Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 07-05-1988 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 5, 1988 7:30 P.M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM NEW COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. A. BOARD AND MANAGERS COMMENTS B. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda (We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked.) 2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda C. MINUTES PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens. to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that indivi- dual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING 002 1. Citizens Comments on Bond Issue D. RESOLUTIONS OR PROCLAMATIONS 003 1. Master Recreation & Parks Plan 008 2. Proclamation of July as Recreation and Parks Month E. REPORTS 011 1. EDC Preliminary Study and Status of EDC Strategic Plan Preparation mmeerawass 4 � F. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) 012 1. Topographic Mapping Contract Between Piedmont Aerial Surveys and Orange County 022 2. Reappropriation of Funds for High School Expansion/Renovation--Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools 024 3. North Carolina Housing Trust Fund--Incentive Program 033 4. Housing Demonstration Grant Application G. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA 034 1. Assignment of House and Building Numbers--Rural Route 15 038 2. Proposed Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments 049 3. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (Article 9-Signs) 054 4. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (Article 6-Application of Dimensional Requirements) (Article 22-Definitions) 059 5. Draft Cheeks Township Land Use Plan 086 6. Draft Eno Township Land Use Plan 119 7. Draft Hillsborough Township Land Use Plan 139 8. Draft Chapel Hill Township Land Use Plan (North of Joint Planning Area) 157 H. APPOINTMENTS I. ADJOURNMENT (*) Indicates items that need immediate attention. { 1i yrr V45 001 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. C„.. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT 14KETEMG DATE July 5, 1988 • Subject: MINUTES • { Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I I Public Bearing: _Yes X no Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under Separate Cover 1 1 Phone Numbers: 132-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: May 23, 1988 - Joint Public Hearing June 6, 1988 - Regular B/C Meeting BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the governing Board has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's proceedings. - . _ • RECOMKERDATION: As the Board decides. 002 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. 64 Meeting Date: JULY 5, 1988 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING--CITIZENS COMMENTS ON BOND ISSUE DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING:. X Yes Na 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 receive citizen comment on a proposed 30 million dollar issue. ar BACKGROUND: The Orange County work sessions June 823rd of Commissioners has completed two work ressrondum. and June 29) on a proposed November agreement on the following)mponentssof®a�bonderefere reached m to be presented for public comment at the Jul 5 eeari to July Public Hearing: Bond Issue Projects: Schools -- Orange County Schools Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools $ ,500.000 $122, Subtotal 500.000 $21,000,000 County Building Projects -- Southern Human Services Bldg. Tax and Records Bldg. $ 2,700,000 Animal Shelter $ 2,700,000 911 Center $ 300,000 Public Works Bldg. $ 300,000 $ 1,100,000 Central Human Services Subtotal $ 600 000 $ 8,000,000 Water Resources Development -- Land Acquisition Subtotal 1_10112221211.9. $ 1,000,000 Total Bond Amount $30,000,000 PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROPOSED 30 MILLION BOND ISSUE The Orange County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing for the purpose of receiving citizen comments on a proposed 30 million dollar bond issue. The proposed bond issue may include the following: 1. Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools capital needs 2. Orange County Schools capital needs 3. Construction of or improvement to public buildings 4. Water resource development 5. Recreation capital needs. The meeting will be held on July 5, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, New County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Your comments may be made in person or in writing. If you would like your name placed on the list to speak, please call Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board at 732- 8181, 968-4501, 227-2031 and 688- 7331. All written comments must be received in the Clerk's Office by 5:00 p.m. on July 5. Address written comments to Shirley E. Marshall, Chair, Orange County. Board - -of - Commissioners, P.O. Box 8181, Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278. This is one of your opportunities to be heard by your County Commissioners on the proposed 30 million dollar bond issue. . . Remarks in Support of the Proposed $30 Million Bond Issue •July 5, 1988 Public Hearing Orange County Board of Commissioners I wish to express my support for all portions of the $30 million bond issue as proposed. The efforts by the board and the county manager's office to effectively provide for our current and future needs are to be commended. There has been some thought within the community that an effective limit to growth is an unstated public policy of benign neglect of the infrastructure. A policy of benign neglect of the infrastructure simply leads to lower quality planning and development throughout the community and - a poorer standard of life for its residents. We must provide the necessary public services in the most efficient manner possible. This dictates planning and providing for future needs rather than just reacting to immediate crises. This proposed bond package is a very positive milestone. As a parent of children with experience in both the Chapel Hill/ Carrboro and the Orange County school systems, I have been acutely aware of the differential funding levels between the two systems. We all hope that you will avoid widening the funding disparity. The proposed land acquisition by the county for a new reservoir is vital. We obviously need the additional water resources in the county in order to plan orderly growth and more desirable types of development. This past weekend, the region enjoyed another festival celebrating the life of the - Eno River. I live near the river and for the first time in memory, we did not have a single canoeist pass our property on the festival weekend. This is due entirely to the low stream flow conditions that currently exist in the ,11111• . If we construct a reservoir in the Eno basin upstream from the Town Df H111.F..ocrough, the county will be able to make a significant contribution :o the instream flow of the river. The Eno River State Park won't be much of a park ...ithout a viable river. These recreation benefits are in addition to :re obvious recreation activities that would be available at the reservoir itself. The Town of Hillsborough sees the construction of the proposed Durham pipeline as its primary alternative to a joint town/county reservoir. This would be an unfortunate reaction to the continuing water crises and would not provide one additional drop of water for instream flow. The county's often stated goal of avoiding strip development along US 70 would be almost impossible. The development pressure that would inevitably follow the Durham pipeline would not be in the best interest of the county. Thank-you, Neal Littman Rt. 4 Box 747 Hillsborough, NC 27278 • poor Hite. i err f' 76-51.4-er JULY A 1988 - PUBLIC HEARING Growth Management continues to be a priority issue for the citizens of Orange County and for the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Among other things growth management means guiding and accommodating growth in such a manner as to minimize the cost of delivering governmental services and can minimize environmental impacts. The growth pressures on Central Orange County will increase dramatically with the completion of 1-40. In the absence of significant public water supplies or a long range water management strategy we should expect to see the new growth rely primarily on wells and septic tanks which are not compatible to our growth management goals. The County needs to take the leadership in insuring that public water supplies will be available in the future. The first step should be to establish a fund for acquisition of land for future reservoirs and to complete the water management plan for ' Central Orange County. Placing the one million dollar reservoir land acquisition question before the voters of Orange County will be a positive step toward the long range solution to the water supply problem plaguing Central Orange County. it is not a commitment to use General Fund revenues to finance reservoir construction but it is a commitment to attempt to preserve land in strategic locations so that reservoirs may bebuilt in the future. There are many issues that must be resolved before a reservoir can be built but there is no question for the need to preserve land now. The only sure way to do that is for the county to be in a position to acquire land as it comes on the market in the strategic areas. Establishment of a one million dollar reservoir land acquisition fund will be a step toward that need. Commissioner Don Willhoit , - S. G'. Barbour Remarks against proposed 30 Million Bon' sue. 7/4/88 Chairman Marshall and Board: Re: Citizen Vote against BONDED DEBT. A. Although Citizen comment irrevelant, as you have already scheduled next steps in sand process for July 7, 1988, I feel obliged to comment against your incurring any more Bonded Debt (a Public Mortgage on our Children's and Grandchildren's homes.and earnings.) Raise taxes now, so Citizens will know true cost your policies. .With America deeply in debt, being bought up by foreigners who still have a Work Ethic (Germans and Japs whom we defeated in war and have given away the peace to) it is time for you to claim another. "First" for Orange, reverse the long tide of Keynesian Tax and Spend--it's only the peasant's money—policies which have made us a 3rd rate nation sliding into.a Socialistic Dictatorship as fast as we urge Russia into Democracy. While adopting their Govt-Business "Partnerships", starting with the Chrysler Bailout, which will end al pretense of Free Enterprise in America. Finish destroying the Rights of Private Property in name of Recreation and you have Socialism. 1. Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools Capital needs. and, 2. Orange County Schools Capital needs. - Push through the long overdue merger of all county school systems and end "Separate but Unequal" treatment of county students. End expense of dual staffing. End "Consultation Fees" and;unauthorized absences of school officials to "Consult". Let them share their knowledge gained on Taxpayers Payroll by Scholarly Papers at Symposiums. For Free. Sloping Roofs on all new schools and other public buildings. End taxpayer repairs of leaky roofs. End Time and Cost overruns and "sweetheart Contracts" with politicians. Architects drawings become property State School Superintendent so can standardize well constructed schools throughout state. Penalize architect for all "Change Orders" which justify time and cost overruns. Solar sys- tems in all new construction as small start in fight against Greenhouse effect. Big oil and Big power will oppose this until we all scorch to death. Backfit with Solar wherever feasible. 3. Construction of or improvement to public buildings. (see 1 & 2 above. 4. Water resource development. hami- qit-e in Co unty or Hazen & Sawyer $40,000 Water -cp 4'.4 P37 i:F b 5• "4 g4 -9 s g r., 14. . a N-441',I up, a. F..._ 0. . • 0 0 .4 CD g 4 .4 S V*0 • • • g, iii g 'Vs s- . co. o' a* °:' •-• GI pa a to cr ° M %4 • • ' ell ...1 ..1 Ara•g'gg =1-.: f t. -2,-9. 2 _11.'-c-.x.law P....A.9 ..-4'._ ,' '.... I 0.fo Ca. ...M•4,4 gi. ce Otl 0. (. 8 -4 -ft ... 1 • 04101 • S.. 8 ..... g E. .-. - triggrimNr. a ... § t= "ti CD M ° 0 •a ra a *,■2. 0 ,r11 0' 9 .o.;c:,, N, co ce. . 5 :..3 161• AN• I Ra, m. et. 5 a, 9 o o -,-; 2 4 i.425... • I.!. 0 0• 10 •§.„„„, 0,co -"I, 8•11 *•=-.'4.• •a,....i 4 • ...... • V v * P4. 418 Ma Monoct,0 SD • 1 ,..4• "2 DI 5.1. 1 0 .g. B.' :.-El ..„.8. ca P, ag 9. 1 m• It A .4.' *4 0243:9* 6- , ti to to c„ g • 0 ea 0, t.■ - ;:-r, 2 g . ti al, . ,... ZI o 0 a " at, -0' ' . (0- $ 50 VIres .vi.. • ed:G. B. tr - e 4 'A, ' 5 R 7.8-61 IS 4%5 g a 11.g 4 cli a V; . 1 .... ...,...., AiiiiMinigniiii • • . • • . . • a grg EL 0: sr.m x; 0 2 trd ow I vim 00 (2 4 . 0 • .. - c‘a ; i1g58a9, * Ft " wOF60 .0. ;;;- oo M . r. 0 op _. .1 0 ,4•Sri .., Ci... d GO ... a ,„ ,.. = v , "• 0. canErOm. .• to 0 ...„ 0 = • 2 , ... wo. go E. ReawgtiBriegrurr. mu, 0 11 0. ... ..... 2 V3 06%2 Kr4g0 m0 - 0 A9- 0. 5R0 - N5 -28 -rkg 0g Po,' 5, o or g. 9 5 4 0 <-pp O 111 - 43) .611 g4RMgro511) / R' Ela & BIS. m m fla o. S. 0 ... ggione- om • ox 0000 ow4R ,10 °4. 0 0: CI . 0. = . . -1%4 0 ii) Itu .1- • . .ri E; 0, .. 0 02 0 • IQ .no !.134 #,,T1'0BmagligR5 W ° En .5.• . CI 17 a 9 . . . •0 0 ti, ..4 .. coo o.,P* p.:.......4, P. n*:•4>,-. - . . . . - - gto 8 or es A to a 55tn -3 Ct* .03 5. [ riff rt, cell a Et A ,g, roi . - riggl-4vAa Rulg- - *111R.010. sawali, pd, ff g F3 o to t••••k4 4-• rs: ,.., 0 5 = WW.r. 0 " sa . stas4 sinwa.g 3-(0.66 k g . - * %664) 10. 6 ° 0 " raWAE_WO g666b r" g - cr. s".: 1:?! W 4. S. 8 g. Wg tg a • E 06D Sr; 4:1 . 01 . 11 .4 r o 1: ; ,-' 0 § 91.• 5. c. .tigt, . ... s • =" sitose 0 ge 8 . p • S " 0 a P. P %e • = g•0 0 ..- 0 g qi 1 ocz 9 0 " 5 S' c' gm omo vign a. E R 0 0 $4 0 , g. a Ch PrIl go 0 fa i•wr ... 0 ,I, .._ ..., = 0: n00, ga = .-Ppingvcacg, .° B. E. E .g., OP. M .94* " - W= blop wog o . . co cl. w 0 a ct c'•4-4- to . 0 E " rt 1- m g'" ." "4 g. 4 a' I a - 0 cl, c s, a • n 5:0 Er ca. fir (T. A cr o . o• S 0 g ta a• 9 0 S..- ..•-• a • . r• ...: EM = M n = ,-. .. ^ macTgEjler . Es.9 .a S Po V., ;4 el' 64 F4 8 "woel,.5..--.0.•%9" 2. S.A. t-.." 8 nt'i 01 1-4 t`t . . . --.........-- -,c . 'f.::....:..,...:c...;:.:-..,." '... ,;Ls • •. 63. rt,?-1 itt 0 8 r. S. • Iir ) :,_,:::.„„,t1.. i V.' •,4'..,4 (,) 64 Vi FOG 1 0 8 f-9, ...:;;A:3"o.::::14:. •I 7_. • alyt::0!:::09., • CD 14 10-‘ .4 .4 9 S 5 .-..,,,0%iliiiip44 . * • 8. 8. 0. Elor,s- og ::.gx::::!....:iiilta • 841 .. ... .. .... = 0 10 isc... Vroqz. OW 9. ,.0:4,:ihk•..,1:‘::,-,: :(rai!il,arf.Z:::":".4.: et n og . :Wk .1-5:- " •- o• g g 9 a e* 9 .... moram - • •*:',40. -% ' *.fiz.„„,-,5kg 500 .-1 0 ° 0 • ..cligt:W,40: • • •`* g 9 4. E. or = • 041VP,-. 1 ...7 • qt,..:?••••-g.:::::::4;. • :•„_-...*;:,,,,:figyf.:Kt. • • ,r, 2 0 En = 0 • ..•. 0 0,,:L?1.4..f::i:,Vio•g.m:>::i,f,.. ... • • ;og.; ,.(5=.-., I20 N g "o=e40=b, 0 '0 - .4 mu . • v K ' r a : 4„ z • • •. ,•;:!.;,•::::,,,:k-f4:0;2.;:::-.• !. •:: - M . e • 5' 1: agaggm: . • :I- COO 04> • CD - - • . i . . ENCL 1 to S. G. Barbour ltr dated 7/4/88 against 30 Million Dollar Bond Issue. . 7., : . • .• The Chapel Hill Newspaper Pg 10A, Noeember161, 1967 . . •. . ••• • 144. - - • one war spank: • . . BOY • .P* COTT II . . imam' • S. • i 'eon wir 'Eno River Association events until' ' • ' . . ••• **Eno River Association Officers'own • —. .:•• Eno River Valley Land is sold Into Eno River State Park II". • . ;• . . And Miss Lenore say:"eno Mfr.my Brave.I'm so tired of Sponge Baths In ad 1 •these Bad Droughts-Please build me slake so!can be primped up for Evening Chorus and our midnight hikes to lop of She*Moindain.I could sing so much •better and be better company for you on our rnoonNght hikes.Will you build me a lake,right here in the Eno Wilderness,far away from ad the Industry and chaotic:al aptile?Pretty Reeser e! . *.'. . . ' ('eno will'):"I know I promised you one before and almost got you a 50 MOO Lake on Eno River but Eno River Mao- t elation needed that land for State Park,and the Bipeds tell us we shouldn't.be.selfish with our land." , • • • • * i••••• : . . ., • . A ' (Lenore):"I know,we Mustn't be selfish without land,and some dotty to pig It • ay.My cousin Amanda,a miker at Cane Creek,told me Association Director ' Heron advised farmers there how to kill Cane Creek Reservoir with spark—for .Bipeds to pick Poison Oak and catch Copperheads,I guess," , • • (*no will'):"Well,as Lead Soprano Eno River Valley Even- ing Chorus, yoU do deserve a Lake and the engineers ••:. • found a good site in Eno Park with large drainage area and • • • high potential yield.I'll try to get one of them,either the 50 • MOD or the smaller one if he Bipeds will let me." • • rietiorel:41 do thank you,'eno will,My Holstein Cousin Amends say Bipeds call that place Cabes Ford,but we silt know It as Dinosaur Fiats,my Ancestral ,Home..Yobr family came from there,,too,.you know.":' • • •.. 17.• ('eno will'): "If that Is true I may have to get a Few. Thousand Signatures on a Petition to the Chief Biped.Will • . you collect some Signatures for me from your Guild Mem... bers?". • *i • •• (tenote'); 'I'll TRUMPET the CALL.M" (Woo will",End Wilderness,N.C.27270 , - • Address Enquiries To:Stewart G.Barbour,Seo'y OHO slyER,GROUP,Rt.4,Box 72Z Hillsborough,N.C.27271 • • 1.. 4.• lortowk■sLatawar1111106mor • . . ..„ • .W1 44 r . ENO IVE GROUP "ENO vILL.' •LENORE•. • `TO CONSERVE FREEDOM) S1NCE 1973 . . STEWART G. BARBOUR, SEC;Y NT. 4 , BOX 722 HILLSBOROUGH, NC • 27278 • NROD, Division o8 Water Resources - 512 North Salisbury Street Re : Eno River Capacity Use. • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Remarks, February 3, 1988 1. ENO RIVER GROUP supports Capacity Use Designation and also requests: a. That protection of our Water Supply be expanded to include entire Neuse River Basin, with all Feeder Streams, however small, now. b. That the State move ahead at Flank Speed to protect all our North Carolina Streams and Coastal linters from further destruction by the current Tidal Wave of Exploiters. b(1) A visible and horrible example in Lower Eno-upper Neuse Valley is Treyburn Development , initiating the destruction of an area which should never even hear a Bulldozer, much lean be disembowelled by the Bulldozer' s Sword-blade. b(2) This destruction of the Ecological Balance of an indispensable and irreplaceable Delta Area of Floodplains and Wetlands adjacent our Capitol' s drinking Reservoir is intolerable and should be halted immediately by the Sovereign power of the State , by exercise of Eminent Domain, if necessary. b (3) Editorial 11-19-87 in Herald (which praises its own Puddle unstint- ingly , including Treyburn ) quotes Developer Adam Abram that a ban on Floodplain Fringe Development would cast Durham over 1,6 million a year in Tax Revenue. A nd the SUN that day listed manufacturers allowed in Water Quality Basins per newly adopted County Critical Watershed Ordinance as: Food , Tobacco (which has ruined more hearts and lungs and killed more people than all Wars in History ), Textiles, Fabric , Lumber, Furniture , Paper, Printing, Chemicals, Rubber, Leather, Machinery, Eleotical, and Transportation. What do they leave out? ONLY the FUTURE of our ENVIRONMENT and our NORTH CAROLINA PEOPLE M. c . That the State move now to end the Floodplain Insurance Act , which has been corrupted from its original purpose --to protect our Streams -- into a Device for the Taxpayers to subsidize the enrichment of the Developers and Insurance Companies while completing the destruct/ow of our Streams and Water Reservoir Sites. Let the Bereaucrets administer- ing this Fraud on America find honest work. (3 (3.) Durham Planning Dept informed us that the entire Treyburn Development is eligible for Floodplain Insurance. S o we Taxpayers awe are subsidizing the destruction of the Wetlands at Falls Reservoir and countless thousands of other irreplacable Na tural Areas across . America._. ... . . d . That''Capac ity Use" mean just that and the Citizens Of Orange be s11r bA •'.,1I .•w.,. _. . . I , VOL.94 ± DURHAM.N.C.,THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 19,1987 NO.50 .• . . :.," . � . . �. .•,•, E.T.Rollins Jr. • �`I Publisher' *'t'"o- ' '•''Y John H.Adams ; + .# RobertC.Roulo ,‘ : . %...,:. .) ,,. Managing Editor ` Editorial Page Editor i i• , „ • Editorials .. . ., . 1 ..... . 1 .. . . • • • . • • ?..): . . " Questions Unanswered . . ..- ,..:. • . . . . . . . .. .. • he City Council has de-• all. Public greenways are public :, layed until Dee. 7 a vote: responsibility,meaning taxpay- . , •` • • on.i•controversial ordi- ers. Declaring a person's property �." - useless would be an underhande •••t,:. i • .V."1- 1;''. :, Hance that tniuld prohibit devel- �' t• '.1 opment 1fl floodway fringes. way •to achieve the greenway goal. :`) U •t; 1;, ; .Frankly,that's not enough time to e Shouldn't the City Council be• :.1'. ; '`. •,-i answer the:questions that should considering property other than: - ;;:1,.). ; ••A . be asked.before the rush to judg the lowlands? Development on .: ' - t':; `:;:,- • •ment on this poorly thought out land higher than the floodway : ordinance: • fringes causes flooding,too. Yet `i se Is heeding in the city a seri- the proposed ordinance did not • '.� ' : oils problem?•If so, bow much has begin to address that problem i i lt,incroa$ed'because of develoli-:• until developers pointed it out. :4h.,. ment?•The proposed ordinance That oversight--La serious one— •:<«• .r;�•.,•r;'•:./s;a {-..'. • glaringly fails to document the ex- demonstrates how:little thought QV^� tent of flooding.Let's have some the ordinance's designers gave to analysis before creating economic its broader implications. ► • paralysis. . o Why has the proposed ordi- •How much tax base would the nonce been handled only by a sub- • ' city lose if the ordinance prohibits committee of the City Council's construction in the floodway Public Works Committee? Devel- • • fringes The.city has estimated opera were invited.to comment. '. > , • that 14000 pieces of property only at the last minute. Normally, ; !in might be glected.It has not,how• a,city ordinance of such signifi-• - �,•�•. ' eves;s4{ ' fed the potential eco- ` ance•- and this one will have ,'; ` v . •',''i,,-'-,,'•'" • • noinic.t• Apac ,'Developer Adam •�� enormous impact on Durham's fu-';°• ;I read��rith will 1 ' Abram m�ade•a•'rotigh guess that a Lure—would go before the full . on the transportatk • ; han:oii'floodway fringe develop- Public Works Committee before gie area.Several th • . ' inent would lower property values being placed on the City Council Department of Tran by as Much ag SW million.If that agendai et the proposed'ordi:. :leapt of iasstiiye•s1 figure held;•.the•city would lase nonce went straight from the anti. rosc 0rai's ea;east&1 •1 • I $1,.6 millions year in property tax committee to the City Council for In this area. • revenue.• iti.Abram believes his tam disn}ayed•wIt a public hearing and possible in contrast tdr your estimate is~cottsergative. The pro- adoption Mondaynight. Wisely, What'this area nee( posed,er tiiance includes no as- the council deferred a vote.; ' ,some down=thetrdad ' • sessmeig icosts to the city. , aive.mass it pli • _: ' • `o What!-'-'•ponsibilities does the• The issue is:supposed to go , aaon to bg' ,ri•pIanx city have s` tigate against water back on'the City Council agenda t agFill '; 7 for vote on Dec.7. But that's too,,.7 dam a , arodviay fringes. The The!eist f . nor. . _ ' ordinaii*'. beuses only on devel- soon to get ansarers to the clues- ham, eiil• �;0 ;` apmettti.Y . ees not mention pule ask s the sttbrti i ed to Tin a'ark fro lie Work 5siich as culvert en- 1;# ' 4 largentefi'or stream-clearing- .. The City Council has obligated miioua �l,� ,qkh it it'll, • 0 •;wners can get lumber cus- facing Bateman, he acgcused the S errill Planning illy seco d d iSparrs- cut, planning director of denying his row's i otion. saying. ttith,however,,also appealed child t e medical help that his have t o able to litre,'?and a ;' ,r heert,explaining that the saw income pays for -- a b d voted approval unetfii I Ill allows him to earn extra ch. .e which brought an adnao- dusty. 'v in the winter months n ion from planning board In other business, .the plan- t he can't farm. hairman Norris Porter to ce:. Wing commissioners also 'ithout some Income fron such personal attacks. approved rezoning of a 25-acre •Iwmih,I don't know if I c< Smith previously has clt. ged parcel on Infinl a •Road, ) or not,"Smith said."W I that Bateman holds a :rudge west of Good •Road: T y +e allowed to stay wh, e I against him and wool of give also endorsed •ubdivslon of e lid.not be ,allowed t, ove him any positive re *emenda- tion parcel, o ed by. ;,ego •aids up the road, on lion on the sawmill. Homes, in 48 single- amity •stand,'. unless omeone Bateman did of reply to lots. to see me o of busi. Smith and woo not comment Some residents f.,m . the • on Smith's a •sations after the G0°d Road area.r•.sill goes- +' kiting back' ears, Smith meeting. tfon: about increase`. traffic in , After fu her discussion and th= •rea, as well as ••hethec ex- a to needs c money from , y some qu,..tions from the Plan- t' is' of city wa•-rand mower', • s 3wrfull op: ations especial-, ning b, rd members, Planning ° the clew deve far the jjigtt +tcause his 2%-year-old (imm'::ioner Bill Sparta'- mead annexatio, er,tha �,,old- h cystic may a area. :. :I' ._, =is, a •sually fatal lung stir approval of Smith's .,gp an+ his medical expenses However, n-na:of van' g request. ers.indieated , ���sp�� u t ohe:bli 61 high. I think the 2005 plan is a . to the reap, n . odd overall guideline, .but I g'unanimously. lyatl :: 'enever the Planning and don't think we can go by it in ev- ty endorsed ,ionerslw 11 hfitre final.: .Board condemns me, it': cry case," sparrow said in mak- say on e proposal in >yecem- tue as holding a gun to • ing his motion, "I feel that we bet. • s ,chauges .. . , . , ..,,....„..,..._ ..,...,..-... .. :, ... .. . . t i 1.'''.'...'f.. '''::;:.• ,' - ' . :,, - : i n watershed law I h .. . . Durham County planning Apparel and other finished• board members last night'Made. products of fabric; • „key some "technical” changes in the d � • .4-; ' f„ cal+.ply's Critical Watershed Ordi- —Lumber.—Furniture a Wood roductg; na ace, essentially adoptin new and fixtures,. k��".• `may, language to conform with a new "Paper and allied products;' -- Prfnting, .publishih and ���j government publication. allied industries' g '� r z • The . planning members ' -- Chemicals sand allied prod:, - adopted the amendment at the .r acts(drugs only); - recommendation of the county — Rubber and miscellaneous principal planner, Jerry.Kelley, plaatics; +� r t`� who said the changes are not-sub- ..: Leather and leather rod- • w. ` -. ' stantial end.would.not lace,any ' p ucts; <3 existing businesses out of tom ly • • ,' 1 once with the laW. p'.- Ind'u'strial and coiliitfierdal The county's Critical Water machjnel�y;computer equipments .'. �� shed Ordinance,adopted in 1985 Electrical anct' electronic i.si , Y p supplies,machinery'equipment; �, . a + regulates development in certain --Transportation equipment, ••... , . '4. .,� _ „1 - parts of the county lying in'erit- t;,•: 4 ical drainage areas that feed the `' .3.•','"'°'.' e '' a. i ` M. '''' ' county's drinking-water head- • ' ` ^'" "M ` ,t M'� -+C ;a• quarters. :; '1'.=``-'154'" , Industrial development is for-. , I r. w d'., bidden id.the designated "water ■al,�,r �° •I: }`i quality critical areas" and Jim-. �'�d • g 'a, ited.to'biU3►''certain,rate cries in.. �:w ,et �Y c the"water quality basin area.'•' i��'.. , .; ,';•s`,1 ; �< Those categories are deter• A ~ r i mined by the Standard Industrial • '' . t. w` , -, : Ciassifcation Manual a `` U.S, goy r f. eminent publication that lists ' ' 'r , r, thdustries by type and function. Sun Oita, ,r The 1985 watershed ordinance '•`. }.: :x»f'• .-,., ' refers to the Radial to re dicate "r � *F y the types of inanufaetu rs and This is a reader aerplco of.lhe t -l 'I F . product§ that would be:allowed Durham sun If you havb y in the basin area.•I QU65NOrts.card Atli+tyta --ei ''• . . . _ TABLa 11 . 0. SUMMAR! ANALYSIS OF ALT5FACEVE Fe...SEAVOIR SITES SITES IN CANE comm summAay ANALYsIs 4 1. University Lake Ee_sting 2. American Stone Quarry Existing 3. Lake Michael Existing ,.., 4. University Lake (raise tiPa) . Prim 5. Cane Creek . Prim 6. New Hope Creek A Flood Rorstian Division of Duke Forest 7. Price Creek F-4-, 8. .Eolin Creek In the path of. developeent tmm . ).. Chapel Fill-Car:taro 9. Mal Creek B Inadequate yield 10. Piney Moultain Creek Inadequate yield 1111 . 11. Neville Creek , Inadequate yield 12. VorEpan Creek Inadecuate yield 1 13. Lake Orange Existing 14. Lake Een Johnson Existing . 4 15. Corporation Lake Existing il 16. Seven Mile Creek A Prime 17: North Fork Little River A Distant fron Existing 111 supply network 18. South Fork Little River A Distant from Existing I water supply network 19. South Fork Little River B Distant fry= Existing JR - water supply network 1 20.. Eno Nest Fork C Prim 21. Stoney Creek • Distant from Existing water supply network . 1 22. Euckwater Creek . Flood portions of . Eno State Park 23. North Fork Little River B Distant from Existing pi, water supply network / 2u. McGowan Creek Inadequate yield 25. Forest Creek Inadequate yield IP 26. Strole.s Creek Inadequate yield 27. Lower Lake Orange Inadequate yield 28. North Fork Little River C Inadequate yield 29. Quarry Creek Inadequate yield 30. Cates Creek •- Inadequate yield ' 31. Eno West Fork A -Inadequate yield 32. Seven Mile Creek B Inadequate yield 33. Eno West Fork B Inadequate yield 34. Eno X Inadequate yield • . • . . . PI . 10 • I 31 ENCLOSURE THREE to ENO RIVER GROUP ltr (Re me rk e) to NRCD Fe brue i 3--- - : Y t 1988 ' . • , ENO RIVER GROUP "ENO WILL" 'LENORE" - (TO CONSERVE FREEDOM) • . . SINCE 1975 . . STEWART G. BARBOUR, SEC•Y • February 16, 1968 RRT. A , BOX 712. HILLSBOROUGH, NC •27278 Chairman and Board ,. Orange County Commissioners Chapel Hill, North Carolina • Re : Item #10 for Decision February 16, 1988 (Memorandum of Underatandina, Eno River State Park); Request for Deferral. Dear Chairman and Board : We respectfully request that Item 10 above be deferred : had A. :pie have not/input into ypur proposed letter dtd February 17, 1968 to Dr. William W. Davis, Director, State Division of Parks and- Recreation. • B. Your Minutes for Public Hearing of Feb 16, 1962 contain a statement which we are unable to verify end. believe to be erroneous. Book 00501/502/698. - 1. After we had requested more then 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 long list of questions submitted by Mr. Barbour". 2. Our Re c brd s 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 answerer before proceeding with this Eno River • State Park mmtter. Thanking you for your courtesy, I remain, • Sincere y, Stewart Barbour, Beaty, Note : We did receive from Eno River Association President Mr. Donald - ,.Csx 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 7 085 agreed. VOTE: 5 in favor. 1 opposed (Yuhasz - hesitant to endorse a perimeter buffer without really knowing what is involved and also felt there was a need for additional transition property north of US 70) . (Boland left the meeting at 1005) . (2) Eno Township Component Presentation by Brad Torgan. The presentation at the public hearing summarized ,the differences between the existing Plan and the proposed amendments. The only public comment made at that time centered on development at the boundaries of Eno River State Park. A list of the differences, between the existing Plan and the 1988 Draft Plan are included on pages of these minutes. One substantive change has been made to the draft since the conclusion of the public hearing, designation of the portion of the Little River watershed in Eno Township as a water supply watershed. This has been done to make the Plan consistent with earlier staff recommendations to designate all drinking water supply watersheds in Orange County as such, regardless of whether or not they directly serve Orange County residents. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended text and map and incorporation into Section 3.10 of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Staff also recommends that the Planning Board send to the Board of Commissioners the Proposed Resolution of Adoption (attached on page of these minutes). The resolution is pursuant to Section 2.2.13 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (Comprehensive Plan Adoption) . The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on July 5, 1988. Yuhasz expressed concern that the area designated Agricultural-Residential adjacent to the Brigadoon Subdivision should be designated Rural- Residential. Torgan responded that the area is left as agricultural-residential in order not to encircle Duke Power property and the old power 003 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July A, 1988 Action Agenda Item # t1.4 SUBJECT: MASTER RECREATION & PARKS PLAN DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Draft Resolution Planning Director - Ext. 346 (Reference: 6/21/88 BOCC Agenda) Draft 6/21/88 Commissioners Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: Consideration of incorporation of the proposed Master Recreation & Parks Plan for Orange County as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND: The proposed Master Recreation & Parks Plan was initially presented at public hearing on November 23, 1987. As a result of citizen and advisory board concerns, revisions to the original document were proposed and subsequently presented at a second public hearing on February 22, 1988. A proposal was also presented to incorporate the Master Recreation & Parks Plan as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed revisions affected only the greenways portion of the Master Recreation & Parks Plan. Proposed natural conservation areas were deleted, and active recreational trails were retained. Due to citizen opposition voiced at the February 22 public hearing and concerns that the greenways issue would adversely affect bond funding opportunities for recreation improvements, the Board of Commissioners, at its March 15 meeting, voted unanimously to delete the greenways element from the Master Recreation & Parks Plan. At its April 4 meeting, the Board scheduled additional public hearings on the Plan for April 19 and May 2 to receive citizen comment on the parks and pools aspects of the Plan. 004 At its May 4 meeting, the Recreation & Parks Advisory Council recommended that the planning principles contained in Chapters 1-6 of the Master Recreation & Parks Plan be incorporated as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The financial/funding data contained in Chapter 7 would not. Subsequent discussions between the Recreation & Parks Director and the Planning Director have indicated the need to approve and incorporate the complete Master Recreation & Parks Plan (Chapters 1-7) as part of the Comprehensive Plan. At its May 16, 1988 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the Master Recreation & Parks Plan (Chapters 1-7) , excluding, however, specific proposals for funding the capital improvements program as contained in Tables 7-1 and 7-2. The Planning Board also recommended: 1. That the Occoneechee Mountain park site be included in the Plan and that a County commitment be made to expansion of that site; 2. That additional funding be provided for the acquisition of park lands during the five-year capital improvements program; and 3. That the Master Recreation & Parks Plan be incorporated as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (See attached resolution. ) At the Board of Commissioners June 21 meeting, the Administration recommended approval of the Master Recreation & Parks Plan (Chapters 1-7, excluding reference to the capital improvements funding program) and its incorporation as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. In response to Item #1 of the Planning Board recommendation, the Administration recommended that the Occoneechee Mountain proposal be referred to the Town of Hillsborough for review and comment. In response to item #2 of the Planning Board recommendation, the Administration acknowledged the Planning Board's wishes to share its view for additional CIP funding. However, the Administration believes deliberation of additional funding should be a matter of annual budget process and review. The Board of Commissioners approved the Master Recreation & Parks Plan but withheld approval of incorporation of the Plan as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board of Commissioners expressed the desire to have the resolution revised to reflect the recommendation of the Administration and to have the document approved by the County Attorney. 005 RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the attached resolution, incorporating the Master Recreation & Parks Plan (Chapters 1-7, excluding reference to the capital improvements funding program) as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 006 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY HOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING AND DESIGNATING THE MASTER RECREATION AND PARES PLAN AS THE RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners adopted the Orange County Land Use Plan on September 2, 1981; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has from time-to-time adopted amendments to the Orange County Land Use Plan because of: 1. Changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; 2. An error or omission in the Plan; or 3. A change in the policies, objectives, principles or standards governing the physical development of the County; and WHEREAS, proposed amendments to Articles 2.2.12 through 2.2. 14 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance were presented at public hearing on February 22, 1988 which re-defined the nature, intent, and method of adopting the Comprehensive Plan for Orange County; and WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the public hearing and the receipt of the Planning Board recommendation, the Board of Commissioners adopted the proposed amendments on April 4, 1988; and WHEREAS, Article 2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, states that one element of the Comprehensive Plan shall be a Recreation Element which designates a system of areas and public sites for recreation, including parks and playgrounds, recreational trails, and other similar areas; and WHEREAS, the Master Recreation and Parks Plan fulfills the purpose and intent of the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Article 2.2.13 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, states that the Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan and portions thereof from the Planning Board, shall adopt them by resolutions; and oo7 WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on February 22, 1988 for the purpose of designating and incorporating the Master Recreation and Parks Plan as the Recreation Element of the Cam rehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, public hearings on the Master Recreation and Parks Plan were conducted on November 23, 1987, February 22, 1988, April 19, 1988, and May 2, 1988; and WHEREAS, following conclusion of the public hearings and the receipt of the Planning Board recommendation, the Board of Commissioners wishes to designate the Master Recreation and Parks Plan as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that: 1. The Master Recreation and Parks Plan (Chapters 1-7, exclusive of any refereencthcapital improvements funding program) is hereby adopted and designated as the Recreation, Element of the Comprehensive in for Orange. County, N.C. Adopted this day of , 198 . rY4µ 008 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: July 5, 1988 SUBJECT: Proclamation DEPARTMENT: Recreation and Parks PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: XX ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: -Local Proclamation Mary Anne Black -Governor' s Proclamation TELEPHONE NUMBER- - Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4581 Mebane - 227-8031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To proclaim "July is Recreation and Parks Month" in Orange County, as has been done in North Carolina by Governor Martin and on the national level by the National Recreation and Park Association. BACKGROUND: Proclamation, can enhance public awareness and support of Orange County citizens for programs offered by the county' s Recreation and Parks Department. RECOMMENDATION(S) : 11414ir PROCLAMATION OF °JULY IS NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARKS MONTH° IN ORANGE COUNTY Whereas, positive leisure experiences are vital to good physical and mental health, and enhance the quality of life for all people; and whereas, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners recognizes the benefits derived to the County by offering these leisure experiences; and Whereas, the Orange County Recreation and Parks Department offers programs encompassing a multitude of activities that can result in personal accomplishment, self-satisfaction and family unity for all citizens, regardless of their background, ability, level or age; and Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners wishes to encourage and endorse the concept of "July is National Recreation and Parks Month" in Orange County; and Whereas, Governor Martin has proclaimed "July is National Recreation and Parks Month" in North Carolina; NON, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT THE ORANGE coamr BOARD OF mum OCROIL9SIONERS DOES HEREBY PROCLAIM wJULY IS NATIONAL RECREATIM AND PARKS MONTH' IN ORANGE comm. BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Board of Commissioners encourages all citizens of Orange County to participate in the leisure activities sponsored by the Orange County Recreation and Parks Department, not only during this designated month, but year-round. THIS, the 5th day of July, 1988. Shirley 7-- 1*. shall, Chair Orange Coun y Board of Commissioners Laszamammanallassavomarassonsts...............-- 010 $ivit .01 Nurtil vs„44s, AM IT _ !1 J ES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR RECREATION AND PARKS MONTH 1988 BY THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 1988 The State of North Carolina recognizes that the creative and worthy use of leisure can develop healthy, useful and productive individuals. Leisure and recreation create a basis for compensating for many of the demands placed upon North Carolinians by today's way of life. Park and recreation programs throughout the State of North Carolina encompass a multitude of activities that can result in personal accomplishment, self-satisfaction, and family unity for all citizens, regardless of their background, ability and age. The need for recreation and park facilities and programs in North Carolina is ever increasing as additional demands are being placed on the public, private and commercial sectors to provide services. The North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation and the North Carolina Recreation and Park Society strive to encourage and assist in the advancement and development of recreation and parks in the State of North Carolina for all citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, I, JAMES G. MARTIN, Governor of the State of North Carolina, do hereby proclaim July, 1988, as "Recreation Month," recognize the im North to portanceofC recreation nand rthe aeffortscofl all sthose involved in the park and recreation profession. • _}ter , 7,14A74. /AMES G. MARTIN • • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Great Seal of the State of North Carolina at the Capitol in Raleigh this twenty-fourth day of May in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and eleventh. oil ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OP COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. £4 Meeting Date: July 5, 1988• Report on EDC Preliminary Study SUBJECT: and Status of EDC Strategic Plan Preparation DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: - Economic Development Yes ,g„ No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: TELEPHONE NUMBER: Sylvia Price Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To hear a report from Sylvia Price, Director, Economic Development, regarding the EDC Preliminary Study (completed in February 1988) and the status of the EDC Strategic Plan preparation. BACKGROUND: 1. EDC Preliminary Study. The BOCC appropriated $5000 for the Preliminary Study, which was carried out between October 1987 and February 1988. The Preliminary Study addressed four main questions. This report will summarize' briefly the answers to those questions, and highlight the most important elements resulting from the.study. 2. EDC Strate is Plan Pre aration Status Re ort. A major recommendation of the Preliminary Study was that the EDC pursue the process of strategic planning. The Plan should have a county-wide thrust, while taking account of the need for different goals and activities in the respective geographic areas of the County. The process will be led by an Executive Committee of around 15 leaders drawn from the community, to be appointed by the EDC. To date, the EDC has appointed a Strategic Planning 'core committee', whose three members will develop the charge to the Executive Committee, define the role of consultants, oversee the preparation of data, help select the Executive Committee members, and sit on the Executive Committee, both to help guide its work, and to act as liaison between the EDC and the Executive Committee, The Core Committee has met once, and will meet again on July 6. RECOMMENDATIONS (S) : As the Board of Commissioners decides. 012 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. ¢.( ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: JULY 5, 1988 SUBJECT: TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING CONTRACT BETWEEN PIEDMONT AERIAL SURVEYS AND ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S YES OFFICE,X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider approval of the attached contract between Piedmont Aerial Surveys, Inc. and Orange County for topographic mapping of Cooperation Lake and Seven Mile Creek proposed reservoir sites. BACKGROUND: The Orange County Board of Commissioners approved the scope of work as outlined in the contract on March 1, 1988. The scope of work was set forth by certain areas outlined on Exhibits A, B and C with 200' = 1" and 100' = 1" scale with five foot and two foot contours. RECOMMENDATION: Approve contract and authorize the Chair to sign. a RESEVOIR MAPPING 013 PAGE 1 • AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this 5th day of July, 1988, by and between the COUNTY of Orange, North Carolina, hereinafter called the "COUNTY" and Piedmont Aerial Surveys, Inc. , hereinafter called the "CONTRACTOR", whose principal office is at 123 South Walnut Circle, Greensboro, North Carolina 27419. WITNESSETH THAT:. WHEREAS, the COUNTY desires to engage the CONTRACTOR to render certain professional services and deliver certain materials hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CONTRACTOR represents that it is qualified, willing and able to provide the professional services and deliver the requested materials to the COUNTY according to the COUNTY specifications and the terms of this agreement; it is therefore agreed and .understood that the following conditions apply: SCOPE OF WORK: CONTRACTOR shall perform the following services pursuant to its response to the COUNTY'S Request for Proposal #5007, dated February 19, 1988: 1. All necessary aerial photography required far the preparation of 1"=200' scale topographic maps with FIVE FOOT CONTOURS of the entire RESERVOIR STUDY AREA, delineated on enclosures A,B and C which Eass RESEVOIR MAPPING 014 PAGE 2 are incorporated by reference and are considered part of this document. (Designated as Task 1. ) 2. All necessary aerial photography required for the preparation of 1"=100, scale topographic maps with TWO-FOOT CONTOURS of the POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION AREA, delineated on -enclosures A and C. (Designated as Task 2. ) • 3. All field surveying work necessary for the preparation of the topographic maps described in tasks 1 and 2 above, to include the erection of monuments, two on each bank in the vicinity of the potential dam site indicated on Enclosure A. (Designated as Task 3. ) 4. Preparation of 1" =2000 scale topographic maps with FIVE-FOOT CONTOURS for the entire RESERVOIR STUDY AREA. (Designated as Task 4. ) 5. Preparation of 1"=104' scale topographic maps with TWO-FOOT CONTOURS for the POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION AREA. (Designated as Task 5. ) RESEVOIR MAPPING • - ' PAGE 3 G. Convert data from tasks above into digital form for use with the County/Hazen and Sawyer Autc.CAD System. (Designated as Task G. ) iltbootest 7. Develop a sitemem- '- -volume relationship for the entire reservoir study area or portion thereof to be described at a later date. (Designated as Task 7. ) MAPPING INSTRUCTIONS 1. All mapping is to be performed in strict accordance with the National Map Standards. 2. The following control references shall be used for aerial photography: - -- • a. Horizontal control: ' the North Carolina - - Grid Coordinate System. b. Vertical control: National Mean Sea Level datum. 3. Point elevations accurate to +/-1 foot or better are to be given on ALL topographic maps for the . reservoir study area and potential construction area for the following: a. ground elevations immediately adjacent to ALL buildings; . - • - . RESEVOIR MAPPING PAGE 4 016 b. low points on. roads and bridge decks at • all stream crossings. 4. Final maps are to be presented on 24" x 36" mylar sheets. • COMPENSATION: CORPORATION LAKE SEVEN MILE CREEK AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 1,840 - 640 FIELD WORK 5,600 5,600 MAP PREPARATION 13,460 11,288 DIGITIZE DATA/DEVELOP STAGE/AREA/VOLUME RELATIONSHIP 4, 130 3,860 TOTALS 25,030 21,388 GRAND TOTAL ENTIRE PROJECT 46,318 PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTOR: 1. Payments will be made by the COUNTY to the CONTRACTOR based on the satisfactory completion of the various tasks as designated in SCOPE OF WORK. 2. CONTRACTOR may request payment for work completed based on the following schedule; Aerial Photography 2,480 . Field Control 11,200 017 RESEVOIR MAPPING PAGE 5 All remaining services 32,738 TOTAL 46,418 3. The COUNTY will make prompt payments to the CONTRACTOR, within thirty (30) days of formal acceptance by the COUNTY of all deliverable items; and upon receipt of a dated invoice from the CONTRACTOR showing a description of the work done for each separate amount being claimed. INDEMNIFICATION: 1. The CONTRACTOR shall save harmless the COUNTY and its representatives from all suits, actions or claims of any kind brought as a result of any injuries or damages sustained by any person or property in consequence of any act or omission by the CONTRACTOR or its employees or agents, or from any claims or amounts due arising or recovered under the state's Worker's Compensation laws. The CONTRACTOR will furnish evidence of Worker's Compensation and general liability insurance, showing the COUNTY as an additional insured. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this instrument to be executed by themselves or their duly authorized officers or agents and their seals affixed hereunto the day . and year first written above. • • RESEVOIR MAPPING ••• PAGE 6 • PIEDMONT AERIAL SURVEYS, INC. : gab 4111111/_.„- , BY:_ • Ca0*--E :•%"- WITNESS: • -. .• got4-1, CORPORATE SECRETARY ORANG SHIRLEY E. MARSHALL, CHAIR- TO -THE• BOARD - - ' • ATTEUI . • BEVERLY B YTHE, CLERK TO THE BOARD • • EFLAND QUADRANGLE a44.'.'.'•''•I''. .-.. -..-,--4.4.(-.-..•71:::•.7'1'....• ,cir NORTH CAROLINA—ORANGE CO. ppo'� 7.5 MINUTE S __�.�'••RAPHIC) marrRw r % (CEDAR DROV17 .01 ctur meow i 10' 1 a . 0 36 07 3D .,..t,... Ii••F.• 14 _:+ r�F,• .J_., ir `'. , .'"0j lY. L: 1 Clri,,00.;'/� i�"! `'!j�]�L+'Jt. �.(1 " ,,-•i i"• , r • . .--,...g...... r...2.....i . -.■ ■ /i 1 - -/ ., .: ... Is I) 0 i,. 11), I . ..,_ ;II ,. .._ .........\.i.. I. ' 111 :): .1�.. - ' h;'-', 1 1 .,1.719,....-e-7;it •,« ,` !^ •I`l ,J f ,�) ,:'`.l�°f-) �/ �/ 1 • ;`,{_.J. e ( ` ,i� i v�. . r)' ew000 ' -'5 l.•t / . -� r 11. . ••\ 1 '��� i y ' C -• • • S .r.. .t•.•s.."I.of)t•;-';,•:!r...:, . i 1 lJ f:0 ) `.. llll ' f 1 y i :.� r•,1.•,ter .....— : \ / � `-w r V ;� ' ` ~• I • I .:• ;.• ?talc. � � .1 u : ' JINN 'kill .�rl- , 1�' . i;^:.+/ : _ tip,_,• f »,., ../ ,, Ji,. - �,; li IN..' E� C/ f�( tt'�;.. (. r_' U �. - /,.,ii�. t :,y,•,, Y' '' •�' '�! 1• j ` - - ��,. '. /'ter ' - v i ` • }•r• /7 ).---•y �,•. ,. Lys, )'0 '•`ti.._- . 9~1 11 . u ✓W u .`� / i -/'l.. JI . �� 1.10 .• -� J X1.1 ill: v I•; ► )y°( :�_1, )\-.„,,J 13't"...f�' 1` i t! . -•(`) J.0k� i�- .--��.;' • / /r�. ►,1 .. Al i ."an\. �1•� .X.'..4 . _•� 14 J ► 14 mr '`(/ li/, 1, �• k.---mP 1. sk ;' =.• 1 M!• 1 aul • • /' .•J. !7� •t:•1-1 ,�•. . , -.,-•+.' {a/'J' v,(.),}1/\ m-r-.......'..1►! '• iffe .t'! ''t6.,,q.ea,j • .r„ _ .a 11 ..•. •, _ .1 1� 1 •, 1 b/ f1, �• 1•'1y :taL.a,-..V1-•,—P.•• ...* ' •-\! 'st ''(Eij,./-'/'/ ti ,' : .41,, 1...%... ,i( i ''' -..-i-1 a'al :�t-•••,:,,-.••. ro•� '41;. •� ••4.�eta •..�s l�[I. 1' .• , } iii, i;/1(�V•ir . .•! r.)01 . . I.ii4• "I i`:� :.;�, J/,v- 1I, 1 ~• i• ':,i.•,. ;••1• ._ 2. ( :.: 1.• . / --N !'ir,r ♦ '•rte y ,• :•I.:- t 1 / .+.,- .-- �•.:;•• - 1 I.1 ;.., 1 • . 3 !�:...,"1. i,-/,,,:k` i/1` - f�'• • r,`,f�t,i•. 4,7` ' '-} .J il.!�t t••;:• .., �`-` •, •,_. ::\•::(.1.,1(11 1 . "-- t_J1 .�•i •4 ..'il l' ‘ /,• "riWa4..Nf •'� ,' .,Ilw:_'i i r t1 '�. .�'4 )f. •,`�• � ; 1• _'1 • ls�.�1)I .. `LC y, .9p=;,i .�`...,� �� ua�,t...•....�..a 411 \t�I f: :'�`~�\�� f�l •�l�f �.�• � ' �(� .•'��`t_,,, e 1� , -, < :�-. j11n' 1 '.• fit'• h F• , ' ../'- ••,�� .. ; 1.,i . yy' P/'`' �. �; .` ,& •/ -1 _-1, / •e (i (//,_.. •...-m�._f,N• k;•\ F, ' .t• L.P.1;,yi• .,/• lII. .1. / ` / k •j-:.. 111 `<'1 • 4".• . ( w°cl Yr .e,'::,1. • - /j 7 .1.:;. tti i':.•••1_)t a.l . y C\ ( ` (..z• i' ( r rlii.K,, t0 P,✓ ' , •./ 5 ' . ,. 1 - 4 4 .I.. `.t ( 1! !. .i.,�-I' t )Yid.. r'I y w� �• 'f;'' ,• Lf,1.�L•f' .` •tl\ I'r..�/ - ( f `' (a. •'*r•/ •!•: 4?- 11 `• a k. �p `' 1 ` .•' 7.' L... j .,.•'‘ 111'.:' Wit ( I''i �O. ..:/".I,•4i(,"��t �t1J1 ((' ..• L Atilt f- "`-I• ,: Lot 1.,` .I• ,y�f((„1),I.1 /4/'_ .-;/: .1/0 ),?,a' i• I 1 •I• 6,.1t1* r ;4 1.1.■1 114 S l ` ,\1 ., r ..f , LS r I 1 — '• 1l 1/1'. 1• "I l''��e ( 1•a. Ii•• . _) )' . ( (/a -'1/ C\• 11 ▪I'`*, •l:- 1-1 � 1. `�/•; `• '11$ 'Pleb r.• •1 )1 ,•Ir `v�•�',\ -• !i t,, 1 ; '.�,w!,•( •, I/.• C�. 661 . - .'. �,ti' �.(a ••. •i `'• "�.., .' ,Y y G—N o5uRE - • I•f JI✓X1..'1' ;'� • ' - % 0 �.. y t_ C0 �+ ' T. ii __- , Ali. ..°': i 4 ?/ " . +', ' •• II •Y2.../d ,,n j�/. ,r_^`mil , ��--v , •- ^a ,,t. \ f+ .-79 Er (�.)T 1. 7.....;::\ 17T.\ ! -' .-- os h 1 1,•• •, rr •Y�. (.,•. :•• � 1 -`-\�/gyp(. ) •- �;., � G-4;a•..•r w ' it r: 7 .... V7-1 • � :! . ././ \�.is%*l-%: . ",h▪ '\ J 1 V R. A • j 74_ k r , ' r 11 ! 'i dr, .••1 • (�! `• C! V S .. .\.. 1, '41 4. r•-/.1 "..r 1 r . ..w.al .t -f-1 c O ` ��o .`_ 'i--. ',�•• - �'~^ K. -Z {•�• r •1 L . •,°.:+•�/" `� J •1-- •.t1: �' : ,fir ' �,• e .. ii .�. :•r Nr .. Y 7 / — /-? .-4)1 '1/7'_/-L>: A . \-1 e4() ''.-i-,(`--;2•',,," ta)J )1 I III •i /'.« ) ' '','N.'1,' .. - 1 --` \' ` -1{1�4 �,- -/--.....,,• at) a ..• ((L.;;,,..,.....;•.',1 t zy‘; •* . , (.7_,: .../...... .,...,..),I ii:, , ,,.i a',:"T!!\-.1 * T l 1 . -, • -QV 4.1.11.,."14X4 V\)e-'•i 1..,1 - ,.. ....,-, ,-„.......,,i .. al.: .., i /::-., ,,,..., ... i ,,.., .. .... • i.).:_-_,•,,--•; ,,I.• .1 lc, i y'l ^l•. N !/ �i.! ,-{1. �,j- 4 , r r./.,. �•- • ~• '-R. F,. °° •„'10, . t, ' , •I i I / - i1 ���'�I o rat: !`•'P. O d . �-;'''-'''-k?C AA1.'I'yt ,0 7::::. ,....-., ft":1" :' ,.'• . 1 0. ---- ,-)V.:,1_,-:_:,„, 1,ez. 4, , ri,,, .7—q..v./.,,,i,f • •,11 d .�. ....�� •r ,7` ...• *,-. ,II _ ',F." 7 J} "�C ?...2.'1-'4,,' ,;_ / "• ,•,r.••(.•• • ,1•it sS-�, `,' (,r7 d !l, 1 _. �i� j( : r►1 r ;� � r� ' ` _-. # 15.x,..1(- .c) ,�\-'tJ, ` ;��.'`: - ∎`C 0...24' 8. y �' _ \L7 --' :'-1, IJ( , ` % " ,'"1.'•f` 1 °`,! .) , i _ i iii\.:��� '•, i N o�) 1 .1.. 1`'. i .) y. r 1• 1 5..yo j Nc y �' Kira 'r:;:P•'-r% ... -" -).‘' :. c. i ''''' " — - A .--=. \'',"°5. if,'•g A''..`-'''': q'ff'..41( it... ' ) + ` ' ,!(- �•' J:i:J/ u: , J ' ` rti �•• f� � / / Ar• -(17) ' . ''' .. /. - ‘ .' ''. . ' . •▪ ,I•..---- I,'.-_ •••' ' ' •,r - �'1 1:��,,,n,:�,'f ".,'tt .,.---2-,.., ,-. .,-.4...y '101k ` : ,: '` , kri/4\.,./.-N—Jt_o v.. -.I '... •.1.;')--4,-.,1 . :.. ) •1.• . -;..4., 1,1(cl, ••.--"'•-,....s-,_l•,,.. i.....: '••••,--‘::,!' f• JJ!! is ..! I e ,F....•'• a$ •,, •1� i1., ��.z � ) .• �• ,�, 1� \.-iii,-,•:11..- , ••., i i, •� r - `1 i` f ` \\{11Y!!7? ,� 1 i`�J ± ;\ -i11/� p.S 1 J \,\--)..---kiik j J . �' ./- :••+••' vri 1• �`�.l•.`=J 11 ,-"�11aE.•-'1'• ^!k.•1'1F',ix ', ,a •I' .1 , : ° ' I L N0I -1� 2M1 roux NA ,p' 1 - •-�!°i1i➢M•!P --. _..__-— - •. SCALE 1:21000 ;. •. £ 1 . 10■-• .) t l.-,. \T• O r( ? •S • _1I,,• f ...._\_ 0 f % -,: ., .t,t 011*-# - .,> .) ' \( - ...•iec. "-- \ ' .. t ( •i ‘ 7.1, .....,01. . • Nit , )(. ..a ,._-...,.., .4:••• ..,:,..„....• ;• / ,....... (.-7 .. (..,,1/4. ,.•••.___ (t -•47'40' ' 1) .,..)-)) -:;-•- vil. ‘1 ( .- . ( 6.. E.r•ic-c4"soeE C * • • rev i\ 'i ',.:,. )VI( c oork • • J, l'f.. i,f•",A ,,, , it'...1„,... 11.7.e: 1, 't3. 1.9 . f\:---,!..,„,-e.:,, ...1.,,k 1..;* 1;.. ';‘,-_.. • ... ..,-. .-\.......y . 1.... --,---' . . .;.,. l;•-t-,-4 'Iffi ) ` D.g s. r -j'I' C*11/ " :r'. ' 'I ' 1 V .. • f• ....- ,•••-•:e- •.••, • .... It ; • - '.. )i \ s.-1 .•';""+:‘2 )) .* --•)`1/ 1 , t -A_..•' ' ---• ■.,( J .. Jr- - - ir ,... ...f.- . • ....., , ( Q. ,,,,). .. k• % -.7.--..-- \\--....'.-.-.._..:;:itz... ,--,fe." i - N' ....:...1, . : •.. ._::r. :-.....AC.:) 1 . h..st---..0, - 1/4:._/-7 c. ( 1 -- „....., ,_,..:._.. . " •- I _...-----------/-v.\-- -. ,).--if- -- .i i . -A‘.. . -•-:.---,11)'; 14,ill - 1 .1.,b._1.1 4 '' itC_,.■.:., \ •'• ? . • r' I i .....-rt. •...„..-- I:f5.71:-°-°.....\V: .'• -_,:., ./ - -.•........‘ . (.,., ,-..., i , • . • ••"'""!„?..:-.5 :a . :*t. '''. 4 ;17-:.<:- -. , _-. ..._:-.3 ) ,-.. . ... r - ‘‘..1 it g .,. p•:.r.-: • ••• g- • I---2,-,.-°:ox 1.• (l,ii'-',,,;9..,i e.t...... 1) ''• C\ , \......../„...--•...----- ,..-i'l_._,*71 -:1 ) .- ...,"lc`•, --...• '-.'.›."..---z•' . -. ,„- . .1 - 1 ,,, i , y • '''.'/. tc_c_..........A. )(... NI ?) '..,. .."''' LfrC_,,.1 ".; j) \ .. ...• ....' .11 eitie ir•. , ',tf:') , N. -V. - \___, ks.. ., .i) . N..- , Ilihr--w-e 1?fi; ..rf•-) .7,/,..-- cl)f....-\•'...‘ ._.. --\\10 c:2) ....:-.."--; rAtc....,...,-/v '.),,ef:ii...1-.- -../- ,_.k N...4) \ c'.,' •-•-••....--' 0 IC"'' i" ,I 4,:-...-4----7.4;7: • -•(,--Np■0,1 1.•••`,:-. :: ,, ..._ :••.:- 9\1 '.. ;"_'..\ \ ( ...( '' r \ 4:51/2•1 S •7 "..•- '. . . •• ...-.. - . moor.- •..-••• 1.73,:..%1&:,...,....:-;--.7=--> .-...1 .; cf‘ ,(....", . ..---,._. 1 , ,.•,.. ,, . .. N;i71..,:tr„. • :- ..- " i., ct‘..(4."2....- 1 ‘' \-.:' ;"( ,te_r Y. ! ,-'...,..-:"..v. .• .4: ',, *'•'.•'''.. . ,..: t --',.;-(. '..".. , ., r • rs . es...,,,s•Nc -,..; sk.......,_.i _ ) i k - ..: ,P.-...-1!, : ••4J' . I r ..../ . --... • , ; •••.',. ' it • \ .7."1.--k ... '''• •'' 1A4 b)...**1 t•-.. ,.-.),‘S))) 1' \I.\ "s-" .1.- - + -.1 7 .."VH.- . ','!C...•ii.,4‘..? -...;"-11-■)- . •' ; . . ...3,4:,,• '9))0,_.••■=,J. 1........1 1 I 4,1y,- ) a ....2'- -11 (4 ..■ (i- '.-::: --..".\:•-ic•-::*.*:-.. '.....--.--.'"--1 I..‘7:•-cl i(s. ' T Ati•'.,, 34.4„...;'.:.• i: .,\&\7....-.'3-7..-••....7.!/.... . , . .....• .t..y.:4„;k.. • . , , t..„, . .. . :„.1 ',-..(.11/c ( ;:•': "1•• `-.)..'' k`: .14• -. -.I:;-. • N 110--....*:-. .._.....\:. ,1 .-- : ,..!i I . I 1 tp ,1'2-. I •,:•"--!i•..i ' :1.1.1. (r-, ,4,.., :14 • s,..., \ k_.; .i.0P,,.:‘,.:-_.:1111,_,...;.i.i. ....7.: .. ;:-... ...../. .,\t-,., ••-/-:f• vt!.... ! •.•, y""?-14 ,• .Li-iz;r ,-- y -•"1-/ 1 . i•'- '1.'"OL; '..s.'t .'\-",,-:.id''',P. 1 iyr( -- ' I'",; ) ' I.c ..'il, .1 ....v.-- ' • -1-4S. -- k./1.\t„..., "I r........_ • .."'`,- '-' . \•‘.\‘‘,'..) ‹....-N A NI( ....., • -. ..., .,..."-;,--":".1r.` -';1... .''''Irr • ...:-...,.C.--'" r --- \ .•... .:.4.„.„ „ ,,,,,,. "..„:„„ \ _, ,,, .\_.,.:s k: •, ..-f.! • .'-,Y.. 'I , 1. iii.....-. ,:t.,,i■,,141., . ,...,-;,,,,,,e,v,,,, . •( 11 --•..-p.,(•' \ ,,,---"--N..•••,, ''`,:4 • (----.4-es,\.: . h.1.143'; ...- V. -ji. • c1 7 ■-',..:•-• ... ' i'I''4 .. i e' • • •,"-"I''' .,(.; ti\X...''.-..\_ •_.'"-:-...,,,!'•%-' • " '%' t (N.\N• ' WO---i_.. 4-., • .1: t• ki, c "• tIvi.i• c ."-4VA.;. r") -.17 ,/,) 2. ,-.\ k.I .:1/4.' ..:. v\ --°.N .: :\•(( , •:•-•;;:i k 7.-, t : .-$ ..! .1.,•,i„;4,4 .0".:, .-7,:j a. ' :• ... 1 Pe?)+4.V.''''. 1 '',..1t;.11';:: s l' •,-.71\_"-s.:'•• ? \\`-...\'' ';.-• - ' . ti (..‘.•,...' i itit.'"* roi",I."1;1.""•• ..*:1"."-'_,. '„' • ' • .....i. .. . btli..1,.()%".k._-,.. ..4,,-/,.L.,. ..,I.x.. :;,.., (k.,.., '1 i';,, >..-..,:c'N.." , ;,..*.i, 'A''.•.! "k)..1 1',-. ''1,"'c• ".7.-fr"17'.r • i \\....> 4, ,\V,,,•.7..k , .c...,k.s;.,,._?,--)4,.... ,_\\ 'N\ (-. ,-1 s'A,\--' s' ..•....'.. .-:', A...i '"--,' ;i !- _,,,1( p:-..p..•'r'.7-•* -:',..'s.ix"-. ; ::::_;.:.:, \._,...,.. iii....0-,,,,...1!:,,,. ,,. .; ( (.,- --_,...--)-„..• ..)..!,..,„,,,,,t.,- I. r-_-_,„,:,,• -...,.:..., ;\. r_, --a...•2' .. )%\..- :". ,) •-,,:, •• --".", A. ..........,..!,„••1.):,4.... ..0)); ,) )\*6\11 ( ```,,,,,S .-..\13,/ .) .-."--.1 ' ' 44# I ' ••....1! •!..!e.;.'?• •--2•- 't" . ,. •1‘.-:.7.,, ,----;,\;::,,....,\. ):._ :-1 , ,k..•, --,•,...-Y,\- .,.,',, ..) ( k.,.. , ,._ ilk 'II • ").)1)):, *. s .... 1 '..;:.• N.1,P.', 15,, : s.1. .., -,NN% ' Iv.-1 /1. ';1.: ; . s .' .!.'‘ . ... 'II • 1.rk "'Ll:2'\. 1\'-- ) .:`'.;• !.***"‘'s .1Al •-••'.- i)? •,1 • ' tas 4.4 : . • \..) .1.:F*, . ........‘k .,,,..A.. . .---, ..,;,,..--- %,•• .4. ,,,.. ,: , • .--...,, . .....,.c.- ../r,e,,k. .), II*)') /1/ r• %. • -,-,-.-N,'-'. •••'...i""•13 7 ),-..\\,•.,\ •", ......j'• ( - • '. 3-...g_i f! ..s, , ri ix../-i■''.•■ -■ '•••! 1 . -••••ir. ••-..).:: ' ••\'". • •••'.•''./ 4,R. i i .•'. • '.'. "(C ;.." .' V;.::'''.a ik•I,I,e, , , • 1 ,% , . • . ,i f . i ■ --.'....''--',.''' ....,., _jilt s. .... ..1,. , .... . . -• . -- . 4))1 : i J/,'=--k1* --(1\1c1--Z.0 \s''--1 ii : "..._ i, I' '-:--...7, :‘---:- 149.... - ,', . f . s . • . . I I:qa/... 1.. ?< 4, 31.• k ' / .- ' --- ,•--•.: XI .-. ;'.1.)• Nk * '. '-'7=t:-.- - '"'""`-1 1 V'... 1; • 16 lw. Di r A --_. • ...' - ' - - •iiki---' -1 . t.,--.."•,-..,,..,_,- ,„) "1, ) 111-1. \■,,,...,:‘_9). 1.'..---7-",.., qiiii ..,a4...:,,,,,',":1 4; ....,-;,•‘..ii":1)11Y-• 7/ . I"'• --...-- )4 • \--(il • 3„ x 1\-..S.,*N.,' 't...i.‘4,:,--.:: -2"*"-i-'..i,r••• •'II'...t......1 •"-.1' .....;ir,„ \ , ... „i\•°"-* , -'•-•,) . •„ I --..,-# • .-,....,....„:;. ..., _ ,,,,,,:„.., ..i n\-. , ,.,. ...........-1 ,-, -,-,-.•,,.......,-;... , .irc• ,. 0-- : ,fk,..r.,. 0.4..,.4).c J-i .. . ,!.._..!„ A,...), ,,,,J, . i,oce,„....,,....1.1„4.4‘ .4,,). .„. i ,. ..1 k(", .,: ... • , ,,....;..._ , ; .„ „ ..-..,„;,,,„..,,, , r. .if (----,, ,'', ) -I?....''',•--- -.`- . .....• ,-• N t j%11 it' ''''Ali- ...e:1:. )''''s-4,,- .. ../ 6.417., \_ ,3* .-74r.47.1k1- 7.-.7''' I ‘r\•\‘`7-■9,11"•::-.,...,, Ilit,f).1(.".*:,...' V••••••, 9. %I 7". :114..,._,....."''.1.:*"::.,-, 4.... - 5/, .‘• ,'''), fr'/' . •-• * i : ' f fr f.' L.: f-- , li - . --. ti.1,.....! „4.1403:40... .Th,F„_,........ ...:-\.: 1 ) 1.., a...1,..: ...... •.., ....A ..'' .. 1:,"- r t'k . •',,k,:.i.-1 -1,1•„-');3 -- -- • - .,..:3 i V;. .,')...4. '( '-, "`"%.■.7*11 .i:?....,...1e;- :- ...- ,:te.st...,74-, ,..;-:,:f71,64;-. . . .r:',.. 7.-,-.1 .:ii n., :"7 : .,....,:;-L„.-12...4.1.fi 1 . 1 (r;) ...,. 4.- , - .. f. f''' " ", ' '' . 'N't' .L.,,. ‘,. ;'='-• :Ii; '‘' 'I ' .. "."-",•-• ': ••• --:::..:;,-..5.1(-..,...-). , ,.. ,.. ..: ,--z:7. 1 .1,-".1:24„‹..,;16) ?••• r.:''''''-•:::."`-'' ' l'-) ' -•-' \I-_- "te "Iiht"m"--•; •"-Nii ,e;'',', .-i -(if' ?^, - -.--'''''•.::,. ...-•.-.".'"--- -•• • •:.:••• •---'"-1:- ••.... .-•'*4; '• •).f -''',.-........,,,,, . ' 4,".1 , 1 " - . -- 4. .,(1.6 , .. %%it,.... • •. . , ),4,..-- „.....7.:..,.,„„,.....;,.„,, •••,,. .. :?,•..----..4'.,, ,ty • ,...,,_ , ......, -.:: 1. '- .• • ... . • ,;..•_•) .( -C g •... .... .4-,, ..',.. etY ,_'::-,,,,,,--7;71_, -,i' \,,:,..;'-' 0*-;•7, .....-:„."-- Iv. ,r,---N ,z...,( •;. --.:_-z---:.:, . ‘,.\\., .. : /,....,..,--„ ),A c :::-. _.l(f Ir----,/,7. „...„..,..z.-. • . ,,t1) .....0 -, r y) "i',..V., '• ,.."z., . -..,:, .:••%,■ •. i1) . '..),....., f"4.---- ''fa.-' JZ.4,"■*•.t--**-- •Iit ' .----•:W---.:....... • ...-4.m*-'f.e,"4:.r,jor..., --' .: 1,,,-...-i.,,_______,,-.---.._ ,f k----. 1 ,'1 Jr":t''''1.• ...;* --.....-**-•-,''' ,‘" . .' -.C.-*V' -.-.1 I(-' f. ' \k . : •''''......! ! :: N.114,: ,-',...t. •■■•Z*".■.. s. -V).1W.• 'FT,':"' VI.. I.''../.4r;71:- 4 rf\ 4`L'. ...'; C" (V.))-. 1:Ort.).1.1.1 \......;.V., 1. • i. * .. ......,',:-._:.-.,..i_____ „.._ ....:.•' •'•-..--.-'-•r,1.\.•,A".•.l'..".')I'(4l...„4-.l-.1*1,:..j„-"..t"L"•'",.,...'.'''s'-1,0.o•-,._,.t-\,.•,.)*-....•:.f::-i. 0`:.1,'t---'')i---19)-1---.-.C7k'.V".■V1 -:,:---r,--,.,_-_,•--,5"'--.,-..3.:-..,---`-2... ,,',,''I'•.-4.-:.1.4.•*„•'..,'P4,•-,',..;..k.-',„":,_-,l..„/..-,!,(e‘,:p..*.k.10.1t,1*...*(...1',:,.',1.'i.:',rA',.;..1•.I i;o-.,.(..r.i...•2•,'...,.9_.:.4‘'),,..•\,'*••1..•„1;4,.(C-•.;`,,._,._`.:•.-:._.X...a,..•.,.-,,,.-,.7,,,.(.,'I).- -'1d..;4'i 0' ,........\ :• ?;.=,•;.?-..-1.*.g..:'". -.• • .1.?%./ 4.1•,...z. t:-...---.1.i.y../' :,•'', .. • . .....!..= :'_ .'.., • 4 3 per SBOROUGAV'• '''':a f- ,•••. -/ It"...ti.,EL:.••• 's 0 Wilf II 6C A' IZI. i ''-' •3,34::',...v,7.....,•1 -a ,,. , N . . . . -a k... ••••• 0 6,i. ..1". C,fa' ().4 '‘..1 tVe,i.; "..; -0*I;-,, . • 'nu :•-• • -k,- kt • u . . • 3.7.3 . . t■c, • .3. . - .'•':4,:-.3. . _ -....... _ .. . -hi g Ni altAti : ..:,..• ..,....7.....:? ..i. •..x-..:.'• -,, -. : :,-..-.:.: • • • .....S:',.: :4,.,..:•.: . . . : •Or-e•di Aei,dye , :-*••:,,:-•• :4;•:,..,---: • • . -.::::::,.' .-.1.; 4-: - ,,•-•.-:.::: -,x,r,--- • .- • .. . , . - i3.:• .,.c:- : . :;.--.-:::::- • .•?''....: :. i . • -.. I 'I ..,• ig. ' 1.':..„,:. •,, . • . , .,,-.. . ) i';'.: ..". . . Z.::.":1- . . .• •..'e.. :••,'• • • --. ::::::. •, . - _ . 14. 022 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. F4 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: JULY 5, 1988 SUBJECT: REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR HIGH SCHOOL EXPANSION/RENOVATION-- CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO SCHOOLS DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 LETTER FROM GERRY HOUSE TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider a request from Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools to reappropriate unused funds. BACKGROUND: The capital budget for Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools in fiscal year 1987-88 contained an appropriation of $450,000 for the completion of Estes and Glenwood Schools' multipurpose space. According to school officials, the project is now complete. At June 30, 1988 there is an unencumbered balance of $78,646.43 remaining in this project account. The school system has requested that this balance be reappro- priated in order to provide funding for preliminary design work on the high school renovation/expansion. 023 .444, S*0 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 Telephone: (919) 967-8211 Gerry House,Superintendent Michael Radz,Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Service Neil G. Pedersen,Assistant Superintendent for Support Services June 20, 1988 Mr. John Link County Manager 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC Dear John: It is my understanding that a $78,646 balance remains in our multipurpose building account. I am requesting that this money be reappropriated to a new project entitled "High School Expansion/Renovation". This will provide us with some seed money to begin the design of this project prior to the bond referendum in November. I would appreciate it if you could prepare a request for the Commissioners' consideration at their next meeting. S erely, Gerry H use Superintendent 024 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda • Item No._jka_ ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT • Meeting Date: July 5 , 1988 SUBJECT: North Carolina Housing Trust Fund - Incentive Program DEPARTMENT: Housing/Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : Application INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732-8181 • Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To authorize submission of an Energy Conservation and Housing Rehabilitation Incentive Program application to the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency. BACKGROUND: The North Carolina Housing Trust Fund was created by the General Assembly in 1987 to increase the supply of decent affordable housing for very low-income and low and moderate income residents of the state. The North Carolina Housing • Partnership was created within the N.C. Housing Finance Agency (NCHFA) to help coordinate these efforts. In June 1988, the NCHFA announced the first program utilizing the Trust FUnd monies. This program, the Energy Conservation and Housing Rehabilitation Program, is designed to provide applicants with funding for energy conservation improvements for housing occupied by low and moderate income families. The program has two components: 1 . Comprehensive Housing Rehabilitation ($3 million available statewide) ; and 2 . Energy Conservation ($1 million available statewide) . The Maximum award per applicant is $200 , 000. The Housing and Community Development Department has prepared an application for funds to establish a weatherization program in the County. This program will provide energy conservation improvements in housing occupied by low and moderate income persons. Applications are due Monday, July le, 1988. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve the submission of an Energy Conservation and Housing Rehabilitation Incentive Grant Application to the N.C_ Housing Finance Agency and authorize the Chair to sign the application on • behalf of the Board. - 025 • ENERGY CONSERVATION AND HOUSING REHABILITATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM IL APPLICATION FORM .A. PROJECT APPLICANT 1. Name of Organization: Orange County P.O. 2. Address:Address: Box 8181 ity. Hillsborough zip. 27278 3. Contact Person: Tara L. Fikes 4. Title: services Director Telephone No.. 5. Legal Entity: a. Unit of Government X - b.Nonprofit Corporation c. For-Profit Individual or Organization d. Other(describe) B. PROJECT INFORMATION I. Application Category(select only one): a. Energy Conservation Funding Request$ 200,000-- b. Comprehensive Rehabilitation Funding Request$ • • 5 026 c. Describe source(s) and amount of other funds for rehab work if b.was checked: N/A 2. Special Grant: a. Administrative Funding Request$ N/A 3. Estimated Total Number of Units to be Improved: a. No. Owner-Occupied 15 b. No. Rental 15 Project(s):_ N/A c. Identify method of ensuring affordability of rental projects improved to low- income tenants for 10 years(Agency documents will be provided if the applicant does not have a method.) See Attachment 1 4. Estimated Number of improved Units That Will Serve: a. Very Low-Income Households b. Low-Income Households 15 c. Moderate-Income Households 6 027 5. Type(s) of Financial Assistance to be Provided: a. Grants: No. g Average Amount$ 6,000 b. Deferred Payment Loans:No. 21 Average Amount$ 6,000 Proposed Repayment Terms: Five year forgiveness • Ten year forgiveness c. 'Amortizing Loans*: No NSA Average Amount$ Proposed Terms: Interest rate % Maximum loan$ Maximum term years *Projects that include amortizing loans with monthly payments must receive prior Agency approval for the underwriting and loan servicing system to be used. 6. Describe Additional Priority Criteria to be Addressed by the Project a. To serve households with special needs(e.g.,elderly,handicapped and large families) b. To expand housing opportunities for lower-income households c. To upgrade properties currently not meeting minimum health and safety standards This oroaram will seek p provide.assi- - o - •ro•-rt owners to .ve dwellin•s which do not conform to the • County's Minimum Housing Code. • • 7 028 wingensingsgormassu. C. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 1. Describe the Applicant's Housing Program Experience for the Last 5 Years, Identifying Programs, Funding Sources and Housing Units Improved or Pro- duced by Year The Count has administered several housing rehab programs Small Cities CMG Program 1981-1984 147 units rehabilitated Small Cities CMG Program 1983-1985 20 units rehabilitated Rental Rehab Program under contract with the Town of Chapel Hill- 1986- 1987 - 25 units rehabilitated. Rental Rehab Program under contract with the Town of.Carrboro - 1986 - 1987 - 31 units rehabilitated. The Depart- ment has had no experience in administering a direct loan program. 2. Identify Staff by Position Title Who Will Work on the Project and Their Re- sponsibilities: Robert Wilson, Rehabilitation Specialist - will conduct insmections, prepare work writeups, coordinate bid •rocess and monitor all work performed. • Tara Fikes, Housing Services Director - will market the program and determine eligibility. 3. Identify the Communities(e.g.,Counties or Cities)in Whic.h the Project Will Be Conducted: The •r....! -1 11 be tp • •- 4AI - - -•• Little River Townships of Orange County. 4. Complete the Attached Work Program Describing Your Proposed Project Activities and the Timeframe for Completion. • .11•1111MnIumis 111101111.411.111111. • . • • • •■•• • . • . • - 8 0'29 D. OTHER,REQUIREMENTS 1. Evidence of Community Support For Project: Attach a letter from the chief elected official or chief administrative official of the community, or other evidence of local support for the proposed project. 2. Certifications: The applicant certifies that: • a. It is applying to the Agency for Energy Conservation and Housing Rehabili- tation Incentive Program(the"Program)funds in the amount of $ 200,000 for the purpose of providing energy conservation improve- ments to lower-income housing. - b. It possesses the legal authority to apply for and receive the Program funds and the person signing this application has the proper authority. c. It is currently under no administrative restrictions from federal, state or local sources. d. By executing this Application Form,it agrees that the Agency may conduct its own independent review of the information herein and the attachments, and may verify information from any source. e. It believes the project can be implemented and completed,as described in the • Application Form. f.. It agrees that, for the purpose of establishing the terms under which the Program funding is made,the Agency may require changes in the ix;forma- r. contained herein or in materials now, or hereafter, submitted. • g. It agrees that if Program funding is awarded as a result of this Application Form it will promptly furnish supporting information as requested,includ- ing its internal operating manual. • 9 • h. It will comply with all Program requirements if awarded funding under the Program. • i. The information provided in the Application Form and attachments is complete and accurate. July 5, 1988 u rized Signature Date Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners Title 10 " 031 • . • .: . . . 1. 0 t & 0 0 8 0 o Co... ... . 4:P 01 o in Les Cvd ;4 a) t 1 C74 Z .IA • - -5 0 c..... a) 0 8 8 0 0 0 LZE CO. 0 0 0 •ri r- V k tr.; 4 01. rt3 nig PO 4CC & a) UJ CD CC 1 .0 0 n s z .4 at 0 0 „a . < (7), cc pa 0 0 8 . 0 0 0 ci z 0 0 in sn 0 LIU X CC to Cl) 4.> . - a 0 13. k , 1 z z ui 2 (3 0x > phl 64C II 14 Ve z p 0 i aZ p2 cc .... ...,, g 8 1.- 0 g § 0 pa 4.1 >64' 2 id 04— LU • . 0 C') Z - a) 0 .10 C..) 49 >, , .. .. In 0 f:-A cc 03 5 • . 14 LLI C V ,S 4.1 2 4.1 0 0 › .,4 .14 -ri •ril .1N 0 1■4 rl r.I rb1 1.3 4-1 LI •r4 .P.1 •rf •ri KC I.1 = al m as R 0 0 w 0 0 a) ..-1 c Is Ls Ls 14 r0 0 0 0 ••,1 •ri CO 03 CO CO .0_, 41 -r4 ...-I -r4 •r1 R C ...• .4.a g si to 4`g' ..„.P.. fa a) m 01 cri 01 1..10 .$ "41 F I gt r.4 ,..../ • . 032 ATTACHMENT 1 For rental units improved under the proposed Weatheriaation Program, Orange County will ensure that rents are affordable for very low and low income tenants. All property owners with improved rental units will be encouraged to participate in the County's Section 8 Existing Program which would provide assurance that rent levels do not exceed the the 30% standard. Also, at the time of improvements are completed, A Promissory Note and Deed of . Trust will be executed for the 10 year recapture and rent control conditions. For monitoring purposes, Orange County will require rental property owners to submit Annual Rental Agreements (leases) to the Orange County. If the owner defaults on either condition, the deferred loans become due in full. The deferred loan amount due will be prorated at the rate of 1/120 per month. 033 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Ites No. F.4. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 5 , 1988 SUBJECT: Housing Demonstration Grant Application DEPARTMENT: Rousing/Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING YES: HO: X ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes TELEPHONE - Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To authorize submission of a Housing. Demonstration Grant Application. The North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD) has announced the availability of funds for housing demonstration programs. This program is designed to encourage innovative approaches to improving and creating housing for low and moderate income people. Eligible projects must address one of the following areas. 1 - Preservation and Maintenance of Low and Moderate Income Housing: 2 - Adaptive Reuse of Structures or Property for Conversion to Low and Moderate Income Housing; 3 - Self-Help Approaches to Housing Rehabilitation or Construction for Low and Moderate Income Persons. The deadline for applications is September 1 , 1988. Applicants are also required to conduct two public hearings before the application is submitted. In order to meet this deadline, the County must authorize the submission of an application and establish public hearing dates. Staff proposes setting July 19, 1988 and August 16, 1988 as public hearing dates to receive citizen comment regarding the CDBG application. RECOMMENDATION(S) : 1 . Adopt a resolution authorizing the submission of a Housing Demonstration Grant application. 2. Establish July 19, 1988 and August 16, 1988 as public hearing dates to receive public comment regarding the application. • �. a .. ... 034 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July A, 1988 Action Agenda Item # G-0 SUBJECT: ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE AND BUILDING NUMBERS - RURAL ROUTE 15 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins •G.S. 153A-240 Location Map Draft 6/21/88 Commissioners Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider the assignment of house and building numbers to a portion of Rural Route 15 (also known as Rural Route 13) served by the Chapel Hill Post Office. BACKGROUND: Per an agreement reached in. January, 1987 between the County Manager and the Chapel Hill Postmaster, a joint project between the County and the Postal Service was undertaken to convert rural box numbers to permanently assigned house numbers. Since the adoption of the House Numbering Ordinance by the Board of Commissioners on April 21, 1987, three Chapel Hill rural routes (2, 5 and 8) and two Rougemont Routes (2 and 3) have been converted to street addresses. A portion of Rural ed 15 13) has been prepared to house number addresses. The route (known by Damascus Church Road residents as Rural Route 13) includes that area along Damascus Church Road, from Meacham Road to 035 Smith Level Road, which was not included in the previous Route 5 conversion. A public hearing (as required by G.S. 153A-240) was conducted on June 21, 1988. At the hearing, two residents expressed concerns regarding the proposed, house numbers. Ms. Barbara Rhoades questioned the placement of her mail box when the numbers are changed. Ms. Rhoades was informed following the hearing that her mail box may remain in its present location on Damascus Church Road. She will only have to change address numberals and add the street name assigned (Price Creek Road) in small letters under the numbers. Dr. Barbara Chapman requested that her address be changed to Crabtree Lane instead of Price Creek Road. A site check was performed on Wednesday, June 22, and it was determined that a road sign is in place for Crabtree Lane. The address has been changed as requested, and Dr. Chapman notified by phone. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed house and building numbers for Rural Route 15, followed by notification of the Chapel Hill Postmaster, the N.C. Department of Transportation, and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, as required by G.S. 153A-240. \,,wwwe'" , f.tfr V I "'sr'"II r. -7i :-.cc,--- - ._°,./. ..----- .-- - ?.NNT.:„„..., - - - g • •. „„..... • 1 0 3 6 0 . -t rri_.• r sd• .. ., .. rw As •rr•.:tie' ; .r +` .1 s/�• 1 r �•' , ',-'.1r 4--,-,-...,,,,,-„.....� .• '- --4Iw I t.- _LC ' .• him .. • .s y+ Ch i '" �4a •4 y „r+•;E. ., � .� • ♦ ,. - ;n i i•o. •per P firma so 1 11111 "6 ism- 7 ma".1%, .. .." . • • Y • .• • • rA. i J • i e iv • 1. • i cillit,Ctn-° 'I• -.41c1 01Prr . """Z • ww••.I ° O .4.74.as� A • - O -+r •p `..1.. 1�` .�.. ' � ' ion• v. M • ,I'; v.,�. ♦""err/ I • 0000.. te It'. at �'`YrM • » JAC-• ♦ fE� gyp. • •� .'� ••,..',� O� - , as •C . .jam...it (i:�� - re �''"7 r,N,0!'m - `tit: - �j Y°rq•. + / -�'7'5. ��M mow..ern"'�. - 11 • .wtt '• "°/ ° • V V �'= rot • 1.:=4� 'i• ?Vet �/ • r • ��`4� • III 1 �� )46.7(v S ..... . MS. w: I • - ,,.•• lelk;"..` 174./...r,- ....hia j ,C •• 4 l•• /7—vriii,",1,:-. --.i : --, Y---- 1 ti: � ' ! r r I j r/,-4,,/. ` �, r c �- K r • �=• f _•�---'° •V :i 1:��. ....":' _�i '- ` ; Chapel Hill ,•-•1.••■!.....;:t /7/ ,; ./. . — z' .�—rte▪ ;: .••,,� ..•.i /- . r �- :..6 � ,��V R R 15 (RR 13) i� �r —,`- • - i •(P/�r'�°TEAL) J / V �--r_ .. I •\ 1 I 41 • � _.211 ~ • 'r 1 C O Y « T T 4 i 1.....``...!' • / • 3 . I '.:3A-:36 . Ca.:53A.COj'•:..1. • f 1 3:+•l.tti i : - mi.set 'tine Butler of any person appointed or designated as a fire preventics w• inspector. A fire prevention insoeelor snail not maize ehe. ice) inspecuoui C I-. • unless he is Oualif ee to 0o so uhoer G.S.153A-251..(1:955, C25;1989,r.11164.. 1,. 2; 1S72. c. e_,L. 1..) . §§ 153A.'-'36 to LOA-L*3& Reserved for future eodif cat on purposes. Asp ' t .. C. Fsaacs and Bridges. . . L road defined. i ` In this Article "public road" or "road" means any road', street, highway. i thoroughfare, or other way of usage that has oven it re•vo-.bbly dea l:aue to . ,•. I the public or in witch the public llas acquired rights by pres,-ription,whether T regard to wheer it is open for travel. (1S:2. C. 3. 5. 1.) 3 ' t — Broomstick 5979. I f Local Modtfcewtiaa. run 'scs boo. c. :316r: Catorrhz 296« s 56E. � :. 3 onlentisnc 1575.2nd Sew.c-:211. •• r '. . § 1i53A-2440.. Nantiag roads and assigning sm-eet numbers is ,• -- t niT eo:'pOr aced areas. 1 a t' rasa within Id* 1 A CxilintS' may by ordinance Barrie or rl"riBSrht an- public 3 county and no.within a cite.and may assign or reassign 1a nUnnws—"5 icr life . •• • on, suc'ri E road- in me:mug or renaming a publl: roa:. a county may rim (1) Change the name.if any,even to the road by the Board of"Iran road*, Lion. unless the Board of Txanspor..ation agrees: r - (2) Change the r=i=les assured to the road by he Saari of Ter. ii, i • ti0., Dr.may give the road a name in addition t0 its numo w.• : (3) Give the rand a name that is deceptively sarruiar 1.0 the name of me t .r, other public road m tale -vicinity. a - e A,caur.. shall n0. name or TenanOe E road Or assign or reassign S•rer; • numbe.-s on a road until is has held E pu lic hearing ors :Pie marZ.e:. A. leas R 10 days before the day or the ilea.-ng..ae hoard of commissioners shall =hue notice of the time..place,anti siiD•ier.manff of the hearing to be D.-omrnernlr = a::he =wiry CO1r«Thouse..in at Teast two public places in file tDullifgo , • er townships where • tae road is io to SnTo shall uLbiish E 1101i= of m pea^:ng is at least one newspaper r of genera] chi ec.ietion pubilsn+ec it of cl-u^.tt•J...ier naming or rer.amlaf a tr.:ill• roar:. c. a:slrning or rer-saic.--ti E nee.nu mDe.-s on a public road a :hunt"shall cause nutlet of its 8�.ior.to Ian 1! given to tae io�l Das=er.er with u.-ifwdir..200 over tae road to the Saari of $ a • : ^SpO:-�:ic . and to any C ' v: : five =lifts of the road. i- ' :,satin1 ;'nip, se:fen aim not rend.l or modify Chapter 945 of:sit Session.Laws of 1.9.;.-'.2.11tlllw♦ zie.'-alas to zla.-".in�' streets in 3+�+�.??napollL 01951,c. 1D�.... •...« r 347..e. :-.1 . w. 7.9E1.. =. nlwl 2 1 Loeb: Modirses,uor.., -- BruiuWie •ars. been wostiuhte:ier-Sulu Hirivvsr Caeamr• .. I = ssr Sri:... c. . c miMsor.` hn too moor..., '32°: Gas roc 1S'c� a b6.. sloes obi ic. -:.ohs► : azoe nr 1E7.i. in: 5u:. t. :21'_•: Parryt er4.c.ed by Sess.=lows 1S1..tom''' i 15 L.55�:Guiiio 1S?:.l.�.►. )disc) of Arnonomenu.--:ne fcrC :.: • i idito!'c Nom- —Tutr otsr�to 5 •a ✓vs amenomer.; h4osuuuce:'at use County C; i 1.5:1.t.SC:.L.L.-boon ti. '.suoz-DbS 1104be, to st seam. 1-0 Duoiac poi= az-o. : 78 038 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 1988 Action Agenda Item #, SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS (SECTION IV-B-5 LOT LAYOUT) (SECTION II DEFINITIONS) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Proposed Ordinance Amendments Draft 5-23-88 Public Hearing Minutes County Attorney 6/15/88 Letter Draft 6-20-88 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of proposed amendments to Section IV- B-5 and Section II of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. BACKGROUND: Section IV-B-5 of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed to be amended by adding additional wording to address to incorporate provision for flag lots in a subdivision lot layout. Flag lots are irregularly shaped lots where the buildable area of the lot is connected to the street by a smaller narrower portion of the lot. The narrower portion extends as an arm of the lot to the street, thus the name "flag lot" . The proposed amendment will identify permitted locations and types of .flag lots. Section II of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed to be amended to add a definition of Flag Lot. The proposed amendment will clarify what a flag lot is and provide a legal definition. The proposed amendments were presented at public hearing on May 23, 1988. No comments were received from the public regarding the proposals, however, the County Attorney has recommended that the "intent" subsection of the proposed Section IV-B-5-d(a) be deleted in its entirety. (See attached letter. ) . , 039 At its June 20, 1988 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed amendments with the deletion of Section IV-B-5-d(a) as recommended by the County Attorney. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendments per the Planning Board recommendation. • 0-40 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REFERENCE: SECTION IV--B-5 LOT JAYOUT ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x Staff Planning Board ---- BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: ---High�Middle xLow Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 22, 1988 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To add to the first 'paragraph of Section IV-B-5 of the Subdivision • Regulations and also to add a whole new section addressing lot layout in • relation to flag lots. Flag lots are irregularly shaped lots where the buildable area of the lot is • connected to the street by a smaller narrower portion of the lot. This narrower portion extends as an arm of the lot to the street. thus the name ' will lidentifynivarious$eplacesamand types of flag lots that will be • allowed. IMPACTS/ISSUES: The Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum lot width/frontage requirements in zoned townships which prevent flag lots. In unzoned townships. however, the minimum lot frontage` requirement is only 20 feet. Thus, flag lots result. Such - lots'' provide limited access and prevent •f uture right-of- way extension. The proposed guidelines or • standards will prohibit flag lots except in certain situations where topography. soil conditions, lot configuration or access impose hardships in providing suitable building sites. • EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: IV-B-5. LOT LAYOUT IV-B-5-a. The shape and orientation of lots shall be appropriate to the location of the subdivision and the development intended. 041 2 • Commercial and industrial lots shall be of • sufficient size to include off-street service facilities, and off-street parking of all vehicles used by all patrons and • employees. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: IV-B-5-a. The shape and orientation of lots shall be appropriate to the location of the subdivision and the development intended. Interior lot lines, ertepdo from a street should „be jirmrmatelv perpendicular or the v Lot lines sball be located _to permit ytilitv lines or .1.1tj.litv easements, tp maximize builoablf. Kup, jind, where Amara up.I.12_,EaLteam, Commercial and industrial lots shall be of sufficient size to include • off-street service facilities, and off- street parking of all vehicles used by all patrons and employees. • . . sect_im 12V-Ast-Ad all • In= reated in an urizoned township shalom ' . • ' bane a minimum lot with of one hundred hirtv 0 feet. Widtj of a rear lot shoal be deter m;istecLiw measuretripnt rs) Ihe Jot t _g distance coj-tv (#0) feet from he front xovióeô v y 1,:tv,- width jatifiten_Ei 41212„...not—he 1...essban eigh7,3.7 Wrce= Sif he 0 I . the case of lo on the ±irnine circis. cf zal.4-jit..zugg_satIguatjt_szlzzzlzt rausatarexkezi....the FAv lin!? And intpugctibc Ihi 'Foremost c ci: - I .- 14 , - 4 ' ,came ,ca-v f - -4- 6 - .42v _a - - •• • 042 3 EXISTING. ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: None. Flag lots are not addressed in the Subdivision Regulations. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Tv-B- ..d. flaa Lots a) j't e.nt Orange Co 1 tty djSen��rap�►._a d res:�+. f a a. t c ;.. ' a ] Qt Snail be D ttec3 if n o zzarS+ to allow a nronerty Owner_r= ao— —e UEe and _ b n fl ¢ ' QtherIA??se caeca e t . ryr r'• ' fhr h;m b) bt Stanc3a,res rlaa 1 of arp prohibited ) wbS—e a" o ?iminate access onto zar. ..1ZQ zur..t fla+lv ee erZ lanD' { Pa Cinnrra ?a. (C) to ,taycatLy w• n• � icult topograr�hy iSee!ti ' ) o D) } r l7Lre ?, iy =; i ; a l w t li 4t s a Su"`ab moo+ se tic ta�n'kA one'~ r , nu b e_ of access points onto An • a.:terial or pl l ecto; street, zt l PnG+-i, Qf ap i n+ betwe x"n _the street onto which it has access and tht pojnt Where z 1n.. G`+im nc; r ll is +-ive S reet anti l d bn the a;+ze f +-na+ p*oZ7oser teat'a— l rte_ r e tpi i y,, c tail e =ac=ca_es .the allowed lenoth the flan • l otbased on h—e= oui r • • • 7f.i nimu , width br • . , • 043 Size of Regular Required Minimum Length of Flag Lot Width of Regular Staff Allowed • Lot 40.000 sq.ft to 1 acre 130 feet 308 to 336 feet 14-acres to 2 acres 130 feet 337 to 671 feet 24-acres 130 feet 672 to 700 feet maximum length allowed FLAG LOT ■•■■ ...on • * REGULAR LOT 1 • 1 length of flag staff allowed width of regular lot I ; • • 130 feet . • STREET EXAMPLE . . wiz. or afia rig •itt. • gro„.= c - _v vc. • e . • •t yr rvr, e• p ,r - •r v ral:miy g. uthe,•e nece.sse-v tp enure aoequete aqcPss. • • 044 w uJ Ira E ' C ....- • W 1 ~ I C t • LOCAL SIRrrr ( FIGURE ., . •1 ) r • ti • \ tic- I 1 • - \,...sir L.—— — —— • . . i•r iar . • SEPT! i , . TANK NITRIFICATION - - - FIELD - 7 i • 1 • STREET • (F IGURC 1I) i . -33-D- • 045 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE: Section 11 DEFINITIONS ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x Staff x Planning Board BOCC Public - Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle x Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 22, 1988 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: Section II will be amended by adding the definition of Flag Lots used in the Lot Layout requirements proposed as a new Section IV-B-5-d of the Subdivision Regulations. * • • IMPACTS/ 1SSUES: With the proposed amendment to the Subdivi- &Ion Ordinance concerning flag lots, a • definition is needed In the definition section. This will help clarify what a flag lot is and provide a legal definition of flag lot. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The following term will be added alphabetically to Section II . Ftvul lc** bn Irre17!Flv Ovepee Int whe_r_e .r.hP hil ; LZEhl_ePD•tiDn r4 the Jo* - • , rqv n • n r, .4 *n- * ( rIn •reac 1 *. 4 nn peso ;451) , • • . .• • . - ORgi 046 PAGE 10 The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Hartwell noted that he was unclear why provisions for flag lots are necessary and/or desirable. Collins responded that within the Subdivision Regulations there are some situations where flag lots are desirable. They include situations when the topography is such that it creates problems with lot size and setback requirements, situations where septic fields and nitrification fields are such that more than one lot could be utilized if flag lots were allowed, and situations where lots could have access onto streets of lower classifications with restricted access to arterials. 3. Subdivision Regulations. Amendments a. Section IV-B-5 Lot Layout (Flag Lots) b. Section II - Definitions (Flag Lots) Staff presentation by Marvin Collins. Section IV-B-5 of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed to be amended by adding additional wording to address to incorporate provision for flag lots in a subdivision lot layout. Flag lots are irregularly shaped where the buildable area of the lot is connected to the street by a smaller narrower portion of the lot. The narrower portion extends as an arm of the lot to the street, thus the name "flag lot" . The proposed amendment will identify permitted locations and types of flag lots. Section II of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed to be amended to add a definition of Flag Lot. The proposed amendment will clarify what a flag lot is and provide a legal definition. Collins also noted the proposed amendment of Section IV-B-5-a having to do with lot layout and the addition of Section IV- B-5-d having to do with the intent of flag lots and lot, standards for flag lots. (These are attachments on pages of these minutes) . Collins noted that these amendments would provide consistency with_ the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. Planning Board member Best asked it the provisions for flag lots represented a less restrictive approach in zoned versus unzoned townships. Collins indicated that the provisions xepresented a more restrictive approach in unzoned townships while permitting more flexibility in zoned townships. There were no public comments. , • 047 DRAFT PAGE 11 Commissioner Hartwell moved, seconded by Commissioner Carey, that these items be referred to the Planning Board for their recommendation. Vote was unanimous. E. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to come before the Boards, Chair Shirley E. Marshall adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. The, next regular meeting of the Board will be held on June 6, 1988 at 7:30 in the courtroom of the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Joanna Bradshaw, Administrative Secretary Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk • ! 046 COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, DICKERSON, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. DRAWER 1529 Y 129 E. TRVON ST. HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 272 78 ru._�;.,� t Li) 919.732-2196 Ik 919-942-8000 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SUITE 20,FRANKLIN BUILDING 137 E.FRANKLIN SIRE T June 15, 1988 CHAPEL HILL,N.C.27514 919929.7151 ALONZO B.COLEMAN,JR. STEVEN A.BERNHOLZ DONALD R DICKERSON ROGER B.BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL DOUGIAS HARGRAVE G.NICHOLAS HERMAN Mr. Marvin Collins KIM IL STEFFAN NATHANIEL E.CLEMENIS Director MARILYN ELLISON Orange County Planning Department Of Counsel 306F Revere Road BONNER D.SAWYER Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 (:902.1972) g Re: Amendments to Orange County Subdivision Regulations - Flag Lots Dear Marvin: I recommend that the "Intent" subsection of the proposed flag lot amendments '(proposed Section IV-B-5-d(a)) be deleted in its entirety. It adds nothing to the substantive provisions • of the regulations, which create the special circumstances when a flag lot is permitted. On the other hand, it may create the impression or expectation that a flag lot may be approved under circumstances not covered in the substantive provisions that follow. Very t my yours, Ask• ie y E. 1 • GEG/lsg xc: Barry Jacobs John M. Link, Jr. 049 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM. ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 1988 Action Agenda Item SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT (ARTICLE 9 - SIGNS) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _X_NO ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Proposed Ordinance Amendments Letter from County Attorney Draft 5/23/88 Public Hearing Minutes - Draft 6/20/88 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of a proposed amendment to Article 9 (Signs) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. BACKGROUND: Section 9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance is proposed to be amended by adding a sentence which demonstrates that the sign section does not favor commercial signs over non-commercial signs. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the proposed wording in another sign ordinance. The proposed amendment was presented at public hearing on May 23, 1988. No comments were received from the public regarding the proposal. At its June 20, 1988 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed amendments. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendments per the Planning Board recommendation. •• • 050 • • PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMMNT ORDINANCE: Zoning. Ordinance • REFERENCE: Article 9 - Sicns ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Ste"•••• Planning Board •••• EOCC Public 11..111•1 x Other: County Attorney STAFF PRIOR:TY RECOMMENDATION: x Hint Middle Low 0.11•N111111■••■■ ■•■•••.• Comment: • - . . EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATr: An-41 25, 1988 • PURPOSE OF A10:11DMENT: Article 9 will be amended by adding • a sentence which demonstates that the sign section- does not favor commercial is over noncommercial sicns. IMPACTS/ISSUES: . - The United States Supreme Court has upheld the proposed wording 4n • another sign ordinance as demonstrating it did mot 4avor commercial sicns over noncommerc; el E1CMS. PROPOSED ORDINANCE REV:SIONc: secmion 9.5 will be amended to include the following sentence e'ter the first sentence: Anv in achcrized- bv ordnance mav coccein mcncnnun4-rciel ccnv it l'iet c: env c=her ccnv.• -. / 9.3 Pryn: •- f• 051 • /.� .•"�.brw'pw Locations rot ��.i.l..r'� Except wnere specifically permitted by t i s ordinance, c 1 signs, including tre sucoor:s, frames and embellishments tneretc, shall not oe located witnin any recruited setoark . area or public right of way, nor shall any sign be attained, . affixed or painted upon any utility poles, any tree, rock, or . . ' otner natural object within the public r iont of way. No sign small be permitted on the sioe street frontage of a • corner building, if sucn building is located witnln one hundred . feet of a Resioential District. 9.4 Restrictions On Illumination. Etc a . ./1-% = - ' ' ' • No source of illumination on as sign, such as floodlights, - sootliohts , unsnielded bulbs, etc. , shall be directly visible from any public rignt of way, from any resioential' district or from adjacent- premises.- Animated, rotating, or ctner mov- ing cr^ apparently moving installations are praniDi'ted- 9.5 Signs Subject TO Control • All signs visible. from the public right of way shall be erected, _ . maintained and operated in accordance with this ortinance and • • ' otner relevant con;._els unless specifically excepted. Signs . not subject to the' provisions of this ordinance are listed in _ °..t. . 9.6 • Signs Not Subject To permit Reauiremerts • • - __.. The fallowing signs are not subject to the permit require- • • ments erC.nancs: a) Non-illuminated signs not exceeding 2 per lot and 2 square feet in area, -of a non-comme_rial nature and bearing only Property identification numpers and names, post office box • numbers and names of cocucants of the premises. b) hags and insignia and• sians of any government, when disolayed • in connection with' a non-commercial activity. One flag of • the United States displayed in connection with a commercial • activity. c) Legal not:+es, identification and infcrmstianal s=ans and traffic directional signs erected by or on aecalf of a governmental Dody. r e) . ntee r a. decorative cc architectural features of iJLi:~.now , except , .rap ma ks, moving parts or moving „`grits. . e) Signs directing and guiding traffic an =rivete e ope.ty 'not exre_ ing 4 soup feet each, and bearing no advertising matter. , '.d er f) Sans, not exceeding 16 square feet in area and limited to 2 sincl -fatted signs or 1 Double-faced sign at eson point of • egress, ;:vin o ., e name of .esrqen-`al sup.ivi_ipns multiple family housing oeVe_opments, cc m:.t.-. a r Ome r it Mr! bs-• ._ • . - • • • • - . , • . .. . . ''' Cliavox, AZ/NHOLZ, DICEEPSON, - .. BERNHOLZ, GUMMI. 6.:, HARCRAIT. • ArroFtwes a LAw - . P.O. DRAWER 2529 129 E. TRYON Sr. . • . • . mussoRaucti, N.C. =278 March 8 , 1988 918.732•2296 91.4442-8000 • • • DW0C.NEL OM= I=20.FROM IRBLOOC • - - . I37 E.FRANKLIN STREET - CHAPE3.HILL K.C.2:1$/t . , 91042;-7151 - i -Alb=B.COLEAVA 3L - hr. Marvin Collins _ . . • DONALD R.DICKERSON Director• . . RO=R B.BUM= 7.,CEOPPTCYLCLEDHILI. • Oranoe County Planning Department Del=rmsmccumr . c_pacwomstirouji - 306F Revere Road - KM K.=PM Eillsborough, North Carolina 27278 • NATHAN=to-Dons . . . .. - •• - • KARIM 131401■ Re: Sign Regulations Contained in the Orange Of Came BONNER 11 SAWYER - County Zoning Ordinance • ago4si72i • . . _ - • Dear Marvin: . - . . . . Enclosed is a copy of a document I received • • from the Winter County Attorneys Conference related to -sion control. After reviewing this material and - - . comparing it with Article 9 in Oranoe County's zoning , • - • . regulations I have only one recommended change to the . ' • , _ • zoning reoulations. I recommend that Section 9.5 be amended to include a sentence after the first sentence • which states: . . . - Any sion authorized by this ordinance may contain noncommercial copy in lieu of any other copy. It strikes me that our sign ordinance is, for • • • - the most part, content neutral. Bowever, the United States Supreme Court has approved the language above as . demonstrating that a sion ordinance -containing it did • . . not favor commercial sions over noncommercial sions.. . When an cpOOrtunitv arises I would like to review with you the status ci the County 's sion survey and compliance deadline. . • . - - Very truly yours, . • 1(::. ...t..47lyr C1edh; 11 GEGAlso Enclosure • „,„_. ,3 PAGE 9 05 District. Resource protection areas and agricultural areas have been identified in the plan to create conformity with the County's other township plans. There are several minor changes in the northeast corner of the plan area affecting transitions areas and activity nodes centered in Eno Township. Twenty year transition areas cover the area north of Southern Railroad, about 40 acres. The Commercial- Industrial Transition Node area in Chapel Hill Township is eliminated and the Commercial Transition Node pulled back to the Southern Railroad to avoid adverse impacts on Duke Forest. There were no public comments. 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendments a. Article 9 - Signs (Noncommercial Copy) Presentation by Marvin Collins. Section 9 .5 of the Zoning Ordinance is proposed to be amended by adding a sentence which demonstrates that the sign section does not favor commercial signs over non- , commercial signs. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the proposed wording in another sign ordinance. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. There were no Board or public comments. b. Article 6 - Application of Dimensional Requirements (Flag Lots) C. Article 22 - Definitions (Flag Lots) Staff presentation by Marvin Collins. Section 6.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance is proposed to be amended to add a new section addressing flag lots. Flag lots are irregularly shaped lots where the buildable area of the lot is connected to the street by a smaller narrower portion of the lot. The narrower portion extends as an arm of the lot to the street, thus the name "flag lot" . The proposed amendment will reference applicable provisions of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations which identify permitted locations and types of flag lots. Article 22 is proposed to be amended to add a definition of Flag Lot. The proposed amendment will help clarify what a flag lot is and provide a legal definition. 054 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July ,5, 1988 Action Agenda Item it G-1r SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS (ARTICLE 6 APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS) (ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Proposed Ordinance Amendments Draft 5-23-88 Public Hearing Minutes Draft 6-20-88 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of proposed amendments to Article 6 and Article 22 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. BACKGROUND: Section 6.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance is proposed to be amended to add a new section addressing flag lots. Flag lots are irregularly shaped lots where the buildable area of the lot is connected to the street by a smaller narrower portion of the lot. The narrower portion extends as an arm of the lot to the street, thus the name "flag lot" . The proposed amendment will reference applicable provisions of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations which identify permitted locations and types of flag lots. Article 22 is proposed to be amended to add a definition of Flag Lot. The proposed amendment will help clarify what a flag lot is and provide a legal definition. The proposed amendments were presented at public hearing on May 23, 1988. No comments were received from the public regarding the proposals. At its June 20, 1988 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed amendments. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendments per the Planning Board recommendation. p56 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE VI SECTION 6 .2.3 FLAG LOTS ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: ,_.x Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: ' STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middlex,_Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 23, 1988 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To add a new section addressing flag lots. Flag lots are Irregularly • shaped lots where the buildable area of the lot is connected to the street by a smaller narrower portion of the lot. This narrower portion extends as an arm of the lot to the street, thus the name "flag lot" . This proposed . amendment will correspond and refer to . the Orange County Subdivision Regula-- * ions to identify various p.Iaces and types of flag lots that will be allowed. • IMPACTS/ ISSUES: The Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum lot width/frontage requirements In zoned town- ships which now prevent flag lots. The proposed guidelines or standards will accommodate flag lots in certain situations where topography, soil conditions, lot configuration or access impose hardships in providing suitable building sites. - EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: None. F1ag lots are not addressed In the Zoning Ordinance. PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: 5.2.3 FIN, lots. Flag lots as defined In Article 22 of this ordinance are accommodated for as provided in Section IV-B-S-d of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, 056 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 22 LErINITIONS ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _.x Staff __,.x . Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle _2_ Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 23, 1988 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: Article 22 will be amended by adding the definition of Flag Lots used In the Lot Layout requirements proposed as a new Section IV-B-5-d of the Subdivision Regulations. IMPACTS/ ISSUES: With the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance concerning flag lots, a definition is needed In the definition section. This . will help clarify what a flag lot' is and provide a legal definition of flag lot. PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: The -following term will be added alphabetically to Article 22. • rIn I r.+• An i "repuIarIV 1nan t 1 n� k�3e t�4 tai I ri- Lnle Do-;ion of he lot is. .÷s> v n _•, f + . - 1o4" ( See r i nttrec 1 to G on - - fl 4 r. a I . iv7c . on R +_nt,lc=i9n a) ***** ****-*-* **+** * *-** *** ****** *** *** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW:. . , 057 DRAFT PAGE 9 District. Resource protection areas and agricultural areas have been identified in the plan to create conformity with the County's other township plans. There are several minor changes in the northeast corner of the plan area affecting transitions areas and activity nodes centered in Eno Township. Twenty year transition areas cover the area north of Southern Railroad, about 40 acres. The Commercial- Industrial Transition Node area in Chapel Hill Township is eliminated and the Commercial Transition Node pulled back to the Southern Railroad to avoid adverse impacts on Duke Forest. There were no public comments. 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendments a. Article 9 - Signs (Noncommercial Copy) Presentation by Marvin Collins. . Section 9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance is proposed to be amended by adding a sentence which demonstrates that the sign section does not favor commercial signs over non- commercial signs. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the proposed wording in another sign ordinance. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. There were no Board or public comments. b. Article 6 - Application of Dimensional Requirements 1:› (Flag Lots) c. Article 22 - Definitions (Flag Lots) Staff presentation by Marvin Collins. Section 6.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance is proposed to be amended to add a new section addressing flag lots. Flag lots are irregularly shaped lots where the buildable area of the lot is connected to the street by a smaller narrower portion of the lot. The narrower portion extends as an arm of the lot to the street, thus the name "flag lot" . The proposed amendment will reference applicable provisions of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations which identify permitted locations and types of flag lots. Article 22 is proposed to be amended to add a definition of Flag Lot. The proposed amendment will help clarify what a flag lot is and provide a legal definition. ,_____ • A DRAFT PAGE 10 058 The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Hartwell noted that he was unclear why provisions for flag lots are necessary and/or desirable. Collins responded that within the Subdivision Regulations there are some situations where flag lots are desirable. They include situations when the topography is such that it creates problems with lot size and setback requirements, situations where septic fields and nitrification fields are such that more than one lot could be utilized if flag lots were allowed, and situations where lots could have access onto streets of lower classifications with restricted access to arterials. 3. Subdivision Regulations Amendments a. Section IV-B-5 Lot Layout (Flag Lots) b. Section II - Definitions (Flag Lots) Staff presentation by Marvin Collins. Section IV-B-5 of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed to be amended by adding additional wording to address to incorporate provision for flag lots in a subdivision lot layout. Flag lots are irregularly shaped where the buildable area of the lot is connected to the street by a smaller narrower portion of the lot. The narrower portion extends as an arm of the lot to the street, thus the name "flag lot" . The proposed amendment will identify permitted locations and types of flag lots. Section II of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed to be amended to add a definition of Flag Lot. The proposed amendment will clarify what a flag lot is and provide a legal definition. Collins also noted the proposed amendment of Section IV-B-5-a having to do with lot layout and the addition of Section IV- B-5-d having to do with the intent of flag lots and lot standards for flag lots. (These are attachments on pages of these minutes) . Collins noted that these amendments would provide consistency with the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. Planning Board member Best asked it the provisions for flag lots represented a less restrictive approach in zoned versus unzoned townships. Collins indicated that the provisions represented a more restrictive approach in unzoned townships while permitting more flexibility in zoned townships. There were no public comments. 059 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: _July 5 1988. Action Agenda Item # G-S SUBJECT: DRAFT CHEERS TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No ATTACRXENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bell 3-23-88 Hunter Amendment Request Draft 5-23-88 Public Hearing Minutes 5-23-88 Collins Memo 5-23-88 Davis Amendment Request Resolution of Adoption Draft 6-20-88 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane -- 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: Consideration of a proposed amendment to the Cheeks Township component of the Land Use Element, Orange County Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND: When the Orange County Land Use Plan was adopted in 1981, a five-year update schedule was specified. In accordance with the schedule, the Little River and Cedar Grove components were revised in 1986 and 1987 . The Bingham Township component has been prepared and is scheduled for presentation at the Joint Planning public hearing on June 30. The Eno, Hillsborough, and Cheeks components have also been completed and were presented at public hearing on May 23, 1988. The Plan update process for Cheeks began officially on January 21 at a TAC meeting wherein the Plan update strategy was presented. This was followed by a public information meeting on February 10 to present background data and distribute a questionnaire, a meeting on March 9 to discuss alternative plans, and a final meeting on May 4 to present the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan was presented to the Planning Board on May 16 and at public hearing on May 23. The presentation at the public hearing summarized the 060 differences between the existing Plan and the proposed amendments. Main differences included: (1) The designation of an additional 3.6 acres for inclusion in the Commercial-Industrial Activity Node on the north side of U.S. 70 (see Hunter request) ; (2) A Rural Neighborhood Activity Node at Efland Cedar Grove Road and Lebanon Road; (3) The designation of Moorefields and County-owned lands in the Seven Mile Creek Basin as Public Interest Area; (4) The designation of additional Rural Residential areas to the north of Lebanon Road; and (5) The designation of the Back Creek Water Supply Watershed in the northwest corner of the Township. Comments were received from three citizens in reference to the Draft Plan. Mr. Dale Davis, property owner on Buckhorn Road Extension and US 70 presented materials requesting a land use amendment to give his property a Commercial-Industrial Activity Node classification. Dolly Hunter spoke referencing her letter of petition to include her lot in the Commercial- Industrial Activity Node. -- Dalton Riley, property owner of two acres on US 70 adjoining the Hunter property, indicated he was opposed to the node expansion. At its June 20, 1988 meeting the Planning Board recommended approval of the Draft Plan and incorporation as Section 3.8 of the Land Use Element, Orange County Comprehensive Plan, with the inclusion of the following changes to the current township plan: (1) The designation of a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node at Efland-Cedar Grove Road and Lebanon Road; (2) The designation of Moorefields and County-owned lands in the Seven Mile Creek Basin as Public Interest Areas; (3) The designation of additional Rural Residential areas to the north of Lebanon Road; and (4) The designation of the Back Creek Water Supply Watershed in the northwest corner of the Township as a Protected watershed Area. 061 The Planning Board also recommended that a request to establish requirements for a perimeter buffer around Moorefields and other Public Interest Areas be referred to the Ordinance Review Committee for consideration. With regard to citizen petitions for expansion of the Commercial-Industrial Activity Node, the Planning Board recommended that the Hunter request be denied and that the Davis request be considered at the August 22, 1988 public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the attached resolution, incorporating the proposed Section 3.8 (Cheeks Township) as part of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, including the following changes as recommended by the Planning Board: (1) The designation of a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node at Efland-Cedar Grove Road and Lebanon Road; (2) The designation of Moorefields and County-owned lands in the Seven Mile Creek Basin as Public Interest Areas; (3) The designation of additional Rural Residential areas to the north of Lebanon Road; and (4) The designation of the Back Creek Water Supply Watershed in the northwest corner of the Township as a Protected Watershed Area. The Administration also concurs with the recommendations of the Planning Board regarding the Hunter and Davis petitions, and the referral of the perimeter buffer proposal to the Ordinance Review Committee. 062 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING AND DESIGNATING THE CHEEKS TOWNSHIP PLAN AS A SECTION OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners adopted the Orange County Land Use Plan on September 2, 1981; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has from time-to-time adopted amendments to the Orange County Land Use Plan because of: 1. , Changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; 2. An error or omission in the Plan; or 3. A change in the policies, objectives, principles or standards governing the physical development of the County; and WHEREAS, proposed amendments to Articles 2.2.12 through 2.2. 14 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance were presented at public hearing on February 22, 1988 which re-defined the nature, intent, and method of adopting the Comprehensive Plan for Orange County; and WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the public hearing and the receipt of the Planning Board recommendation, the Board of Commissioners adopted the proposed amendments on April 4, 1988; and WHEREAS, Article 2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, states that one element of the Comprehensive Plan shall be a Land Use Element which designates the general distribution, location, and extent of the • uses of land for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses, and WHEREAS, the Cheeks Township Plan fulfills, in part, the purpose and intent of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan; and 063 WHEREAS, Article 2.2.13 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, states that the Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan and portions thereof from the Planning Board, shall adopt them by resolutions; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on May 23, 1988 for the purpose of designating and incorporating the Cheeks Township. Plan as a section of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, following conclusion of the public hearing and the receipt of the Planning Board recommendation, the Board of Commissioners wishes to designate the Cheeks Township Plan as a section of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan: . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that: 1. The draft Cheeks Township Plan is hereby adopted and designated as Section 3.8 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for - Orange County, N.C. , including the following changes made to the plan presented at public hearing on May 23, 1988: (a) The designation of a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node at Efland-Cedar Grove Road and Lebanon Road; (b) The designation of Moorefields and County-owned lands in the Seven Mile Creek Basin as Public Interest Areas; (c) The designation of additional Rural Residential areas to the north of Lebanon Road; (d) The designation of the Back Creek Water Supply Watershed in the northwest corner of the Township as a Protected Watershed Area; but (e) Excluding the proposed expansion of the commercial-industrial activity node, as requested in the citizen petitions of Dolly Hunter and Dale Davis. Adopted this day of , 198 . Rt. 3, Box 685 Hillsborough, NC 27278 064 March 20, 1988 Mr. Gene Bell - gal Land Use Planner Orange County Planning Department Corbin Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Bell: 1 understand Orange County is revising its land use plan for Efland Cheeks Township, and am writing to urge you o consider nsi er changing the designation of the strip of land in Efland north As 1-40 is completed this fall, the Efland area can expect a quantum increase in traffic. This is reflected in the current 10-year transition area designation surrounding Efland, and in the existing industrial! commercial designation of much of Efland proper. It is clear urban density is expected and planned for. We feel, therefore, that the exclusion of the north side of U.S. 70 in "downtown" Efland is inappropriate for the following reasons: 1 ) The recent addition of the infrastructure of water and sewer will hasten growth of both sides of,U.S. 70; 2) The traffic patterns along U.S. 70 will force less residential use on both sides of U.S. 70; 3) The present land-use designation makes the Red & White store akin to "spot zoning;" and • 4) The forces shaping growth in the area demand more designations to support non-industrial commercial and office uses. In short - Efland is going to be Orange County's newest town-center, and there is no designation allowing for orderly, attractive non-industrial Nr - �:iF 0 6 5 Hunter, page 2 "town" growth. Designation of the north side of U.S. 70 as commercial/ transitional (rather than commercial/industrial) would allow office and retail use without fear of industry moving in next door. Such a designation would, of course, allow the county to review each request for re-zoning individual parcels on a case-by-case basis, controlling speed of change and type of use. We have spoken to several of the land owners along this strip, and they have not objected to such a change in designation (once it was explained that their tax basis would not change until their use changed). This is not a disinterested request, of course. We are in the process of buying a house at the corner of Oak Street and U.S. 70, and would like to use it as an office some day. Thank you f or your consideration in this matter. Please let me know . if there is anything I can do to pursue this further. Sincerely rafra76 11°44""'"4- Dolly A. Hunter 066 PAGE 1 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD REEGU�COMMISSIONERS QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ARING MAY 23, 1988 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint with oint session ant wil the Orange County Planning Board for the purpose of holding a quarterly public hearing on May 23, 1988 at 7 :30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:. Chair Shirley E. Marshall and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr. John Hartwell and Don Willhoit. pOARD_ MEMBER ABSENT:, Commissioner Stephen Halkiotis. Barry PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PC��olT�antrelingAbbieBoard D�ck�.neon DaaJacobs and members Chris Best, Eddleman, Mike Lewis, Sharlene Pilkey, Prince Taylor, and Steve YuhasZ. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:, Virginia Boland and Brenda Swann. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. , Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Administrative Secretary Joanna Bradshaw, Planning Director Marvin Collins, and Planners Emily Crudup and Brad Torgan. A. BOARD, AND MANAGER COMMENTS, None • B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None C. PUBLIC CHARGE, Chair Shirley E. Marshall read the public charge. D. PUBLIC HEARING, 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendments a. Cheeks Township Component Staff presentation by Marvin Collins. Updating the Cheeks Township component of the Land Use Element of the _Comprehensive Plat is an objective of the FY 1987-88 Work Program. - Work on this project began on January 21, 1988 with a meeting of the Cheeks TAC wherein the update strategy was p r Public information meetings were held at Efland Cheeks School on February 10, 1988 and March 9, 1988 to inform citizens of the process and on Planl meeting was conducted May The Draft Plan does not differ drastically from the current plan which was adopted in 1984. Main differences include: PAGE 2 067 - The designation of an additional 3.6 acres for inclusion in the Commercial-Industrial Activity Node on the north side of US 70; - The designation of a Rural Neighborhood Activity. Node at Efland Cedar Grove Road and Lebanon Road; - The designation of Moorefields and County-owned lands in the Seven Mile Creek Basin as Public Interest Area; - The designation of additional Rural Residential areas to the north of Lebanon Road; and - The designation of the Back Creek Water Supply Watershed in the northwest corner of the Township. Collins noted that the population projection for Cheeks Township for the year 2005 is approximately 10,500 people, an increase of approximately 4,000 over the current population. A estimated increase of 1800 housing units is also predicted. Collins explained the distribution of land use plan categories on the Land Use Plan Map as listed in the attachment on pages of these minutes. Collins presented a memorandum with a citizen petition and map on pages of these minutes) requesting that the property on the northeast corner of US 70 and Oak Street be included in the Commercial-Industrial Activity Node, The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended text and map and incorporation into Section 3.8 of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the Plan amendment at its June 20, 1988 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on July 5, 1988. -- Commissioner Hartwell asked about access for the Commercial- Industrial Activity Node north of 1-85, noting that NCDOT and fire regulations would prevent such marginal access. Collins responded that marginal access from the service road could be achieved as well as access through the abandoned rest area. He also explained that access was possible from US 70 and across Southern Railroad. Planning Board member Best asked about the Cheeks TAC Planning Board member Best asked the Cheeks TAC recommendation. Planner Emily Crudup responded that the TAC had made a favorable recommendation, and there had been much discussion about the possibility of the extension of water and sewer services. Best continued, asking why the rest area Emessmagrownsimumws------_ 068 PAGE 3 was abandoned. Collins responded that the rest area bad been combined with another nearer Greensboro. Jacobs asked why the Lebanon Activity Node was taken out in 1984 but included in the current proposal. Collins responded that it was taken out in 1984 because it was felt that with the expansive commercial-industrial area designated in the corridor, smaller activity nodes to the north and the south were not needed. In looking at the other townships with small neighborhood-type centers, it was felt that such nodes would serve all portions of the township and reduce traffic impacts in larger centers. - Peggy Abrams, member of the Cheeks TAC, had in opposition to the citizen petition, indicating she had been unable to attend that latest Cheeks TAC meeting. She expressed concern that it was being presented at the public hearing without review by the TAC and input from Efland. Collins responded that any time a petition is received from a citizen during the update of a plan, it is considered within the context of the entire plan update. Re noted that at the Efland center, most of the land south of US 70 is designated for industrial or commercial purposes and there is very little to the north so designated. Staff felt that this would create more of a balance. Planning Board member Pilkey asked that Collins explain the node concept and the size of the node to expand. Collins responded that the node is approximately 1500 acres in size. The proposed expansion accounts for 3 1/2 acres. Eddleman asked if it'is necessary to have a TAC - recommendation prior to the public hearing. Collins responded that there are times when items can be reviewed by the TAC's and their recommendations included in the Staff presentation. There are other instances where the TAC's can review the information from a public hearing and make a recommendation to the Planning Board. County Attorney Geof Gledhill noted that the TAC is an advisory board to the Planning Board. Marshall asked if the TAC recommendations could be considered if they were not presented as a part of the public hearing. Gledhill continued that the TAC'S are aids to the Planning Board and as such the Planning Board would decide how the TAC recommendations would be used. . Mr. Dale Davis, property owner on Buckhorn Road Extension and US 70 presented materials requesting a land use amendment to give his property a Commercial-Industrial Activity Node classification. . Dolly Hunter spoke, referencing her letter of petition to include her lot in the CommercialIndustrial Activity node. At some point in the future, she would like a real estate office at the location. She noted that Staff had indicated PAGE 4 069 that when a Land Use Plan is being updated, it is the opportune time to request such an amendment. She expressed concern that her neighbors property all remain as they desired but that the same courtesy be extended to her to allow the land use plan amendment for her lot. Dalton Riley, property owner of two acres on US 70 adjoining the Hunter property, indicated he was opposed to the amendment requested and felt there was no need for a real estate office in Efland. Chair Marshall presented a letter from Central Carolina Bank as trustee for Moorefields indicating agreement with the designation of a Public Interest District for Moorefields and requesting protection in the form of a perimeter buffer that other Public Interest Districts will receive. (Copy of this letter as attachment to these minutes on page ) . b. Eno Township Component Staff presentation by Brad Torgan. When the Orange County Land Use Plan was adopted in 1981, a five update schedule was specified. In accordance with that schedule, the components for Little River and Cedar Grove Townships were amended in 1986 and 1987, respectively. The Plan update process for Eno Township officially began with a public information meeting on January 6, 1988 at which the plan strategy was presented. The strategy consisted of collection of data, identification of development trends, seeking community input and the creation of draft alternative plans. A public meeting was held on February 2, 1988 for the purposes of presenting background data and distributing questionnaires on community preferences. A final public meeting was held to present alternative plans on March 9, 1988. A quorum of the Eno TAC was not present at the may 3 Joint Hillsborough/Eno TAC meeting so no TAC recommendation has been prepared. The text of the Draft Plan is greatly expanded over the existing Eno Township Plan. New sections include housing stock, existing land use acreages, cultural and natural resources, and development trends since 1981, which documents the influence of Durham and impact of manufactured housing on Eno Township. Proposed amendments to the section on land use distribution recognize the Durham Urban Growth Area as documented in the Durham 2005 Plan adopted by the City of Durham, while the section on circulation is expanded to place more emphasis of travel patterns and traffic volumes on major roads. Population projections are revised upward. The 1981 plan projected a population of 8,168 for Eno Township in the year 2000, up from 4,450 in 1980. The proposed amendment increases the projected population for the year 2000 to 9,865 1111111111811111 esmsonsuenssowns. 070 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2727$ • MEMORANDUM TO: COUNTY MANAGER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PLANNING BOARD FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: MAY 23, 1988 SUBJECT: EXPANSION OF COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY NODE • (CHEEKS TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN COMPONENT) COPIES: PLANNER III (COMPREHENSIVE) As part of the Cheeks Township Land Use Plan update, a petition was submitted by Dolly A. Hunter to include property, on the northeast corner of U.S. HighwaY 70 and Oak Street in • the Commercial-Industrial Activity Node. (See attached letter and map. ) Such, petitions are not without precedent inasmuch as several are to be considered as part of the Joint Planning Area public hearing on June 30. Others were received during the initial preparation and consideration of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Such petitions are also different in that they are considered within the context of a larger plan amendment. Upon consideration of the request, the Planning Staff has proposed, as part of the Cheeks Land Use Plan update, that the Activity Node be extenoed . in an easterly direction approximately 560 feet and 290 feet in a northerly direction - - the approximate depth of the Red & White Food Store lot. The expansion was proposed because of Staff =incurrence with some of the points made in the Hunter petition. Specifically, the availability of water and sewer will increase growth pressures, and traffic increases along U. S. Highway 70 will cause residential to non-residential use conversion on bath sides of the highway. Since the preparation of the proposal to be presented at public hearing, the petitioner contacted adjoining property owners to inform them of the request. Subsequently, one or more adjoining and/or nearby property owners contacted the Planning Department with concerns about the Activity Node expansion. The concerns focused on the desire to retain the • [ • 071 • residential character of the area with no expansion of the Commercial-Industrial Activity Node. However, there may be other adjoining owners who are not opposed to the expansion. If the Planning Board wishes to recommend, and the Board of Commissioners approve, expansion of the Activity Node to cover on the Hunter property, it is possible. The Activity Node extends along the south side of U.S. Highway 70. The • expansion can be accomplished by extending the boundary line across U.S. 70 to incorporate the Hunter lot. VII(.1014,“ • Marvin Collins Planning Director • • __ _ :ice ii4 • Y r Z r- p �1 In 0 •t+J 111 co " • { L Q O w 0 i 5 w cr, m a as t) Q1 ' ' r cz N L 1 • w \\ . . . , 1l I `v - I • 1 ; ' i I Ei\ kifiti":>: ,:: x ' 1 , 1 J. 1 ! • . 1 • r� i 1 ► I1 11113 • 1• • I__________----- , I hurt I 1 1 • 10 i 1 c I i • NMtell 131jc1• (.,{ . III I VIII ` ' l' h:�wffi...7.... `,i { is 1 : : i11 1 ' - }r• ••• -� . iyam_ t I. I I WI'_`^ — I Z.:-:.... ;mow1:4 I 1 a y KiI1IIIi.•.'x+. -icy.,. "•;•vi,+n rJ— \fJ\ \"\IR i ] \ it.....: 1 0 e 0 r 0 i 'Ix r 1 z-• I t t, "jp„ ■ CI •Y• �• :lf. 4! { O F r i Lr• E. C,, ORANGE COUNTY ?LA NTNG DEPARTMENT BILLSBOROUGIE xOgNor= cROLI 073 27278 4b Ir74' V471aryl Wes,` LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION All persons requesting an amendment to the Land Use Plan of Orange County are required to complete the following: application as completely as possible: OFFICE USE, ONLY ! • REQUEST #LUP- - DATE RECEIVED: STAFFPERSON(S)-RESPONSIBLE: - (Oak 1 GENERAL DATA: Gc 7L/�- Cy. ��v��J Property 01Wner(s) Name: � �n p. / // Mailing Address: Al. 5" go o7/72-4 -0-iane Phone: (Home) 3-£"S/2'2 (Work) 6 " "2 Agent(s) Name: • Mailing Address: Phone: SPECIFIC DATA: Block : Lot Tax �� Tax Reference: Township Map Public/Private Road.Name: Lot Size: Acreage Square Footage Lot Frontage Lot Depth 074 SPECIFIC DATA (continued): ,V.�� --/,�rJ� 'r�?/J Current Plan Category Designation(s) : General /7' Activity Node Watershed • • Joint Planning Area Describe Land Uses In the General Ared: o! nn G�/ D .i/� 4,./-'5i4 . l oloi 4vc../e. 5/,,p ra sic, /and -76,.// On Adjacent Parcels of Land: 6)nVe" co- , n its - • REQUEST:T -, Land Use Plan Category Designation(s) Requested: CowY-"' Type of Amendment: Primary .� . Secondary OD D r- rDr d 1SC.L .SS1br1 * * * * * * * * * e * This application should be submitted with the following materials: • Fully dimensioned tax map on which is highlighted the parcel , ' _.,.� portion thereof, in question. - Orl,c u i'.( t/ • Legal description of the parcel, or portion therof. Cof6 o.c� hcarfAr t".-- Letter of' request to include: • o the -tax reference, general location and owner of the parcel o tbercurrent and requested lend use plan category designation(s) o a narrative stating the manner in. which the proposed amendment will carry-out' the intent and purpose of the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof o a statement of any other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment o statement of the changed enerallor which'makeothetproposed amendment or in the County generally, reasonably necessary. I (We) , the undersigned, certify that all statements furnished in this application are true to the best of -my, (our) knowledge and that -the application as submitted is complete. • ado LL ) , NAME OF APPLICANT(S) SIGNATURE OP APPLI CANT(S) DATE 075 . ... . . . cl, <j __ _____ ___ 6:, ‘4. ,a if i .....e.,c11-- , 0 1_ 4, ‘4. ..", 6,... .,.... 2.7e 5/. _, .._______ • . . , ,... - .. / . dr •a_ ...- . ei. 0,64,--- /6-- 0,0,( Pe-gril?/)__________-,) _______; ,• _4470_ _ 2iy . .: . . . . . . . . .. .. _. _,I2L. If / 6e le-- li ...t. ,,,e .. 011' 4 •, 4, .. ...( --• ... ... . ... .. z . • • / 1 *4 22:424.42__d_zzi4434e"—.6. ___Cif.i." . . • .0. .c.iza.. ,g /0 — , A.-- --- ......., . IL.... 41 . it.-- .. d ......4 4111v AP Ar • •■• AN if st dm' D e , , .. ......A-A.6.44....----- __, ... a I 4111 i jr / . ..1.-, .- oe , -----.*. / ../ . / e . .., ...,,. _ 6......Z2e(224 °41"411 --""'-.....iils--'..Pin".. .ii' mr.. .-7•14( W=r. suir Or c.I. .. . ... • . . . . -.. • . I ....--:•.7..,:::-::.;.,:;:4--;4.;.:: ....;....,........1-44;•.34 4 OP.;-;:.• 1..4111 ,... •••••••••••••44•• •••••--7.4*..7.••rr7""'-----7-7r7-:,.-:-. ,,::.:,:::,!:-. :,...-..,zw:-::.*._,;.'..„±'.-.•..1.2%-.•;•., .•:•;':2:"..::-:,,7...,-..4,•,.."";- tit:4• ::-•.,..5 -.7:-•;:':t•l- I- •-:.•.•.., --•::--•••2..•::,.• •:,;'•'•-•-:*- •• . : -; -- ---.• -.. . .,-'-.4_-.,--..!: ••-•-• _:.•-- .1,--•.-;»:—..-- .:•— .-• •- • - ,. .. .. . "" ...;,••::.:-:.'--••.*: ::--. : :. .' . - . . I _ • . ... . . , . . _. • .-. - . -. . • . - . • • . . , • .- . . . ! ... . . . . . . •, . . . • •• - . :- - .. ... • . ._,.• .- -- . .•• • . . • - ... . ... • . . . . . . . . . . . ....-0-40€40,;- 7.,V... •-..-:. :-..---- ... -., .- -.• 7.,::.. ::.•ti; .„ -• •;•-'• .--2--' . -- - '-• - • . 1 .aizt ..„. „F.,' • • .i.„Fa:—......., ,..,. -1..„.. #410r.• . . -, ='•'. _ e•T•al tstate = I ---ag NoPoi."NA fo: olelkfz --'n 3.t i. v .i. ' .."'•-'-••••--r...4f I- . e) ri ft 1 F..... e, sr. AP111515 - 2 i r.... u to I mo me.lit 2 a . I--- FILED 267 soaKprama:510PL=to--- • An 15 1 zo • , ulov.510 pa 267 REGV,i1F; Cif DEE-DI; oftt„NCE COUNT C. oo 545 piadgi--- - Ezuse Tax Recording Tune.Book and Pare Tax Lot No. '3.2-5%.-7 Parcel lderstifier No. 9E835-20-4750 0", . Verified by-......................- County on the... .. day of---.- . 19.......-.... _.... -....................-........- . . Mail alter recording to .....Mebane..Mia..1;XX.let, InC....... _\ Roace'5, Bac 276-A, Mebane, N.C. 27302 • Willizn R.*Harbert (vritboat title examina-:n•on) -1 Thai instrument was prepared bY-. • Brief description for the index E= 3 • .NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL WARRANTY DEED . THIS DEED made this lBth day of tlarda - -re5 by and between • GRANTOR GRANTEE WILLIAM DEWEY SYKES, JR. and wife, MEBANE MILL OUTLET, INC. ANN 'WILLIAMSON SYKES . • and Route 5, .Box 278-A Mebane, N.C. 27302 • WINIFRED ARNOLD SYKES and wife, • DOROTHY PATRUM SYKES • • . - . .. . . • • - • . . . .7 . • Doer in appropit.sie be ter ma party:name,address,and,9 appropriate,character at-entity,e.o.'Sodomites or partnership. - •• • The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, sueedistOr5,and assigns,and - shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by canter. • ' . WIT1sTESSETE„ that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is herebi . acknowiedited. has and by these presents does grant, bargain, aril and convey.unto the Grantee in fee simple, all tbs.certain lot or parcel of land situated in the City of - ---- ----. -Ca.:IP:KS Township -----OEMXM,_ County,North Carolina and more particularly described us follows: .:• "_'; 1:2=ALI. CE It= N . 2 and 3 of the "Propty of .1.W. Sykes, Re.i--s", as • s=veyed by J. PalTin Weav=, Reg. Co. SI=veyom, on 10-2-41, plat of linicla said survey is re.corded in Plat Book 3 at: . 76 in toe Orange Cotru...y • r Registry, to Wb.i.o* h retarded plat reference: is berth* made fcm a more . ; - • complete des=iption by metes and bounds' . . •••• irs - • r.•5 ,;,: 7:3— • I 5•71' W V.: .7 ''. . . _ ••••• Tzt, o' a :• . , --..2--rn . • . . .... •.:7 •. . c" ---- -! - . • „..., - 077 0,4 n 'e.00K 3.1.0 PAM 268 . . *no property bereizabove described was acquired by Grantor by instrumentrecorded in — , - ../ 3 76 'A map showing the above described property in recorded in.Plat Book-..................-- page -.—egO HAVE AND TO BOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the Grantee in fee simple. And the Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor is seized of the premises in fee simple.has the right to convey the same in fee simple,that title is marketable and free and clear of au encumbranes,,and that Grantor will warrant and defend the title against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever except for the exceptions hereinafter stated. Title to the property hereinabove described is subject to the following exceptions: • • • This conveyance is trade subject to easements, righzs of way and restriction , if am. of record. Further, Orange:Courity ad valorem taxes for the year 1985 shall be prorated as of the,datebeceof. . t . - - * -•• IN WITNE116 WItialtOr. UN Grimier bee beeelluste sat We luibd and seal.or If torpor* .has cawed WU Irouratatat to be Mood In US contorting naps* by Us deli tontorrued°lotus and Its foal to be befeblate Atilefire by atanotuy of Its Board of Dtrastars. the say and peat Sell &bents written. ... • • . (Corporate Nunn ; . , Jr. ' BPI......... .......... ......... ..---...---..—.-.—*----- w . •ide-40(tev".4°."') 44....),.. z ............___ ............-ftesidast ••• Artt illiasson Sykes i '!4..i - ".8 R.d'M e 4 .- —.....-------_—_—_------ (.4* *"'-.." Arnalirtykes . .. .: ca . .. —itirtfal?..—e.444e1-•=-......_ • .................Seeiretet7(Ceregrbag Sean V) s Meg Melva; tO , 4.4:ilk.RET A 4° • Darotny =us Sykes . 4. . ,tif Nolan ciutouNA. ... — ...a'redgiger..--.—'—.couistv.•' 4.. ia IP • A, ‘‘tstARy .. t . L. a t......7 Poeta of the County and State aforesaid, essialy that William f ix 4 ...mi.mita..91a.Williamssal_Sylces....._ ......G...... b. : . * i I. - - ---- ..— 1 Dm.... • r...,# '., PerSonallY appeared saws la* this eny anE achanolottged Was aincntIon*AC tangoing IsertribMellt Memel e!,tr. . telP Putt 3 band and antelal rump or nal.thlt44---.....74.1 dap of....—.L. h- is. ..... ...., . ‘,94r4M lesie "44,4vE CO.e KY commission expire= Or tlir• - .. . .i s• -a. . gg—.T.V ...n!..-FI•tr7e.,AIA" if sr je;11444, C 0 L 1 3:It.Y• „eLiseir Ve="41jf";; .- • 4..."4•74*.e..1....,:',.•.-M.',.;• : *10Krt ' I, a Notary of the County and State aforesaid, certify 4.;., .••:; ARNOLD S' S and wife, DoRctrer PAT= SYKES Orantor, peis' nni.111::::•... .7.F..--IgF•t-:-. appeared before se this -day and achiCwledged the •executirea;of.the:.-raVIt...:- forp:.goirig irstrument. Wirmass my hand and official staitne, .Or. 'e.:a•V 't.i..:5:T:'' • • this 2,_*A day of ret,AlecA( , 1985.: .4. ) •:V.:;..C..r....:44.41:,. — ---, ? '7:: '.:.;.-.'..c.1.• ...'•". . 7/5/85 -,_ _ saran PUMM.MATE OF FUmIDA AY LAKE - ..-7.z-,ifed; -04' 7.::-- - MY'l CEEEILiSSi011 =fairest(commtssual EAPIRES illt.Y 5.1995 .4 - #4.' ' '••• •so *ix, .....• . .- * IlOgferffrgfigOO SI 3• I 'L ".',177...s •... , • • ,... . . li NORTH CAROLINA—ORANGE COUNTY - - The foregoing certificate(s)of 1 t Aclam , _.___..----and Allan Takla . . xt00000vomeacNotaries) Public of the designated Governmental units it6are) certified to be Correct.Filed for registra tion this the. 15th .day of April — —,19 R5 ,at 1:20 o'clock - in Record Book. 510 Page 267 P -.. Betty -• ne Haves, Regis er of D:e. -' • 1,....,/ * • ., - ! --• lietum:-. - • . - BY: ;‘,.-7••- .411. . ■■••• A . . -. Assistantaxedasst —___ Register of Deem • • ....-.----...............* 111111•1•NI EERVEMENSP=INNallonsloommow. 0Th ii 5•0\ • •••• l 4? •2 41 b ••••••. 158,49 Nt. • ••-•C"...-S....-. ••••••' . 1 9 - • - i """"4••■••••• .4?: ...... . . .4, • . .1. I a I •....... „..„ ......,... . .. I I . Os I ..m... ...„ ..1... . I \ I' • . . , I . . , 0 • I . •A I . 34 • 0' qr lo I I .-4 \ . •' . . In t • • .15 AC."....-..,.....• .. i . . ... ., . . . .• t _: . • . . I . . . . . . • I . • • •. -.;. . . .... .. • .. . • _. ... . . . . 0 • 0 „ • 1/..- • • I iv ii • -.•—• 2742 .4 t 0 - .. t . . 14750 - . . )649 t. • ... . • • . • I .-.......-• _;:..":"-•:.,;;-,. • • • • . -.. • .. t - - • 5s3s .. .5.,f9t3 .." 9 ... • "Xl • . .-. of " • 1 .: . ! , -. .....-., .,: - ._• , - • ... .. :-. . . .. . .. . • ..... .... . • - ,, -. .-- - t . _ • I . S • ...• _ • r . . I . • . ... r:., . . . .• . r- 1 rft e I/ . . , „,. • .. ..... - - - 2 ... . „I -• ilA I .s. , ,3)3110 .,, - •:••:.• . -: 0 • '4* - - -• _ ••• , " •• /3 VI'° .....I.L.•-*....' ' p... . .•• 85:'AC:"...• . ..) i PIC;a.--- _ r., • . ..• .. . - - - • - ... . -• • . 1 . . 47;.-- . . ..1,, 4 •",••• ....;•,741., • • ..• • I • •=7".4.: ....;.4 • *,.•.• :- ' • _■ ' . .:.• • • •.- ••.'•••:•. •• ....4.• •• ' .f '.*:_ .._•• f.......,H0 if fl.; '• .• . • , .. :• . • ri"'. ---- •••::t4:..•.'. . 'ft _ ,2 i 74 4 •gc ° °I *NO • . . 1 :. .. __ . . . ... 0 Ak•,•••!...,.. .n-; . .. . . ..._ . .-....: - .. . . . ,. ...... . • , . • . --....• , L,cap- . . • „ ....• .„•,... ,• ••,..„. • • .. ... • . . . . . . . •. •• • - -.-- - -- 7 , • ...:-. :..:.. -- .... • ..- .31.•-!....-- — _ ..- - : . -••• tio . . - 77 . 1 _.,....------.---=---------- 4.....&.4.01---41---.."----1"---7- ---,14464";4c"1"c"--r"al-4... -- -- • - -"ROUTE'~"wn; • .............*4.1.11........... .. , ... ,- ...r .■..„ . . ...... , . .....'..... Z.f. •..,:', .. ... . ..l .. ' • • Hi GHWAY •.' .....• '• • ':' .''....... ....,■..■........4... .■••■. OMP .• . • _1.1. 192 ....momp.mom.own.••■..........,..ro...m....m, 1 1 85 -1 '""""*" ....""lir7 I - I 1 :T._ I 1 1 I ! I -.......... 1 ^• . e 1 __...---se ................12— = II I -: /4N. I I(:•••••••N 1 (.;"; •'. . , .. ., • , I • • . . . . . . t • ,. • 075 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING AND DESIGNATING THE CHEEKS TOWNSHIP PLAN AS A SECTION OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners adopted the Orange County Land Use Plan on September 2, 1981; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has from time-to-time adopted amendments to the Orange County Land Use, Plan because of: 1. Changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; 2. An error or omission in the Plan; or 3. A change in the policies, objectives, principles or standards governing the physical development of the County; and WHEREAS, proposed amendments to Articles 2.2.12 through 2.2.14 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance were presented at public hearing on February 22, 1988 which re-defined the nature, intent, and method of adopting the Comprehensive Plan for Orange County; and WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the public hearing and the receipt of the Planning Board recommendation, the Board of Commissioners adopted the proposed amendments on April 4, 1988; and WHEREAS, Article 2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, states that one element of the Comprehensive Plan shall be a Land Use Element, which designates the general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses, and WHEREAS, the Cheeks Township. Plan fulfills, in part, the purpose and intent of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan; and 080 WHEREAS, Article 2.2.13 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, states that the Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan and portions thereof from the Planning Board, shall adopt them by resolutions; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on May 23, 1988 for the purpose of designating and incorporating the Cheeks Township Plan as a section of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, following conclusion of the public hearing and the receipt of the Planning Board recommendation, the Board of Commissioners wishes to designate the Cheeks Township Plan as a section of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that: 1. The Cheeks Township Plan is hereby adopted and designated as a section of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for Orange • County, N.C. Adopted this day of , 198_. ' DRAFT 6-20-88 PB MINUTES 081. 3 AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (5/23/88) a. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (1) Cheeks Township Component Presentation by Gene Bell. • The Plan update process for Cheeks began officially on January 21 at a TAC meeting wherein the Plan update strategy was presented. This was followed by a public information meeting on February 10 to present background data and • distribute a questionnaire, a meeting on March 9 to discuss alternative plans, and a final meeting • on May 4 to present the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan was presented to the Planning Board on May 16 and at public hearing on May 23. The presentation at the public hearing summarized the differences between the existing Plan and the proposed amendments. Main differences included: - The designation of an additional 3.6 acres for inclusion in the Commercial-Industrial Activity Node on the north side of US 70 ; - A Rural Neighborhood Activity Node at Efland Cedar Grove Road and Lebanon Road; - The designation of Moorefields and County- owned lands in the Seven Mile Creek Basin as Public Interest Area; - The designation of additional Rural Residential areas to the north of Lebanon Road; and - The designation of the Back Creek Water Supply Watershed in the northwest corner of the Township. Comments were received from three citizens in reference to the Draft Plan. - Mr. Dale Davis, property owner on Buckhorn Road Extension and US 70 presented materials requesting a land use amendment to give his property a Commercial-Industrial Activity Node classification. - Dolly Hunter spoke referencing her letter of petition to include her lot in the Commercial 082 4 Industrial Activity Node. - Dalton Riley, property owner of two acres on US 70 adjoining the Hunter property, indicated he was opposed to the node expansion. On the day of the public hearing Mr. Riley came to the office and spoke with Brad Torgan regarding the proposed expansion of the node in the Draft plan for Cheeks Township. He attended the hearing and spoke against the node expansion. As follow-up to the hearing, Mrs. Riley came by the office and asked if a petition of opposition might strengthen the case against expansion of the node. She was informed that petitions were very effective, but that technically, the Planning Board could not consider a petition in formulating their recommendation since it was not presented at the public hearing. This was based on the County Attorney's opinion of 2/13/86. She said that a petition would have been presented at the hearing if she and other residents had known of the request more than two days before the hearing. Mrs. Riley did elect to compile a petition and turned a copy in to the Planning Department on 6/3/88. This was followed on 6/9/88 by a letter from Mr. Riley which expanded upon his comments at the public hearing. The Board was made aware of this because a substantial number of the property owners who signed the petition were in attendance at the Planning Board meeting. Copies of the petition, letter, and a map identifying the property • holdings of petitioners were available but the Board did not elect to consider them since they were not part of the public hearing testimony. This was explained to members of the audience by the Chair. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended text and map and incorporation into Section 3.8 of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. In reference to the citizen petitions for node expansion, staff recommends: - Further analysis of the Davis request and presentation at the August public hearing. The subject property lies approximately 1,250 feet from the existing node and many intervening 08 5 properties would be affected. Presentation of the request at the August bearing would involve identification and notification by mail of all affected property owners. - Expansion of the activity node to cover only the Hunter property as suggested in Marvin = Collins' memo of 5-23-88. The Board of County Commissioners will, consider the proposal on July 5, 1988. Bell indicated the location of the node and the Hunter and Davis properties on the land use map. In reference to Public Interest Areas, Jacobs proposed the idea of perimeter buffers. He asked the size of the buffer separating the Blackwood division of Duke Forest from the Carrboro transition areas. Bell responded it is currently proposed as 670' although staff recommendation is 400' . Jacobs indicated he felt the issue of public interest buffers should be referred to the Ordinance Review Committee subsequent to the public hearing. Mr. Dale Davis stated that his property (lot #7) is located between two commercial properties and a landfill is located to the back of this property which he felt makes this property unsuitable for residential designation. Best asked if part of the activity node could be outside the contiguous space. Bell responded that it is supposed to be contiguous in the activity node. Bell continued that there is considerable commercial property in this particular area along US 70. Yubasz asked what area of the Commercial- Industrial node serves the community of Efland and what portion serves Orange County as a whole. Bell responded that he felt those areas along US 70 north of the railroad tracks served Efland and that properties south of the railroad tracks, north of 1-85 and south of 1-85 to West Ten Road are expected to serve as primarily industrial development for the entire county. Best asked about the property designated industrial-commercial inside of the node. Bell responded that there was approximately 1500 acres so designated. 084 6 Jacobs noted that while he felt sufficient justification was not presented to support Ms. Hunter's request, he did feel that there will be sufficient changes in Efland which have not been adequately addressed. He suggested that an Efland Study be conducted during the fiscal year 1988-89. MOTION: Jacobs moved to recommend approval of the Cheeks Township Component of the Comprehensive Plan including: - Designation of a Rural Neighborhood Activity ,-- Node at Efland Cedar Grove Road; - Designation of Back Creek Water Supply Watershed; - Designation of additional Rural Residential areas north of Lebanon Road; - Endorse and refer to the Ordinance Review Committee the designation of perimeter buffers for Public Interest areas; - Refer Mr. Davis' request to public hearing on • August 22, 1988; and - Denial of Hunter request. Motion was seconded by Best. Yuhasz asked the effect of depicting Back Creek as • a water supply watershed. Collins responded that the Zoning Ordinance would have to be amended to add Back Creek to the list of protected watersheds. Such an amendment would have to go to public hearing. Yuhasz asked about the idea of perimeter buffers. Jacobs responded that it was in reference to the separation of the Blackwood Division of Duke Forest and the Carrboro Transition Area in the JPA by a section of Rural Buffer. Currently, there is a one-lot separation. Proposals for consideration at the Joint Planning hearing on June 30 are to establish a buffer of consistent width; 670' and 400' have been proposed. • Collins explained to the audience the difference between a Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning. Jacobs stated that with anticipated changes in the Efland area with the completion of I-40, an area study for downtown Efland was in order. Collins 086 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 5., 1988 Action Agenda Item SUBJECT: DRAFT ENO TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes x_No ATTACHMENT[S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad Torgan Draft Eno Township Land Use Plan Summary of differences between existing and draft Plans Draft 5-23-88 Public Hearing Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Proposed Resolution of Adoption Hillsborough - 732-8181 Draft 6-20-88 Planning Board Durham - 688-7331 Minutes Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of a proposed amendment to the Eno Township component of the Land Use Element, Orange County Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND: When the Orange County Land Use Plan was adopted in 1981, a five year update schedule was specified. In accordance with the schedule the Little River and Cedar Grove components were revised in 1986 and 1987, respectively. The Bingham Township component has been prepared and will be presented at the next Joint Planning public hearing. The Township components for Cheeks, Hillsborough, and Chapel Hill north of the Joint Planning Area have also been prepared and were, along with Eno Township, presented, at the May 23, 1988, regularly scheduled Orange County public hearing. The Plan update process for the area officially began with a public information meeting on January 6, 1988, at which time the plan strategy was presented. A public meeting involving the TACs from Hillsborough, Eno, and Chapel Hill Townships was held on February 2, 1988 for • the purpose of presenting background data and distributing questionnaires on community preferences. A final public meeting was held on March 9, 1988 to present alternative plans. At a May 3 joint 087 Hillsborough/Eno TAC meeting a quorum from the Eno TAC was not present. As such, no recommendation was made by the TAC. The presentation at the public hearing summarized the differences between the existing Plan and the proposed amendments. The only public comment made at that time centered on development at the boundaries of Eno River State Park. One substantive change was recommended by the Planning Staff since the conclusion of the public hearing - designation of the portion of the Little River watershed in Eno Township as a water supply watershed. This was done to make the Plan consistent with earlier staff recommendations to designate all drinking water supply watersheds in Orange County as such, regardless of whether or not they directly serve Orange County residents. The Planning Board, at its June 20, 1988, meeting, endorsed the staff recommendation with one addition - changing the classification of the Brigadoon Subdivision north of U.S. Highway 70 and west of the Eno River from Agricultural-Residential to Rural Residential. The proposed change will provide consistency between the existing zoning of the property (R-1 Residential) as the proposed land use classification. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the attached resolution, incorporating the proposed Section 3.10 (Eno Township) as part of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, including the following changes as recommended by the Planning Board: (1) Designating that portion of the Little River watershed in Eno Township as a Water Supply Watershed; and (2) Changing the classification of the Brigadoon Subdivision north of U.S. Highway 70 and west of the Eno River from Agricultural-Residential to Rural Residential. 088 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 3.10 OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT (ENO TOWNSHIP) OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners adopted the Orange County Land Use Plan on September 2, 1981; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has from time to time adopted amendments to the Orange County Land Use Plan because of: 1. Changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; 2. An error or omission in the Plan; or • 3. A change in policies, objectives, principles, or standards governing the physical development of the County; and WHEREAS, Amendments to Sections 2.2.12 through 2. 12 .14 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, adopted by the Board of Commissioners on April 4, 1988, redefined the nature, intent and method of adopting the Comprehensive Plan for • Orange Co--linty; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned amendments included changing the =gnat Co�unr • Land Use Plan to the Land Use. Element of the Comnrehensive Plan for Orange Country; and WHEREAS, Article 2.2.13 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, states that the Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan and portions thereof from the Planning Board, shall adopt them by resolutions; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May 23, 1988 for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on amendments to Section 3.10 of the Land Use Element (Eno Township) , Comprehensive Plan for Oranae County; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Planning Board, at its meeting of June 20, 1988, recommended adoption of amendment by substitution to Section 3.10 of the Land Use Element, Comnrehensive Plan for Oranae County: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of 089 Commissioners that: 1. The draft Eno Township Plan is hereby adopted and designated as Section 3. 10 of the Land Use Element thl goLinngtenplal Plan for Orange County. N.C. , including the following changes presented to the plan presented at public hearing on May 23, 1988: a) The designation of that portion of the Little River watershed in Eno Township as a Water Supply Watershed; and, b) A change in the classification of the Brigadoon Subdivision north of U.S. Highway 70 and west of the Eno River from Agriculturai-Residential to Rural Residential. Adopted this day of 198 090 ENO TOWNSHIP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXISTING PLAN AND 1988 DRAFT PLAN (JUNE) Land Use Distribution and Infrastructure Notes farthest proposed expansion of Durham water system into the Township. Also notes Durham Urban Growth Area. Housing Stock and Household Size Added to 1988 Plan Circulation The existing Plan simply describes the road system. The 1988 Plan places more emphasis on circulation patterns and traffic volumes on major roads. Agriculture Section added on economic impact of agriculture on the Township. Environmental Constraints 1988 Plan includes (the Little River) public water supply watershed. Cultural and Natural Resources Added to 1988 Plan. Eno River State Park Section deleted in 1988 Plan. References to Park and its Master Plan are incorporated into Cultural and Natural Resources. Existing Land Use Added to 1988 Plan Development Trends Added to 1988 Plan. Focuses on influence of Durham and the impact of manufactured housing. 091 Allocation of Growth and Organizing Concepts Expanded to include protection of water supply watersheds. Distribution of Land Use Categories 1) Resource Protection Areas are added Township-wide in the 1988 Plan. 2) Agricultural Areas are added Township-wide in the 1988 Plan. 3) Water Supply Watershed is added to 1988 Plan. 4) Rural Residential is pulled farther north in Palmers Grove area, and pushed farther south in the center of the Township. 5) 10 Year Transition is expanded to include existing subdivisions along Lennie Drive and Old NC10. 6) 20 Year Transition is expanded to include two new areas; undeveloped land adjacent to 10 Year Transition, and the area north of the Southern Railroad near the Durham County line. Activity Nodes Commercial-Industrial Transition and Commercial Transition boundaries are altered to follow the boundaries of Transition Areas. 092 3. 10 ENO TOWNSHIP TOWMSUIP PROFILE: SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Eno Township, located in the east-central portion of Orange County, occupies 24,000 acres and contains 9% of the total County land area. The character of the Township is defined by a number of existing land use features. The area of the Township north of St. Mary's Road is agriculturally based and marks the southern limit of the tobacco belt that extends north into • Little River Township and Caswell County. The southern portion of the Township is traversed by Interstate 85, US Highway 70, and a main line of the Southern Railway, all of • which roughly parallel each other in an east-west direction. The Eno River flows east from Hillsborough to the center of the Township and then flows directly south before turning east again just north of the intersection of US70 and 1-85. The southeastern portion of the Township lies adjacent to the City of Durham. Residential development focused on Durham has been and continues to occur in the area. Development pressure will continue in this area during the twenty year plan period. Socio-Economic Features Population figures from the 1980 Census reported that Eno Township gained 1,900 residents from 1970 to 1980, jumping from 2,550 residents in 1970 to 4,450 ten years later. This • represented an average rate of growth of 7.05% annually, a rate more than double that of the County as a whole. At that rate of growth, Eno Township would double its population every decade. The high growth rate of the 1970's has leveled off since 1980. The 1987 population estimate of 5,489 residents translates into an average growth rate of 3.04% annually since 1980, a rate slightly lower than that of the County. This in no way implies that Eno Township has become a less desirable place to live. By contrast, the Township growth rate since 1980 is still equal to that of neighboring Durham City and County. The slowing of the growth rate is a function of numerous factors, many specific to the Township. They include the availability of land for development at a given time, availability and capacity of infrastructure, and expansions of Eno River State Park. 3. 10-1 < 093 Land Use Distribution and Infrastructure The bulk of the suburbanization that the Township has experienced in recent years has occurred in the southern and eastern portions, closest to Durham and to Hillsborough. The northern tier of the Township, which includes the largest of the County's Eno River State Park tracts, retains a more agricultural and rural quality, characterized by low density residential development and very few commercial activities. Eno Township is not currently served by a public sewer system. Sewer mains from the Town of Hillsborough and City of Durham, however, come within a few hundred feet of the Township and both municipalities do have plans for extension of sewer service into the area. The Greater Durham 201 Facilities Plan, first adopted in the mid 1970's, proposed extensions of the City's sewer system to provide service in the US70/I-85 corridor as far east as Stoney Creek by the year 2005. Hillsborough has proposed sewer or force mains along a portion of St. Mary's Road during the same time frame. Water lines from the Town of Hillsborough do extend into Eno Township. North of 1-85, water lines with a diameter of six inches or greater extend as far east as Piney Grove Church Road (SR1711) . South of the Interstate, lines with a six inch diameter or greater extend as far east as the junction of Old NC10 (SR1710) and the Southern Railroad right-of-way. City of Durham water lines extend into Orange County for about one- half mile along US70. The extension was made to serve residences of mobile home parks and other residences in the area whose water supplies had been contaminated by malfunctioning on-site sewage disposal systems. Insofar as the Hillsborough water system is concerned, excess capacity is rapidly diminishing and will require enlargement before major expansions can take place. Further extensions from the City of Durham should also be expected during the plan period. Approximately 1,400 acres of Eno Township, roughly bordered by the Eno River, Stoney Creek, and the Southern Railroad line, lies within the Durham Urban Growth Area as defined in the adopted Durham 2005 Comprehensive Plan, the area for which Durham expects to eventually provide public services. Household Size and Housing Stock The housing stock of Eno Township consisted in 1980 of 1,770 units. Seven years later that number had increased almost 25% to an estimated 2,186 units. Manufactured housing made up a large majority of that increase. 3.10-2 094 From 1980 to 1987, fully 63% of the newly occupied housing units in Eno Township were manufactured homes. During that time, only one other Township in the County had a higher proportion of new housing units that were not site built. Overall, though, site built homes form a slight majority of the housing units in the Township, accounting for 55% of the housing stock. The number of multi-family housing units are negligible, representing less than 1% of the Township's housing stock. Eno Township has followed the state and national trend of a gradual declines in the size of an average household. The average Eno Township household had 3.22 persons in 1970, a figure that dropped to 2.514 in 1980. Circulation A modified version of the North Carolina Highway Functional Classification System is used to describe the road network in Orange County. The system describes segments of the road network based on mobility and access factors. The most important roads, Interstates and arterial highways, provide the best level of service as measured in travel time to and from major activity centers. Roads of lesser importance, collector roads, do not provide as high a level of service, but do provide areas with access to major roads and secondary access to activity centers. Local roads provide the most limited service capacity, but, in the aggregate, provide large land areas with access to more important roads and highways. Orange County's principal east/west transportation corridor traverses the southern half of Eno Township. The corridor consists of Interstate 85, the arterial US Highway 70, the collector road Old NC10 (SR1710) and a main line of Southern Railroad. The north/south transportation network is much less pronounced with the collector Pleasant Green Road/Schley Road (SR1567/SR1548) serving as the major route. The arterial St. Mary's Road (SR1002) and the collector New Sharon Church Road (SR1538) also serve as important components of the Township circulation network, angling northeast out of Hillsborough towards Treyburn in northern Durham County. An additional arterial road, NC751, and two collectors, New Hope Church Road (SR1723) and Cole Mill Road (SR1569) feed into the Township's circulation system at the very southern and eastern periphery. The objective of any component of a transportation system, such as a street or highway, is to accommodate a specific amount of traffic while providing the operator with an acceptable level of service. A level of service 'C' is frequently used as an appropriate criterion for highway and 3.10-3 095 street design purposes and is defined by the North Carolina Department of Transportation as a zone of stable flow with speed and maneuverability more closely controlled by higher volumes. Levels of service range from 'A, ' which is a condition marked by low volume and high speed, to the forced flow operations at low speeds marked by an 'F' level of service. All of the Township's collector. roads are well within capacity given a 'C' level of service. The 1986 average daily volumes ranged from 1,300 vehicles per day (vpd) on Cole Mill Road to 600 vpd on New Sharon Church Road. St. Mary's Road, an arterial, had an average of 1,600 vpd at the Durham County line, but it dropped to 1,100 vpd just west of Pleasant Green Road. The capacities of the Townships collector roads given a level of service 'C' and a forty-five mile per hour speed limit range upward from 5,250 vehicles per day, placing all of the collector roads well under capacity. At fifty-five mph, capacity drops as low as 2,100 vpd, still allowing for a stable traffic flow. Of the Township's other arterials, most are operating well under desirable capacity. For two lane urban arterials the North Carolina Department of Transportation Highway Capacity Manual gives 8,000 vpd as capacity for a 'C' level of service and a forty-five mph speed limit. Only US70 Bypass approaches this capacity, with a 1987 average daily traffic count of 7,500 vehicles per. day. The general capacity at level of service 'C' for an interstate with four total is 54,000 vehicles per day. The 1986 average daily traffic count for I-85 at the Durham County line is slightly less than half that, reaching 26,700 vehicles per day. Even at level of service 'B, ' which indicates stable flow at speeds equal to or greater than 55 mph, the traffic count is well under the capacity of 48,000 vehicles per day. Agriculture Even with the rapid development that has occurred over the past two decades, Eno Township remains an important agricultural center. Thirty beef producers, yielding 20% of the total beef cattle in Orange County, are located in the Township, along with one Grade A dairy and two hog farms. Overall, 15% of the County's total farm income comes from Eno Township, a percentage that translates into approximately $3,000,000 annually based on 1985 data. Eno Township is also currently home to five large commercial stables with a large horse population. This sector of the farm economy is one of the few expanding in Orange County. 3.10-4 Osa While agriculture is still important to the Township, the conversion of agricultural lands to non-farm uses over the last three decades has been continuous and significant. Between 1955 and 1977, the year the North Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service discontinued its township cropland counts, Eno Township lost 37% of its crop and pasture lands. Anecdotal evidence from two sources since then indicates the trend has continued. The first source of information is the Orange County Agricultural Extension Service. They estimate that between 1981 and 1987 approximately 500 acres of crop and pasture land in the Township was lost to development activity. The second source of evidence is enrollment trends in the Orange County use value taxation program, which began in the early 1980's. The program allows land owners whose property meets certain agricultural production or forest management criteria to have that property taxed at its use value rather than the higher market value. In the five year period from 1982 to 1987 the overall acreage enrolled in the program actually increased. Specific trends within the program, however, still support the contention that a. continual conversion from farm to non-farm uses is taking place. There are two land classifications within the use value taxation program, agricultural and managed forest. Even through the overall acreage in the program increased, land classified as agricultural declined from 4,200 to 3,600 acres. The increase came entirely in the managed forest category which jumped from 2,650 to 5,650 acres. Forty percent of the increase in managed forest land was the result of just one new property being enrolled in the program. Another 25% of the increase is the result of conversion of lands in the program from agriculture to managed forest. The criteria for managed forest is less stringent and the required land use less intensive than for property classified as agricultural. Because of this reduction in use intensity a transition from agricultural to managed forest land may portend future development of the affected property. The remainder of the increase can be attributed to the enrollment of much smaller parcels than in past years. What this indicates is that, rather than putting new farm or forest lands into production, smaller landowners have decided that the additional regulations are now worth the tax savings that accrue in the face of increasing assessments. As a general rule, the minimum lot size that can be enrolled in the program is ten acres. For an average ten acre parcel in 1982 the difference between market value and use value was $8,990. That gap had widened to $19,710 five years later. 3.10-5 097 The Land Use Plan designates those ,agricultural and managed forest uses that are anticipated to continue in the same status during the plan period. Agricultural and managed forest lands within transition area are expected to convert to more intensive uses as public water and sewer are extended into those areas. Natural Environmental Constraints There are four natural environmental conditions that pose constraints to development in Eno Township; flooplains, steep slopes, poor soils, and water supply watersheds. Floodplains: Approximately 1,250 acres, excluding land in Eno River State Park, is floodplain or has poorly drained soils associated with floodplain. The majority of the floodway fringe is along the Eno River. In some spots the floodplain extends as far as 800 feet from the floodway. Other significant amounts of floodplain can be found along Stoney Creek, Buckwater Creek, and Little Creek. Steep Slopes: Steep slopes present a constraint to development by creating the potential for increased runoff and erosion. Steep slopes and the soils associated with them also pose problems for the use of septic tanks. An area of slopes greater than 15% roughly cuts diagonally across the township, northeast to southwest. Another area of steep slopes can be found along the Durham County line in the vicinity of Eno River State Park. Poor Soils: Poor soils in the Township tend to be of the Tatum-Goldston association, and are usually associated with steep slopes. Another area of soils generally rated poor for urban development activities exists along New Sharon Church Road. Water gmmly Watersheds: Approximately 1,672 acres along the Township's northern boundary lies within the Little River basin which drains into the Little River Reservoir, one of two major drinking water sources for the city of Durham. A small portion of southeastern Eno Township is currently served by Durham city water lines and it is expected that as many as 1,400 acres in Eno Township will be served with public water by Durham during the Plan period. Additionally interconnections and contractual agreements create the potential for water from the Little River Reservoir to serve Hillsborough and southern Orange County. Cultural and Natural Resources Certain areas of Eno Township possess unique or exemplary 3.10-6 098 natural and physical characteristics that are of great value. The value is not necessarily monetary. It may be historical, biological, spiritual, or of value to the planning process. First and foremost among these resources is Eno River State Park, which stretches along the Eno River in Orange and Durham Counties. Its natural and historical resources and recreational opportunities are a tremendous asset to the entire region. State Park lands in Orange County for which the State either has easements or fee simple ownership lie in one of three general areas, Cate's Ford access, Cole Mill access, and Cabe's Mill (also known as Cabesland) access. The largest of the three areas, Cate's Ford, has one of the best natural exposures of the pyroclastic rock that is widespread throughout the Piedmont. Pyroclastic refers to being volcanic in origin. Populations of Neuse River Waterdogs, a salamander, and Roanoke Bass have been noted at Cate's Ford. Both are classified as species of special concern by the State. This designation applies when the species exists in Orange County in small populations, is faced with major habitat loss, or are targets of exploitation. Another fish species of special concern, the Carolina Darter, has been identified in the Cabe's Mill portion of the Park. Flora in the Park is also of great biological significance. Exemplary plant communities in Eno River State Park range from xeric pine/heath stands, more common in the western mountains of North Carolina, to bottom land hardwood forests along the river. Ginseng, a threatened species, has been identified in the Cabe's Mill access area. A classification of threatened indicates a threat to species survival even greater than of a special status classification. The Eno River State Park Master Plan calls for the development of the Park in two phases. In Orange County, the first phase called for the development of the Cate's Ford and Cabe's Mill access area to provide primitive camping, picnicing and hiking. The second phase of the development plan calls for completing the linear character of the park by purchasing land and easements for connecting pieces along the river. Phase two also calls for additional access points with canoe launches at Lawrence Road and Pleasant Green Road and expansion of Cate's Ford. Populations of species of special concern have been noted in areas of Eno Township outside the existing Park boundaries. Three species in particular, the Alewife Floater, Neuse River Waterdog, and Carolina Darter, all require 113.e river to sustain life and reinforces the importance of the Eno River to the natural environment of Orange County. 3.10-7 099 In addition to its natural resources, Eno Township is rich in historic wealth. Five private homes, mostly in the western portion of the Township, have been identified by the Division of Archives and History as historically and/or architecturally important to the region. St. Mary's Chapel and churchyard in the northeastern corner of the Township, dates from the 1750's and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. There are fifteen recorded archaeological sites in the Township, both within and outside of Eno River State Park. The spiritual and community life of the Township is served by its fifteen active churches and additional community centers. Many, such as Pleasant Green United Methodist Church, serve as the nucleus of long standing rural communities. Existing Land Use , The existing land use of the Township's 24,000 acres can be broken down in the following manner: Acres % of Township Commercial/Industrial 220 0.9 Institutional 100 0.4 Public/Quasi-Public Open Space 1,650 6.9 Residential 2,290 9.5 <1 acre/unit (290) (1.2) 1-5 acres/unit (550) (2.3) 5.01-10 acres/unit (1,450) (6.0) Managed Forest 5,640 23.5 Agricultural 3,600 15.0 Undeveloped/Other 10,500 43.8 TOTAL 24,000 100.0 3.10-1 100 ENO TOWNSHIP LAND USE Vacant/Other 432% l'ublWarl—;'Pt" 5.01-10 OS OX • T*tal 9,51Relentlei 1-5 2LOX Agrlaultund •• 1.5.0X + <I 12.7X Amazed Forest 23.5X All Land Use Residential Acreage/Unit Managed forest and agricultural lands refer to those enrolled in the County's use value taxation program. Along with Public and Quasi-Public lands, it provides an important part of the Township's open space. Development Trends In reviewing development and construction patterns in Eno Township, two items become apparent; the extent to which growth in Durham influences growth patterns in the Township, and the impact of manufactured housing. Of the 241 newly subdivided lots created in Eno Township from 1980 to 1987, ninety-two were east of Pleasant Green Road/Schley Road, an area bordering Durham County and only representing slightly more than one-quarter of the Township's total area. At least one hundred additional lots were proposed within the area during that time, but had not been acted upon by the end of 1987. The Treyburn mixed use development project in northern Durham County has the potential to greatly accelerate subdivision and construction activity in Eno Township. The 5,200 acre project is expected to create between 20,000 and 40,000 new jobs and 4,000 housing units for a projected 12,600 new residents by the year 2005. If just 5% of the new housing demand created by Treyburn locates west of the project in Eno Township upwards of 550 new units would be built. This number, representing one-sixth of the projected increase in 3.10-9 1 . 101 the Township's housing stock between 1987 and 2005, is only that which is directly related to Treyburn. Economic development activity related to Treyburn will in turn create its own demands for new housing, and could further stimulate construction activity. Treyburn and other large Durham developments could have a significant impact on more than just the Township's housing stock. St. Mary's Road provides direct access in and out of Treyburn while Cole Mill Road provides direct access into west Durham. Treyburn would reinforce the already strong commuting patterns linking the eastern part of the Township with Durham and traffic on northern and eastern sections of the Township's road system could increase significantly. Five hundred fifty new homes could generate 5,500 trips daily along Township roads, with 345 vehicles traveling to or from work during the peak rush hour. Manufactured housing is a more integral part of the housing stock in Eno Township than perhaps any other township in the County, represented 44% of the entire township stock. Eno Township accounted for only about 10% of the County's population increase outside of Chapel Hill and Carrboro from 1980 to 1987. Yet, the Township accounted for 18% of the 3,571 building permits issued for mobile homes during that time. Of those permits, 56% were for replacement units. Of even more significance is the disproportionate amount of mobile home park spaces in Eno Township relative to the rest of the County. Fully one-third of the 2,987 mobile home park spaces in Orange County outside the municipal extraterritorial jurisdictions are in Eno Township. Many of these spaces are in parks of high density, reaching in some instance of over six units per acre, which are served by private or community wells and septic systems. Given the generally poor nature of Eno Township soils for septic suitability, the potential for widespread contamination of private water supplies exists ands could eventually require emergency extensions of public services from neighboring municipalities. 3.10-10 11 I 102 PLANNING AND FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS The structure of the Plan's framework begins with the organizing concepts - policy statements around which the Land Use. Plan for Eno Township is constructed. These concepts state a general consensus as to what are the desirable patterns of growth for the area and take into account patterns of development, environmental constraints, and the stated desires of area residents. The second component of the framework consists of future projections for population, housing stock, and land requirements. These projections are not a comment on the desirability of expected growth. They merely indicate the amount of growth expected based on historical trends. The organizing concepts and projections are then used to create allocation guidelines. Criteria are established which distribute land into Land Use Plan categories initially defined in the body of the Land Use element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Distribution is reflected in both text and map form. Organfzing Concepts The following policy statements regarding Eno Township represent the organizing concepts around which the Land Use Plan for Eno Township is constructed: 1) The agricultural and rural character of the northern tier of Eno Township should be maintained and protected from adverse environmental and economic impacts. 2) Low density residential development should be the predominant land use in the southern portion of the Township. 3) Commercial and Industrial development is appropriate in areas around major intersections within the major transportation corridor. 4) Existing Eno River State Park lands and land designated for future development in the Eno River State Park Master Plan should be protected from adverse development pressures. 5) Duke Forest tracts in southern Eno Township, which are a valuable research, teaching, and recreational asset, should be protected from the negative impacts of surrounding development. 6) Existing water supply watersheds in the Township should 3.10-11 103 be developed in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on water quality and does not conflict with agricultural uses. Population and Land Requirement Projections One of the initial and fundamental steps in the land use planning process is calculating the amount of land required to accommodate projected growth in a given area. Generally, the amount of land required for residential and associated non-residential uses are directly related to the size of the population. Tables 3- through 3- summarize the population trends and estimated land requirements for Eno Township during the plan period. Table 3- summarizes population estimates and projections for population, while Table 3- projects the number of new homes required to meet the demands of new residents. The average household sizes used for projections in Table 3- assume that the trends towards smaller household sizes will continue, leveling off towards the end of the plan period. TABLE 3- ENO TOWNSHIP POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND ESTIMATES, 1980-2005 a b c c c c 1980 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 Total Population 4,450 5,489 6,284 7,874 9,865 12,360 Population Change from 1980 (number) --- 1,039 1,834 3,424 5,415 7,910 a Sources: 1980 Census of Population and Orange County Planning Department statistics. b Source: Orange County Planning Department G Based on a standard exponential extrapolation of the 1970- 1987 average annual growth rate of 4.61%. 3. 10-12 1.04 TABLE 3- ENO TOWNSHIP HOUSING PROJECTIONS AND ESTIMATES, 1980-2005 1980 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 • a • TOTAL POPULATION 4,450 5,489 6,284 7,874 9,865 12,360 c b AVG. HOUSEHOLD SIZE 2.51 2.51 2.46 2.43 2.4 2.4 • (Persons/household) b TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 1,770 2,186 2,558 3,243 4,110 5,150 UNITS CHANGE FROM '80 --- 416 788 1,473 2,340 3,380 a From Table 3-. b Source: 1980 Census Housing and Orange County Planning Department statistics. C Assumes continual proportional decrease of average household size to 2.4 persons/household in year 2000. d Source: Orange County Planning Department statistics. TABLE 3- ENO TOWNSHIP LAND USE REQUIREMENTS, 1987-2005 1987-1995 1995-2005 2987-2005 a DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED 1,057 1,907 2,964 b c RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE 2,642 3,814 6,466 REQUIRED TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 2,849 4,179 7,028 a From Table 3- b Based on a density of 2.5 acres/unit. This is the average size of a lot subdivided from 1980-1986. C Based on a density of 2 acres/unit. The projected population of 12,360 residents in the year 2005 3.10-13 .10- 0 would require an estimated 2,964 housing units beyond the stock existing in 1987. This would place an additional 6,466 acres into residential use. Through 1995, the average lot size used to determine acreage is based on the average lot subdivided in between 1980 and 1987. After 1995, it is assumed that escalating land prices and diminishing availability of land will force lot sizes down. Two acres represents an arbitrary number, but is the most restrictive residential zoning lot size in use during 1987. Total acreage required between 1987 and 2005 takes into account residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial needs. Institutional and commercial uses are most directly tied to residential increases, and a multiplier of one acre of new commercial/institutional acreage for every twenty acres of new residential acreage is used. Industrial acreage requirements do not have the direct association with residential acreage that other non-residential uses do. There are, however, areas of the Township that are suitable for industrial uses and should be set aside for such purposes. Two hundred fifty acres is set aside for industrial requirements during the course of the plan period. Allocation of Growth The primary task of the a land use plan is to geographically allocate the anticipated growth throughout the Township in accordance with County-wide goals and policies, as well as the Township organizing concepts. In actuality, the amount of land allocated to accommodate this growth will be substantially greater than the' calculated need in order to allow for variations in the availability of land and the exercise of free market choice. The following allocation guidelines incorporate the descriptive framework of the County' land use classification system: *The rural and agricultural areas in the northern and central portions of Eno Township, which contain the Township's prime agricultural soils, should be maintained in those uses. *Low density non-farm residential development is most appropriate in the southern tier of Eno Township. *Low and medium intensity commercial and industrial development is appropriate in the area focusing on the intersection of 1-85 and US70, and extending southeast toward the Durham County line. *Duke Forest and Eno River State Park tracts, which 3.10-14 106 provide significant educational and recreational opportunities, should be protected as public interest district lands. *Water supply watersheds in the Township should be developed in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on water quality. With the allocation guidelines in mind, information about Eno Township land is filtered through a set of criteria that • evaluates the suitability of certain land uses to specific areas. The information is then used in the classification of land throughout the Township. Distribution of Land Use Plan Categories Land in Eno Township is classified into the land use categories listed below. Distribution is based on expressed policies outlined in the Township Land Use Plan, allocation guidelines contained in the Land Use Component of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, and the potential effects of the • physical change projected for the Township. RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS: Land classified as such consists primarily of slopes greater than 15% and floodplains. This land is considered unsuitable for most development activity. AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION AREAS: The classification refers to land assessed under County provisions for use value taxation of farm and managed forest lands, as well as for active agricultural lands not enrolled in the use value taxation program. Most of these lands are concentrated in the northern section of the Township. PUBLIC INTEREST AREAS: Public Interests Areas are public or quasi-public lands, such as Duke Forest and Eno River State Park, that provide significant educational and recreational opportunities. These lands also form a crucial component of the County's open space system. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED: This classification is applied to areas draining into the Little River Reservoir in northern Durham County. These areas are those that should be protected from development that might cause water quality problems for existing and potential public drinking water supplies. AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL: The central and northern areas of the Township, where agriculture and forestry are important land uses, are classified in this manner. Areas to the west of Pleasant Green Road and south of the Cate's Ford portion of Eno River State Park are also classified in this manner as a means of buffering the Park. 3.10-15 :10 7 RURAL RESIDENTIAL: Much of the land in the southern third of the Township is classified as Rural Residential, which indicates a predominant land use of low density non-farm residential development. The Rural Residential lands in Eno Township have good access to both Hillsborough and Durham and are likely to attract much of the suburban development expected during the plan period. • TEN YEAR TRANSITION: Land along the western border of the • Township has been classified in this manner. This indicates that public services from the Town of Hillsborough are likely within ten years. Most of this Ten Year Transition area • consists of medium density subdivisions already served with a public water supply from the Town of Hillsborough. TWENTY YEAR TRANSIT/ON: The area along US70 and 1-85 from the Durham County line west to Stoney Creek and south to the Southern Railroad is classified as Twenty Year Transition. The area is within the Durham City urban growth area and part of it is already served by the City's water system. Other • urban services are expected in the area by the end of the plan period. The transportation system within the area is adequate for more intensive development. Two areas of Twenty Year Transition have also been designated along the western edge of the Township. The first area, in the southwest corner of the Township, generally surrounds Ten Year Transition Areas. The second area is north of the Eno River along St. Mary's Road. In addition to classifying the land in the County, the County's land use strategy has been to identify appropriate activity nodes in each Township. The purpose is to direct commercial and industrial uses to the most appropriate areas, avoiding strip development and promoting an efficient land use pattern focused on major intersections. Three activity nodes have been designated in Eno Township. REFERENCE: E-1 (Law's Store/Palmer's Grove) LOCATION: US70 Business/US70 Bypass and Palmer's Grove Church Road (SR1562) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood EVALUATION: This node, located at the intersection of two arterials, US70 Business and Bypass, has no environmental constraints to hinder small scale commercial development. REFERENCE: E-2 (Eno) LOCATION: US70 and 1-85 PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial-Industrial Transition EVALUATION: This node is focused on the intersection of two 3.10-16 rammumar---- 108 major highways. It is also serviced by a spur of the Southern Railroad. There are a number of existing commercial uses in the area and relatively little residential development. New commercial and industrial uses should generally be confined to the areas south of the highways in order to reduce negative impacts on Eno River State Park. REFERENCE: E-3 (Duke Forest) LOCATION: US70, NC751, and Old NC10 (SR1710) PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial Transition EVALUATION: This node is focused on the intersection of two arterials and the collector road Old NC10. It is bordered on the south by a main line of the Southern Railroad. Existing land uses include commercial, and medium and high density residential. The node is within Durham's 201 sewer planning area and is served by the Durham city water system. Land to the east of NC751 and a small portion north of the Southern Railroad are part of Duke Forest and not included in the node. 3.10-17 , sri®sr--r --1 0 — d" P , 8 y I LI ' • ..;4'.' -',.A . ' l .ma"., �, Y.v ;.. V• "N a ..'1' .41,: �.: ei `. -~ ' 1- . 0; , 414 . ... -,,,,,..--7,;. .717,0—,,, 1-, ,a r..yam�^jr:��T�,�(�¢j' \t•' C. ' ,iY';��" ,.�" •-. 1 ___,, rt',.;;;;T=41.'" •-•.1 , . • .,...,,,..,..... , . 4-„,„--"•'-i .... .i.,:r. .,.. . ,....."..1 • 0 p Irl �' 74,-: „.....,t,. I �d 111111 ' * N.-4 4 4 T , it, ii. ,:,-- I1111 + r+ppSt ` ta. 1 4 NI,,i � k'i Frr`'�'r ,• ..44444 4444444 Al' 9 1,:; .1.-1-5-7,.- 4. 4. 4- 4 4 44,74 4 4 ' 4,; x� .' T1 4 4 4 4 4 4 a t rill ''f 4444- �A44 4 a tlllil�l' 4 4 4 '4 4 4 r.,: III II , 7 , 4 4 4 4 4 4 ` k • III �it ...44444444 , ,�� ,t.• 4444 444444444 .4s 4, �_sir.. _ �. # 444 Yc / .x ,,f� -c .1. Y4 4 i-�'� �i r �i ,�•d- 4 4 r 44 toil I � 1 ...NEW E; � I i`, '`� iii v:r.01.. ` �' t -.xa" `' . coq,r r.. r 1■_4►111► r/■111 vr1►n• �-, 1570 ,_ c �r■M ■n■rri ■22■1111.1 y11t1■ r' y i` , ■1■ ■1122 ►_�,w■..1■1111''!3.'•.711 ,1 Cbi a t 6 I lr11nrr. tr.►`rrrl�NSri, 3: -+t:,Y^.��,� /' i :■S1■:I►';1■1■4117 ■111.. .�•. Y,' : % .,.----. • �r �t 4 Jilt+ter■ r..11wa11r*--�■ : .__J 1 Ai.+m 4 4 M r — .1.-- �`•4 1 �i ``cKik.c . o-Aiiu s 4 4 4 t'�'r= -!.b_w.M 4 K E..•��.r'C,yrr�ll�� lb Ausau li►r! - t w t r __ . a::_ti:•". 41.1::r r[` •r' _:11w111■4 4 - , +. ., w111rr1►�Ir11■ a,rr■r. _._:..•r11 ■ 4 - ., • rr11■r is -rrrrr-rr��~E .:� 1':. ` _ - Sao/■. w ■11r11rnrr r!, A t �`rye IY-4 _*� '�11►"' o .��w �11r11r�1.. "� Ili!, ' ,',�' , L4 a 11rrr ■n.■11rt ,"''v.--: „a -- ,1 1 II I 4,-- e I -.i1Cr1111 it 1■.tI 1 I I w r■■r■vs i 1111 • ` 4 444 11111 4;.i 'JP' ..di fi .4 `, ' r1►�_ F"G } iI . • �, . t r4 3;90- ,+fir"'�1r ti +� ...� _# y■■/■22■ ; .au , -"y7,yc' 2Y .._fir- ' sir 1111 111110''. +$. Y_iiraWi:ru:!!!rr� �" �'� �y JRr�•�'_,4• EMO TOWNSHIP LHHO USE PLHH LAND USE CATEGORIES ACTIVITY NODES El Agricultural Areas 0 Rural Neighborhood N Resources Protection Areas Public Interest Areas ® Commercial Transition li ❑ Agricultural Residential 1811 Rural Residential omm Cercial-Industrial Transition- lit 10 Year Transition ,ROADS 0 20 Year Transition Interstate SCALE: IMIUMISIMINMIll © Water Supply Watershed `� Arterial 1� ter.;: ,�� _ Collector 0 4000' 8000' DRAFT 6-20-88 PB MINUTES 7 110 agreed. VOTE: 5 in favor. 1 opposed (Yuhasz - hesitant to endorse a perimeter buffer without really knowing what is involved and also felt there was a need for additional transition property north of US 70) . (Boland left the meeting at 10:05) . (2) Eno Township Component Presentation, by Brad Torgan. The presentation at the public hearing summarized the differences between the existing Plan and the • proposed amendments. The only public comment made • at that time centered on development at the boundaries of Eno River State Park. A list of the differences between the existing Plan and the 1988 Draft Plan are included on pages of these minutes. One substantive change has been made to the draft since the conclusion of the public hearing, designation of the portion of the Little River watershed in Eno Township as a water supply watershed. This has been done to make the Plan consistent with earlier staff recommendations to designate all drinking water supply watersheds in Orange County as such, regardless of whether or not they directly serve Orange County residents. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended text and map and incorporation into Section 3.10 of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Staff also recommends that the Planning Board send to the Board of Commissioners the Proposed Resolution of Adoption (attached on page of these minutes) . The resolution is pursuant to Section 2.2.13 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (Comprehensive Plan Adoption) . The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on July 5, 1988. Yuhasz expressed concern that the area designated Agricultural-Residential adjacent to the Brigadoon Subdivision should be designated Rural- Residential. Torgan responded that the area is left as agricultural-residential in order not to encircle Duke Power property and the old power 111 8 station pond. Torgan noted that there were signs of easements on the Duke Power property that this area is a part of the Eno River State Park. MOTION: Yuhasz moved to recommend approval of the Planning Staff recommendation and designate the area from the north edge of Brigadoon Subdivision to the existing Rural Residential area as Rural Residential rather than Agricultural Residential excluding the Duke Power property. Seconded by Cantrell. VOTE: Unanimous. (3) Hillsborough Township Component Presentation by Brad Torgan. The presentation at the public hearing summarized the differences between the existing Plan and the proposed amendments (attached on pages of these minutes) . No public comment was made at that time. Three changes have been made to the draft since the conclusion of the public hearing. The first is the designation of the portion of the Little River watershed in Hillsborough Township as a water supply watershed. This has been done to make the Plan consistent with earlier staff recommendations to designate all drinking water supply watersheds in Orange Count as such, regardless of whether or not they directly serve Orange County residents. The second change is the inclusion of approximately nine acres adjacent to Highland Woods subdivision in Ten Year Transition. The third change is alter the boundary of the Upper Eno watershed to the ease, reflecting more accurate topographic data. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended text and map and incorporation into Section 3.9 of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Staff also recommends that the Planning Board send to the Board of Commissioners a proposed Resolution of Adoption (attached on page of these minutes) . The resolution is pursuant to Section 2.2.13 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (Comprehensive Plan Adoption) . The Board of Commissioners will consider the 112 ORANGE COUNTY. BOARD OF' COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July A, 1988 Action Agenda Item # Cr-47 • SUBJECT: DRAFT HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _x_No ATTACHMENT[S] : INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad Torgan Draft Hillsborough Township Land Use Plan - Summary of differences between existing and draft Plans Draft 23 May 88 Public Hearing Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Proposed Resolution of Adoption Hillsborough - 732-8181 Draft 20 June 88 Planning Board Durham - 688-7331 Minutes Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of a proposed amendment to the Hillsborough Township component of the Land Use Element, Orange County Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND: • When the Orange County Land Use Plan was adopted in 1981, a five year update schedule was specified. In accordance with the schedule the Little River and Cedar Grove components were revised in 1986 and 1987, respectively. The Bingham Township component has been prepared and will be presented at the next Joint Planning public hearing. The Township components for Cheeks, Eno, and Chapel Hill north of the Joint Planning Area have also been prepared and were, along with Hillsborough Township, presented at the May 23, 1988, regularly scheduled Orange County public bearing. The Plan update process for the area officially began with a public information meeting on January 6, 1988, at which time the plan strategy was presented. A .public meeting involving the TACs from Hillsborough, Eno, and Chapel Hill Townships was held on February 2, 1988 for the purpose of presenting background data and distributing questionnaires on community preferences. 113 A final public meeting was held on March 9, 1988 to present alternative plans. At a May 3 joint Hillsborough/Eno TAC meeting a quorum from the Hillsborough TAC was not present. As such, no recommendation was made by the TAC. The presentation at the public hearing summarized the differences between the existing Plan and the proposed amendments. No public comment was made at that time. Three changes have been made to the draft since the conclusion of the public hearing. The first is designation of the portion of the Little River watershed in Hillsborough Township as a water supply watershed. This has been done to make the Plan consistent with earlier staff recommendations to designate all, drinking water supply watersheds in Orange County as such, regardless of whether or not they directly serve Orange County residents. The second change is the inclusion of approximately nine acres adjacent to Highland Woods subdivision in Ten Year Transition. The third change is alter the boundary of the Upper Eno watershed to the east, reflecting more accurate topographic data. The Planning Board, at its June 20, 1988 meeting, recommended approval of the proposed Section 3.9 (Hillsborough Township) with the three changes as recommended by the Planning Staff. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the attached resolution, incorporating the proposed Section 3.9 (Hillsborough Township) as part of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, including the following changes as recommended by the Planning Board: (1) Designating that portion of the Little River watershed in Hillsborough Township as a Water Supply Watershed; (2) Including approximately nine acres adjacent to Highland Woods Subdivision in the Ten-Year Transition Area; and (3) Adjust the boundary of the Upper Eno watershed to the east, reflecting more accurate topographic data. 1.14 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO SECT/ON 3.9 OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT (HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP) OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners adopted the Orange County and Use Plan on September 2, 1981; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has from time to time adopted amendments to the Orange Lonny Land use Plan because of: • 1. Changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; 2. An error or omission in the Plan; or 3. A change in policies, objectives, principles, or standards governing the physical development of the County; and WHEREAS, Amendments to Sections 2.2.12 through 2.12. 14 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, adopted by the Board of Commissioners on April 4, 1988, redefined the nature, intent and method of adopting the Comprehensive Plan for Orange County; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned amendments included changing the Orange gag= Land Use Plan to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for Oranga Country; and WHEREAS, Article 2.2.13 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, states that the Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan and portions thereof from the Planning Board, shall adopt them by resolutions; and • WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May 23, 1988 for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on amendments to ' Section 3.9 of the Land Use Element (Hillsborough Township) , Comprehensive Plan for Oranae County; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Planning Board, at its meeting of June 20, 1988, recommended adoption of amendment by substitution to Section 3.9 of the Land Use Element Comprehensive Plan for Oranae County: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of • • e 115 Commissioners that: 1. The draft Hillsborough Township Plan is hereby adopted and designated as Section 3.9 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for Orange County, N.C. , including the following changes made to the plan presented at public hearing on May 23, 1988: a) The designation of that portion of the Little River watershed in Hillsborough Township as a Water Supply Watershed; b) The inclusion of approximately nine acres adjacent to Highland Woods Subdivision in the Ten-Year Transition Are; and, c) The adjustment of the boundary of the Upper Eno watershed to the east to reflect more accurate topographic data Adopted this, day of , 198 mantaineanEimu.---- 44,26,8Manianag, 116 HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXISTING PLAN AND 1988 DRAFT PLAN (JUNE) Socio-Economic Features Notes increased influence of 1-40. Land Use Distribution and Infrastructure Documents extraterritorial jurisdiction expansion of the Hillsborough water distribution system. Household Size and Housing Stock Added to 1988 Plan. Circulation The existing Plan simply describes the road system. The 1988 Plan places greater emphasis on circulation patterns and traffic volumes on major roads. Environmental Constraints Little River watershed is added to water supply watersheds. Cultural and Natural Resources Added to 1988 Plan. Existing Land Use Added to 1988 Plan. Development Trends Added to 1988 Plan. Focuses on subdivision activity, influence of 1-40, and influence on Durham. Organizing Concepts Two new policies added to 1988 Plan regarding protection of Duke Forest and Water Supply watersheds. Population and Land Requirement Projections Revised upward in 1988 Plan. Industrial acreage 117 requirements are added to land requirement projections. Allocation Guidelines Discourages intensive development that creates negative impacts on Public Interest Areas or Water Supply Watersheds. Distribution of Land Use Categories Categories do not include any land within the Hillsborough extraterritorial jurisdiction. 1) Resource Protection Areas are added Township-wide to the 1988 Plan. 2) Agricultural Areas are added Township-wide to the 1988 Plan. 3) Water Quality Critical Areas are added to the 1988 Plan. 4) Little River Watershed is added to protected watersheds. 5) Rural Residential area north of 1-40 and west of Old NC86 is changed to 20 Year Transition, as is land between Old NC10 and 1-85. 6) Agricultural Residential area west of Dimmocks Mill Road is changed to Rural Residential. 7) The boundary of the Upper Eno watershed is pushed farther east. Activity Nodes The boundaries of Commercial-Industrial Transition are changed to encompass all US70 road frontage to approximately 4500 feet from junction with NC86. On the south, the node is pulled back to the Southern Railroad right-of-way. 118 3.9 HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP TOWNSHIP PROF/LE: SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Hillsborough Township, located in the center of Orange County, occupies 15,100 acres, approximately 6% of the total County land area The major growth and development center in Hillsborough Township is the Town of Hillsborough, located in the Township's geographic center. The Town and its extraterritorial jurisdiction, which together encompass 5,200 acres, splits the Township into northern and southern tiers. The section of the Township south of Interstate 85 is influenced, to some degree, by the northward development patterns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. This level of influence will increase with the completion of Interstate 40, as travel time to Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Research Triangle Park decreases. Township wide, though, the Town of Hillsborough remains the dominant urban influence. Socio-Economic Features, According to the 1980 Census, Hillsborough Township had 8,599 persons, 11.2% of the County's total population. Ten years prior, the Township had a population of 5,866 residents, indicating an average growth rate of 3.91% annually throughout the decade. This rate was slightly higher than that of the County as a whole. During that same time, the Town of Hillsborough grew from 1,444 to 3,019 residents, a growth rate averaging over 7% per year. Much of that increase took place as the result of annexation. The growth rate of the 1970's has continued through the 1980's. By 1987, the Township had grown to an estimated 11,427 people. This translates to an average growth rate from 1980 to 1987 of 4.15% per year, still higher than the County as a whole. As a result of natural increase, in-migration, and annexation, the Town of Hillsborough has also kept up its high growth rate, reaching approximately 5,400 residents in 1987. An estimated additional 600 to 700 people live in the Town's extraterritorial jurisdiction. The economic character of the Township is shaped by two factors. The first is the major transportation corridor that 3.9-1 119 crosses the Township east/west. The corridor, made up of I- 85, US70, and Southern Railroad, provides a transportation network attractive to industrial development by linking Hillsborough with the major urban areas of the Piedmont Crescent. The second factor is the area's proximity to major employment centers in Durham and southern Orange County. The influence of this factor will increase with the completion of 1-40. Land Use Distribution and Infrastructure The Town of Hillsborough constitutes the major development center in Hillsborough Township. In the southern portion of the Township, outside the Town's extraterritorial jurisdiction the land use pattern consists of low to medium density residential development, several commercial, and a few industrial uses. The northern tier of the Township is characterized by a mix of farms and low density residential development, with a small scattering of commercial and industrial activity. Most of the area within the corporate limits of the Town of Hillsborough is served by public water and sewer. Large areas outside Town limits also receive public services from the Town. In 1987, approximately one-half of the town's water customers resided outside the corporate limits. Areas to the south, east, and, to a lesser extent, north of Town are also sewered by gravity lines or force mains. Some, but not all, of these areas are in the Town's extraterritorial jurisdiction and can expect to be eventually annexed. The major limitation to expansion of the Town water distribution system, as well as the sewer system, is *iminishing excess capacity in Lake Ben Johnson, the primary impoundment for the Town. There are no sites for a new impoundment within the Town planning jurisdiction, so solutions must be regional in scope. Impacts of expansion will also be regional in scope, whether the expansion is through interlocal agreements with other water producers or an increase in the size of the impoundment system in the Upper Eno watershed. Household Size and Housing Stock The housing stock of Hillsborough Township, according to the 1980 Census, was 3,233 units. By 1987, that number had increased by an estimated one-third to 4,312 units, slightly 3.9-2 120 more than half of which were in the Town of Hillsborough. The increase of 1,079 housing units was based on the issuance by the County of 1,602 building permits for housing units Township-wide. The difference between the figures is primarily because of units that were permitted but not built • and mobile homes replacing others in mobile home parks. Of the building permits issued from 1980 to 1987, only one- third were for site-built single family homes. Manufactured housing accounted for 53% of the permits issued, while multi- . family housing accounted for the 13% remaining. Overall, though, site-built homes still predominate throughout the Township, outnumbering mobile homes 63% to 29%, with multi- . family units making up the remainder. As Figure 3- shows, the proportion of mobile homes as a percentage of the housing units declines the closer one gets to the Town. Similarly, a higher proportion of multi-family units are within the municipal boundaries because the infrastructure necessary to serve multi-family projects does not exist for much of the Township outside the Town's boundaries Figure 3- HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP, 1987 %of=Ito in eacit region 80.02 80.02 — 40 OX 2o.oz .... mom 0.0X TOON OP HILIBOOROUGH !OWN DTI COMM JUDIBOICTION Region Dingle Peellly FM Mobile Homes NS 11101-44only &num Orange O.naming Dept. Hillsborough Township has followed the state and national 3.9-3 121 trend towards smaller household sizes. In 1970, the Census reported that the average household in Hillsborough Township had 3.41 persons. By 1980, that figure had dropped to 2.66 persons. Circulation The County's major east/west and north/south transportation routes intersect in Hillsborough Township, making it a • • central point in the County transportation network. The east/west corridor consists of I-85, US70, and the Southern Railroad. The north/south system consists of two State • Highways, NC86 and NC57, along with two important local roads, Old NC86 (SR1009) and Orange Grove Road (SR1006) . Upon completion, 1-40 will link up with 1-85 just west of Town. A modified version of the North Carolina Highway Functional Classification System is used to describe the road network in Orange County. The system describes segments of the road network based on mobility and access factors. The most important roads, Interstates and arterial highways, provide the best level of service as measured in travel time to and from major activity centers. Roads of lesser importance, collector roads, do not provide as high a level of service, but do provide areas with access to major roads and secondary access to activity centers. Local roads provide the most limited service capacity, but, in the aggregate, provide large land areas with access to more important roads and highways. Interstates 40 and 85 are designated as interstates, while five roads in the township are classified as arterial roads; US70 and its Bypass, NC86, NC57, Old NC86, and St. Mary's • Road (SR1002) . St. Mary's Road angles northeast out of Hillsborough and provides a major route between Hillsborough and northern Orange County. Orange Grove Road (SR1006) and Old NC10 (SR1710) are classified as collector roads. All other roads provide a local level of service. The objective of any component of a transportation system, such as a street or highway, is to accommodate a specific amount of traffic while providing the operator with an acceptable level of service. A level of service 'C' is frequently used as an appropriate criterion for highway and street design purposes and is defined by the North Carolina Department of Transportation as a zone of stable flow with speed and maneuverability more closely controlled by higher volumes. Levels of service range from 'A, ' which is a 3.9-4 122 condition marked by low volume and high speed, to the forced flow operations at low speeds marked by an 'F' level of service. While all the Township roads are currently operating within acceptable limits, the 1987 Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan, adopted by the Town of Hillsborough, reported that many of the major area roads outside the Town limits are approaching desirable limits and one road within the Town limits, Churton Street, is over capacity. The North Carolina Department of Transportation Highway Capacity Manual gives 8,000 vehicles per day (vpd) as the capacity for a two-lane urban arterial with a level of service 'C' and a forty-five mph speed limit. IT Recorded traffic counts in 1987 were 7,500 vpd for US70 Bypass east of Town, 7,100 vpd for NC86 south of old NC10, and 6,500 vpd for NC86 north of US70 Bypass. The remaining arterial and collector roads in the Township had traffic counts well within acceptable limits. Average 1987 traffic counts on the remaining arterial roads where they enter the Township ranged from 1,600 vpd on Orange Grove Road to 2,100 on NC57. St. Mary's Road had a 1987 count of 1,100 vpd in neighboring Eno Township. Capacities on these roads, given a level of service 'C' and a 45 mph speed limit ranged upwards from 5,250 vpd. Even at 55 mph, capacities ranged from 2,100 on St. Mary's Road to 2,790 on NC57. The general capacity at level of service 'C' for an interstate with four lanes total is 54,000 vehicles per day. The 1986 average daily traffic count for 1-85 at Hillsborough reached 31,500 vehicles per day. Even at level of service 'B, ' which indicates stable flow at speeds equal or greater than 55 mph, the traffic count is well under the capacity of 48,000 vehicles per day. Agriculture Hillsborough Township has experienced a continuous and significant loss of agricultural lands as a result of farmland conversion over the last three decades. Between 1955 and 1977, the year the North Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service discontinued its township cropland counts, Hillsborough Township lost 27% of its crop and pasture lands. Anecdotal, evidence from two sources since then indicates the trend has continued. The first source is the Orange County Agricultural Extension Service. They estimate that approximately 450 acres of 3.9-5 123 Hillsborough Township crop and pasture land had been removed from production between 1981 and 1987. The second source of evidence is specific enrollment trends in the Orange County use value taxation program. The program, which began in the early 1980's, allows land owners whose property meets certain agricultural production or forest management criteria to have that property taxed at its use value rather than the higher market value. In the five year period from 1982 to 1987 the • overall acreage enrolled in the program remained relatively unchanged, increasing less than 1% from 3,665 acres to 3,698 acres. If property that was exempt from all taxation in 1982 but taxed and enrolled in the program in 1987 is removed from the total, though, the total acreage enrolled dropped 7% in the five year period. • . More telling, the number of parcels enrolled in the program increased from 43 to 66 while the average parcel size dropped from 85 acres to 56 acres. This implies two things. First, smaller land owners, who may initially have thought that the tax benefits of enrolling in the program were not worth the increased regulation, are now taking advantage of the program in the face of increasing assessments. Second, the trend implies that parts of large parcels are being subdivided, with the new lots being sold for development purposes. Even with the conversion trends, agriculture is still important to the northern tier of the Township. During 1987, ten beef producers, one dairy farm, one hog farm, and one poultry farm were located in Hillsborough Township. Farm income from Hillsborough Township comes to about 10% of the County total, about $2.5 million in 1985. Natural Environmental Constraints Hillsborough Township contains four natural environmental constraints to development activity; floodplains, steep slopes, water supply watershed, and poor soils. Floodplains: Floodplains cover 306 acres of the Township outside the municipal and extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Town. Areas of flood prone soils account for another 329 acres. Together, they account for 7% of the land area in the County's planning jurisdiction. The largest portion of floodplain/flood prone soils exists along the Eno River. Other significant areas exist along Cates Creek and Strouds Creek. Steep Slopes: Slopes of 15% or greater present a constraint • 3.9-6 124 to development because of the high erosion potential that can result from development activity. Steep slopes in the Township are generally associated with stream valleys, especially the Eno River. The most significant area of steep slopes in the Township is at Occoneechee Mountain, between I- 85 and the Eno River in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of Hillsborough. Water Supply Watershed: A portion of the Upper Eno Watershed extends into Hillsborough Township from the west. Two impoundments in the watershed, Corporation Lake and Lake Ben Johnson, respectively serve as the drinking water supplies, for the Orange-Alamance Water System and the Town of Hillsborough. Additionally, about five hundred acres of the Little River Watershed, which drains into the Little River Reservoir, an impoundment serving the water needs of the city of Durham, lies along the northern boundary of the Township. Poor Soils: Most of the area outside the Town's planning jurisdiction contains soils that are suitable for both agricultural and urban development. Scattered areas, though, especially in the northern tier of the Township, are characterized by soils with a .heavy clay content. Poor percolation and the potential for shrink-swell associated with these soils create problems for building foundations and the use of septic tanks. Cultural and Natural Resources Certain areas of Hillsborough Township possess unique or exemplary natural and physical characteristics that are of great value. The value is not necessarily monetary. It may be historical, biological, spiritual, or of value to the planning process. The most important biological resources in the Township are the Eno River and Occoneechee Mountain. Two species of special concern, the Atlantic Pigtoe and Notched Rainbow, have been recorded in the Eno River east of Town. A species of special concern in one that exists in small populations, is faced with major habitat loss in Orange County, or is the target of exploitation. Occoneechee Mountain is one of the most significant biological sites in Orange County. The flora of the Mountain and the north slope area known as 'Panther's Den' include large stands of mature mesic hardwoods, over twenty species of ferns, and at least four species identified by the State as endangered or threatened. 3.9-7 • 125 The Town of Hillsborough has one of the richest histories of any town in North Carolina, a wealth that extends outside the Town limits. Two private homes east of Town have been identified by the State Division of Archives and History as architecturally and/or historically significant to the area. One of the homes, Ayr Mount, is on the National Register of Historical Places. The eighteenth century grave sites of Gov. Thomas Burke and one of the oldest Meeting of Friends in the State are north of Town. Eight archaeological sites outside • the Town's corporate limits have been recorded with the State Archaeology Branch. The spiritual and community life of the Township is focused on the Town of Hillsborough. Several rural churches, though, serve as the nucleus of long standing, stable rural communities. Existina Land Use Hillsborough Township's 15,100 acres can be broken down into . three administrative jurisdictions, the Town of Hillsborough, County planning jursidiction, and the Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) which is land adjacent to the Town's municipal boundaries for which Town land use regulations may still apply. The acreages for each area are as follows: Acreage Percentage of Township Hillsborough Town 1,950 12.9 Hillsborough ETJ 3,250 21.5 County Jurisdiction 9,900 65.6 TOTAL 15,100 100.0 Land use within the 9,900 acres in the county's jurisdiction can be broken down in the following manner: Classification Acreage Percentage Commercial 96 0.9 Industrial 20 0.2 Institutional 48 0.5 Residential 1,299 13.1 <1 acre/unit (327) (3.3) 1-5 acres/unit (640) (6.4) 5.01-10 acres/unit (332) (3.4) Public/Quasi-Public Open Space 413 4.2 • Managed Forest 493 5.0 Agriculture 2,324 23.5 Undeveloped/Other 5,207 52.6 TOTAL 9,900 100.0 3.9-8 • 126 Figure 3- portrays the breakdown grapically. With the • exception of less agriculture and more dense residential • development, these figure are similar to those in the extraterritotrial jurisdiction of the Town of Hillsborough. Figure 3- HILLSBOROUGH TWP. LAND USE, ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION L. Pubiwg'-'—'— 5.01-10 264% Iimemed Peas? 5.011 1 4C" Other 62 1-6 419.8% 25.254 • Agriculture* MI5% All Land Use Residential Acres/Unit Ooureee Ors PleneloO Dept..1 ? Development Trends The level of development activity in Hillsborough Township from 1981 to 1987 was among the highest in Orange County. During that time only Chapel Hill Township saw the creation of more subdivided lots than the 483 created in Hillsborough Township. Fully 70% of those lots were located in the County planning jurisdiction south of Town, with 87 lots accessing Old NC86 and 180 accessing onto new state highway NC86. Eighteen percent of the lots were created in the Town of Hillsborough and its extraterritorial jurisdiction, while the remaining 3.9-9 127 twelve percent were created in the County's jurisdiction north of Town. The opening of 1-40 will further stimulate development in the Township. The proportion of development activity in each region of the Township, however, is unlikely to vary significantly solely as a result of the interstate's completion. Currently, the only access to I-40 from the northern tier of the Township is Churton Street through the center of Town. The average 1987 daily traffic count for the street was 12,000 vehicles per day, a figure far over desirable capacity. This could easily discourage development in the northern tier of the Township that might otherwise take advantage of increased access to Chapel Hill and southern Durham County. The 1987 Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan adopted by the Town of Hillsborough, though, proposes a loop around the Town to alleviate the congestion that Churton Street currently faces. The Treyburn development, covering 5,200 acres in northern Durham County, has the potential to stimulate development in Hillsborough Township, particularly in the Town and points north. The project is expected to create 20,000 to 40,000 new jobs and 4,000 housing units for a projected 12,600 new residents by the year 2005. Certainly, Orange County will attract some of the new housing demand generated by Treyburn, although most of Orange County's share will likely go to Little River and Eno Townships. The impact on Hillsborough Township will likely be as an activity center to provide, services for outlying residential development. Traffic into the Town for schools, shopping, and other non-employment activity will increase as a result of Treyburn. 3.9-10 126 PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND ANALYSIS The structure of the Plan's framework begins with the organizing concepts - policy statements around which the Land Use Plan for Hillsborough Township is constructed. These concepts state a general consensus as to what are the desirable patterns of growth for the area and take into account patterns of development, environmental constraints, and the stated desires of area residents. The second component of the framework consists of future projections for population, housing stock, and land requirements. These projections are not a comment on the desirability of expected growth. They merely indicate the amount of growth expected based on historical trends. The organizing concepts and projections are then used to create allocation guidelines. Criteria are established which distribute land into Land Use Plan categories initially defined in the body of the Land Use element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Distribution is reflected in both text and map form. Organizing Concepts The following policy statements regarding Hillsborough Township represent the organizing concepts around which the Land Use Plan for Hillsborough Township is constructed: 1) The Town of Hillsborough is the major growth and development center in the Township. 2) The more intensive commercial, industrial, and residential land uses are most appropriately located within the Town's corporate limits and areas adjacent to the Town likely to become urban. 3) The agricultural and rural character of the northern tier of Hillsborough Township should be maintained and protected from adverse environmental and economic impacts. 4) The rural residential character of the Township south of Town should be maintained. 5) Duke Forest lands, which are valuable for their 3.9-11 12 research, recreational, and open space use, should be protected from the adverse impacts of surrounding development. 6) Public water supply watersheds in the Township should be developed only in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on water quality. Population and Land Requirement Projections One of the initial and fundamental steps in the land use planning process is calculating the amount of land required to accommodate projected growth in a given area. Generally, the amount of land required for residential and associated • non-residential uses are directly related to the size of the population. Tables 3- through 3- summarize the population trends and estimated land requirements for Hillsborough Township during the plan period. Table 3- summarizes population estimates and projections for population, while Table 3- projects the number of new homes required to meet the demands of new residents. The average household sizes used for projections in Table 3- assume that the trends towards smaller household sizes will continue, leveling off towards the end of the plan period. TABLE 3- POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND ESTIMATES, 1987-2005 HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP, ALL JURISDICTIONS a 1980 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 Total Population 8,599 11,427 12,858 15,653 19,055 23,196 • Population Change from ----- 2,828 4,259 7,054 10,456 14,597 1980(number) a Source: 1980 Census of Population b Source: Orange County Planning Department Based on an exponential extrapolation of the average growth rate from 1970-1987 of 4.01% annually. 3.9-12 130 TABLE 3- HOUSING PROJECTIONS AND ESTIMATES, 1987-2005 HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP, ALL JURISDICTIONS 1980 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 Total a Population 8,599 11,427 12,858 15,653 19,055 23,196 Avg. Household Size 2.66 2.65 2.62 2.56 2.50 2.50 Total Housing Units 3,233 4,312 4,908 6,114 7,622 9,278 Change in Units • from 1980 ---- 1,079 1,675 2,811 4,389 6,045 a From Table 3-. b Source: 1980 Census of Housing and Orange County Planning Department statistics. .1.101100=11° TABLE 3- LAND USE REQUIREMENTS, 1987-2005 HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP, ALL JURISDICTIONS 1987-1995 1995-2005 1987-2005 • a DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED 1,802 3,164 4,966 b RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE • REQUIRED 1,946 3,417 5,363 TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 2,193 3,738 5,931 a From Table 3-. b Based on a density of 1.08 acres/unit, the average size of a lot subdivided from 1981 to 1987. 3.9-13 ffer- .131 The projected population of 23,196 residents in the year 2005 would require an estimated 4,966 dwelling units beyond what existed in 1987. This would place an additional 5,363 acres into residential uses. This is based on an average lot size of 1.08 acres, the size of an average lot subdivided in all jurisdictions of the Township from 1980 to 1987. The lot size used, much smaller than in other townships, reflects the ability of the infrastructure to serve higher densities. Total acreage required between 1987 and 2005 takes into account residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial needs. Institutional and commercial uses are most directly tied to residential increases, and a multiplier of one acre of new commercial/institutional acreage for every twenty acres of new residential acreage is used. Industrial acreage requirements do not have the direct association with residential acreage that other non-residential uses do. Areas of the Township that are suitable for industrial uses should be set aside for such purposes. Three hundred acres are set aside for industrial requirements during the course of the plan period. Allocation of Growth The primary task of the a land use plan is to geographically allocate the anticipated growth throughout the Township in accordance with County-wide goals and policies, as well as the Township organizing concepts. In actuality, the amount of land allocated to accommodate this growth will be substantially greater than the calculated need in order to allow for variations in the availability of land and the exercise of free market choice. The following allocation guidelines incorporate the descriptive framework of the County land use classification system: *Higher intensity residential and commercial development, which would most appropriately be served by a centralized water and sewer system, should be directed first to suitable vacant land within the Town of Hillsborough and secondly to the Town's transition areas. *Commercial and industrial development occurring outside the Town's planning jurisdiction should be located in 3.9-14 132 • activity nodes, which provide a more reasonable and efficient alternative to strip development. *Agricultural lands in the northern tier of the Township should be maintained in acknowledgment of the viability of the land for that use. *Rural non-farm residential development should be allocated to the southern tier of the Township to avoid negative environmental or economic impacts on • agricultural uses in the northern portion of the Township. *Development at levels of intensity that create negative impacts on public interest areas or public • water supply watersheds should be directed away from those areas. With the allocation guidelines in mind, information about Hillsborough Township land is filtered through a set of criteria that evaluates the suitability of certain land uses • to specific areas. The information is then used in the • classification of land in the Township outside the municipal • boundary and extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Town of • Hillsborough. Distribution of Land Use Plan Categories Land in Hillsborough Township outside to Town's planning jurisdiction is classified, into the land use categories • listed below. Distribution is based on expressed policies outlined in the Township Land Use Plan, allocation guidelines contained in the Land Use Component of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, and the potential effects of the physical change projected for the Township. RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS: Land classified as such consists primarily of slopes greater than 15% and floodplains. This land is considered unsuitable for most development activity. AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION AREAS: The classification refers to land assessed under County provisions for use value taxation of farm and managed forest lands, as well, as for active agricultural lands not enrolled in the use value taxation • program. Most of these lands are concentrated in the northern section of the Township. These lands are not identified within transition areas. 3.9-15 133 PUBLIC INTEREST AREAS: Public Interests Areas are public or quasi-public lands, such as Duke Forest, that provide significant educational and recreational opportunities. These lands also form a crucial component of the County's open space system. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED: A portion of the Upper Eno watershed, which furnishes the Town of Hillsborough and the Orange- , Alamance Water System with its water supply, lies along the western boundary of the Township. Additionally, a small portion of the Little River Watershed, which drains into the Little River Reservoir in northern Durham County, lies along e$ the northern boundary of the Township. This classification refers to land that should be protected from development that might cause water quality problems for existing and potential drinking water supplies. WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREA: Land in the Water Supply Watershed that drains directly into water supply impoundments and feeder streams below the first tributary prior to entering the impoundment are designated as Water Quality Critical Areas. These lands require an even greater degree of protection from the adverse impacts of development. AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL: The northern area of the Township, where agriculture is an important land uses, is classified in this manner. RURAL RESIDENTIAL: Much of the land in the southern third of the Township is classified as Rural Residential, which indicates that the most suitable land use is low density, non-farm residential development. TEN YEAR TRANSITION: Land classified in this manner indicates that public services from the Town of Hillsborough are likely within ten years. Most of the land adjacent to the Town's planning jurisdiction on the south and east and in close proximity to major intersections is designated as Ten Year Transition. Approximately nine acres north of the Town, adjacent to the Highland Woods subdivision, is also classified in this manner. The land use in much of Ten Year Transition area consists of medium density subdivisions already served with a public water supply from the Town of Hillsborough. TWENTY YEAR TRANSITION: Most of the land adjacent to the Town's planning jurisdiction that is less developed than land • in the Ten Year Transition areas is designated as Twenty Year 3.9-16 134 Transition. This land is predominantly to the south and east of Town. In addition to classifying the land in the County, the County's land use strategy has been to identify appropriate activity nodes in each Township. The purpose is to direct commercial and industrial uses that choose to locate outside of the Town's planning jurisdiction to the most appropriate areas, avoiding strip development and promoting an efficient land use pattern focused on major intersections. Four such nodes are designated in Hillsborough Township. REFERENCE: HB-1 (Coleman Loop) LOCATION: NC86 and Coleman Loop North (SR1334) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood This node is located at the intersection of an arterial, NC86 and Coleman Loop. It was created to take advantage of existing commercial activity. There are no major environmental constraints to small scale commercial development in the node, nor would such development disrupt the surrounding residential community. The scale of development is limited by the lack of public water and sewer. REFERENCE: HB-2 (Major Business Forms) LOCATION: NC86 and Coleman Loop South (SR1332) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Industrial This node, located at the intersection of the arterial NC86 and Coleman Loop South, was created to take advantage of an existing industrial use at the intersection. There are no major environmental constraints at the site to hinder the development or expansion of small scale, rural industries. The scale of future development in the node will be limited by the lack of public water and sewer and the capacity of NC86 to handle additional traffic. REFERENCE: HB-3 (St. Mary's) LOCATION: IIS70 Bypass and St. Mary's Rd. (SR1002) PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial Transition This node is located at the intersection of two arterial roads. Commercial uses presently exists in and near the node • There are no major environmental constraints to development within the node to hinder medium density residential or additional commercial development. There are constraints, though, imposed by the arrangement of the roads and its access points which would require redesign to safely 3.9-17 135 accommodate additional commercial development. A sewer force main exists along US70 Bypass, adding important infrastructure necessary for more intensive development. REFERENCE: HB-4 (Harmon Young) LOCATION: Interstate 85 and NC86 PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial-Industrial Transition This node, focused on the intersection of an Interstate and an arterial road, contains a number of existing commercial and industrial uses. A satellite to this node exists farther south on NC86, separated from the rest of the node by a medium density residential neighborhood. There are no major environmental constraints to hinder more intensive development in the main portion of the node. With the possible exception of the area immediately to the south of the intersection of Old NC10 and NC86, there would be no disruption of areas with a residential character. Additional development in the satellite should be restricted to avoid adverse impacts on Duke Forest and neighboring residential communities. Although the ability of NC86 to handle additional traffic may hinder some development, the existence of sewer service and the road system within the node make it a good site for new commercial and industrial development. • 3.9-18 misorISSEMENION k/P Ffr 1 ,.....mar---•,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .- t_ : Er.F• Or .r• . 1;36 ,,,, ,,,, „ „.,,,,, „, v.,... •: ....• . 4.1..• 9 1-4- a "''' 4 If ■ •t_., gi.0 i i ■••{Vf's ,".•• •Q j4....., ..Q... PI • 1 / ir, '''V.4• ,,,,, • a a 1 PP • --.-:,-7-..:.: •'-:?.- , c 1 k ---' , , / - 10:' • IVO' -. .1., .r■ .t.r.r, ."( • 64;• - • 'f.1-`,1,-;"- - -tor, ,r__, ,..., , • J.745. Plc:.m.er,I. I • 4,,..1,-, . •,,,...: 41 . .. i . c., ir6.,- * • 4 • - •1 te--7 .4'44' .1.. . '1153:4 jr,i ••■„ '' ' "144 -...-44. Satit.• .00 afirr.11.... .,•;...I '.., '.:::ttlyr......„," 4.f,- • -• ' e '../ iiat Aphowilli. f 1,,,iii ...., l if./ .4 --4--r--r yit ivin "..,...:741 . --E.A ..,,!..4 ,. , 4 r ,;111 ,q.. 1. t.A ZA. 6 -•,110101.1:.„ti4.1 • - 1;1,111.4111M4 1 _ *.-..V. %, 6 -. '111101■4:19::0 / 110,51tilikr. g ... -r'' 1 . :.:.: * - it ' i•..'0 : -":4-• t . *II k.,„',;:,"'-c.4 • • e 010 ' t li 111Plkikt: **•- 7V4/1111114:4 ilM:141..44e.",4'r --24 •'''• ,i'kir Cil - .- z— a-._•,-,... ■=4.4 % ' ,',1„I .;41 ._ • ...:4_ z...-I • • ' IV, -".. ,. . 11 '''',..'14 N...---;-=—••-`..••• . ':;.i,' • V .• :... Iii;er, ..-k fel,,P4 .4 ,...../ .-%,....., —'•.. :11; lz44,.'17. 41r■:-i 1'.1 •"4.3 ....,4). , . ,:.:,.) '.:e..,, ,ii:10 • ( :...' :- ... ,:-' 4,.;,:;.;dir...-- ,,„„ •,„„,„. .... ....-- . 4:-........ ;111' Illir‘ f4g; lilt Id, ' .:. ..e- --.:= •I 1 I •, r '.. . .." ..;■■• ---..- I ,i, ,1,...,11" 1 41tria, ..4('''.,AdAl.-1'01 e':'r ..."-:.:. -ii.---" :I- iii 111,1 71-14 -mr14.1,„'" ",,, ' Z01:41- '- 141,1-04,...-2 ,i.X.:7:4:-:::::;:,.ll,„„1„.11rir;1.144:411,1114 • illir ilantA14111.4•1 MI .1. , .1 t „.1 1!„„.......s.:... _____...2.41,1.......„... .11 • IT 1st"111111171111111.11119111%, i 0,y■ le l!I ,,..,1.79A0r‘.....E-r.... A A 1.11 fit , r '''''''41"1"4=44711' •-7■I'''' 1 P. I 174`r4;A:-... —= . 4 # evii=a, ... . 01..b. z- - . A 4 4 1 1114....,71111111111111111111M...mr_val,, irl1111111,1t..0... .,,. v.. ,i.mitirmir. u.s.uminnr.IIISIILIIIIL . 4.4.4 a4.1 :-"Ilholl111111111111.111•1•11111111N. :`,AsaliiiIMILINIMMI , A A 4 , 41 VAILL trainiGAIINILAIIIIII011111111111, __-*,,, ?mamma ma.VINE A A 4 a 4 Wm•411111nitallriMmillilliiir44111". 'A.... ...._aaa .4 . Arnaseemaiitwasses:uts _.:-.mey 46•Malsommmilikvissiiiii• •iii..mililiwiminoliiim , m., ,, ........,.... """taralIMMIMM"11- IIIIIIIIINWISIMILIIIII PEN,11... ... c P.F.. t• N HILLSBOROUGH TOORSHIP LAHD USE PLAN ALaivier NODES IAND USE CATEGORIES 0 Rural Neighborhood 9? Rural lndustrisl Ea Agriotaltirel Areas " Resource Protection Areas = Cestunercial Transition Ei Public Irtterest Amu • 0 Agricultural Residential 1:5 Rural Residential' DI 10 Tear Transition 121 COMM 'al-inclustrial Transition RISDICTIONS El 20 Tess Transition JU Supply Watershed ig Town of liillsborOulth 2 via. oWater Quality Critical Area El Town Extricerrstarral. Jurisdiction. ROADS - ..,,......, ......Collector sasessass...... Interstate ®• . scam: =251 o awcr JAAFT 6-20-88 PB MINUTES 8 station pond. Torgan noted that there were signs of easements on the Duke Power property that this area is a part of the Eno River State Park. MOTION: Yuhasz moved to recommend approval of the Planning Staff recommendation and designate the area from the north edge of Brigadoon Subdivision to the existing Rural Residential area as Rural Residential rather than Agricultural Residential excluding the Duke Power property. Seconded by Cantrell. VOTE: Unanimous. (3) Hillsborough Township Component Presentation by Brad Torgan. The presentation at the public hearing summarized the differences between the existing Plan and the proposed amendments (attached on pages of these minutes) . No public comment was made at that time. Three changes have been made to the draft since the conclusion of the public hearing. The first is the designation of the portion of the Little River watershed in Hillsborough Township as a water supply watershed. This has been done to make the Plan consistent with earlier staff recommendations to designate all drinking water supply watersheds in Orange Count as such, regardless of whether or not they directly serve Orange County residents. The second change is the inclusion of approximately nine acres adjacent to Highland Woods subdivision in Ten Year Transition. The third change is alter the boundary of the Upper Eno watershed to the ease, reflecting more accurate topographic data. The Planning Staff recommends• approval of the amended text and map and incorporation into Section 3.9 of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Staff also recommends that the Planning Board send to the Board of Commissioners a proposed Resolution of Adoption (attached on page of these minutes) . The resolution is pursuant to Section 2.2.13 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (Comprehensive Plan Adoption) . The Board of Commissioners will consider the mom t3 9 proposal for decision on July 5, 1988. MOTION: Best moved to recommend approval of Planning Staff recommendation. Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: Unanimous. (4) Chapel Hill. Township Component (North of Joint Planning Area) Presentation by Brad Torgan. Torgan noted there had been the addition of resource protection areas and agricultural areas. The Transition Area is brought down from Eno Township to the Southern Railroad right-of-way (originally Rural-Residential) , which reflects the plans that Durham has as a part of the Urban Growth Area. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended text and map and incorporation into Section 3.12 of the Land Use Element of. the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Staff also recommends that the Planning Board send to the Board of Commissioners the proposed Resolution of Adoption (attached on page of these minutes) . The resolution is pursuant to Section 2.2.13 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (Comprehensive Plan Adoption) . The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on July 5, 1988. MOTION: Best moved to recommend approval of Planning Staff recommendation. VOTE: Unanimous. b. Zoning Ordinance Amendments (1) Article 9 - Signs (Noncommercial Copy) (2) Article 6 - Application of Dimensional Requirements (Flag Lots) (3) Article 22 - Definitions (Flag Lots) c. Subdivision Regulations Amendments (1) Section IV-B-5 Lot Layout (Flag Lots) (2) Section II - Definitions (Flag Lots) These items were presented by Marvin Collins. 139 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 5, 1988 Action Agenda Item # G-9 SUBJECT: DRAFT CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN (NORTH OF THE JOINT PLANNING AREA) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _x_No ATTACHMENT[S] : INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad Torgan Draft Chapel Hill Township, North of the JPA, Land Use Plan Draft 23 May 88 Public Hearing Minutes Proposed Resolution of Adoption TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Draft 20 June 88 Planning Board Hillsborough - 732-8181 Minutes Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of a proposed. amendment to the Chapel Hill Township component of the Land Use Element, Orange County Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND: When the Orange County Land Use Plan was adopted in 1981, a five year update schedule was specified. In accordance with the schedule the Little River and Cedar Grove components were revised in 1986 and 1987, respectively. The Bingham Township component has been prepared and will be presented at the next Joint Planning public hearing. The components for Cheeks, Eno, and Hillsborough Townships have also been prepared and were, along with Chapel Hill Township, north of the Joint Planning Area, presented at the May 23, 1988, regularly scheduled Orange County public hearing. The Plan update process for the area officially began with a public information meeting on January 6, 1988, at which time the plan strategy was presented. A public meeting involving the TACs from Hillsborough, Eno, and Chapel Hill Townships was held on February 2, 1988 for the purpose of presenting background data and distributing questionnaires on community preferences. A final public meeting was held on March 9, 1988 to • 140 present alternative plans. Because of limited Chapel Hill TAC involvement in the initial stages of the planning process, no TAC recommendation was sought. . The presentation at the public hearing summarized the differences between the existing Plan and the proposed amendments. No public comment was made at that time. No substantive changes were recommended by the Planning Staff following the public hearing. The Planning Board, at its June 20, 1988 meeting, endorsed the Planning Staff recommendation as presented at the May 23, 1988 public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the attached resolution, incorporating the proposed Section 3.12 (Chapel Hill Township) as part of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Planning Board. 141 A RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 3.12 OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT (CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP) OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners adopted the Orange County Land Use Plan on September 2, 1981; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has from time to time adopted amendments to the Oranae County Land Use Plan because of: 1. Changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; 2. An error or omission in the Plan; or 3. A change in policies, objectives, principles, or standards governing the physical development of the County; and WHEREAS, Amendments to Sections 2.2. 12 through 2. 12. 14 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, adopted by the Board of Commissioners on April 4, 1988, redefined the nature, intent and method of adopting the Comprehensive, Plan for Orange County; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned amendments included changing the Oranae County Land Use Plan to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for Oranae Country; and WHEREAS, Article 2.2.13 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, states that the Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan and portions thereof from the Planning Board, shall adopt them by resolutions; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May 23, 1988 for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on amendments to Section 3.12 of the Land Use EleMent -(Chapel Hill Township, Comprehensive plan for Oranae County; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Planning Board, at its meeting of June 20, 1988, recommended adoption of amendments to Section 3.12 of the Land Use Element, Comprehensive Plan for Oranae County: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of 142 Commissioners that: 1. The draft Chapel Hill Township, North of the Joint Planning Area, Land Use Plan is hereby adopted and designated as Section 3.12 of the Land Use Element, Comprehensive Plan for Orange County, N.C. Adopted this day of 198 143 3.12 CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP, NORTH OF THE JOINT PLANNING AREA TOWNSHIP PROFILE: SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Chapel Hill Township, located in the southeastern part of Orange County, occupies 46,700 acres and contains about 18% of the County's total land area. The towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro are within the Township. Most of the Township's land use is governed by the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, first adopted as an amendment to the Orange County Land Use Plan in October 1986. Approximately 4,240 acres, however, lie to the north of the Joint Planning Area, representing approximately 9% of the land area in Chapel Hill Township. This section of the Township lies within the overlapping spheres of influence of Chapel Hill/Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Durham, leading to substantial residential growth pressure. Socio-Economic Features In 1980 approximately 551 people lived in Chapel Hill Township north of the Joint Planning Area (JPA) . This amounted to less than 2% of Chapel Hill Township's total population of 50,572 residents. By 1987, the area had grown to an estimated 886 persons, an average annual growth rate of 7% per year. This growth rate translates into a doubling of population every eleven years and is more than double the growth rate of both Orange County (3.26% per year) and Chapel Hill Township as a whole (3.05% per year) during the same period. Much of this growth can be explained by placing the area in a regional context. Virtually all of Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA is within ten miles of major employment and commercial centers in Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and Durham. Upon completion, 1-40 will bisect the area, providing direct access to additional employment centers in Research Triangle Park and Raleigh. Housing Stock The Housing stock of Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA in 1980 consisted of 204 units. In 1987 that number had increased by 62% to an estimated 331 homes. Single family, site built homes predominate in the area, outnumbering manufactured housing by a ratio of two to one. Of the approximately 110 manufactured homes in the area, 3. 12- . 144 fifty-one are in mobile home parks. Those parks cover less than 0.5% of the area's total land area. Circulation A modified version of the North Carolina Highway Functional Classification system is used to describe the County's road network. This system describes parts of the network based on mobility and access factors. The most important roads, interstates and arterial roads, provide the shortest travel time between activity centers. Roads of lesser importance, collector roads, do not provide as good a service function, but do provide large areas with access to major roads. Local roads function in the most limited service capacity, but in the aggregate serve to provide large land areas with access to the collector and arterial systems. In part because of the area's physical boundaries, the circulation system for Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA cannot be separated out from either the Joint Planning Area to the south or Hillsborough and Eno Townships to the north. At its most narrow north-south point the region is only 1/4 mile wide and nowhere exceeds 1 1/2 mile wide. While all major north-south routes between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill pass through the area, few east-west roads traverse the area. There are no major intersections in the area, although the junction of the collector road New Hope Church Road (SR1723) and the arterial road NC86 lies just: to the south within the Joint Planning Area. Agriculture While agricultural and managed forest lands make up only a small portion of the area's total land area, they nonetheless provide an important component of the rural character much of the . area has. With the increasing development pressures radiating from Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Durham, however, it is a component that is rapidly declining. The Orange County use value taxation program, begun in the early 1980's, allows land owners whose property meets certain agricultural production or forest management criteria to have that property taxed at its use value rather than the higher market value. Changes in program enrollment can give some idea of the trends in farmland conversion taking place. In the five year period from 1982 to 1987, the amount land in Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA enrolled in the program declined from 875 acres to 494 acres, a drop of 57%. For land in the program classified as agricultural, as opposed to managed forest, the decline was even more precipitous, 3.12- 145 dropping 85% from 557 acres in 1982 to only 82 acres in 1987. Land enrolled in the program as managed forest increased slightly, from 318 acres to 412 acres during the same time. Of the 494 acres in the program in 1987, two-thirds had converted from agricultural to managed forest during the preceding five years. The criteria for a managed forest designation are less stringent than for an agricultural designation and require less intensive use of the land. In some instances, the transition of land from the more intensive agricultural use to the less intensive managed forest use may portend future development of the property. Natural Environmental Constraints Chapel Hill Township north of the Joint Planning Area contains the following environmental constraints to development activity; floodplains, steep slopes, and poor soils. Floodplains: Virtually all of the area's 100-year floodplain acreage lies along Stoney Creek and its tributaries. The stream flows through a relatively narrow valley so the extent of flooding during 100-year floods is not great. The floodplain rarely extends further than three hundred feet from the center of the stream and covers only sixty-seven acres, less than 2% of the area. Poorly drained soils associated with floodplains cover an additional 129 acres or another 3% of the region's land area. Steep Slopes: Steep slopes present a constraint to development by creating the potential for increased runoff and erosion. Steep slopes and the soils associated with them also pose problems in the use of septic tanks. Steep slopes in the portion of Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA are fairly extensive, encompassing some 787 acres or almost 19% of the total land area. Most of the steep slopes are confined to the Couch Mountain tract of Duke Forest and the stream valleys of Stoney Creek and its tributaries. Soils: Two soil associations predominate in the area; Appling-Helena to the east and Georgeville-Herndon-Tatum to the west. The soils of the latter association tend to be well-drained and are suitable for most land uses. Appling- Helena soils, however, are somewhat more clayey,, posing problems for septic tank absorption fields and many building types because of poor absorption and shrink-swell problems. 3.12- • - 146 BkiatiRM Land Use Chapel Hill Township as a whole consists of 46,700 acres, with the section north of the Joint Planning Area containing about 4,240 acres, 9% of the Township's total. Current land uses of the 4,240 acres can be broken down in the following manner: Acres % of Township Commercial 13 0.3 Institutional 18 0.4 Residential: 584 13.8 <1 unit/acre (19.5) (3.3) 1-5 acres/unit (341) (58.4) 5.01-10 acres/unit (223) (38.2) Public/Quasi-Public Open Space 404 9.5 Managed Forest 411 9.7 Agriculture 82 1.9 Undeveloped/Other 2,728 64.3 TOTAL 4,240 100.0 Land Use, Chapel Hill Township north of the Joint Planning Area Agriculture LOX Managed Forest O.IX , 5.01-10 aux ,$:-:.x.:: —./ ftmefiammi—blbscim • .::.x.:-:•:•:•:1: -.-:•:-:-:•:-:-:-:. O Toted 3.e%1 .::::::::::::::::::::::::•::, ther $43%..:1:::: :::::1.::::1" --' ,... All land uses Residential Acreage/unit Other Inchubse=develops:1 This breakdown of land use is similar to that of the Joint Planning Area. 3.12- Dexalpamt Trends As mentioned above, the housing stock of Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA increased almost by almost two-thirds from 1980 to 1987. This means that as many homes will have been built between 1980 and 1990 as the 204 homes that existed prior to 1980. Subdivision activity in the area has also been high. From 1980 to 1987, seventy-eight new lots were created, covering 218 acres or 5% of the total land area. High rates of development and subdivision activity are expected to continue in Chapel Hill Township, as in surrounding Townships. Development pressures from Chapel Hill, Durham, and Hillsborough will continue to expand into the area and the completion of 1-40 and the interchange at New Hope Church Road will significantly decrease travel time to other employment centers in the Triangle. 3.12- - 148 • PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND APPLICATION The structure of the Plan's framework begins with the organizing concepts -- policy statements around which the Land Use. Plan for Chapel Hill Township north of the Joint Planning Area is constructed. These concepts state a general consensus as to what are the desirable patterns of growth for the area. Because of the region's close interrelationship with surrounding townships, some of the policy statements for the region will mirror those of Hillsborough Township, Eno Township, and the Joint Planning Area. Other variables represented in the policy statements reflect existing patterns of development, environmental constraints, and the stated desires of area residents. The second component of the framework consists of future projections for population, housing stock, and land requirements. These projections are not a comment on the desirability of expected growth. They merely indicate the amount of growth expected based on historical trends. The organizing concepts and projections are then used to create allocation guidelines. Criteria are established which distribute land into Land Use Plan categories initially defined in the body of the Land Use element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Distribution is reflected in both text and map form. Or anizing Concepts The following policy statements represent the organizing concepts around which the Land Use Plan for Chapel Hill Township north of the Joint Planning Area is constructed. 1. The rural residential character of the area should be maintained and be the predominant land use. 2. Duke Forest tracts, which are a valuable research and teaching facility and are available for public use, should be protected from adverse development pressures. 3. The existing open space system in Chapel Hill Township, including the area north of the Joint Planning Area, which includes Duke Forest and existing agricultural and forest lands, should be protected from intrusion by incompatible land uses. 4. Rural lands currently existing between the Chapel Hill/Carrboro urban area and Hillsborough should be preserved and maintained. 3. 12- 149 Population and Land Requirement Projections One of the initial and fundamental steps in the land use planning process is calculating the amount of land required to accommodate projected growth in a given area. Generally, the amount of land required for residential and associated non-residential uses are directly related to the size of the population. Tables 3- through 3- summarize the population trends and estimated land requirements for Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA during the plan period. Table 3- summarizes population estimates and projections for population, while Table 3- projects the number of new homes required to meet the demands of new residents. The average household sizes used for projections in Table 3- assume that the trends towards smaller household sizes will continue, leveling off towards the end of the plan period. The projected averages, though, are greater than those used for other townships. This is a reflection of construction trends in the area. The square footage of new site built homes in Chapel Hill Township has been larger than other areas of the County, approximately 46%, or 780 square feet greater during 1987. As such, a slightly higher average household size is projected. TABLE 3- POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND ESTIMATES, 1980-2005 CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP NORTH OF THE JOINT PLANNING AREA a b c c c c 1980 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 Total Population 551 886 1,086 1,524 2,140 3,005 Population Change from 1980 (number) --- 335 535 973 1,589 2,454 a Sources: 1980 Census of Population and Orange County Planning Department statistics b Source: Orange County Planning Department c Based on a standard expontential extrapolation of the average growth rate from 1980-1987 of 7.02% annually. 3.12- • X50 TABLE 3- HOUSING PROJECTIONS AND ESTIMATES, 1980-2005 CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP NORTH OF THE JOINT PLANNING AREA 1980 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 a TOTAL POPULATION 551 886 1,086 1,524 2,140 3,005 c b AVG. HOUSEHOLD SIZE 2.7 2.68 2.65 2.62 2.6 2.6 (Persons/household) b d TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 204 331 409 581 823 1,156 UNIT CHANGE FROM '80 --- 127 205 377 619 952 a From Table 3-. b Source: 1980 Census of Housing and Orange County Planning Department statistics. C Assumes continual proportional decrease of average household size to 2.6 persons/household in year 2000. d Source: Orange County Planning Department statistics. TABLE 3- LAND USE REQUIREMENTS, 1987-2005 CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP NORTH OF THE JOINT PLANNING AREA 1987-1995 1995-2005 1987-2005 a DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED 250 575 825 b c RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 700 1,150 1,850 TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 950 1,165 1,880 a From Table 3- b Based on a density of 2.8 acres/unit. This is the average size of a lot subdivided from 1980-1986. C Based on an average density of 2 acres/unit. 3.12- 151 The projected population of 3,005 residents in the year 2005 would require an estimated 825 homes beyond what existed in 1987. This would place an additional 1,880 acres of land into residential use. Through 1995, new residential acreage is based on the average size of a lot subdivided from 1980 to 1987. Beyond that point, escalating land prices and a diminishing availability will likely push the average lot size down. Two acres represents the most restrictive residential zoning category of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance in 1987. Residential development creates in its wake the need for land to accommodate commercial and other non-residential uses. The non-residential acreage requirement of thirty acres is not based on a quantitative formula. It is based, rather, on the expressed desires of area residents and the belief that the commercial and other non-residential needs of area residents can be adequately served in Hillsborough and Eno Townships, along with that portion of Chapel Hill. Township within the Joint Planning Area Allocation of Growth The primary task of the Land Use Plan is to geographically allocate growth throughout the area in accordance with County-wide goals and policies, as well as the area's organizing concepts. In actuality, the amount of land allocated to accommodate projected growth is likely to be greater than the calculated need. This allows for variations in the availability of land and the exercise of market forces. The allocation guidelines that follow for Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA are derived from County and area policies that create the process for channelling the directions of new growth. *Most of the area is best suited for low density, rural residential purposes and should be maintained in that use. *Duke Forest lands, which provide major educational and recreational opportunities, should be protected as public interest lands. *New commercial and industrial development should be discouraged in the area, and should instead be directed to more appropriate locations in Hillsborough and Eno Townships. 3.12- 152 With the allocation guidelines in mind, information about land use in the area was filtered through a set of location criteria, including the allocation guidelines, to determine whether a specific land use is appropriate for a particular area. Resulting analysis creates the basis for the classification of land in the area. Distribution of Land Use Plan Categories Land in Chapel Hill Township north of the Joint Planning Area falls into five land classifications. The distribution is based on expressed policies outlined in the land use plan for the area, the location criteria contained in the Land Use Component of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, and the potential effects of projected growth on the area. RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS: Land classified as such consists primarily of slopes greater than 15% and floodplains. This land is considered unsuitable for most development activity. AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION AREAS: The classification refers to land assessed under County provisions for use value taxation of farm and managed forest lands, as well as for active agricultural lands not enrolled in the use value taxation program. PUBLIC INTEREST AREAS: Public Interest Areas are public or quasi-public lands, such as Duke Forest, that provide significant educational and recreational opportunities. The Couch Mountain tract of Duke Forest, in the eastern portion of the area is also an important component of Orange County's open space system. RURAL RESIDENTIAL: Most of the land in Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA is classified as Rural Residential. The predominant use under this classification is low density, non-farm residential development. TWENTY YEAR TRANSITION AREA Approximately fifty acres north on the Southern Railroad, along the border with Eno Township, lies in an area that could be served by public water and/or sewer within the next twenty years. The area is within the Durham Urban Growth Area, as defined in the Durham 2005 Comprehensive Plan. There are no activity nodes in Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA. A commercial-indistrial transition node in Eno Township, however, extend as far south as the Southern Railroad in the northeastern corner of the area 3.12- 5bCifY .. "\ 1113 r 41,2 7.. ! /QlaAi" I 153 •ate ,:+cwt. •% • P 9� `` aw�Y A•■�Yl�l�y ...�, e ■■■iii■■■■■■M■!♦ • • ••' arrailarnar Amur • *1111111■■■t►'1 + �_ ea i �q tj la • fij:Y iiir ram gi m I§ ; - 0.4,, e Y--7,".)A I it 1,i.1 1 In >r. S s. N a o r cgo a O C -- _~ � •Iii t S M • a w J c� _ .�. qt r., ., • 0• room Er = o°+ a/ p_,.r-.;wr`s•1'. *'fit 4!�■• C 'A►4 �■M' �a� iY�i 146 =: 0 > z 0 E = ••rl , 1 $1, 11111111r=ilee..7.... law r..• m } • 'N • Aaun ° ....Aral 4. S K K `° 5 ' e i� i.Z 001 .a/.10e"7" ,,G L • ...ou./o l0 z = c- o A y00 2 a �; •o..■n1■■■..■in.a ,i.,;Ti 4 1° -. ‹,...:i� Y • /■.■ward '�.r•.�."M .1:77.::.4.-.`"-.,.."F:::$3='''.-r, p .■r�■■i...,■■ram $ 0 s — • • 1.■•k wor_■ A +i.■t`wr o■.c.or r rri 33 \■..t�f/..■is g �" IMF"' + rm. 8 �0.�A 1 8N •; a .-, - , u • t 803 `�r� IAA' 1 4•Q M1 ,��.623 � \ .2 1 , ago/ . ..±..„ r..i -.” 1 A 154RAFT 6-20-88 PB MINUTES 9 proposal for decision on July 5, 1988. MOTION: Best moved to recommend approval of Planning Staff recommendation. Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: Unanimous. (4) Chapel Hill Township Component (North of Joint Planning Area) Presentation by Brad Torgan. Torgan noted there had been the addition of resource protection areas and agricultural areas. The Transition Area is brought down from Eno Township to the Southern Railroad right-of-way (originally Rural-Residential) , which reflects the plans that Durham has as a part of the Urban Growth Area. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended text and map and incorporation into Section 3.12 of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Staff also recommends that the Planning Board send to the Board of Commissioners the proposed Resolution of Adoption (attached on page of these minutes) . The resolution is pursuant to Section 2.2.13 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (Comprehensive Plan Adoption) . The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on July 5, 1988. MOTION: Best moved to recommend approval of Planning Staff recommendation. VOTE: Unanimous. b. Zoning Ordinance Amendments (1) Article 9 - Signs (Noncommercial Copy) (2) Article 6 - Application of Dimensional Requirements (Flag Lots) (3) Article 22 - Definitions (Flag Lots) c. Subdivision Regulations Amendments (1) Section IV-B-5 Lot Layout (Flag Lots) (2) Section II - Definitions (Flag Lots) These items were presented by Marvin Collins. 155 10 Section 9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance is proposed to be amended by adding a sentence which demonstrates that the sign section does not favor commercial signs over non-commercial signs. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the proposed wording in another sign ordinance. No comments were received from the public regarding the proposal. Section 6.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance is proposed to be amended to add a new section addressing flag . k lots. Flag lots are irregularly shaped lots where the buildable area of the lot is connected to the street by a smaller narrower portion of the lot. The narrower portion extends as an arm of the lot to the street, thus the name "flag lot" . The proposed amendment will reference applicable provisions of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations which identify permitted locations and types of flag lots. Article 22 is proposed to be amended to add a definition of Flag Lot. The proposed amendment will help clarify what a flag lot is and provide a legal definition. No comments were received from the public regarding the proposals. Section IV-B-5 of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed to be amended by adding additional wording to address to incorporate provision for flag lots in a subdivision lot layout. The proposed amendment will identify permitted locations and types of flag lots. Section II of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed to be amended to add a definition of Flag Lot. The proposed amendment will clarify what a flag lot is and provide a legal definition. No comments were received from the public regarding the proposals, however, the County Attorney has recommended that the "intent" subsection of the proposed Section IV-B-5-d(a) be deleted in its entirety. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments included in Agenda Items 10b (1-3) and Agenda Items 10c (1&2) with the deletion of Section IV-B-5-d(a) as recommended by the County Attorney. MOTION: Best moved to recommend approval of Planning Staff recommendation. Seconded by Cantrell. 156 11 VOTE: Unanimous. Meeting adjourned 10:30 p.m. 157 ORANGE COUNT! Action Agenda • * BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. H =ION AGENDA IT.P24 ABSTRACT MEETING DATE July 5, 1988 • 1 • Subject: APPOINTMENTS Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: Yes X no I Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under Separate Cover Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards. SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS Two Commissioners for the intergovernmental talks with Chatham County on planning issues. • RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. ' • *..1 APPROVED: ,—*Augesst 16, 1988 1 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING JULY 5, 1988 • The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on July 5, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom of the New County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Shirley E. Marshall and Commissioners Moses Carey, John Hartwell and Stephen Halkiotis. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Don Willhoit. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Marilyn Tomei. STAFF ?RESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Assistant County Managers William T. Laws and Albert Kittrell, Recreation and Parks Director Mary Anne Black, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Data Processing Director Keith Brooks, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Tax Collector Johnny Horner, Finance Director Ellen Liston, Tax Assessor Kermit Lloyd, Public Works Director Wilbur McAdoo, Economic Development Director Sylvia Price, Social Services Accountant Rick Poole and Health Director Dan Reimer. A. BOARD AND MANAGERS COMMENTS County Manager John Link deleted item G1 from the agenda and made a correction to item Fl. Commissioner Hartwell noted that he attended a TJCOG meeting on water. The result of the requests received for allocations from Jordan Lake indicates that 87.5 mgd have been requested while it is the intention to allocate only one half of the available water or 50 mgd. In answer to inquiries from Commissioner Hartwell, County Manager John Link stated that the report on Capacity Use will be presented at the next regular board meeting as well as a report on the reservoir study from Hazen and Sawyer. B. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. Q . Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the minutes for May 23, 1988 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the minutes for June 6, 1988 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. PUBLIC CHARGE Shirley E. Marshall read the Public Charge. PUBLIC HEARING County Manager John Link presented a summary of what the proposed bond . • 2 referendum which has been discussed by the Board would include. The total of the proposed bond issue would be thirty million with twenty-one million for schools, eight million for public buildings and one million for water facilities. Citizens, Comments on the Proposed Bond Issue CAROLYN HORN as a representative of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District spoke in support of the bond referendum package as submitted by the County Commissioners for citizen comment. In particular she supported the 21 million for schools. She described the overcrowded conditions at the elementary schools and emphasized that in order for the middle school plan to be put into operation the High School must be enlarged to receive the ninth grade and the junior highs renovated to receive the sixth grade. SUE BAKER spoke as a member of the Chapel Hill-CarrboraBoard of Education and as a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee that studied the proposed bond issue. She stated that the proposed thirty million dollar bond certainly follows the recommendations of the Committee up to a point. The schools' total proposed building program and land acquisition for a reservoir were a must for the bond. The other items in priority order were (1) the Tax and Records Building, (2) the 911 Enhance System, (3) the Southern Human Services Complex (4) Parks and Recreation and etc. She emphasized that the opinions from those who served on the Citizens Advisory Committee should hold more weight than those received through the telephone survey. She asked that before the Board makes its final decision the recommendations from the Citizens Committee be reviewed. She would prefer returning the three million dollar pool money to the schools capital improvement needs. While the current proposal will help meet the growing needs of the schools, it will not allow expansion of the elementary schools as fast as the population dictates. She asked that the pools be given a high priority for pay-as-you-go funding. She expressed interest in knowing how the County would fund those items that are not included in the bond referendum. NEAL LITTMAN expressed support for all portions of the thirty million dollar bond issue. A copy of his complete statement is attached to these minutes in the minute book on pages KEITH COLEMAN spoke in support of the bond issue and in particular for school facilities. He noted that there is a need for renovations to Cameron Park and Central Elementary and for a new elementary school. He stated that this is an opportunity to get the funds to get the school systems up to date. KATHERINE EVERSON spoke on behalf of the Chapel Hill-Cazrboro Federation of Teachers. She stated that the bond referendum as proposed is inadequate. It falls one-third short, or roughly nine million dollars, of the budgetary requests. It means that the necessary renovations at the elementary schools may not be able to be carried out, as well as, jeopardizes classroom construction at the high school. She stated that the Basic Education Program calls for reduction in class size and asked where those students would be placed and where those students would go who are the result of population growth. She asked what will happen in a few years when other renovations or new classrooms will be needed and there are no funds. She emphasized that the public will support sufficient funds for what is needed for new classrooms and renovations now. LUAN SMYTH stated that the Basic Education Act does not mandate belt • • 3 tightening by the school boards and superintendent. The county is growing and the needs of the schools must be met. The climate is right to ask for a larger bond issue than is proposed. 'HORACE JOHNSON, Hillsborough Town Commissioner, supported the proposed issue in general and in particular the one million dollars for land acquisition for a reservoir. He asked specifically that the area for the reservoir be designated as Seven Mile Creek. He outlined several reasons for this request to designate a specific site. MARY BUSHNELL who lives in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District spoke in support of the proposed bond referendum. However, since the pay-as-you-go monies will not be available to fund the projects not funded by the bond issue an • amount of fifteen million for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools is needed from the bond referendum. The population growth and the demands placed on the system from the Basic Education Plan will have the schools asking for additional funds for temporary classrooms just as in the past. She asked that the school be funded at a level that will meet the current and future needs of the school system. The survey shows that the public supports education and improved schools in this county. There will be broad community enthusiasm and legwork in support of a bond that is set at a level that will propel us out of inadequate and overcrowded schools districtwide. If the bond amount is not high enough, the system will find itself right back in the scrapalong from crisis to crisis mode that it has been in the past. She asked that it be done right and that the schools be funded adequately. JOYCE BROWN, an Orange County taxpayer, spoke in opposition to the bond issue for land acquisition for a reservoir. She asked how much of the water from the proposed reservoir would be for our present needs and how much for development. She feels the County needs to look at the present problems brought on by growth and the future problems that will be associated with growth and in particular environmental problems. She expressed concern that a new reservoir would be as much for new development as for current needs. She stated that the County recently has been engulfed with problems as a result of, or intensified by, the recent growth. Transportation, solid waste disposal, crime, affordable • housing, homelessness, poverty and other problems have been brought on by growth and the County has not begun to solve these problems. The most enormous consequences have been environmental yet environmental considerations are hardly ever part of our public dialogue much less part of the decision making process. She asked several questions about what happens when a new reservoir is built. She emphasized that the County must stop its present course and seriously address the present problems in an environmentally sound way before making plans 'for new development. In the process we must develop a new way of looking at ourselves and our relationship with the earth and all living things and begin changing our patterns of behavior toward our environment. She stated that as long as this new reservoir is tied to development that she will vote against it. LARRY WAKEFORD spoke on behalf of the Chapel Hill Carrboro Association of Educators. He spoke in support of the bond referendum but specifically spoke to the gap that existed between what was requested and the amount that is proposed for the bond. He spoke of two scenarios - one where the amount proposed will cover those projects necessary, or one which will be inadequate. The latter has generally been the case. He related his experience with the overcrowded conditions at the high school and Culbreth Junior High. Another scenario is that • S ` 4 the revenue will not be adequate and the building will take place and then when the money runs out we will look like some of the schools in Durham County and Wake County. He urged the Commissioners to find additional funds to narrow the gap between Chapel Hill Carrboro's stated needs and the present amount that is being appropriated. DEAN DETER spoke as President of the Orange County Cattlemen's Association and also as a teacher and parent. He spoke in support of the Orange County Rural Education Center_ He asked that the Board's support of this public- private ongoing venture not be overlooked in the ongoing budget and the capital improvements program. He stated he views the private-public venture as being a very positive program for those small farmers in the County which are being very much hurt by a lack of facilities for the marketing of their livestock. This facility will keep alive the agricultural heritage of this County and it will be an educational facility for the children and adults. DAVID 1-TARVIN spoke in support of including the Rural Education Center on the bond referendum. Chair Marshall clarified that the Center is not being recommended as part of the bond proposal but that the comments heard at this public hearing will be taken into account. Marvin stated that the original concept of this facility has been expanded to include all.the citizens of Orange County. He does support the bond issue but hopes the Board will not forget the needs of the rural folks. SUSAN LAMEREAUX spoke in support of the pools. She spoke of the rehabilitation programs which include exercises in the water that cannot be done because of the lack of pool facilities in the County. She stated there is no joy greater than to see physically and mentally handicapped kids respond and improve by doing things in the water that is impossible on land. Many people are not being served because of the lack of pools. JOSEPHINE BARBOUR referred to a letter written by her husband Stewart which opposes the bond issue. A copy of the letter was distributed before the meeting to the members of the Board and a copy will be in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Josephine Barbour spoke against any further bond indebtedness. She questioned the advertisement stating a five point bond referendum and Chair Marshall explained the procedure and time constraints on placing public hearing notices in the newspaper. Barbour strongly opposed the way the money is being divided between the two school systems. She stated that the schools in the Northern part of Orange County have as many needs as those in the Southern end and that maybe merging to help make the systems equal should be considered. The water situation has always been a problem and she asked what happened to the money that was set aside for purchase of land at Seven Mile Creek. Chair Marshall read the first line of each of the five points that Stewart Barbour made in his letter and entered it into the minutes. E. W. VAN STEE spoke in support of the bond issue in general. As a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee he feels the decision on the items to be placed on the bond referendum were made wisely. He spoke on behalf of the expansion of the animal shelter stating that this is an important issue in this County. As the population grows, this brings in more children which brings in more dogs and cats. The animal shelter has dealt with approximately 8,000 EIMMINESS11116111301111001010O■•■•• 5 • animals over the past year which is above the limit that can be handled at the shelter. He asked that the shelter be moved up on the five year plan. BETSY UNDERWOOD spoke in support of the pools. As she understands it, the pools have been removed from the bond issue and put on the pay-as-you-go basis. She gave statistics of those who lost their lives by drowning and emphasized that delaying this project will cause the price of the pools to increase. Many children in this County have no place to learn the basic water skills which may save their life or someone else. She described the problems that those in the Chapel Hill Carrboro area have in finding a place to practice. The County is already behind in providing these facilities and with increased growth will fall further behind. She asked that the pools not be thought of as frills but as necessary Orange County services for all citizens. ROGER DALSTON spoke in support of the bond issue with two reservations. First insufficient money is being allocated for school facilities. Second, he spoke in favor of the pools asking that they be placed high on the priority items for the pay-as-you-go financing. LINDA HOWDEN, spoke in favor of the bond issue. She supports the concept of the bond issue and encouraged the idea that there might be more funding for the schools. She stated that 37 students are in one science lab at the high school and the main concern was safety for the students. She emphasized that water safety skills are life saving skills and pledged support for the pools: LEON FINK served as a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee. He questioned what went wrong. The Committee's commitment was for full funding of both the County and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School System. CHRIS BEST spoke about the one million dollars for land acquisition. He stated that if "water facilities" means further study and regional planning for water resources then he would support this item on the land issue. However, if this is a way for the County to put its stamp of approval on land acquisition for a reservoir then it is very immature and circumventing the public process. The Board of Commissioners need to not ignore the two recommendations from the two water task forces or the Hazen and Sawyer report and look for further study of this. If this item stays on the bond he would vote against it and work against the entire bond referendum. He distributed a letter which is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. KKY SINGER thanked the Board and congratulated them for seeking authorization for issuing bonds for capital improvements for the County. She assured the Board that she would work to encourage support for the passage of the bond issue. She talked about the mobile classrooms in Orange County and the overcrowded conditions at the schools. MAX KENNEDY as a member of the Orange County Board of Education spoke in support of the pay-as-you-go basis but realizes that it would be impossible to meet the needs with this kind of funding. He spoke in support of the bond issue and feels it has a good chance of passing. He does not favor the pools either at or away from the schools. BARRY JACOBS spoke generally in support of the bond issue and specifically in support of the animal shelter. He would support the Rural Inza • 6 Education Center as a part of the bond issue or as part of the pay-as-you-go package. He spoke in favor of additional water resource development. BEN LLOYD asked if another public hearing would be held and Chair Marshall explained the procedure that would be followed. Lloyd reminded the Board that the property tax in Orange County has increased over the last six years a little over 20% per year on the average. A thirty million dollar bond issue for twenty years would be a sixty million dollar bond issue. He stated he has total support for the schools in Orange County. They have been used as a scapegoat because the County has spent money in other areas and then had to raise taxes for money for the schools. He feels that all needs could be funded on a pay-as-you-go basis. He asked that the Board consider the economic times in putting together this bond issue. He stated that Orange County taxpayers are at their breaking point and asked that the Board consider that everything in the bond issue is not fair. Generally Lloyd -opposed the bond issue but there are some parts he would vote for favorably. • DON INGRAM spoke in support of the bond issue as it has been presented. It addresses a number of County needs which are all necessary. In particular he supports the funding of the animal shelter. Commissioner Halkiotis read a statement from Don Willhoit which is in the permanent agenda file. With no further comments to be heard, motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to close the Public Hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. D. RESOLUTIONS DR PROCLAMATIONS, 1. Master Recreation and Parks Plan Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the resolution as stated below which incorporates the Master Recreation and Parks Plan (Chapters 1-7, excluding reference to the capital improvements funding program) as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING AND DESIGNATING THE MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN AS THE • RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners adopted the Orange County Land Use Plan on September 2, 1981; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has from time-to-time adopted amendments to the Orange County Land use Plan because of: 1. Changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas the County: ft • 7 • 2. An error or omission in the Plan; or 3. A change in the policies, objectives, principles or standards governing the physical development of the County; and WHEREAS, proposed amendments to Articles 2.2.12 through 2.2.14 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance were presented at public hearing on February 22, 1988 which re-defined the nature, intent, and method of adopting the Comprehensive Plan for Orange County; and WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the public hearing and the receipt of the Planning Board recommendation, the Board of Commissioners adopted the proposed amendments on April 4, 1988; and WHEREAS, article 2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, states that one element of the Comprehensive Plan shall be a Recreation Element which designates a system of areas and public sites for recreation, including parks and playgrounds, recreational trails, and other similar areas; and WHEREAS, the Master Recreation and Parks Plan fulfills the purpose and intent of the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan: and WHEREAS, article 2.2.13 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, states that the Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan and portions thereof from the Planning Board, shall adopt them by resolutions; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on February 22, 1988 for the purpose of designating and incorporating the Master Recreation and Parks Plan as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan: and WHEREAS, public hearings on the Master Recreation and Parks Plan were conducted on November 23, 1987, February 22, 1988, April 19, 1988, and May 2, 1988; and WHEREAS, following conclusion of the public hearings and the receipt of the Planning Board recommendation, the Board of Commissioners wishes to designate the Master Recreation and Parks Plan as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that: 1. The Master Recreation and Parks Plan (Chapters 1-7, exclusive of any reference to the capital improvements funding program) is hereby adopted and designated as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan for Orange County. N.C. Adopted this 5th day of July, 1988. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2. Proclamation of July as Recreation and Parks Month Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to proclaim July as Recreation and Parks Month as stated below: • . • 8 PROCLAMATION OF "JULY IS NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARKS MONTH" IN ORANGE COUNTY Whereas, positive leisure experiences are vital to good physical and mental health, and enhance the quality of life for all people; and Whereas, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners recognizes the benefits derived to the County by offering these leisure experiences; and Whereas, the Orange County Recreation and Parks Department offers programs encompassing a multitude of activities that can result in personal accomplishment, self-satisfaction and family unity for all citizens, regardless of their background, ability, level or age; and Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners wishes to encourage and endorse the concept of "July as National Recreation and Parks Month" in Orange County; and Whereas, Governor Martin has proclaimed "July is National Recreation and Parks Month" in North Carolina; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY . COMMISSIONERS DOES HEREBY PROCLAIM "JULY IS NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARKS MONTH" IN ORANGE COUNTY. BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Board of Commissioners encourages all citizens of Orange County to participate in the leisure activities sponsored by the Orange County Recreation and Parks Department, not only during this designated month, but year-round. This, the 5th day of July, 1988. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E. REPORTS 1. EDC Preliminary Study and Status of EDC Strategic Plan Preparation Economic Development Director Sylvia Price presented background information which led to the EDC Preliminary Study and gave a status report on the Strategic Plan preparation. A major recommendation of the Preliminary Study was that the EDC pursue the process of strategic planning. The Plan should have a county-wide thrust, while taking into account the need for different goals and activities in the respective geographic areas of the County. She explained how the process would be carried forward. F. ITEMS 10 DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the items as listed on the Consent Agenda and stated below. 1. Topographic Mapping Contract Between Piedmont Aerial Surveys and Orange County To approve a contract between Piedmont Aerial Survey, Inc. and Orange County for topographic mapping of Cooperation Like and Seven Mile Creek proposed • • 9 reservoir sites contingent upon approval of the maps by the County Attorney. 2. Reappropriation Of Funds for High School Expansion/Renovation -Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools To approve a request from Chapel Hi],l/Carrboro Schools to reappropriate • unused funds from the Estes and Glenwood Schools' multipurpose projects to provide funding for preliminary design work on the high school renovation/expansion project in the amount of $78,646.43. 3. North Carolina Housing Trust Fund--Incentive Program To approve the submission of an Energy Conservation and. Housing Rehabilitation Incentive Program application to the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency and authorize the Chair to sign the application on behalf of the Board. 4. Housing Demonstration Grant Application To adopt a resolution authorizing the submission of a Housing Demonstration Grant application and to establish July 19,. 1988 and August 16 as public hearing dates to receive public comment regarding the application. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. G. ITEMS FOR DECISION-REGULAR AGENDA 1. Assignment of House and Building Numbers - Rural Route 15 - DELETED 2. Proposed Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (A copy of the Text Amendments is in the permanent agenda file and is included in the Subdivision Regulations) Planning Director Marvin Collins presented for Board consideration proposed amendments to Section IV-B-5 and Section II of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Section IV-B-5 of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed to be amended by adding additional wording to address the incorporation of provisions for flag lots in a subdivision lot layout. The County Attorney has recommended that the "intent" subsection of the proposed. Section fl-B-5 be deleted in its entirety. The Planning Board and the Administration recommends approval with the deletion as recommended by the County Attorney. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Planning Board and Administrations recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (Article 9 - Signs) The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. It is proposed that Article 9.5 be amended to include the following sentence after the first • sentence: "Any sign authorized by this ordinance may contain noncommercial copy in lieu of any other copy." Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 9 - Signs as recommended by the Planning Board and the Administration. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (Article 6 Application of Dimensional Requirements) (Article 22 - Definitions) (A copy of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments is in the permanent agenda file in the Ordinance) •. • 10 Marvin Collins made the presentation. Section 6.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance is proposed to be amended to add a new section addressing flag lots. Article 22 is proposed to be amended to add a definition of Flag Lot as well as clarify what a flag lot is and provide a legal definition. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the proposed amendments as recommended by the Planning Board and the Administration. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5. Draft Cheeks Township Land Use Plan (A copy of the resolution is attached to these minutes on page 256-137 800t2S The Presentation was made by Marvin Collins. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the resolution, incorporating the proposed Section 3.8 (Cheeks Township) as part of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, including the following changes as recommended by the Planning Board: (1) The designation of a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node at Efland- Cedar Crave Road and Lebanon Road; (2) The designation of Moorefields and County-owned lands in the Seven Mile Creek Basin as Public Interest Areas; (3) The designation of additional Rural Residential areas to the north • of Lebanon Road; and (4). The designation of the Back Creek Supply Watershed in the northwest corner of the Township as a Protected Watershed Area. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 6. Draft no Township Land Use Plan (A copy of the resolution is attached to these minutes on pages . 001X23 Marvin Collins made the presentation. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the resolution incorporating the proposed Section 3.10 (Eno Township) as part of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, including the following changes as recommended by the Planning Board and the Administration. (1) Designating that portion of the Little River watershed in Eno Township as a Water Supply Watershed; and (2) Changing the classification of the Brigadoon Subdivision north of U.S. Highway 70 and west of the Eno giver from Agricultural- Residential to Rural Residential. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 7. Draft Hillsborough Township Land Use Plan (A copy of the resolution is attached to these minutes on pages !L46-2.14/ e8K26 Marvin Collins made the presentation. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the resolution incorporating the proposed Section 3.9 (Hillsborough Township) as part of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, including the following changes as recommended by the Planning Board: (1) Designating that portion of the Little River watershed in Hillsborough Township as a Water Supply Watershed; (2) Including approx'imately nine acres adjacent to Highland Woods Subdivision in the Ten-Year Transition Area; and (3) Adjust the boundary of the Upper Eno watershed to the east, • _ ..•• 11 reflecting more accurate topographic data. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 8. Draft Chapel Hill Township Land Use Plan (North of Joint Planning Area) (A copy of the resolution is attached to these minutes on pages 22,12-21.6.)&24213 The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the resolution, incorporating the proposed Section 3.12 (Chapel Hill Township) as part of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Planning Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. • H. APPOINTMENTS Commissioner Willhoit and Chair Marshall were appointed by the other Board members to serve on the committee for the intergovernmental talks with Chatham I. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, Chair Marshall adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on July 19, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the old Post Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk • •