acres with one lot of 1. 3 acres divided from it. The property is designated Agricultural Residential (A-R) in the Orange County Land Use Plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the preliminary plan as recommended by the Planning Board and the Administration. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2 . DARK HILLS - PRELIMINARY Marvin Collins made the presentation. The property is located on Carr Store Road in Cedar Grove Township. The total acreage of the tract is 136.25 acres with 13 lots of 1 acre each proposed. Each lot is to have frontage on Carr Store Road with joint driveways for lots 2-13. The property is not zoned and is designated Agricultural Residential and Water Supply Watershed in the Land Use Plan. The di Planning Board and The Administration recommends approval with three contions: 8 (1) Relocate the proposed 60-foot access road from its current location east of lot #1 and place between lots 3 and 4. (2) Designate location of proposed joint driveways on the preliminary plan consistent with the relocation of the proposed 60-foot access road. (3) Provide evergreen shrubs on the landscape plan in lieu of deciduous shrubs. Collins referred to a letter received from DOT which differs from a previous recommendation for the proposed access road. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Planning Board and the Administration recommendation. A substitute motion to refer the matter back to the Planning Board for a recommendation to come back to the Commissioners on February 1 was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3. LYNWOOD ACRES Marvin Collins made the presentation. The property is located in Chapel Hill Township on the east side of Damascus Church Road (SR 1940) south of Jones Ferry Road (SR 1942) . It is within the Water Quality Critical Area of University Lake Watershed. The zoning designation is Rural Buffer. Two lots are proposed out of the 5.19 acre tract with both fronting on Damascus Church Road. All agencies have reviewed the prelimi- nary plan. The Planning Board and the Administration recommends approval with two conditions. Collins pointed out that OWASA recommends that the primary and back-up septic tank sites be clearly designated on the plat and required to remain undisturbed. He suggested that an amendment be made to the Health Department's policies or regulations or to those of the Planning Department which would require the designation of primary and secondary nitrification fields on the plats and that the secondary site be retained in an undisturbed state. Attorney Gledhill pointed out that in the review process, OWASA will make recommendations which are neither required by the Health Depart- ment or the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. The recommendations which refer to the site designation and the secondary site being retained in an undisturbed state may be addressed by the Health Department. The recommendations dealing with the requirements necessary in the watershed need to be decided between OWASA and the State. OWASA is not in agreement with the State and it should be resolved by the technical people at OWASA and the State. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the preliminary plan with two conditions: (1) Submission of $660 payment-in-lieu of dedication of recreation/open space. (2) Provide easement descriptions, by metes and bounds, on the Final Plat for nitrification fields and septic tanks, and submit easement agreements for same for the review and approval of the County Attorney. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. It was the consensus of the Board to refer to the Health Board for their consideration the question of including in their rules and regulations the designation of a primary and secondary septic tank site on the plat as well as retaining the secondary site in an undisturbed state. 4. DAL- RAE FOREST Marvin Collins made the presentation. The tract is located in the northeast corner of Bingham Township on the south side of Borland Road (SR 9 1127) one half mile east of the intersection with Dodson's Crossroads. Two 2-acre lots are proposed from the 15.2 acre tract. The property is zoned Rural Buffer and designated as Rural Residential on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. All agencies have reviewed this preliminary plan. The Planning Board and the Administration recommends approval with three conditions. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the preliminary plan for Dal-Rae Forest with three conditions: (1) Include in Lot #1 the area south of the creek designated for septic tank disposal. (2) Submit payment-in-lieu of dedication of recreation/open space in the amount of $113.00. (3) Restrict the access of lots 1 and 2 to the existing private road. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5. DRAFT CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN Planner Gene Bell made the presentation. He explained the process followed in updating the Orange County Land Use Plan for Cedar Grove. The major change that is proposed is the designation of additional water supply watersheds in the Back Creek and Little River drainage basins. This increases the amount of township land area designated water supply watershed from 28.5% to 88%. The Planning Board and the Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment and incorporation of text revisions into Section 3 . 6 of the Land Use Plan and authorization for preparation of a watershed protection ordinance for Little River and Cedar Grove Townships pursuant to the draft Water/Sewer Policy recommendations. Commissioner Willhoit indicated his desire to understand what the philosophy is for watershed protection in comparison with the University Lake watershed and asked that additional information be provided before imposing watershed standards. The implications need to be known before it goes to public hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Planning Board and the Administration recommen- dation. The motion was amended by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve only the text revisions into Section 3. 6 of the Land Use Plan. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 6. PD-2-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE Marvin Collins made the presentation. The application request a PD-1-1-3 (Planned Development - Industrial-3) zoning classification on 2.0 acres of property located on the south side of Old N.C. Highway 10 east of N.0 Highway 86. The property is currently zoned PD-1-1--3 and R-1 Residential and is designated Ten-Year Transition and Commercial Industrial Activity Node in the Land Use Plan. The request has been made in order to bring an existing washwater recycling facility and the use of the site for truck parking into compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Board and the Administration recommends approval with nine (9) conditions. The Board reviewed the application, the site plan and all supporting documentation and found that the applicant does comply with the general standards, specific rules and required regulations with the exception of the underground utilities requirement and that all findings have been addressed by the nine conditions imposed thereon. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner ` 10 •Hartwell that the Chandler Concrete application PD-2-87 be approved with the amendment of the zoning district designation from R-1 to PD-I-3 to PD- I-1 and the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit subject to the con- ditions as recommended by the Planning Board and Administration: (1) The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all im- provements plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. As improvements are completed a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements. (2) Security shall be provided for the replacement of dead or damaged landscaping plants and planting of Loblolly Pines in the reforestation area. (3) Roads, parking areas and landscaping shall be maintained as constructed. All such improvements and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. (4) Screening and landscaping requirements shall be provided as required in Articles 7 and 12 and shall be maintained as constructed, including the replacement of dead or damaged plant materials. (5) The five percent (5%) interior landscaping requirement of the vehicular use area shall be constructed as shown on the approved site plan. (6) A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer. (7) The final site plan and narrative of the project, incorpor- ating all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project, are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to remain on file with the Orange County Planning Department. Any appli- cable permits, upon application, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. (8) The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions. (9) All utility lines, including electrical and telephone service lines, shall be located underground. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 7. INCREASE IN EDC MEMBERSHIP Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve amending the EDC Resolution to increase the number of members by four (4) "AT LARGE" members to be appointed directly by the Board of Commissioners with terms of the four additional members staggered. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 11 8. RESPONSE TO BAINS/RIGGSBEE PROPERTY TAX COMPLAINT Tax Assessor Kermit Lloyd explained to Diane Rigsbee the disposition of her complaint. She disagreed with the explanation and indicated she would contact Lloyd for further dialogue. 9. SECTION 8 RESERVE ACCOUNT (Consent Agenda Item #F5) Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to authorize the transfer to funds from the Section 8 Reserve Account to the General Fund to finance all Housing and Community Develop- ment projects at the time of approval by the Board with the understanding that the money will be transferred from the account at the time the matching decision is made on the project. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. H. APPOINTMENTS Postponed to the next meeting. I. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adjourn the meeting to be continued on January 7, 1988 at 6:00 in the Board of Commissioners' Room, Hillsborough, North Carolina. The next regular meeting will be held on January 19, 1988 at 7:30 in the courtroom of the old Post Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk 1 - r PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Zoning Atlas Amendments b. PD-4-87 McLennan' s Farm Presentation by Marvin Collins. Mr. Leon Todd has submitted an application for PD-H-RB (Planned went-Housing-Rural Buffer) classification on 37 acres on Develop approximately one-half the east side of Bowden Road (SR y (SR 1005) . The proposed mile south of old Greensboro Highway development would consist of Each ofl these slots twill have which average 2.17 acres in individual wells and widisbosalNedThe currentnzoning�iscRural field for septic tank P The Land Use Plan Buffer and Protected Watershed 11• designation is Rural Residential. The reason that a common nitrification field is being proposed is that this is the only portion of the site where a suitable area for septic tank disposal has been found. The Recreation Director has recommended that payment-in-lieu be f Or accepted rather than dedication lieuwould•beBequivalent4too$983 housing units, the paym The Recreation Directotrificationofield bend maintained and designated open spac e/ operated by a homeowners association if exercise stations are to be installed. The proposed development is to be served by proposed public roads (McLennan' s Farm Roar reviewedg the oeplan d) and nre ommended NCDOT standards. NCDOT h the following: 1• property lines are to follow the sight triangles at Bowden Road (SR 1946) - 2• A proposed island at the entrance to the development must be maintained by a homeowners association. right-of-way must be dedicated to Additional accommodate a six-foot wide shoulder and a ditchline " with 2: 1 slopes. 3 . A sight easement must be provided Farm the intersection of George Poe Road and McLennan s _ 4. Lots 8 , 9 , 10 and 11 must have driveways off George Poe.. Road. an' s Farm Road is extended, 5. If McLenn the cul-de-sac. . right-of must revert to the adjoining property owners. 2 . and the White Cross Orange Rescue Squad to -- Both the South Fire Department have indishtrdff Se Department has Volunteer Fir P an additional serve the proposed development.will result in indicated that the develop to service calls. While d for will be able to handle such 12.3 manhoffSSneDepartment esponl then developments, could the Sheri combined with o service, the demand, . cause the need for additional manp ower indicated that a starmwater The Erosion Control officer ed fors the Project. Grading perm is i management plan is re4u be required prior to the start of construction. Will a lso are summarized comments from Orange Water & Sewer Authority as follows: provided to confirm be 1. Additional information wastewater isposal system is that the proposed assure its long-term rella- properly designed and to This information should include a only bility• to address soils which are re site analysis suitable, the depth of the restrictive "marginally" suitable, above the restrictive soil horizon, and the extent of mounding that can be ex- horizon, petted ta. occur. rate not DWASA recommends a lower hydraulic loading and 2. per square foot per day, m exceeding 0. 075 gallons P protect long term lower pollutant loading rate to ground and surface water quality• 3. install a dual, alternating absorption field system and rovide an additional undisturbed reserve area in case _either system fails. - ate measures to prevent the accidental Provide adequ wastewater from the proposed facilities prov discharge of ground waters. I into surface and is the impact of recreational uses of he as=eaon 5. What of the sail absorption the long-term suitability Of surface and ground- g. Establish appropriate monitoring and be ends that water. DWASA also reCO= to further pr ter t water . - - built for stormwater --- quality. _. inspected The Proposed system should be constructed and u 3 7 P P to accep table standards. Sewer and utility - according should be reserved for construction an I4 easements maintenance of the system. - ' - .e.. assurance that disposal of solid wastes fro 8, Provide - in facility will �.. 3 septic tanks and from .procesparty in accordance with, + carried out by a certified party I State regulations. I stem should be periodically. 9, All components of the system 3 3 inspected. technically 10. The system should be operated by a qualified party 11. replacement costs should be Pump life, repair, and addressed. the following Regarding the development layout► OWASA had , comments: t, in the watershed should b=otection consistent of the 1. Developmen ublic objective P the primary Public supply• public drinking and con- investigation of site suitability may A detailed sorption fields 2• of the need for dual absorp field area► sideration greater absorption to the pro- result int rn nee ould require modifications which in out and development density- posed subdivision lay will not be 3 • provide assurance that open space areas developed, erosion assurance that sedimentation and manner 4• provide a timely control measures l be stalled in and permanently maintained* utility easements should be wer obtained serviices incthe 5. public u public s in the itate the provision of determined necessary event such extension is future. courtesy The Town of Carrboro has the proposede fallowing planned development- review comments r are egarding based an Carrboro-designated watershed The comments irements. zoning district requ -:foot buffer would be required on either side of 1. A fifty located on the site. the intermittent streams of land to the north would the tract 2. proposed plans for phased required (ie- r maximum allowed ands 3. Impervious surface limitatans. hou located proposed) sld be an the P reater than 18" should 4. Trees having a diameter g _-_---on landscape plans. The agency or organization which will be responsible ;- B. tenance of the proposed sewer treatment facil� :. for main noted on the plans. ides should be clearly ed for the sewage all state permits required to issuanCe 5. Copies of submitted p disposal systems should be of any building permits. - 4 potential recreation activities all p the recreation space � The exact nature of ected for Also the distance (Passive or actiVe) eXPthe Plans field and the should be addressed on nitrification I between the edge of lea_ existing stream is not c be 8. learing limit lines Proposed grading and c would indicated i needed, -r culvert sizes should h adequacy stormwater verifying their g , Proposed the culvert drologic calculations drawings of and hY rovided• Detailed should be p s are also nee ded• and road crossing to that ended, a notation is to be ems' and signage should o d 10. If the should be on the Plans, when the effect at that end of the cul-de-sac installed is built. are needed to Prop house locations and driveways 11. P sed imp P re oervious surface areas. verify P p 0 osed well sites should be indicated. permit 12• Proposed ended that State p recommended LPS sewage Town of Carrborofo=sDpreVxously haVe been problems. The be reviewed if there records stems to ascertain disposal systems systems. with failures of of Carrboro were pwAS and the Town Staff to adequately A Comments received from the Planning nd agencies about received too late with the applicant reason, the consult the plans• For this review and changes to comment be received necessary recommends that citizen eating be continued Planning Staff and that the public h date) far on the application. 1987 (or other suitable ndation will er 1, A Staff recomm to Dec, ores• review/consultation p irP be presented at that available with the many lots would be only 2- asked how Collins responded Avail Perk sites, would available p document_ s Associai°npla�ing Board's Jacobs asked if the Romeowner -ior U lim,itativn Of review P the the open available for - about be expressing concern-. the maintenance of a - decision ' ed pesticide use on responded that such herbicide - Collins the Homeowner s space and recreation area- a retirement for when it is concern could be listed verif ied in the document for approval*he i Association and could be County. Attorney presented to Staff and the is plan for the open a .. specific it was privat,... also .. ,.asked about responded of Public: Jacobs area. Collins ent-in-lieu space/recreation not that Pale gecreation and Parks ;. recreation area and ended by _ dedication has been recomm used , Director. tic system was being J acobs asked if the alternate Sept ic 5 were only two ce there that With •37 density sin onded est�°n to increase Collins reSP eal He a mechanism arty. resents a r acres' the property perky it P land Use perk sites on at done with the remaining the La will es and only 4 be do oafs or P°licles the county Bans acre can as what t one of the g situations► provide a continued tha those types °technology to ensity Pe some that in ve systems to exceed the density have Plan to alternative not Attorney es 1 look is awing more l the county t to only f our acres g" for all that development or x,o lie sug 5esa out limiting as to whether feeling acre tract measures. rOperty tiiirtY~seven through regulatory level°P the P to comes about wished to intent that he wish it was his to Provide Leon stated indicated wished development Le Todd s Farm and dicated he op C • ed Mthende elopment• r quirements to create call live he bet and n e could be proud• %cLennan' s t evey° and planner for a detailed of which chitect which P=DVlded a county Landsca colored plan the prang on the Dan Jewell► a He indicated . sites with Farms Presented the plan. only two P site review tion °f found and one site and desC7 artY°ent had t consultati°n for only indi_ Beal arty epHe stated , eferencaccordingly. He not State PT tore land but was prop indicated was decided ordinance the Stuffier °f lots (lo °us1Y been Pas tYiasV re feet and the n had PI Be- emphas iz e p 0 0 onal the site time. 52► ecreati Cate this area �s feet °f r on field. being usedt for recreate°183x000 square requiremen partially as a nitrif ma Y. trees as is providing this plan lso serves Pwas such tha st rswater management e Plan office will be area which a the that the He indicated be left ax'd Control possible would the Erosion the plan re��red by ality of felt the o 1800 to 2000 provided. that he a surrounding tinned cted home size jewel w the restri the value for having -to apply develoPm eat would eta cattle real°te lacy, of perx sites square f Se noted o went 'Was stems- , rop •�e5• ousing level P tic y for a planned indiv�'dual sap erx -. site• a Jewell about which preve compris. the location se by the State pi1KeY d gat the site. ormati°n on onde raspe °pen space` resented inf role of got of. engineer► P then bas r°- -- ulting eng that e P ..::,:. Z+iorganr cons He e,plaineds to insure of the : Craig stem' development and wel f are awareness - the wastewater s such a safety He noted engineering in health, ant• of wastewater the Public enviro andli='g tection of ounding the x' 1 •t and s concerns -and count Y environment wastewater r - w ... of the envi . ;7;:;=-•:. .. _ , . � clustered treatment. the He . ..::_ ued explainin..tion sYsten• e when a central: Morgan co ltin ized toile to use ;. tam with a .Pressractical technology" a best p r.'. this was the 6 ater treatment facility is not $e noted that it was far collection system and wastew for two basic a watershed area. tic tanks available in out of the better than on-site conventional na A clustered system ns: (1) The. ands reside taken cert�f�ed reaso the r to warrant a that hands , large enough system thereby insuring creates a nt. approach directed toward the operation and manage] going to be Most of the technical competence is g basis. an annual or semi-annual ent system area project on a wastewater treatment with requirements to be met by of Human OWASA- dictated by the Department of regulations far more restrict c omments asofollows: He addressed some of loading rate - he noted that arding hydraulic l loading rate for this Comment #2 =and County approved soil is well within OWASA's the State so the rate of 0. 075 area is 0.1 concern- sting absorption field -he a dual alternating system Comment #3 regarding have to install a qu fields and noted that they would and four dosing four PUMPS alternating stem than the dual. which is extensive hydraulic _Y stem a far more accide tal protective measures for was Comment #4 regarding P indicated the treatment are discharge of wastewater - he and the drain fields centralized at one P ion of the nitrifica ion being the centermost Port e area of which the State being placed in the resew left after Ithe field being and then wrapping erkable area the eby iring 100* available P area, is re4u are in place around the active portion of the drain fields . th creating a natural buffer -which is site. act of recreational uses of the area Comment #5 regarding imp ently sloping and not conducive - he noted that the site is g diamonds but rathinconse- fields and baseball ball which is very to soccer as volley field. Be indi- family recreation such the drain with the long range per °=Hance °f robl will quential to et�,.he=e were -no P e recreation Gated he felt absorption where -the I suitability of the soil occur. inspection he stated 7 regarding construction and an - stem must be Come # wastewater treatment sY any approval of the ent of Human Resources beforeroval obtained from the DePbeRssued. He felt that State aPtreat- .:. e=mit can ractical ;. building P rbr.a.rx would be the best p dicate that. this wou - would in use. went. of this land stated Mr. Morgan _ : _ re a=d to the Homeowner'e t=eatme t n� is clusteredrl a In g wastewater _ eneral maintenance`s a.8 that anytime fired for g There' will be strict covenant Homeowner's Assvcias�otem The keep which and upkeep. °f the y such maintenance and . Boards '. and arding the Staff► and .restrictions reg a =oval by were many qualified be submitted He indicated there prang area will e County ;r county. o technicians available fine wastewater I. 7 • It will be arranged by the owner by to monitor the system. � the time the project is 75� completed. u>a life repair and rent bean Comment #11 regarding P p quality equipment being 4 costs - he indicated with the even higher than that 5 provided and his specifications being 6 of tree State, this need not be a concern for the County. cost of participating in the 8 i Best inquired about the Yearly responded that in 9 , Homeowner's Association- Mr- Morgan rasp er ear. early cost is $100.00 p Y 10 another such st will probably be in the range of $20. 00 Per 11 The monthly month. He indicated that the Improvement' Budgets�t lbe used 13 encouraged to set up Caput P 14 When asked for repair and maintenancehe individual Pumps- insurance individual s 15 insurance protection fort expectancy of the Pump ► 16 the cost of the pumps and the life was approximately $700 17 he responded that the cost Per Pump n to fifteen years. 18 to $so0 and the life expectancy 19 He continued that the system was set system woulddn by t the 20 I pumps, thus with four pumps th 21 inoperable at any time- He indicated that monthly 22 inspections should be sufficient and that there stem is asuch 23 system to alert of any problem. The alarm d 24 that twenty-four hours of service time would remain after �5 the first alarm before the system failed. _ I_:: t equipment would be located 26 " . i Commissioner Halkiotxs askeMD ga responded that at each an resP which 21. at each homesite. Mr• 24 inch fiberglass pump 29 homesite a septic tank and a 30 I, goes through a line similar to explain wing the dprocess of he 31 g He continued 32 the main system. system. Halkiotis con- 33 wastewater treatment tinued asking how often the gan septic$ondedathae homes 34. must be pumped out. - Mr. Morgan P twa to three 35 _ mended that they. be pumped after half-full evprotruding 36 He indicated that rather than p 37 years. ground level- 38 - ground, the caps are placed at gr 39 Frances Shetley, a Carrboro resident, indicated she had . 40 F ro posed McLennan.'s Farm develop- visited the site of the P p were too many 41. : _, :;; : f went. She noted. that she felt there 42:, unanswered questions about such a system anionsofd the awater 43.1 _ system be raj ected at this time for p careful- 44-:. ..:: : :; su ly, She .asked that the Commissioners bla ed on the 45. PP of . responsibility being P with a with the am expressed concern 46;a; . : .,_,: on the 47 :r;:," ,_ __ .> Homeowner's Association. She exp She asked clogged pipe on a = road which was located , . - McLennan property or very near this prof 49 =I that the Planning Staff make a site check on this road and 50 clogged pipe' oke from a prepared state- spoke T ^ ' = A11en Spalt,`:Carrbory resident, sP . and . referenced other 5 FL went (an attachment t° these minutes) to these minutes) : 55 g .. s O n s and documents _- meetings _; .. .. .. . seconded:. bY." ' :Commissioner 56 Commissioner Willhoit - m ,ved, on McLennan' s Farm 57_.-.. Hartwell to continue the public hearing 58 5.9. 8. to January 4 ► 1988. 1 2 Vote: Unanim°us. 3 of 11/23/87 Public hearing. 4 , Continuation 5 McLennan s Farm 6 Marvin Collins. 7 Presentation by estion is for a Planner Hilll and g a lication in .question surrounding Chap Collins stated that the Pp on Bowden Road and 1/2 mile 9 Project in the Rural Buffer would consist approximately 37 acres 10 ment Housing The proposed development size-. 11 Carrboro. It involves aPP hway. over two acres in south of old Greensboro Hig slightly community nitrification 1 Z for the 13 property would be comprised area Director of fourteen residential lots averaging 14 The remaining P and aISO P 1987 15 field for sewage disposal the November 23 , He not that the been presented of he Recreation review comments 16 development. was to 17 and comments from NCDOT had he public hearing Staff meeting. The continuation of the He indicated that the rboro comments. 18 of Ca . Of i9 from OWASA and the Town of Carrboro as well as the Planning 20 has met with OWASA Staff ddt asTown�ewed the Town 21 The comments from oWASA a responses are included as attachments to these 'minutes- 21 es� informatiln 22 Staff s resp the the comments, responses and additions all of �3 well as the site Plan and 24 After - reviewing licant, as approval with rovided by the , applicant? Planning Staff is recommending PP N 25 P: documentation, se conditions address def formation lackingeJ� 26 supporting and The twenty-four, condition lication in termsoff Carrboro, NCDOT, 27 Planning Staff _ found in the aPP the Town 28. also address the comments from they ,. s also include standard conditions conditions are as 29 SA: The conditions application' 30-IOWA orated into any planned development app 31. p 32 follows: re onderance of evsdenvverningcas 33. .._ . e 8.2 -states.. 4 that where a preponderance e 35 tic 2 the general standards, specific red regulations and with the use complies with all raga found, in so e 36 compliance and that 37 specific use, , application must be approved unless it is 7 standards, the - er, 'that: and general welfare 39 . specific mane safety to t_he 40 romote the public heal-th► operated according 1, The use will°-not P om proposed and developed and op 41 if located where P P. _ _ . 42 .-- P_. ► cunt ro arty; ` 43 plan as° submitted contiguous p p 1 44 A• •11 'not'maintay� or enhance the value of 45 " 2- The use: wa_..._. , _ _ _ lens for the physical 46 fiance - with the general ..P . ,;; ; : regulations or in the 47. 3:__ The use, is no co county as embodied in these re�the Orange county developments of •fie anion thereof,, adopted y 48 Comprehensive Plan, or P I 49.... . - 5� Board of_ Commissicners. � above findings is on those 51 roving one yr mare of of competent: burden .of p roof must also be in the form 52 The a lication.: . The p 5.3 °PPcsing :the'_ PP _ stantial evidence. 4 material and -sub.. _ . _-. rounds for r ma a. 55 been receive .� .:.. into rmaticn has d which" "would establish one more_of the �. _._... 56 above findings. _ 57 - i 58 59 9 + the site plan and all 1 The Planning Staff has reviewed the application,applicant does comply with entation and has found that the supporting docum ecific rules, and required regulations with the S s the general standards, P 4 exception of 5 Staff recommends approval of the amendment of the zoning 6 The Planning 7 district designation from RS to - Bfathetfollowingnconditi conditions: Class 8 Special Use Permit with he attachment 9 post with Orange 10 1. The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall P y a bond or County, in a form acceptable to the aloutoY the°cost of all letter of credit in an amount equ determined improvements Plus 10%. Tstruction contracts a r certification tby basis of fully executed construction grantee of this .Special Use a registered engineer employed by of Permit. As improvements are completed securityrinstorumentsamorntthe money may be released from "Yet to do" security instruments may be renegotiated based on the y portion of the improvements. 2. Prior to the initiation of construction activity, final approval by the State must be obtained for the community low pressure wastewater disposal facility. A copy of , the permit must be provided to the orange County Planning Department. 'provied from the 3. A 30-foot access and utilityaneasement the right-of-way of McLenn RDadltoe the natrifi ca field for monitoring and maintenance purposes. 4-.: A fence shall be provided around the compaction action ofnsoils- and repair. area to limit access and prevent P The location of the nitrification ofield plan. respect to the intermittent stream shall 5... Documents pertaining to the tted to and operation pproved of bya he homeowners association must be submitted Attorney. The documents shall identify all improvements which will owned by and/or will be the responsibility of the homeowners association to operate and maintain, including the estimated annual cost for same- on Lots 6. 3D-foot drainage easements must be provided The waterllevel of adjacent to the intermittent stream and spring. the existing pond on Lot 6 must be designated. Tree protection areas must be delineated DR lations... Proposed by Section IZ'-S-S-b-1 of the Subdivision gu .:•: f 15 feet from t e -foot ._... street trees must be located a minimum - Utility easement. _ ....: g. construction plans for McLennan's Farm Rnsdortationrand Poe ncluding. approved by the N.C. Department of Transportation must be stormwater culvert sizes and hydraulic calculations, submitted to the Planning Department. r 9 .. Property lines are to follow the sight triangles at Sowde(SR 1946) • `: 10..` Additional right-of-way 'is to be dedicated at the entrance island 10 to shoulder and ditches with a 2:1 accommodate a 6-foot wide slope. _1• Sight triangles are to be dedicated at the intersection of George Poe Road and McLennan' s F a arm . to Lots 8, 9 , 10 and 11 is to be limited to George :.2• Access Poe Road. , g • If McLennan Farm Road is to be extended, the o cul-de-sac right- is revert to the adjoining property - must possible future wa _ indicating of-way cul-de-sac inch. g P e cul f the tin d o indicating r posted at the en ind g road extension. A notation must be placed on the plan same. !4. Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum, and existing vegetation shall be retained whrever sedimentation POss control• shall belreviewed drainage, sail erosion and and approved by Orange County prior to the start of any tapprove In addition, Orange County shall inspect the cons work for the installation of control devices atheall on-going meet the total project. The project requirements of the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 15, Lot line dimensions must be denoted on the plans. 16 payment-in-lieu of dedication of . recreatioexaetnnaspace oumust be submitted in the amount of $ ,- e recreation activities must ciee dstationsoand thelpote potential use °f location and type of the open play area. All recreation facilities shall be constructed as shown on the approved plan. 17. T he .12-foot utility easement . must be labeled as a utility and Pedestrian access easement iieintersectssMcLennan' s Farm Road. provided where the jogging electricity, telephone and cable television (CATV franchised 18. All utilities shall be by Orange County to serve the development) Permit said installed underground. All necessary devlopment and utility installation, servicing shall be provided at no cast to each unit within the. ..to the utl e' - 19 ':Provide a :- legal description of- the property to the Planning Department to complete the application. Articles 9 (Signs) 20. All signs shall be erected in compliance with Ordinance following . r..:. e Count Zoning and 7.14 (PD-H) of the Orang Y hbe erected in the . �' ' :- issuance of, required sign permits No sign may :- sight triangles . for the. entranceways to the development. 21. ._A. _ final boundary survey of the Planned Development and . _ -improvements shall be recorded by the developer 22. The final site plan and narrative °u ou hrtlecfinalnapprovallof. : -all changes, deletions and additions thr g 11 the ^project, are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to remain on file with the orange County Planning Department. Any applicable permits, upon application, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. 23. The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions. 24 . If any of the above conditions is held invalid, the special use permit shall become null and void. Commissioner Willhoit asked if any grading had been done on the site yet. Collins responded he was not aware of any. Commissioner Hartwell asked if the Planning Board had commented on the proposed development. Collins responded that the application would go to the Planning Board for recommendation after the conclusion of the public hearing. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by commissioner Hartwell, that McLennan's Farm be referred to the Planning Board for their recommendation. Attorney Gledhill stated that it had been the practice in the past to keep the public hearing open for the Planning Board' s recommendation. He continued asking if the information being provided was new information from 'the applicant. Collins responded that information had been obtained from the - applicant as well as OWASA and the Staff response is also now a part of the record. Patrick Davis, OWASA representative, stated that he had met with the applicant, the project engineer and a Planning Department represent- ative prior to the Christmas holidays and received verbal responses to some concerns. However, written responses had been requested to summarize steps to be taken to' address those concern but those responses were received today and OWASA has not had time to adequately review them. . . He requested that OWASA be provided the opportunity to review the information and provide further. written response. Attorney Gledhill stated that OWASA could make its . further comments -to the Planning Board at its next meeting. . The public hearing should then ..-. - be-. held open to receive oWASA's comments and the. -Planning Board's recommendation.:- Dan Jewell, project manager indicated the comments from the Town of _= Carrboro and NCDOT had been reviewed and the applicant will be comply- ing: with those recommendations on the final plans as. required by the . Planning Staff. He continued that the OWASA comments were. more extensive and detailed: -- and could be answered by Craig Morgan, waste- -- water, enginser. : with the Mr: ' Jewell stated thatthe proposed project. is in conformance Land`. Use Plan.` . He ; expressed the intent to comply with all the State . and County regulations regarding erosion control, impervious surface 12 He area and stormwater management- s callnd�atte a the recommendation s ion of the water treatment system was ba Y orange County Environmental HeaVth Department.oading rate.-site inspection has been made by the State approving Morgan, wastewater engineer, stated that many of the twenty-four conditionns s proposed by Craig o the planning Staff will be addressed in the design phase and all conditions will be complied with. Morgan referenced a question and answer form (an attachment to Mr. g basic comments: these minutes) and made the following In regard to maximum compliance andhwastewaterp the best managementndaThe for sedimentation/erosion con North Carolina Division oonenvac=nme�nal development lonsa.zeS for projects greater than compliance with State laws governing sedimentation and erosion control. The North Carolina Division of a d the orange county Division of Environmental Management an areas. Department control management practices within developing in regard to assurances that the development will not result in the degradation or contamination of drinking water supp lies a) Private wells withithe ofsubdivision wastewater drainfieldsxaway benefit by the location from the residential lot sites. b) The wastewater management concept proposed is the best practical method of- treatment available. ah only treatment system better suited for implementation s a central This sewerage not system extended to the subdivision by Possible at this time- c) The construction site i�al, lightlyldeveloped buffer of farm Lake and surrounded by a • land and forest. This project will have no adverse impacts on the water quality in University Lake. Obviously, a proliferation of such projects could eventuallcaseebulcase. problems if they are not addressed individually Y� and then brought under a comprehensive plan. a) The wastewater system is - being proposed with the understand- - ing that operation and management will be ' by a Public. . - Utility. �s Land Use Plan? - He . Is the project in compliance with the County Rural -_-- noted that the . designation for this projsand is Residential and the current zoning is does ural meet Buffer those regulations. Watershed Ii. an he felt the project Does the project -present a danger to p�list and s stated that given all the bodies which mu PP the answer to this question is no. Will the project development result in the devaluation of ad- 13 joining property? - He stated that the value of rural farm land generally increases as a result of residential development, but only for residential development purposes with suitable wastewater management facilities. Is the project consistent with the primary objective of protection of the public drinking water supply? - The developer believes it is. The developer has committed publicly to a quality sub- division. The project is being planned and engineered under the scrutiny of County and State regulatory authorities who are re- enforcing their project reviews with the public concerns expressed at these public hearings. The emphasis of design is on safe containment and treatment of wastewater and stormwater runoff. If all projects were subject to such reviews, the issues of water pollution could be greatly reduced. Commissioner Hartwell moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to refer McLennan's Farm to the Planning Board and continue the. public hearing to February 1, 1988 to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and hear the comments from OWASA. Vote: Unanimous. •