Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 02-16-1988
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1988 7: 30 P.M. OLD POST OFFICE CHAPEL HILL, N.C. A. BOARD AND MANAGERS COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda (We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked. ) 2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda C. MINUTES PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending 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. OATH OF OFFICE FOR COUNTY MANAGER PAGE # D. RESOLUTIONS OR PROCLAMATIONS 002 * 1. County Government Week E. REPORTS 005 * 1. Recommended Thoroughfare Plan for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area PAGE # F. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) 006 * 1. Budget Amendments 008 * 2 . Efland Sewer Maintenance Agreement 014 * 3 . Authorization to Purchase Ambulance from State Contract 015 * 4. Unpaid Real Property and Tax Lien Advertisement 021 * 5. Authorization for the Manager to Submit the RSVP Renewal Application 023 * 6. White Cross Fire Insurance Related District 026 * 7. Tax Refunds Request 034 * 8. NACo Achievement Award Proposals 053 * 9. 1988-89 Budget Calendar 055 * 10. Uncollectible Insolvents 056 * 11. TJCOG Regional Telephone Committee Funding Request 058 * 12 . Agreement with Independent Opinion Research and Communications, Inc. G. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA 061 * 1. Reconsideration of Animal Licensing Fees 062 * 2. Intergovernmental Committee 063 * 3 . Capital Request from Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools 066 4. Petition for Addition of Streets in Wildwood Subdivision, Sections One and Two, to the State- Maintained Secondary Road System 078 5. Dark Hills Preliminary 093 6. Pine Forest II Preliminary 103 7. Chestnut Oaks Preliminary 137 * 8. Quailview Subdivision--Acceptance of Land Dedicated to Orange County for Recreation/Open Space Purposes 144 * 9. Piney Mountain Subdivision--Acceptance of Land Dedicated to Orange County for Recreation/Open Space Purposes 150 10. Memorandum of Understanding Eno River State Park 169 * 11. Dispute Settlement Center Funding Request. 170 * 12 . Approval of Airport Planning/Engineering Contract; Authorization for Chair to Sign Funding Application 172 * 13 . Subscription and Fee Schedule for Computer Access to Land Records System 174 * 14 . Board of Equalization and Review 175 * 15. Efland Sewer Billing and Collection Agreement 176 * 16. Pros and Cons of OWASA Becoming More. Involved in the Ownership and Operation of Small Systems H. APPOINTMENTS I. ADJOURNMENT EXECUTIVE SESSION--PROPERTY MATTER (*) Indicates items that need immediate attention. 001 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF comvaSSIORERS Item ]1<0. Cj ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE February 16, 1988 • Subject: MINUTES Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Bearing: Yes ' X no ` Attachments: Under S Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe eparate Cover Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-14501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: February 1 , 1988 - Regular Meeting BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the governing Board has the lecal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board' s proceedings. RE COMMERDA—'r'IOE: As the Board decides. 002 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM #L] MEETING DATE FEBRUARY 16, .1988 SUBJECT: COUNTY GOVERNMENT WEEK DEPARTMENT: MANAGER'S OFFICE PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No ATTACHMENTS) INFORMATION CONTACT: PROCLAMATION MANAGER'S OFFICE, X. 501 RECOMMENDED ACTIVITIES Hillsborough - 732- 8181 Hillsborough - 732-9361 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To proclaim March 28-31, 1988 as Orange County Government week and endorse activities to be held throughout the week. BACKGROUND: There are one hundred counties in North Carolina providing services to more than six million people. As the population has increased and service needs have undergone major changes, the role of county government has evolved to address those demands. Orange County is responsive to the needs of the citizenry. We recognize that the progress achieved and the challenges ahead, will continue to be met through a cooperative effort. We propose to again utilize "County Government Week" as an opportunity to recognize and express appreciation for the valuable contributions of volunteers in Orange County. After, such persons do not think of themselves as volunteers, but as citizens. Citizens in the fullest sense: Partners in the progress of Orange County Government. Further, we will use this time to also inform citizens about the many services offered and the challenges facing county government today. (See Attachment for Recommended Activities) . RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the proclamation and endorse the planned program activities to recognize volunteers and enhance citizen knowledge and understanding of county government today. 003 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Orange County government has served the citizens of the County since 1752 and we are responsible for a growing number of services which have direct impact on local citizens; and WHEREAS, the elected and appointed officials in county government take great pride in serving the citizens of the County and in being directly involved in shaping the future; and WAS, in Orange County the volunteer spirit is still alive and well and the volunteers serve as our partners in progress; and WHEREAS, through their volunteer involvement, citizens learn more about community needs and resouces and serve as communication links to the entire community. NOW, THEREFORE, we the Board of Comm ssioners do hereby proclaim the week of March 28 through March 31, 1988, as Orange County Government Week, and reaffirm our support and appreciation of the valuable contributions of volunteers in the County. And, further urge all citizens to become more familiar with county government. This the 16th day of February, 1988. By; Shirl Marshall, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners RECOMMENDED ACTIVITIES: 004 To inform Citizens about the many services offered and the challenges facing Orange County Government, we propose the following: 1. ) Publicize "Orange County Government Week" through articles in area newspapers. During the weeks of March 14th - 18th and March 21st - 25th County Departments-will be featured in area newspapers. Each Department will host an open house during County Government Week March 28th - 31st. County Commissioners are encouraged to visit departments during this week. 2. ) An audio-visual (VCR tape) will be produced to further enhance citizens knowledge and understanding of Orange County Government. Each County department will be featured "in action" and filmed in different locations throughout the County. VCR tapes will be available for check-out at libraries, County Manager Office and points of interest throughout the County. Boards, Commissions, Agencies and public interest groups (i.e. public safety, human services, educational) students, community groups and the general public will have access to these tapes as desired. 3. ) Realizing that several County Offices have moved and to make the Public aware of locations, an updated pamphlet on Orange County Government will be prepared. The following items will be included: Updated directory of agencies and their locations; an Orange County Profile; names and description of responsibilities of Commissioners, County Manager, Assistant County Managers, Department Heads, and Division Heads. 4. ) Develop and present a brief orientation of Orange County Government for members of the many boards, commissions, and task force committees providing advisory services to the Board of County Commissioners. The orientation session will be scheduled during County Government Week for those members who wish to participate. 5. ) Host a reception honoring volunteers to express appreciation for their valuable contributions to Orange County. Present a slide presentation with pre-recorded narrative and background music highlighting "Orange County Today." (The County is progressing due to efforts of it's citizens, employees, and volunteers. ) 005 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. El ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 16, 1988 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED THOROUGHFARE PLAN FOR THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL- CARRBORO URBAN AREA DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To receive a report on the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Thoroughfare Plan. BACKGROUND: The DCHC Study Group presented the second report (Analysis of Alternatives and Recommendations) of the DCHC Thoroughfare Plan on January 28, 1988 in Durham. In addition, the study group is providing follow-up meetings with local elected offi- cials. Representatives of the study group will make a presen- tation and answer questions. 006 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A enda Item No. 1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 16, 1988 SUBJECT: Budget Amendments DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes x No Finance ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:Donna Wagner TELEPHONE NUMBER: Proposed Budget Amendments Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To approve the following budget amendments.• BACKGROUND: 1. on January 19, 1988, the Board of Commissioners approved a request from Adolescents in Need' for additional funding. The $6,000 request was to maintain current staffing levels through the fiscal year. The source of funding is the Commissioners' Contingency. 2. During 1986-87 fiscal year, funds were appropriated from the School Capital Reserve_for Orange County and Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools roofs. However, these funds were not spent nor encumbered on June 30, 1987; therefore, this amendment is necessary to allow these expenditures for the 1987-88 fiscal year. (The balance of Unappropriated Fund Balance is $285,856.) RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve motion to amend the 1987-88 Budget' Ordinance by the proposed amendments. 007 ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1987-88 BUDGET AMENDMENT The 1987-88 Budget Ordinance as adopted on August 4, 1987, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows: 1. General Fund Appropriation: Adolescents in Need $30,500 $ 6,000 $36,500 Source: Contingency 33,670 6,000 27,670 To budget for additional funding fro the Adolescents In Need Program. 2. General Fund Appropriation: Schools-Chapel Hill - Roofs $ 0 $30,360 $30,360 Schools-Orange - Roofs 0 16,400 16,400 Source: Transfer from School Capital Reserve 0 46,760 46,760 School Capital Reserve Fund Appropriation: Transfer to General Fund 0 46,760 $46. 760 Source: Fund Balance Appropriated 0 46,760 46,670 Approved this 17th day of February, 1988. ORANGE COUNTY 008 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A a Item No.t. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 16, 1988 SUBJECT: EFLAND SEWER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S AGREEMENT OFFICE,X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Consideration of Efland Sewer Maintenance Agreement. BACKGROUND: On January 19, 1988 the Board approved Efland Sewer Mainte- nance Proposal submitted by Orange Water and Sewer Authority staff and authorize Manager to request OWASA Board of Direc- tors to consider staff proposal. The proposal outlined per- sonnel, vehicles and equipment needed to monitor, operate and maintain the County gravity collection system, central pump station and four individual pumps. OWASA Board approved the maintenance proposal on January 28, 1988 . An Efland Sewer Maintenance Agreement between the County and OWASA has been drafted for Board review. The County Attorney has reviewed the agreement. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve Efland Sewer Maintenance Agreement and authorize Chair to sign. 009 AGREEMENT FOR PROVIDING LIMITED TECHNICAL SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE TO ORANGE COUNTY BY ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE COUNTY'S EFLAND/CHEEKS WASTE ,TER SYSTEM NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into and executed in duplicate originals, this the day of , 198 , by and between Orange Water and Sewer Authority, a public body politic and corporate, organized and existing under the provisions of Chapter 162A of the North Carolina General Statutes, with its principal office in Carrboro, North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as "AUTHORITY," and Orange County, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY." WITNESSETH• WHEREAS, the AUTHORITY provides wastewater collection, pumping, treatment and disposal services for the Chapel Hill - Carrboro community and surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY has awarded contracts for the construction of, and will be the owner of, wastewater collection and pumping facilities_ serving the - -Efland/Cheeks area of- Orange County; and - WHEREAS, the COUNTY and AUTHORITY are authorized under North Carolina General Statutes to enter into agreements for the provision of water and wastewater facilities and services; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY has requested the AUTHORITY to provide technical services and assistance relative to preventive and corrective maintenance of the Efland/Cheeks wastewater system; and WHEREAS, the AUTHORITY is willing to provide this requested service to • the COUNTY under the terms set out herein. NOW, THEREFORE, the governing bodies of the parties hereto have determined that the public health and welfare will be served and benefited by their_- cooperation, mutual undertakings and agreement as hereinafter set out; and, in consideration of the benefits, assistance and mutual obligations to be received and performed by the parties hereunder, the COUNTY and AUTHORITY, for themselves, their successors and assigns, d mutually agree as follows: 1. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date first above written and shall continue in full force and effect, unless terminated as herein provided, until June 30, 1988; provided, however, that this Agreement may be extended on a month-to-month basis thereafter upon approval by the AUTHORITY's Executive Director and the COUNTY's Manaoer. 2. Either party may terminate this Agreement by mailing written notice thereof by registered mail, return receipt requested, to the other thirty (30) days prior to the date of termination. The COUNTY agrees to pay for any service rendered by the AUTHORITY prior to any such termination. 010 3. The charge for services which the AUTHORITY provides to the COUNTY under this Agreement shall be the AUTHOR:TY's actual direct and indirect costs of providing such service including personnel expenses and operation, maintenance, and amortization costs of the vehicles and equipment used in providing the requested services. This cost will be as determined by the AUTHORITY and will be at the rates generally described in' the attached schedules hereto, if the service is performed on or before June 30, 1988. Charges for service after that date will be determined by the AUTHORITY with consideration for actual direct and indirect costs which are experienced at the time the service is rendered. Additional expenses, including but not limited to materials and supplies, which are required in the performance of this service shall be paid by the COUNTY. 4. The AUTHORITY shall render a bill by monthly invoice to the COUNTY as service is provided. The COUNTY shall make payment to the AUTHORITY within 20 days after the invoice is rendered. 5. The parties to this Agreement shall not to responsible or liable in any way for acts of God or any other acts or omissions beyond the control of the parties which may cause the interruption or discontinuance of the delivery of the AUTHORITY's services to or for the COUNTY. The AUTHORITY shall not be responsible in any way for damages caused by the failure of the County's wastewater collection and pumping facilities or by_interruption of services to any custoirier served by said facilities. 6. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties relating to the provision of services to and for the COUNTY by the AUTHORITY. 7. Any litigation arising out of this Agreement shall be determined in Orange County District or Superior Court. IN TESTIIMONY WHEREOF, the undersigned Chair of the Orange County Board of - Commissioners, and the Executive Director of Orange Water and Sewer Authority, each having been duly authorized by the respective governing board to execute this Agreement, have duly executed this Agreement for and on behalf of the COUNTY and the AUTHORITY to evidence the undertakings entered into as hereinabove shown in particular. The respective official seals of the COUNTY and the AUTHORITY have been affixed hereto by authority of the respective governing bodies, all as of the day and year first above written. ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY Executive Director ATTEST: Secretary-Treasurer ron • ORANGE COUNTS! Shirley ViarshaLl ATTEST: This instrument has been preaudited in theinanner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. Date Finance Officer r Orange County Date Fiscal Affairs Manager Orange Water and Sewer Authority This document-is hereby approved as to form and legality. Date - Counsel to the Authority -3- ORANGE WATER AND SEER AUTHORITY PROPOSED LABOR AND EQUIPMENT RATES APPLICABLE TO THE PROVISION OF muNTEJANCE SERVICES FUR EFiAND/CHEEKS SEWER SYSTEM (Revised Draft- January 12, 1988) The labor, equipment and overhead rates quoted below are those in effect as of January 1, 1988. These rates are subject to. revision to reflect the rates in effect at the time of execution of the agreement and annually thereafter. A. Operation and Maintenance of McGowan Creek Pump Station: Labor (1 emp3oyee, 3 hours, @ $10.25/hour),.. Equipment (3 hours @ $4/hour) $ 30.75 Materials and supplies 12.00 0 Total Direct Costs ,-. 75 Indirect Costs (1.29 x Labor costs) 35.70 39.70 TOTAL COST PER VISIT: $ 85.45 NOTE: It is recommended that this Service be provided at a frequency of at least 3 visits per week. OWASP, inspects its pumping stations on a daily basis. B. Corrective Maintenance Services at McGowan Creek Pump Station: Labor (2 employees, 4 hours each, @ $16.70/crew-hour) $ 66.80 Equipment (4 hours @ $4/hour) Materials and supplies *** 16.00 Required *** Total Direct Costs Indirect Costs (1.29 x Labor costs) 86.20 86.20 TOTAL COST: $169.00 * NOTE: This service will be on an "as-needed" basis. Additional costs will result if more than 4 hours are required to correct the problem which caused the alarm condition or if this work would be done at the overtime rate for labor, which is 1.5 times the normal labor rate. Note that materials and supplies costs are not included. A 013 Page Two ;::, : -- C. Provision of Tanker For Temporary Pump and Haul of Wastewater: Labor (2 employees, @ $17.50/crew-hour) $ 17.50/hour Equipment - 28.00/hour Over-the-road-tractor/tanker ($21/hour) Portable pump ($3/hour) Pick-up service truck ($4/hour) Total Direct Costs 45.50/hour Indirect Costs (1.29 x Labor costs) 22.60/hour TOTAL COST: $ 68.10/hour * * NOTE: This service will be on an "as-needed" basis. The hourly charge would begin at the time OWASA personnel and equipment depart from ONASA to the Efland pumping station and continue until the return to OWASA headquarters. The overtime multiplier for labor is 1.5. D. Corrective Maintenance to Remove Blockage In Gravity Sewer: Labor (2 employees, @ $16.70/crew-hour) $ 16.70/hour Equipment 29.00/hour Pick-up service truck ($4/hour) Vactor- High Pressure Sewer Hodder ($25/hour) Total Direct Costs 45.70/hour Indirect Costs (1.29 x Labor costs) 21.55/hour TOTAL COST $ 67.25/hour * * NOTE: This service will be provided on an "as-needed" basis. The hourly charge will begin at the time the °NASA personnel and equipment depart from °NASA to the Efland sewer problem and continue until the return to OWASA headquarters. The overtime multiplier for labor is 1.5. ORANGE COUNTY 014 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Age Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 16, 1988 SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE AMBULANCE FROM STATE CONTRACT DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 NONE TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To authorize purchase of an ambulance from State contract. BACKGROUND: The County routinely participates in State vehicle contracts. The contract currently in force for ambulances is with Ashley Vehicles, Jefferson, N.C. The Ashley vehicle has been on State contract for the past two years and has met with favorable response in user counties. In view of the intensive evaluation that the State conducts prior to an award of this type of equipment and in view of the evaluation done by County staff we feel confident that an award to Ashley is in the best interest of Orange County. The Rescue Squad submitted several items they would like to have included on the vehicle purchased by the County. The County was able to accommodate most of the requests. The Rescue Squad Chief reviewed and approved the final options list and concurs with the purchase of the Ashley vehicle. This is the first time that staff has recommended a diesel unit be purchased. This would eliminate the potential fuel line explosion problems the gasoline units have experienced in the past year. The $33,831 cost of the vehicle including options is budgeted in the 1987-88 budget. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Authorize the purchase of an ambulance from Ashley Vehicle, Inc. for a sum of $33,831. 015 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Aya a Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 16, 1988 SUBJECT: Unpaid Real .Property and Tax Lien Advertisement DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No Revenue ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: John T. Horner Report TELEPHONE NUMBER: Ext A32 Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: 1- To report the amount on current unpaid Real Property Taxes as of January 31, 1988 . 2- To recommend the date for the Tax Lien Advertisement. BACKGROUND: Mandatory per General Statute 105-369 On the first Monday in February in each year, each county tax collector and on the second Monday in February in each year, each municipal tax collector shall report to the governing body the total amount of unpaid taxes for the current fiscal year that are liens on real property, and the governing body shall thereupon order the tax collector to advertise such tax liens . For purposes of this section, district taxes collected by county tax collectors shall be regarded as county taxes and district taxes collected by municipal tax collectors shall be regarded as municipal taxes . RECOMMENDATION(S) : Accept report and set the Tax Lien Sale date for May 11,1988. , ors DATE : February 1, 1988 TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners FROM: John T. Horner, Director of Revenue SUBJECT: Unpaid Real Property Taxes and Tax Lien Advertisement The Orange County Department of Revenue reports the following unpaid taxes that are liens on all Real Property for the year 1987 . COUNTY $ 1, 424,034.46 CHAPEL HILL $ 441,525 . 67 CARRBORO $ 131,422 .00 HILLSBOROUGH $ 37 , 688. 10 TOTAL $ 2, 034, 670 . 23 The Department of Revenue recommends the following date for the advertising of Tax Liens . May 11, 1988 017 DATE : February 1, 1988 TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners FROM: John T. Horner, Director of Revenue SUBJECT: Unpaid Real Property Taxes and Tax Lien Advertisement The Orange County Department of Revenue reports the following unpaid taxes that are liens on all Real Property for the year 1987 . COUNTY $ 1, 424, 034.46 CHAPEL HILL $ 441,525 . 67 CARRBORO $ 131,422 .00 HILLSBOROUGH $ 37 , 688 . 10 TOTAL $ 2, 034, 670. 23 The Department of Revenue recommends the following date for the advertising of Tax Liens . May 11, 1988 . • 018 DATE : February 1, 1988 TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners FROM: John T. Horner, Director of Revenue • SUBJECT: Unpaid Real Property Taxes and Tax Lien Advertisement The Orange County Department of Revenue reports the following unpaid taxes that are liens on all Real Property for the year 1987 . COUNTY $ 1, 424,034.46 CHAPEL HILL $ 441,525 .67 CARRBORO $ 131,422 .00 HILLSBOROUGH $ 37 , 688 . 10 TOTAL $ 2,034, 670 .23 The Department of Revenue recommends the following date for the advertising of Tax Liens . May 11, 1988 019 DATE : February 1, 1988 TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners FROM: John T. Horner, Director of Revenue SUBJECT: Unpaid Real Property Taxes and Tax Lien Advertisement The Orange County Department of Revenue reports the following unpaid taxes that are liens on all Real Property for the year 1987 . COUNTY '$ 1,424,034.46 CHAPEL HILL $ 441,525 .67 CARRBORO $ 131,422 .00 HILLSBOROUGH $ 37, 688. 10 TOTAL $ 2, 034, 670.23 The Department of Revenue recommends the following date for the advertising of Tax Liens . May 11, 1988 020 DATE : February 1, 1988 TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners FROM: John T. Horner, Director of Revenue SUBJECT: Unpaid Real Property Taxes and Tax Lien Advertisement The Orange County Department of Revenue reports the following unpaid taxes that are liens on all Real Property for the year 1987. COUNTY $ 1, 424, 034.46 CHAPEL HILL $ 441,525 .67 CARRBORO $ 131,422 .00 HILLSBOROUGH $ 37, 688. 10 TOTAL $ 2,034, 670 . 23 The Department of Revenue recommends the following date for the advertising of Tax Liens . May 11, 1988 021 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A FiSi ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: February 16, 1988 SUBJECT: Authorization for the Manager to Submit the RSVP Renewal Application DEPARTMENT: Deparnt on Aging PUBLIC HEARING: ATTACHMENT(S) ; Jerry Passnore , I>yingei No INFORMATION CONTACT: RSVP Resolution for Submission of a Grant Application TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider authorizing submission of the RSVP Application to ACTION for the period July 1, 1988, through June .30, 1989, in the amount of $24, 775 in Federal funds by the County Manager. BACKGROUND: , This is a yearly Continuation Application provided by 475 retirees service covering volunteer services non-profit organizations in Ord aPPr�vnately 58,000 hours for 50 needs the County Canissioners' approval. The attached resolution There would be no major increase in County match funds for the continuation of the program for next year. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Authorize Manager to submit RSVP Application to ACTION. i• 022 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) BE IT RESOLVED by the Commissioners of Orange County that the Commissioners authorize the County Manager to submit an application to ACTION for a $24, 775 grant for continuation of the Retired Senior Volunteer Program for twelve months and to certify to the federal government the willingness of the County to assure a minimum of 30% in cash, goods, and services as the non-federal share in support of the program. This is the sixteenth day of February, 1988. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO.R; MEETING DATE - FEBRUARY 16, 1988 , 023 SUBJECT: White Cross Fire Insurance Rated District DEPARTMENT: Emergency Services 1 1 PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobby Baker ATTACHMENT (S): PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8161 DESCRIPTION OF WHITE CROSS CHAPEL BILL 929-5109 FIRE DISTRICT PURPOSE: For the Board to consider approval of the White Cross Insurance Rated District. BACKGROUND: The Insurance Service Office will rate a rural fire district for five (5) road miles from the fire station. This rating would allow the residents within the five (5) miles to be eligible for a reduction in fire insurance premiums. r;hite Cross, a newly formed fire department) , has met all other requirements of the Insurance Service Office and is applying for this rated district. RECOMMENDATION (S): - Approve five (5) mile insurance rated district. 024 WHITE CROSS FIRE DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY Served By: White Cross Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. Beginning at a point ( 1 ) at the intersection of Roads 1100 and N. C. Highway 54; thence southeasterly along centerline of N. C. Highway 54 to point (2) at its along the intersection with Road 1957; thence southeasterly th centerline of Road 1957 to point (3) at its intersectilon Road 1958; thence southeasterly and then northerly ong centerline of Road 1957 to point (4thatc its tseiintersection dwith Road 1958; thence northerly along 54; 54 1958 to point (5) at its intersection with N. C. Highway 54 thence southeasterly along the centerline of N. C. Highway to point (6) at its intersection with Road 1952; thence southeasterly along the centerline of Road 1952 to point (7) at its intersection with Road 1951 ; thence northeasterly along the centerline of Road 1951 to point (8) at its intersection with N. C. Highway 54; thence easterly along the centerline of N. C. Highway 54 to point (9) at its intersection with Road 1104; thence northeasterly along the centerline of Road 1104 to point ( 10) 0. 3 mile northeast of its intersection with N. C. Highway 54; thence southeasterly to paint ( 11) an N. C. Highway 54, _.O. 3._ mile east of... its intersection with Road 1104; thence southeasterly to p oint ( 12) on Road 1945, 0. 3 mile north of its intersection with Road 1005; thence southerly to point ( 13) ts the heherly to intersection of Roads 1005 and 1945; thence point ( 14) on Road 1946, 0. 5 mile south of its intersection with Road 1005; thence southwesterly to point ( 15) on Road 1948, 0. 7 mile south of its intersection with Road 2004; thence southwesterly to point ( 16) on Road 1951 at its intersection with the Orange-Chatham County Line; thence westerly along the Orange-Chatham County Line to point ( 17) at its intersection with Road 1954; thence westerly along the Orange-Chatham County Line to point (18) at its intersection with Road 1956; thence westerly along the Orange-Chatham County Line to point (19) at its intersection with the Alamance County Line; thence northerly along Orange-Alamance County Line to point (20) on Road 1958, 1. 2 miles northwest of its intersection with Road 1959; northeasterly to point ( 1 ), the beginning. Note: This description describes an area of Orange County pursuant to General Statute 153A-233 for insurance grading purposes only. 1 + y 1 WHITE CROSS FIRE DISTRICT I. ORANGE COUNTY ' Served By: White Cross Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. '860. .9 .� Al Teer 1175 9,0 •6 1 07 1112 •s Oaks 1101 4 { .4 •t NA 1006 C1 s . 1972 1100 11 1.5 f �r i PCalvande A 19-6.9 � P Can ? FAP •8 v7 ! I 195 t0 .8 °i .� _,- _ _ -- ' _ 1207 's�3 1958 G D .9 54 2.2 1958 White •1 Q � 6 3 •6 S kite Cross 1.7 192 1959 1956 r •o ?? e�'� I C 14 1950 19_53 0 1947 � 2028 C011iris 1 2029 5 2030.E •2 AS 1 X194 3 .0 .8 •4 i.2 '2 FAS 1065 2 1948 194 _978 N + 1005 m 5 t 1949 .3 �• ! ,`v t956 1955 1931- 2004 2025 �� `a ' 203 ! 2031 co - _ 1 1954 j.b ' '. : ;'.�,! fS 2024 r " Q• 1940 pig 4 019 1 e ti 1939 -.�. r ORANGE COUNTY 026 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action AgenF d Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 16, 1988 SUBJECT: Tax Refunds Request DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No Tax Supervisor ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Kermit Lloyd Ext. 410 Individual Request TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill -- 968-4501 Mebane -- 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider 7 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) : Approve Tax Refund Request. TVJP 2 ACCT # 55947 027 • 220519 TRACTII MAP E 2.18. .4A Pope, H. Thomas Jr. BILL 8744461 Rt 1, Box 44 Cedar Grove, NC 27231 • • • COMMENT: A clerical keying error was disoovered on the value of two (2) bulk. barns for 1987 when property owner requested a printout of - - ' property: record card in January 1988. • • Ref: G.S: 105-381(a)(1)a.. Tax imposed through clerical_ error.- The correct value for each barn should have been $2,592.50 after the 50% adjustment for depreciation which was omitted in.error. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund tax overpayment for 1987. • Valuation $5,185 _ GO (.00606) $31.42 • • PI- -(.00054) 2.80 • • • $34.22 • RECOMMENDATION: Approve • • ORDER : DATE: • . • • :;: . . . T��1P Hillsborough 028 ACCT # 76294 TRACT# 400335 MAP 4.19.H.11 BILL# 8726192 Doris Cates 323 Mitchell St. Hillsborough, NC 27278 r 3 - COMMENT: Due to clerical error a 1977 Mercury valued .at $1220 should have•. been deleted frog► above account. Ref G.s. 105-381(a)(1)a. Tax imposed thru clerical error. • ACTION REQUESTED: 1977 Mercury valued at $1220 GO $5.43 G3 7.39 _ • $12.88 (Refund) RECOMMENDATION: Approve • ORDER : DATE: • TWP 2 ACCT # 116881• 029 TRACTS MAP BILLS 878159 _ Gloria Jennings Rt 2, Box 373 Hillsborough, NC 27278 • • COMMENT: Due to error in pricing motor vehicle, 1985 Toyoto priced at $11,560 and should have been priced at $7,610. . Ref: G.S. 105-381(a)(1)a. Tax imposed through clerical error: ' ACTION 'REQUESTED: Refund for tax overpayment for year 1987. 1987 - $11,560 Go $23.94 77610 GL 2.61 $ 3,950 Value Difference FI" . 2.13 - • $28.68 - .57 2% Interest... 29.25 Refund Due • RECOMMENDATION: Approve • • ORDER DATE: i TWP Chapel Hill ACCT D 86245 030 TRACT 704457 MAP 7.115. .23 • John Yow BILLI 8720155 Rt 4 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 • • COMMENT: Due• to a keying error two site values were erroneously added to real property value. A refund is due on a $4,000 - value. Property has only one site value. Ref: G.S. 105-381(a)(1)a. Tax imposed through clerical error. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund property tax on $4,000 value for 1987 . Rate Code 04. 1987 GO (.00606) -$24.24 CH (.00165) 6.60 FC (.00076) 3.04+ $33.88 RECOMMENDATION: • ORDER : : DATE: - • • • • TWP 7/22 031 ACCT # 73681 TRACT# MAP The Shoe BILL# 8735005 Rachael b. Coley .15-501 Bypass Eastgate Chapel Hill, NC 27514 COMMENT: 1984 & 1983 acquisitions were taxed twice for 1987 taxes. Ref: G.S. 105-381(a)(a)a. Tax imposed through clerical error ACTION REQUESTED: Valuation taxed $77,335 - $42,490 (should ,have been) Difference of $34,845 • GO $211.16 • G2 188.16 CH 57.49 $456.81 RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER : - DATE: flip 032 . ACCT D 101209 7RACTP 601598 MAP 6.5..14G Nash, John T. & Chrystal BILL 8741605 Rt 3, Box 408D Hillsborough, NC 27278 I COMMENT: 1985 Dodge Colt Vista Wagon double listed. Actually owned and listed by First Union National Bank of North Carolina, account - • #34382.• Also listed by John T. Nash and paid on account #101209. - - First Union Paid Bill #8732389. - - Ref: General Statute 105-381(a)(1)b. Illegal property tax due . - to double payment on same property. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund tax overpayment for tax years 1986 and 1987 (only) • Requested refund for tax year 1985 but not applicable- due -- _ • to not listing.motor vehicle for 1985. - 1986 Valuation $7,610 1986 1987 TOTAL. REFUND 1987 Valuation $8,580 • GO $47.18 - GO $51.99 -- - - • $52. 50 . • . SC 2.28 FF 3.43 " $55.42 . FF 3.04 • • $107.92 $52. 50 $55.42 RECOMMENDATION: ; ORDER : : DATE: - •• • 033 TWP 7 ACCT # 121423 TRACTI MAP 1 ] • David Glemaker BILL) 873329 223 E. Rosemary St. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 • • • • • COMMENT: Per-letter attached, owner was living in Cumberland County. • and listed there also. Taxes already paid for 198. 7. Taxpayer ' requests refund for 1987 in amount of $83.41. . • • Ref: G. S. 105-381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax due to taxpayer listing same property in two counties. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund tax on 1984 Oldsmobile (Value $4,790) plus 1972 Datsun (Value $300) Total Value = $5090. . GO . $30.85' GW 27.49 - . Ch 8.40 Late List Chg. " 6.67 - • $73.41 . • RECOMMENDATION: Approve • • ORDER : : DATE: . • • • a 034 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A en a Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 16, 1988 SUBJECT: ANNUAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARD COMPETITION NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (NACo) DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 APPLICATIONS TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To review, select and approve the program descriptions to be submitted for the NACo Annual Achievement Award competition. BACKGROUND: During the past year the County has undertaken programs and activities which have resulted in improved services. The projects are eligible for entry into the NACo Awards competition according to the twenty three categories and five criteria used in the judging. Deadline for submission is March 1, 1988. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve program descriptions for submission to NACo. 1. Child Support Enforcement Accounting and Case Tracking System--Child Support Enforcement 2 . Women's History Month--Commission for Women 3 . Information and Referral Guide--Board of Commissioners 4. Joint Planning--Planning Department • • `035 ENTRY FORM • COUNTY Orange STp,M North Carolina )sae: IrAw mcmoer coanues cauy. POPULATION ANNUAL COUNTY BUDGET TITLE OF PROGRAM TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ACHMVEIvreNT AWARD: (Fee li=cit title to 60 mamas.) Do nu.include county name in the program titles Child Support Enforcement Accounting and Case Tracking System CATEGORIES: Entries must be made in the following categories: Check only ONE category for this entry: J Community Development ❑ Land Use and Land Planning ❑Computerization ❑ Labor Issues and Employee Benefits ❑Criminal Justice ❑ Mental health ❑Community Services 7 Media Relation • D County Administration and Management ❑ Old.:.Americans ans ❑ Drunken Driving Deterrence and Seat Belt Safety ] Parks and Recreation ❑ mmpioymentandTraining ❑ Public Safety/Emergency Management J Energy and nv cnment ❑ Rural Programs Fiscal Management and Use of Federal or State Funds ❑Transportation Health ❑Taxation and Finance ❑Human Services ❑Youth Programs :I-juvenile Justice NOT._: Our list includes two general categories—Htintan Services and Community Services. We are bolting for the following information under those categories: HUMAN SERVICES—food assistance pro=s; providing food/shelter for the homeless; proms to improve the service/administration of welfare or general assistance progms; quality control in welfare assistance e =ams; the provision of social m-vi.s such as family counseling and child ;improvements in the managcmett iadmiel on of . human- services pmzazis. C ONLlW NIIY SERVICES--pros rrtC that z xa av•meass in the comity's pubes set-vices=has sanitation,file,poii.^c,et 4iinno«aams or improved services in any of these areas are a ce Arable);per -r2"^s pzotiolimr me enhancement or henernient of the ctnamtmity;prods designed to give citizens more innun into county govemmem Name,tole and maiung address of the county's chief -Name,zutw departrne n,mailing g a,.rr..ss and aeon. eyed 0�.' LIhe t:Oimry'.s board Chat, id:it h=obo—xlf. p ere a nwszm able to imprizie or elected county exe-eutive.--.and his Cr her signane more iniozmzuion to inonnintb� _ J -"ZioAS authorizing this entry. Name Shirley Marshall Name - Janet Sparks -ale Chair, Orange Co. Comr!issione!"i- Director Addrss 106 E. Margaret Lane Dcmnnen. Orange Co. Child Support Enf. Alit= 110 Churton Street Cif Hi1lsboroughslam NC 27278 Hillsborough smut NC -it 27278 Sicgl-Fnre • Area Cori:/onon° (919 ) 732-8181 e xt. 4 036 PROGRAM SUMMARY ABSTRACT:(Please limit to 100 words.) PROBLEM/CONCERN: SOLUTION: • �d 0.37 ABSTRACT The County ' s lack of an automated child support accounting and case tracking system resulted in a very time-consuming and error ridden process to provide clients and defendants with information about payments and arrearages . Our Judges were not able to quickly review a payment history while in court and there were multiple bookkeeping efforts tracking the same payment . These problems were addressed by the Orange County Child Support Enforcement Department with assistance from the Data Processing Department . The result was a computer network which was easy to use and inexpensive . The benefits of these procedures was quickly apparent to Judges and State personnel and the system was expanded to the State administered C perk of Court ' s office. 038 PROBLEM/CONCERN: The lack of meaningful child support payment and arrearage information was a serious problem for1Child Support Enforcement . We were unable to quickly and accurately tell a client what had been paid and we could not tell the Defendent exactly what he had paid or what he owed in a timely manner . There was no easy way to track cases that needed court action to secure child support payments . Judges had to spend a great deal of time in court trying to understand the payment history . There were numerous errors in the manual procedure and triple bookkeeping efforts were being made . Ledger cards demonstrating the manual methods are attached . r : 03.9 SOLUTION: The County undertook to develop a computer program first in Child Suppport Enforcement to calculate arrearages and track all cases under order . The Child Support Enforcement and Data Processing Departments worke.0 closely together to insure a user-friendly and easily understood program. When the Child Support program came on line , we brought the first end result , a clear , easy to read payment history , to the Judges and Clerk of Court and received their approval . Having demonstrated the systems capability and ease of use we then entered into a contract with our Clerk through the State ' s Administrative Office of the Courts . We provided the hardware and software for an annual fee so that all child support cases would have the b.nefit of this system. The Clerk began posting all child support payments in 1987 , thereby reducing the number of bookkeeping steps . 040 COUNTY ROLE: The County developed the software , and made available the software and hardware for both the Child Support Office and the Clerk ' s Office . The County allowed the Data Processing and Child Support Departments to work very closely together during the initial process and has encouraged continued cooperation . The County then shared this innovation with the State administered Clerk of Court . COSTS : The initial cost of program development and hardware for Child Support Enforcement was less than $5000 . 00 . Seventy percent of this cost was reimbursed --by Federal Financial Participation . The annual contract between the County and State to provide the programming and hardware for the Clerk of Court is $1500 . 00 . The Adminstrative Office of the Courts pays this amount to the County . 041 RESULTS : The public now receives a correct , professional , easy to read report of payments and arrearages . Judges are able to quickly and accurately assess a person ' s payment record . Cases which need action are automatiwally flagged thereby reducing response time to delinquencies . Most importantly , two very separate agencies , the Child Support Enforcement Department (County administered) and the Clerk of Court ( State administered) , are jointly working to avoid duplication and to give the public a similar , easy to understand product . CONTACT: 042 Janet Sparks Orange County Child Support Enforcement 110 Churton Street , P .O. Box 8181 Hillsborough , NC 27278 KEY SUBJECT WORKS : County Administration and Management Child Support Automation Case tracking County/State Cooperation l 043 ENTRY FORM J . COUNT!' Oran a S'A'C North Carolina • ore: w meme�er�':�••S txtty'- POPI_TLATION 96,147 ANNUAL COUNTY BUDGET TITLE OF PROGRAM TO BE CONSIDUMD FOR ACHIEVEMENT AWARD: (Flame limit title w 60 characters.) Do not include catmry name in the program titlEr Women' s History Month CATEGORIES:Entries must be made in the following categories: Check only ONE category for this entry: ❑Community Development ❑ Land Use and Land Planning ❑ Labor Issues and Employee Benefits 0 Computerization ❑ Mental hmltt� ❑Criminal Justice ❑ Media Relations Community Services Older Amci:ans • 0 County Administration and Management 0 Drunken Driving Deterrence and Seat Belt Safety 0 Parks and Recreation Employment and'Training ❑ Public Safety/r nergency Management ❑Energy and Environment ❑ Rural Programs ❑ Fiscal Management and Use of Federal or State Funds ❑'Transportation ❑Health ❑Taxation and Finance • ®human Services 0 Youth Programs ❑.iuveniie Justice NOTE: Our list includes two general categories--Htmman Services and Community Services. We are looldng for the following information under those categories: • HUMAN SERVICES—food assistance programs; providing food/shelzer for the homeless; programs to improve the seavic e/admittisn- m' of welfare or general assistance programs quality control in welfare assistance programs; the improvements in the managetn of pravisiatt of social services such as family counseling and child care: human services programs. CONLMIT=SU•VICE`c•—c• that make improvements in the comity's iz ring:. ,public=vices such as szaimtian,fee,police,em.(mnornanons or improved=vices in any of these areas arm a-ptable);prom mooting the enhancement or betterment of the commtmit},programs designed to give citizens more input into county government Name,tide and maiming address of the county's chief -Name,title,depart:men mailing address and phone timed off'"i '*—tine county's board caaa,7=U= number°tympana coruz:-' a passim able to provide or elected county executive—and his or her sig^name more information to inquiring jurisdictions: authorizing this entry. Name• Shirley Marshall Name - Miriam Saxon • Title Board Chair _ Tait Chair Address 707 E. Franklin Street Departm=corm issinn for Women Chapel Hill , NC 27514 _ Ad6re y 221 City State rip City Hi 11 sborough Slatt NC :74, 27278 , Suture • • Area Code/Phon; (919) 732-8181 ext_487 • 044 PROGRAM SUMMARY ] ABSTRACT:(Please limit to 100 words.) Local Commissions for Women are responsible for carrying out activities to publicize and celebrateomen' ofHistory yaMonthateHM) , designated annually ( in March) by a variety and local officials. In its WHM activities, the Orange County (NC) Commission for Women (OCCW) pays special attention to bringing the message of the role women have in history to young women in the county public schools. The theme of OCCW' s celebration of WHM is that history is made just one day at a time and that local, unsung heroines are just as important as women of wider fame. PROBLEM/CONCERN: History gives us the perspective to handle today and tomorrow. Without it, we have no basis, no tradition, no experiences on which to build. The specific inclusion of women (and other minorities) in our collective history gives young women that solid basis. Older women realize that famous women made their names through hard work, luck and opportunity combined, in increments not particularly noteworthy. This day-to-day path towards history is most difficult to grasp when young, since every moment seems like forever . And, although young people have their heroines, the road between self and admired may seem impossible or unknown. The problem: how to celebrate Women' s History Month and be certain the young women of Orange County are included in the celebration in a way that lets them know that they, too, are making history, one day at a time? SOLUTION: s An ad hoc WHM Committee of the Commission was formed. Then members came from both the northern and southern p s natural geographic and residential division 'requires attention to geographic representation on the Commission and its committees) . All had children or relatives in one of the county' s pubic or had attended a school themselves. They contacted teachers, guidance counselors and/or principals they knew in the two senior high schools and asked them Commission a panel of local heroines to th positively. /71 045 PROGRAM SUMMARY SOLTJTXON: (continued) The Committee members then drew up a list of women they knew or knew of in the community who seemed to embody the theme of "making panel none day at a time. " They called these women, confirmed the panel date, explained the idea and gave them ublicitytinn the about where to be at what tiwas aonehfor handled at large. schools . No publicity The panel at one school was held in the library during a lunch period. At the other , a luncheon was held for the panelists prior to the panel session, also held during lunch but in the cafeteria. Students were invited rather than required to attend at each school . The panelists included a nurse, E teacher, a policewoman, a poet and a homemaker . Most were known to the Wstudentssindsome way because they were members of the community. not realize was the significance of some of their panelists ' achievements. For example, the policewoman was the first female on the police force. The homemaker had had one successful career before she decided to begin a second one in homemaking. Other WHM activities aimed at the general public included displays of books by and about historical women created in the county' s two public libraries, public service announcements about women in history done at a local radio station, and a special program (open to the public) at the Commission' s regular monthly meeting about the Women in North Carolina History Project at the NC Museum of History. The Committee considered including an essay contest on women in history, the winner (s) to be recognized at a County Commissioners ' meeting, but the details could not be worked out in time for the 1988 celebration. COUNTY ROLE': - The Commission for Women is funded 100 percent by the County. Staff support, supplies and materials were available to the WHM Committee, including materials Thee Commissbon purchasedhoneabookaon Women' s History Month Project. or by historical women per junior and senior high school as a permanent gift to that school , also as part of the WHM celebration, and the funds for these books came from the Commission ' s budget. 415:, • 096 i PROGRAM SUMMARY L� cows: Costs for the WHM celebration were minimal . The luncheon at one school was donated, as were the refreshments at the second. The permanent gifts were limited to $15 or under, so a maximum spent would have been $75. 00. No money was spent on publicity, since it was all public service. The films used in the special program during the monthly meeting were available free of charge. Since the schools handled their own in-house publicity, no duplicating or printing charges for flyers were incurred. Some Commission members may have made long distance phone calls to the other end of the county, for which they may claim reimbursement, but none did. The primary cost to the County was in staff time in meetings with the WHM Committee - approximately twelve hours of actual meetings, three of phone calls confirming or following up those meetings. As noted above, the Commission is funded 100 percent by the County (and is considered a department. ) RESULTS: The Commission expects more intangible than tangible results from a program such as Women' s History Month. After all, who can measure the influence such a program has on a young mind? What we could count was that about 100 students attended the panels, and the feedback was so positive, we plan to repeat the activity in 1988, including expanding the program to the middle and elementary schools. There, local storytellers will dress up or act out stories about historical women. • 4 ss�r� PROGRAM SUMMARY CONTACT: Miriam Saxon Andi Reynolds Chair Coordinator Orange County Commission for Women Orange County Commission for Women 110 N. Churton Street 110 N. Churton Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 688-7331, ext. 487 (919 ) 688-7331, ext. 487 RAY SUBJECT WORDS: Human Services 0 ►rgorj wamr) Women History Youth Education 5 048 ENTRY FORM COUNTY Orange County STATE North Carolina Nom: NAGo memoer cvunues only. POPULATION 95,000 ANNUAL COUNTY BUDGET 31 .5 m i 1 1 i on TITLE OF PROGRAM TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ACHIEVEMENT AWARD: (Please limit title to 60 eharacuers.) Do not include county name in the program title- Information and Referral Gu isle CATEGORIES: Entries must be made in the following categories: Check only ONE category for this entry: ❑Community Development ❑ Land Use and Land Planning ❑Computerization ❑ Labor Issues and Employee Benefits ❑Criminal Justice ❑ Mental Health ❑Community Services ❑ Media Relations ❑ County Administration and Management ❑ Older Americans ❑ Drunken Driving Deterrence and Seat Belt Safety ❑ Parks and Recreation ❑Employment and Training ❑ Public Safety/Emergency Management ❑Energy and Environment ❑ Rural Programs ❑ Fiscal Management and Use of Federal or State Funds ❑Transportation ❑Health ❑Taxation and Finance ❑Human Services ❑Youth Programs ❑Juvenile Justice NOTE: Our list includes two general categories—Human Services and Community Services. We are looking for the following information under those categories: HUMAN SERVICES—food assistance programs; providing food/shelter for the homeless; programs to improve the service/administration of welfare or general assistance programs; quality control in welfare assistance protons; the provision of social services such as family counseling and child care;improvements in the managemenr/administrarion of human services programs. CONWI NTL`Y SERVICESprogams that make,improvements in the county's infzasuuz"mre,public services such as ¢aniration,fire,police,ez`.(innovations or improved services in any of these areas are acceptable);programs promoting the enhancement or betterment of the community,programs designed to give citizens more input imo county government. Name,title and mailing address of the county's chief Name,tide,department,mailing address and phone elected official—the county's board trait,president number of-vprogam contact-,a person able to provide or elected county executive..-and his or her signature more information to inquiring jurisdictions: authorizing this entry. Name Shirley E. Marshall , Chair _ Name. -Beverly A. Blythe Title, Chair , Orange County Commissioners-ale Clerk to the Board Address P .O. Box 5181 Department Board of Commissioners Address P.O. Box 8181 City Hillsborough StateN.C. zip 27278 City Hillsborough State N.C.Zip 27278 Signature • Area Code/Phont (919) 732-8181 049 CPROGRAM SUMMARY ABSTRACT: (Please limit io 100 words.) The information and Referral Guide was published in an effort to inform citizens of the public and nonprofit agencies which provide human-needs services. The Guide is in a loose-leaf notebook, with each agency listed on a separate page, so additions and/or corrections can -easily be made. 'First distributed in April , 1987, the Guide has already had three revisions. A topical index of key words was developed to categorize the agencies, and this index is growing with each revision to reflect the needs of the users. Also included is a map showing the location of county departments and agencies. PROBLEM/CONCERN: Developing a flexible loose-leaf format for presenting the information was a major concern since bound material is virtually out-of-date immediately upon publication. A continuing concern is that of reaching those citizens who are eligible and need the services which are available and listed in the guide. SOLUTION: Adopting a standard one-page format allows citizens to acquire sufficient information to guide them to the proper person of a parti.eolar agency which provides the required service. Since the integrity of county governelent endorses each agency listed, new nonprofit agencies must be carefully scrutinized before being included in the Guide. Distribution of the guide is not only countywide but statewide. 10 MEL 050 PROGRAM SUMMARY 1 l SOLUTION: (continued) COUNTY ROLE: County government has supported the work of staff members and the cost of printing and distribution of the Guide. The Guide was-4istributed free to area libraries, senior centers, schools and all individual agencies which provide the services listed in the Guide. 167) • PROGRAM SUMMARY COSTS: In addition to staff time, the major initial cost incurred was purchasing the bright orange binders imprinted with the title, the alphabetical tabs and the postage. Ongoing costs include staff time for quarterly updates,. distribution, printing costs and postage. Once the guide is distributed; all updates are free. r RESULTS: Requests for the Guide have come from major state newspapers, state level offices of several human service organizations, churches, and numerous private citizens who perform volunteer public service. The staff of the Nursing School at North Carolina Memorial Hospital have used the Guide in the Public Health Nursing curricula as an example of the support organizations available at the county level . The County Department of Social Services and the Health Department use the Guide on a daily basis. Individuals who have called requesting the Guide 'after hearing about it or seeing it at a public location express their thanks that such scattered information has been compiled into one handy reference guide. • • A si 052 _ PROGRAM SUMMARY J 1 CONTACT: Orange County Board of Commissioners' Chair Shirley E. Marshall Deputy Clerk to the Board Sylvia Clements Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe 1 EY SUBJECT WORDS: County (t..?&egorf n met Guide Information Referral Services Pir 053 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A enra Item No. fw ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 16, 1988 SUBJECT: 1988-89 BUDGET CALENDAR DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 BUDGET CALENDAR TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Consideration of 1988-89 Budget Calendar. BACKGROUND: The Budget Management Team has developed a Budget Calendar which outlines the 1988-89 budget process. Unlike the 1987- 88 calendar the Budget Management has included discussions with mandated boards and additional conferences with depart- ment heads. Please note that the targeted adoption date is June 29, 1988 . RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve the 1988-89 Budget Calendar. 0 1988-89 BUDGET CALENDAR 054 - Approve 1988-89 Budget Calendar (Commissioners) February 16 - Distribute Budget Manual to Department Heads (Budget Mgmt Team) February 19 - Department Head Budget Work Session February 26 - Distribute Non-Departmental Agency Budget Instructions and Fire District Information (Budget Mgmt Team) February 29 - Representative from Mgr' s Office will meet with designated Boards and Commissions.. March - April - Submit Personnel Services, Data Processing Equipment, Capital Expenditure, and Building Renovations Requests to designated persons (Department Heads) March 11 - Submit 1988-89 Budget request to the County Manager's Office. (Department Heads, Non-departmental Agency Heads, and Fire Chiefs) March 31 - Budget Conferences April 18 - 22 - Submit School Budgets (Superintendents) May 16 - Final Budget Conferences May 18 - 20 - Submit 1988-89 Manager's Recommended Budget to the Commissioners June 1 - Set Dates for Budget Work Session (Commissioners) June 6 - Public Hearings on 1988-89 Manager' s Recommended Budget June 8 and 22 - Adoption of 1988-89 Budget, Tax Levy and Resolution (Commissioners) June 29 055 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A nda Item No. lo ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: Feb . 16, 1988 SUBJECT: Uncollectible Insolvents DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No Revenue ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: John T. Horner, Director of Revenue (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill -- 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 ext 432 PURPOSE: To relieve the Tax Collector's levy of certain 1983 and prior accounts which appear on the insolvent list and are deemed uncollectible. BACKGROUND: General Statute 105-373(g) Relief from Collecting Insolvents : The Governing Body of any taxing unit may, in its descretion, relieve the Tax Collector of the charge of taxes owed by persons on the insolvent list that are five or more years past due when it appears to the governing body that such taxes are uncollectible. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Relieve the Tax Collector's levy of certain accounts whi2h appear on insolvent list and are deemed uncollectible. I ORANGE COUNTY 056 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A en a Item No.� ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 16, 1988 SUBJECT: TJCOG REGIONAL TELEPHONE COMMITTEE FUNDING REQUEST DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S TJCOG CORRESPONDENCE OFFICE,X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Consideration of funding request. BACKGROUND: Triangle J Council of Governments has requested $1, 000 to assist TJCOG Regional Systems Telephone Committee with their local area toll free telephone service efforts. Letter of request identifying specific need is attached. Funds have been identified. A budget amendment will appear on the March 1, 1988 regular meeting agenda. RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. -.��.• r.. 057 TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS PARK DRIVE, P.O. BOX 12276 T� RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C. 27709 (919) 519-0551 , ppr `vr+W January 29, 1988 Mr. Albert Kittref Interim County Manager Orange County 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Kittrell: The TJC OG Regional. Systems Telephone Committee has initiated proceedings with the North Carolina Utilities Commission in the matter of local area toll free telephone service. This action is the culmination of a year and a half study which was initiated at the urging of Orange County residents and elected officials. The p ocRss entails considerable legal work and these fees are not included in the COG budget. Therefore, we are seeking financial assistance fYrom governments and business that stand to benefit from this action. Since legal fees for such action are beyond those normally budgeted by the C O G, it would be most helpful if Orange County could assist with same in the amount of $1,000 (current legal fees have now reached some $8,000). Sincerely, Bradley S. Barker Executive Director cc: Shirley Marshall, Chairwoman, Orange County Commission John Hartwell, Orange County Commission Don Willhoit, Orange County Commission Stephen Halkiotis, Orange County Commission Moses Carey, Orange County Commission APEX • CLAYTON B•NS DURHAM ROADWAY • CARR130R0 • CARY • CHAPEL HILL GOLDSTON • FOUR OAKS • FLI• KENLY • HTDALE MICRO • HILLSBOROUGH • HOLLY SPRINGS • KI>NLY • KNIGHTDALE II�7 RALEIGH •MORR R [[L ILLELE• •PINE LEVEL • PITTSBORO • PRINCETON SMITHFIELD • SANFORD • SL'LMA • SILER CITY WAKE FOREST • WENDELL • Ifi/41011 CHATHAM COUNTY • DURHAM COUNTY • ZEBUNTY LEE COUNTY • ORANGE COUNTY • IOH WAKE COUNTY WAKE COUNTY \v-/ 058 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A ejda Item No. tk ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 16, 1988 SUBJECT: AGREEMENT WITH INDEPENDENT OPINION RESEARCH AND COMMUNICATIONS, INC. DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 AGREEMENT TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Consideration of contractural agreement with Independent Opinion Research and Communication, Inc. BACKGROUND: On January 19, 1988 the board accepted a proposal from Independent Opinion Research to develop a process for adoption CIP/Bond package, establish public education program and other consultation services related to CIP/Bond package. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve agreement and authorize Chair to sign. 059 CONTRACT BETWEEN INDEPENDENT OPINION RESEARCH & COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND ORANGE COUNTY This contract is made and entered into the 16th day of February, 1988 by and between Independent Opinion Research & Communications, Inc. located at 530 Causeway Drive, Wrightsville Beach, N.C. herein referred to as Contracting Agency, and Orange County Board of Commissioners, located at 109 Court Street, Hillsborough, N.C. , herein referred to as Client. The parties agree to a binding contract for the purpose of consultation on the process of the adoption of a Capital Improvements Program and the resulting bond package and referendum to be held in November, 1988. The Client shall: 1. Provide the Agency with all available information on hand including reports, news clips, budgets, minutes, and any other pertinent information necessary for the formulation of a citizen partici- pation plan and public information pieces. 2 . Provide a work station for IOR&C's representative. 3 . Make payment in accordance with the payment section of this contract. The Agency shall: 1. Provide consultation in accordance with the pro- posal submitted to the Commissioners, on develop- ment of a process for adoption of the CIP, develop- ment of a bond package and the citizen participation plan. 2 . Provide staffing and support services for any components of the citizen participation program desired by the Citizens' committee in conjunction with the capital improvements program. 3 . Prepare questionnaire and consult with citizen group who will actually conduct the telephone survey. Payment schedule: 1. The cost for consultation will be $55 per hour, not to exceed $5,800 for the term of the contract. 2 . The cost of designing a telephone survey question- naire and to consult with the citizen group who will make calls not to exceed $1,000. oso 3. Travel time will be billed at 21 cents per mile. Subsistence costs will be billed at actual costs with receipts included, not to exceed $100 per day. 4. Payment will be due upon receipt of an invoice from the Contracting Agency. All attachments, if any, shall be considered as conditions of the Contract. Both parties agree that amendments to this Contract may be added as attachments only with the approval of both parties. With the following signatures of both parties, this document shall become binding. Karen E. Gottovi Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Independent Opinion Research Orange County Board of & Communications, Inc. Commissioners 061 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Ag nda Item No. L 1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 16, 1988 SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF ANIMAL LICENSING FEES DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 NONE TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To discuss animal licensing fees. BACKGROUND: On October 5, 1987 the Board adopted differential licensing fees for dogs and cats as follows: Dogs: Spayed and neutered $5.00 Unspayed and unneutered $15. 00 Cats: Spayed and neutered $2 . 00 Unspayed and unneutered $10.00 During additional discussions of the Animal Control Ordinance on December 1, 1987, Commissioners Halkiotis proposed a fee schedule of $15.00 for each of the first three unneutered or unspayed animals in a household with the fee for remaining animals set at $5. 00 each with no limit. The proposal was referred to the Health Board for a recommendation. On January 28, 1988 the Board of Health discussed the proposal and recommended that the fee schedule remain as approved by the Board of Commissioners on October 5. 062 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A is Item No.( ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 16, 1988 SUBJECT: INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: SHIRL MARSHALL, X505 TELEPHONE NUMBER: NONE Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To discuss an Orange County intergovernmental process to replace the "gang-of-eight" model. BACKGROUND: The Carrboro elected officials at their recent retreat dis- cussed a workable model. From their decisions, Mayor Kinnaird, Mayor Howes and the County Chair recommend that we constitute a "committee-of-the-whole" of all elected officials in Orange County to be known as a General Assembly. The General Assembly would meet no more than quarterly but at least semi-annually. Permanent sub-committees of elected officials would be formed around specific broad subjects with representatives being chosen by expertise and interest. It is suggested that the first two subcommittees to be formed would be on (1) water, and (2) impact fees. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve. 0363 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action AgAn Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting rate: February 16, 1988 SUBJECT: Capital Request from Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Chavious TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXT. 496 Excerpt from CIP Hillsborough - 732-8181 School Capital Reserve Fund Chapel Hill - 968- 1 Mebane - 227-2032031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider a request from Chapel Hill-Carrboro School system regarding capital funding for implementation of the overcrowding proprosal approved by the Board of Education. BACKGROUND: On February 1, 1988 the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board approved recommendations designed to eliminate the problem of overcrowding in the system's elementary schools. The recommendations consist of two major capital needs; construction of a four-classroom pod at Culbreth Junior High and purchase of four mobile classrooms. According to school administrative staff, the estimated cost of these projects is $410,000.00. (Four class-room pod-$270,000.00 and mobile units $140,000.00) There are two possible funding mechanisms that can be used for the construction of the classrooms. 1. Public School Building Capital Fund - $314,170.00 balance as of January 1988 . 2. Reallocation of funds previously approved in school capital Long Range Plan for Fiscal Year 1988-89. These funds would not be available until July 1,1988. Approved projects for 1988-89 in the Long Range Plan total $915,000.00. The reallocation proposed by the School Board would consist of $250,000.00 from the Chapel Hill High School Cafeteria Expansion and $20,000.00 from Chapel Hill High Media _Center to the Middle School Expansion (new project) According to School Officials funding for the mobile classrooms can be accomplished by the use of the recurring. capital outlay appropriation in Fiscal Year 1988-89. Orange County Capital policies require an annual appropriation of $750,000.00 to recurring capital for the next' five years. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve Option 2'for classroom construction - Reallocation of funds previously approved. 2. Reaffirm to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board the commitment of $750,000.00 in recurring capital outlay for Fiscal Year 1988-89. SC110OL .CAPITAL, RESERVE FUND LONG RANGE PLAN AND BUDGET REVENUES 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 Actual Actual Estimate Estimate Beginning Balance $ 755, 805 $1, 340, 620 $ 570,276 (3) $ 321, 695 Transfer from General Fund (80W of 1/2c Sales Tax) 1, 106, 579 1, 176, 702 1, 208, 000 1,284 , 104 Property Tax (21/2c per $100) 537 ,066 0 0 0 Property Tax (3c per $100) 0 713 , 512 0 0 Transfer from orange county Schools Current Capital 0 20, 000 0 0 Investment Earnings 85,794 51,028 151000 15, 000 Additional 1/2c Sales Tax 0 643,739 1, 047, 180 963, 078 1k Total Revenues $2,485,244 $3,945, 601 $2,840, 456 $2, 583 , 877 APPROPRIATIONS Prior Year Encumbrances $ 17, 254 Orange County Schools: Land Acquisitions-Elementary School $ 250,000 $ 0 Roofs $ 424, 790 $ 146, 356 1801000 0 H.S. Expansion 250, 252 2023,748 501,000 250_000 Subtotal $ 675, 042 $2, 170, 104 $ 948, 254 $ 250, 000 Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools: Prior Year Encumbrances $ 246,427 Architect/Envineer 0(1) 0 (1) (50,000) (1) $ (20, 000) Roofs $ 341, 130 $ 119, 640 1508000 0 CHHS Science Lab 80, 000 0 0 0 Glenwood/Estes Hills Multipurpose Space 0 1, 134 ,033 450, 000 0 CHHS Cafeteria Expansion/Renovation 0 0 0 2501000 CHHS Media Center Renovation 0 0 0 2351000 Carrboro/Estes Hills/Glenwood Media Center Expansion 0 0 0 225, 000 Kitchen Renovations 0 0 0 2251000 -97- r `s SCHOOL CAPITAL RESERVE FUND LONG RANGE PLAN (CONTINUED) Phillips Air Conditioning $ 0 $ . 0 $ 498, 300 $ 0 FPG Air Conditioning 0 0 275, 880 0 CH Schematics 48, 452 (48, 452) 0 0 Subtotal $ 469, 582 $1, 205, 221 1, 570, 507 915, 000 Total Appropriations $1, 1441624 $313751325 $ 2, 518, 761 11.165, 000 BALANCE 11, 340, 620 570, 276 3211695 1 41_8L877 (1) : For design work related to the CHHS Cafeteria project, the CHHS Media Center project, the Carrboro/Estes Hills/Glenwood Media Center project, the Kitchen , and the Phillips and FPG Air Conditioning projects. (2) : The estimated revenue from the additional 1/2c sales tax for 1987-88 is $141, 1BO more than the amount restricted for school capital. For other years, the amount shown is equal to the amount required by Orange County Capital Policies. (3) : This balance includes funds encumbered at 6/30/87 to be reappropriated in FY 87-88. NOTE: This Plan is dependent almost entirely on the proceeds from the two 1/2c sales tax revenue sources. The amounts shown are projection on the best information available at this time. These projections will need to be reassessed periodically and revised as economic factors dictate. 1985-86 and 1986-87 have been updated to show Actual . There were no projects authorized beyond Fiscal year 1988-89. cr., O RA NG E COUNTY 066 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date FebrmiLy t6,_1288 Action ,4g nda Item ; l9 SUBJECT: PETITION FOR ADDITION OF STREETS IN WILDWOOD SUBDIVISION, SECTIONS ONE AND TWO, TO THE STATE-MAINTAINED SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _ No ATTACHMENT (S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie K1 rk 12/30/87 Letter from J . M. Mills to Interim County Manager Secondary Road Addition Investigation Report Planning Director 1 /27/88 Letter J . M. Mills 2/4/88 Letter Wildwood Drainage Study ( Separate enclosure) TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of a petition from NCDOT for approval of the addition of streets in Wildwood Subdivision, Sections One and Two, to the State-maintained Secondary Road System. BACKGROUND: The North Carolina Department of Transportation has submitted a petition for the addition of Judah Benjamin Court, Wade Hampton Road , Braxton Bragg Court, Joseph Johnston Court, John Breckinridge Drive, Charlie Tew Court, George Anderson Drive, and Walter Clark Drive in Wildwood Subdivision, Sections One and Two, to the Board of Commissioners for review. At the May 26 , 1987 quarterly public hearing, residents of Wildwood Subdivision appeared before the Board of Commissioners to express concern about drainage problems within the development. On August 18, 1987 , the Board of Commissioners authorized Hazen & Sawyer to conduct a study of the drainage problem. The drainage study was completed in late October of 1987 , followed by a meeting with the developer and his engineer. Opportunity was provided for the developer' s engineer to respond to the recommendations contained in the study. The study has been evaluated further by the Planning and Erosion Control Staff , and, on December 30, 1988, the petition under consideration was received. Conversations with NCDOT representatives have indicated that the study recommendations present no problems in terms of that 1 067 2 agency ' s acceptance of the streets for maintenance purposes. However, a follow-up letter was sent to J . M. Mills, District Engineer, to confirm the position in writing. Mr. Mills responded on February 4, 1988, indicating that the streets in Wildwood Subdivision meet the NCDOT minimum design standards for construction and drainage. He further indicated that NCDOT would accept responsibility for drainage problems within dedicated rights-of-way. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the NCDOT response, the Administration recommends approval of the addition of Judah Benjamin Court, Wade Hampton Road, Braxton Bragg Court, Joseph Johnston Court, John Breckinridge Drive, Charlie Tew Court, George Anderson Drive, and Walter Clark Drive in Wildwood Subdivision, Sections One and Two, to the State-maintained Secondary Road System. The Board ' s decision will be forwarded to the N. C. Board of Transportation for their deliberation on acceptance of the roads to the State-maintained Secondary Road System. ps�Arfo s 'r , - 068 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN December 30, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR Y JAMES E. HARRINGTON SECRETARY GEORGE E WELLS, P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Mr. Albert Kittrelll, Interim County Manager - Orange County 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Petition for Addition - Judah Benjamin Court, Wade Hampton Road, Braxton Bragg Court, Joseph Johnston Court, John Breckinridge Drive, Charlie Tew Court, GeOrge Anderson Drive, and Walter Clark Drive in Wildwood Subdivision - Section One and Two Dear Mr. Kittrell: Attached is Form SR-4, Secondary Road Addition In- vestigation Report, for Judah Benjamin Court., Wade Hampton Road, Braxton Bragg Court, Joseph Johnston Court, John Breckin- ridge Drive, Charlie Tew Court., George Anderson Drive, and Walter Clark Drive in Wildwood Subdivision - Section One and Two. This is being forwarded to you for review by your Board of Commissioners. Yours very truly, re--7 M. Mills, P. E. ISTRICT ENGINEER 0J 1.'9-) R Jjbh At.ta. cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer (r 069 NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SECONDARY ROAD ADDITION INVESTIGATION REPORT County ;;,.,,_ . Co. File No. Date Township .411borau-i, Div. File No. Local Name see attaches sheet Subdivision Name Wildwoad Length see et.Lnched che.eWi dth 18 ' type _ I--) Condition Goon Is this a subdivision street subject to the construction requirements for such streets? Yep: Recorded :,ee attache.;BookSee attachedpagesee attached Is this a subdivision street subject to participation paving? No Number of homes having entrances into road 12$ Total (See attached sheet) Other uses having entrances into road None Does right-of-way obtained meet present Division of Highways requirement nediceted If not, why? Is petition (SR-1 ) attached? Yes Is the County Commissioners ' Approval SR-2) attached? If not, why? Does the road meet present minimum Division of Highways construction requirements? Yes If not, state what is needed to place the road in an acceptable maintenance condition under Remarks and Recommendations. Is a map attached indicating information for reference in locating road by the Planning Department? les Cost to place in acceptable maintenance condition: Total Cost $ Grade, drain, stabilize $ , Drainage $ Other $ Remarks and Recommendations ieets nir_imm r=--.,irements, therefore, recd nd addition. Reviewed and approved Board of Transportation Member Reviewed and approved J. W. -wstkins i_. ? i11s DIVISION ENGINEER DISTRICT ENGINEER. (Do not write in this space - For use of Secondary Roads Dept. ) Petition No. (Do not write in this space - For use of Planning Dept. ) Form SR-4 (7-77) 070 WILDWOOD SUBDIVISION NAME LENGTH # HOMES PLAT BOOK # PAGE # (mi) 7udah Benjamin Ct . 0 . 08 9 41 55 42 146 wade Hampton Road 0 . 34 39 37 17 38 151 38 152 41 52 3raxton Braga Ct . 0 . 03 4 37 17 =osepn .7ohr_ston Ct. 0. 05 4 38 151 o_^_:: Breck_nridge Dr. 0 . 13 12 37 17 ,hart ie Tew Ct . 0 . 04 9 38 152 .eorge Anderson_ Dr . 0 . 30 35 41 156 42 145 - 44 162 38 152 'alter Clark Dr. 0. 19 15 41 52 41 55 41 156 TOTALS 1 . 15 128 IAA:t t r Ili kr Lk ,17„ .,,,,,:e7N 071 1212 1 .y.:: ,-.....t •� •ti y: ..`.NIIF ] S �.� r \ lei {$� ... 1 6.2 • ,I �' ' / ------- -•3S a h�\ `"4 N. E .� mss, „6-� J a� ..".1h. ::;icy',:ric+:v}_4 e. .e HILLSBOROUGH >- ,, o __,---S It POP.3.0.19 2 c • �o _ : r Si r ` fi dT r t 1 1C Or /'� �:. t ilitio. _i 3, rim, Sr.nse 10^x'2 t8 ^ rs67 li 1.o _ 5:4 n BSc •`4'' g-4.44` ��- i / • rs .: • • A Ta Ina • k, w - 7? Q .- ■ • Re c- - r' = ...••-•-•-::::::rr r<f ki ■' - y 1 grigr12•71 ,..m.• • _1e . O ' f�"' - = \ar * � 47 err -le•- '- _.. �� Y. _ _r. . _ _ __- fti" _ • _ ___=._....-= .4:1=-__ ,),..---7-. __:_____ Itp. .: 4,_ , • f- taw I • m0-" -�}FON= «.W • • • •- - AND V1ONITY .-+ter•-- .-. _ - -- _ -‘I _ .. y 1 0'72 r 3 k it;) ! b i<< A u FGr-Kf,..-i ,Q'n I' N 9 0 -- J . ny U d N : . Z r ..,,,a a o , . i; .5 rr,At III ►p+ 0.09 1 o,..--.--.L..-- J C 0 111 0 1 i -9-S/ ,?;Fs y D 3 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 073 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 ti, ill a'oiuy January 27 , 1988 Mr. J . M. M i l l s, P. E. District Engineer State Of North Carolina Department of Transportation Graham, North Carolina 27253-0766 Dear Mr. Mills : Re: Wildwood Drainage Study Enclosed is a copy of the Wildwood Drainage Study prepared by Hazen 8 Sawyer, P. C. , consulting engineers. Also enclosed is a response to the study prepared by Fritz Brunssen, engineer for the developer.. The study was initially requested by Orange County to address citizen concerns involving drainage problems in Wildwood Subdivision. As you are aware, the developer of the project has petitioned the N. C. Department of Transportation to take over the streets for maintenance purposes. The petition has been forwarded to Orange County for review and comment by the Board of Commissioners. Based on a review of the enclosed documents, Orange County would like answers to following questions prior to acting on the petition. 1 . Were construction details and drainage plans for streets in the various sections and/or phases of Wildwood Subdivision approved by the N. C. Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) ? 2. Can Orange County obtain copies of the approved plans and details? 3. Does your recommendation for addition to the secondary roads system signify that the streets, as constructed , meet NCDOT minimum standards for construction and drainage? 074 Mr. J . M. M i I l s, P. E. January 27 , 1988 Page 2 4 . If the streets are accepted by the N. C. Board of Transportation , will NCDOT accept responsibility for the repair and/or installation of improvements needed to correct drainage problems within street rights-of-way? Does NCDOT responsibility extend beyond the rights-of-way? Previous conversations between you and Eddie Kirk of the Planning Department have indicated that the drainage study presents no problem, and the Board of Commissioners may proceed with consideration of the petition. However, a written response to the above questions would assist the Board in its deliberations. The drainage study is to be considered by the Planning Board on February 9 and by the Board of Commissioners on February 16 . If you can provide your comments by February 3 , it would enable the information to be distributed with agenda materials. Should you require additional information regarding this matter, please advise. Sincerely Marvin Collins Planning Director CC: Mr. Albert Kittrell , Interim County Manager Mr. Geoffrey Gledhill , County Attorney- Mr. Eddie Kirk, Planner II 075 COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, DICKERSON, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL Si HARGRAVE - ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. DRAWER 1529 129 E. TRYON ST. January 29 , 1988 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 919-732-2196 919-942-8000 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SUITE 20, FRANKLIN BUILDING 137 E. FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL, N.C.27514 919.929-7151 Mr. Marvin Collins ALONZO B.COLEMAN,JR. Director STEVEN A. BERNHOLZ Orange County Planning Department DONALD R.DICKERSON 306F Revere Road ROGER B. BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL Hillsborough , North Carolina 27278 DOUGLAS HARGRAVE G.NICHOLAS HERMAN KIM K_STEFFAN Re: Wildwood Subdivision Stormwater NATHANIEL E. CLEMENTS Management MARILYN ELLISON Of Counsel Dear Marvin: BONNER D. SAWYER (1902-1972) This letter confirms our recent discussion concerning storm water management in the context of the problems now existing in the Wildwood Subdivision . I have reviewed the report of Hazen and Sawyer entitled Stormwater Drainage Study Wildwood Subdivision . That study, together with the problems existing at the Wildwood Subdivision , demonstrate to me that our Land Use Planning Ordinances are not adequate in this area. That is , whenever the County is asked to approve a development as intense as the Wildwood Subdivision, a comprehensive stormwater management plan which adequately manages stormwater is essential . Ordinance revisions are necessary. Also , Orange County has no one on staff with qualifications necessary to review and monitor stormwater management plans for developments the intensity of Wildwood. In my opinion the County needs a civil engineer on staff or a contract with a civil engineering firm to deal with these issues . This letter is not intended to be and is not critical of the Planning staff or its work on the Wildwood Subdivision . It is intended to prompt action to remedy inadequacies in our ordinances related to urban type development . Very truly yours , `4 4 e• ffre E. Gled ill GEG/lsq xc : Albert Kittrell Shirley E. Marsha for the Board 076 ..•SrA7o-r ^nnn r-;b, 6. 88 .4 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN February 4, 1988 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON SECRETARY GEORGE E.WELLS, P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Wildwood Subdivision Off NC 86 - Drainage Study Dear Mr. Collins: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter expressing the concerns of the Orange County Board of Commissioners regarding the drainage problems in Wildwood Subdivision. Listed below is the response to your questions noted in the aforementioned letter. 1. The construction and drainage plans for all phases of the Wildwood Subdivision have been approved by this office. 2. Approved plans should be available upon request.. 3. If addition is recommended, this will signify that the streets, as constructed, meet. N. C. Department. of Trans- portation minimum standards for construction and drainage within the dedicated right-of-way. 4. When streets are accepted onto the State System of main- tained roads, the Department of Transportation accepts the responsibility for drainage problems within the dedicated rights-of-way. The Department accepts no liability for drainage problems off the right-of-way and will not attempt to correct any such problems. Water shall drain along the natural drainage path and no attempt shall be made to divert. water from this path. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer Q?7 Mr. Marvin Collins February 4, 19S& Page 2 I hope this information will aid you and the Commissioners in making a decision. If you have any questions, or if any other information is needed, do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours very truly, . M. Mills, P. E. DISTRICT ENGINEER JMM/SPI:jbh % 078 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Acti da Meeting Date ___gULLy- _! Item on 1. SUBJECT: DARK HILLS - PRELIMINARY ACTION BY : March 1 , 1988 DEPARTMENT;--PITh NNIN---------""--~~ --P UB 1 C_ __A_R_NG __ =_ Y__s_-_)1==-NO---_-- _-________________ _____________------ ��y ___ _______ _____ ---_____` _____ ~ _ _^_ _____ ATTACHMENT( S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: E d d i e K i r k Application/Ph ckl ist cation Preliminary Vicinity Maps NCDOT Letters Board Minutes Draft 12-21 -87 Planning Minutes __ �______-__________ Draft 1 -25-88 Planning Board ������_� ��_ �- __TELEPHONE_NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 688-7331 Durham - 227_2031 Mebane Chapel Hi l l - 968_4501 ___________________ _ ___-_- ~__"f~_~ __ ___ r_�, PURPOSE: Consideration of the P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n f o r D a r k H ill s Subdivision. to consideration of additional Board of Commissioners refeonsa the subdivision back ar The Bo Board for c the preliminary the Planning The Planning Board reviewed information. 1988 meeting. plan at its January 25 , Grove Township on Carr is located in Cedar e of the tract is The property The total acreage The BACKGROUND : Store Road acres, 1th 13 acres proposed for division. lots developer acres, with o er is proposing thirteen ( 13) lots with all bevel P Each lot is to have frontage sen being one ( 1 ) acre in oint• driveways were initially proposed Carr lots Road , The joint is not zoned and is designated the for lots 2-13. The property Watershed in Agricultural Residential and Water Supply Land Use Plan. the same parent trot' A one- lot approved minor n subdivision, 1988. Situated hea4. 51toath was aPPIs on January 7 • an existing house. Access to the hour rear is an existing road located near and which provided by 4. 51 acre parcel . A new access rah the 4. 51 acre parcel and and which crossed the was constructed between provide farm access. proposed 13- lot subdivision to P Road , t� on Carr Store stre Given the Staff initially of lots fronting gred a marginal access tlase serve the ts. eyer, due to the minimum amount 00) a to serve on lots. traffic on Carr Store Road ( 1985 traffic count of t 079 2 the fact that the developer proposed Joint driveways, the Staff did not feel that a marginal access street was needed. The Staff did have a concern about the proximity of a 60-foot proposed access 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. The preliminary plan was approved by the Planning Board on December 21 , 1987 with the condition that a proposed 60- foot access road be relocated and placed between lots 3 and 4. The Planning Staff received a letter from NCDOT on January 4, 1988 indicating the road could be placed between lots 2 and 3. At its January 4 , 1988 meeting, the Board of Commissioners referred the subdivision back to the Planning Board for further review. When contacted on the telephone, Mr. Mike Mills with NCDOT indicated that an access road extended between lots 3 and 4 would be in conflict with an existing pond . If the access road was moved to the east between lots 2 and 3, the road could be extended without complication. At its January 25, 1988 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the preliminary plan subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the proposed 60-foot access road be relocated and placed between lots 2 and 3 ; and 2. That common driveways be provided for lots 1 -12. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the preliminary plan as recommended by the Planning Board. °:EASE TYPE OR PRINT ( , MK Dn_y ) . 6'/E7 080 FnD' ,nt+ ' nl to c. c., , ` , c , ^N. tGPr^\ t, /� // �/ DA,-� . f of /y/ P7 SUBDIVISION NAME: !Ja._ /- 1 /7i //,$ L0 ATIDN: CP Clizr .O/ r d v.0 DwNER/DEVELOPER: W1 /7 !J� pri C. /ep-y ADDRESS: T__/E.PHONE NC. . 72 :. f: F7,s— AGENT/OONTA;.T: 5 #2. TELEPHONE NC. : A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: L/ Grasnoe CounTy i ▪x Mat 33 Block ' L or( s) Township C16 .- -JPCvc ZenInc DisTrIcT(s) : _frO1 1- ToTaI Number of Acres: /3 4 Pneses: ToTal Number of Lots: /.3A Average LoT Size: /A Minimun, LoT Size-J./1f_ Number/Type of STrucTUres; ( existlno) Np k '4-- ( proposed) 13 Lineal Feet in STree-s: Jac /rise Acres in Open Space / i-J H Wafer Suppl )': Pub is ( specify) Communitywe(/IIn. ivlouaI wesTeweter DISDosbl : Pub ! lo( speclfy) Communitj1.r.ulnGivlduaI School DisTr1c -: IlT/il/Tb`Ird.•-ice Fire District-: 4/rllsbAl-e General Land Uses in Area: PeLrerlrwS CritIca! Areas:fVVK&•sTreem/orb inaoeways /Yowls f loot prone areas Nr5.c waTershed (specify) 4 .( his TOrIc sites crner (explain) B. All pleas must be submiriet on sheet no smaller Than one Inch eouels two-hunpret fee- ( 1"v2D0' ) and no leroer Thar one inch eouels fl'f y feet ( 1 "r5D' ) ant must cor;e i n The t o e l/ow i nc i of ormet i or.: , :i:0::: :::4A.•: subdivision name bullein;r setbaCk I Ines name Of Ovnerls) •. �' ;v by noTeT ion Or /Weed IOT J_ �:. name- of surveyor. 1 evOYT :•: :: an0 I veer or I ontl . 4-,'=' •:: J . :_ '. a%1sTino elle protlbseC D lbnntr ' : =•:. eesemenTS lerelnepb. • . .:;„4:::: •: (T IT16) preli.lnery VTI1IT ies. road.. eTc.) /- . : .f . glen ;_• .... _ ✓ ::::i0 SCelt, nc-rI erro• - ` - eCI5 inn. DrODOSee and • aeloin.nr2 rIpttsmeo-vay («pTTn !' .to c mop) _ Including tlimenSlOnE one ;. Cafe ( IndlYdinC •:•::•:: STree: names enC STETS rer is for dates) '-... roe[ numbers . ;: ;:: Tornsn 1 .. Tax war- AA ! :: ex 1ST 1 nC an[ • bloc■-IOT references ''�"-.•� proboseC / :'+'•:'• DOUnOer VT 111T iRS, Ir.1 , Vng Type, y OesCrIDeC Silas, nwdrar.Ts, waives 01Tr DeerinC5 and mDnnDlls 7+ / tllSTanClE {:' ':.: •%ISTin£ one Dreoo .0 .J.,... �•;:: T°Tel aCroeoe Of The _ CLIve'T i!CIYtllns IIZes Tree- pry[ ear _ f one 1�1rroes C+ MT S.. ihClYdlnf one •• ;_ T yplCel Moe/ C DSS/ r �„ eAClYtllnlr "et eI?rin seer.oi ens InTltseCT lOn yl / :::.0:{ rlpnTSDf-way _ _ OITalls lnClvdint Oeslgn :'"�.`f�^ COIIT1.O I Corner pnC r I CTn Of Trwv i va :;,: ,ti: Droposec lc- I Ines y c ':::•{' and shoulders O L : vITr elmenslbnf K!!�: 00r l=OnTl1 al lQnw•f mat E -- ✓ - :"• 10« nYwbe!S :- . I Curve OtTe (OYD1IC C., Or L ::: Dneslnf Imes roads) ,! O :. :• ',r`{..: TopOQrben. eT Ten fool / •' - • i1p) 1 Is b T TeeTUres es. as _ ;ie5" bullClnps, ies. �f WV'''. bCCies. • : :: hIVT rIC 1 ��rr O y ` ¶POOOvay ant flppr- ✓ .. eCIOlnlnr tot devour homes C; "�yyff�;'" plain. 01 SC ie l h l nc prove-Ty A =Id: STreer buffers enC - or h6rs WIC SYDL Iy 1S,o, S rd nOTe.lor (ne lceT i ngt ""-'- G r - reCTricTeC oe_eIODAenT L / :r : POTen?lbl o -- t: ;:-: Township, Corporate One extra-Territerlel planning jvtisClC- .•••-,•��-. 'ler. lines chide- cross The btOOlrTy C' `� :.+ - IOce1ion enc size 01 Dercels OeCICeT.0 ter Public use er A/� i::}: C I r Common 6:: I.P c." Iti 1OCeTiOr, ant size cf 10 . of reSTrICTeC OeyeIODmer.T pOTer-eel enC ed?e?Icr ot ple7 reoerCinc some -..... :yy,` . Viormve?!• waneoemee- pier inelCeflne prbvlslor for Cor,rol of the fire- 1/i if,Cr Cl runoff Iron. impervious surtetes please complete reve-se sloe 081 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 wish 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 S105 . 00 fee ( subdivisions of 1 -5 lots ) , S210 . 00 fee ( subdivision of 6-9 lots) , S315 . 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 S5 . 00 per lot fee is due at the time the final plat is presented for recordation. C. �.�. .x- . lecr- APPLICANT' S SIGNATURE) OWNER' S SIGNATURE /6//p /77 /e /y / 8-7 DATE DATE FEES: Amount OG Date Pei d "7)- 21-87 Receipt I a 4- 082 DARK HILLS 11 /85 ORANGE COUNTY CERTIFICATION ANQ AQP3QYAL5 - PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Eddie Kirk SKETCH PLAN: Received 9-300-87 Reviewed _ 9-30-87 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received .__ 10-21 -87 Reviewed 10-228-87_� REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received Reviewed _- 10-29-87 NCDOT: DATE 12-8-87 CERTIFICATION __ Mike Mill s . SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill -Carrboro) : DATE10-26`87 CERTIFICATION N/A UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE 11-24-87� Certification Health Dept. OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council v�Y (Date) Carrboro Fire Department - (Date) Chapel H i l l _ ___ ._.__.____ (Date) Carrboro y(Date) Hillsborough _(Date) Durham (Date) Other - County Attorney 11 71-8Z _(Date) - Erosion Control _ 10-26-1 (Date) PLANNING BOARD : Date 1-25-88 Approval Approval with Conditions X Denial _ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date _ Approval Approval with Conditions _ _ Denial r/ 0 ..'\ 1 - N- --___ __,____,,._ . = / / ) \ jr...c (- = ..."....(:::________/7_ K ill* ' ) 650 \_, • .•■•■ — —. ?...._ _.,1 )-- --::)=' 2 V n / . ; at CiT,pve 0'7 -- ` = 67 70D- \ 0) 1 v. ( r , C' /I/ \ -. 4 1 r �� � ` ..._ .„ 1 ,... , 0 . _ 10 • 1 Qb . - . .` 650 i, � - I ., M ...... 44% r\ \ c\V..... i ou, .6.2.1.4 oarratoi .01510.10,j) u\\ ...4. \ 3 ....criioi • .. _,r I �® 1, , \ . ‘., < 4 1 • ' ■ itt - 1 - , .04 it.:4ta-ru. Lbc-4 :2. .... 7 I! ti ite,,N■tof:•' . _",..._-_--:•z._ .:.--_ -: ,.--. - -% \i ‘.: - .. .ri- lik'N ' Ji.:42;r0 )t --- P' 41P '- 65° Aer II I ( 1\ li ‘‘ tialik toit I �1 - , 'll .... ... . ..._ .� - : 1 ■ ■� lk ` 1 Itt34 --,-., c..___dieti..,„i, ....7,,?Q. ..",„...r,..:....,. -, e .....„....,c....„.. ,.. ,..... . . .... .4 w 4..... ... , .. _'.'• p 4SL:. ' • zi f - ■ .:0-1._-7-- % e�1' '� -x- x.—7 . , _ • V, #, 4972 •' - ' \ - • 0 DARK HILLS A ` ___,..r.- ... .. . . f , APPLICANT : WILLIAM RAY - - 4 L P • AR WATERSHED ' _ � ` S C A L 14 0 ..-.- � I. `�, . 't __, . . _ . .. 0 ,,,, 5921 -a . , .:1"„M` ._ _ . . ''Y. .... 3.01 AC. 21 T- �- • - , . . rill 0 0 •• ,, 0 4, , - . . _ ...,-, ..- _ _ . _ . ,_ . ,..... . . ._ : -,- ,, -7 O. ----F, • _ . . .. _. tom{ ` . . e. - s� . .-Q 0 - AG CAT f ' C- ' _: rn -. . • . 3.75 = �4 � 3337 147 . 10 AC:. - DRS -- _`_ _ .' r�� A02 9p,R FAR GRCI4 Y i . 1 iii rir fi:NGPC`3 wt, 13-1•-0T 144.,1 612. 5(-3∎5011/4 1 - ,,,,,./ -2+ MINOR ` . . • /T L. - U301%lt5bW . _- . .r 0214 S FU 55 pC`.1001 0 S:AL • 156.2 - • 716 2 •290'•` ._ 2 ...., • 1.88 -j" .0581 JB6A.. ,O , 59 AC" . r - • ,„,„, 5 180 / v7-x7777 JhoO . 08b .0 cr SrA?[ 1 �V( arr 1:4"6:;' i i .• STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G MARTIN October 29, 1987 GOVERr�OR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E. HARRINGTON SECRETARY GEORGE F.WELLS, P.E. 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 (Carr 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 bit reviewed. If you have any questions, please advise. .4 Yours very truly, . M. Mills, P. E. 'ISTRICT ENGINEER JMM/SPI:jbh An Eoual Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer 086 ( r STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Gra^aT, N. C . 27253 JAMES G. MARTIN Dece'.ze= 8 , =967 GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E. HARRINGTON SECRETARY GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR ORANGE COUNTY M". . Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 3O6F Revere Road i.='_sboroucb, N. C. 27278 SUBJECT: Dart: z i i " Ore__--- -s :na"y p_an OFF SR 352 (Carr V Store Road) Dear Mr.' i:irk. As per your request , this office has made a review of the subject preliminary clans and recommends that the proposed roadway be located between lots g3 and r `laid inspection of the site , n 4 • After a T f he _ ,e , it was determined the oricira'_ planned location o_ the roadway_e roadway was too c:ose to NC 86 and presented a sicn_ificart safety problems,. ?lease revise the subject plans and resubmit to this office for further review. there are any questions, do not hesitate to ca22 this office. Your Very Truly, 3. mils, ?, E. ..STRICT ENGINEER 4 JMM:sm4 atta. • An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer 08 x1 `.�-..... 4r w srAT£ i5 r .- STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, North Carolina 27253 JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR January 4 , 1988 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E. HARRINGTON SECRETARY GEORGE E.WELLS, RE. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR ! r .Fddie Kirk Orange County planning Department 306F Revere Road '-sbo?-ouch, North Carolina 27278 Subject : Dark Hills Preliminary Plan Off SR 22352 (Carr Store Road) . Dear Mr Kirk: At the request of M„ subject pr r • William am C. Ray, owner of �' ope_ ty, this office has reviewed 1 Q_ the proposed roadway between lots #2 the plan the the previous recommendation, as stated my letter lieu of December 8 , 1987 . in my letter of Decenber This revision should Present no traffic hazards and is, therefore, approved. if there are any auesti n s. do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours very truly, --• Mills-, P. 7. (STRICT ENGINEER • ..7MM/SPl/acr An Eoual°Doortnnity t Affir.n?tivp A�tinn Cmnln,rp. Excerpt from 12-21-87 Planning Board Minutes 088 11 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 D 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. 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- . 089 12 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 prepared during 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 adjacent lots could be restricted to the 60- foot right-of-way. - 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; - MOTION; . Pilkey moved -_ - _ - - Y approval -with- the staff conditions - and the added condition that the joint . - driveways -be Indicated on .--.the p tat. Seconded by Swann. : VOTE Unanimous. (5) Lake Woods - Lot 9 (2 lots - Chapel Hill Township) Excerpt from 1-25-88 Planning Board Minutes 090 member Peter Kramer was included in the agenda packet. AGENDA ITEM #7 : ELECTION OF OFFICERS Best nominated Jacobs for Planning Board Chair. Seconded by Kramer. Nominations were closed and vote was unanimous. Best nominated Pilkey for Vice-Chair. Seconded by Eddleman. Nominations were closed and vote was unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #8 : CHAIR COMMENTS Jacobs referenced the Draft Environmental Impact Ordinance distributed by Collins. Collins indi- cated that it tracks very closely the draft ordinance presented previously by Milton Heath. Jacobs noted that it is being referred to the Ordinance Review Committee for review and recom- mendations. The projected timetable for public hearing is May. Pilkey reported on the water management meeting held in Chapel Hill on Saturday giving highlights and comments on the presentations. She noted attendance was greater than anticipated which indicated to her that there was a great deal of concern about water supply and management in Orange County. She expressed concern that the Town of Hillsborough was not represented at the meeting by an elected official as were all of the other 1� ff�� jurisdictions in the county. She was also con- D lug i V cerned that no representative from Orange-Alamance Water Supply was in attendance. Best indicated he felt most of those in attendance were indifferent to the proposed water/sewer policy as well as other issues. He felt they would only be sincerely concerned when the need became severe. Jacobs distributed an article from the Independent regarding a survey of growth In the Triangle which indicated that more Orange respondents to the survey felt that growth in the Triangle was occur- ring too fast. Jacob noted the size of the agenda indicating the possibility of a continuation meeting on February 9. AGENDA ITEM 19: SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS a. PRELIMINARY PLATS (TOTAL - 147 LOTS) 0 1 . DARK HILLS - RECONSIDERATION ( 13 LOTS - CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. 091 The Board of Commissioners referred the subdivision back to the Planning Board for consideration of additional information. 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, and joint driveways were initially proposed for lots 2 through 13. The property is not zoned and is designated Agricul tural Residential and Water Supply Watershed in the Land Use Plan. Initially, 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 did not feel that a marginal access street was 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. The preliminary plan was approved by the Planning Board on December 21 , 1987 with the condition that a proposed 60-foot access road be relocated and placed between lots 3 and 4. The Planning Staff received a letter from NCDOT on January 4, 1988 indicating the road could be placed between lots 2 and 3. At its January 4, 1988 meeting, the Board of Commissioners referred the subdivision back to the Planning Board for further review. When contacted on the telephone, Mr. Mike Mills with NCDOT indicated that an access road extended between lots 3 and 4 would be in conflict with an existing pond. if the access road was moved to the east between lots 2 and 3, the road could be extended without complication. The Planning Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the proposed 60-foot access road be relocated and placed between lots 2 and 3; and 2. That common driveways be provided for lots 1 -12. Best asked why the access road was between lots 092 2 and 3 rather than another location. Kirk stated that the Health Department had indicated to him that between any lots up to lot 5 would be suitable. Beyond lot 5, there could be a problem with lot lines crossing approved septic tank sites. Best asked why Staff felt a marginal access street was not needed. Kirk responded that the traffic count did not warrant a marginal access street and the subdivision is to have shared driveways. MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval with Staff conditions. Seconded by Lewis. VOTE: Unanimous. 2. SHADOW LAKE ( CLUSTER) ( 101 LOTS - ENO TOWNSHIP) Presentation by Emily Crudup. The 155. 1 acre tract is located in Eno Township on the east side of Pleasant Green Road ( SR 1567 ) north of Willet Road ( SR 1568) . The property is zoned Residential -1 , and the Land Use Plan designation is Agricultural Residential . Adjacent land uses include Eno River State Park , Duke Power and Piedmont Electric rights-of-way, Greenwood Subdivision, and other residential lots. The applicant proposes 101 lots in three phases served by public roads and by common nitrification fields for septic tank disposal . The average lot size is 1 . 09 acres, and the minimum lot size is 33, 000 square feet (0.76 acre) . The remaining 32. 17 acres will be preserved in open space. The nitrification fields ( 18. 34 acres) will be owned and main- tained by a qualified utility company. A homeowners association will be responsible for the remainder of the open space ( 13.73 acres) , including two proposed ponds. The majority of the tract -boundary is bordered by a 20-foot conservation easement. All agencies have reviewed the preliminary plan for Shadow Lake. Permits for construction of the sewage -disposal system must be approved by the N. C. Division of Environmental Management prior to final plat approval . The N. C. Department of Transportation had the following comments : 1 . A 100-foot right turn lane and a 150-foot taper is recommended along SR 1567 due to O R A N G E C O U N T Y 093 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date _FebruALY__lk,___1 88_ Action a da Item 1p SUBJECT: PINE FOREST II - PRELIMINARY ACTION BY : March 1 , 1988 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _Yes X No ATTACHMENT( S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Checklist Preliminary Plan Certification Private Road Justification Vicinity Map Agency Letters Preliminary Plan Draft 1 -25-88 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 Pine Forest II subdivision. BACKGROUND : The property is located on Pleasant Green Road ( SR 1567 ) in Eno Township. A private Class C road ( Pine Forest Lane) is proposed to serve two proposed lots. The private road is located on an existing driveway leading to an existing house on lot 12. Lot 11 is to be two (2) acres in size, while lot 12 is to be eight (8) acres. The property is designated Agricultural Residential in the Orange County Land Use Plan and zoned the same on the Zoning Atlas. All applicable agencies have reviewed the preliminary plan. At its January 25, 1988 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the preliminary plan with the condition that lot 11 receive access from the private road. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the preliminary plan as recommended by the Planning Board. D4 Ep.CE 7-!'"E CA pn l n7 ( hK O'. ) E/E" 094 FDDI ,^i- Ink rric rr.Cr I \' is 1 , iDD[+ yA DATE: 110:17 SUBDIVISION NAME: "Pole, re D j TL LOCATION: I e.as Y ir C-'-)^e.._e)1 . DWNER/DEVELOPER: ' A a c4' 30 ANNA t()A1 ke r BrcTu5r\ ADDRESS: ?Jr 1 1- m1. L.78 TELEPHONE NC. : - "7.53L.- Pr. l\5'bnrouJi, . YnC �1,"7.z.T� AGENT/CONTAC7: I�rJ,VA TELEPHONE ND. : A. SUMMARY I NF-EMMA7 1 0N: r7 Drenpe County Tax Me 1'7 Block Lot(s)• /TJDTownship• L'r10 Zonlnp Dlsrrlct( s) : A A Totel Number .of Acres: /0 Pneses: / Total Number of Lots: I Average Lot Size: Minimum Lot Size, Number/Type of rucrures; ( exist 1 no) -rth-F, ( proposed) house, Lineal Feet In Streets: YY><r�. Acres in ()pen space 'f]rnry Water Supply:, IJ. LII _Public ( specify) Community ■ Individual Nesrewerer DisposaOra l :S4 ie.Fublic( specIfy) Community , Individual School DisTrIct: L'r, COLA n-1.1../ Fire DiSTricr: t-no General Land Uses 1 n Area: 1`4 10,:..=1c1+ Critical Areas: stream/ortinaoeweys floon prone areas werershed (specify) historic sites otner (explain) E. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smeller Than one Inch ecuels two-hundred feet ( 1rt2D01 ) end no leroer than one Inch epuals fifty feet ( 1"w5D1) end must contain the fol lor•1nc information: a• a sumdlvlsion none ` :id r Du110inq setback Ilnes ern! Df Ornerl s) :};;ft py nOTeTiOn Or t . ogee of yDICeI IbT ••• enpineer or lonC '� ��/ uhwoo :.... .::. existing one DrOpmset planner i egseoents Ierelnapr. :: '•. 1/1-ue) Frel Iu.ln r • -'::: :_:rrr.. Alrr, R y ,/ utilities. ?Dees. etc.) r.. scaly.. nbrtp N!> existing, DrDDOFet snit : ergo• eejeU nine rlpnTS..1111■rey (north at /OD Cl bop) In g elo.ensions and :: : Pete IlncluOln9 s/reepinoses one s..te rev 1 s I On Oates) -•-•-••• rOgC hummers •. tCwnL ip. tax Mph ': exliTinF one pr e IDT re,* ▪ YTIIITies. Jhei YOin T ; ': bounesry Described s12es. h OrrnT f one. •:.:�:. girt, Deerinps one :-:--C': Y F. vRlreF • 01sTgn[eS manholes . •. total gCreept of the '• :; existing got c ODO$.0 ▪ :::: Culver/ lnelueln€ slims t �^ TreeT one eersrpt ci • .rc • 10"s, IncavC iia and v..- ..... :{ .' 'voice) srr oe cross. it Aclu IFpros .1,11111 i Sections one 1 ion H rip" O _ a c.Trlls inclodlej eeslpn COntr01 Career one rlett of T 'ray eropesee 1OT 11ees W ens sepu1eors p is r17R OlmonilOni = ollpnwen/ she E . •2:::v Io/ mummers •7.tS:. nerl Dntel E v_ ::: ==: pene►pl •gore 'mete tivbIIt . C -. _ : Tevoprophy .et Ten toe/ f..".7.7:4 ' Cif)) 1 toll 1 ixrr:� gerwononT teltures sutra ■i Z 1 ✓ ref)) 6 w.-..).-: bullelnps. CoweTOries. rv:� allies. s"rep.s. W floOOr hlf'►Or 1C Irngmares .. gy ant flooM : •dro1nln; I0T IovOIIT n* S& Q " DIRImF of oeJoiningg property :- • bOfters onC oreers one subdivisions Z: ei : net CTlOF I he ICsTI "'v"••' C a . eeeeelviac OeeeloDeenT W '.-- DOTen'io1 snp eoporptr gnC gxtre-terr]tOrlbl planning 3urisElt- & - 'lien lines rnICR C?05! Tnt DroperTy L .G ✓ location one site of Do*eels Dedicatee tar Dublle use Or 4a 1 V re C I n Cason u N ...,_ J' 0;:: IoceTion onC s12t Cl 10ts of ros/ale/Og OeeelD One nCTsllon or. pie' reperdieg sent pM nT ;al .44::: sterwreter moneperent pion INdieerinf provision 4c, corrrcl ,•••,• CI Tnt firs/ 1/2 Inch el r.nbif /roe ipperelemS surteees please complete reverse side OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 095 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 1s 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 mplete and accurate. I understand that a 5105 . 00 fee ( subdivisions 1 -5 lots) , 5210 . 00 fee ( subdivision of 6-9 lots) , 5315 . 00 fee ( sub- visions of 10-25 lots) or a 5420 . 00 fee ( subdivisions of 26 lots or re) Is due at the time of application. A 55 . 00 per lot fee is due at e time the final plat 1s presented for recordation. C1rr . Jl' Gl f. ��/ 7.30,u7 GL`-rLl PLICANTtS SIGNATURE OW96 E ) S SIGNATURE i= i 13°/S/ DATE FEES : Amount /b) A6 Date Paid 12" V-7-7 Rece 1 F �t / (J 3 6 096 PINE FOREST II 11/85 ORANGE_COUNTY CERIIE I CAI LON AND APPROVAL _PQEL I M I NARL PLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: _Eddie Kirk SKETCH PLAN: Received 6-9-87 Reviewed 6-10-87 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 11 -90-87 Reviewed 12-2-87 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received _— _ Reviewed NCDOT: DATE _ 1,6-88 __ CERTIFICATION Mike Mills, District Engineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill -Carrboro) : DATE__12-22-87 CERTIFICATION N/A UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE 1-4-88 Certification Health_DeTt _ OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council _ _(Date) Carrboro Fire Department - _ (Date) Chapel HIII _(Date) Carrboro (Date) Hillsborough (Date) Durham - _--- _(Date) Other - Erosion Control 121 -87 _ _(Date) (Date) PLANNING BOARD : Date 1-29-88 Approval Approval with Condition _ X Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial Pina.±L, acut_ -burt t- 6,e ass exa I) `-kt S(,cbcic i3ur)1 Censi sfs (' 3J Ct/k, Jo Jot ( cQ /pis) `foie )1st. /S c G:0 71-14,t (.t. [' {U A LeLShC 02alr? 6.)zuy7k. 1 aad. _ . ; .�Zc�C R24.. a/ dzsit; k�_ r�LQ saAz b ti Q c.. )t u th . 3) 2Z, Cirr02-azt_td, VZ(iC, ,5 aAztf, 1,00aIDL ino/- 62, O6&p1 bcf 7fZe._ G 40. A.E c c e/rn.c h . /(Uut. rpk, - • -I, - -• • • . . . . \\ 28.23 AC. ` • \\ 138 AG �' s r SEE \' FU �\ ,A AP 17C 1\z '°'" ESTATES P I NE FOREST 11 • SEC. 11.—' 1 s _ \\ 6.32 AC �\ APPLICANT : JO ANNA BROWN \\IK ZONING : A: R~ ' 4 0 ' • ■I SCALE : I = 0 N I I 232 AC. . I I II • 11 I I f = II 0 FL/ .9- 0 1 , 5120 5 AC. IIR/ �•i AC. � � I ® // Fore CIE 1 p t e I . 3rr3 i . sB Fil AG• ~ 1.93AG �/ A x470 AG. 3.52 . .367 "/ 923 85.2 AC. 0 - (ID% ` �` /; 8174 iiii N. sAC 79 AC 2 3AC• ti te• /nrif is // 1.49 _ _ --- I_-_ - -_ ?ems le .= _ = ._ -__ - : _: / G6515 \ • -ko .0 . i, . . ._.... _ I, , i / , _ 2 . . . _ .._ ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD 099 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 0 riM, 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Eddie Kirk, Planner FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Pine Forest II Subdivision DATE: December 31 , 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 . :1.1. - . 100 ?/;;;; gr�r SIN :`S -;r► ice: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, N. C. 27253 JAMES G. MARTIN January 6 , 2988 GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E. HARRINGTON SECRETARY GEORGE E.WELLS, P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR ORANGE COUNTY Mr . Eddie x«1rk Orange County Manning Jepar`r'!e_nt 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, N. C . 27278 SUBJECT: Pine Forest I_ off SR 1567 (Pleasant Green Road) Dear ?wr. {irk: This is to advise the subject preliminary reviewed and stands approved. _^marts plan has been Approval is civen subject to the condition that only one private residential driveway will be allowed on SR 1567 . The dedication of an additional five feet of richt-of-way along SR 1567 is also approved. you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours very truly, . /''' '-:),4■42/ J. M. Mills, P. E, • _STRICT ENGINEER An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer MEMMEMMEMMEMMEW GI M Q CF Department of Environmental Management. O�` Pilkey indicated that such alternate sewage disposal systems were originally designed for sandy soil rather than those soils of Orange County . She also noted that traffic impact had not been adequately addressed. Collins stated that the Board needed to be consistent in their policy about delay and denial . He reminded them that there was ample time for Staff to develop additional infor- mation to allow for further consideration . Kramer asked what concerns Staff could address at another meeting. Collins responded that Staff could address the concerns of traffic, slopes, more specifics about recreational uses, and perhaps Dennis Osborne of North State Utilities could be present to answer questions about the operation of this particular sewage disposal system. Best noted that the main issue is the alternate sewage disposal system and if there is a desire to be consistent, he felt a moratorium should be placed on alternate systems until such time as more information is available on the operation and failure rate of such systems. Kramer indicated, as well - as Best that the original motion should stand. Jacobs expressed the concern that the Board of Commissioners require the turn lane in Phase I . VOTE: 5 in favor. 2 opposed ( Pilkey and Lewis - both felt it should be deferred to allow Staff to address the concerns presented by the Board) . 1 abstained (Yuhasz - due to professional conflict of interest) . r? 3. PINE FOREST II (2 LOTS - ENO TOWNSHIP) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. The property is located on Pleasant Green Road ( SR 1567 ) in Eno Township. A private Class C road ( Pine Forest Lane) is proposed to serve two proposed lots. The private road is located on an existing driveway leading to an existing house on lot 12. Lot 11 is to be two (2) acres in size, while lot #2 is to be eight (8) acres. The property is designated Agricultural Residential in the Orange County Land Use Plan and zoned the same on the Zoning Atlas. All applicable agencies have reviewed the 102 preliminary plan. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plan with the condition that lot #1 receive access from the private road. (A letter explaining Ms. Brown ' s reasons for a private road is attached to these minutes on page ) . Jacobs asked the developer why she proposed that a private road would maintain the rural character of the area or enhance the natural features of the property. Ms. Brown indicated that the driveway already in place Is a drive- way through the woods and she felt the property was as rural as it could be. Pilkey asked about the owner of the surrounding eighty-five acres. Ms. Brown responded it is owned by a corporation of which she is a part. Best asked if there were any plans to develop the eighty-five surrounding acres. Ms. Brown responded no. MOTION: Kramer moved approval with the one Staff condition. Seconded by Eddleman . VOTE: Unanimous ( Lewis out of the room during this vote) . v O R A N G E C O U N T Y �O BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (% ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date Feb tmary 1.k,_1_988_ Action da Item SUBJECT: CHESTNUT OAKS - PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: March 22, 1988 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _Yes �__ No����� ATTACHMENT( S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:__Emily_Crudup Application Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Preliminary Plan Certification Cluster Narrative/Site Analysis Applicant 1 -13-88 Letter Agency Comments Staff Findings Draft Planning Board Minutes 1 -25-88 Recreation Director 1 -29-88 Memo TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of the preliminary plan for Chestnut Oaks cluster subdivision. BACKGROUND : The 68. 18 acre site is located near the Bingham/Chapel Hill Township line on the west side of Jo Mac Road ( SR 1103) . Gemena Road and three (3 ) lots are existing as shown in Phase One, a minor subdivision. The applicant proposes to extend ( in three phases) Gemena Road and Habitat Circle as public roads built to State standards to serve 31 lots averaging 1 . 1 acres in size. The remaining 31 .42 acres along the intermittent streams and on the northeastern portion of the site will be preserved as open space owned and maintained by a homeowners association. The lots will be served by individual septic tanks and by a community well system. The community water system will also be the responsibility of the homeowners association. The property is zoned Rural Buffer and Protected Watershed II . The Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential . The net density of the proposed project ( excluding rights-of-way) is one unit per two acres. Based on the gross land area ( including road rights-of-way) the density is one unit per 2. 199 acres. All agencies have reviewed the preliminary plan for Chestnut 104 2 Oaks. The Town of Carrboro had the following comments and recommendations: 1 . The plans are lacking in sufficient information to make an adequate assessment of the subdivision. Under Carrboro' s ordinance, the following items would be required on plans: a. Proposed tree clearing Iimits as well as location of trees larger than 18" diameter. b. All proposed utilities ( including septic field locations) and stormwater facilities with corresponding drainage calculations. c. Proposed grading lines. d. Erosion control measures. e. Proposed footprints of houses. f . Sidewalks. The approval of a similar subdivision under Carrboro ordinances would be through a special or conditional use permit procedure with more detailed site plan specifications. Typical primary and secondary tree protection areas have been indicated on Lot #25 . Furthermore, the proposed layout meets necessary standards for stormwater management, and an erosion control plan must be approved prior to issuance of a grading permit by Orange County. Individual house locations must be indicated when application is made for a building permit. Septic field locations are denoted by the Health Department on a copy of the plat retained in the application file. 2. It is recommended that open space be utilized to protect slope areas greater than 15%. Most of the steeper slope areas are located in the proposed open space. 3. Rather than make two stream crossings, the pedestrian path and roadway should be combined in one crossing. The location of the pedestrian footpath provides access to the preserved open space. This purpose could not be served as well if the path were located in the road right-of-way. The NC Department of Transportation approved the preliminary plan as proposed and will review construction plans prior to final plat approval . Habitat for Humanity originally proposed to dedicate 2. 146 105 3 acres on the east side of Jo Mac Road to Orange County for recreation/open space purposes. The Recreation and Parks Director reviewed the preliminary plan and recommended that all of the proposed open space be retained in private ownership by Habitat for Humanity or a Homeowners Association. This recommendation is in accordance with Section IV-B-10-d-a which states: a. Cluster recreation/open space shall be dedicated public unless the Board of Commissioners finds that the size, location, type or development or cost of development or maintenance of such space or the availability of public open/recreation space would make public use undesirable or unnecessary. The Planning Director recommends payment- in- lieu of dedication in the amount of $1 ,416 . 00 (31 lots x 1/35th acre x $1 ,610/acre) . The cluster provision ( Section IV-B-10-d-a) allows negotiation regarding the public/private nature of the open space, but it does not exclude the applicant from the payment- in- lieu provisions of Section IV-B-7-b-6. Orange Water and Sewer Authority provided a written response which indicated that their standard comments regarding individual septic tanks and sedimentation and erosion control would apply to the preliminary plan of Chestnut Oaks. 1 . A dual absorption field system should be required to be installed at the time each lot is developed (alternat- ing 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 recog- nizes 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 identi- fied and approved by the Orange County Health Depart- ment 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 resi- dence had been completed. OWASA expressed concern with long term maintenance of the proposed community water system. Consequently, the suggestion was made by OWASA staff that the system be designed and constructed in a way that would facilitate its use in the future if public water lines are ever extended to serve that area. 106 4 The County is restricted to the requirements of the Health Department and the N. C. Division of Environmental Management insofar as the provision of dual absorption septic fields is concerned. There are no provisions in either the Zoning Ordinance or the Subdivision Regulations which would permit the inclusion of OWASA' s comments as conditions of approval . County policy regarding the extension of public water and sewer into the Rural Buffer and Protected Watershed areas also prevents reservation and/or dedication of utility easements for that purpose. Permits for construction of the community water system must be approved by the Department of Human Resources Division of Health Services prior to final plat approval . OWASA staff also recommended that Lots 5, 6, 7 , 8, 24, 25 , 26 and 27 be moved to within the 10-acre open space area adjacent to Jo Mac Road in order to provide further protec- tion of the steeper sloped areas along the intermittent streams and to provide additional buffer area for the assimilation of pollutant runoff from the development. The steeper slopes on these lots average 10-13% . Since these lots are being created for the purpose of providing affordable housing, the units will not be large, and grading will be kept to a minimum. The plan also meets the ordinance requirements for stormwater runoff management by using large lots, limited impervious surface, stream buffers, and retaining a buffer of vegetation around each lot to filter and absorb runoff . On January 25 , 1988, the Planning Board recommended approval of the preliminary plan for Chestnut Oaks subject to the following conditions : 1 . Indicate phase numbers for all open space areas. 2. The area for Lot 21 should be 50,000 sq. ft. and not 500,000 sq. ft. 3. Submit restrictive covenants and Homeowners Association documents for review and approval by the County Attorney. 4. Submission of payment- in- lieu of dedication of recreation/open space in the amount of $1 ,416.00 prior to final plat approval . 5. Approval of permits for the community well system by the Orange County Health Department and/or the N. C. Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services, as applicable, prior to final plat approval . RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval as recommended by the Planning Board with one additional condition : 6. Indicate on the preliminary plan the primary and backup areas for nitrification fields as approved by the Orange County Health Department. 1 PLEASE TYPE OR PFILT ( ; NK ONLY) E/E7 FCPi !^ArlrW r p rrip Ivi [ I N FOPpniS, .107 ORANG., `.O Vk~Y DATE . _ ►►J3eveq SUBDIVISION NAME: (/4 STNL)T Q/4a11-5 L OCAT I ON: gI N4ft M TOv t►45 iP 1 Ole- vAE. CDVI•'►lf, NG p.dwe Z$ I.DT:} OWNER/DEVELOPER: O'P-ArtJC . COUNT'{ Pt7 ITA'r .p AI AAc1- rr`tr ADDRESS: PpiGOX 31! S, TELEPHONE NC. : eIgl) 41201 4t9.4,4_ C4414-fl. ►1'H.-L NG ,2145- AGENT/CONTACT: .- gat L .v1he TELEPHONE NC. : 111 A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tax Map, 2$ •Block Lot(s) 4 Township ait.3 i.!- \ Zoning DIstrict( s) : C0FAcL. t30 E,g. 1pwlr_ Total Number of Acres: , le, phases• ( Apflezh PAismitainz.Su81v14) Total Number of Lots:)I Average Lot Size:,l. ltaNInImum Lot Size_.11�c E Number/Type of S"rrucrures; (existlno) I ( proposed) 3I L i n e a l Feet I n Streets: "427 "-Q Acres i n Open Space 3t.4ez water Supply: Public ( specify) ✓ Community Inolvloual Wastewater Disposal : Public( specify) CommunityIndlvidueI School District: 6124NGe. G_O. Fire District: D1 ►sci1. C,ge Kier k-t, General Land Uses i n Area: L. 12. 0ApEAQ-11Act,. Critical Areas: ✓ stream/orelnaoeweys flood prone areas I>Nkt It`I watershed (specify) historic sires other ( explain) E. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smeller then one inch equals Two-hundred feet ( lne2001 ) end no leroer than one Inch equals fiff feet ( 1t50i ) and must contain the following information: y • subdlvlsion name •..•.•.•. building : : Name of owner(s) } S ontback Kcal name of surveyor, by note/ion or TyplCel 1sT :• :-:• Shp 1 near Or lend / U.J';; 1 eyOUT � :' planner :t ` :) existing and proposed •• :: (T1TIe) Frallminary easements (dreinape. : lien uT111Ties. roe/is. ate.) := eerie. north errO• -X :Z- existinp, proposed end ✓ (North e' top of leap) adjoining rip.Ts-of-wey oeTe ( lnelUf;ng including dimensions and %;:a:• street Hawes end state revision Ceres) , ::::y' road numbers �.'L ::�yj:: tornahlG. Tex map- / : '. b I ocw- ;:.,.; : ex I st i ng and proposed IOt references uTlllTies. Including Type. �: :: Douneery eescribee ;;•}:.}_: r ITfi bear l n s 1:es. hYOrenTS. ve i veE ps end : -:: manholes d1aTances _f:• :'- existing end Proposed :f : TOTS 1 *creep. Of the culvert in elutlln£ sites C Tree, and eeremoe of f - and preoes G 10,5, an g end 'typical aTreat Cr05E- excluding area within iliK-:::: sections and In TTTTT el i en in b rl ^Tsof-may oe bIIE lnelutlln r� ., control Corner S tleslyn pr0DOS44 lot lines and width Of Trevalray 4' f and snowleers U with Olmanslons horizontal all n end E — ::: I OT numbers = : p mart i ` Dhating lines :::fi=r:: p i Te (public TopO r • roses) Q •} °P re", eT ter ;: :: permanent feel (ic) Interr omT .0 ✓ els[ViJer too urea Such ai rater bodies. :"-:" DLlltllnps. Cemeteries. ••• hlStDrld lenomerks r 4O t l 000rey and t l ooC if �: ..: W f DIaInE `�� edlDinlhp lot layout names stream buffers end of adjoining property 0 e) notation I^Clcetin5 ..... owners end SuDdlv1510^s i O M resTrletee tlevelopmert l% •}:-r°.': potent1ei -Y TovnshlG. COrporeTE and extra-'rerrltorlel U -p 1 Tien IIneS which cross The properly planning juristllC- t:% fp - Iodation ant Size of parcels eedIcered • reserved In common for public use or U N . IOCBTIOn and SIZE of lots ...t1� Of resTrlcrag OevelOpmenT potential ••...:� end notation on plat reperdind same s+-:.-: sTOrwweter menepemenT pier IndleeTin£ provision for •„•• of The first 7/2 Inch of runoff from impervious lurfbCe5nTr01 please complete reverse side 108 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 mplete and accurate. I understand that a S105 . 00 fee ( subdivisions 1 -5 lots) , S210 . 00 fee ( subdivision of 6-9 lots) , $315 . 00 fee ( sub- visions of 10-25 lots ) or a $420 . 00 fee ( subdivisions of 26 lots or re) is due at the time of application. A $5 . 00 per lot fee is due at e time the final plat is presented for recordation. �C.�a ff 2�. - GC tM Tr � S ITr� S1r c.�arl P ' A ' S S G N A T U R E 0 E S I G N A T U R E mug- -xx i4afr fie. rf� 11 oq61 11)3019 TE DATE FEES : Amount &15'41r Z) 'c Date Paid Receipt Pfr 1&3 -16 _rye �� 2,r, 662;;��--4 CI-4 STki UT OAKS �7` i0 4 ci 2 ORAILK'E COU N • 2 AC , 12 AC 114 5.� I u'i'�C Li FCe p UMdiurryi t 109 ZOU�'�9 : CUIZAL ES UP r fl .'s1a - �e:: C ee /PW,c 8.27 AC. . 665'4 S AC. rir ,AC. 44A X 0 AC. • a 68.179 AC. - ' .... M M4 , 11 19397 r+o .I I „ ,. 937 _ F / . �► 28 05 AC it§ O ?0ro 6 6 45 AC. I i i$ 4 _I1 '4,COURT fir, O SEE MAP Zee — e (GEORGE TATE rR) 92ec `, sa 1 a4.o esT \ p 112-3 A 1 7 ESTr• 0„7 -~ �+ 1219 6 26 A C CAL — 9240. -.1gAC� 118.5 AC — -- 9~9+43 1 1 iyor/ , I 099 I 18.679 AC • 9L •J Ns. P 3i4C 1 1.e3 / 1 9N/// 95 .sp ' 07394 IP 5'S� 2.Wcc. / Apt ..•/ / 9C r� 'II ' �j •3•5 // 99 16e 0,�- O1 /,iO 9910 / ��� 100.AC CAL pJ�%/```9 5811 12.16640•- A 2.251 r. 3P bees �1 \\0,/c Q,C X \ /. 1514C // o- x I F. i,eat ac a 1 'AAP w \ \ \ 1 1 I �p �� re92 9E • . f 1 ,..7.• - __ am O9 60 AC_ --- 5.75 An ------,---- ~ I 42 � ~ 1_ � N Cyq i �r1 1 1 tae . I w w w -- 1:10 CHESTNUT OAKS - PRELIMINARY 11 /85 ORANGE COUNTY CERTJFI_CATION ANQ APPROVALS - PRELIMLNARY PLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Emily Crudup SKETCH PLAN: Received 9-17-87 - .-. _._.__._. Reviewed .�� 9-23-87 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 11-30-87 _ Reviewed 12-2-87 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received _ _ Reviewed NCDOT: DATE 12-30-:J _ CERTIFICATION Mike Mil l s, District Engineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill -Carrboro) : DATE 12-1-87 CERTIFICATION N/A UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE 1 -19-88 Certification Patrick Davis (verbal ) OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council M A.Black _ 12-11717_(Date) Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel Hill _ (Date) Carrboro A.PDrker __ 1 -13.-88 (Date) Hillsborough __(Date) Durham (Date) Other - S & E W.Faircloth 12-28-8 (Date) - Health Dept. T. Konsler, 12-1 -87 (Date) R.Holdway 1-15-88 PLANNING BOARD : Date 1 -25-88 Approval Approval with Conditions X _ Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial ' 111 Chestnut Oaks Sub i ivision Habitat for Humanity of Orange County Site Analysis -- December 23. 1987 The site is covered primarily by a mature oak-hickory forest,especially on the portion to the west of the unnamed intermittent stream that flows north-south dividing the site. A portion of the eastern portion of the site is covered with grasses,a remnant of recent past farming on the site. The tree line is Shown on the site plan. The topology of the site is gently rolling. Stme localized slopes over 15 degrees exist in the vicinity of the intermittent stream. Mot of these slopes are located in the area designated as open space,although the rear of�lots #24, #25,and #26 have slopes over 15 degrees. Habitat for Humanity, Inc.will not locate buildings on those portions of the lots with slopes greater than 15 percent. Only minor disturbances to the slopes for the one roadway crossing and one pedestrian trail crossing are planned. Five foot contour lines are shown on the site plan. Soils are being analyzed by the County sanitarian for their ability to support individual wastewater treatment systems, Drainage patterns generally flow in an east;west direction toward the intermittent stream. The stream flows from a pond located on property to the north of the Chestnut.Oaks site. A high point of the property is located on the western portion of the site;thus,some drainage would be toward the west and north site boundaries. Drainage patterns are evident from the contour lines on the site plan. In addition, preliminary culvert locations to carry drainage beneath roadways are indicated on the plan. Culvert sizing and design, being prepared by Habitat for Humanity's engineer. will be in accordance with County requirements. The accompanying subdivision plat-preliminary provides further site information. In addition,Exhibit A attached to this site analysis includes data on roadway curves. Cluster Development Application Requirements (Subdivision Regulations Section IV-B-10-f) a. This application is for a Cluster Development Sub ivision -Preliminary Plan. b. The 68-acre project site's underlying zoning is for one dwelling unit per two acres. The principal difference between the proposed plan and a standard two-acre subdivision plan is that the applicant proposes to locate 31 homesites of 1 acre (43.560 square feet)or more on the site. By clustering homes on smaller-than-standard lots in two locations-- to the east of the intermittent stream and near the rear of the site to the west of the stream--the applicant is able to provide more open space and greater stream setbacks than are required by County regulations or would be possible with two- acre homesites. The clustering will not increase the number of dwelling units that could otherwise be located on the site. Clustering sh 4uld reduce the amount of impervious surfaces that would occur with a standarc subdivision, by reducing the amount of roadway pavement necessary to serve the wellings. 112 - c. The clustering scheme permits the applicant to set aside two large areas of open space. The first is a 21+ acre area around the intermittent stream that divides the property. This area runs the full width of the site from the north to the south boundary (a linear distance of over 1,050 feet) and the area varies in width from a minimum of about 450 feet to a maximum of about 1,150 feet. In addition to the stream this area contains the steepest slopes on the site. This first area is forested and will be retained in its natural state,except for a single road crossing at its point of minimum 'width and a pedestrian trail. The pedestrian trail will avoid steeper slopes and will connect both the two areas of development and the two areas of open space. This first open is a 10�a is part of Phase 4 of the development plan. The second area of open space acre area along the frontage of Jomac Road. This second area is the most visible area of the site because of its road frontage arnd lack of trees. By clustering,the applicant is able to reduce the number of homes sited in the open fields near Jomac Road,helping to retain the rural nature of the neighborhood. This second open space area is mostly level and may be used as an improved recreation area through the siting of a ballfield. This second open space area is part of Phase 3 of the development plan. The Homeowners Covenant for the subdivided lots c mm its the homeowners to maintenance of common open space areas, d. See the section labeled "Site Analysis"above and the accompanying subdivision plat -preliminary for a description of slopes,vegetatio ,soils,and drainage. e. Water and wastewater service will be supplied individual septic pp by�a community well system with p ' systems to reduce development costs. Each well will serve nine or fewer residences so that no state permit will be required. Water and wastewater system design'will be subject to approval by the County sanitarian. f, Even using cluster provisions,individual Chestnut Oaks lots will be similar in size to adjacent development,such as the nearby subdivisions on Jomac road near Bethel Church-Hickory Grove Road. By retaining as open space the most visible and most environmentally sensitive portions of the site, clustering will enable the subdivision to conserve the rural and environmental values of the site. 11 CHESTNUT OAKS SUBDIVISION HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF ORANGE COUNTY ROADWAY DATA Dec-87 Curve Adjacent Radius Delta Arc Tangent Chord Beari ng Number Lot Numbers (feet) (degrees) (feet) (feet) (feet) (degrees) 1 3 and 4 400 22 160 75 157 N 70W 2 4 end 6 500 28 240 125 243 N 25 E 3 7 and 10 250 36 165 87 16 N 43 E 4 5 and 6 300 73 403 210 390 N 81 W 5 11,open space 900 27 428 207 425 5 76 E 6 15 thru 23, 260 180 800 - 520 N 2 E 29,and 30 7 24 thru 26, 31 260 90 400 250 370 N 41 W 114 r----,7 1.--ii -rtii `- / ?- . I r* _f range County Habitat for Humanity, Inc. P.O. Box 3673 Chapel Hill, NC 27515 Memo to: Emily Crudup, Planning Dept. of Orange County From: Dr. Joe Buckwalter Jan. 13, 1988 Re: Policy for well water use at Chestnut Oaks Subdivision It has been the expressed policy of Habitat that the Chestnut Oaks- subdivision owners, through the homeowners ' association, will bear the responsibility for maintaining their wells. At present, this involves sharing the electricity cost equally among the user families (currently 3) . The installation costs of the well is subdivided to each user in the original price. Our intent is that we will establish community wells for no more than 15 connections, nor 25 people served by each well, in the development plan of Chestnut Oaks. Further, we will recommend through our representatives on the Homeowners' Association that they institute an escrow assessment to be set aside for repair and replacement of ' pumps and/or other equipment for the safe maintenance of these wells. If you need further clarification, we would be glad to respond. cc: Jeff Levine, Bldg. Committee Chair Meg Kemper, Pres. , Chestnut Oaks Homeowners Assoc. ?).—E.,642,6A^1-0-a/2/ "Building Houses in Partnership with God's People in Need" r y .snre;-~ ,Pte - \-'P,..;,_(,._ i , " Y n s 1.1 1a3 y I x 1 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ....C V E D DEPARTMENT OF TRANS O TRANSPORTATION _ Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN December 30, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS, P.E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Ms. Emily Crudup Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Chestnut Oaks Subdivision Off SR 1103 (Jo Mac Road) - Preliminary Plan Dear Ms. Crudup: Please be advised the horizontal allignment and rights-of-way shown on the subject. preliminary plan are in accordance with the minimum construc- tion standards established by the Department of Transportation. It will be necessary to submit a s t of complete construction plans, including all drainage calculations to this office for a complete review. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours very truly, ------ee. J. M. Mills, P. E. DISTRICT ENGINEER .JMM/SPI:jbh An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative 'ction Employer • Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road OWASA I P.Q. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 January 19, 1988 Ms. Emily Crudup Planner II Planning Department Orange County 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Family: SUBJECT: ()NASA STAFF CO:VENTS RELATIVE CHESTNUT OAKS SUBDIVISION; ROCK LEDGE SUBDIVISION; JAMES VINE SUBDIVISION; ALBERT REEVES ESTATE SUBDIVISION Orange Water and Sewer Authority (CWASA) staff has reviewed the plans ..provided for the above-referenced projects. The following comments are offered for consideration by Orange County during the project review and Y approval process. The (WASA Board of Directors has not reviewed and considered the proposed projects or the MASA staff comments. However, the Board of Directors has previously expressed concern about the increased dependence upon on-site and cluster wastewater disposal systems in public water supply watershed areas and the Rural Buffer without a comprehens've program in place to provide for the effective, long-term operation, maint nance and inspection systems. The Board of Directors has also expressed concrnsabout the se need for effective, permanent sedimentation and erosion control measures, particularly for all projects within the University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. A. General Comments A licable to All Projects: The proposed subdivisions would all have of sizes averaging acres. Based on available information, this development e more is 2 presently considered to be generally acceptable pment tersiuy it Y potable from a water quality protection standpoint. These projects will result in limited increases in nonpoint pollution resulting from additio 1 automobile traffic, soil disturbance, wastewater disposal system operation, and other activities These impacts can be reduced and properly activities. implementation and ongoing p PerlY '(managed through timely ng ng maintenance of effective ective sedimentation and erosion control measures and through proper, conservative design, construction, operation and maintenance of the septic tank systems serving each lot. An Equal Opportunity Employer 117 Ms. drily Crudup January 19, 1988 Page TWo 1. Recommendations on Se tic Tank tejs. Individual so absorpt on ie ds are proposed for ach of these projects.j tanks and the nature of their design, septic tanks and subsurfacabsorption Because of should not be expected to give trouble-free service over ifeof systems how. 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. OIASA staff requests that careful consideration of the following recommendations be given by the developers of each project, Orange County, and Orange County Health partment: a. 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 provision of an additional back-up field area for one of the dual drainfields. OWASA staff recognizes that this will result in increased construction cos and greater initial clearing for the system installation; however, the long-term benefits to water quality, public health and future ho should offset these costs. wners within these subdivisions b. All septic tank system replacement si es which have been identified by the Orange County Health Department should be clearly designated on the plat and deed/survey for each lot. These sites must be required to remain undisturbed and reserved by present and future owners for such use, in the event the primary site malfunctions. there have been cases where reserve sites identifieeddby th e aware Hal that Department have, in the past, been rendered unusable due to construction of improvements after the initial residence has been completed. 2. Reservation of Sanita Sewer Easements. Presently, he of Directors has an interim policy which strictly limit the extension� rof public water and sewer services into the U iversity Lake watershed interim policy will be reconsidered follow ng the completion of the This comprehensive watershed study, which is in progress. Although do not call for G'lASA to extend public utility u9 the water plans tershed area or the Rural Buffer, (NASA must be able to provide su h services within these areas in the event local governing ies determine it necessary and appropriate in the future. 1. lib Ms. Emily Crudup January 19, 1988 Page Three OWASA be requsired inaadditionito the typicallyt�at iredidra sanitary sewer easements Planning Department has stated that Orange County's cure ntpocs. The prohibit the extension of public water a , policy'ec is to watersheds and the Rural Buffer area. � sewer service into protected possible need for future extension of Regardless of the present policy, the should not be dismissed, public sewer service into these areas future The advanced provision of easements will permit public sewer extensions to be undertaken in a more timely and economical manner than would otherwise be possible, in the event they are determined necessary. The developers of these projects should be required to provide public sewer utility easements (minimum width of 30 f et) along the low-lying areas of the sites to facilitate the timely extension of public sewer service into and through the proposed subdivisions in a event that action is determined necessary and desirable in the future. 3. Sedimentation and Erosion Control. has concerns relative to the need for effecti a sedimentation aandeerosionn control measures during and after project construction. Erosion problems exist at other recent developments within the University Lake watershed and are of continuing concern to ClASA. Assu ance must be provided that effective sedimentation and erosion control measures will be installed in ly manner and permanently maintained. The use of grassed swales along proposed roadways must be carefully Ievaluated to assure that swales can be established and permanently maintailned on the steeper sloped areas. B. Additional/S ific Comments on Individual Projects 1. Rock a place Subdivision • OWASA requests that the 50 stream buffer also be designated as a sanitary sewer easement. The topography of the site is not shown on the plat. Additional easements for future major gravity sewer facilities may also be desirable on this site. • The plat does not state whether individual septic tank/soil absorption systems will be used. 2. James Vine Subdivision • No additional comments. 3. Albert Reeves Estate Subdivision • Locations for the recommended sanitary sewer easements are along Phils Creek on the south side of the property, and along the two intermittent streams adjacent to Lots 2 - 7 and Lots 1 and 8. • Effective sedimentation and erosion control measures must be established in a timely manner in the steeper sloped areas adjacent to the intermittent streams. I J 119 Ms. Family Crudup January 19, 1988 Page Four 4. Chestnut Oaks Cluster Subdivision • This proposed project would be locat-. upstream of ChASA's Stone Quarry Reservoir and if improperly developed, could adversely affect the quality of that supply. • OWASA staff recommends that Lots 5, 6 7, 8, 24, 25, 26 and 27 be moved to within the 10-acre open space area adjacent to Jo Mac Road. This will provide further protection of the steeper sloped areas along the intermittent streams and will provide additional buffer area for the assimilation of pollutant runoff from the development. • Locations for the recommended sanitary sewer easements are: along the intermittent streams identified on the plat. • It appears that some of the proposed 1 is and roadways will be located on some steeply sloped areas of the site; significant sedimentation and erosion can occur if effective sedimentation and erosion control measures are not implemented in a timely manner and permanently maintained. Consideration should be given to the benefits of constructing a stormwater/pollutant management facility, such as a small wet pond, on the intermittent stream downstream of the project. Thank you very much for your consideration of the above comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have an questions relative to OWASA's position on the proposed project. Sin -ly, e;;;Ic Patrick K. Davis Assistant to the Executive Director wp lga arrbora January 13 , 1988 Emily Crudup O ''l ,-.) Orange County Planning Department YY �� ) 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Chestnut Oaks Subdivision Courtesy Review Dear Emily: Proposed plans for this subdivision have been reviewed and we have the following comments/recommendations: -Lot layouts would conform to Carr oro ordinance requirements in the R-40 zoning district . -Generally, the plans are lacking in sufficient information to make an adequate assessment of the subdivision. Under Carrboro ' s ordinance, the following items would be required on plans: 1 . proposed tree clearing limits as well as location of trees larger than 18" diameter 2 . all proposed utilities ( including septic field locations) and stormwater facilities with corresponding drainage calculations 3 . Proposed grading lines 4 . erosion control measures 5 . proposed footprints of houses 6. sidewalks It is recommended that open space be utilized to protect slope areas greater than 15%. Rather than make two stream crossings, the pedestrian path and roadway should be combined in one crossing If plans with improved details are submitted prior to the ublic __ hearing, we would appreciate the o portuit to p drawings. Y r ev_ew revised Sin erely ,,9V7N ///- 7/1D-Z- L--1 Amy PWrker Development Coordinator cc : Helen Waldrop, Zoning Administrator Roy Williford, Planning Director Bob Morgan, Town Manager Board of Aldermen 121 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 ; liF MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Crudup, Planner FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Chestnut Oaks Subdivision DATE: December 28, 1987 This subdivision meets the Ordinance requirements by using large lots, limited additional impervious surfaces on each lot, stream buffers, and retaining a buffer of vegetation around the perimeter of each lot to filter and absorb runoff . tikktitl V 12 FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PERTAININ TO CHESTNUT OAKS C RLT, RI A FINDING IV-B-10-b Application Criteria a) The tract is a minimum of 400,000 a) The tract is 2,969,920.8 square square feet for the AR district, feet, 2,769,920.8 more than the 200,000 square feet for the R-1 minimum required. districts and 80, 000 square feet for alI other districts. b ) Approved water supply and b) The applicant proposes community wastewater treatment systems are wel 1 s in order to reduce develop- ava i I ab I e and each lot is served by ment costs. Each lot wi 11 have a separate water supply and sewerage connection to the water system. connections. This system will be subject to Health Department approval . Indi- c) The total number of Iots proposed vidual septic tanks and disposal for the tract, exc I ud i ng parcel s of areas will be located on each lot reserved recreation/open space, is as approved by the Orange County not greater than the number Health Department. determined by dividing the gross land area, excluding pub I is road c) Gross land area = 68.18 acres rights-of-way, by the minimum lot Total acreage in size requirements for the zon i 9 public road R/W - 4.59 district established in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. In the 63.59 areas of Orange County not zoned, Rural Buffer minimum lot size = the minimum lot size requirement 2 acres shall be forty thousand (40, 00 ) Maximum number of lots permitted square feet. 63.59 2 = 31 .79 = 31 lots Humber of lots proposed = 31 lots d) The recreation/open space resery d within the tract conforms with the d) Publ is recreation required by recreation and open space standards IV-B"7-b-2 31/20 = 1 .55 acres establ fished In Section IV-B-7-b . Minimum required recreation space (Article 5.1 . 1 and 6. 12) I V-B-7-b Rural Buffer .028 x 68. 18 acres = 1 .9 acres 2. D amens ional Requirements The plan calls for 2.0 acres which is more than the minimum required. I f the app 1 icat ion of t e The Director of Recreation and provisions of Art is I e 5. 1 . 1 Parks recommends that the recrea- ( Required Minimum Recreation tion space remain in private owner- Space Ratio) and Article 6. 12 ship as provided for in Section (Land Use Intensity System) IV-B-10--d. of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance results in a greater amount of land, then the difference between the application of the standards above and those of Article 2 123 5. 1 . 1 and Article 6. 12 shall be established as private recreation for the use of the residents of the development. 3. Site Suitability Land provided or dedicated for passive recreation and open space purposes shall be of a character, slope and location suitable for use for walking, jogging, reading and similar quiet activities, and the preservation of natural features and cultural resources such as steep slopes, rock outcrops, native plant life and wildlife cover, mature woodlands and water resources. Criteria for evaluating the suitability of proposed recreation areas shall include but not be limited to the following : a. 1...sleation . Land dedicated a. Location - The land set aside for for recreation purposes recreation is centrally located shal I be located so as to with access to the state road and serve the needs of the to the main entrance road of the immediate residents of the subdivision. The slopes on the subdivision. Recreation improved portion are less than areas shall be central l y 15% and the area preserves mature located so as to provide, forest and the existing inter- insofar as possible, equal mittent streams. accessibility to all residents of the subdivision ; provided, however, recreation areas may be approved in other locations where land more suited for recreational purposes due to shape, level slopes and/or dry soil conditions is present. Where proposed park sites are shown on the adopted Land Use Plar, and a subdivision contai s a portion of the parrk site, then the recreation area may be located at the edge of the subdivision so U . 124 3 that additional land may be added as adjacent land is subdivided . b . Unity, Land dedicated b. Unity - The improved recreation for recreation purposes area is part of the continuous sha l l be a single parcel open space system which unifies except where it is it with all the common area. determined that two ( 2) or more parcels are suited to the needs of a particular subdivision . The Planning Board may recommend , and the Board of Commissioners may require, the dedication of a connecting path in addition to the Iand required in Section IV-B-7-b-2 of this Ordinance. Where a connecting path is necessary, a path of up to fifty ( 50 ) feet in width may be required, but in no case shalI the path be less than thirty ( 30) feet in w i dth. c. Lice � jb i I ity. Land c. Accessibility - Because it is dedicated for recreational part of the open space system, purposes shat I have at the recreation area is equally least fifty ( 50) feet of accessible to all residents. In frontage on at least one addition, it has more than the ( 1 ) street w ith in the minimum road frontage required. subdivision. The recreation/open spaces are made accessible through pedestrian 4. Site Improvements trails as shown on the preliminary plan. Private recreation facili- t i es, either required or A softball field and pedestrian paths provided at the option of the are provided on the plan. An existing app I i cant, sha I I meet the storage shed will be improved as a standards for improvements: community center in the future. The improvements shown meet the standards Softba I I Field 1 . 5-2. 0 acres of Section IV-B-7-b including off- street parking. Average 5$ grade Pedestrian Paths not to exceed 15% I n addition to land provided 22 off-street parking spaces are or dedicated for active indicated on the preliminary plan. recreation purposes, suffi- cient area shall be provided to make available a minimum of five ( 5 ) off-street park- 4 125 ing spaces for the first two (2) acres of each recreation site and one ( 1 ) space for each additional acre there- after. 5. Methad of - Pro_v is ion or Ded i- ce Ian Land dedicated for pub I is Under Section IV-B-10-d of the recreat ion area as requ 1 red Cluster Regulations, b. the by this Ordinance sha I I be applicant may request that the designated on both the pre- cluster recreation/open space I iminary and final plat( s) of be designated for private use. the subdivision and must be Private ownership has been dedicated to an appropriate requested. unit of Iocal government. e. The minimum amount of I and reserved Sum of all reductions in minimum as recreation/open space shall be lot area the sum of a I I reductions in Gross land area = 68. 18 acres minimum I of area as a resu I t of the - Area in right-of-way = 4.59 acres cluster form of development and/or Net land area = 63.59 acres the minimum retreat ion/open space - Area in lots = 32. 17 acres requ i red in Section I V-B-7-b, Open space provided = 31 .42 acres whichever is greater. Open space requi red = 29.97 acres IV-B-10-c Reductions in Lot and Setback Requirements For Iots created as part of a cluster development minimum lot area, lot width and setback requirements specified in Section 4. 1 . 2 may be reduced as follows: a. Minimum I of area requirements may Lot areas have been reduced an be reduced by fifty percent (50% ) average of 48.3%. but shall be no smaller than 5000 square feet. b. Minimum lot width requirements may Lot widths meet the minimum be reduced by twenty percent (20% ) , requirements. but shall be no less than fifty ( 50) feet. c. Minimum front setback requirements Front setbacks have not been reduced may be reduced by twenty-five from 40' as required in the Rural percent (25% ) except where the Buffer. front lot Iine forms an exterior boundary of the cluster develop- ment. d. Minimum rear and side setback Rear and side setbacks have not been requirements may be reduced to ten reduced from 20' as required in the Rural Buffer. A 126 5 ( 10 ) feet except where the rear or side lot line forms an exterior boundary of the cluster development. IV-B-10-e Approval of Preliminary Plan a. Individual lots, buildings and The layout of the subdivision streets shall be designed and takes existing topography into situated to minimize alteration of consideration. the natural site features to be preserved. b. The usab i l ity of cluster Open space/recreation area is open/recreation space shal I be located and designed to be determined by the size, shape, usable to all lots in the topographic and location $ubdivision. requirements specified in Section IV-B-7-b. c. Cluster open space sha l l Include Mature woodlands and drainage irreplaceable natural features such areas including existing inter- as, but not I imited to, streams, mittent streams are preserved significant stands of trees, by the open space system. individual trees of significant size and/or species, uncommon plant communities, wildlife habitats and rock outcroppings. d. Cluster recreation space shall be Open space and recreation areas are easily accessible to pedestrians, connected by proposed footpaths. including the handicapped. Access from the parking area must be handicapped accessible. e. The suitability of cluster open space intended for scenic value The most significant natural fea- sha l I be determined by its tures on the site are preserved by visibility from adjoining the open space area layout. properties and streets and shall seek to lessen the area devoted to motor vehicle access. f. Diversity and originality in lot The layout allows all lots access to layout shall be encouraged to open space areas from the public achieve the best possible roads and from footpaths. Lot relationship between the land and layout also minimizes crossings of the development. drainage areas. g. Up to one-fourth of the land with Alteration of steep slopes is not slopes greater than fifteen percent addressed in the plan. Very steep ( 15% ) may be removed or altered slopes are located in open space only when such slopes are small and areas. isolated and do not otherwise adversely affect the design of the development. 6 127 h. At I east twenty percent of the 46% of the gross land area gross land area is designated as is designated open space. common open space. 4 . 128 CHESTNUT OAKS ( CLUSTER) D ° (21 LOTS BINGHAM NGHAM TOWNSHIP) Presentation by Emily Crudup. The 68 . 18 acre site is located near the Bingham/Chapel Hill Township line on the west side of Jo Mac Road ( SR 1103) . Gemena Road and three (3 ) lots are existing as shown in Phase One, a minor subdivision. The applicant proposes to extend ( in three phases) Gemena Road and Habitat Circle as public roads built to State standards to serve 31 lots averaging 1 . 1 acres in size. The remaining 31 . 42 acres along the intermittent streams and on the northeastern portion of the site will be preserved as open space owned and maintained by a homeowners association . The lots will be served by individual septic tanks and by a community well system. The community water system will also be the responsibility of the homeowners association . The property is zoned Rural Buffer and Protected Watershed II . The Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential . All agencies have reviewed the preliminary plan for Chestnut Oaks. The Town of Carrboro had the following comments and recommendations : 1 . The plans are lacking in sufficient information to make an adequate assessment of the subdivision. Under Carrboro' s ordinance, the following items would be required on plans: a. Proposed tree clearing limits as well as location of trees larger than 18" diameter. b. All proposed utilities ( including septic field locations) and stormwater facilities with corresponding drainage calculations. c. Proposed grading lines. d. Erosion control measures. e. Proposed footprints of houses. f . Sidewalks. According to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, none of the items listed above are required to be shown on the preliminary 129 plan. Typical primary and secondary tree protection areas have been indicated on Lot #25 . The proposed layout meets necessary standards for stormwater management. An erosion control plan must be approved prior to issuance of a grading permit by Orange County. Individual house locations must be indicated when application is made for a building permit. 2. It is recommended that open space be utilized to protect slope areas greater than 15% . Much of the steeper slope areas are located in the proposed open space. 3 . Rather than make two stream crossings, the pedestrian path and roadway should be combined in one crossing. The location of the pedestrian footpath provides access to the preserved open space. This purpose could not be served as well if the path were located in the road right-of-way. The NC Department of Transportation approved the preliminary plan as proposed and will review construction plans prior to final plat approval . The Director of Orange County Recreation and Parks has reviewed the proposed dedication of recreation/open space and recommends that the space on the east side of Jo Mac Road be retained in private ownership by Habitat for Humanity or a Homeowners Association. This recommendation is in accordance with Section IV-B-10-d-a which states: a. Cluster recreation/open space shall be dedicated public unless the Board of Commissioners finds that the size, location, type or development or cost of development or maintenance of such space or the availability of public open/recreation space would make public use undesirable or unnecessary. The Planning Direct-or recommends payment- in- lieu of dedication in the amount of $1 ,416. 00 (31 lots x 1 /35th acre x $1 ,610/acre) . The cluster provision ( Section IV-B-10-d-a) allows negotiation regarding the public/private nature of the open space, but it does not exclude the applicant from the payment- in lieu provisions of Section IV-B-7- b- 6 . Orange Water and Sewer Authority provided a 130 written response which indicated that their standard comments regarding individual septic tanks and sedimentation and erosion control would apply to the preliminary plan of Chestnut Oaks. 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. OWASA expressed concern with long term maintenance of the proposed community water system. Consequently, the suggestion was made by OWASA staff that the system be designed and constructed in a way that would facilitate its use in the future if public water lines are ever extended to serve that area. 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 the Subdivision Regulations which would permit the inclusion of OWASA1s comments as conditions of approval . County policy regarding the extension of public water and sewer into the Rural Suffer and Protected Watershed areas also prevents reservation and/or dedication of utility easements for that purpose. Permits for construction of the community water system must be approved by the Department of Human Resources Division of Health Services prior to final plat approval . OWASA staff also recommended that Lots 5, 6, 7 , 131 8, 24, 25 , 26 and 27 be moved to within the 10 acre open space area adjacent to Jo Mac Road in order to provide further protection of the steeper sloped areas along the intermittent streams and to provide additional buffer area for the assimilation of pollutant runoff from the development. The steeper slopes on these lots average 10- 13% . Since these lots are being created for the purpose of providing affordable housing, the units will not be large, and grading will be kept to a minimum. The plan also meets the ordinance requirements for stormwater runoff management by using large lots, Iimited impervious surface, stream buffers, and retaining a buffer of vegetation around each lot to filter and absorb runoff. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plan for Chestnut Oaks with the following conditions: 1 . Indicate phase numbers for all open space areas. 2. The area for Lot 21 should be 50, 000 sq. ft. and not 500, 000 sq. ft. 3 . Submit restrictive covenants and Homeowners Association documents for review by the County Attorney. 4. Submission of payment- in- lieu of dedication of recreation/open space in the amount of $1 ,416 . 00 prior to final plat approval . 5. Approval of permits for the community well system by the Orange County Health Department and/or the N. C. Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services, as applicable, prior to final plat approval . Best asked about the maps with examples of slopes. Crudup indicated the slopes noting that they were a part of the lots and would be protected by PWII regulations and the tree protection areas which are the setbacks. Yuhasz asked how this subdivision meets the specific cluster provisions of the ordinance as far as how it looks and special design features. Crudup indicated that some open space had been reserved around the lots and stream buffers with natural areas around them. Best asked the percentage of undisturbed open space area. Crudup responded 45%. Best continued stating that this subdivision did meet more of what he would expect of a cluster 132 subdivision. Pilkey noted that she felt this was a very creative plan. She did express concerns with the Homeowners Association noting the expense would be a burden for low and moderate income homeowners. She also expressed concerned with the two intermittent streams. Crudup responded that they were listed as intermittent on the USGS maps available to Staff . Eddleman asked Staff ' s position on OWASA ' s recommendations. Crudup responded that the subdivision meets Orange County Ordinance requirements. The lots are one acre+ and the amount of land disturbance is minimal . Jacobs asked Jeff Levine, architect for Habitat for Humanity, the cost per homeowner for maintenance of the open space. Mr. Levine responded the Habitat will be having a meeting within the next two weeks and they will be suggesting that $10. 00 per homeowner per month be placed in an escrow account. Since the Habitat owns most of the area, it will be the largest shareholder in the Homeowners Association. Mr. Levine also noted that a legal document regarding the wells is to be provided per request of the Habitat' s attorney. Mary Anne Black, Recreation and Parks Director, stated that her Staff and Advisory Board had discussed in great length the proposed dedica- tion of recreation/open space. She stated that the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board recom- mends that the space on the east side of Jo Mac Road be retained in private ownership by Habitat of Humanity or a Homeowners Association. She noted that by saying that the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board wanted the recreation/open space be retained in private ownership, they were not also saying that they expected or wanted payment- in- lieu to "kick in". Ms. Black continued that the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board went on record supporting the County ' s stance to encourage low and moderate income housing in this County and they did not feel that payment- in- lieu should be applied in this instance since they also did not feel that the size, location, type or cost of development would fit into the Master Recreation Plan. Kramer commented on the history of the land involved in this subdivision . MOTION: Eddleman moved approval with Staff conditions. Seconded by Pilkey. 133 Lewis commented that while he also felt this is a creative development, he also felt it was being viewed differently since it is being proposed by Habitat for Humanity. He indicated he felt a greater sense of anti-private developer noting that he desired the same sense of fairness regardless of who was developing a tract of land. Jacobs responded that the Board did endeavor not to consider who is making the proposal . Even though this objective seems to fall at times, it is something that the Board tries to keep in front of it at all times. Jacobs continued that he felt that Lewis was misconstruing to some extent the concerns of other Board members. He felt the nitrification field was the greater concern in a previous proposal . Eddleman stated that he was more comfortable with the erosion control in this subdivision. Lewis stated that he had some of the same concerns of other Board members but that he felt that the previous cluster proposal should have been deferred rather than denied. VOTE: Unanimous. b . FINAL PLATS (TOTAL - 37 LOTS) 1 . FOX MEADOW - SECTION IV, PHASE A ( 13 LOTS - CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP) To consider approval of the Final Plat for Fox Meadow - Section Four Phase A. The property in question is located in Chapel Hill Township off Rogers Road ( SR 1729) . The preliminary plan was approved on February 24 , 1987 with 43 lots proposed out of approximately 51 . 2 acres. This phase contains 13 lots_ All lots are proposed to be developed at a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet, excluding rights-of-way. This was one of the last subdivisions approved in the Rural Buffer with 40, 000 square foot lots. 041 . 134 ..; Orange County Recreation and Parks Department air c 300 West Tryon Street • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 d ' Life.Beinit. Mary Anne Black, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Shirt Marshall, Chair Board of County Commissioners FROM: Mary Anne Black rn^6 DATE: January 29, 1988 RE: Chestnut Oaks Subdivision ENCL: RPAC minutes dated 1-5-88 The Orange County Recreation & Parks Advisory Council reviewed the preliminary plan for the proposed Chestnut Oaks subdivison at their January 5th meeting (see attached, last paragraph). The area proposed for dedication to Orange County for public recreation and park purposes is not . recommended for acceptance because of its size, location and anticipated cost of maintenance. The Council discussed the dilemma created by not accepting the property -- namely, the requirement of payment-in-lieu of that dedication that would then be required by ordinance. The intent of the Council's recommendation that the recreation space be developed by the Homeowners' Association for not only their own use, but that of other (public) patrons as well, was to ensure that the developers would be contributing to the provision of public recreational opportunities. The Council is committed as is the Board of County Commissioners, to supporting low and modern-income housing efforts. The Council does not feel that Habitat for Humanity should be assessed the payment-in-lieu of dedication if they manage or maintain the recreation area for public use. The Council stresses that this recommendation is only offered because this is an unusual case and hopes the Board will be able to work within county guidelines and still further this housing effort. MAB/pbl CC: Lorraine Parker, RPAC Chair Marvin Collins, Planning Director Emily Crudup, Planning Technician Jeff Levine Telephones: 919 732-8181 • 919 967-9251 • 919 688-7331 • 919 227-2031 ORANGE COUNTY RECREATION & PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES 136 January 5, 1988 MEMBERS PRESENT: (Underline) Lorraine Parker, Chair; Richard W. Ward, Vice-Chair; Virginia Boland; Charles H. Burger; Dwight Compton; James R. Dingfelder; Kani Hurow Doris Murrell; David Smudski; Charles Snipes; Susan Waldrop; Stephen H. Halkiotis. STAFF PRESENT: (Underline) Mary Anne Black, Director; Robert A. Jones, Jr., Northern District Supervisor; Lynn T. Hecht, Western District Supervisor; Wilma K. Tinney, Southern District Supervisor; Timothy M. Lutenski, Central District Supervisor; Kristi G. Scully,' Senior Citizens Coordinator; and Patricia B. Lloyd, Administrative Secretary. GUEST(S) PRESENT: Mr. & Mrs. Dave Swanson The Orange County Recreation & Parks Advisory Council met at the Cane Creek Hunting Lodge for their January meeting. Chair PARKER called the meeting to order with 6 members, 4 staff persons, and 2 guests present. Due to lack of a quorum, the December minutes were not approved. Director BLACK distributed copies of various news articles and asked the Council to discuss these articles. Chair PARKER asked for additions to agenda. BLACK asked to discuss 5C as the next item of business and to table 7C - Shadow Lake Subdivision. BURGER asked to make comments concerning maintenance " on facilities. SMUDSKI asked to add the . Hillsborough Christmas Parade. PARKER then introduced Kristi Scully, Senior Citizens Coordinator. She and Wilma Tinney, Southern District Supervisor, passed out brochures and informational handouts about Senior Games. Wilma then gave an overview of Senior Games and stated that the first Senior Games for Orange County would be held in May 1988. She told of various events and dates for same. She reported that Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Department on Aging, and the University of North Carolina are the lead agencies coordinating the events. Kristi then presented a brief, but very informative presentation on the Senior Games. She said that the Senior Games is a very well organized group. The main sponsors are NCNB, Blue Cross Blue Shield, APO, Duke Power, Marion Labatories, Basnight Electric, Pizza Hut, Hotel Europa, and Coca-Cola. She said a bowling group and an older adult swimming club has been formed. - Plans for the future include horseshoe competition as well. Upcoming special events include: February - indoor games party, basketball shooting, and walking; March - Training clinics in Hillsborough and Chapel Hill (there will be a trainer from UNC to speak); April - Senior Games Day in Park - "dry run" for May event. Promotional event for Senior Games with a torch run and big opening ceremonies. Director BLACK stated that the Senior Games is one of the biggest events for Orange County and .that the Board of County Commissioners has given $800 for this event. _ --- Director BLACK then introduced Dave Swanson'of Bunter, Reynolds, & Jewell and his wife. Mt. Swanson is doing Durham County's open space inventory. BLACK then gave . a. brief summary of the Master Park Plan to bring members and guests up to date on happenings and revisions. BLACK then presented the basis of a re-defined Greenway System by-showing maps with various overlays for greenways, flood plains, natural corridors, etc. - Much discussion followed. 136 Commissioner HALKIOTIS provided comment as to Board sentiment regarding the CIP, the Master Recreation & Parks Plan, and the Schools' requests. BLACK asked members if they would approve the concept of: 60' minimum width for natural conservation areas. It was also decided to omit last paragraph dealing with natural conservation areas becoming recreational trails at a later date. All present voted yes. BLACK will poll members not present. BLACK asked that members be visible between now and February in support of the Master Park Plan. Dave Swanson then •gave a summary of what Durham County is doing as far as their open space study is concerned. He said Orange County is more advanced in scope than Durham County. Durham County has inventoried all open space sites and he encouraged Orange County to review Durham County's progress as Orange County is about to undertake an open space study of its own. BLACK - asked how Durham County is dealing with Duke Forest properties? Swanson responded that due to the study being in such an early stage, he is unable to answer that question. Member SMUDSKI stated that the overlay maps used to position the greenways was well done. Member HALKIOTIS stated that we need to think "multi-purpose" development (livestock market/Recreation component combination, for instance. ) Chair PARKER announced that the annual RPAC Retreat would be held on February 27, 1988 - 9:00 am - 6:00 pm; Social hour - 6:00 - 7:00 pm; and Dinner from 7:00 - 8:30 pm at the Cane Creek Hunting Lodge. PARKER stated that she had accompanied BLACK to the Board of Education meeting to make the presentation for the Master Park Plan. The presentation outlined those areas where the Plan "touched" the schools. Liaison MURRELL reported that due to holidays, activities had slowed. She said there had been a public hearing on open space with basically no opposition. BLACK reported that WARD and PARKER had responded by letter to the editor of the News of Orange concerning article on Master Park Plan. Member SMUDSKI thanked the staff and director of the - Recreation and Parks Department for all their help with the Christmas Parade. SMUDSKI said there would be a parade critique on February 13 and invited all to attend to make comments. Director BLACK reported that she had asked a graduate student group from UNC to outline a strategy for the recreation and parks portion of the bond package as a class project. BLACK ..also reported that a large limb had felled and done major damage to some playground equipment at Fairview Park. The area has .been'curtained off so kids cannot play on damaged equipment. Later in the week a limb also fell- - . and slightly injured an employee of the Park. Member BURGER asked to be put on the February agenda to speak on Park maintenance. Director BLACK then presented Chestnut Oaks for courtesy review. She said that acceptance of the denoted dedication of land was not recommended in that it did not fit into the Master Plan. Council recommended that it be designated as private but maintained -for - quasi-public usage. Council agreed that payment-in-lieu was not _ appropriate in that Habitat for Humanity was furthering 'low and moderate-income housing efforts -- efforts that the BOCC support so strongly. Chair PARKER then adjourned the meeting at 10:15 pm. Respectfully g 'tied, Reviewed by: Patricia B. Lloy ry Anne Black O R A N G E• C O U N T Y 137 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date Februar, 16 . 1988_ Action nda Item i SUBJECT: QUAILVIEW SUBDIVISION - ACCEPTANCE OF LAND DEDICATED TO ORANGE COUNTY FOR RECREATION/OPEN SPACE PURPOSES ACTION BY: Immediate Action Necessary DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _Yes X.__ No ATTACHMENT( S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Excerpt from Final Plat - Quailview Location Map - JPA Strategy Map Location Map - Proposed Master Recreation and Parks Plan Deed County Attorney Letter --TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider acceptance of the dedication of land to Orange County for recreation/open space purposes in Quailview Subdivision. BACKGROUND : On July 6, 1987 , the Board of County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan for Quailview subdivision. Quailview is located on the southwest side of Bowden Road ( SR 1946 ) . In accordance with Section IV-B-7-b of the Subdivision Regulations, the preliminary plan included the dedication of approximately 0.76 acre on the south side of Neville Creek. This portion of Neville Creek had been approved as part of the system of parks and greenways included in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The Planning Board approved the final plat for Quailview on December 21 , 1987 . The applicant has submitted a deed for the area shown on the final plat. A deed has been approved by the County Attorney and will be recorded with the final plat for Quailview. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends acceptance of 0.76 acre dedicated to Orange County for recreation/open space. --------... 1°‘,, ':".6,\*Itre:"-------..................:...1 =x y c �owaz -T . .- � - auAEM - - --, . .. . - :•.-:-.- a __ _. .. _ _ �. _f::-.7-1=:-:::::,T - ..... Y..—�.. _. - tee..—_ _ i -_ __ • _ ACRES U(YH� _-_- -_ .T..... ..... ... .:: _ - teas-�e a� � -- -- -- /Lr s`•a ,g .... . _-._ _.._.. . -. .=vie=± , .-:- -mil-' • s� Cr _t ,�ti 1 ` -� RES�^D D r,. z. 4 `16'324 -" '_ ._..! _,-�:_.::_.:.--''T _: _ .WILLIAM CAMPBELL : — . _ _ — _ � sa•2s _ _ � :. l -C 1. '.., ' "... _ : ... . . 115). : .. 26 _ 64.23'42" E _. 20036 • e 0�,.6 - - . : I CREEK"IS it 19J 6" L s - 0°r E E a- - 2.008 DMD.: vY - 4 -;:. • o-3 ,� - - RECREATION AREA°= :.e - :- "• ( ..-• C - (DEDtCA�TEQ TO ORANGE CO A � �_ = .76 AC DMD . . CLYDE BOWDEN s 4r E r 74J3 0 I ACRE,/ / r = ._ - IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHART - :_per / _ _ ' P LOT AREA MAXIMUM aX w� a��. • . n • -- IMPERVIOUS SURFACE - ; 100 2.0 I AC. 5253 50.FT. \ •N. 3r E .� ' 2.02 ACRES D /D 101 2.14 AC. 5593 SQ.FT. n MI sir it E t • 102' 2.02 AC. 5279 SQ.FT. \�' / . `� o° 103 2.01 AC. 5253 SOFT. N y4.30.3r g \ / N 104 2.02 AC. 5279 SOFT. O f e�eb' ` - 105 2.009 AC. . 5248 SQ•FT. 106 2.01 AC. 52535Q.FT. " 30.00 it E za+•6O—_! �� 107 201 AG 3253 SOFT. - 141• \ .' — — j� w 108 2.02 AC. 5279 SQ.FT. N os�zs µ2,.- 109 2.01 AC. 5253 SO.FT. . 110 236 AC. 6168 SO.FT. III 2.03 AC. 553� � - FROM FINAL PLAT 112 2.03 ACC. 5305 SQ.FT. 113 2.02 AC. _ 5279 SQ.FT. OF QUAIL V I EW 0 R AL F 1` _. ,-- ___ g -_ - ___ '�• Y . 1.\ 17[1 qS •`C►'C � :'. JOINT PLANNING AREA y ' sI° {•L/� STRATEGY MAP I C + Y 1 .: .. w:.k ` �._ '' Irs� l�rr /41.4'?�f Af' 12-r•.' y,ia, :'t.1.-.!•,•.,:* 1 ; , ,*:. r" .;i.- ce.11• r Jf2 t/.. f a s� , ls �.•----" 1. ;i''�'., .y •:a'. qq • •..° 1, u.. •e �,1dw u1 fie` y,.::a i. 1 d i��j,�,�t' '�Y iiii: <r fir, e. >,;, ti'ry; j� 7y,° sd t �;I.41144 1.1 r—• '•- .,.fir C--, ; t i 4�r�.�/{�J�/y °,x._,,,.S �" � ,fit 00 RD 7 { r .I ��1�.* ' " '•y„r..J)1'F „.., ,,,,,,,t, /:AE• dl•� 1 A � v.; ,.. V I•r .1i'k}.i/, G-JI-:: t4-a. p-�-� •41. V / .0 y {{ SS ^.1' 1'�r,,}} 7 4i.'1'1`± F 1711 11 /• • Ji.i t�✓/ �`*i� !• 11•:`ii�11jp '. } rgv�,, ti !F, uuw5 ! • ii a r J - Blackwood F.�. f r Tess,••••1;•? '1 �ti•.ir11: 447_14A.-:lY r`' uro 0 RO, r I .. 1 6 _rtr'�`t ;c StQ 10(1 �k , Fr 1. k- � Y3. =+rr e„_/ ( It 1 i _... NS' °. .rf:,�` ;a a:' 42 4 �r s h �,IJ C xn m ,1 V �C•'�/4 , /1^ \ fk;'i t,r, ¶1*r •O ; {r'lf� 'C .[f^fi"" ?w!) 7.; 'r'•1 r 1 4' 1'r/.1KL • 7'� _ .,,ryh,� . f rL 1 V. 4 i"'?l.�i`f;r''�' pa! 1�1'• ���� k!{�G S= .t..� w,r�.�i /./ ,aw wql' WN If. / L��•. / ' 1•... 9• .0*' 1 V ',), •A 3 e. ,A,''..▪ l7 • 4--4 ill. f: V 1 ubafll(s `�•\r / 4 r A0 `. \r'• . (' roads 1 °' w •.a 1. '.,;.j:i.l..i! tYA''' • • '••1,'•- .ter 1 (r'A7 J - �. 6/S "i•' - i. • rJ , •�• ! • 1 l rt e t - y ,_ r 4 ir' a '"w';'•' 'r n•' l• — . 1 I I 411 - k ‘',...s„..--. . fo\Cer • -•%. -_ ' ' _ - ,, , - - ,fir • • j - t.;A MINT:. x �: r L /�/CHAPEL • E ��.. �. •ar% HILL 4® NtiTe Cross^j'. f 1y -_ , r N Orr = f —_. _. ! n -.. ..I 1A 1 `rte .r,.� .. j — i , - «.1 I • 'L*i• :.a (I w v rt�f� y ' 1 �� - - i� 1 - �. a u -t. r ▪ (,r i I e 4 ...41° i'Rp; i -4 f 1_ °, ` _ ttB1E7M RD ' „:„Ni' I� 11 f�4=" ' ( rte, .C. 1� ,..S:� / -.r• n l * .,r , - . it ,w ti; - ' .4 ¢ J r k a �-Ea �._ 1 i +C2, ry. / . w % 1 \ /-_./_ ? - I ,,,;, ,A ,.-• -• A. 4fik, ♦: -�° i • �y o ---_ • _ am .S.gr 4R.+" • ' ±O f t d_ 1 r- ` • $ '1 • l r A . F ' .aq_, 1 e -- 1 I i - - % t". !:‘, ?At oe:111714...1•1111 01 -_Chatham . County-- �� • •�_ 111•'•°""—"'-. •' .�•� �•�• •r•� P. Legend: - SCALE (//-1 . . _ ,40_ _ _ ._. - GREENWAYS --- - - - - ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ __ . __ ___ _ _ _ Ian _A--New Look ! == _ _ _ t I..r -,-_ _, _ - ( 4e"-....-„1 <:A4116:1, V yi':,,I.11-48,- 1/4/,'" ;,_-,7-_.--, , _i- ', iipt - ___ _ , - _ __ __ _ .. f.. , i, ' -0- ,- ,,,. 4 ,...m.,'Iiiitlip. -4 .., m .,,,,,,,.... , 1 _ _ µ�f2� �+ .� �*•�IITit � .t ■ ' 11, it -`y 71 [YI } ' `I 1 C' L.---: 1 _ _ is -,t, 1,1 rfilt4,,i1 XII"'l'— I.. _• k , I • J r - .1.1k kirk LlX.CH ! ry -__.` 1 .ENO . 1 1 ligiv.,..„.„,,,,,,, ,010.6114 .: w•----. ‘i - -%EA,,A-:..,.,''`iorkIVIII. . ' i� IV` ,� VAINill'iltV,..._ 1:.i.■L. . , ,1:7, 4 , , ... :, )..,_... ,„„, ," ic ivia.....„ ,,,-,-,,,z,,,„..,- ,,,,,.. - I,. „... , .. ._,.,,, ..... , . ...:. , , ,,,„ip ,. itvi...''. 4'1' TO:, ' ''#c*r . 111111`'- '..f ;444 $1 44 .411,...ii• .._ ,, hli lam' A \.� •` ( 1 .,- 1 0'0 / .11I.1,I 0,,p s41 P.-% -11 %-...;". • " ' -iw, 1 1 • 1, iiiNf • % - .. rte. v 'I �` r , 'fir'''. \ SI REFER TO TABLE 6-2 r ) ......' • / ,c` r.. �- / . t .f.,1.. E lif WiTINO.WW r.uura5 wr. ..- < - .. ..+ )`1. �. ,r ew.11 awry rw.. ' 1?a�"ua r `�I. I /� ( urT�c wren rrR.lir ". ` r 1 1.1 `.I I 11 t •I PleLLSAOROUZIN MP. — t h I/ r' .1. r j.�1 ip�ISruyt` Tvgs , r. .i • 2 - 1 e I •=-r�•.r........ - tai; • `: •!� /_ - - y 11 .••x• wwr�eAw� I.1 •�' 1 •1••.,. 2/- 4... Y • I' I 84I114441 Tn.. 044FM.NIL Th. i ofif.. .. , ,,.., ... _,, , .. ...4 - lithAI ' Iiik f, .,\ t \ I 1 'tlyi N J r A.23 II W - LI• i �Y1 1 � 'P. r y 4.. 11 ,dzi& — ...4. • ...........111 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND • " �` "�" EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES ORANGE COUNTY, N. C. MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN ..e. EXHIBIT a-1 • COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, DICKERSON, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE 141 ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. DRAWER 1529 129 E. TRYON ST. HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 919-732-2196 919-942-8000 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE February 3 , 1988 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 C. NICHOLAS HERMAN Planner KIM K.STEFFAN Orange County NATHANIEL E. CLEMENTS y g P la n n i n MARILYN ELLI50N 306F Revere Road Of Counsel Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 BONNER D.SAWYER (1902-19721 Re: Quailview Subdivision Dear Eddie: The escrow agreement and deed of dedication to Orange County concerning Quailview Subdivision submitted with your February 3 , 1988 letter both satisfy the Orange County Subdivision Regulations . The plat book and page recording information from the final plat should be inserted in both blanks calling for a plat book and page . Very, truly yours, O,� of - =y E. Gledhill GEG/lsg xc: Forrest Heath 1T 142 Prepared by : Alonzo Brown Coleman, Jr . Return to: Forrest T. Heath NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY WARRANTY DEED This Deed made this 2 day of February, 1988 , by and between Forrest T . Heath and wife , Nancy B . Heath , Grantors/Dedicators , and Orange County , Grantee/Dedicatee Hillsborough , North Carolina . WITNESSETH , that the Grantors/Dedicators , for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee / Dedicatee , the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, have and by these presents do grant , bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee/Dedicatee for the public use forever, in fee simple , all that certain lot or parcel of land situated in the County of Orange , Township of Chapel Hill , North Carolina and more particularly described as 1 follows : Being all of the Recreation Area dedicated to Oran e C containing .76 acres according plat g teven E . Wilson dated November 30 , 1987entitlesurvey inal Plat g Quailview Subdivision" and recorded in the Orange County Registry in Plat Book , Page 4 A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book Page _ > Orange County co Registry. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances the Grantee/Dedicatee for thertenances thereto belonging simple. public use forever in fee s - And the Grantors/Dedicators conversant with the Grantee/Dedicatee , that Grantors/Dedicators are seized of the premises in fee simple, have the right to convey the same in fee simple , that title is marketable and free and clear of all encumbrances , and that Grantors/Dedicators will warrant _ and defend the title against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever except for the exceptions hereinafter stated. IN WITNESS - WHEREOF , the Grantors/Dedicators have i _ set their -hand and seal the day and year first above written. i - (Si)- 0440,e(i)dif0, :) - ea Forrest T. Heath Grantor 1 •• j - i p • t0 . „, - 14� • -77G', ru fj ' /.4_, / (Seal) Nancy,- Heath Grantor NORTH CAROLINA )/( ORANGE COUNTY I , a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that Forrest T. Heath and Nancy B . Heath, Grantors/Dedicators , personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument. Witness my hand and offical stamp or seal , this the 4 l day of February , 1988 . i o D• CL4r, / i11110" , i�� . ._. . i� �+ # 1 / NOTARY N• t a r y P u •1 i c iii,AcoiNgIdGi . • xpires: - ..-. G S % O R A N G E C O U N T Y 144 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date Febrta[-1.f: 1288_ ActionallAgenda Item SUBJECT: PINEY MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION - ACCEPTANCE OF LAND DEDICATED TO ORANGE COUNTY FOR RECREATION/OPEN SPACE PURPOSES ACTION BY: Immediate Action Necessary DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _ Yes al ATTACHMENT( S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup Excerpt from Final Plat - Piney Mountain, Phase One Location Map - JPA Strategy Map Location Map - Proposed Master Recreation and Parks Plan Deed TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham -- 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider acceptance of the dedication of land to Orange County for recreation/open space purposes in Piney Mountain Subdivision. BACKGROUND : On November 2, 1987 , the Board of County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan for Piney Mountain cluster subdivision. Piney Mountain is located on the north side of Mount Sinai Road ( SR 1718) south of Duke Forest and adjacent to Mount Sinai Baptist Church. In accordance with Section IV-B-7-1) of the Subdivision Regulations, the preliminary plan included the dedication of approximately 14 acres on the east side of Piney Mountain Creek. This portion of Piney Mountain Creek had been approved as part of the system of parks and greenways included in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The Planning Board approved the final plat for the first phase of Piney Mountain on January 25, 1988. The applicant has submitted a deed for 2.3 acres of the 14 acres shown on the preliminary plan. A deed has been approved by the County Attorney and will be recorded with the final plat for Phase One of Piney Mountain. The remainder of the 14 acres will be dedicated to Orange County with the final plat application of Piney Mountain Phase II . RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends acceptance of 2.3 acres dedicated to Orange County for recreation/open space. abstracts: acceptance 1 • 4.75' 2-52l.I'n2 $ 76 5.4_0 T PHASE II i = .80.27 o • ` 202.58 E N 1 _05'F l3 (94,39 1 87''25'55' / I•05. 211.55 X069 /2''.;0 0 A 22 7 N c ,' PHASE I Cu , lt, , • to-. I / Cu / 46,152 SF F " ' / J 3 -.J a / / a CI] v. 24 a � o ���, a a 43 767 SF ! F c-�jCO� Oro (See Floodway Note Above I' "a ,I 100,339 SF a 0) C.>Vs o I vi / property of Orange County co F 0 a / / for Recreation and/or �4' 1\ ti S A'9. I N I Open Space Purposes #v `C •`� sI� a3 F / I of 3F O ,� e w o X22 C.; I r` 4 �'S �`3 w aZ �.` .O/ e, � ` � � 00 (G & (See Floodway Note Above) \. "T,,, •j.. . \ 0 cl2A �r1yC �.1: - 51,063 SF o ,� ,'1 t 79. 23 . \ A CAA o yt 1 50 Stream N 2� W r I Buffer II' o o'°2 m I • 1 G N .., co NpNiP $ � m I I 21 ,� m �O.Ns S N a I 0 9. to I I m ".9' '• I n C%J CO 53,231 SF ps'F I w 1 • °,cr)22 N o I) _ N N 7�.4a'te ,, 59,506 SF L 0 275' ). (See Floodway Note Above) 00 m I z o 0N0 °o ;a I V. co 0� ~ 0 I ; NO LO GI � . 210 01 cn I O N 86'53'06'W I `n 20 r-. ° N lit N 311.31' ' 1 � d' 44,487 SF N-86-53-06-w 96 00' .- v Ci of Piney Mountain Creek S 83.'2'46• to 226.21 Cr) Michael C. Hindman FI•`+' Cr A A I PLAY OF XI U D. B. 318- 122 Plkiff ( MDUg.`r-41id - 19 sc4L : 1"=raa' v.S O 43,817 SF a v CURVE TABLE 1N0. RADIUS DELTA ARC TANGENT CHORD BEARING p ! N ti 34 922.50 15'15'32' 245.68 123.57 244.95 S 062035'E1 • `7 'a • 35 177.50 20'22'47" 63.14 31.90 62.80 S 03'47'00"E! D R /I F -- ---- - ------------}1--- --- ------- - -- --- — _--- \}�AREA 1 71e FWSBLE l i JO ! NT PLANN I NG � y ,lw + +•S,+':11!.Rrl'l:'� '•G,1.. STRA GY MAP t I / ♦ � IIG. rr. � � iT{s � mb [ n• --.+i/s•:tti��!. t h Y 4. r CA , MP 'L •,I /} l` r - cur 9 ds ue wo 51 Ij, s,' ell / F RD.1 y?f SINAI - J Me ', ,60, I 1jQ]��/ `qtr! _J•; Ellock WLM! ...1. f ' ' p B24 + 1115 J1at lon r .iAL IfWS 1•� '� -� N.1.%+,14kes � + DR ti' l+R IF �t f , n { ` I i1y It *' V` �✓�iI � * ��! r I ,1r.'1. +! +� 1 3T � Ids 1i.{ '; ' � ' d+ r1�: 4 r.. � i .r � �. •_��r, :{�' �� lri fl lr !+b I F RtB r ®� I 1 IVA 11,LL ' r1akICY ubwk of 1 � no Inr , '.a5 .ID _-.. � ^Y i • ' .a. $fU0CI5 r � � 1; pL L • II tS A`� 1 pr 042 �•yl i i• �R. f1 `.. is d _ irunrs Z Lavl. Bch lu ,ura�r i[+ �416 1s Da1HYLarrD W. 1-.-- t Irp o uoS b 1 JO MAC �,o GQVQf1f12T 'I 1 .-� u o!1 �o P f ma �+r I •i I r �� iq IlaOfli • , NI�W�_ I LL VVl ' ■1 �y` l.. M I �, rile Cross, �� �, � '',� . 14 '7 GREENWAYS . Have A New Look ! / \; ff r r w •/ ••�V� •� e i1 r, • , �. —�. .1 )••. 'L;..%fwd. l ss• `�T�rr�� � . ;( n•1'/; ■y� �,' ∎■ ' ;ono-: . ,_�C1 1, 7 r , �.,, . , r ,• r. r•4'• r •�+ p7iwl•�•+r''iW (• i r .. 1 •r ) - ...y j• yr_ It, 1•• ' '; I. I Toile ..,:‘,;....44 . 1 f ..•::■. ...4:1r %4,1 Lc_ . ' ,:-./a-- -( •)--n- ; . - i r�•}. �I - .c . • • . I Ill ! J ,r. �— / r I LL .� I - !•!• O ri i : � .!i - 1 REFER TO TABLE 1-2• ,:'4••eir4, • ,...‘ : !.......,/1!. ., ,,...i. .;t01111" .;,-..,.e.z. .. .ii ro.Cap!M. it — 1 . : :- ..;,' r. -i..4-,t, 1- \-.- ... ....... • ,` M ': iria .517-/ — 4101100:, i :,:oings . .11: . •.-• -. -. ify, , -.7 ',14 - .--- L * AR j r.� wl '�.1 ji aw..• •r.� ., `,' I : � : ��r ,...... . • „�- . .” ,Y`' 2 `'� , i 1 —_ .1 '"- /---Alk .............. , -PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND ----- V 1STING PUBLIC FACILITIES ORANGE COUNTY, N. C. MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN —' morn. Ems, _ C _ Prepared By: Robert Maggiolo r... - 18 Return To: NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM COUNTY WARRANTY DEED This Deed made this day of , 1988 by and between PINEY MOUNTAIN, a North Carolina General Partnership, Grantor/Dedicator, and ORANGE COUNTY, Grantee/Dedicatee , Hillsborough, North Carolina. W I T N E S S E T H: That the Grantor/Dedicator, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee/Dedicatee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, have and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee/Dedicatee for the public use forever, in fee simple, all that certain lot or parcel of land situated in the County of Orange, Township of Chapel Hill, North Carolina and more particularly described as follows: Lying and being in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County North Carolina and beginning at a point in the centerline of Piney Mountain Creek in the common property line of Piney Mountain, A North Carolina General Partnership and Michael C. Hindman, said point being S-86-53-06-E 311. 31 feet from said Hindman ' s Northwest corner; thence from said point of beginning along and with the centerline of Piney Mountain Creek N-03-41-29-E 361. 03 feet to a point; thence N-55-01-31-W 163 . 40 feet to a point; thence N-12-09-20-E 77.44 feet to a point; thence N-15-11-26-E 182 . 02 feet to a point; thence N-10-47-49-W 35. 45 feet to a point where the centerline of the creek intersects with the line between Phase I and Phase II of Piney Mountain; thence with said line S-76-54-07--E 194 . 39 feet to an iron set in the common boundary line of Piney Mountain and Mary Lou Stephenson; thence with the line of Mary Lou Stephenson S-04-47-08-W 469. 86 feet to a iron set; thence with the line of Mary Lou Stephenson S-00-14- 34-W 233 . 06 feet to an iron in said Stephenson's southwest corner, Michael C. Hindman's northern property line; thence along and with said Hindman 's Line N-86-53-06-W 96. 00 feet to the point and place of beginning containing 100, 339 square feet designated as that property to dedicated to Orange County for Recreation and or Open Space Purposes as shown on plat of survey entitled "Piney Mountain Phase I-Sheet 2 of 2" by Ernest B. Wood, Jr. dated December, 1987 recorded in Plat Book at page County Registry, to which reference is hereby made for a Orange particular description of same. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the Grantee/Dedicatee for the public forever in fee simple. 149 And the Grantor/ Dedicators covenant with the Grantee/Dedicatee, that the Grantor/Dedicator is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the right to convey the same in fee simple, that the title is marketable and free and clear of all encumbrances, and the Grantor/Dedicator will warrant and defend the title against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever except for the exceptions hereinafter stated. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor/Dedicator has duly executed the foregoing instrument the day and year first above written. PINEY MOUNTAIN, a North Carolina General Partnership By. (SEAL) Mark N. O'Neal, General Partner North Carolina County T' , a Notary Public of the county and State aforesaid, certify that Mark N. O'Neal, General Partner of Piney Mountain, a North Carolina General Partnership, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument. Witness my hand and official stamp or seal, this the day of , 1988. Notary Public My commission expires: O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 150 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date Febru ry_ 16 , 1988_ Action jiamsla Item L. AU- SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - ENO RIVER STATE PARK DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _X _ No .� ATTACHMENT( S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bell 09-21 -87 Planning Board Minutes 10-13-87 Planning Board Minutes 10-20-87 County Commissioners Minutes Work Plan for Hillsborough/Eno Townships Land Use Plan Update Draft Letter of Support County Attorney 1 -29-88 Letter 1976 Eno River Policy Statement ( See 2-9-88 Planning Board agenda packet) Draft 2-9-88 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill -- 968-4501 PURPOSE : To consider a proposed letter of support relative to current and proposed planning and zoning policies concerning the Eno River State Park. BACKGROUND : Discussion last summer with personnel from the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreations ( NCDPR) relative to the proposed Durham-Hillsborough water line and potential impacts on Eno River State Park highlighted the need for greater coordination of State and local planning efforts. The State proposed a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) to address such concerns and provided a copy of such an agree- ment with the City of Raleigh. The MOU with Raleigh dealt with Umstead State Park and City annexation and zoning plans. A proposed MOU between Orange County and NCDPR was discussed at Planning Board meetings on September 21 and October 13 , 1987 . A recommendation that the County begin discussions with NCDPR along with a draft MOU was forwarded to the Commissioners for consideration at their meeting on October 20, 1987 . At that meeting, the County Commissioners directed the Administrative Staff to meet with Commissioner Hartwell before discussions were initiated with NCDPR. On January 12, 1988 a meeting was held to discuss the draft MOU. The meeting was attended by County Commissioner John Hartwell , County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill , Interim County 151 2 Manager Albert Kittrell , and Planner Gene Bell . The net result of the meeting was concern that, in entering into the MOU proposal , the County could be contracting away its legislative authority. Since greater coordination of planning efforts between NCDPR and the County was the original intent of the MOU , it was the general consensus of those at the meeting that a letter of support from the County Commissioners relative to current and proposed planning and zoning policies concerning Eno River State Park would suffice. Bell was instructed to draft such a letter for consideration by the Board of Commissioners. Subsequent to the January 12 meeting, the County Attorney provided additional information concerning previous action by Orange County in the form of a policy statement on the Eno River. The 1976 policy statement and supporting documentation is provided for the Board ' s information. At a special meeting on February 9, 1988, the Planning Board recommended that the Board of Commissioners endorse the letter of support and forward same to the N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Board of Commissioners endorse the letter of support and authorize the Chair to sign the letter in its behalf . abstracts: memorandum 9-21-87 PB Minutes 13 115 2 Plan on August 18. 1987 with the following conditions: (1) Both lots must receive access from Lake Court. (2) Payment-in-lieu of dedicated open space in the amount of $474 . Both conditions have been complied with. The Planning Staff recommends approval. MOTION: Best moved approval. Seconded by Yuhasz. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM t9: SPECIAL TOPIC - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING N.C. DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION Presentation by Gene Bell. This item is for the consideration of a proposed "Memorandum of Understanding" between Orange County and the N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation (NCDP&R) . Discussions with NCDP&R personnel relative to the Durham/Hillsborough water line and poten- tial development impacts on Eno River State Park highlighted the need for greater coordi- nation of State and local planning efforts. The State proposed a Memorandum of Under- standing to address such concerns and provided a copy of such an agreement with the City of Raleigh. (Attachment on pages 2S--a Ca of these minutes) . Such an agreement is warranted, since work on updating the Hillsborough/Eno component of the Land Use Plan is scheduled to begin in October. The Planning Staff recommends that the County begin discussions with the (NCDP&R) relative to the coordination of planning efforts and adoption of the "Memorandum of Understandirr" as related to the Eno River State Park. Prior to the initiation of such discussions, the Planning Staff would like to obtain . Planning Board comment on the City of Raleigh agreement and what, if any, additional issues should be addressed in a similar agreement with Orange County. An agreement may then be drafted, discussed with NCDPR representatives, and presented to the Planning Board at its October 13 . 1987 long-range planning meeting. • 153 14 Jacobs indicated he would like to review the documentation used in developing a compre- hensive land use plan for the area surround- ing the Umstead Park. Yuhasz asked how much input would actually come from Orange County in such a memo. Bell responded that he did not know but that the County Attorney would review anything done in this regard even though it is not an official contract. Pilkey asked if the Memorandum of Understanding is binding. Bell responded that it is not binding like a contract or an agreement such as the Joint Planning Agreement. Best commented that such a memorandum sets ground rules for the County to cooperate with the State. MOTION: Best moved that the Planning Staff be directed to prepare a Memorandum of Understanding to be reviewed at the Long Range Planning Meeting regarding Eno River State Park. Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: Unanimous. (Taylor out of the room during this vote) . GENDA ITEM $r10: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC BEARING - 8/24/87 a. Land Dse Plan Amendment LUP-1-87 Chandler Concrete Company Presentation by Gene Bell. On October 10, 1985, 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. An adjoining property owner ,--subsequently challenged Orange County' s approval in court. On December 12, � ' ! 1986, 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. 10-13-87 PB Minutes C 154 5 a. Open Space Plan Draft Requests for Proposals (RFP) Deferred to the regularly scheduled meeting October 19, 1987 . b. Memo of Understanding Eno River State Park Presentation by Gene Bell. At the September 21 Planning Board meeting, staff asked the Board for comments on a proposed Memorandum of Understanding between the County and NCDP&R. Discussions with NCDP&R personnel relative to the Durham/Hillsborough water line and potential develop- ment impacts on Eno River State Park highlighted the need for greater coordination of State and local planning efforts. The State proposed a Memorandum of Understanding to address such concerns and provided a copy of such an agreement with the City of Raleigh. Prior to making a decision on the issue, the Planning Board requested that staff obtain a copy of the plan to be jointly developed by the City of Raleigh and NCDP&R. The Board also asked staff to contact representatives of both agencies and inquire as to their perceptions of the overall process. The Planning Staff recommends that the County begin discussions with NCDP&R relative to coordinated planning efforts using the Draft Memorandum of Understanding (copy included on Dages /1- 12-- of these minutes) as the starting point for those discussions. Bell continued noting that Carol Tingley of the Division of State Parks and former member of the Task Force for Umstead District Plan was in attendance and could address some of the Board' s concerns regarding previous experience with a Memorandum of Understanding. Jacobs asked about item t2 of the Memorandum of Understanding which indicates the County has already accepted the 1979 raster Plan. Collins responded ,that the Clerk to the Commissioners has researched this item in the Board of Commissioners minutes and she found that the County had approved an RC&D application relating to Eno State Park, particularly the Phase �, 4 Area. This indicated that the County had only approved the RC&D Plan and not the Master Plan. Bell noted that Susan Tillotson. no River State Park Superintendent was also available for questions from the Board. Jacobs asked what procedure was used for NRCD to • 155 6 consult with any county regarding significant changes and their adoption for the Master Park Plan. Ms. Tingley responded that all of the master plans are subject to public review and suggestions by means of public information meetings and public hearings during • their preparation. Pilkey asked about the timetable on Umstead Park . Ms. Tingley explained the implementation process and the overlay district adjacent to the park indicating some of the more stringent restrictions that would apply in the overlay district. Yuhasz asked if a copy of the specifics of the proposals could be obtained. Ms. Tingley responded that a final draft is being prepared and Orange County could obtain a copy when this is accomplished. She continued that if it was possible to zone low-density residential around the park, many of the restrictions of the overlay district would not be necessary. Jacobs asked Bell if such an agreement could be worked in with the Land Use Plan Update. Bell responded that he felt that the Memorandum of Understanding with Eno River State Park could be handled with the overall process of the Land Use Plan Update for Eno Township. 7TION: Pilkey moved that Planning Staff be authorized to contact and confer with the State regarding the Memorandum of Understanding with Eno River State Park. Seconded by Best. ;)TE: 8 in favor. 1 opposed (Yuhasz - did not wish to approve something of which he did not know the specifics) . c. Duke Forest - Greenway Policy Presentation by Collins. Recently proposed subdivisions adjoining Duke Forest have referenced the County' s designated greenways as providing access to the Duke Forest properties. -: However, not all points of entry to the Duke Forest,. property are suitable for recreation access. At its August 18, 1987 meeting, the Board of Commissioners requested that a policy statement concerning the situation be drafted and presented to them for consid- ', eration and adoption. A policy statement was drafted by the Recreation and Parks Director and presented to the County Attorney and Planning Director on September 15 . Following revisions by the County Attorney on September 25. the Board of Commissioners considered the proposal at its October 5 meeting. Action on the policy statement was 10-20-87 BOCC Minutes 156 1 were made when the Efland Sewer Project was a 6 7 approved The Board agreed 2 that the County will participate in water/sewer projects. 1 The Board favored county financial participation in water/sewer 1, projects through a revolving fund. The County Attorney stated that such money could come from the general fund or an enterprise fund. It was decided that guidelines will need to be developed before 7 the budget is considered for next year. 8 Chair Marshall referred to a prior proposal of a revolving fund 9 for Economic Development being established with an allocation of $50, 000 10 each year for five years. The limit of participation in economic 11 development would be limited by the amount of money in the revolving fund. 12 Commissioner Halkiotis stressed the importance of the Board 13 getting involved in bringing meaningful economic development to the 14 County. High quality development can only enhance the tax base in Orange 15 County. 16 Commissioner Willhoit stated he favored an enterprise fund for 17 economic development with an amount to be determined at a later date. 18 Chair Marshall emphasized the importance of knowing what money 19 may be available so that a response can be made at the time a request is 20 received. 21 22 Geoffrey Gledhill expressed two concerns about the Efland Sewer �3 Project and noted that a decision needs to be made by the Board on these 24 two items: 25 (1) Whether or not the plans to develop the Efland Sewer Line are 26 consistent with the Land Use Plan, and 27 (2) whether or not the Board would be willing to do things to 28 expand the Efland line consistent with the plan that it would not 29 otherwise be willing to do, if it were new industry or being created in - - another industrial park in the County, because of the commitment to operate the system and perhaps someday desire not to have a fee arrangement. 33 34 3 . MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - ENO RIVER STATE PARR 35 Marvin Collins presented for consideration a proposed "Memorandum 36 of Understanding" between Orange County and the N.C. Division of Parks and 37 Recreation (NCDP&R) to address planning activities around Eno River State 38 Park. 39 - It was the consensus of the Board that the Manager and the 40 Planning .Director meet with Geoffrey Gledhill and Commissioner Hartwell 41 before they initiate discussions with NCDP&R as recommended by the 42 Planning Board. - 43 44 4 . TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH REQUEST TO RE'LINOUISH ADMINISTRATION OF 45 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 46 Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner 47 Hal]ciotis not to relinquish administration and enforcement of its 48 Subdivision Regulations within the Town limits and extraterritorial 49-- jurisdiction until such time as the conditions agreed upon on June.•16, 50 - 1987 have been complied with by the Town of Hillsborough. 51 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. - 52 . 53 - 5. HOUSE NUMBERING- - HIDEAWAY ESTATES SUBDIVISION ‘ , 54 _= - - Marvin Collins explained the system used in determining house 5; numbers. Be asked that exceptions not be granted. Dave Plasted, 'Jean Balick and Anne Rogers, Residents of Hideaway states Subdivision spoke in opposition of the new system and asked that 56 they be allowed to keep their same house numbers or that they be assigned 59 two house numbers - the old one and the new number. 1� ih ti Page I of 3 WORK FLAN PROJECTS HILLSBOROUGH AND ENO TOWNSHIPS PLAN OBJECTIVE NO. I DATE: 12-3-8? O B J E CTIVE TO DEVELOP A LAND USE PLAN AHENDFIENT FOR SECTIONS 3.9 AND 3.10 (HILLSBOROUGH AND ENO TOWNSHIPS) OF THE ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN WHICH INCORPORATES THE. 1983 CENTRAL ORANGE AREA STUDY AND THE 1986 PANTRY AREA STUDY AND WHICH CAN BE INTEGRATED SMOOTHLY INTO THE OVERALL LAND USE PLAN UPDATE FOR TILE cauttrY. TASK ACTIVITY STAff J F M A M J 1 A S O IJ D ASSIG HIHi _ _ DELINEATE BOUNDARY OF STUDY AREA (IN Prepare W-1000' Township base map. Interne ADDITION TO TOWNSHIPS, STUDY AREA ALSO INCLUDES THAT PORTION OF CHAPEL HILL Secure from Town of Hillsborough, a map TOWNSHIP NORTH OF RURAL. BUFFER). showing location of all existing/proposed Planner III annexations since 1981 AL IDENTIFY EXISTING AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC Compile data on public-safety facilities SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE. and road systems to include classifica�- Planner Ii Q tionr.. design capacities, and volume Secure map of existing/proposed limits Planner III . of Eno River State Park. Secure from Town of Hillsborough, a map showing location of all existing/proposed Planner II Q water/sewer lines outside the town's extraterritorial jurisdiction. IDENTIFY EXISTING SOCIOLeGICAL Compile data on existing-and projected Planner It . CHARAc:TFRISTTCS population. Map existing land uses and density of Planner II development; compute acreage in various 6 L, land use categories. Interns IDENTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND Identify most restrictive/permissive Planner III . OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT. environmental features for development: ♦ Map location of environmental features. Interns Prepare composite map showing most Interns . suitable areas for development. ACTIVITY SYJA8015* A ACTIVITIES TO BE COMPIETED AT A SPECIFIC FUIIIRE DATE. ■ ACTIVITY COMPLETED, ■E-- A ACIIVIIY COMPLETED AHEAD OF SCIIEDULE . A I1v ncI horn Tn finer rr)mpfiin11 nATF Page 2 of 3 WORK PLAN PROJECII HILLSBOROUGH AND ENO 'TOWNSHIPS PLAN OBJECTIVE NO. DATE: i2-3-87 OBJECTIVE TO DEVELOP A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SECTIONS 3.9 AND 3.10 (IIILI.SBOROwn AND F.NP TOWNSIIPS) OF THE ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN WHICH INCORPORATES THE 1983 CENTRAL ORANGE AREA STUDY AND TIIE 1986 PANTRY AREA STUDY AND WHICH CAN BE INTEGRATED SMOOTHLY INTO THE OVERALL LAND USE PLAN UPDATE FOR THE COUNTY. TASK ACTIVI#Y STUF ! F M A M 1 1 A S o 14 D MEET WITH ENO RIVER STATE PARK REPRE- Prepare questionnaire for identification SENTATIVE AND HILLSBOROUGH. ENO, AND , CHAPEL HILL TACs TO DISCUSS PLAN UPDATE nF citizen preferences regarding Planner II STRATEGY AND ROLE OF TACs. development within t1te study area. Notify TAC members and State Parks repre- Clerk Typist j sentative of meeting. - - - - --12_21 Conduct meeting - review work plan, back- ■ ground data, and questionnaire. Planner II 1-6 CONDUCT PUBI.IC INFORIIATION MEETING TO Notify public, Hillsborough Eno, and . OBTAIN COMAIF.NT ON DEVELOPMENT ISSUES Chapel Ilill TACs, State PaF6 representa- tive Planning Board and Town of Hill a- Clerk Typist AHD ZENU USE PREFERENCES OF TOWNSHIP borough of meeting. . I-19 CITIZENS. Conduct meeting - review background data and suitable areas for development and solicit public comment regarding pre- Planner It ferred areas for development. Hand out 2-2 questionnaires For completion during meeting. Compile questionnaire results and rank citizen preferences in order of Planner II importance. PREPARE ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR DEVELOP- Compile/review comments from public Q }� MENT WITHIN THE STUDY AREA. information meeting. Prepare alternative plans which reflect: Planner II - Existing Land Use Plan b - Citizen Preferences Interns /\ - Environmental Constraints L1 ♦ - Development Trends ACIIVIIY SriABO(S: A ACTIVITIES 10 BE COMP(EM) Al A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE. A ACTIVITY COMP(E[ED. Af—• A ACTIVITY COMPMED AHEAD Of SC1MME n s ,. r.•,� ,,tv nr•I evrh In linAf rnMItFIInII nAIF Page 3 of 3 WORK PLAN PROTECT: HILLSBOROUGH AND ENO TOWNSHIPS PLAN OBJECTIVE NO. DATE: 12-3-87 OBJECTIVE S TO DEVELOP A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SECTIONS 3.9 AND 3.10 (HILLSBOROUGH AND ENQ TOWNSHIPS) OF THE ORANGE. COUNTY LAND USE PLAN Will CH INCORPORATES THE 1983 CENTRAL ORANGE AREA STUDY AND THE 1986 PANTRY AREA STUDY AND WHICH CAN BE INTEGRATED SMOOTHLY INTO THE OVERALL LAND USE PLAN UPDATE FOR THE COUNTY. TASK ACTIVITY STAFF J F I M A M 1 1 A S O N D ASS]GIMUL CONDUCT SECOND PUBLIC INFORMATION Notify ppublic, Hillsborough Eno, and Chapel Hitl TACs, State Par�CS re presents- L1 ALTERNATIVES.TO OBTAIN COMMENT ON PLAN tive, Planning Board, and Town of Hills- Clerk Typist 2-23 ALTERNATIVES. borough of meeting. Conduct meeting - review alternative Planner lI Q plans and solicit public comment. 3-8 PREPARE DRAFT PLAN BASED ON PUBLIC Compile/review comments From public Planner If Q COMMF,NT AND ADVISORY BOARD information meeting. RECOMMENDATIONS. _ Prepare DRAFT plan and public hearing Q advertisement for inclusion in County Planner 11 commissioner's agenda. 6-22 Public hearing advertisement and DRAFT Planner II Q plan reviewed by County Commissioners. 5-2 Review and comment by Hillsborough, Eno, Planner II Q and Chapel Hill TACs. 5-3 Review and comment by the Planning Board. Planner II Q _ 5-16_ SECURE PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING LAND USE Conduct PUBLIC HEARING to receive public Q PLAN FOR STUDY AREA. comment/recommendations of advisory boards and commissions. Refer DRAFT plan Planner If 5-23 to Planning Board for recommendation regarding adoption. SECURE, ADOPTION OF LAND USE PLAN Review and recommendation regarding Q adoption by the Planning Board. Planner lI 6-20 Review and recommendation regarding Q + adoption by the Board of County Planner II Commissioners. 7-5 _Ian Implementation Staff - - --- ACTIVITY SYMBOLS: A ACTIVITIES 10 BE COMPLETED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE. A ACTIVITY COMPLETED. AE- A ACTIVITY COMPLETED AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. ��*I...*v lr.i wcn rn roc N rr?F.AP1ctrnrr hATr - 160 11111 February 17 , 1988 Dr. William W. Davis, Director State Division of Parks & Recreation P. O. Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 -7687 Dear Dr. Davis: The Orange County Board of Commissioners discussed a proposed memorandum of understanding on October 20, 1987 . In a follow-up meeting of County staff on January 12, 1988, the County Attorney expressed concerns about entering into a memorandum of understanding based on the Raleigh example. In lieu of such a memorandum and the additional time required to produce one, the County Commissioners have elected to send this letter which highlights the County ' s position relative to Eno River State Park as follows : ( 1 ) The Orange County Board of Commissioners, on May 18, 1976 , adopted a Policy Statement on the Eno River in response to a Task Force report dated March 13, 1976 . Since then, the County has updated that policy statement in the form of its Comprehensive Land Use Plan. (2) The Orange County Commissioners are knowledgeable of the 1979 Ms"1. fgt PiAn fQt Eno Rligr 1tA#Q Park and will consult it as appropriate in land use decisions and recommendations having a potential impact on the park ; (3) The County respects the State' s desires to maintain low density, non- intensive land uses around the park ' s periphery. Goals, policies, and land use designations in the adopted Qtangg County Lanst Use Plan are consistent with these desires as is the County ' s application of zoning in the area; (4) Consistent with the State' s desires, the County would be willing to consider a petition from the State for rezoning of Eno River State Park lands to Public Interest District; 161 Dr. William W. Davis, Director February 17, 1988 Page 2 ( 5) The County is currently preparing to update the Land Use Plan for Eno Township. As indicated in the attached work plan, the participation of the State in the planning process is welcomed and strongly encouraged ; (6 ) In accord with current policy, the County will continue to notify the State of adjacent develop- ment proposals, rezoning requests, or Land Use Plan amendments and solicit State comment relative to such activities; and (7 ) Concurrent with this letter, the Planning Depart- ment is directed to provide the State with copies of the 1976 Policy Statement, Task Force Report ( May, 1976 ) , and the Pr&n .C.QIQty Land Use •Pan and Zoning Ordinance with those sections and provisions relating to Eno River State Park highlighted. The County Commissioners trust that the foregoing addresses the State' s main concerns and indicates a commit- ment on our part to coordinated and cooperative planning. Sincerely, Shirley E. Marshall , Chair Orange County Commissioners COLEMAN, BERNHOL2, DICKERSON, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL • HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 162 P.O. DRAWER 1529 129 E. TRYON ST. HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 919.732.2196 919.942-8000 January 29 , 1988 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE 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 . John Hartwell DOUGLAS HARGRAVE G.NICHOLAS HERMAN Orange County Commissioner KIM K.STEFFAN Route 4 , Box 1540 NATHANIEL E.CLEMENTS Lawrence Road MARILYN EILISON Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Of Counsel BONNER D.SAWYER • (19034972) Mr. Gene Bell Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Mr. Albert Kittrell Interim Orange County Manager 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 4 Dear John, Gene and Albert: During our recent discussion concerning the County' s response to a proposed memorandum of understanding regarding the Eno River State Park, I mentioned that there had been previous action by Orange County in the form of a policy statement on the Eno j River . This policy statement was in response to a report from members of the Orange County Eno River Task Force . I ' ve found the report . Gene Bell located the County' s policy statement in response to the report and the minutes of the Board of Commissioners meetings related to that policy statement . Copies of all of the relevant documents are enclosed. The 1976 policy statement of the County on a the Eno River is not the last word on this point . Although not singularly focused on the Eno River , the County' s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and its planning 1 documents subsequent to the 1976 policy statement , together with the policy statement , form the County' s ,y current policy on the Eno River. A draft letter to Dr. William W. Davis , Director, dated January 21, 1988 , apparently prepared by Gene Bell as a proposed County ♦163 Mr. John Hartwell 1 Mr . Gene Bell Mr. Albert Kittrell Page Two January 29 , 1988 response to the State ' s request for a memorandum of understanding , with a few minor historical additions , • appears to me to be good . Very truly yours , 'offre -dhill 3 • . � GEG/lsg Enclosure xc: Marvin Collins C a 1 M v g o i a g c x i IN 8 • 3 3 1 1 1 7 164 ( 1 ) Section IV-B-3-c-8 (Access Restrictions) ( 2) Section IV-B-3-d ( Private Road Standards) (3 ) Section I V ( References to Land, Uss _EJ n ) AGENDA ITEM #9 PLANNING BOARD ITEMS c. Memo of Understanding--Eno River State Park Presentation by Gene Bell . This item is to consider a proposed letter of support relative to current and proposed planning and zoning policies concerning the Eno River State Park. Discussion last summer with personnel from the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreations ( NCDPR) relative to the proposed Durham-Hillsborough water line and potential impacts on Eno River State Park highlighted the need for greater coordination of State and local planning efforts. The State proposed a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) to address such concerns and provided a copy of such an agreement with the City of Raleigh. The MOU with Raleigh dealt with Umstead State Park and City annexation and zoning plans. A proposed MOU between Orange County and NCDPR was discussed at Planning Board meetings on September 21 and October 13, 1987 . A recommendation that the County begin discussions with NCDPR along with a draft MOU was forwarded to the Commissioners for consideration at their meeting on October 20, 1987 . At that meeting, the County Commissioners directed the Administrative Staff to meet with Commissioner Hartwell before discussions were initiated with NCDPR. On January 12, 1988 a meeting was held to discuss the draft MOU . The meeting was attended by County Commissioner John Hartwell , County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill , Interim County Manager Albert Kittrell , and Planner Gene Bell . The net result of the meeting was concern that, in entering into the MOU pro- posal , the County could be contracting away its legislative authority. Since greater coordination of planning efforts between NCDPR and the County was the original intent of the MOU, it was the general consensus of those at the meeting that a L_✓F I M 8 165 letter of support from the County Commissioners relative to current and proposed planning and zoning policies concerning Eno River State Park would suffice. Bell was instructed to draft such a letter for consideration by the Board of Commissioners. Subsequent to the January 12 meeting, the County Attorney provided additional informa- tion concerning previous action by Orange County in the form of a policy statement on the Eno River. The 1976 policy statement and supporting documentation is provided for the Board ' s information. The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board endorse the letter of support. (A copy of this letter is attached to these minutes) . The Planning Board ' s recommendation will be presented to the Board of Commissioners at its February 16 , 1988 meeting. Jacobs expressed concern that the word committed did not appear in the letter and noted that he felt the memo of understanding was more of a commitment of the County than the proposed letter of support. Best asked about the comments from the County Attorney relating to the "contracting away of legislative authority". Collins responded that the word "will " contained in the memo of understanding constitutes a contract. He continued that this would then be contract zoning. Bell indicated that he is in agreement with the results from the meeting that the County is doing everything asked for by the State and that the letter reaffirms that opinion. He noted the reference in the letter to Planning Department providing County documents with those sections highlighted relating to Eno River State Park. Jacobs asked what is meant by rezoning of the Park to Public Interest District. Bell responded that in the Land Use Plan parks are classified as a Public Interest Districts and noted that the zoning for such a district is very restrictive ( 500,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) for a residential structure. Thus, such districts would be basically kept as parks, open space, etc. Jacobs noted that the MOU was more specific in transition uses and uses in the watershed. C7 -01 IA\ 7 Bell responded that the reference to watershed was not a necessity since it is not a water supply watershed at this time. He noted that the Land Use Plan addresses the progression of uses. Jacobs recommended that item #3 of the letter read as follows: The County respects the State' s desires to maintain low density, non- intensive land uses around the park ' s periphery. ]g County Ig committed to goals, policies, and land use designations in the adopted Orange County Land Use Plan consistent with these desires as is its application of zoning in the area; MOTION: Pilkey moved recommendation of the letter of support with the amendment suggested by Jacobs. Seconded by Taylor. VOTE: Unanimous. D February 17 , 1988 Dr. William W. Davis, Director State Division of Parks 8 Recreation P. 0. Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 -7687 Dear Dr. Davis: The Orange County Board of Commissioners discussed a proposed memorandum of understanding on October 20, 1987 . In a follow-up meeting of County staff on January 12, 1988 , the County Attorney expressed concerns about entering into a memorandum of understanding based on the Raleigh example. In lieu of such a memorandum and the additional time required to produce one, the County Commissioners have elected to send this letter which highlights the County ' s position relative to Eno River State Park as follows: ( 1 ) The Orange County Board of Commissioners, on May 18, 1976 , adopted a Policy Statement on the Eno River in response to a Task Force report dated March 13 , 1976. Since then, the County has updated that policy statement in the form of its Comprehensive Land Use Plan. (2) The Orange County Commissioners are knowledgeable of the 1979 Maste Piaj fQL Eno River State Park and will consult it as appropriate in land use decisions and recommendations having a potential impact on the park; (3) The County respects the State' s desires to maintain low density, non- intensive land uses around the park ' s periphery. Goals, policies, and land use designations in the adopted Orange County Land Use. Peril are consistent with these desires as is the County' s application of zoning In the area ; (4) Consistent with the State' s desires, the County would be willing to consider a petition from the State for rezoning of Eno River State Park lands to Public Interest District; 168 Dr. William W. Davis, Director February 17 , 1988 Page 2 ( 5) The County is currently preparing to update the Land Use Plan for Eno Township. As indicated in the attached work plan, the participation of the State in the planning process is welcomed and strongly encouraged ; (6 ) In accord with current policy, the County will continue to notify the State of adjacent develop- ment proposals, rezoning requests, or Land Use Plan amendments and solicit State comment relative to such activities; and (7 ) Concurrent with this letter, the Planning Depart- ment is directed to provide the State with copies of the 1976 Policy Statement, Task Force Report ( May, 1976) , and the Or nas County Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance with those sections and provisions relating to Eno River State Park highlighted. The County Commissioners trust that the foregoing addresses the State' s main concerns and indicates a commit- ment on our part to coordinated and cooperative planning. Sincerely, Shirley E. Marshall , Chair Orange County Commissioners 169 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Ag Ala Item No. f ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 16, 1988 SUBJECT: DISPUTE SETTLEMENT CENTER FUNDING REQUEST DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 NONE TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Consideration of Dispute Settlement Center Request for additional funding. BACKGROUND: Dispute Settlement Center requested funds for a new project (Community Penalties Program) , sponsored in the General Assembly by Representatives Joe Hackney and Anne Barnes, during the 1987-88 Budget deliberation. Although the new initiative was not funded, Dispute Settlement Center did receive a County allocation and Board suggested the Center request funds for the community penalties program at mid year. The Dispute Settlement Center requests $1,500. The program is one which diverts non-violent prison bound offenders from prison into a program of restitution and rehabilitation. The state provides 90% of the grant money with 10% coming from local match. To date, the Community Penalties Program has received the follow match money in this judicial district: $1, 000 Town of Carrboro 500 Siler City 500 Chatham County $2, 000 Total A representative from the program will present additional program information. RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. 170 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A n Item No.(j I ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 16, 1988 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF AIRPORT PLANNING/ENGINEERING CONTRACT; AUTHORIZATION FOR CHAIR TO SIGN FUNDING APPLICATION DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider approving a contract for Airport Planning and Engineering services; and to consider authorizing the Chair to the Board to sign the applications for funding to the N. C. Department of Transportation, Aviation Division and to the Federal Aeronautics Administration. BACKGROUND: When submitting applications for funding from the State or FAA it is necessary to base the request on as many actual costs as possible, in order to minimize amendments in the future. For this reason proposals were sought and an agreement, contingent upon funding, was negotiated between the County and a Planning/Engineering firm whose duties include, but are not limited to such tasks as environmental assessments, site selection, airport layout, noise impact studies, airspace requirements and facility requirements. The attached proposed contract details the entire scope of work. Proposals were solicited from fourteen firms with nine responses. A selection team, consisting of Airport task force members and County staff reviewed information and selected five firms from which to hear presentations. Upon completion of the presentations, all firms were rated and negotiations of cost began with the top-rated firm. As a result, a contract was drafted, contingent upon funding, and is before the Board for approval. Meetings have been included in the contract with a per unit cost. Although the full compliment of meetings have been included in the contract amount, at the County's discretion the schedule may be adjusted and the amount reduced accordingly. It is also requested that the Chair to the Board be authorized to sign applications to the State of North Carolina and to x 171 FAA. Tom McDowell, Management Consultant, has filed with the State in order to meet the February 15 deadline, but the application will become valid only upon the signature of the Chair. FAA application will be filed within the month. The County can expect a funding-decision from the State by May 1, 1988. There is a possibility we may also receive notifi- cation from FAA by June 30, 1988, but positively prior to December 31, 1988. The fact that FAA is expressing any interest in funding the Planning phase of our project is an unexpected bonus. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve Planning/Engineering contract with Wilbur Smith and Associates, contingent upon approval of contracts by State and FAA and upon funding by State, Federal and local sources; and authorize the Chair to sign funding applications for the plan- ning phase of the Orange County Airport project, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Aviation Division a total of $45,787.50 for Phase I; and Federal Aeronautics Administration a total of $136. 044. 172 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A�d Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 16, 1988 SUBJECT: SUBSCRIPTION AND FEE SCHEDULE FOR COMPUTER ACCESS TO LAND RECORDS SYSTEM DEPARTMENT: CENTRAL LAND RECORDS PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:ROSCOE REEVE LAND RECORDS, X547 PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Consideration of a subscription and fee schedule for allowing telephone access to the Land Records System by private firms and individuals. BACKGROUND: One of the payoffs of the land records system is to allow private individuals and firms who need land information on a regular basis to use their own computer and modem to call the County on a telephone and access the system. The County has determined that this can be done, while maintaining system security, and that this will reduce office demand for CRT's at County offices. The fee's are required to pay for that equip- ment and services necessary to provide access, and to maintain and expand access capabilities. Land Records and Data Processing have been testing the new access for two months, with outside users. The system works well, and is ready to be implemented on a fee basis. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve the subscription and fee schedule for access to the land records system by outside private firms and individuals. 1 173 PROPOSED COMPUTER ACCESS SUBSCRIPTION AND FEE SCHEDULE: 1 . Subscription Fee = $200 . 00 To be paid one time only at the time service is to begin, and payable over two months . 2 . Access Fees : Minutes 0 thru 5 - $1 . 00 Minutes 6 thru 8 = $ . 50 (each minute) Minutes 9 and up = $1 . 00 (each minute) Note : Subscription Fee . A subscription fee is imposed to recover the cost of equipment and service to provide outside computer access : Modem(s) Telephone Lines Computer Ports As access membership grows , subscription fees will be used to add additional lines and ports to keep user service efficient and reliable . Option: The Board of Commissioners could make this a "start-up" offer, and set subscription at $300 . 00 for those applying after March 15, 1988 . Note : Access Fee ' s . Access fee ' s will also provide for efficient line service, and the annual cost of port access . Sufficient fee income will provide additional lines so that access is more reliable. Probably no more than 6 to 8 active users should be on one line . Scope of Service: Access is allowed to all paying subscription fee, and paying their monthly user bill timely. Service is offered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. All users will be identified by personal accounts , and will be responsible for anyone using their accounts . Billing will occur in the first week of each calendar month, with payment due by the 15th of each month, or closest working day. 174 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action And4 Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 16, 1988 . 4 SUBJECT: Board of Equalization and Review DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes No Assessor's Office ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Kermit Lloyd NONE TELEPHONE NUMBER: Ext. 410 Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill -- 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider whether the Board of County Commissioners will sit as the Board of Equalization and Review or appoint a separate Board of Equalization and Review. BACKGROUND: GS 105-322(a) Personnel - Except as otherwise provided herein, the board of equalization and review of each county shall be composed of the members of the board of county commissioners. Upon the adoption of a resolution so providing, the board of commissioners is authorized to appoint a special board of equalization and review to carry out the duties imposed under this section. The resolution shall provide for the membership, qualifications, terms of office and the filling of vacancies on the board. The board of commissioners shall be adopted not later than the first Monday in March of the year for which it is to be effective and shall continue in effect until reviewed or rescinded. It shall be entered in the minutes of the meeting of the board of commissioners and a copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Department of Revenue within 15 days after its adoption. At this time a projected caseload is unknown. RECOMMENDATION(S): As Board decides. • ORANGE COUNTY 175 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A nda Item No. jIS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 16, 1988 SUBJECT: EFLAND SEWER BILLING AND COLLECTION AGREEMENT DEPARTMENT: FINANCE PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: FINANCE, KEN CHAVIOUS, X496 PROPOSED AGREEMENT (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Consideration agreement with Orange-Alamance Water System, Inc. for the billing and collection of accounts established for the Efland Sewer System. BACKGROUND: Orange-Alamance officials have met with County management representatives on several occasions to discuss billings and collections for the Efland Sewer system. The proposed agree- ment is a result of those meetings. The agreement has been approved by the Orange-Alamance Board. Certain deviations from the Efland Sewer Rules and Regula- tions, adopted by the Board in 1985, are contained in the proposed agreement. Technical amendments to the rules and regulations will be necessary in order to make them consistent with the agreement. The agreement has been reviewed and approved as to legal form by the County Attorney. Amendments to the rules and regulations necessary to accommodate the billing and collection contract will be presented to the Board. The operating budget for the Efland Sewer system contains $25, 000. 00. Of this amount $5, 383 . 00 is projected for maintenance costs. The remaining funds will be more than sufficient to cover the costs associated with this agreement. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve the proposed agreement and authorize Chair to sign. 176 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A w Item No. 6/ ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 16, 1988 SUBJECT: PROS AND CONS OF OWASA BECOMING MORE INVOLVED IN THE OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: SHIRL MARSHALL, X505 NONE TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 BACKGROUND: OWASA requested that Orange County convene a group to study the pros and cons of OWASA becoming more involved in the ownership and operation of small community systems. The Board agreed to do so if OWASA would provide the technical assis- tance. Mayors Howes, Kinnaird and I have discussed the issue and feel that this is, finally, a decision that belongs with the OWASA Board. We suggest that the technical administrators meet with the Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County Planning Board Chairs and Planning Directors to define the pros as well as the cons and to make recommendations back to the Water Subcom- mittee of the newly proposed General Assembly of Orange County elected officials if approved and constituted. Otherwise, the report should be to the several jurisdictions. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve. 177 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agen BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE February 16, 1988 Subject: APPOINTMENTS I Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 Public Hearing: Yes % no 1 l Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under Separate Cover Phone lumbers: 732-8181, 968-1+501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards. The following vacancies are announced for the first time. A-11 PERSONNEL ADVISORY BOARD - 3 vacancies (expiration of terms for A. Carol Cantrell , George Prillaman and J . L. Peace) A-13 RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL - 3 vacancies (expiration of terms for Virginia Boland, James Dingfelder and Lorraine Parker) B-6 HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY BOARD - 6 vacancies. B-10 NURSING HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - 1 vacancy (expiration of term for Carol S. Weissert) B-20 HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION - 1 vacancy (resignation of Joe Straley) B-25 CITIZENS ADVISORY GROUP - no resumes have been received. B-27 HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION BOARD - 4 vacancies; 2 resumes have been received. The following vacancies are announced together with the indication of the status of . securing candidates for consideration of appointment . A-5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - 4 vacancies. B-4 COUNTY ADVISORY BOARD ON AGING - 1 vacancy. B-7 HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION -4 vacancies (2 expiration of terms and 2 resignations. B-14 ARTS COMMISSION - 6 vacancies. C-2 CARRBORO PLANNING BOARD - 1 vacancy. C-6 HILLSBOROUGH PLANNING BOARD - 1 vacancy. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. 4�Q� `1.4 iA i r Darhai-C' 1 '1 Hill-Carrboro Urban Area 1985 - 2010 Transportation Study REPORT #2 : ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Prepared b Transportation Study Group of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area Technical Coordinating Committee With the assistance of the North Carolina Department of Transportation Planning and Research Branch Statewide Planning Group TABLE OF CONTENTS: CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 II. STUDY PROCESS 2.1 III. TRAVEL FORECASTING METHODOLOGY 3.1 IV. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 4.1 V. RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 APPENDIX OF TABLES AND FIGURES NUMBER SYSTEM-WIDE PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS TABLE 4.1 RECOMMENDED THOROUGHFARE PLAN (DCHC AREA) FIGURE 5.1 RECOMMENDED THOROUGHFARE PLAN (SOUTHWEST) FIGURE 5.2 RECOMMENDED THOROUGHFARE PLAN (SOUTHEAST) FIGURE 5.3 RECOMMENDED THOROUGHFARE PLAN (NORTHEAST) FIGURE 5.4 RECOMMENDED THOROUGHFARE PLAN (NORTHWEST) FIGURE 5.5 I. INTRODUCTION Purpose This report is the second in a series of three reports designed to document the . first consolidated Thoroughfare Plan for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Urban Area. The previous report covered the subject area: Analysis of Projec- tions. Deficiencies, and Needs. The purpose of this report is to present a recommended Thoroughfare Plan and an analysis of alternatives. The report also outlines the process and a probable timetable for the adoption of the Thoroughfare Plan; including the process to be followed to obtain input from elected governing bodies and individual citizens in the urban area. Another purpose of this report is to present some background material on the principles of thoroughfare planning, the relationship between growth and transportation needs, and the objectives of a thoroughfare plan. These topics are more fully discussed in Report #1 mentioned earlier. The ultimate aim of this report along with the third and final report in this series is to provide specific recommendations for improving and guiding the development of the area's transportation system to --- and beyond --- the year 2010. This report begins with a summary of the process and methodology that was used to develop the recommended plan. Considerable detail is given to examining the existing transportation system in its ability to handle both existing and projected travel. The previous thoroughfare plans are examined as to their capability to handle 2000 and 2010 travel projections along with the problems associated with the plans. Since the new Thoroughfare Plan encompasses Durham, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and major portions of Durham & Orange Counties, it includes areas that none of the previous thoroughfare plans covered. Because of this some parts of the urban area do not have any planned thoroughfares. 'One. of the more critical examples is the area between Durham and Chapel Hill in the vicinity of the 1-40 corridor. The recommended plan attempts to provide transportation plans for those areas which previously had no plan. Included in the development of the recommendations presented in this report are the projected impact that public transportation, ridesharing, and bicycling may have in deferring highway improvements. Considerable efforts were spent seeking citizen participation in the planning process. Numerous meetings were held with neighborhoods, various planning committees, and the local policy boards in the area. Information gathered from all of these sources was used in development of the recommended plan. 1.1 • History of Planning in Area The current thoroughfare study is the first transportation planning effort to consider the needs for Durham, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro, and the surrounding areas in one comprehensive plan. Prior to this study, three major transportation plans have been prepared for Durham, and two for Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Durham's first plan was completed in 1959. The second thoroughfare planning study was undertaken by a consultant, Harlan Bartholomew and Associates. It was adopted in 1967. The third transportation planning study was prepared by NCDOT under the auspices of the TAC and TCC. This plan was adopted in 1980. Some revisions to the 1980 plan were mutually approved in 1985. The thoroughfare planning process began in Chapel Hill and Carrboro in the early 1960's. A plan was adopted in 1965 and revised in 1968. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to update that plan, in 1979, the two Towns entered into an agreement with NCDOT to take the lead in developing an updated thoroughfare plan for the community. This effort was concluded by the mutual adoption of a new thoroughfare plan in 1984. Objectives of a Thoroughfare Plan Thoroughfare planning is the process public officials use to assure the develop- ment of the most appropriate street system that will meet existing and future . travel desires within the urban area. The primary aim of a thoroughfare plan is to guide the development of the urban street and highway system in a manner consistent with changing traffic demands. Through proper planning for street development, many costly errors and much needless expense can be averted. A thoroughfare plan will enable street improvements to be made as traffic demands increase, and help eliminate unnecessary improvements. A thoroughfare plan is a public document which helps guide citizens in choosing a home and businesses in selecting a site. The thoroughfare plan also aids state and local officials, serving as a guide when making requirements of developers in critical transportation areas. The plan can be used as a guide for advance right-of-way dedications and reservations, which translate into saved public monies and faster implementation schedules. By developing the urban street system to keep pace with increasing traffic demands, a maximum utilization of the system can be attained that will require a minimum amount of land for street purposes and minimize future impacts on development. Also, with an approved thoroughfare plan in hand, plans for acquiring monies (CIP & TIP) can be set into motion well in advance of actual construction. 1.2 • Long range road planning allows for identification of social and environmental concerns long before construction. The development of a thoroughfare plan helps to define neighborhoods by protecting them from "cut through" traffic on minor streets caused by drivers seeking to avoid congestion on major arterials. By increasing the traffic-moving efficiency of these arterials, traffic can be "siphoned" from inappropriate neighborhood streets. If properly implemented, this can have a very positive impact on reinforcing neighborhoods' integrity --- a well-acknowledged top priority in every community. What a thoroughfare plan is: A thoroughfare plan is an advance planning document delineating the type and general location of needed road facilities. ft is a plan for a system of intercon- nected roadways designed to serve in a proper functional hierchy, not unlike that of a tree, whose trunk divides into successively smaller branches. Designation of a road as a major thoroughfare involves an assessment of its importance to the area's road system. This assessment takes into consideration a road's length, continuity, and proximity to other roads serving similar trip movements. Existing and projected traffic volumes are only two of several considerations involved. All major thoroughfares are not highways; however, their capability to move traffic efficiently is deemed important to the overall system. The Thoroughfare Plan's calculated interrelationship is delicate. Any change to parts of the system may disrupt the entire system through a ripple effect as trips redistribute to other roads. To be effective, the Thoroughfare Plan must contain a proper balance of different types of major and minor thoroughfares. By serving as a guide for the orderly and systematic development of an ultimate street and highway network, the Thoroughfare Plan can be one of the best means of shaping the area's urban framework in the desired manner. What a thoroughfare plan is not: A thoroughfare plan is. not an accumulation of detailed designs accurate enough for the buying and reserving of rights-of-way. The thoroughfare plan is, however, a guide used for preparing functional designs which can be used for delineating future rights-of-way. A common misconception is that construction of thorough- fares is imminent. Proposed thoroughfares will not be built immediately, but normally over 20-25 years and will never be built if not needed. The thoroughfare - plan is not used As the basis for a land use plan but rather is based on a land • use plan. Lastly, a thoroughfare plan does not assume drastic changes in travel habits, but rather assumes a continuation of current patterns (e.g., modal split. frequency, vehicle occupancy ratio, purpose, and gas availability). 1.3 40 U. S'T'UDY PROCESS The current report has been developed as a joint effort of the staffs of NCDOT and the five local jurisdictions in the urban area within the framework of the Technical Coordination Committee (TCC). The Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) has provided input and direction to the process by reviewing land use and population data collection efforts and future projections, forecasts of travel demand, and the deficiency analysis. The area included in this study covers most of Durham and Orange Counties and portions of Chatham and Wake Counties. The Research Triangle Park and Raleigh- Durham Airport are included in this large area. The study area extends well beyond the boundaries of the Urban Area in order to include areas of future growth. The study began in 1985 with the collection of information regarding housing, employment, land use, traffic volumes, and modal splits. This information was used to develop a computer model which simulates the existing traffic on the existing street system. Once the model was calibrated to closely match these traffic patterns, projections of future population and employment were applied to the model to generate future traffic volumes. Projections for 2000 and 2010 were made as target dates for this study. The resulting travel forecasts for 1985. 2000 and 2010 were then assigned to the area's existing thoroughfare system (including committed improvements which are currently under construction or programmed such as; I-40, Durham Freeway, widening on 1-85 and Chapel Hill Bypass, etc.). The deficiencies of this "Existing plus Committed" (E+C) network were assessed by identifying facilities with insufficient capacity to carry expected traffic volumes. Assuming full implementation, the currently adopted individual thoroughfare plans for Durham and Chapel Hill- Carrboro were similarly analyzed. The findings of these analyses were documented in Report #1 which was presented at a joint meeting of the governing bodies of the jurisdictions within the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area on April 2, 1987. Following the meeting, members of the thoroughfare study staff met with each elected body individually to answer questions and receive comments on the deficiency analysis at regularly scheduled meetings of the various elected boards in April. During September, 1987, the study group held three public information meetings and a informal drop-in session to present these findings to interested citizens and receive comments (discussed in Chapter 4). After considering citizens' ideas and concerns, the study team analyzed several permutations of candidate thoroughfare plans, all of which used the existing plans for Durham and Chapel Hill-Carrboro as a framework from which to expand or alter. These plans were analyzed with regard to social and environmental impacts, 2.1 probable cost, potential impact of transit and paratransit utilization, and stated growth management goals of the various local governments. Based on these ana- lyses, the study team formulated a recommended Thoroughfare Plan for presentation to the to the elected policy boards on January 28, 1988. After the recommended Plan has been presented to the boards and comments received, a series of public hearings will be held throughout the planning area between February and May. In order to keep the hearings manageable, assure that there is ample opportunity for public input, and focus each hearing on concerns in one general area, the planning area will be divided into four quadrants and one or more public hearings will be held in each quadrant. If some areas move forward in the process faster than others, the plans for each quadrant could be adopted separately if necessary. The four areas are: (1) SOUTHWEST - This area includes Chapel Hill, Carrboro, southwest Durham, southern Orange and northern Chatham Counties. (2) SOUTHEAST - This area encompasses southeast Durham including the Research Triangle Park and the Raleigh-Durham Airport area. (3) NORTHEAST - This area includes northeast Durham, Treyburn, and the Little River, Lake Michie, and Falls of the Neuse watersheds. (4) NORTHWEST - This area encompasses northwest Durham and central Orange County including the Eno River Parks and Hillsborough. One or more public hearings will be held in each area to present the recommended plan and receive citizen input. Comments from citizens and the various governing boards will then be reviewed and alternatives and their impacts evaluated. If no major problems are identified during the public hearing process, a final recommended Thoroughfare Plan will then be presented to the governing boards for adoption sometime in June. ' Depending on the comments and perceived problems, the final recommended Thoroughfare Plan for each quadrant may be submitted for adoption separately. If separate adoption is necessary, the study team recommends that this be done in the order listed above, since this is the order of urgency for having an adopted plan to guide imminent development. The purpose of adopting the . plan in segments, if necessary, is twofold. One reason is a compelling need to have an adopted plan in areas under active development where we do not currently have one, most notably the I-40 corridor and the RTP/Airport area. The second reason is to avoid the possibility of having adoption of the entire plan held up by controversy on one particular proposed facility. It is recognized that adoption of the plans for the quadrants separately is only possible if the controversial facility or its potential replacement do not cross quadrant boundaries. After all segments of the plan are adopted on the local level, the entire plan will be submitted to the N.C. Board of Transportation for approval. 2.2 III. TRAVEL FORECASTING METHODOLOGY An important aid in developing a good thoroughfare plan is a set of carefully developed travel forecasting models which provide reliable traffic data for consideration while analyzing, various roadway system scenarios. The models for this study are the largest and most complex ever developed in North Carolina. The first step in developing travel forecasting models is to define a study area and to partition it into smaller districts which are further divided into individual into traffic. analysis zones within which land uses are relatively homogeneous (e.g., containing only commercial uses or only residential uses, as much as practicable). Due to modelling idiosyncrasies (specifically that each zone can have a maximum of four connection points to the computer simulation network), zone boundaries are also defined such that each zone's traffic impacts are isolated to as few roads as possible. In the DCHC Study, the planning area is comprised of 600 internal zones and 45 external cordon stations (representing roadways at the study boundary). The next step is the collection of housing and employment data. Data collectors surveyed residential areas and classified them as to their propensity to produce auto-driver trips (i.e., above average size dwelling units, with more residents who drive automobiles, tend to produce more trips than below average dwelling units). The collectors surveyed businesses as to number of employees (present and projected). Businesses were also assigned trip attraction rates. These rates were assigned via of a coding system developed on a nationwide basis (Standard Industrial Classification Code). For example, a manufacturing plant might employ 100 people and attract 20 people per day that are not employees, on the other hand, a shopping center might employ the same number of people but attract 1000 people. Thus, their trip attraction rates are distinctly different. The Statewide Planning Group of NCDOT provides technical assistance to the DCHC Urban Area transportation planning effort by developing and operating travel forecasting models for the study area. The models are based on a battery of mainframe computer procedures made available by the Federal Highway Administra- tion. The travel forecasting models are comprised of three major parts: trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment. The trip generation model provides an estimate of the number of trips produced and attracted by each zone in the study area. Trips are described in terms of Productions and Attractions. Three categories of trips are used: (1) Internal- Internal trips (trips within the study area), (2) External-Internal trips (trips from outside the study area into the study area), (3) External-External trips (trips that travel through the study area but do not stop). 3.1 The trip distribution model is referred to as the Gravity model because it distributes trips between zones in manner analogous to Newton's Law of Gravity, • i.e., the number of trips between any two zones is directly related to the size (in number of trips) of each and inversely related to the distance between them. The result of the trip distribution phase is a trip table which includes numbers of vehicle trips between all 645 zones and stations for each of three internal trip purposes (Home-based Work, Other Home-Based, and Non-Home-Based) and two external trip purposes (External-Internal and Through). The trip assignment model assigns the trips from the gravity model to the street and highway simulation network, which is comprised of 3000 individual links for which speed, distance, capacity, and other significant characteristics are identified. Minimum time paths are calculated for all of over 415,000 possible combinations of zones and stations. Although a variety of assignment techniques are possible, the most efficient method loads all zone-to-zone traffic on the minimum time paths, thereby reflecting where traffic would likely go if congestion were not a consideration. Automated capacity-restrained assignment techniques, while more accurate, are very difficult --- requiring all 415,000 time paths to be recalculated several times, as traffic is diverted from preferred routes to less-preferred routes. Manual traffic reassignment techniques efficiently address the shortcomings associated with the model's enormity in those few areas (such as Chapel Hill/Carrboro's Town Center and near Duke Medical Center) where non- capacity restrained techniques are problematic, though raw model output must be adjusted before comparison to actual traffic. By calibrating the model's synthesized traffic patterns to actual 1985 traffic, various parameters of the model are adjusted until predictive accuracy is within plus or minus ten percent. The corresponding land use data for the design years (2000 and 2010) are then similarly transferred into the model to arrive at projected travel patterns and volumes on various networks. Networks tested with 1985, 2000, and 2010 traffic include; the Existing Plus Committed (E+C, the existing road system plus projects currently programmed for construction), the currently adopted thoroughfare plans (as fully implemented), and the adopted plans plus potentially beneficial improvements. The resulting deficiency analyses of the E+C and Adopted Plan networks were discussed in Report #1. In the latter alternative networks, each area of deficiency in the adopted plan network was analyzed individually to determine what new or improved facility would reduce or eliminate the anticipated traffic problems. -The alignment for each new or improved facility was analyzed to determine environmental and social impacts, physical constraints and costs. Also, the potential impact of demand reduction strategies such as alternative modes of transportation was considered. These alternatives are discussed in Chapter 4. 3.2 IV. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1: Existing Plus Committed System The first alternative to be analyzed was the network of the existing street system plus all programmed projects. The programmed projects are included either in the 1988-1996 Transportation Improvement Program of the North Carolina Department of Transportation or in the Capital Improvement Programs of the local governments within the Urban Area. When projected 2000 and 2010 traffic demands were loaded on the Existing Plus Committed (E+C) system, capacity deficiencies were found for the entire area. Report *1 presents a detailed discussion of the deficiencies projected for 2000 and 2010. Figure 5.1 (Report *1) shows graphically the deficiencies of the E+C system. Alternative 2: Existing Plus Adopted Thoroughfare Plans The adopted Thoroughfare Plans for Durham and for Chapel Hill-Carrboro were analyzed by testing how well the totally implemented plans would handle the projected traffic volumes. The roads with existing or projected capacity deficiencies are discussed in Report *1's Chapter 5. When projected Year 2000 and 2010 vehicle trips demands were loaded onto these networks, it was found that the current adopted plans are generally adequate with some modifications. However, the areas outside of the plans, such as the area between Durham and Chapel Hill, the area north of the Eno River, the area along the I-40 corridor from the Research Triangle Park to Hillsborough, and the areas south and west of Chapel Hill and Carrboro were not included in the current plans, but have been areas of rapid growth in the last few years. The roads in these areas were found to have serious capacity deficiencies, both at present and in the future. The two-lane rural roads outside of the cities are serving as major radial arterial routes and are already carrying traffic volumes in excess of previous year 2000 projections. Many of these roads are already over capacity and will become critically deficient as growth in the Triangle continues. Though many of these areas were primarily farm land or forest when previous thoroughfare plans were designed, some are experiencing rapid urbanization. When subdivisions, shopping centers, industries, and office parks replaced tobacco fields and low density rural development, some of these roads quickly became overloaded, congested, unsafe, and undesirable. 4.1 Though the construction of I-40 provides a much-improved highway system for southwest Durham, Chapel Hill and Carrboro, some problems are expected. Since that freeway has relatively few interchanges to serve large areas along its length, access at those few points is anticipated to become increasingly congested with time. Though additional access points are projected to be necessary, every interchange along the I-40 corridor may be the subject of intense development pressure for many years in the future, particularly proposed ones serving presently rural areas. Adjustments To The Adapted mare Plans1 Several of the thoroughfares included in Durham's 1980 Thoroughfare Plan and the 1984 Chapel Hill-Carrboro Plan have had minor adjustments in alignment in response to changes in land use, environmental or social concerns, or to accommo- date development in a more efficient manner. These revisions in the adopted plans include: South Roxboro Street Extension - through Hope Valley Farms Southern Parkway - NC 55 to Alexander Drive Obie Drive - Removed from plan Briggs Avenue Extension - section south of Ellis Road removed from plan Cornwallis-Lynn Connector - Riddle Rd. to US 70 Eno Drive - NC 98 to US 70 , and Hillandale Rd. to 1-85 Lynn Road - NC 98 to Cheek Rd. Alston Avenue Extension - I-85 to Old Oxford Highway Camden Avenue - removed from plan • Carver Street Extension - Roxboro Street to Old Oxford Highway NC 54-Homestead Road Connector - removed from plan and replaced by Bethel Hickory Grove Church Rd.-Eubanks Rd. Connector. 1 The revisions are described in the Recommended Plan section of this report. 4.2 Laurel Hill Parkway Realignment - North of NC 54 removal of Pope Road Extension Northern Chatham Loop - shifted from Lystra Road to Jack Bennett Road Farrington Road - reduce to minor thoroughfare near I-40 and NC 54 Whitfield Road Eubanks Road Based on the analysis of the deficiencies of the adopted thoroughfare plans and the existing road network, it was determined that a system of new and improved roads would be necessary to accommodate traffic demands outside of the existing plans. Alternative 3: Existing Adopted Thoroughfare Plans Plus Proposed New and Improved Facilities Alternative plans for roads in the areas outside of the existing adopted thorough- fare plans were developed by the transportation planning staffs of the municipali- ties and counties in the Urban Area and the staff of the Statewide Planning Group of North Carolina Department of Transportation. Improvements to existing roads, connecting links between existing roads creating more efficient routes, and new routes providing more direct access between origins and destinations were formulated for possible inclusion in the Recommended Plan. The projected 2000 and 2010 traffic was then loaded on the alternative road systems to pinpoint deficien- cies. After analyzing each proposals' strengths and weaknesses with regard to positive . and negative impacts, the recommended set of proposed improvements was assembled for systematic testing. These recommended improvements are described in Chapter 5. Comparison of system-wide performance characteristics for these alternatives are given in Table 4.1. 4.3 TABLE 4.1 SYSTEM-WIDE PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS YEAR (TRIP TABLE #) : 1985 (J9) 2000 fD2) 2010 (D2). TOTAL TRIPS ASSIGNED (VPD) : 824,671 1,769,879 2,382,374 AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH (MINUTES) : 10.28 9.95 10.01 ALT. 1: 1987 E+C SYSTEM DAILY VEHICLE-MILES OF TRAVEL: 4,173,026 9,812,583 13,629,847 DAILY VEHICLE-HOURS OF TRAVEL: 110,053 258,482 358,049 AVERAGE OVERALL SYSTEM SPEED: 37.92 37.96 38.07 ALT. 2: 1987 ADOPTED PLANS, DAILY VEHICLE-MILES OF TRAVEL: 4,155,603 9,616,391 13,318,053 DAILY VEHICLE-HOURS OF TRAVEL: 107,835 247,709 341 ,998 AVERAGE OVERALL SYSTEM SPEED: 38.54 38.82 38.94 ALT. 3: RECOMMENDED PLAN DAILY VEHICLE-MILES OF TRAVEL: 4,170,716 9,591,504 13,277,295 DAILY VEHICLE-HOURS OF TRAVEL: 106,954 238,801 327, 160 AVERAGE OVERALL SYSTEM SPEED: 39.00 40.17, 40.58 These statistics are based on minimum path assignments which do not take into account the effects of congestion (see- discussion on page 3.2). Reductions in the overall time and length of aggregate travel reflects effects of new thoroughfares on providing more direct routes for anticipated travel patterns. 4.4 a PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND RIDESHARING ALTERNATIVES The System-wide Impact Of Public Transportation and Ridesharing "If a relatively high percentage of persons choose public transportation for commuter and other trips, public transportation can help maintain acceptable levels of service on existing highways and their currently planned improvements. Properly operated and promoted, public transportation can forestall, but not eliminate, the long term need for new highway construction. Stated another way, public transportation can help stretch the value of our transportation dollar. "At present the average vehicle occupancy rate (VOR) in the morning rush hour on I-40 to the Research Triangle Park is a low 1.1 persons per vehicle. This translates to one person in addition to the driver in every tenth car. Highway corridors to major downtown employment centers often have a VOR of 1.3 or higher, especially when parking is restricted and travel costs for gasoline, parking, and tolls are expensive - "In order to reach higher rates of vehicle occupancy, the attraction of rideshar- ing must be increased relative to the single passenger automobile "In summary, if there can be significant increases in the use of carpools, vanpools, buses, then there can be sufficient impacts on congestion and the need to build highways. The success of public transportation, however, will depend not only on making it available, but also making it attractive with respect to cost, conve- nience, speed, and safety. There are challenging opportunities to the public and private sectors to use transportation and land use policies to influence public transportation and eventually the ways in which we live and travel." It is the opinion of the staff that, although public transportation can have the benefit of delaying the need to widen existing streets in certain congested areas where parking is at a premium, (such as around the U.N.C. Campus), it is unlikely that improved public transportation could eliminate the need for construction of new roads in the areas where the existing road network is insufficient or unsafe. It would be necessary for the local governments to make a major commitment of local funds to increase the level of public transportation services, along with significant increases in housing densities along transit corridors to result in a significant system-wide impact. The governments' commitment would have to be accompanied by a commitment by the citizenry to use public transportation or ridesharing modes on a daily basis. These major shifts in governmental priorities and individual lifestyles are speculative and, in fact, counter to recent trends. 2 TRAVEL IN THE TRIANGLE: CHOICES, Report #2, Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Study, pp. 5-7, March, 1987, Department of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University 4.5 Public Transportation Bus Service in Durham is provided by Duke Power Company. Around 6500 passengers ride the bus each day. The bus serves the major employers in the central city including Duke Medical Center, General Telephone, North Carolina Central Univer- sity, Liggett and Meyers, Durham County General Hospital, and Downtown Durham. Bus routes also serve the major shopping centers, and many residential areas. Although the level and area of service provided is limited, expansion of bus service in Durham is not anticipated in the foreseeable future. Chapel Hill Transit provides public transit services to the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The transit system carries approximately 11,000 passengers per day, accounting for 8 to 10 percent of all trips made in Chapel Hill. Transit ridership is anticipated to continue to have modest increases as Chapel Hill Transit increases service to newly developed areas. The anticipated development of a system of park and ride lots will also contribute to expanded ridership. Bus service provides a significant alternative to the private automobile in Carrboro and Chapel Hill. and results in a reduction in traffic volumes and parking demand around the Campus. Mode Split/Public Transportation: Trips by other travel modes represent a significant proportion of all trips taken in the Chapel Hill area. These trips represent those individuals that walk, ride bicycles, carpool or use some form of public transportation. A base percentage of all trips generated by land use type have been assigned to an alternate mode of transportation. In the base year, 1985, this assignment was determined by data collected from a variety of surveys and information included in the 1983 Thoroughfare Plan. Minimal increases in bike/walk mode split were used in the Year 2000 and 2010 projections. Because most new residential construction in Chapel Hill is currently anticipated to occur at the periphery of Town, there is less likelihood that significant numbers of these future residents will be able to walk or ride a bicycle to employment centers in the University/Town Center area. The percentage of individuals using pubic transportation was projected to increase in those areas anticipated to be developed in land use patterns and densities favoring public transit use. Because many individuals working in Chapel Hill will live elsewhere in the region and some of those living in the Town will work elsewhere, public transportation cannot be as effective as it might be in reducing overall traffic generation. 4.6 Ridesharing Ridesharing services for the Triangle Area are provided by the Tri-A-Ride Program of Triangle J Council of Governments. The program operates carpool matching through employers or individual requests. Tri-A-Ride provides a fleet of vans for vanpooling, and provides maintenance, insurance, driver training, and even free mileage to drivers who are agreeable to operate the vanpool. The goal of the Tri-A-Ride Program is to increase vehicle occupancy by making it easy for commuters to find persons with travel times and origins and destinations similar to their own. As mentioned earlier, increasing vehicle occupancy will have a major impact on reducing congestion of the street network. It is difficult to get people out of their cars and into carpools, vanpools, or buses, even when the service is convenient, inexpensive, and pleasant. Incentives to share the ride and disincentives to riding alone are a necessary part of any effective method to increase vehicle occupancy. One incentive under consideration is the construction of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes along I-40 between the Research Triangle Park and Raleigh. Bicycles Bicycling for commuting purposes is a significant alternative to the private automobile, especially in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area. An estimated 6-10% of the population of Chapel Hill and Carrboro commutes to work or school by bicycle on an average day. Facilities for bicycles must be taken into account when planning new roads or widening existing roads. Proper on-road facilities such as a bike lane or wide outside travel lane, as well as exclusive bike-pedestrian paths provide for safer bicycle travel, reducing bicycle-automobile conflicts and thereby increasing the capacity of roads for automobiles, and increasing the attractiveness of riding bicycles. Summary Increased use of other urban travel modes such as ridesharing, public transportation, bicycling and walking cannot eliminate the need for a improvements to the existing road network or new thoroughfares, but can defer the need to do so for many years. The primary goal of the Transportation Advisory Committee and local transportation professionals is to get the most efficient use out of our roads, whether through increasing vehicle occupancy, traffic operations improve- ments. construction of connections between existing roads to shorten travel distances, or use of staggered hours or flex-time to reduce travel demand during peak hours. When these efforts have been exhausted, widening of existing roads and building of new roads is necessary to reduce or eliminate the undesirable and hazardous effects of traffic congestion. The Thoroughfare Plan allows needed improvements to be protected until their implementation is deemed necessary. 4.7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN Several of the roads included in the Recommended Plan pass through areas which are environmentally sensitive. Care has been taken to minimize the impacts and to avoid areas of a particularly delicate nature. The Inventory of the Natural Areas and Rare Species of Durham County gives a description of the location and significance of sites which deserve and require protection. This inventory served as a guide in the development of alignments for the Thoroughfare Plan, and will be used extensively in the development of functional designs for routes. A detailed environmental assessment will be undertaken when the roads in the plan are designed. The eastern side of the Durham Outer Loop passes through the water critical area of the Falls Lake Reservoir. The alignment of this road has been kept as far to the west as possible without passing through heavily developed residential areas. North of NC 98, the proposed freeway passes through Little Lick Creek bottom- lands. North of I-85, this freeway passes near a diabase upland site, the habitat of Prairie Dock, a rare wild flower. The freeway then crosses the Eno River near the Red Mill Road bridge, and passes across wetland mitigation areas. Through the Treyburn development, the Outer Loop will pass south of the water critical area of the Little River Reservoir. The Penny's Bend section of the Eno River is the site of two rare species of wild flower, Wild Blue Indigo and Hoary Puccoon. Old Oxford Highway will need to be widened in this area, but the route will be carefully designed to avoid disturbing this habitat. These rare species are also found at Catsburg, the intersection of Old Oxford and Hamlin Road. Alston Avenue Extension will tie into Old Oxford here, so care must be taken in designing the new facility. The land along the Eno River is unique in pristine quality and variety of plant species. All routes which cross or pass near the river will be designed to minimize disruption of natural areas and control run-off. For instance, the alignment of Eno Drive near Sparger Road as shown on the 1980 Thoroughfare Plan was revised to stay as far from the river as possible to avoid adverse impacts. Between the City of Durham and the Town of Chapel Hill is New Hope Creek. There has been considerable concern over the impacts of new development on the creek. In southwest Durham County, the creek empties into Jordan Lake, a recent impoundment for flood control and a likely future water supply. The Lake is a popular recreation area and is the home of several rare bird species, including the bald eagle. No new thoroughfares are recommended which cross New Hope Creek or Jordan Lake, although some widening of existing crossings is recom- mended. It is anticipated that traffic between the cities will continue to increase, putting greater demands on the existing roads. 4.8 The level of protection of the University Lake watershed area has been a controv- ersial topic of discussion in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The new connection between Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road and Eubanks Road eliminates the need for the connection between Hatch Road and the Homestead Road extension near Calvander west of Carrboro. This Hatch Road connection would have crossed the University Lake Watershed. Although the new connection also crosses the wat- ershed area, it is approximately 1.5 miles further away from the lake, reducing the impact to the watershed. In addition, by drawing traffic away from NC 54, which is closer to University Lake.than either new road, the impact to University Lake will . be reduced. ISSUES DISCUSSED AT PUBLIC CGS As mentioned earlier in this report, the staff held a series of public meetings to present information on the deficiencies in the existing transportation system. Numerous areas of concern were discussed by the citizens who spoke at the meetings. Some of the issues discussed were the following: Eno Drive: Several citizens voiced concern over the proximity of Eno Drive in North- western Durham to the Eno River. The alignment of Eno Drive has been shifted slightly to minimize adverse environmental impacts. Existing residential development restricts the alignment to a fairly narrow corridor, however. Outer Loop: There was concern over the possible impact of the proposed Outer Loop north of Chapel Hill on the Emerson-Waldorff School. A detailed functional design of the N.C. 86 interchange with the Loop will have to be prepared before an analysis can be made of noise and other impacts on the school. If problems appear, alternative designs will be prepared. Neighborhood Protection: Cut-through traffic has a detrimental effect on neighborhoods. Congestion on the thoroughfare network encourages motorists to find short-cuts along residential streets. A well designed and efficient transportation system helps to keep through traffic on thoroughfares and off of residential . streets. Both groups and individuals have voiced concern over the protec- tion of their neighborhoods. 4.9 Farrington Road at I-40: The proposed future interchange of I-40 with Farrington Road is seen by residents of the area to be a threat to the low density rural quality of the residential area. As discussed in the Recommended Plan section of this report, it is anticipated that an additional access point to I-40 between Durham and Chapel Hill will be needed to relieve congestion at the NC 54 and the US 15-501 interchanges. Also, development and density in the Farrington Road area is increasing rapidly. This new traffic will require access to I-40. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: Sidewalks and bikeways were proposed by many citizens as environmentally compatible transportation alternatives. Proposed University of North Carolina Roadway Changes: A number of thoroughfare changes have been proposed by the University of North Carolina as part of their recently developed Draft Land Use Plan. At the time of this revision to the Chapel Hill Thoroughfare Plan there had not yet been final approval of the UNC Land Use Plan and its related thorough- fare changes by the University Board of Trustees. The Town has begun the process of analyzing the effects of the proposed University thoroughfare changes on the overall thoroughfare system. At such time as any revisions to the thoroughfare system related to the proposed land use plan are approved, they will be considered for inclusion in the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan revision. 4.10 • Pittsboro/Columbia One-Way Pair: In the course of the Thoroughfare Plan Revision public hearing process, public comment was received relating to the proposed extension of Pittsboro Street north of Cameron Avenue to intersect with Airport Road, north of Rosemary Street. The Pittsboro Extension was approved as part of the 1984 Chapel Hill-Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan and included in the 1986 analysis of the adequacy of the adopted plan. NC 86/Airport Road/Columbia Street is the principal north/south spine of the Town's thoroughfare system. This corridor provides the primary access to the Town Center/University/Memorial Hospital area. Continuing employment growth in the Town Center and at the University, as well as increased medical services at Memorial Hospital will result in significantly increased traffic along this corridor. The proposed extension of Pittsboro Street and implementation of one-way pairing with Columbia Street will provide needed additional capacity to this thoroughfare which provides Chapel Hill its only north-south crosstown route. Conversion to one-way operation, which increases each travel lane's efficiency by 50 to 80 percent, will reduce stops and delay experienced at the Franklin/Columbia and Columbia/Rosemary intersections, while greatly improving safety conditions for the area's many pedestrians and bicyclists. The improvement of this corridor will also reduce the amount of "cut- through" traffic using local streets due to the increased congestion along Columbia Street. As in the previous Chapel Hill-Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan, this proposal is considered an essential long-range element of the Plan, the absence of which will gradually become increasingly appreciated. It should be indicated on the Plan so that the Town can protect the needed right-of- way as Town Center property continues to be redeveloped. 4.11 V. THE RECOMMENDED PLAN Existing Thoroughfare Plans The Durham/Chapel Hill/Carrboro Urban Area covers most of Durham County and eastern Orange County. Because the study area has been enlarged, many more thoroughfares are included than in the Durham 1980 and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro 1984 plans combined. Even with the new facilities as shown, weaknesses will still exist in the transportation system that can only be alleviated with widening of existing roads. The most important goal of thoroughfare planning and this report is not the details of widening or widths of roads; it is to protect existing and future corridors. The Recommended Plan is shown in Figure 5.1 (at the back of this report. An enlargement of the southwest portion of the Recommended Plan is shown in Figure 5.2. Similar, enlargements for the Southeast portion (Figure 5.3), the Northeast portion (Figure 5.4) and Northwest portion (Figure 5.5) are also provided. The Recommended Plan for the Durham/Chapel Hill/Carrboro Urban Area includes the existing Thoroughfare Plans for the individual cities with some minor revisions. Some of these changes have happened because as development has taken place, the thoroughfare designs have been revised to better accommodate the land use. Other changes have resulted because travel patterns may not have developed as pre- dicted, or the. population shifted, or various other reasons. The following is a description of some of the changes. Changes To Current Durham Thoroughfare Plan Alston Avenue Extension: Alston Avenue Extension (north of I-85) was realigned to bring the extension into Midland Terrace, which leads to Dearborn Road and then to Old Oxford Road to create another north/south radial from the central city to Treyburn. Ellis Road: A new interchange is proposed to connect Ellis Road to the Durham freeway, providing access to property on the north side of the Research Triangle Park. Ellis Road would be extended eastward, utilizing some of existing Angier Avenue (in Bethesda), across US 70 (with another new interchange) to connect with Leesville Road. This improvement would relieve the existing US 70/Mineral Springs Road/Miami Boulevard intersection which is anticipated to be heavily overloaded, while providing better travel service between southern Durham and northern Wake County. 5.1 F Briggs Avenue Extension: Briggs Avenue Extension southward to Research Triangle Park has been terminated north of the Park. A suitable, location could not be found because of recent development and the realignment of the Southern Parkway. The portion from Lawson Street to a point just north of Riddle Road is currently being built by a developer. Camden Avenue: Camden Avenue from Avondale Drive to Midland Terrace has been deleted as a minor thoroughfare. Grade problems with the Alston Avenue Extension construction will require that Camden Avenue be truncated. Thus, it will not be continuous a cross the Alston Avenue Extension, therefore it will not be a minor thoroughfare. East Carver Street Extension: A. segment of Carver Street between Roxboro Road and Duke Lane is being built by a developer on a slightly different alignment than that shown in the 1980 plan . An extension to Old Oxford Road is proposed on different alignment than the current Plan which utilizes Dearborn Road. Nest Carver Street: The realignment of west Carver Street shown in the 1980 Plan has been deleted and the current alignment to Rose of Sharon Road is recommended. Chapel. Hill Blvd.: Chapel Hill Boulevard (US 15-501) is the primary link between Chapel Hill/Carrboro and Durham. The opening of I-40 is expected to bring additional development that will worsen the congestion on an already over capacity road. It is therefore recommended that US 15-501 be upgraded to a freeway between the 15-501 business/bypass interchange in Durham and the 15-501 business/bypass interchange in Chapel Hill. Eno Drive: Eno Drive has undergone some revisions since the 1980 plan. The northern alignment in the vicinity of Rose of Sharon Road was relocated to the north for several reasons. First, the old alignment ran along a ravine. Construc- tion would have been very expensive and caused environmental problems. Second, the alignment ran through the center of Croasdaile Farms develop- ment. A shift allowed the road to be accommodated with less impact on the development. From this point the road travels west to where it will cross I-85. If the eastern alignment of the Northern Durham Freeway is chosen, the interchange with I-85 will need to be deleted because of interchange spacing problems -along I-85 with the proposed Northern Durham Freeway. There has also been a shift in the alignment west of Sparger Road to reduce impacts on the Eno river and conflicts with the Eno River State Park. 5.2 Eastern Avenue: This continuation of the alignment of Eno Drive south of I-85 North has been realigned to intersect US 70 around the Durham/Wake County line. A road is proposed to directly connect to the alignment of a road shown on the Greater Raleigh Urban Area thoroughfare plan that leads to the RDU Airport. Inner Arterial Loop: The Inner Arterial Loop from Riddle Road to Holder Road was shifted northward. This was necessary because of recent development. The new alignment follows existing Riddle Road to Ellis Road, then crosses the Durham Freeway to Glover Road and northward to Holder Road. North of NC 98, the Loop was moved westward to follow existing Princess Anne Drive. In _the vicinity of I-85, the Loop will cross Alston Avenue Extension and tie into North Roxboro Road at Old Oxford Road. Mount Moriah Road Corridor: The Mount Moriah Road corridor including an interchange with US 15/501, is _ an addition to the existing plan. Although this is presently a low volume intersection, it will be required to handle all of the development which could occur between 1-40 and New Hope Creek. In the last couple of years several large scale developments have been proposed between I-40 and New Hope Creek. The City of Durham has been reluctant to rezone property in that area until the Mount Moriah design was completed. US 15-501 is expected to carry over 90,000 cars daily in the year 2010. Overlaying these projections with the total build-out of the land adjacent to US 15/501 and 1-40, the need for a new collector road with an interchange at Chapel. Hill Boulevard became obvious. Obie Drive: Obie Drive has been removed from the plan because of the development of Woodcroft Parkway. Woodcraft Parkway is so close to the alignment of Obie Drive, it was felt that another east/west minor thoroughfare was not needed. . Woodcraft Parkway is being extended by developers eastward to Barbee Road and is proposed to tie into Carpenter Fletcher Road to connect with NC 55 eventuality. South Roxboro Street Hope Valley Farms development is building a portion of South Roxboro Street from the Southern Parkway to Hope Valley Road. The alignment was shifted so as to minimize the impact on the wetlands along Third Fork Creek, yet . provide an adequate arterial to the south. 5.3 Southern Parkway: Alignment has been shifted in the Research Triangle Park vicinity. Develop- ment in the park has made the old alignment Impossible to build. The alignment is now proposed to tie into Cornwallis Road west of the Durham Freeway at Alexander Drive. East Alexander Drive is being extended from Miami Boulevard to US 70 as part of the Southern Parkway project. A private developer and NCDOT are working on this as a joint project.. Revisions to the Adopted Chapel. Hhl ' arrboro Thoroughfare Plans Lammed Hill Parksmun The Laurel Hill Parkway, between NC 54 and Ephesus Church Road will be realigned to provide more direct access to 15-501. Recommended changes to the Durham Thoroughfare Plan will result in the creation of a more efficient loop for traffic moving around the edge of Chapel Hill. The recommended addition of an interchange at Farrington/I-40 will allow traffic destined for the University area to avoid the anticipated congestion along NC 86. It will also allow traffic a more direct route to northern Chatham County. Northern Chatham Loop: Although the Northern Chatham Loop, utilizing Lystra Road (SR 1721) was included as part of the 1983 Chapel Hill-Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan further analysis of the adopted alignment was necessary. The proposed modification includes the use of Jack Bennett Road (SR 1717) and a realignment of the proposed new roadway section. The proposed change will result in a more efficient route for anticipated traffic from Northern Chatham County. Increased residential development in Northern Chatham has created the need for a more direct route to 1-40 and employment centers in the RTP/Airport area. The proposed change will divert more traffic from 15-501 South, relieving some pressure on the 15-501 Bypass and Laurel Hill Parkway. Farrington Road: With the ' proposed realignment of the Laurel Hill Parkway. the opportunity exists to deemphasize Farrington Road as a principle thoroughfare. The close proximity of the Farrington/NC 54, intersection to the NC54/I-40 intersection limits the ability of Farrington Road to efficiently accommodate the anticipated traffic moving north and south between NC54 and ',15-501. Near University Lake: The connection between Hatch Road and the Homestead Road extension near Calvander has been eliminated. A proposed new thoroughfare, a connection between Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road and Eubanks Road northwest of Carrboro will provide a direct link from NC 54 west of Carrboro and the I-40 interchange at NC 86 and eliminate the need for the Hatch-Homestead connection. 5.4 9 New Thoroughfares In The Urban Area Many new thoroughfares are included in the Recommended Plan in the suburban areas. Of these new thoroughfares, several miles of freeways are included. Northern Durham Freeway: The major new proposal embodied in the Recommended Plan is an outer loop freeway around Durham. The Northern Durham Freeway starts at I-85 nor- theast of Durham. It stretches westward to north Guess Road, and southwest to 1-85, west of the proposed Eno Drive. The I-85/Eno Drive interchange has been removed because of spacing along 1-85. The Northern Durham Freeway will provide the anticipated need for access from northern Durham County to 1-85 and Treyburn, thereby relieving several existing roads (e.g., Roxboro Road, North Duke Street, Guess Road, and Cole Mill Road) which are presently or anticipated to be overburdened. Eleven interchanges will provide ample access to major north/south thoroughfares and will provide a bypass for central Durham for through traffic along I-85. Each end of Northern Durham Freeway has a long-range proposed extension, discussed below. Eastern Durham Freeway: The eastern portion of the recommended outer loop extension would provide direct access from I-85 to the Northern Wake Freeway and ROU Airport, thereby improving access to northern Durham, Granville and Person Counties. This proposal is shown as long-range because construction of the existing plan's East End Connector and I-85/US 70 interchange modification (connect- ing 1-85 to I-40 via US 70 and the Durham Freeway) would achieve similar benefits at less cost while solving other existing problems near Durham. Traffic projections indicate that this interim loop eventually would need relief before the end of the planning period. Northwest Loop: The western section of the recommended Freeway loop system from the Pleasant Green Road area southwestward to I-40 provides a direct connection between northern Durham County and I--40 north of Chapel Hill/Carrboro. It's construction would provide needed relief to US 15-501 between Durham and Chapel Hill as well as effectively siphoning traffic currently using NC 86 away from Hillsborough. The alignment parallels a railroad bed to minimize necessary earthwork while minimizing negative impacts on nearby residential areas. This improvement is expected to be needed prior to the year 2010; nonetheless, it is shown as long-range because it is a new idea which needs further study. Its inclusion on the Recommended Plan, the local government can protect the corridor from encroaching development. 5.5 Northeast Spur: Reaching northward from the Northern Durham Freeway, a spur freeway is shown through the proposed Treyburn development, extending beyond Bahama to connect directly to US 501 near Quail Roost. The primary purpose of this concept is to provide direct access to Treyburn's major employment areas, while also providing relief to US 501 North of Durham. Coupled with the other portions of the Durham Outer Loop system, these regional improvements would provide the backbone of an well-designed highway system whose traffic-carrying efficiency and safety characteristics were optimized. Durham Freeway Extension to Cary: Within the next few years, the southern expansion of the Research Triangle Park is expected to double the employment in the Park. This will require the extension of the Durham Freeway southward from 1-40 southward to the Northern Wake Freeway and into Cary. Triangle residents will gain access into this new area via the existing Durham Freeway and I-40. I-40 Interchange at Farrington Road: An additional interchange to I-40 is proposed at Farrington Road. The interchange is proposed to provide another access point to the interstate between Durham and Chapel Hill/Carrboro. This is included to help relieve the other interchanges that are expected to become congested (NC 54 and US 15/501 interchanges in particular) and it is expected to access the residential property in the Farrington Road area. Whitfield Road: Whitfield Road has been proposed to be designated as a thoroughfare, reflecting anticipated traffic use. Whitfield Road will provide local traffic with a parallel route to I-40, and provide direct access to the Mt. Moriah, Road intersection with 15-501. Embanks Road: Eubanks Road will provide traffic generated by anticipated development to the west and south with direct access to 1-40. A connection between Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road and Eubanks Road northwest of Carrboro will provide a direct link from NC 54 west of Carrboro and the I-40 interchange at NC 86. This will reduce traffic on NC 54 and through Carrboro and Chapel Hill as it diverts traffic heading to I-40 form those areas. This new thoroughfare will eliminate the need for the connection between Hatch Road and the Homestead extension near Calvander. 5.6 • For the purpose of this study, major thoroughfares are classified into three groups: radials, loops, and connecting streets. The Recommended Plan has all of these type of streets. As the suburban area expands outwardly, the existing radial major thoroughfares into a town will become congested. Consequently, these thoroughfares in the existing plans have been extended to the study area borders. Examples include, Roxboro Road, Guess Road. and NC 55. The Alston Avenue/Old Oxford Road/Hamlin Road connector is an additional northeast radial designed to help relieve the northern link of I-85 and Roxboro Street. The Liberty Street radial is proposed to be extended east of US 70. This will allow Liberty Street/Holloway Street to become a one-way pair. This one-way pair will help relieve the Holloway Street congestion around Joyland that has been a problem for years. The plan includes a series of loop-road systems designed to move traffic around the city. Eno Drive and the Northern Durham Freeway are prime examples of this type of facility. A new loop in southern Durham County, the NC 751/Scott King Road/Hopson Road/Page Road Connector, is proposed to reach from Research Triangle Park through southern Durham County, and end at NC 54 east of NC 54/I-40 interchange. Projected residential areas will be served by this loop. Leesville Road is proposed to be realigned to connect with Page Road at US 70. Once this system is completed, traffic will very efficiently move from eastern Durham County to Research Triangle Park and I-40. The Pleasant Green Road/Cornwallis Road loop is another addition. It is will provide a connection northwest Durham County, Hillsborough and south Durham. The third class of major thoroughfares are the connecting streets. For example, Bivens Road, north of Umstead Road, connects northern Durham County with Hillsbo- rough. The Ellis Road Extension will connect east Durham County with Research Triangle Park, and Erwin Road will provide an alternate route from west Durham to Chapel Hill. Minor thoroughfares are streets that do not carry the large traffic volumes of major thoroughfares, yet they provide a benefit to the circulation of the Urban Area. Barbee Road, Grandale Drive, and Sedwick Road are designated as minor thoroughfares to provide circulation around Parkwood and surrounding residential areas in the vicinity of NC 54. University Station Road, Turkey Farm Road and Kerley Road also will provide access to new residential developments in the Duke Forest area. A connector. between Doc Nichols Road and Kemp Road would allow those roads to provide improved land access service in southeast Durham County. • 5.7 41 • SUMMARY This has been an overview of the recommended Thoroughfare Plan. It must be noted that the Thoroughfare Plan is only one element of the total transportation system and transportation planning effort of the area. It is the primary planning document for the road element of the total transportation system. Other elements such as ridesharing, transit, bicycling, and pedestrian movement are also part of the system and there are on-going efforts in all of these. It should also be noted that the Thoroughfare Plan is itself an interrelated system of roads and any change (or deletion) of one facility has a ripple effect throughout the system as the trips carried by that facility are redistributed. It is therefore necessary to analyze any changes to evaluate the impacts and adjust the plan accordingly. With this background the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Technical Coordinating Committee submits the Thoroughfare Plan for consideration and ultimate adoption. There will be follow-up meetings with the various elected policy boards as shown in attachment A. There will be a series of public hearings held in the various quadrants for public input into the plan. The times, dates, and locations are shown in attachment B. 5.$ ler O RIVER GROUP • - ENO WILL•• 4 ' LENORE•• ( TO CONSERVE FREEDOM ) . . SINCE 1973 . . STEWART G. BARBOUR, SEC'Y February 16, 1968 RT. 4 , BOX 722 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 Chairman and Board , Orange County Commissioners Chapel Hill, North Carolina Re : Item #10 for Decision February 16, 1988 (Memorandum of Understanding , Eno River State Park ); Request for Deferral. Dear Chairman and Board : We respectfully request that Item 10 above be deferred : bad A. ,,ve have not /input into ypur proposed letter dtd February 17, 1988 to iLr. William W. Davis, Director, State Division of Parks and Recreation, B. Your Minutes for Public Hearing of Feb 16, 1982 contain a statement which we are unable to verify and believe to be erroneous. Book 00501/502/698. 1. After we had requested more than one day ' s time to prepare for Discussion and Input into a proposed RC&D Measure submitted by a Mr. Donald N. Cox, Chairman, Orange County Soil and Water Conservation Board , your Minutes state that : "Mr. Cox said the environmental impact assessment had been widely circulated for this site and at that time he had answered a lona list of questions submitted by Mr. Barbour". 2. Our Records ' show a Joint letter from Mr. Cox and Mr. Tennant , SWOD and CSC, respectively , dtd Feb 10, 1981, stating that "there are no records of you or anyone in your family requesting assistance in applying Conservation Practices" in reply to my letter of Feb 5, 1981 requesting information about my requests for 1, Farm Pond for Cattle; 2. Waterways; 3, Terracing. No explanation is offered for the loss of my requests. 3. We respectully re -quest that this Board obtain from Mr. Cox a copy of my long list of questions and his long list of answeres before proceeding with this Eno River State Park matter. Thanking you for your courtesy , I remain, Sincere y , ada-nr Stewart Barbour, Seely , Note We did- receive- from Eno River Association President Mr. Donald N. Cox a letter stating the reasons that the Eno River State Park was to start (or end ) on Barbour land rather than going a few hundred feet up the Enp River to include the land of' Association Directors Cox and Davi nnn -v -s-+,,aA.a 1-t,6,.,, a_13 J cAsh..a &p-a. II/C./err/6 n G ,._i _ C/ L /• CIar-c . Ecxsi- , . C e, 25-_:_r r A.5-1, _ ‘t. azra--.---- a - I g. ,„,..._D, _44,..,„,-- _ G— I r f q ' , ~/ [Z i VU, c ' - Cam. -. /3 ,44-itt ,ectoiv Q r 9 1`" a— / 4 /-- ( _ /6 - lYci-Y--Se, if ///- — i l &-k) . . , .a - �-_ ...... . ..... ..... J - / / 4 2 -*" i'2,124!"f O ' 7- i.„.7r--/ , $_ i _•)-4, ... 4 - 94-i±-4t .G.— 3 —- M; LL&& c.J eit. 4. 27. 1;,,--,- , - A - -,41/4a03.7,_____.` - c �- ... r�!piN P► 1.11W R 1 ti� i � el rv1Q1,� E -' i�f .. .._._-. 2 ' Gaul,' : _ , �, 6-- / - - - 1414414 1r % `rte r ` l°., GG /LEE ( .._, Lt. V _c 62 / �g...0!..4r,,2,_ _ ..6: sz..._4—a—rr..... ._.. _...------ P0,3 d ;na.r,.a,,.... .. _. -.. e.5 --- --6 o c_-. 1,_,)(4 c,--rEg_. -1 — ,-- R,131T-AT-- Foe- dPisetwri-N -_S,:0 k., keg-Li C:-.2,(4 i4-1-7 e r-- . 7 -- c.c dil OIV/7 y p /V L 'i E:. "P'); e i& 1a. ' P-& rd. Dd3 ord''na.nQe _ ,ge ouvi E / ikt C 006-- 0 /2611(-) 4106 -, , , _. e 0 (9 - or-c/ii (1//7 4-4_, --- �► B-j-a(i ivet e s52_„4 _...- cog l' Oa? Crdek,q t A-K Siso " 00 . . Or Cii a �. to -r- P IG14q;01 .. We ostrAT koeteis f Lk. 0 eZ/VEA' oirtV -_, - --r 6. VAIFV/ aMUKOviL riv oKbLi‘. ,(A,c- C-- : � ENO RIVER GROUP - • " ENO WILL" $ ' LENORE" ( TO CONSERVE FREEDOM) . . SINCE 1973 STEWART G. BARBOUR, SEC'Y February 16, 1988 RT. 4 , BOX 722 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 Chairman and Board , orange County Commissioners Chapel Hill, North Carolina Re : Item #10 for Decision February 16, 1988 (Memorandum of Understanding, Eno River State Park ); Request for Deferral. Dear Chairman and Board : We respectfully request that Item 10 above be deferred : had A. We have not /input into ypur proposed letter dtd February 17, 1988 to Dr. William W. Davis, Director, State Division of Parks and Recreation, 3. Your Minutes for Public Hearing of Feb 16, 1982 contain a statement which we are unable to verify and believe to be erroneous. Book 00501/502/698. 1. After we had requested more than one day ' s time to prepare for Discussion and Input into a proposed RC&D Measure submitted by a Mr. Donald N. Cox, Chairman, Orange County Soil and Water Conservation Board , your Minutes state that : "Mr. Cox said the environmental impact assessment had been widely circulated for this site and at that time he had answered a ion list of questions submitted by r. Barbour 2. Our Re c tird a show a Joint letter from Mr. Cox and Mr. Tennant , SWCD and CSC, respectively , dtd Feb 10, 1981, stating that "there are no records of you or anyone in your family requesting assistance in applying Conservation Practices" in reply to my letter of Feb 5 , 1981 requesting information about my requests for 1, Farm Pond for Cattle; 2. Waterways; 3 , Terracing. No explanation is offered for the loss of my requests. 3. We respectully re -quest that this Board obtain from Mr. Cox a copy of my long list of questions and his long list of answers s before proceeding with this Eno River State Park matter. Thanking you for your courtesy , I remain, Sincere y , "_..\ Stewart Barbour, Seely , 'tote : We did receive from Eno River Association President Mr. Donald N. Cox a letter stating the reasons that the Eno River State Park was to start (or end ) on Barbour land rather than going a few hundred feet up the Enp River to include the land of Aaanaigtinn Di rerntnrra nny and Davi ann_ RESOLUTION WHEREAS an aerial spray incident in Chatham County in June 1982 continues to cause apprehension among the residents of the Gorgas Community for their health; and, WHEREAS, the Board is of the opinion that existing safeguards do not adequately protect the public; and, WHEREAS, the current state of pesticide regulation and enforcement may not adequately protect the public health and the natural environment; and, WHEREAS, it is the consensus of this Board that the regulations adopted following the Gorgas spray incident need further changes, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Section 1. That the North Carolina Pesticide Board is requested to consider adoption of regulations which require enlarged buffer zones, and prior notification, in order to provide necessary protection of the public health and the environment; and, Section 2. That our delegation to the North Carolina General Assembly support a Legislative Study Committee on pesticide use and administration; and, Section 3 . That our delegation to the North Carolina General Assembly consider transfer of the administration and enforcement of pesticide regulations to an environmental or health-based agency, increased public representation on the Pesticide Board, and other measures to strengthen the North Carolina Pesticide Law; and, Section 4. That the Governor of North Carolina is requested to increase the effective public representation on the Pesticide Board through his power of appointment; and, Section 5. That our delegation to the United States Congress is requested to needed reforms of the Federal Pesticide Law (FIFRA) which would require the reregistration of inadequately tested pesticides, reduce groundwater contamination, and generally strengthen protection of the public health and the environment. Section 6. That certified copies of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the Governor, the Congressman from the 4th Congressional District, our U.S. Senators, all members of our delegation to the North Carolina General Assembly from the 24th Representative District and the 16th Senatorial District, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and the North Carolina Pesticide Board. 2/If'; 11/5441-4C-) Shirle arshall, Chair Attest: Board of Commissioners Clerk 7• te Board ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CAREY,IR. STEPHEN H.HALKIOTIS JOHN HARTWELL SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL DON WILLHOIT February 23 , 1988 The Honorable James A. Graham NC Commissioner of Agriculture P.O. Box 27647 Raleigh, NC 27611 Dear Commissioner Graham: At the Orange County Board of Commissioners meeting held on February 16, 1988 , the Board approved the enclosed resolution in support of regulations to control the spraying of pesticides that" may not be in the best interest of the citizens of Orange County and the surrounding areas. We ask that you support legislation that may aid in the enforcement of the control of pesticides. Thank you Sincerely, - - - Shirley - E. Marshall, Chair = Board of Commissioners /stc Enclosure LETTERS WERE SENT TO THE FOLLOWING: The Honorable Joe Hackney The Honorable Russell Walker NC House of Representatives NC State Senate 104 Carolina Forest Road 1004 Westmont Drive Chapel Hill , NC 27516 Asheboro, NC 27203 The Honorable Anne Barnes The Honorable Wanda Hunt NC House of Representatives NC State Senate 313 Severin Street P.O. Box 1335 Chapel Hill , NC 27516 Pinehurst, NC 28374 The Honorable David Price The Honorable Terry Sanford House of Representatives Senator, State of North Carolina 1223 Longworth Building 716 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Jesse Helms The Honorable James G. Martin Senator, State of NC Governor , State of NC 403 Dirksen Senate Office Bld. Capital Building Washington, DC 20510 Raleigh, NC 27611 Mr. John L. Smith Secretary, NC Pesticide Board P.O. Box 27647 Raleigh, NC 27611 COUNTY OF CHATHAM COMMISSIONERS 11; MARVIN K. HOFFMAN HENRY DUNLAP,JR.,Chairman i=- .x;` w County Administrator EARL D.THOMPSON - _ ROBERT L.GUNN GUS MURCHISON,JR. mow_;; - - CARL THOMPSON ,V+' _ _ I County Attorney MARY HAYES HOLMES •f - y P.O.BOX 87 PITTSBORO,N.C. 27312 ORGANIZED 1770 707 SQUARE MILES February 9, 1988 Ms . Shirley Marshall, Chairperson Orange County Board of Commissioners Courthouse Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Ms. Marshall: Z am writing to you about changes which are being proposed in the regulation of aerial spraying of pesticides and am asking that your Board consider endorsing these proposals. Chatham County has been involved in an effort to tighten these regulations because of an incident in 1982 in a rural area of Chatham County. Since that time, there has been widespread concern over the lack of any requirement to notify residents of the area to be sprayed and an absence of a requirement for a protective buffer area surrounding the area to be sprayed. The Board of Commissioners here has petitioned the State Pesticide Board to modify the regulations to remedy these defects. A series of public hearings has been scheduled by the State on rules changes that have been initiated at Chatham County 's behest. --Enclosed are copies of the proposed changes in the regulations and the notice of the hearings as well as the original resolution adopted by our Board. The Board here has asked me to bring this issue to your attention and to ask that you consider filing comments in support of the regulations. Sincerely yours, Henry I . Dunlap,,JJ . Chairman GP 1NA_P ST%C'/0 NORTH CAROLINA PESTICIDE BOARD \ P.O. Box27647 ., �: O O 4,71 .. v Edenton Street? \1tN, Z `L o Raleigh, N. C. 27611 ►��. °.' (919) 733-3556 v S1.7,4 . MP\AP. NOTICE OF HEARING GA• Notice is hereby given that in response to a rulemaking petition filed by the Chatham County Board of Commissioners , the North Carolina Pesticide Board intends to hold a public hearing, in accordance with G . S . 150B-12 , to consider the amendment of 2 NCAC 9 , . 1002 and 2 NCAC 91. . 1005 . The proposed effective date of this action is May 1 , 1988 . The public hearing will be conducted at the following locations , times and dates : Auditorium Catawba Valley Technical College Highway 64-70 East Hickory, NC 28601 February 17 , 1988 7 : 30 p .m. Humber Building , Room 209 Pitt Community College Highway 11 South Greenville , NC 27834 February 25 , 1988 7 : 30 p .m. ,Board Room (Room 359) , Agriculture Bldg. N., C . Department of Agriculture ne West Edenton Street leigh, NC 27611 1a ch 3 , 1988 2 p .m. Comment Procedures : Interested persons may present statements either orally or in writing at the public hearing or in writing prior to the hearing by mail addressed to Mr. . J ith, Secretary, North Carolina Pesticide Board , P . O . Box 27647 , 2 NCAC 9L . 1002 ; GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ; is proposed for amendment by the addition of (1 ) as follows : SUBCHAPTER 9L PESTICIDE SECTION (1 ) Any person who contracts for an aerial application of a pesticide shall provide individual and public notification not less than 72 hours °prior to the commencement of each such application . ( 1) Individual and public notification shall include at least the following information : (A) date and approximate time of day of the application; (B) brand name and EPA registration number of each pesticide to be applied; (C) name, address , and telephone number of the individual, firm, or corporation conducting the spraying; and (D) name, address, and telephone number of the individual contracting for the application. (2 ) For the purposes of this paragraph, individual notification is defined as written communication delivered to the head of household or, in his or her absence, to an inhabitant of legal age of any residence located within 1, 000 feet of the target area to be sprayed. Such written communication may be by means of: (A) U. S . mail ; or (B) notice left at residence. (3 ) For the purposes of this paragraph, public notification is defined as posting of clear warning signs to be in place at least 72 hours prior to commencement of the application: (A) at the corners and at a distance of every one-half mile along the perimeter of the target area to be ' sprayed; and (B) at a distance of every one-half mile along any public road located within one-half mile of the boundary of the target area to be sprayed. Statutory Authority G.S. 143-458; 143-466 • 2 NCAC 9L . 1005 (e) ; RESTRICTED AREAS; is proposed for amendment as follows : SUBCHAPTER 9L - PESTICIDE SECTION (e) No pesticide shall be deposited within al 1, 000 feet of any residence unless the aerial applicator has prior written consent of XIX/X14V5OXY54(Y/Of/ /91/7W/910/W/Og/X04X/s410 the head of household. The party who is contracting for the services of an aerial applicator shall obtain the written consent and forward it to the aerial applicator for record keeping purposes . The consent agreement shall include : ( 1) date of agreement!; (2 ) time period for which the consent is valid!; (3 ) location or designation of the residence!; 147// gY 0/95Y/ 4/s101 WFWX /X 0 /Y oW/Of// X910 / (4 ) name and EPA registration number of the pesticide (s) to , be applied as well as an explanation of possible hazards; ( 5) name, address , and telephone number of aerial applicator and/or contractor as well as contracting agent; ( 6) a statement that any consenting party may withdraw his or her consent at any time by notifying in writing the party which requested the consent. Upon such notification, the previous consent shall be invalidated; and r (7 ) signature of person consenting and person seeking consent. A copy of the agreement will be kept by both parties . gy4/00100 /v4/X14 X0XYSIO/OXY/OXYVOxig0/XX 95 pfY/ Y/s04/YX00/14 plOggY/y4// /y//Y/vig/YV0/12WW /¢ / O$Y00/ 0/00 yfY///W00ix 0 / 95 XX/¢siY/0 // 0/0/ )1/030/¢010071X/%XXXX/160/XplYSX/AXY091/ No party may consent to aerial application of pesticides within 300 feet of a residence, and no pesticide may be deposited by aircraft within 300 feet of a residence. Statutory Authority G.S. 143-458 RESOLUTION WHEREAS an aerial spray incident in Chatham County i 1982 continues to cause apprehension among the residents of the Gorgas Community for their health; and, WHEREAS, the Board is of the opinion that existing safeguards do not adequately protect the public; and WHEREAS, the current state of pesticide regulation and enforcement may not adequately protect the public health and the natural environment; and, WHEREAS, it is the consensus of this Board that the regulations adopted following the Gorgas spray incident need further changes, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CHATHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: i 1 Section 1 . That the North Carolina Pesticide Board is requested to consider adoption of regulations which require enlarged buffer zones, and prior notification, in order to provide necessary protection of the public health and the environment; and, Section 2. That our delegation to the North Carolina General Assembly support a Legislative Study Committee pesticide use and administration; and, I Section 3. That our delegation to the North Carolina General Assembly consider transfer of the administration and enforcement of pesticide regulations to an environmental or health-based agency, increased public representation on the Pesticide Board, and other measures to strengthen the North Carolina Pesticide Law; and, Section 4. That the Governor of North Carolina is requested to increase the effective public representation on the Pesticide Board through his power of appointment; and, Section 5. That our delegation to the United States Congress is requested to needed reforms of the Federal Pesticide Law (FIFRA) which would require the reregistration of inadequately • tested pesticides, reduce groundwater contamination, and generally strengthen. protection of the public health and the environment. Section 6. That certified copies of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the Governor, the Congressman from the 4th Congressional District, our U.S. Senators, all members of our delegation to the North Carolina General Assembly from the 24th Representative District and the 16th Senatorial District, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and the North Carolina Pesticide Board. Chai rfnan Board of ommi ssi hers Chatham County, North Carolina Attest: Clerk to the Board STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF CHATHAM I , Hazel P. Boone, Clerk of the Board of Commissioners of Chatham County, North Carolina, do hereby certify that a regular meeting of the Board of Commis- sioners of Chatham County, North Carolina, was duly held an July 6, 1987, proper notice of said meeting having been given as required by North Carolina Statutes; and minutes of said meeting have been duly recorded in the Minute . Book kept by me in accordance with law for the purpose of recording the minutes of said Board. I hereby certify that the attached Resolution is a true copy of said Resolution adopted by the Chatham County Board of Commissioners on said date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and have hereunto affixed the seal of said County this 6th day of July, 1987. Clerk, oard of Commissioners Chatham County • :1 ` Ja"nay,, .. gp• - `#� owd' Influences �� �� Redu:ction . _ - In Fees rFor: Dogs . Afld . fiats fees that he believed was done : $7.50 while keeping the other fee By JANE BANGLEY` /7� only to generate money for the at$5. Cat fees were proposed to .Chapel Hill bureau: t° county. : be$3 and$2. "I'll move my dogs to another The audience applauded the „ '`' ` ',` ` ` '" ` •• county before I'll pay those vote,with Commissioner Moses •"CHAPEL HILL Anger and fees," he said."I'm not here ask- Carey casting the negative, but= heated words changed to ap- ing, I'm here telling you that I the motion will have to voted on plause following a lengthy dis- won't pay those fees." Davis . again after a second reading. cussion Tuesday of Orange Coun- questioned the commissioners' March'1 before it can be finally. t ty's animal licensing fees. integrity. -. . - approved. l -: More.than 200 ,�;"�::_•- �:,�. people crowded Vern Miller of Caldwell said •.,k Ms. Sanford said after the vote,. i into the courthouse and sp illed the people in.northern Orange 1 ' out into the lobby of Chapel , County weren't represented on that the difference in fees would l Hill's Old Post Office to hear the board."We didn't elect you," not be enough of an incentive.`' + ; what the the Orange County....he said. "The people in Chapel "We're going to need strong en-...• Board Of Commissioners would Hill and Carrboro elected you." forcement to get people to regis- .do about the licensing fees. ,.;.;,,,The Rev.Lloyd Pinnix said the ter their animals,'' she said. -.Most"of the audience members,. commissioners knew they were `We'll support an increase next ,; attended.the meeting to oppose., wrong to increase the fees from :year. t'1:--"sp:u."- - .. $5 to$15 when elderly the increase in fees but:Board;: $ erly people on �` In other:business;the-county , i- .Ch airmali'.:,Shirley-Marshall fixed incomes would be affected - •new_manager, John Link,Jrr, • Le;:erYone,began'the.meeting by reminding,, as-well.as farmers who weren't_,,,'took the oath of office. Link that there would not be.tj,contributing to the county's began his new duties"Monday .:- .' ublic,hearing on the matter ig:�problems;with increasing num- .' r'� ��:; 4A:. el..- z.; ,max#H'We've"been stru lin with = bers of unwanted r ' .. gg g animals.•.:• ..:.;. - `, . this fora months; and it's been -. :"You don't know farmers,"hem. -` - - ' . : - : t : talked about before:13_Mrs..Mar-;"said.,"You don't have hearts". - -shallsaid She asked that five .O.:Pinnix also referred to skier- = peakers'bechosen to present- iff's department officers:who!, concerns,despite protests that stood in doorways,to the court- _ 'everyone who-wished be allowed room. -_ :;,: +'s:. �:::4.,�x, !r f to speak:,, '': ., ,�. .,,��,$�;:;;. �. ,�.see armed men in the-doors The commissione�:revised the ,.directing people,"he said.--"We -- county's-animal::control,ordi-.j are grown-people, and we don't 1 --_ iance.in:July.and adopted differ- need that..Let's all respect ones';_ :ential fees in October setting=.another.": .-. I. - . :,� higher-licensing fees for un- :_=` Five -more ,ep "` �ke: people. spoke �: spayed or unneutered dogs and against increasing the fees, but_,. a' ..-..;.: ° :w ,., ..; '";'""two people,representing others;;: � fees:were to be $5 a year for in the audience,spoke for the'in- _ :spayed or neutered dogs.and$15,`creases.;.;: ; -..-•-:; - . , 'for other dogs.Fees for cats were ;':Don Ingraham,vice president .:set.at,$2.and$10,respectively.' of the county's Animal Protec :The-county previously-lad_ :�a$5.; tion Society,and:Pat.Sanford,ex= :. _- Bache to fee schedule 'county of " •said the.director of the society, ear feefor all do Y •� `;'.� The.fee•s�edule was referred':said the - - - } - large.differences in �. b' th.Board were needed to encourage people: Qan December after Commissioner-,to have their animals spayed or �.Stephen:Halkiotis asked that the ,neutered. Dan Reimer, county• ::.,t,:,$15:fee be applied:only to the_; health department director,also .,, ,.. ,., ;•;-- .--__ .._. w . . .,. ,., first three unspayed-or unneu- -. supported the increase as a way_ µ ' '' "' . " "'-' "'' . .. ' d ,: to control the spread of rabies•,.: ,_:, with�a$5 fee.for earlw:remainmg;:- and other-diseases.: ,1„,, - . -- feted animals in a seo .animal.:;:,.,,, .,:: ,;:,' :�-rte'.:,.,.,_.: ,:,ci .' Halkiotis was not present at: :. ,',j;;,::a 1'he;Health Board,.however,k,the meeting due to illness, but:, recommended that the fees re- the:remaining four commission.:. ;main as.originally roposed,_and; -ers discussed several proposals: people w p before-approving•one'one first'h9'wanted the fees lo�'r•- � eredar ed.their case with their `-■ reading by a 3-1 vote.: .. •" ' r::. l - ,,.numbers and their words Tues- The winning ,pi-et:.- y +`, r::},..... :� ... -.� .�:. g proposal; .• sented by Commissioner.John David Davis of the Eno River.`- Hartwell,was to lower the fee.for'; , ,;. Coonhunters.A.ssociation'said he unneutered or unspayed dogs to I. /., attended the meeting to oppose a. ,...,::- - 200 percent increase of his dog:.. :- ` : : See Fees/186 I , John M. Link, Jr. do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not incon- sistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as Orange County Manager, so help me God. , / 471 John M. Link, Jr. Sworn to me and subscribed, this 16th day of February, 1988. = - hirley J s - Clerk of urt - Orange County, North Carolina ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Au da Item No. io ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: Feb . 16, 1988 SUBJECT: Uncollectible Insolvents DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No Revenue ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: John T. Horner, Director of Revenue (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill -- 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 ext 432 PURPOSE: To relieve the Tax Collector's levy of certain 1983 and prior accounts which appear on the insolvent list and are deemed uncollectible. 794. jAj • /F BACKGROUND: General Statute 105-373(g) Relief from Collecting Insolvents : The Governing Body of any taxing unit may, in its descretion, relieve the Tax Collector of the charge of taxes owed by persons on the insolvent list that are five or more years past due when it appears to the governing body that such taxes are uncollectible. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Relieve the Tax Collector's levy of certain accounts which appear on insolvent list and are deemed uncollectible. YEAR RED * NA;.;=. . . . DUE. . . . 70 5951 BOLDEN ERIN H $19. 12 r 7G. 53853 CAROLINA INTERIORS $357. 96 - 78 52094 CHIEFFET MAURINE BULLARD $27. 93 78 15933 CHRISTIAN EMILY L. . $68. 34 i 73 17771 EDWARDS JAMES T - $193. 75 7852692 JONES CHERYL DENISE $68. 09 78 52 703 JONES RANDY $49. 13 78 52728 . XE9S I NG ALICE HAZLETT $106. 99 72 52753 KL I8 .L I O NAN $96. 57 78 514 1$--LANE-ERNEST -MILTON $22. 40 { 78 9040 SPARROW DONALD W JR $73. 52 70 29235 TURKHEIMER LARRY I $109. 93 78 53523-WARD CATHER iNE $87. 89 78 12644 'WH I TIED JOHN.P $32. 87 79 60173 ANDERSON TYRONE CHARLES $5. 45 79 60999 ANGELO...LAURA JEANNE D $7. 19 79 61 015 ATWATER WILLIAM $33. 66 79 62327 AUTOMOTIVE CATERING SERV $286. 44 79 13276 BADS LEY HENRY FOSTER 111 $9. 01 79 61038 BLACRNELL EDDIE DLACKNEL $79. 27 L CALENA 79 61090 BLACKWELL COLENA EVELYN $37. 26 79 9730 BOLDEN ERV I N H $18. 06 79 15118 BRITT JAMES FRANKLIN $200. 41 79 1531-4 BROWt -VICKIE A . $241. 70 79 50134 CANAR9 ' W F $69. 79 79 50051 CAROLINA INTERIORS .$723. 86 79 61211 CHIEFFET MAURINE BULLARD $33. 66 79 60391 CLARIUS BARBARA JEAN $14. 79 79 36617 COBB JOHN LEWIS $160. 07 79 32211 -C ,Sr1 -- VAM... FRO•JECT -$418. 13 79 17876 DOWDLE JASON EARL $20. 34 79 18024 DZELZ I T I B LEONARD I $7. 19 79 60212 EARL ROBERT VINCENT JR $82. 74 . . . ` . 79 61393 EDWARDS I:ELOIS $49. 13 79 18144 EDWARDS JAMES I • $167. 29 79 -8393. G L 4. .. E PROFILES rte• 79 - 61235 GREAT NORTHERN CONST CO $239. 13 79 61606 HAR R II NG i ON CHARLIE SAE $80. 36 79 61760 JONES RANDY $44. 8d . 79 60485 LANE ERNEST MILTON $31. 13 79 61838 LANEY GERALDINE NOELL $42. 29 79 60894 r L O 18. 76 .79 61884 LOCATIONS INC $172. 43 79 62027 MOORE LEO MURRY $29. 50 79 567 M0REHEAD MAT T HEW $26. 87 .. _. . 79 62072 NUNN ASHLEY BERNARD $106. 33 79 62090 PAGE ERNESTINE LACKEY $34. 16 6544 4 PENDERGRASS DANIEL E _ ..$34. 93 79 62133 PENNINGTON GREGORY $47. 42 . 79 7555 PORTER ROGER GRAY $29. 89 _........_79 62219 RICH DONNA-ANN -- ". - $52. 70 ..._ .. . . .. !., PA,';!E 2 . , YEAR REC4*. NAE. . . . . , , , , . . . . . . . . DUE 79 62252 RODERICi‘, MICHAEL LAURENC .-,- " --v-, a=.=,f. ..,-, E 79 62266 ROYSTER LVIN VERDERLY $47. 42 79 61256 SAWYERS PEST CONTROL -$570. 67 79 28021 SCHOOLMAN JUDITH *23. 59 79 60126 SLOAN JANES GREGORY $22. 86 79 33334 STARPOINT CENTER $144. 22 79 62432 STOKES WILLIAM SNOW $83. 29 , 79 60153 THOMPSON BLUFORD LOUIS $18. 06 79 62509 TRUE-WILLIAM RAY- - $26. 00 _ ( 79 30090 TURAHEIMER LARRY I $39. 17 79 8161 WHITTED JOHN P $28. 47 79 60947 WIGGINS JOHN $24. 47 - • • i *** ( 80 4838 ABRUNA HECTOR DANIEL $157. 77 80 30680 ACTION DRYWALL CO $35. 24 - Igo 4923 ALOERETE JOHN F $180. 23 80 5193 ANGELO LAURA jEANNE D $81. 81 90 36908 APPLE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS $1061. 37 80 . 5360 AUCOIN PATRICIA ANN $93_ 27 80 50114 AUTOMOTIVE CATERING ;.iERV $222. 93 GO 91023 BADGLEY HENRY FOSTER 111 $2. 87 GO 26228 BAILEY' JIMMY $9. 36 • ( 80 33841 BALLENTINE NOEL H $22. 05 00 5597 BARBOUR MARTHA A --1.90. 83 SO 5605 BARDIN .PCDERT M jR . $65. 10 ( SO 5608 BAREFOOT MITCHELL GLENN $203_ 37 GO 5656 BARON MARCIA W $2::). 63 .80 33258 BAYNE CRAIG EARL *267. 79 .....,. . t Bn 5879 BELSHEIN ALLEN R $66. 61 80 5937 BERGEN jEt,:CI $721. 93 80 50104 BILL. FOWLER MUSIC CO - $46. 38- 80 284 BOLDEN ERVIN H $7. 21 . .80 6337 BOROUjER7',I MEHDI -$173. 39 80 647.5 2RANDEN2:2RG' -CAM -7,132_ c;, , 80 6607 BR ITT • AES FR!=!N• LIN $422. 22 tztr, ' 370 BROOXS BARRY GLENN $11. 17 30 6704 BROUGHTON ANDREW - 1122 73 - BO 4747 BROWN NEREDITH L $171 _ 72 80 6762 BROWN MICHAEL LU7HER $146. 27 ' • 80 6787 BROWN RO2EPT 3.4, $16. 06 _ 80 6799 BROWN VICIE A $57. 99 80 31026 BUTLER ARCHIE C HRS $6, 77 • 20 31030 BYRD CATHY- •L ' ---Ii2o. 58 ' 80 7168 CANON -JOY 2 $164. 34 . 80 517 CAISSE MICHAEL .0 $9. 20 SO 7256 CAMPBELL JON CHARLES $90. 97 80 ' 26472 CANARSX? W F $53. 41 • • SO 7345 CARLISLE PATRICIA 0 $74. 11 SO - 50119-CAROLINA INTERIORS-- - -$280: 97 GO 7419 CARROLL JANE LOUISE $57. 11 SO 7466 CARTER RICHARD 13 • $30. 20 • 80 7493 CARVER STEPHEN D $28. 87 PAGE 3 • YEAR REC#. NAME. _ . DUE 3O 34097 CAUSE,' NANCY LYNNE $70. 01 '' SO 33553 CHARLIES FOOD MART $269. 76 80 91124 CHAVIS MITCHELL DWIGHT 16. 69 30 7743 Cry I EFFET MAUR I NE DULLARD 11. 33 �. BO 50123 CHINESE KITCHEN 12369. B1 SO 50122 CHRISTIAN COUNSELING 1114. 24 8O 675 CLAR I US BARBARA JEAN $6. 77 80 36606 CLARK JAMES LEWIS $71. 04 80 7922 .CLEM°iONB MELCENA GARY . $61. 53 80 7959 COBB JOHN -LEWIS... -- $154. 31 .... .__..__ - 80 8067 COLEMAN ANNIE RUTH 131. 74 GO 8068 COLEMAN CARL T ON G $11. 15 80 91 13^ 'CDLEfA� RICHARD A _ $24. 76.. ...._... ....- - _.. . 90 31168 COMBS BRENDA B $60. 21 80 31172 CONRAD WANDA MAE . 114. 08 . 8 ._.. 6 821 OOKE MICHAELL..-R ... .._._...... $161. 5 _.. ..._... .. _ ... __ 1,. SO 8292 COSGROVE LAUREN ELISE 181. 85 80 50126 COSMEP VAM PROJECT 1244. 54 80 8318 COT T Ole. --DR I C R $64. 44 ,. 80 . 835 COUCH JAMES D $72. 78 80 841 COUSIN WILBER M $6. 67 20 .4502 -C'PAFTMARK HOMES INC .X447. 62._. B0 50093 CRAWFORD ROXANNA $5. 18 80 8599 CROWLEY DAVID JAMES 191. 65 80 8667'...CUR T I S JEFF C.. 130. 89 - SO 8824 DAVIS ANNE MARIE $29. 90 80 8994. DEAN TERRY 0 1112. 12 SO .__...1021 DE-ATON t TLL. IAM..R..._ 127.•33 00 9043 DEGUZMAN SCOTT $21. 68 SO 9097 DESCLOUX JAMES 127. 45 Et0 2764_ DIL LJ`1AN HOWARD D $77. 57 SO 1063 DOCTOR BARBARA A 138. 18 SO 26775 DOUGLAS SAMUEL G $6. 94 . . $6.-94 _ 9332 DGJILE JASON-EARL 133_ 32 .._...__...... . - , 80 9379 DUBOSE THEODORE BRATTON $29. 43 BO 34351 DUNCAN CLAUDE P1 18. 99 80 $116. 11 _ .. _, ._.... _ �?40'? DUNCAN GARY H . _. ' 20 34371 DURHAM HERBERT THOMAS $4. 75 .80 50129 DUST I I N INC 1249. 20 80 9474 DYER JOHN f' 161. 99 r 80 9478 DZELZ I T I S LEONARD I $10. 62 SO 9507 EASON ERNEST B 175. 43 SO 9613 EDWAR DS JAMES T ....-. ...- . .. . . S 161. 07 80 9679 EGERTON WALTER EUGENE I I 190. 81 I 0 313158 EtliiANr{S ANTHONY 8 .".`_�._ __•_. .... .123_86 ._. 80 9857 EVANS BARBARA LYNN $191. 98 30 36779 FARLOW JAMES R $108. 02 80 36915 FARLOW J;,s'ytES R ATTNY - $18. 55 _ 80 34474 FARRELL JUDY L $46. 01 SG 10040 FARROW DELORES P $74. 00 80 10045-FARROW ROS"C"OE...B JR .._ $66...31 - .._. ..... .... - _.- -..__ _.. . 8O 31561 FEATHERS T ON MAR} RODGERS $65. 74 BO 26866 FENNELL DONNIE EARL $74. 59 80 l 0374 7 FDRB WILLIAM. H III _. .. ---. _._...19. 15 ..-- - ._.._ t I • r'AgE 4 ( YEAR REC#. NAME. . . DUE 40 10396 FOR T HMAN CAROL ANN 39. 21 r 30 10467 FOWLER ANN N $74. 63 20 50313 FREEMAN RICHARD A _ $102. 26 30 5411 FRYE WILL I-A �..-AK EUGENE 310. 30 - -..... r SO 50373 GALLS' RICHARD F= $96. 53 80 10716 716 CA 1r=TT O T,F S E $13. 07 20 26992 GIBER DAVID J 36. 39 r 80 1497 GIDDENS DEBRA $4. 73 8O 10912 GIFFORD WILLIAM HENRY 449. 3.E _ . 3O . --1-1-045"...GOLDMAN -JOAN B- - _ - r 80 50106 GOLF COURSE PROFILES 3108. 89 • 80 ' 11063 GONTON ANN $236. 42 80 -1-Trio- G©RTOU TRYPHENA ANN . ..-$267. 54._..._...._.._. - .. ._.. r SO 11118 GOULD BARBARA LEE 3123. 89 SO 50135 GREAT NORTHERN CONST CO $239. 97 • - 30 .__-5013$`-'-GREEK- CONNECT;ON._ ._...._ .32845. 12 .--_-..-_ _ ......_. ___ . - _. r _ SO 1559X • GREEN DONALD RAY $41. 36 . 8O 11231 GREEN MARK DOUGLAS $24. 59 SO 91232 GREEN MARK DOUGLAS $4. 66 r 80 11361 GRIFFITHS HS MICHAEL CRAIG 3109. 66 • 30 91254 HACKETT RAYMOND A $11. 47 30 . -11-604--HALLGUIST....SCOTT._0...- 316 27 r 80 36574 HA 1LETT CATHY W 331. 87 SO 11660 HANKS PATRICK L 3184. 06 GO 34667 ' HARGROVE DAN.IEL. D 36. 46 - t;"` 30 1 643 HARLEY FR EDER I CA ALFORD $107. 69 30 11772 HARRELL .BRENDA --.AY $139. 75 30 15797- ..HARRIS CRAFFORD A - $44. 05 - . . . . .. r 80 36724 HARRIS t.:OE NORWOOD 335. 42 30 11887 HARVEY WENDY D 395. 16 80 11903 HASMAN SANDRA L 396. 16 ' - . r . •80 11983 HEADEN RENA A 311. 87 30 1697 HEATH JANIS htAE 36. 24 . 60 '27 15, HE'.�MUTF-fi CAR OL.INE.- 3 .. .. r CO 36668 HERTZ CORP 3429. 86 SO 4577 HESTER INSTALLATION $66. 41 SO 12363 HOERLEIN JOAN F $20. 29 •C` SO • 12420 HO KE 'OHN CARTER $12. 26 30 12432 HOLLAND ANN ELIZABETH $79. 00 30 1.2482-.,HCLL .N SWORTH..-KENNETH $99.-67 .---...._.. -. •r' 30 12520 HOLSCLAW ROBERT EARL $39- 8O 12915 HUYNH HAl T HI $5. 96 84 23996 -J 11 V ENTERPRISES INC 32593. 77 r 8o 13034 JACOBS DEBBI L 335. 18 80 31981 JACOBS KATHLEEN ANN 318. 42 2O -f3050-'ACCI?SoN---STEVEN i $13: 07 -...._--_-- - r 20 32007 JOHNSON DOROTHY ANN $13. 34 _. ._. SO 13237 JOHNSON LAURA A $67. 51 20 13272 -JOHNSON STEPHEN NICHOLAS 3150. 27 ... ,. . ... . r SO 13360 JONES EDWARD $55. 20 80 29550 JONES HODGE 3127. 43 80 -91'34r-um/Es RANDY-..-_ _ _ -. r 80 13452 JONGENEEL COR •ELIS $37. 71 SO 9.1343 JOSEPHS 1N CARL EDWARD $70. 12 30 13468 -JOOSELYi3 PETER R ,tom ` 185. 97 PAGE 5 YEAR RE C*. NAME. . DUE 20 13482 JuELIC'H RUTH E $39. 12 ', 80 13485 JULIAN =;r=r7'r LEE $82. 91 20 13522 KALTENBORN KONR.AD C $33. 9$ S0 13555 RATAVOLAS. MARY LEE $158. 36 , . 30 13567 KAY DEBRA L $129. 71 20 13588 KEGEL DEBORAH ANN $11. 63 8O 13839 KL I O 's``.LIO NAN $32. 64 80 2161 KRAUSE PETER $27. 72 S0 2178 LANE ERNEST MILTON $18. 04 .--......._.8O ._.2182 LANE HENRY _.._.__... ^� LANE � TED .. . -----$42. 64 30 14237 LAY T ON CELESTE Y $238. 92 80 34983 LEAKE BILLY JOE $8. 23 ;30 14299 LEE RALPH JUNIOR --- _.._.. _$8. 99 80 36820 LEVENBERGER ANDREA $96. 28 80 14435 LEWIS DIANE J $77. 35 . 80 .14456-LEWTER 'KENNETH M. $167. 73 8O 14505 LINDSEY EDWARD R $232. 99 80 14523 LINGLE ROLAND C $95. 07 80 29652 LLOYD D„VID L __ $115. e73 80 50143 LOCATIONS INC $321. 74 80 14697 LOCKER STANLEY D $21. 16 . ... .80 14703-LOC KLEAR JOANN $20. 68 80 14718 LGFFMAN RICHARD F $201 . 18 8O 50327 LOGAN RIMER $96. 50 SO 14809 LOWE CYNTHIA ANNE $121. 01 . . ' ....._ . - 84 14909 MACDOUa3=;?L JOHN JEFFREY $217. 10 80 50145 MARCIA LOVE ,: ASSOC INC. $142. 77 SO 15079 "ABET SUSAN.. M - $123. 73 80 2427 MARX PAUL S $1$3. 47 80 15210 MASON DAR°'t L K $66. 61 SO 5298 MAURER MARCI B $37. 74 80 15429 MCCAULEY ESTELLA ELLA M $8. 08 80 15468 MCCLARE ALAN D $53. 66 _. SO -.. 50037...1'1CLr,i'i3'a L'EAiynr.2 r. JR . _$173. 64 -_. 80 15671 MCLAUCHIN JULE H $115. 15 SO 15739 MCNAMARA PETER L $207. 84 80 33657 MEBANE 4, MEBANE $4. 60 i 80 15781 MEDL I N RICHARD L EE $31. 03 20 15818 MELTON CINDY JEAN $63. 29 80 15963 M I HAJLi7V ANNA V $153. 47 . .._. -- d 80 16019 MILLER PATTI DORIS $221. 57 80 2612 MILLS DEBORAH ANN $48. 26 16096-MITCHELL ANGELA-PATRICIA $134. 94 i SO 50144 MOHOCONY FLORIST $378. 72 8O 16176 MONEYPENNY SUSAN K $225. 40 BO 25574 1"IOREi-;E.'; i ire, "i f SEW ...__ ..._.. . $23. 54 $ SO 16412 MORR I SON WENDELL S $241. 15 90 16505 MURPHY DANNY P $4. 24 8O 16544 NACHAMKIN IRVING $83. 15 ' t 80 16548 NAGAYAMA rIAYUMI $25_13 13 . 80 16801 NIXON CLIFTON MONROE $132. 18 84 1b8I�1�iaELL FRED FILMORE --- ._ X622. 51__._. _._._.. .. _._`_._T___ _. IL 8O 50239 NORTH AMERICAN CORP $7231. 78 . 80 16874 NUNN ASHLEY BERNARD $51. 91 80 16953 OKANO MASAYO xHI $22. 59 .PAGE 6 ( YEAR REC ;. NAME- . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . .. . .SUE 8O 16986 OLIVER LILLY GENE $61. 97 ( SO 27607 OXENDINE JEFFERY $4. 82 . 80 17107 PAGE ERNESTINE .LACKEY $10. 58 3O 91423 PARKS GARY' H--....._ ._...__._._._._ ... . ( • BO 50178 PEDDLER STEAK HOUSE $3750. 10- 30 50477 PENDERGRA SS DANIEL E $17. 50 SO 17555 PENNINGION GREGORY $32. 82 . ( 90 ,32612 PERXINS WILLIE L • $54. 77 20 17771 PICKETT RALPH HORTON $243. 97 .................SQ... _-- 27945 -PTERGE-A0BRE J $13:-43 _ ..... ..__.. ( 80 17840. PLOTECIA RAYMOND K $125. 89 80 27933 PORTER ROGER GRAY $20. 78 80 -1792 5 POST-" K ER ST.I-N-M 44103. 20 .... .... ._. . .._ �.... ._ T.__ (. 20 27942 POWELL WILLIAM 13 $285. 30 80 18101 PRUITT M E $121. 14 _.-._S8'162`"GOAT---KE NNETH_.D __ _ _- $261 63.._.....- __. _ _.. . - __- ( • 80 91522 GUAT KENNETH D $13. 65 SO 36936 R B ASSOC INC HERITAGE $280. 49 . • so i x,11...-RATNE'i- PETE- ._._.... $42. 15 -. . •( 8O 18259 RAPPAPORT .SUSAN PAGE $113. 06 SO 18226 RAY CLARA LYNN $296. 40 -- GO 3075....REAVES-_KARVEY......... .. .. .-- ''t S0 1 .2348 REED RUTH -JEANNE T TE $475. 29 SO . 27992 REMINGTON DANIEL SCOTT $57. 63 80 10405" RENCH• MARY - .ERSHAW $14. 47 t SO 18434 REYNOLDS JOYCE J $14. 72 80 18440 RHINEHART KENNETH D $188. 21 • 80 -1S463-RICH-DONNA ANN._ ._... - •• $38:93 ![ 80 18675 ROBERSON SARAH JACUUELIN 4221. 85 E SO 3283 ROBINSON.'IIEL'VIN -$59. 69 . ... -- _ _. 80 18949 ROWE ELIZABETH SUE $218. 09 G0 18984 RULEY HENRY EARL $119. 49 . • I 0-00-_-ROSHIN�-"PANE SHANNON- $35.-18 ... - -.... .._..___ _ _ C 8O 19010 REUSE'. ALLEN S $336. 02 • _ .80 19011 RUSSET. ALLEN S $10. 34 80 /9062-SAILORS DON F-. . $243. 74 it , 80 19 115 SANDERS NANCY " $13. 10 80 36940 SAWYERS PEST CONTROL $139. 18 80...._.....__....19202-'SCHAEFFER ;JOHN.__..._._.. _ ... _ X97-3 •T--...._ ._. -... . 3'--....._................. ........ ---- i S0 19263 SCHOOLMAN JUDITH $23. 09 SO 19418 SEMON I NSARAH ELIZABETH $198. 41 8O 19466 SHADER SUSAN • $48. 02 _..-._-.•. - 4 8O 19479 SHAGW,ERT RICHARD JUDE $73. 60 '20 19555 SHEERIN DANIEL J $212. 34 80 ... ...i.75875HEPS,.-'DONNA-..j,T- $273. 10- _�... • 30 50207 SHER I DAN INC $47. 76 SO 19607 SHIFT THOMAS W $165. 32 - 5O 3412....SIEGMAN WIL.LIAH' M • • SO 19744 SISK JULIAN L $23. 50 - 8O 32908 SLOAN JAMES GREGORY $8. 63 -qO 19956. SMI-TNEY-BRYAN- - ORNE . ` __ $7- 65 41 SO 32929 SNIPES T3ELINDA L $44. 29 00 20042 SOUDERS MARILYN N $59. 82 • - -80 25806 SPINE ERIC RANDALL:._ $155. 29 _.__....._... . , FAGE NEAR REC*. NAME . . SO 20191 SPRENGER SSAN D $171. 22 SO 20246 STANiiACK BARR'i STEPHEN $147. 72 20 20254 STANISLAW ERR W $157. 68 BO 20263 STANTON RICHARD CARP $3. 97 GO 50153 STARPO1NT CENTER $197: 62 80 20339 STERNLICHT VICTORIA DRAM $235. 91 I 80 20340 STERRETT JUDITH CARTER $57. 70 GO 20421 STOKES WILLIAM SNOW $51. 65 80 20485 .STREETER-ROBERT A $58. 67 80 20526 STROUPE CONSTANCE DELIA $119. 00 20 20556 STUART LARRY g $39. 99 20 20562 STUKEY JOHN THEODORE $359. 14 80 35824 SUGGS CAROLYN M $55. 25 80 33003 SUTTON RICHARD W $3$5141.- 2123 20 20659 SWANN BRENDA- L SO 20673 SWESS PATTI LOU $14. 92 80 24747 TAR HEEL 66 $1087. 30 80 20760 TARANTELLI "KAREN SUE $128. 82 20 33129 THOMPSON CALVIN LEE $15. 51 80 50105 THOMPSONS WASHERETTE $22. 43 90 - 21159 TILSON DONNA $75. 42 SO 30741 TRIANGLE LAD ANIMAL $92. 57 GO 91632 TRUE WILLIAM RAY $9. 43 SO 91425. TURKHEIMER LARRY I $17. 15 80 21355 TURNER GERALDINE $47. 40 GO 21402 TUVIM MARK -BRADLEY $77. 79 30 21402-TUVIM-THOMAS DAVID $223. 92 • _ _ 80 3872 UTLEY PHILLIP SCOTT $75. 69 20 21584 VERCH WILLIAM MCCALL $30. 76 80 50160- VICKERS AUDIO INC $1214. 52 80 50161 VILLAGE CONNECTION $568. 52 SO 21652 VISER TIMOTHY A $82, 22 80 21661 VOGEL .HANS P $9. 43 SO 21688 WADE CATHERINE C $103. 73 SO 36621 WADE LARRY $11. 52 80 21699 WAGNER ANDREW HINS $175. 22 lam 21736 WALKER BRAD L $444. 61 SO 21818 WALLENS PETER DAVID $69. 30 -20 21829 WALSH ROBERT ANDREW , $34. 2=1 20 21831 WALSH SUSAN L $121. 57 20 25932 WALTON CATHY ANN $32. 49 SO 4035 WALTON WILMA F $103. 92 80 21861 WARD DAVID C . $26. 57 80 22031 WEAVER RICHARD PAUL $168. 72 80 26707-WENZEL DOUGLAS F SR $4. 17 20 22229 WHITAKER ELLEN SUE $136. 46 20 30575 WHITAKER JR CLIVERT D $24_ 99 SO 36500 WHITE JN-IES M $276. 92 GO 36902 WHITE JEAN B $9. 42 BO 22274 WHITE LARRY WILLIAM $59. 31 - 60 28539 WHITTED. JOHN-P $2021 SO 28540 WHITTED PAMELA $39. 27 80 22427 WILKIE HENRY E $30. 88 SO 25963 WILLIAM FAISON W $150. 56 41110 _ _ , - . .. . -.PACE 8 4' YEAR REC . NAME DUE 80 50267 WILLIAMS CAROLYN S266. 74 C 80 22873 WORTH CHARLES H $35. 04 .. 80 23011 YEUELL MICHEL SAWYER $34. 15 ---20 ,0195-YOUR-HOME-INC ' $559L05 ( • *** . .... .. _.. . . _.. , . t el 37530 $8. 42 81 3199 ADCOCK DEBORAH KAY • $96. 43 ----81----3742-ANKROM-MARK C- -$64. 79- _____ • . • • c -• Si ' 3890 ASSAAD MARIE THERESA • $8. 30 • 81 37108 BAILEY ED $44. 02 .. .-...__..Si...-- -37109-BATLEY JIMMY-- - $1CL 42 --- -- - C 81 . 4316 BANASIAK DAWN N $51. 83 • . ., Si 4333 BANH KATHERINE LEG'JYNH • $101. 30 -36785-7ARBARA--ANN-TYSON----------$337: 37- ( 81 138 BELL MARK CORP $67. 43 81 4938 BENNETT SHARON $42. 51 - 81 37I25-BERGEN -jENCI - - -$509: 34 g 81 4987 BERKO RETFORD N 0 $93. 70 81 5250 BLACKWELL CORAL F $34. 97 -- -21 -37130-BLOCK-GEOFFREY-DOUGLAS - -" $49. 08 - . C. 81 5472 BOBENRIETH MARIE JOELLE $51. 91 31 37131 BOLDEN ERVIN H $8. 40 21 5554 BONSER ROBERT W -$27. 35 : ' C 81 5556 BOOKER DANIEL L $13. 56 81 5241 BRADSHAW ROBERT. L $44. 95 . 81 .-6068"BRELAND7LINDA LEE - - $72:49 - - _ . _.. . C 81 37145 BRITT JAMES FRANKLIN $150. 66 81 37146 BROOKS DAVID $44. 02 81 34863 BROWN NELODI H - $61. 82 ( 81 6655 BUCKLE JUNE MARIE $148. 76 - 81 37154 BURGESS WILLIAM R $43. 54 - - 81' -6782 -BURK- RTCHARD E jR $53. 74- - _. . t 81 .50302 BURKE -JAMES $34. 28 81 37161 CAMERON MAUDIE CATES $33. 29 81 37163-CAMPBELL -LEE ' ' 144. 02 t 81 7467 CARMEL ARIE $95. 20 81 7462 CARMICHAEL DONALD R $120. - 'BA - 50193 CARVER-ALTCE CRAIG 15. 29 29 ' ' . ---- t 81 7859 CATES JERRY E $31. 16 81 7956 CECCHINI LAWRENCE A $95. 82 S1 50215 CENTURY 21 VILLAGE PROPE 1479. 60 • RTIES Si 37011 CHAPEL HILL TAXI SERVICE $60. 40 ---- 81 21-12-CRAPM-AN "DOUG-G $5892 , I • - 81 37178 CHIEFFET MAURINE BULLARD $17. 65 81 37179 CHRISTIAN EMILY L $47. 84 81 '37180- CI:ARIUS BARBARA' JEAN $10_09 _ , . 81 • 37186 COMBS BRENDA B $47. 43 • , 81 626 COOK'S BAZAAR INC $1459. 82 • 81- 371-90-CORBETT-NENR'Y ____. '$467-06 1 Si 37020 CORBETT PRINTING $121. 10 81 37193 COUCH JAMES D 334. 95 81 37196 CRAIG WADE $64. 64 ir _ ,- f'9? L 9 'r EAR REwi*. NAME. _ . . DUE 31 9759 CRANE LARRY ST;;ART $9. 22 ,i 91 9894 C I P FAYE $4. 83 21 10265 DANIELS VICKY LYNN $97. 75 81 37=06 DANs"•iEK RICHARD ,;,, 1 1. 14 '; 81 10329 DAVIDOWITZ MICHAEL. $58. 71 81 37207 DAVIS DALE $36. 77 3.1 10439 DAVIS -JACOUALY 4 RUTH $123. 52 . 81 37217 DESPER JAMES KENNETH $66. 64 81 10965 DIXON JOEY GRIFFIN $14. 19 31 109. 1 DI XON PAUL-B---............ ..... - ..._. _. __.�.�_.�__....,...._. .,......._. 21 11112 DOLAN CARL PHILLIP $5. 06 81 ++�� 759 DOLLAR HEATING NG 328. 99 81 w.77222 ,DOULA RANDY --- .- ._. . . ..__-_ _..... $39. '30 81 37224 DOWDLE JASON EARL $28. 24 81 37226. DREW JAMES M $92. 56 -21 -._ ... -11�i99-�.,b�3R T..k- JUb I"�H ALY5___ � 4. 59 ._�..._._._�_.._-....___-- ---- ..-- r, 81 873 ECONOCOPE OF CH INC $362. 73 21 11587 EDDLEMAN KEITH ARNOLD $69. 42 Si 37232...EDWARDS JAMES T _ . ._ $132.96 Si 37235 EDWARDS WILLIAM LOUIS $55. 16 81 12108 ESPEY JOHN H $108. 07 81 27233.._ EUi3 ivKS ANTHONY-2 $13. 96 ............ __._.._.__. ...._. ---..... _.._..___....... _ d 81 12271 FAHS JAMIE ROSS $107. 18 8.1 37 251 F ARR IN TON THOMAS $71_ 29 S1 37253 FARROW DELORES H $25. 69 ( 31 12502 FAULKNER HOWARD VERNON $116. 35 Si 12512 FAUSTINI JOAN M $36. 04 S1 12644 FERREL+L JAMES E III -- - $22. 09 . ( 91 12792 FISHER MARCUS S JP $14. 53 81 12989 FOR I TER KENNETH A $47. 58 31 13034 FORS3ERGH ERIC JAMES $125. 35 _... 4 01 1046 FOSDICKS SEAFOOD OF CHAP $1301. 64 EL HILL 81 13049_.FOSS' DONNA .LORRAINE X101. 34 _ _. . ..._._ . ( 81 13160 FOWLER JEFFREY D $110. 60 81 13161 FOWLER JOY ALLEN $19. 28 81 13198-FRAME SHERRIE J . -. $96. 89 -. { 81 36889 FULLER LARRY J $30. 27 81 . 3728.0 GILLUM JAMES EDWARD JR $24. 40 01 14245 GOETZ J RUSSELL $1 _.. - ¢ 81 14300 !END I ESQ.I JOHN M $140_ 57 81 14359 GORDON TERRY R $24. 18 81 37285 GORTON TRYPHENA ANN $1.1L74 ... _ { 31 37223 GRANDY RICHARD E $25. 60 81 37025 GREAT NORTHERN CONST CO $63. 46 81 14574-GREEN-CHARLIE �_.._..__.. .. _.._._$130. 26 - - . 'f 81 14634 GREENE LORETTA H $65. 59 31 37293 GRIME'S TED $46. 86 81 14805 GR I SWOLD MARTHA ANN . $69. 55 1 31 37295 GRACE NELSON R 188. 80 81 14818 GROELKE JOHN W $92. 63 91 15004 HAIG -GRACE - --$152. 74 - _.... - _.T_ - .. i 31 37303 HAMLETT CATHY W $20. 62 21 15239 . HAMM LISA J $44. 29 31 37309 HARRIS CURTIS $55. 78 1 ' PAGE 10 YEAR REC*. NAME. . . DJE 81 37312 HARRIS LOFTON HOWELL $30. 15 4 81 37320 HEADEN RENA A $72: 12 . 81 37032 HESTER INSTALLATION $32. 74 - 21 16472' HIPPS mrcHAEL T $94. 32 __ 4 SI 1397 HOBBIT HOAGIES OF NC INC $73. 25 SI 37327 HOGAN RUSSEL THOMAS $25. 17 Si 16632 HOLLADAY JENNY R $34. 01 1 81 16835 HOLT SUSAN 2 $20. 20 81 17026 HORTON FRANKLIN $19. 91 _ ' """"- St -17049 HOSMER JAMES-THOMAS $30. 36 I SI 17330 HUGHES ROUE $12. 24 81 17372 HUNT DAVID M $64. 52 " --91 17459-HUR8T .STEYEN D $12. 75- - 4 81 37338 • NSCOE ELIZABETH J $8. 86 . 81 1490 ITEL CORP' - *12600. 04 - ---SI 17-63-4-TVEY-MARY- ANTHONY" $ 81 1513 J TAM ENTERPRISES INC $528. 31 81 37342 JACOBS DEBBI L $25. 61 SI - 1772'1-JAMESON JAMES L $187. 96 ei 81 17786 JANEZIC JOSEPH FRANCIS $11. 25 21 37346 JANNARONE KATHERINE SMIT *8. 02 $ 81 50209 JAY HOSIERY MILL $222. 90 . 81 17901 JERNIGAN DAVID EARL $8. 82 81 17906-JERZ JOSEPH JR $58. 92 • 81 12154 JOHNSON STEPHEN NICHOLAS $38. 20 - 81 18325 JONES HODGE $30. 12 81 50147-JONES JOE N $57. 90 • 21 37258 JONGENEEL CORNELIS $56. 93 81 37361 JOYCE MARGARET F SI7. 3G SI - 37362 JULIAN GARY LEE $43. 07 _ .. . . ., $ 21 37365 KASAI RYOJI $32. 50 - 81 37366 KEADLE JOHN A $104. 97 21 37367 KEMP KATHERINE ANN $119_ 10 _. . 4 81 18732 KEMPTON A HERS I $9, 05 81 50412 KERN DANIEL $237. 10 81 18972 KIMBALL JACQUELYN O'NEAL $108. 21. . 4 81 19135 KIVE-77 AROLE LEIGH 91 1641 KRASHACk RICHARD . $13. 68 . ---91 -37377- KRAUSE' PETER $10. 42 - 4 81 37379 LANE ERNEST MILTON $21. 07 81 19609 LANE GRACE P $21. 01 81 19612 LANE HENRY TED . $6. 22 4 81 20004 LEE JONG JUNG $11. 37 91 37322 LEPENE DEBBIE $46. 66 21 20TI-5-LERNER MITCHELL A $7: 09. 4 SI 20352 LIOU YEI FEZ $126. 34 21 20472 LLOYD DAVID L $25. 15 81 37041 LOCATIONS INC: - -$138. 98 6 • 81 20797 LONG MARGARET 2 $31:95 81 1740 LONGLEAF ASSOC INC $78. 89 sr 21773 -MAYFIELU JENNIE-thE -*1-08. 75- . 0 SI 37403 MCCAULEY ESTELLA M $12. 43 81 37405 MCKAY JERRY $111. 74 SI - 37404 -MCKNIGHT ERIC E ' - $70. 32 " _ 0 4r , PAGE 11 - • - YEAR NAE ;%‘ -7 81 22491 MCLAMS P $6. 32 SI 37407 MCLEAN JOHN 0 /35. 10 • 81 22511 MCLEAN JOHN L III $25. 02 81 22813 MENZACO DANNA S $58. 50 31 23164 MILLETT FRANCIS NEEDHAM $17. 02 81 23262 MISE VIRGINIA I $20. 15 SI 37422 MITCHELL ANGELA PATRICIA $82. 72 Si 50460 MOORE LEO MURRY $312. 60 GI 23965 MURRAY JAMES P _ $35. 47 GI 50230 NAVAJO TRADING POST $117. 93 GI 24294 NEWMAN WILLIAM A $11. 72 81 37440 .ICHLSON ALFARD $34. 99 SI 24396 NICHOLSON MICHAEL ALLEN $111. 07 81 24446 NIXON CLIFTON MONROE $89. 29 81 2022 NORTH SOUTH LEASING INC $223. 45 81 37447 NOWELL WINSLOW $34. 99 81 37448 NUNN ASHLEY BERNARD $40. 09 SI 37046 OAK ARBOR-ANTIGUES $1211. 04 81 37451 ODOM KAREN G $17. 35 81 37452 OKABE MASARU 569. 10 21 24742 OLIVER BILLY GENE $26. 52 81 24852 OTTER TIMOTHY , $20. 85 Si 37456 OXENDINE JEFFERY $9. 05 81 37458 PAGE ERNESTINE LACKEY -4.=-42. 21 81 50238 PARRISH GARAGE 550, 37 81 25324 PARTRIDGE EDWIN M III $37. 26 81 25352 PATE-ROB G $31 . 24 81 25438 PATTERSON SCOTT 3 $17. 60 Si 37465 PATTERSON WM F $20. 36 81 25471 PAYLOR FORREST W $9. 20 81 2144 PEDDLER STEAK HOUSE $365. 58 81 25697 PENDERGRASS DANIEL E 515. 15 el 25794 PERRET GERRD A „JR $7. 02 81 25682 PETERS PAMELA M $73. 02 81 50365 PETTIFORD DEWEY W $69. 00 81 26263 POLLACK SHARRON $77. 09 81 37477 PONTANE ANDRE WILLIAM $17. 39 81 26418 PORTER AGNES P $33. 92 . _ el 26524 POWELL JOHN DAVID II $11 . 67 31 26633 PRICE MARY L $12_ 98 ei 37481 PROCTOR MAKR 537. 59 21 2280 R W'S INC 81 27173 REDMOND ELLEN CHRISABELL $17. 03 E 81 37056 RESOURCE ONE INC $121. 10 21 27331 RICE BARBARA E $11. 87 21 27494 RIETHER ANNE MARIE A $11. 51 81 27626 RIISXA NANCY M $28. 50 ( 21 28160 ROBINSON TED $65_30 91 2353 ROCKY SPRING RANCH $85. 32 21 29241 "R GrgER 2 ENNETFFWEB STEP $64. 44 91 37502. ROgERS WILLIAM PENN ADAI $51. 18 R ,:. 81 37504 ROSENZWEIG-RICHARD ALAN $21. 92 ,,,,,_ . ..... . •• . - . PAGE. i 2 r YEAP PEC; . NA,,/E 21 29515 R JFF I N EDER K $34. 70 "" al 28643 SALM JOHN $87. 52 81 22656 SALTER PRENTICE C $42. 60 81 37508 SAWBORN.. JEAW HARLENE $26. 30 21 29671 SAND.BERG: IN:xA HELENA $91. 91 81 50414 SAWYER MILES ` $189, 92 Si 28799 SCAND'JRA JOHN E $46. 95 - 81 28885 SCHEUER JAMES GARDNER $127. 50 Si 37512. SCHLEGLE JOHN $46. 66 Si _ 2-8937 S HNEIDE ..HEINZ $111. 73 81 37513 SEARING JULIE MARIE $250. 72 81 37514 SHAMBLE"• WILLIAM F $58. 62 81 29371 SHAR'PE LcQNt7RA LYNNE - $32: 04 . - - __... 81 29436 SHEEHAN CHARLES B $40. 23 81 37519 SHEIL PETER WILLIAM $70. 22 81 __..2935....5 TECMt3's`1�-..W I CL I AM._M_..... -- - ----. -._....._.._....$f 4. 78.,.... 81 37526 SISK JULIAN L $15. 64 Si 29770 SK I DMCRE AL I SCI ; LEE $45. 67 81 37527 SLEDGE--- .EMPER B . - . -$9. 09 _. '° 81 2461 SOUND ENTERPRISES INC $1125. 60 81 37062 SOUTHEASTERN iN T ERCRCUP $96. 20 INC 0 81 37533 SPINK ERIC RANDALL $66, 74 81 30671 S i EERE MARC I A j $41. 49 81 37542 STOKES 'WILLIAM SNOW $21. 17 Si 30930 STRASSN• NN VERA F $21. 30 91 30996 STRIPPEL LAURA $96. 68 81 31112 STUTTS.....ALLEM -W $12. 92 81 37543 SUCGS CAROLYN M $10. 36 8i 37545 SU o CLIFFE CAROL P $113. 22 S1 31274 SWAIN BARBARA C $48. 71 81 36740 SWANN BRENDA L $93. 96 81 31379 SYKES JA.::GUEL I NE $10. 91 81 _261-6 TAR-HEEL-66 . -$200. 18.. . _.,_._....._...__. _. . ..._.._._ Si 37551 T ERRELL ELIZABETH $46. 86 81 32029 TERRY WAY NE R $248. 71 81 32117 THOMAS STANLEY R $67. 21 r 81 37557 THOMPSON CALVIN LEE $9. 92 Si 32199 THOMP SOS'. T : ti_Yi K $47. 89 89 81 37560 TICHNOR SARAH D .-.. $21. 94. . S1 50528 TISDALE MICHAEL A $58. 05 81 32533 TOBIN RICHARD SCOTT $6. 32 81 37565 T OTARQ..-_FRANK $P.-7. 29 81 32726 TRELEVEN MARK DANIEL $108. 60 21 37565 TR000E.N BENJAMIN KIN'S $17. 39 t Tw _T -L --- 81 327 95 _TRt71 z r;A;'r•.,--W T�,�F,' � a...A�dE _......- t21. 02 81 37570 TUG;-WELL MARVIN $37. 39 81 33182 VALLONE JANINE $57. 17 81 33188 VANBEEST KOBUS $9. 21 e1 33332 VEROJ SHERRY $17. 66 81 . 33417 V I SSCHER L I L T ANA C $47. 74 -81 - ---37584-...WALKER CLINTON -._ $46: 06 -----..............._..:..._.._ -- S1 37596 WALKER WALTER $46. 34 81 32937 WALL •JAMES EDWARD $25. 55 S 1 33878 WALLER KAREN E I LEEH $17. 00 IIV PAGE 13 _ • . , • YEAR REC#_ NAME_ _ . . DUE 81 37558 WANKWIC-2 FRANCIS 121. 92 81 37589 WARD DAVID C $2. 67 el 37594 WASHBURN JOHN WAYNE $68. 42 81 34555 WENDER STEPHEN A 170_ 59 81 37611 WHITE LARRY WILLIAM $17_ 30 81 2993 WHITE OAKS DEPT. STOR 1429. 45 81 34937 WHITTED JOHN P 146. 86 81 34942 Wt-4ITTED PAMELA 117. 96 81 37614 WIGGINS JOHN $44. 02 81 35326 WILLIAMS 'MARGARET C 1314. 26 81 35353 WILLIAMS PAUL BRAZELL $69. 57 81 35377 WILLIAMS ROBERT E 1425. 83 81 35448 WILLIAMSON 'RONALD J $18. 85 ( 21 37630 WOOD JOHN R -$26. 43 81 36003 WOOLFORD JAMES EARL 1103. 2/ -81 --37635WORTH- CHARLES H $19. 61 ( 81 37637 WRIGHT CRYSTAL DAWN 117_ 38 91 36123 WRIGHT MILTON K $46. 70 21 - 36163 WYNN CHARLES. W $4. 34 . _ . __ ( 81. 37644 YORK LARRY $46. 86 -4-** 82 51059 ADAMS MALLEY 1201. 82 82 145 AL MASHAT ' ABDEL MONIEM 1153. 93 82 51003 ALLEN THOMAS $64. 43 22 493 ANCHARSKI SUSAN 114_ 82 82 50120 ARONIN PATRICIA ANNE 1412. 52 82 755 ARRINGTON RENEE C $59. 38 82 51532 ASSAAD MARIE THERESA $27. 05 82 34641 ATLANTIC CST ENTER SYS I 11228. 17 4 NC 82 51535 ATWATER WILLIAM 1198. 45 82 51303 BAINE DAVID WILSON $3. 32 4 22 51004 BALDWIN JERRY 1236. 38 82 51005 BANNOCK MICHAEL 122. 82 82 34688 BARBARA ANN TYSON 1528. 86 i . 82 50009 BARBEE PATSY 173. 12 32 1350 BARGER CATHERINE HUNT 146. 29 82 1596 BAUER KENNETH J •168_ 55 . i 82 1889 BENNETT SHARON 139. 79 82 1945 BERNARD DNA M $18. 78 92 34733 BESHEM INC- $1305. 05 62 34733 BIBB ENTERPRISES INC 1254. 77 22 2044 BIBB TISDALE WYATT $52. 39 82- 3470- BLACIE 'S STEAK. HOUSE 1431. 45 _ 82 50364 BLAKE GREG L 17. 96 82 51009 BOOAN DAVID 1122. 33 92 34777 BOLDIN LOGGING - - -131EL32 _ ( 92 2522 BONILHA JOAO BS 18. 72 82 2533 BOONE FRED AMIR III 13:16 82 2741 BOYETTE JOEL- ALAN-- --- 129. 75 - 82 2758 BRACKEN WILMA 1104. 76 22 2771 BRADLEY MICHAEL D $20. 44 - - 82-- 2875. BRADY JAMES R $4. 76 41 . ' - • . . PAGE 14 YEAR REC*. NANT: DUE 22 2900 BRAND WILLI A $12. 16 82 38443 BROCK NANCY P 1116. 54 82 3419 BROWN HENRY MARSHALL 1134. 80 82 --3514 -BROWN STEVEN-MICHAEL 1160. 34 82 3549 BROWNING ILEY BAKER III $93. 79 . 82 51311 BRYAN HUGH D $34. 00 82 51013:BRYANT-CHARLES $39. 70 82 3782 BURKE JAMES 1408. 33 - 82 3862 BURNETTE CARLENE GLORIA 1123, 66 ----82 -3958-BORWELE- R JANE ------ r62: 3 . 82 4119 BYRD LAVERDA BOBBETTE K 18. 78 82 34968 CAROLINA GRILL $90. 03 82 -47117-CARVER-ALICE-CRAIG , $4. 04 - 82 4745 CARVER TERRY $4. 75 82 4779 CASTELLANA DEBORAH A 173. 15 ----82 ---350 05-C-ATETRD INC" -- 82 4943 CATES SARAH N $48. 24 82 35052 CENTURY 21 VILLAGE PROBE 1198. 25 RTIES 82 5083 CHANCE ROBERT T $96. 26 22 5242 CHEEK RICHARD N 140. 23 22 35160 CHEZ CONDOR= 116:,2. 64 r-1-1.... 5322 CHIEFFET MAURINE DULLARD 122. 26 c,. 82 51017 CHRISTIAN EMILY L 145. 40 22 51021 -COPELAND PHIL $97. 76 : 92 - 50989 COSTNER MARGARET A $29. 00 82 6505 COSTON ALLA P 114. 92 92 6585- COUK0S •JOAFE 1138. 05 82 6255 CRAMER TIM $95. 54 82 38903 CUBE ROSANNE $66_ 34 82 7150 CUMMINS CHARMAND F 14. 49 82 7366 DANIELS MELEGIA L JR 1157. 11 82 7403 DARCH THEODORE E $77. 00 - - 82 - 3849I-DAVT9--VIRGINIA C 112. 77 . .. .____ _ _.• 82 7819 DEHAIS DIANE MARIE 1119. 35 • 82 51025 DEVANCEY UOHN 1234. 60 22 7984 DICEY LEANNE :- .4,88_ 37 82 51026 DODD WINNIE 120. 62 82 8266 DOOLEY MARK C $186. 85 92 8305 DOSS ROBERT-C 171125 82 51100 DUNCAN ....: DAVID 1214. 07 92 9692 EASTRIDGE LILY MONTANO $18. 82 82 - 8693 EASTRIDGE TIMDTHY- IRVIN 16. 90 - ------ 82 2802 EDWARDS CLARENCE J $38. 45 82 8908 EDWARDS DELOIS $10. 03 82 8907- EMARDS DIANE- 1130. 39 ' --- ;-- 82 50276 ELMER FENDER GRAFT 1904. 28 82 38962 ENSLEY TIM D 124. 50 82 -51696-EUBANKS" ANTHONY-S- - $3:58 •- -- . . 82 9454 FALLIN WILLIAM PENN JR 1205. 01 82 9528 FARRER LINDSAY AMES $14. 75 - - 82---51030-FARRTNTIDN-TROMAS- $37. 29- 1 82 51504 FARRIOR :7.NGRAM EARL 112_ 74 82 9659 FAULKNER HOWARD VERNON ' 1123. 35 82 50410 FEARRINGTON CATHERINE B $70. 74 - -" -- ' - _____ . ____ .._. _.,._ .._„____•___..__ 4- ` PAGE 15 YEAR REC #_ NAME- - . . . . . - . - . . . D''JE. 32 9790 FERNAi•D'EZ JOHN MAXWELL $141. 91 -4 82 9972 FITZPATRICK JOHN MICHAEL $25. 82 82 51032 FOG LEMAN'i MARGARET 361. 07 . 32 10159 FORMAN ROBERT MITCHELL $128. 11 • 4 82 10352 FOX OLIN M $6. 06 82 39005 FRANKE GEORGE - $23. 43 .. 82 10726 FULLER ROSCOE $35. 11 82 11156 GEORGE ANTHONY RAY $15. 54 82 51521 01250N A DR ICE $4. 45 -82.. . - 3581-4 CCLA 0 PAMA $159. 96 _ _.__ _w .._.,. 82 35815 CLAM 0 RAMA $42. 61 82 11427 COINS JUDY $223. 35 82 - 11472 .GOLDSTEIN MICHELE M $10. 91 . . 4v 82 11480-:` .. GANDER SUSAN FEDDERLY 166. 25 82. 39035':COULD BARBARA $6. 501 •. . • __.-- a2 1Ib39 G Q,I-IAm- pEGGY suE $70. 77 82 11763 GREEN CHRISTOPHER R $231. 59 82 38532 HAGAN JOHN P $87. 43 .... _ 2.. 2 - , -- -------- --._. ...----.._..----.__.�---- ---- --._...------------ __.---- EtG 1 x.32 3iALL w I L L I Ai'i... $282. 2S �. 82 51037 HARRISON L. B $130. 63 82 - 38267 HARRISON'S $245. 71 _82 .. 12 959_H TC.H -J.. �__G,.. .... _.$20. 2b „L. 82 51550 HEADEN RENA A $56. 19 92 13364 HERNDON GEORGE J .$16. 66 82 39092--HILL SUSAN I3 $66. 46 82 13720 HINSON STUART MOORE $70. 56 82 39103 HOLMAN WANDA 0 $6. 80 82 - -i 4061 HOLCrMAN__.COivS T ANt;E _C..__.... _. X67-.48__._..-.. 82 38015 HOWARD EUGENE P $7. 36 82 51464 HOWARD ISAAC $66. 55 82 912E Hi1SKETH VIOLET HA)aiLETT $13. 78 ,, 82 14563 'POCK WILLIAM H $145. 95 82 14869 IRONS KENNETH DAVID $118. 65 _ ...__.....__.82.... .- 1496 JACK ON HA. .E. W - - J T$92. 33 _ ..... __.__....._._.�_._.._._ __ �`.�_._. 4, 82 38558 JENKINS JOHN $8. 68 82 15250 JOBE VICKIE L $88. 82 82 502807.)C3HFd-HAMIsl)RG & ASSOC $22. 82 ,4, 82 15289 JOHNSON CAREY M $16. 19 82 15423 JOHNSON LAURA A $8. 08 82 50711 JOHNSON WILLIE $164. 96 82 15736 JONES LESLIE NANCY $49. 23 82 50713 JONES SAM *496. 58 82 15952 KANE GARRET K AW 82 16019 KEDEKE1 N JOHN MICHAEL $6. 91 22 16417 KILLOUGH VIRGINIA E $60. 75 82 .I7-64 .KNUCKLES -DE Tr I-E -NELSON'.....--- _ $72. 92- - 16 82 36280 KRASHACK RICHARD 322. 93 82 1.6865 KREI_T ZEr PAULA M $83. 34 82 ..._. 362 51 -KR I SSA RES TAUFAN T I PC $28. 94 -..._. .... - _�_-�--- _ s 82 17099 LANE ERNEST MILTON $4,12 . 82 17105 LANE HENRY TED $2- 69. .. -82 171-26 E NEY._...GERACDINE.�N--- _-- -X24. 5 - 82 17290. LATTA CECIL P $4. 48 82 17334 LATTA MARY A $9. 90 _. 82 17458 ...LAYTON DONNA..-E -- • .. $7 5. 9 4 -7 II it • E a PAGE 14 r YEAR RE C*. NAIME. _ . . . . . . . _ . . . - - CUE • 22 17591 LEGGETT DAVID ALEXANDER $44. 14 . • 22 17630 LENOR.I :CATHERINE LEE $74. 25 22 . 17648 LERNER SAM 339. 60 22 17682 EEVIN ARTHUR- ALAN $57. 31 82 18034 LLOYD CLAUDE W $127. 58 S2 51669 LONG JOHN L $22. 60 02 .18424 LOVE LAWRENCE RAY $30. 44 _.. 02 38587 LUCAS JAMES. MONROE $86. 42 82 51469 LUNSFORD REBECCA SUE $9. 32 ..�1U647 LYONS- APTR"rCTA-E LEEN ...�$541-89 ...... 82 • 18950 MANSFIELD SUSAN CATHERIN 336. 20 E _ ._....__......82. .. '127-67-MARCH Di4vI S-_.ANuREW -.. .. __.._ ......._.._-$97. 31_ ..-.. 82 19064• MARSHALL CINDY $18: 52 82 39241. MCCAULEY BOBBY •$b. 21 ..AF,INE..� �._��331...1 ... 22 39247 MCKENNA 'STEVEN EUGENE $19. 93 02 20192 MCM I LLAN ALEXANDER $245. 17 2r p 6 NDO * I 7 4�2 GL}'YC..'4Jf�E!`iJJOZA _r�r'�i`F1R._.._H . .. ._.._.....$47. 5J ..:. _. . 82 20802 MILLS CATHY $34. 29 82 20905 MISE VIRGINIA I $43. 64 S2 " '2-123 .-i''iL'ORE....LAUR.A .fir. - -- - ---$47_ 91 82 21984 NEWCOMB WILLIAM A $48. 52 82 51405 NICHOLS EVELYN F 3124. 18 82 22149-..NICKESON KAREN H 36. 7 82 3.6731 OAK ARBOR ANT IGUES $567. 06 06 82 22391 OBIE DALLAS DOUGLAS $6. 10 82 50727"ODOM W I LL I M 3i24, 17 22 22491 OLIVER BILLY GENE $68. 36 32 22544 ONE I LL ROGER ALAN $16. 09 82 22545 ORMAND MI s CHELL . L $69, 13 . . 22 22662 OWENS RICHARD 34. 21 82 22767 PAIT LARRY R $59. 69 . --- 82 3tir g34`PAtiT5. RAC F INC_ - 3207. 12 _... _. ...._... .. .., - 82 22848 PARKER CALLIE M $6. 29 . 82 22702 PARKER JACQUELINE H $73. 29 92 230038- -PARR I SH CATHY DEVERN $4.. 77 . . . 02 2 3062 PARR I SH ',,,;-;`r NE :. $0. 00 82 . 23328 PEARSON SHIRLEY L $30. 88 82 23545-PERLrAN5A. SJ 7ry ?26- 11 82 23955 PIPERSBURG SANDRA M $70. 74 82 24062 POLK SUSAN MARILYN $10. 03 82 24064 POLLARD JOHN I $3. 74 ±$: 82 24680 RA I NER M I TT I E (K I K I ) L $97. 76 02 36993 RAY & CO OF F H INC $104. 99 - 22 '51477-REAMS SANDRA u . .__............. . .. .. . S2 50062 REAP CYNTHIA LYNN $88. 07 02 50735 REDFEARN JAMES 523. 20 -02 25111- REINHOLD BARBARA ANN $13..57 82 25309 RICHTER LISA CAROL • 569. 03 . 22 25319 RICKS BEVERLY K $45. 03 82 50737`RTGSBE4 WAR-`--_.. _ _ $206. 17 f • 82 51479 RIGSBEE MARY $14. 63 82 51480 RILEY .O'LIV'JS BOBBY $50. 43 • 22 25770 ROBERSON CHARLES..J $24. 46 YEAR RE #. NAME. . . . .. . . . . _ . . . . DUE 22 51431 ROBERSON VAN $7. 79 32 38175 ROBINSON SHIRLEY F $40. 00 82 26033 ROBINSON VAL A I R J $17. 49 82 26185 ROLLINS CARL $16. 49 82 26409 RUDD LESLIE $4. 81 32 37104 SCH CORP OF MEBANE $72. 72 22 26890 SCHUMAN ROBERT HERMAN $33. 62 { 82 26916 SCHWERT7 JOSEPH S JR 6110. 64 82 . 26918 SCORTICHINI CAREY L $37. 98 82... ._ 27009 SCRO00INSS' LEON GAWAYNE $50. 43 JR 82 27084 SEINER GEOFFREY RAY $63. 51 82 27085 SEI, UEFFREY C $82. 18 f,. 82 51642 SEXAUER MAE. LYNN $27. 79 • 82 27323 SHAW MACK $14. 97 82 x,7.23--SI3y1�7N G€EG __---._...-------.�._..----...... _._......._.. ..._.___....._._..__._.. ._.... _._._.._.____.._�._.-_.__�_.--.--.____, 82 2 E RY E $143. 99 82 50742 SIMPSON RANDALL R $19. 15 82 27670 SINGLETARY BETSY D $27. 92 32 .... '32166 SINGLETON JOHN P $134. 77 82 27704 SKJOR3HAMMER MORTEN $101. 00 82 51431 SNODGRASS RANDALL D S115. 61 82 37247 SPRING DRIVE DAY CARE $18. 11 92 22694 STEPHSON VICKY REGINA $30. 68 82 28745 STEWART GEORGE CAMERON $192. 03 82 51684 STRANGE NANCY E $36. 96.. . 82 28978 STRONG EDWARD S $3. 84 82 39455 SULLIVAN: HERMAN C $103. 12 ... �. -. 32 5 746 SUMTER ._.DIE AN . ..._. . _ . . .. $60. 19 82 39457 SUNDERHAUF KAREN $93. 94 62 29 725 TATS' MICHAEL. NOAH $87. 41 82 30049 TEYKER 'PATRICIA ANNE $52. 32 82 30192 THOMPSON EFFIE $31. 51 82 51487 THOMPSON JAMES LEE $41. 36 82 - - THORNE MELVIN LEE x183. 50 62 51125 TICONIUM COMPANY $150. 18 82 30520 TILSON STEPHEN P $66. 75 32 30632 TORAIW FRANK 5_ 6 1 32 3073? TOWNSEND JOHN L III $214. 16 E2 30807 TRIPLINE MICKI $26. 73 22 30866 TSAI LI ��G -._. �.�#z $19. 49 82 30 924 TUNNELL BENNIE 0 $4. 43 82. 31219 VALLEY SUSAN CARROLL $40. 22 82 37641 VICKERS AUDIO INC $1735. 23 82 31501 VOTRA FRANCIS N $50. 86 82 31643 WAGONER LES W II $6. 91 82 32129 WARDLA._JiTERIA k ._...$53,.. 34- 4 82 32492 WEBB MARCIA A $5. 13 82 32685 WEST PEGGY C $139. 75 82 32718 ANDA S $24% 50 ID 82 32732 WHALEY MARTHA SUE $104..14 82 50998 WHIT T ED THORNTON 0 $154. 60 S2 50752-r1 G a I NSJ JOFK - -- $27. 30 82 51493. WILKINS EVERET T E BEAN $39. 28 32 33437 WILLIAMS MARGARET C $27. 26 82 51490 W I L I AMS---DER ESA FAYE _. $24. 88 - 4 'P ASE 13 f YEAR REC4_ NAZI DUE 32 50756 WILSON LINDA $103- 8' C 32 39547 WOOD BL. E $38. 54 02 34042 WOODS HUMAN $23. 41 82 34194 WR'l H, {;EORGE .J T63. 35 if 22 34264 WYLER PATRICIA A $43. 01 . 82 34302 WYSOCK I ANTHONY L $54. 59 82 39557-YAFFE MICHAEL E $28. 93 82 34387 YEATES KEITH OWEN $20. 19 82 3.4513 ZELLER EILEEN F ... . ` $4. 6..-0 _ ...... _$2_�-3_�571� E� lEl �� JvRhFREDER 1CK X25. 23 ---- _ _.. fr iI#fie 83 777. ARMFRONG KENNETH 0 $86. OS 83 1011- ATWATER WILLIAM X46. 24 T 83 1202 BAINE DAVID WILSON $12. 93 83 1352 BALL ELMO $5. 73 ----...,23 -....174-4-BATTS ROBERT .._._ $.54. 1 S- ... ._. t 83 36847. BEDDING SHOWCASE $75. 57 - 93 2062 BENNETT RITCHIE HAUL L $43. 31 ..._ - S3..., _.__..._-..,.2252 _BI•NKERT...-F:WANZ .$49.... 50_..... .._.._.._.... -.__... .- -- 93 36825 BISCUIT TOWNE $3377. 56 83 2395 BLACKNELL COLENA - 28. 37 83 36910-..BOLD I n _p Cl y. $222. 20 _. ... _- (( 83 2859 BOVRNE CAROLYN DALE $49. 15 83 40996 BR I TT -JAMES D $20. 45 -....83 40247'--13R'IT T ON THOMAS P • $13. 93 !q 83 3544 BROOKS GARY $135. 28 83 3912 BRUML LESLIE ROY . $104. 44 03 4019-BULLARD PAUL $76. 88 l( 83 4074 BUNN RALPH H $42. 00 83 4248 BURNETTE MARYLYN F $17. 45 03._. 4604 CALDWELL Ord"'ice $$-9. 86 ' 1 4- 83 4670 CAMPBELL. MARY A $4. 12 83 41305 CARROLL JANE LOUISE $10. 29 83 371-14 4 --CATIRD INC --. .. $461, 21 i,t 83 50778 CATE ELAINE H $84. 62 83 5416 CEPELAK CHERYL E $93. 55 23-. .._.__--X41 i CERNY RONALD -LYNN-.... - w..._..._. 43 13g- -.1,'t 83 41033 CHAMBERS JAMES A $22. 49 83 5677 CHEIN MING MA X52. 12 83 - ---..5681 CHErslEY ED-NA .I"1..... $15. -19._ _.. ('[" 83 5731 CHOPE ROGER A $66. 37 03 5727 CHOW LEE $96. 13 ., -- a3---•---- 5793 CNN TSTE'iS^i- 'TCxTE RU55E- S108.-5 ___..._.- _ _._ .._ -1([ LL 83 HURLISS $22. 78 83 5873 5861 MCLr CLAP?R AUD A._C. $120. 80 - 'i( 83 5970 CLARK MINDY WALTON $14. 85 93 6276 COGNETTI GOFFREDO $109. 77 [-,1! 83.-_--..4'T331-coNMANDEUt< ERNA $83= 33 ?.( ! 83 6814 COOPER riAE SUE $13. 03 83 6973 COSTNER MARGARET A . 02 83 41057 COUNCIL F EL"I C I A RENEE._ ., _. X96. 84 '( ( . 4 PAGE 19 YEAR REC*. NAME iE 83 41 063 CRISP MARION L 1,54. 49 33 40785 CUSTOM CABINET COMPANY $22. 15 23 37410 DANCO MARINE ENTERPRISE $1304. 77 INC 83 50323 DARVILLE DENNIS P $126. 42 83 9 189 DAVIS VIRGINIA C $4. 53 83 8348 '.EG.AFFENREIO; BRENARD $6. 14 83 9032 DUKES LAURA ATWATER $8. 94 83 9393. EDWARD SHERYL D $32. 84 E EDWARD EL.__- _-.----- _.__._ 83 443 OIS 548. 89 83 9512 EDWARDS PAWLEY B $92. 63 83 9686 ELESAWI E $126. 02 83 50467 ELL I SON CHARLIE J $21;97 83 37640 ELMER PENDERGRAFT $198. 26 83 41386 ESAAWI KHALIFA $125. 74 • A _.....----------. r --__..._.__..___�._.._�.-----...._.....___............ --- -. ...___... 5 ANTHONY S $2. 46 83 10020 EVANS NAOMI JEAN $24. 88 83 50612 FAULKNER HOWARD VERNON $132. 24 83 1051.9 FEUER ERIC JEFFREY $37. 13 83 50599 FIELD JEAN MARIE $9. 68 83 10566 FINDLEY DEBRA JOY $63. 89 83 10575-"FINK MARC ALAI: $44. 55 83 10790 FLYTHE. GREG $6. 14 83 11119 FRANZON BRENDA $10. 04 83 11399 FRUCHT ANDREA J $68. 10 83 37913 FRY & CHILDRES : 381. 43 83 11474 FULLER ROSCOE $44. 27 83 4.036.5_ G ABOR j I� IA L3_._.._..__..._.. $14. 86 83 11678 GARNER CHRISTINE N $155. 77 83 37969 GENERALS GUARTERS $39. 21 83 40374 GILDERT FLOYD-R $100. 83 83 12227 GO I NS JUDY $103. 63 83 12233 GCLAND CAROL A $66. 95 83 12616 GREEN KATHLEEN ANN $23. 53 83 12811 GRIFFITH CAROL L $52. 81 93 50111 GRISX.A JOSEPH MATTHEW JR $150. 58 83 40400 !-CALL FRED DORIS $47. 00 ( 83 13220 HALL PEG'GY BECK $16. 13 83 50422 HALLOMAN WILMAR B $68. 66 83. . 13257 HALLORAN DANIEL J $89. 70 ( 83 50763 HARPER DIANE M $5. 80 83 14427 HIC .MAN EDWARD V $15. 29 83 14924 HOLLINGSWORTH DAVID K $12-4, 08 83 15102 HOLTON SUSAN C 387. 75 83 15271 HORNER THURMAN F $29. 34 83 15279__HORSCH. R DIANE M $18. 21 83 15618 HULL CARMIE ALEXANDER 325. 36 83 40802 INTERNATIONAL COSUL T ANTE $168. 46 83 15949 JACKSON DAVID WILLIAM $13. 63 ( 83 16022 JACOBS MOLLIE $25. 58 83 16109 JANSEN DENNIS WILLIAM $72: 54 - 83 -- 40804 JORN....HAMBUR & ASSOC $4177.,_. 83 40456 JOHNSON ERNEST M $2266 83 16519 JOHNSON RUTH MARY $3323 83 " 14542 JOHNSON-_T M615 YOS t ..PAGE 20 YEAR REC*. NAME DUE 83 16553 JOHNSON WILLIAM AUSTIN $4. 45 83 16646 JONES CHERYL 0 $21. 46 •93 16872 JONES THOMAS WAYNE $9: 87 - 83 1-6890 JONES-WILLIAM 0 $217b0 83 50059 JUAN ALVA $9. 17 a3 17032 KAPLAN DAVID H $76. 22 83 -50552KEARNSLISA ANN - --- $68. 10 f 83 38426 .KEENAN CONSTRUCTION CO I $95. 29 NC . -- ' $14:20 83 17533 KEY CATHERINE D $35. 54 93 17533 KHALIFEH SAHAR ADNAN $37. 97 :-----83-7-1-733KING CONNIE GATE- $54. 58 83 40470 KINNEY MARTIN A $67. 19 -- 83 .1.7800 KIRKPATRICK MAILE $49. 51 83 -4Cr473-1CDEaTUSATC-Ftr- -t-1-47. 76 - _ 8• 17963 KOFORD JOHN L JR $32. 95 83 50406 KREBS TIMOTHY W $135. 26 _ 33 -180454KROC NANCY- E $22. 06 ----- --- 0 83 181.12 KUNZ BERNARD ALEXANDER $120. 05 83 18305 LANE ERNEST MILTON $16. 14 ---- 83 ----18-41-5-1=ARSON-rINDA $81. 28 _ 11- 83 18430 LASKY TANAR NYMAN $32. 66 83 18596 LAWRENCE CAROL J $125. 73 83 -18788-LEE-TZE-FUN $11. 46 4 83 12835 LEMBERG DAVID I $125. 82 83 19232 LIVERMORE MILTON J $29. 69 83 49553-LOGUE-MICHAEL ANTHONY' $6' . 41 03 19887 LYLE • AMES E $19. 82 83 20031 MACK IRENE W $33. 15 83 -20686-- MAYER SANDRA B .-$109. 37 83 50647 MCADAMS R MICHAEL $248. 18 83 20868 MCADOO RONNIE L $5. 52 83 20-8tTh---MCALLIsEP j D- -133. 01 83 20989 MCCASKILL BAKER FREDERIC $99. 92 K LEWIS 83 21-569-MCMURTIE JEFFREY' LEE $21. 82 83 21636 MCRAE BRIAN ROSS $19. 84 83 21673 MEBANE CYNTHIA $31. 06 83 2I72E-MEDETWRONNTE LEE $13. 74- 83 21740 MEGEHEE CAROL H S190. 55 83 21901 MESERVE DONALD HART $38. 56 83 . 21929-MEYER 'KEN - $17. 21 83 38817 MID SOUTH AMUSEMENT CO I $17. 19 NC --- 93 388-18- MTU -SOUTH AMUSEMENT-CO I '$24. -64 • " NC 83 22672 MOORE WILLIAM C $115. 67 - 83 23043-MURPHY KATHY A $14. 86 83 23090 MUSCHELL JEFFREY SCOTT $13:79 • 23 23288 NELSON CHERYL R $35. 85 - 83- -23321 NEMETH R01.-.4ER JOHN' $84 67 IF 83 23668 NORRIS MAMIE F $8, 42 83 40554 NOVAK THOMAS PAUL $14. 07 83 --23715-NUGENT-RACHEL --$100. 05 _ . 4r • ` PAGE 21 . C. YEAR REC#. NAME DJE.- - - - - - G3 23999 ONEAL JENNIFER L $13. 86 03 24113 OWENS BETTE L $33. 81 83 24126 OXENDINE__ NANCY P $51. 69 ' 83 ...__.....50660 PAD ETT GEORGE CLIFFORD- " LIFFORD ...- ... .... . 17 83 24205 PAINTER ARNOLD LYNN $9. 13 ,,, 83 24321 PARKER CHERYL .P .$5. 85 83 24531 PARRISH WAYNE 0 $0. 00 83 24961 PENDERGRASS DAVID KENT $6. 23 ti 83 40571 PEREZ RENE JR _------ $237. 49_ G3 25233 PHELAN BRIAN K S149. 37 L 83 . 25457. P I NSKY DAVID E $84. 67 83 • 26014 PRINGLE LAURIE M $9. 12 83 20507PAOPSTE i OBERT CHARLES $7. 17 (-- . 83 24168 :.QU I NN FRANK $3..97. 4 83 261.94: RAFFALOVICH DANIEL. 0 $14. 49 _ _.. :. ----23 ---26585 am KENNETH G ,.iR $15. 54 (_ 83 26615 REES WENDY 0 $29. 28 83 26695 RENNEP ALEXANDAR B $123. 36 83 267+ R EW MONAC 5 57. 59 83 26775 RICE ANGELA FARR $57. 57 . i :1 83......._.__...... _ �. $18. 79 �_... __.._...:..w ,___- 83 27.644-ROBINSON-SHIRLE1 F $.._ - . C 83 27804 ROLLINS CARL H $14. 45 83 27908 ROSEN T JOHN $37. 69 w 83 28002 ROWE SUZAN #E 511. 19 C: 83 28022 ROYSTER MELVIN VERDERLY $26. 73 83 39450 .8 & W TAILORS $9. 04 83 41257 SAGAR I CORP $217. 71 23 28265 SANNARD CHLOE A $66. 34 83 50810 SAZAMA MARY CORTNEY $24.. 18 83 28508' SCHOENFELD BRIAN LAwRENC $103. 23 t E 83 41258 SHACKLEFORD EXERCISE STU $526. 54 83 29050 SHEPARD GEORGE E $77. 98 83 29113 SHIMIZU MOTOYUKI $46. 41 83 . . .. 29f73-SHORT ELBA ...... - $45. 34 t 83 50003 SINGGLETARY NEMORE B $109. 84 83 29687 SMITH MELISSA ANN $3. 80 S3 4 498' SMI T1=i MEL I rd $194. 79 _ ._ _ , . ..K., 83 29750 SMITH SCOTT R $135. 10 83 29904 SNIPES SANDRA K $28. 20 _ 83 -299347 SOBELJOCELYN L - __'.__ _....u...__.X16- 32 I_ - 83 29939 SOEDJITO BAMBANG B $28. 48 - - 83 29966 SOMER V i LLE.. ERNEST R $81. 98 83 0-3521- ST NFtRD-CA RLES i 7R $3.€33 . --------..__ _____ ( 83 39606 STATION RESTAURANT $303. 91 03 30421 STEELE ANTONIO W E $45. 64 83 30723. STRANGE-NANCY E $31. 62 ( 83 30990 SUGGS KENNETH S $131. 11 83 31020:..SULLI VAN DEBORAH L . : .:.54. 35 : : 83 - 31-02 SULi I TAT-HERM"AN C $11. 46 - C 83 31336 TALYKDAR RAHIM B $30. 95 a 83 31426 TART JOYCE CAROL $37. 46 ---------'--83 - 321-617THOMPSON-�. ETTH S $30. 95 t..) __ l r • ` ' _ .RAGE 22 YEAR REC.#_ NAME DUE 83 32226 THOMPSON R ICHARD BDICE $72. 59 83 32557 TORAIN LOUIS A $11. 22 83 32573 TORAIN TONY W $38. 02 �w_..83 ....-32E� ---TR VI.:S. ..- I MEL SSA' ANN $92. 4 t 83 32812 TUGWELL MAR V I N T JR $20. 29 • 83 32822 TUNN I CL I FF SUZELLE _�Y $3. 80 ...__.. .83 ... 33308"-VESTAL -FAM...R- --- ___ _______ _._._. _._... ... ........... ______..__.__-._._.. $3. 82 • • 83 33882 WALLACE SYLVIA $68. 47 83 33904 .WALMER..:DAVID ,.: $33: 13.. ---83----3-4172"3 3 WARD JANE l 1 I . . . $31. 06 83 50771 WATERS JAN I CE G $196: 56 •_1 83 50446 WEAVER MICHAEL 9 $6. 14 . 83.----5400 JEAVER OBER t II- $66:. 05.� �_ _..__.. .. 83 34471 � WEBER °HAMS. '..., . .$55: 91 ...: _ : - 83 34803. WHITE BARBARA H :. $159. 54 -_...93 H ITE—JTRE9 E 484 .fir 83 34885 WHITE. RUSSELL D $173. 42 83 35048 WHITTED THORNTON 0 $31. 58 35097 WILBUR-TiyNNE.---_.... _ _- $33.33 ... ..__ of 83 35337- WILLIAMS :CLIFTON $4. 83 63 35462 WILLIAMS KIMBERLY CLARK $41. 20 -__----63--._-_-356-1 . TiLL3`AMSON JILLTAiI i? _. .._ .�. .$8_-._84.,_._. S3 35648 WILLS DOROTHY D $67. 79 83 35665 WILSON BARBARA DIANE $87. 43 $: 35898 WINKLE �BE..R. $16. 38 83 36399. WYNN TOMMY $21. 64 4 -.1142 ITEMS LISTED..,...... 4 1 _APPROVED MARCH 1. 1988 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 1988 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 16, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the old Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Shirley E. Marshall, Moses Carey, Jr. , John Hartwell and Don Willhoit. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Stephen Halkiotis. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John N. Link, Jr. , Assistant County bby Baker, Managers William Laws and Kittrell, Director o EMS DataBoProcessing Planner Gene Bell, Clerk to t Director Keith Brooks, Sergeant Joe Dickey, Personnel TechnicianonDarlene Farrish, Tax Collector Johnny Horner, Purchasing Assessor R Kermit Lloyd, Lindy Land Roscoe Reeve, Major Don A. BOARD AND MANAGERS COMMENTS 1. Chair Marshall eXPsse$hecstated about that although f isanotaa licensing and its ramifications. public hearing, the Board would hear comments from chosen representatives of the group in attendance. 2 . The appointment of an Agriculture Extension Director was added to the agenda. 3 . A resolution was added to the agenda as D2. 4. Item F--12 was deleted from the agenda. placed as item 5. Item F2 was removed from the Consent Agenda and p G17 . 6. Manager Link requested that item F8 include a proposal for Joint Planning which will be forthcoming and the Board agreed. 7 . Item G-15 was deleted. 8 . The Executive Session was deleted from the agenda. 9. Commissioner Hartwell informed the Board that the County Advisory Board on Aging requested that Jim Singleton serve on the CIP Citizens Advisory Group. B. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Chair Marshall restated that comments on the licensing fees will be heard from five representatives. In answer to several questions about limiting the number of speakers, Chair Marshall explained that a public hearing had been held on the Animal Ordinance and that time would not permit for more than a limited number of comments. Stewart Barbour asked that item G10 be delayed. It was decided that he would make additional comments on this item at the time it appears on the agenda. 2 . MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA None PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Shirley E. Marshall read the Public Charge. 2 OATH OF OFFICE FOR COUNTY MANAGER Clerk of Court Shirley James administered the athh fs officeeto John M. Link, Jr. , Count Manager. A signed copy of book on page 22 APPOINTMENT OF AGRICULTURE EXTENSION CHAIRMAN seconded by Commissioner Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, Hartwell to approve the appointment of Fletcher Barber, Jr. to the position of Agriculture Extension Director effective March 1, 1988 as recommended by Dr. Clyde Chesney, Agriculture Extension Chairman. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. C. MINUTES Delayed until March 1, 1988. D. RESOLUTIONS OR PROCLAMATIONS 1. COUNTY GOVERNMENT WEEK Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to proclaim March 28-31, 1988 as Orange County Government Week and to endorse the planned and program enhance citizen knowledge a The Proclamation is stated below: PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Orange County government has served the citizens of the County since 1752 and we are responsible for a growing number of services which have direct impact on local citizens; and WHEREAS, the elected and appointed officials in county government take great pride in serving the citizens of the County and in being directly involved in shaping the future; and WHEREAS, in Orange County the volunteer spirit is still alive and well and the volunteers serve as our partners in progress; and WHEREAS, through their volunteer involvement, citizens learn more about community needs and resources and serve as communication links to the entire community. proclaim the NOW, THEREFORE, we the Board of Commissioners do hereby p week of March 28 through March 31, 1988, as Orange County Government Week, and reaffirm our support and appreciation nnof the valuable contributions of volunteers in the County. Further urge all citizens to become more familiar with county government. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2. RESOLUTION - PESTICIDES. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adopt the same resolution as that passed by Chatham County Commissioners and to endorse the proposal as stated below: RESOLUTION WHEREAS an aerial spray incident in Chatham County in June 1982 continues to cause apprehension among the residents of the Gorgas Community for their health; and, WHEREAS, the Board is of the opinion that existing safeguards do not adequately protect the public; and, WHEREAS, the current state of pesticide regulation and enforcement may not adequately protect the public health and the natural environment; and, 3 WHEREAS, it is the consensus of this Board drtthat chathe eeregulations adopted following the Gorgas spray incident need NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Section 1. That the North Carolina Pesticide Board is requested to and consider adoption of regul�t�oonswhich enlarged theepublic prior notification, in order provide health and the environment; and, Section 2. That our delegation to the North Carolina General Assembly support a Legislative Study Committee on pesticide use and administration; and, Section 3. That our delegation to the North Carolina General Assembly consider transfer of the administration and enforcement of pesticide regulations to an environmental or health-based agency, increased public representation on the Pesticide Board, and other measures to strengthen the North Carolina Pesticide Law; and, Section 4. That the Governor of. North Carolina is requested to increase the effective public representation on the Pesticide Board through his power of appointment; and, Section 5. That our delegation to the United States Congress is requested to implement needed reforms of the Federal Pesticide Law (FIFRA) which would require the reregistration of inadequately tested pesticides, reduce groundwater contamination, and generally strengthen protection of the public health and the environment. Section 6. That certified copies of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the Governor, the Congressman from the 4th Congressional District, our U.S. Senators, all members of our delegation to the North Carolina General Assembly from the 24th Representative District and the 16th Senatorial District, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and the North Carolina Pesticide Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E. REPORTS 1. RECOMMENDED THOROUGHFARE PLAN FOR THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL CARRBORO URBAN AREA Mr. Ed Johnson from the Thoroughfare Plan Study Group was present to answer questions. He stated that a public hearing will be held on the plan on March 24 at Culbreth Junior High School and the plan will be presented in detail at that time. At the conclusion of the public hearings, l the as an revised toe the Board and a final plan, in May. After further discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Ed Johnson would meet with the County Manager, the Planning Director and the Transportation Study Committee of the Planning Board to get input into the Orange County components of the Plan. The deadline for bringing this report back to the Board was set for April 4. Frank Princiotta stated that the Property Owners Association in the Stoneridge and Sedgefield communities passed a resolution against the plan that upgrades Whitfield Road into a major thoroughfare. He stated it would split the community and lead to unacceptable noise and air pollution. 4 F. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve those items on the Consent Agenda as indicated below: 1. BUDGET AMENDMENTS GENERAL FUND Appropriation - Adolescents in Need $ 6,000 Source - Contingency 30,360 Appropriation - Schools-Chapel Hill-Roofs $ 30,360 Appropriation - Orange - Roofs Source - Transfer from School Capital Reserve 46,760 SCHOOL CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Appropriation - Transfer to General Fund $ 46,760 46,760 Source - Fund Balance Appropriated 2 . EFLAND SEWER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Removed from the Consent Agenda and considered under item G17. 3 . AUTHORIZATION PURCHASE AMBULANCE CONTRACT Removed from the Consent Agenda considered under G18. 4 . UNPAID REAL PROPERTY AND TAX LIEN ADVERTISEMENT The report was sa�hatvare and liens Tax on a1lLien Realdate Property set forfor a 198Mtotal 1988. The unpaid taxe $2, 034, 670.23 . 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MANAGER TO SUBMIT THE RSVP RENEWAL APPLICATION A resolution was approved authorizing the Manager to submit the RSVP Application for ACTION. 6. WHITE CROSS FIRE INSURANCE RATED DISTRICT. Removed from the Consent Agenda and considered under item G19. 7 . TAX REFUNDS REQUEST Removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately after item F12. 8. ANNUAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARD COMPETITION - NACo Approved the submission to NACo of four entries for the annual achievement award competition as listed below: (1) Child Support Enforcement Accounting and Case Tracking System-Child Support Enforcement (2) Women's History Month - Commission for Women (3) Information and Referral Guide - Board of Commissioners (4) Joint Planning - Planning Department 9. 1988-89 BUDGET CALENDAR approved. A copy of this calendar The 1988-89 budget calendar was app is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office. 10. UNCOLLECTIBLE INSOLVENTS The Board approved to relieve the Tax Collector's levy of the charge of taxes owed by persons on the insolvent list that are five or more years past due. The insolvent list is made a part of these minutes on pages 130 f}-V of the minute book. 11. TJCOG REGIONAL TELEPHONE COMMITTEE FUNDING REQUEST ■ 5 A request for $1,000 to assist TJCOG's Regional Systems Telephone Committee with their local area toll free tlephoneMse vice efforts was approved. A budget amendment will appear on meeting schedule. 12. AGREEMENT WITH INDEPENDENT OPINION RESEARCH AND COMMUNICATIONS,. INC. This item was deleted from the agenda. G. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA 1. RECONSIDERATION OF ANIMAL LICENSING FEES The citizens that spoke and their comments are listed below: WILLARD WARD referred to a letter from Geoff Gledhill dated January 6 which indicated that certain revisions to the Animal Ordinance would be the topic for a public hearing to be held on January 19. Commissioner Carey stated that two of the three items that were recommended by the Board of Health were adopted. These two items dealt with changing the size limits on kennels from 16 to 20 and changing the name of kennels. These two items were approved and the third item which dealt with the licensing fee schedule was referred back to the Board of Health. Attorney Geoff Gledhill clarified that although public hearings had been held on the Animal Control Ordinance that this is not the kind of ordinance that requires a public hearing. The fee schedule is not a part of the ordinance itself but is a separate fee tax that is imposed by the county that is independent of the Animal Control Ordinance. The changes that were adopted were adopted unanimously on the first reading. TED LATTA stated he had difficulty in getting a copy of the ordinance and requested that the ordinance be returned to the task force and that another public hearing be held on the ordinance. He feels the ordinance is not properly adapted to the County. Commissioner Marshall stated that copies of the Animal Ordinance are now available at the Health Department and have always been available in the County Commissioners office. She assured Mr. Latta that all information pertaining to this topic is public and open for public review. DAVID DAVIS spoke in opposition of a 200% increase in dog fees. He feels the Commissioners did not listen to those who spoke from rural Orange County and the increase in fees is to offset a $750,000 deficit in the County budget. He stated he would not pay the fees. VERN MILLER stated he disliked having to bear the burden of this tax. He noted that at the public hearings the majority of people spoke against the changes in the animal ordinance but the Commissioners did not listen. In response Chair Marshall pointed out that changes were made to the ordinance as a result of those who spoke at the public hearing and who were primarily from rural Orange County including the hunters. REVEREND BURRIE PINNIX spoke for the older population and the fact that those on a fixed income would have a hard time paying the fees that are proposed for dogs and cats. He stated that more animals would be abandoned and left to die or left for the farmers to take care of. BEN LLOYD stated that the people of Orange County were not aware of what was being proposed in the new Animal Control Ordinance and that ample opportunity had not been given for input from the citizenry. He asked the procedure for bringing this ordinance back to the Board and Chair Marshall 6 outlined the procedures for an ordinance of this type. She stated that, although the fees have been adopted, the Board is considering reducing those fees to lessen the economic impact on the citizens of Orange County. MYRA CRAWFORD speaking for a group of citizens from Caldwell, emphasized that there is a need for animal control. She suggested a fee schedule of $5.00 for unsterilized dogs, $3.00 for sterilized dogs, $4.00 for unsterilized cats and $2.00 for sterilized cats. She noted that with lower fees more people will list their animals and make an effort to have their animals neuter or spayed. She suggested that a credit be given to those people who have already paid their fees and that a ceiling be put on how high the fee may go. She asked that consideration be given to lowering the fees and pledged, in return, support for what the ordinance is trying to achieve. DON INGRAHAM , member of the Animal Control Task Force, informed the public that the members of the task force were concerned about the economic impact of the licensing fee on older people and that the original ordinance did contain a section for waiver of fees for financial hardship. The ordinance does allow the Animal Control Director to submit to the Board of Commissioners a policy which would allow for payment of fees over extended periods of time at reduced rates or waiver of fees. With reference to the overpopulation of animals, he stated that one way to control this population is to have a differential licensing program coupled with an effective animal control program. PAT SANFORD pointed out that the basic problem in Orange County is the overpopulation of animals. There has been a 70% increase in the number of animals at the shelter. In January, 1988 there was a 19% increase over January of 1987. She distributed statistical information to the Board members. She spoke in support of the ordinance and compared the cost of feeding and raising an animal with the amount of the fee. She noted a need for educating the public on the reason for these fees and the need for control of the animal population. MORLAND CLAYTOR noted she raises dogs primarily for purchase by older people. She gave several illustrations of the need for companionship which is given by animals. Health Director Dan Reimer reported that the Board of Health was asked by the Board of Commissioners to consider a lower fee for those owners who have more than three dogs or cats. The Health Board voted 6-3 to leave the fees unchanged. The two reasons for leaving the fee unchanged were (1) the number of cats and dogs is growing rapidly and it was felt that any change in the fees would undermine the effort of the ordinance in control of the animal population and (2) with a growth in animal population, the spread of rabies also increases which in turn presents a danger to the welfare of the public. Commissioner Carey stated that as a member of the Board of Health, he asked the Health Board to consider charging the higher fee for the first five animals and a lower fee for the remaining animals. His proposal was based on the rationale for determining the number of animals that required a person to register as a kennel operator and the standards that applied to that category. Commissioner Carey made a motion that the higher fee be charged for the first five animals in a household that are unsterilized and a lower fee be charged for all unsterilized animals above five in the same household. Commissioner Hartwell seconded the proposal. 7 A second proposal by Commissioner Carey which was referred to the County Manager for implementation next fiscal year was to consider a spay/neuter subsidy which would reimburse all or part of the cost for low income individuals who have their animals spayed or neutered. Commissioner Willhoit raised concern about the portion of the ordinance dealing with enforcement that will reduce the animal population and expressed his doubts that an increase in the fees charged placed the emphasis in the right place. He emphasized that reducing the number of dogs that will be registed will not meet the overall objective. While the tax should be progressive, tripleing the fee is one year may be excessive. Commissioner Hartwell spoke in support of lower licensing fees in an effort to reduce the economic impact on the rural residents of the County and supported a program which would offer incentives to have animals sterilized. A substitute motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to change the licensing tax that is presently in place to $7 .50 for unspayed or unneutered dogs, $5.00 for dogs spayed or neutered and $3 .00 for unspayed or unneutered cats and $2.00 for spayed or neutered cats with no cap. Commissioner Carey expressed his concern that the fees as suggested in the substitute motion would not be high enough to reduce the number of unwanted animals in the county which is the intent of the ordinance. After further discussion it was decided that the impact of the ordinance will be evaluated twice a year when the report is received from the Animal Control Director and if the intent of the ordinance is not met, the ordinance and the fees as part of the ordinance will be revised. Commissioner Willhoit emphasized that the hardship issue falls on those people who have multiple dogs and who register those dogs. Because of the small number of people who register their dogs, the fee will not make any difference. He suggested that the emphasis be placed on doing a more effective job of getting those dogs registered that are not registered and that emphasis be on the amount of the penalty for a dog that is unregistered. VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Ayes, 3 ; Noes 1 (Commissioner Carey) The substitute motion thus becomes the main motion. VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION: Ayes, 3 ; Noes 1 (Commissioner Carey) NOTE: Since the vote on the main motion was not a unanimous vote, the second reading of this motion will be submitted for a vote on March 1, 1988. The County Manager was requested to make a recommendation on the effective date of this amendment and how to handle those who have already paid their animals taxes and if an additional penalty should be imposed for nonregistration. 5 MINUTE RECESS 2. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE Chair Marshall presented for discussion a suggestion that an intergovernmental committee be convened of all the elected officials in Orange County who want to participate to meet at least twice a year but no more than four times a year. Out of this group would come subcommittees with a definite purpose or charge. It has been suggested that the first 8 subcommittees to be formed would be on water and impact fees. Commissioner Hartwell expressed a concern that the issue of water needs to be addressed right away and not given to a subcommittee for deliberation. After further discussion, the general consensus of the Board was to support the concept of an intergovernmental committee but to address the topic of water as a separate issue and on a more immediate timeline. 3. CAPITAL REQUEST FROM CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO SCHOOLS Interim Finance Director Ken Chavious presented a request from Chapel Hill-Carrboro School system for capital funding for construction of four classrooms at Culbreth Junior High and the purchase of four mobile classrooms. The total cost would be $350,000. Two funding mechanisms were detailed by Chavious. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the request for capital funding of two major capital projects with the funding to be provided from the reallocation of funds previously approved in the school capital Long Range Plan for Fiscal Year 1988-89. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4 . PETITION FOR ADDITION OF STREETS IN WILDWOOD SUBDIVISION, SECTIONS ONE AND TWO, TO THE STATE-MAINTAINED SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the petition from NCDOT for the addition of Judah Benjamin Court, Wade Hampton Road, Braxton Bragg Court, Joseph Johnston Court, John Breckinridge Drive, Charlie Tew Court, George Anderson Drive, and Walter Clark Drive in Wildwood Subdivision, Sections One and Two, to the state-maintained secondary road system. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5. DARK HILLS - PRELIMINARY Planning Director Marvin Collins presented a Preliminary Plan for Dark Hills Subdivision. This plan was previously considered by the Board and, because of additional information, was referred back to the Planning Board. The property is located in Cedar Grove Township on Carr Store Road. Thirteen (13) lots are proposed out of 136.25 acres. The Planning Board and the Administration recommends approval with two conditions. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the preliminary plan with two conditions: (1) That the proposed 60-foot access road be relocated as placed between lots .2 and 3; and (2) That common driveways be provided for lots 1-12. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 6. PINE FOREST II - PRELIMINARY The property is located on Pleasant Green Road in Eno Township. A private Class C road is proposed to serve two proposed lots. The property is designated Agricultural Residential in the Orange County Land Use Plan and zoned the same on the Zoning Atlas. The Planning Board and the Administration recommends approval with one condition. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Chair Marshall to approve the preliminary plan for Pine Forest II with the condition that lot #1 receive access from the private road. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 7. CHESTNUT OAKS - PRELIMINARY PLAN The property is located near the Bingham/Chapel Hill Township line on the west side of Jo Mac Road. Thirty-one (31) lots are proposed out of 9 68.18 acres. The remaining 31.42 acres along the intermittent streams and on the northeastern portion of the site will be preserved as open space owned and maintained by a homeowners association. The property is zoned Rural Buffer and Protected Watershed II. The Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential. The Planning Board recommends approval with five (5) conditions. The Administration added a sixth condition dealing with nitrification fields. The payment-in-lieu requirement was discussed and it was decided that in accordance with the ordinance a payment-in-lieu would be accepted and that a grant would be included in the budget next year which would return a like amount to the Habitat for Humanity. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Preliminary Plan for Chestnut Oaks with five conditions: (1) Indicate phase numbers for all open space areas. (2) The area for Lot 21 should be 50, 000 sq.ft. and not 500,000 sq.ft. (3) Submit restrictive covenants and Homeowners Association docu- ments for review and approval by the County Attorney. (4) Submission of payment-in-lieu of dedication of recreation/open space in the amount of $1,416. 00 prior to final plat approval. (5) Approval of permits for the community well system by the Orange County Health Department and/or the N.C. Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services, as applicable, prior to final plat approval. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. It was the consensus of the Board that the County Manager, the Planning Director and the Health Director would meet and bring back to the Board for their consideration a policy for nitrification fields. It was the consensus of the Board that the payment-in-lieu would be handled as suggested by Chair Marshall and that consideration be given in next years budget for an allocation to the Habitat for Humanity. 8. QUAILVIEW SUBDIVISION - ACCEPTANCE OF LAND DEDICATED TO ORANGE COUNTY FOR RECREATION/OPEN SPACE PURPOSES Marvin Collins presented to the Board for acceptance the dedication of land for recreation/open space purposes. The land is approximately .76 acre on the south side of Neville Creek in Quailview Subdivision. This portion of Neville Creek had been approved as part of the system of parks and greenways included in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The Administration recommends acceptance of this land. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to accept a .76 acre tract of land dedicated to Orange County and located in the Quailview Subdivision for recreation/open space. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 9. PINEY MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION - ACCEPTANCE OF LAND DEDICATED TO ORANGE COUNTY FOR RECREATION/OPEN SPACE PURPOSES Marvin Collins presented to the Board for acceptance the dedication of land to Orange County for recreation/open space purposes in Piney Mountain Subdivision. The tract being dedicated at this time is 2.3 acres and is located on the east side of Piney Mountain Creek. The Admin- istration recommends acceptance of this land. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to accept 2 . 3 acres of land dedicated to Orange County and located in the Piney Mountain Subdivision for recreation/open space. 10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 10. ENO RIVER STATE PARK MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Planner Gene Bell explained that a meeting was held last summer between the Planning Staff and the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation relative to the County's planning policies and efforts for the Eno State Park. There was a desire for coordination of planning efforts and in that regard the State suggested the County enter a memorandum of understanding which would state the County's and the State's goals for that area. After several meetings, it was determine that since the County is doing basically what the State wants done in that area that a letter of support would be sufficient. Bell briefly outlined the seven points as contained in the letter. Stewart Barbour asked that this item be deferred to allow him sufficient time to review the letter. He made reference to a public hearing held in 1982 on the RC&D Plan and asked that two policy statements which have received Board approval be included in the letter of support. Chair Marshall noted that the Board needs to decide if it will consider the policy approved by a previous Board as policy or if the Board considers all the land use decisions that have been approved since that time as representing present policy. Discussion ensued and it was decided to table this item to allow Mr. Barbour additional time to prepare comments on this item. This item will be placed on the March 1, 1988 agenda for further consideration. 11. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT CENTER FUNDING REQUEST Mr. Buckwalter presented information to the Board on a new project of the Dispute Settlement Center called Community Penalties Program. The program is one which diverts non-violent prison bound offenders from prison into a program of restitution and rehabilitation. The state provides 90% of the grant money with 10% coming from local match. The Dispute Settlement Center requests $1,500. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Chair Marshall to approve an expenditure of $1,500 to be funded from Contingency. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 12 . AIRPORT PLANNING/ENGINEERING CONTRACT, AND FUNDING APPLICATION Purchasing Director Pam Jones distributed copies of the contract to the Board. She referred to the level of participation and stated that if the Board decides to go with a lower level of participation that the engineer has agreed to cut the cost estimate accordingly. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the planning/engineering contract in substance with Wilbur Smith and Associates, contingent upon approval of contracts by State and FAA and upon funding by State, Federal and local sources; and authorize the Chair to sign funding applications for the planning phase of the Orange County Airport project, North Carolina Department of Transpor- tation, Aviation Division a total of $45,787.50 for Phase I; and Federal Aeronautics Administration a total of $139, 644. (Corrected Amount) VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 13. COMPUTER ACCESS TO LAND RECORDS SYSTEM Lands Record Manager Roscoe Reeve presented for consideration of approval a subscription and fee schedule for allowing telephone access to the Land Records System by private firms and individuals. Reeve explained the service and asked that the following proposal be approved. 1. Subscription Fee - $200. 00 until March 15, 1988 and $300.00 11 thereafter to be paid one time only at the time service is to begin, and payable over two months. 2. Access Fees: Minute 0 thru 5 = $1. 00 Minutes 6 thru 8= $ .50 (each minute) Minutes 9 and up= $1.00 (each minute) Vic Knight, local real estate broker, commended the County for providing this service. He commented on the process and asked that modems be added as needed to provide sufficient access. He suggested that a lower fee be considered for off hour and weekend usage. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the subscription and fee schedule as proposed by Roscoe Reeve. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 14. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to appoint a special board of equalization and review to carry out the duties imposed under GS 105-322 (a) . VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 15. EFLAND SEWER BILLING AND COLLECTION AGREEMENT This item was deleted from the agenda. 16. OWASA'S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF SMALL SYSTEMS Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Chair Marshall to approve a committee of the Planning Board Chairs and Planning Directors of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County that will meet and define the pros and cons of OWASA becoming more involved in the ownership and operation of small community systems and report back to their jurisdictions. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 17. EFLAND SEWER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (F2) Assistant County Manager William T. Laws distributed the agreement to the Board for their review. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the Efland Sewer Maintenance Agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. A copy of the agreement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 18. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE AMBULANCE FROM STATE CONTRACT (F3) Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to authorize the purchase of an ambulance from Ashley Vehicle, Inc. for a sum of $33,831. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 19. WHITE CROSS FIRE INSURANCE RATED DISTRICT (F6) EMS Director Bobby Baker explained for the Board the five-mile area that encompasses the White Cross Fire Insurance Rated District. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the five (5) mile insurance rated district as shown on the map submitted with this agenda item. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. H. APPOINTMENTS. This item was postponed until March 1, 1988. 12 1. ADJOURNMENT With no further items for the Board to consider, Chair Marshall adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on March 1, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk