Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-01-1982 ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING 10 : 00 A.M. , Monday March 1, 1982 Commissioners' Room Orange County Courthouse Hillsborough, North Carolina A. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD B. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE 1. On the Agenda 2. Not on the Agenda C. MINUTES October 29 , Deceinber 7 , 15 , 21, 1981 D. REPORTS 1. Exceptional Child Services--Drs. Simmons and Lunsford 2. Preliminary Report--HSAC Needs Assessment Project, Ms . P Pollitzer 3. NACo Legislative Conference report E. ITEMS FOR BOARD DECISION 1. Public Hearing continuation to receive Planning Board re mendations a. Duke Power Company Planned Development-Office Instit Class A Special Use Permit, Rezoning b. William C. Ford Planned Development--Bingham Woods, A Special Use Permit, Rezoning 2. Joint Planning Agreement 3. Participatory Paving Request--Mace Road 4 . Retired Senior Volunteer Grant 5. Soil & Water Conservation Technician Position 6. CD Housing Rehabilitation Contracts 7. Tax refunds & releases 8 . Appointments 9. Northside space allocations recommendations 10. Execution of Special Use Permits 11. Sewer Problems: Efland Estates Subdivision UU518 MINUTES MARCH 1, 1982 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, March 1, 1982, at 10:00 A.M. in the Commissioners' Room, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Commissioners present: Chairman Richard E. Whitted, and Commissioners Norm Gustaveson, Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit. A. Comments fLum the Board: Commissioner Willhoit added correspondence on out óf district tuition charged by the School Boards; Oonnissioner Gustaveson added an item on the Capital BPAlth Systems Agency. B. Comments from the Audience: Chairmen Whitted recognized Representative Anne Barnes who announced that the County had received a grant for $6,000 fLaathe State Department on Pging to aid in the renovation of the Northside Multipurpose Center. Commissioner Gustaveson recognized two citizens from the churches in Chapel Fill who are monitoring the Board friee-tings. The County Manager introduced the new Finance Director, Mr. Wallace Harding, to the Board. C. Minutes: Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to approve the Minutes of October 29, 1981, as suhmitted. Vote: Ayes,5 ; noes, 0. Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by CommissiOner-Whitted, to approve the Minutes of December 7, 1981, as submitted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker,to approve the Minutes of December 15, 1981, as submitted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to approve the Minutes of December 21, 1981, as submitted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. D. Reports: 1. Dr. Mike Simmons presented a brief report to the Board on the Exception Child program. He detailed the level of service for the Board, that is, twenty- four children are being served now with the number increasing to one hundred once the children are identified. Drs. Simmons and Lansford noted the level of funding from the Federal Government was decreasing and therefore the number of teachers in this area would decrease from the previous year. The Board thanked Drs. Simmons and t, Lansford for their report. 2. HSAC Needs Assessment Report was presented by Ms. Peggy Pollitzer, Ms. Pollitzer summarized the preliminary findings of the Needs Assessment Committee for the Board. She noted that the highest priority was in the realm of the financial and economic opportunities. The Board set April 1, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Lincoln Center Board Roam in Chapel Hill as the date for a work session on the Needs Assessment Report prior to its being presented to the Board of Commissioners in final form. 3. NACo Legislative Conference Report: The Commissioners each gave a short report an the activities and sessions of the NACo Legislative Conference held in February in Washington, D.C. Chairman Whiffed said funding levels were unsure for the human services programs. Omnnissioner Gustaveson said the '82 budget was "ignored" and the '83 budget was not discussed with regard to the Federal fund- ing levels. He added it was difficult to plan because funding levels were so uncer- tain. Commissioner Willhoit reviewed several Resolutions NACo passed, including Resolutions on drunk driving and oppoSing the abolishment of the Department of Energy. Carmissioner Willhoit said the "losers" will be the poor and the elderly under the -President's budget. Camnissioner Marshall said that Edwin Meese said that reducing Federal taxes will increase the property taxes. She said that North Carolina seems to be in the forefront in working with the local governmentt. Commissioner Marshall added that the census figures showed that the women and particularly elderly women were "falling into poverty at an alarming rate;" and that this group was especially affected by the block grants along with black women who are at the highest risk. Commissioner Walker said we'were getting what we had been asking for—that the Federal Government "get out of local" funding; he added that the reductions would come in '83 and that this gave us time to seek "innovative ways to get revenue for programs." Chairman Whitted said the President's plan would "gut" all the social programs in 1983 and he cited the example of the WIN program and the AFDC recipients who are required to register for jobs with the Employment Security Commission although the offices in Orange °minty are closed. Chairman Whitted said the New Federalism would make it difficult to meet local needs in the 1983 budget. E. Items for Decision By Board: 1. Public Hearing to receive Planning Board's recommendation on: a. Duke Power Company Planned Development --Office Institutional Class A Special Use Permit and Rezoning. V0520 • 71),6 Mr. Jim Polatty, Planning Director, presented the findings of fact to the Board of C:am behalf larnetdiellelintEl Planning Board he read into the record, on behalf of the Planning Board, the conditions attached to the recom- mendation (those findings of fact and attached conditions are on pages of this book) for Duke Power Company. Use Permit and Rezoning. Mr. Jim Polatty, Planning Director, presented the findings of fact to the _ Board of Commissioners on behalf of the Orange County Planning Board; he read into the record, on behalf of the Planning Board, the conditions attached to the recom- mendation for William C. Ford (those findings of fact and attached conditions are on page of this book) . 1 Oorrmissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commisssicner Whitted, to close the ipublic hearing to receive the Planning Board recarnendati'on on the Class A Special Use Permits for Duke Power Company and William C. Ford. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. - The Board then discussed, in order, the requests _Lam Duke Power Company and William C. Ford. Mr. Polatty told the Board of Commissioners that Planning Staff thought Duke ;Power Company should have as one of its conditions for the Planned'Development it was requesting, sewer hookups. He added that the Planning Board agreed that it was desirable but if it was not possible that Duke Power should be allowed to complete the building on a Special Use Permit basis with a septic tank and be required to tap onto public sewer line when such a line is within 300 feet. The Staff rationale for its reccuuendation was the high intensity of use in the area. Mr. John Kincaid, District Manager of Duke Power Company, responded with the follow- ing points: 1) it is desirable that the sewer line be extended however, the office complex will have low useage and it is unfair to request Duke to bear the entire cost of the sewer line extension; 2) Duke was willing to contribute a share of the !cost in a cooperative effort; and, 3) it is physically impossible to get the sewer : line in by the time Duke Power would need it if the SpeCial Use Permit is granted. The Commissioners agreed with Duke Power and did not include extension of the sewer in the stipulations. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the Planning Board's recommendation to approve the Class A Special Use:Permit with the twelve conditions attached (those are on pages of this book). Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. It was a consensus of the Board of Commissioners that the possibility • 00521= 7t)S- of a Resolution endorsing a water and sewer line extension policy impleaentation by ( SA be adopted by this Board and passed on to the County representatives an the CWASA Board of Direcbors. Mr. Polatty told the Board of Commissioners that, with regard to Bing- woods (Mr. William Ford's request for a Class A SpeCial Use Permit) the Planning Board had rejected that Staff's recommendations that the entrance to the develop- $ ment be altered and that the roads be paved with an asphaltic treatment. COmmis-- b sicner Willhoit, noting the low density planned, moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to approve the Planning Board's reccmmendation of approval for the Class A Special Use Permit for Bingham Woods with the thirteen conditions that the Planning Board recomnended plus this Board's added condition that the County Health Depart- ment receive the reports of inspection of the site's sewer collection and dis- posal system by the North Caroline Division of Environmental Management and that both the water system and sewer system (as detailed in condition 4) remain in compliance with State regulations. It was additionally clarified that security bonding will be required for public improvements. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. The Board adjourned for lunch and reconvened at 1:30 P.M. with all members present. 11. Efland Estates: The Board moved this item up on the agenda to accommodate Mr. McAdams' schedule. Commissioner-Willhoit moved, seconded by Oom- missioner-Marshadl, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the County to apply for a State Clean Water Bond Grant for the Efland Estates Subdivision and to authorize the Chair of the Board to sign the Resolution. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. (A copy of that Resolution is on page of this book.) 2. Joint Planning Agreement: The Board received this as the latestdraft of the document. On being advised the attorneys of the other jurisdictions were review- ing the document, discussion was deferred until responses of the attorneys were received. 3. Mace Road—Participatory Paving: Ccsranissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to accept the Mace Road request for paving under the 1 Participatory Paving Project with the County. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. 4. RSVP: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Cornmissicner Gustaveson, Ito adopt the Resolution authorizing submission of a grant application for the Retired 1Senior Volunteer Program. (See page of this took for a copy of that Resolution-) 'tVote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. ttufiTg! 5. Vacant County Position: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the filling of the Soil and Water Conservation Technician position. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. 6. Cl) Contracts: Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to approve the awarding of the Ccummnity Development Housing Rehabilitation contracts to MeDuffie ConStruction for units # 34 and 151 for $6,335.00 and $11,650.00, respectively, and to Eugene H. Morrow for unit # 107 for $2,560.00. Vote: Ayes, ?5; noes, 0. _ . 7. Tax Refunds/Releases: 1, Barry D. and Lynne Nakell: The Nskells' had appealed the valuation of their hare before the Board of Commissioners in Octohor, 1981. The Board did reduce the value thereby reducing the amount of taxes owed. Oammissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to approve the refund for $43.64 as recommended by the Tax Supervisor. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. 2. E.N. Richards: The tax refund request was for $64.74 due to double listing of business property. Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Oammission Walker, to approve the tax refund for $64.74 as recommended by the Tax Supervisor. Vote: Ayes, 5rrioes, 0. 3. John D. & Celia Poe: This refund request is due to the annexation by Carrboro which was disallowed in court. Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commis- sioner Walker, to approve the refund request for $171.46 as recommended by the Tax Supervisor. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. 4.Jack R. & Jblia D.Bowen: This refund request is due to the annexation by Carrboro which was disallowed in court. Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner iGustaveson, to approve the tax interest refund request (the tax refund was approved by the Board of Oanuissioners in March, 1981) for $13.48 as recommended by the Tax Supervisor. 4 5, Thomas E. and Willie Mae Kimball: This refund request is due to the annexation by Carrboro which was disallowed in court. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to approve the tax refund for $84.02 as recommended by the fax Supervisor. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. 6. Romeo, Inc.: (Ms. Linda Mews, President) : The Tax Supervisor reviewed the back- round of this tax release request. The property had been discovered in October, 1981, for both;1980 and 1981 at a valuation of $20,000 per year. Commissioner Willhoit moved to table this request. Motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Mews arrived at the meeting and explained that the Tax Office had had no response because Romeo, Inc., had been without a bookkeeper for several months and the tax notices had been filed away. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to accept a valuation of $4,156.74 for 1980 and $9,436.20 for 1981, subject to penalties for late payment/non-listing for Ramo, Incorporated. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. 8. Appointments: Ii Carrboro Planning Board: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Oonmissioner ! Marshall, to reappoint Mr. Toy Cheek to the Carrboro Planning Board, as recom- mended by the Carrboro Planning Board. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Hillsborough Planning Board: Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by COmmis- sion Whiffed, to reappoiniment Mr. Larry Carter to the Hillsborough Planning Board for a three year term. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Board of Equalization and Review: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Canmis- sioner Gustaveson to appoint Messrs. Ken Collins, Paul McAllister, and John Mckee and Ms. ElizabethWalters to the Board of Equalization and Review. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. COmmissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to appoint Ms. Miriam Slifkin to the Board of Equalization and Review- Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. The Clerk was instructed to seek applicants from the financial and appraisal domains for the remaining two appointments. Recreation Advisory Council: Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner • Gustaveson, to reappoint Ms. Mary Howes and Mr. Giovanni Micol from Chapel Hill and Eno Townships, respectively, to the Recreation Council. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, to appoint Ms. Carol Palmer to the Recreation Council representing Hillsborough Township. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. The Board instructed the Clerk to advertise for the Energy Commission seat and Cheeks TOwnship seat on the Recreation Council. Orange County Board of Adjustment: Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Com- missioner Willhoit, to appoint Mr. Harry Hawkins the alternate delegate to the Board of Adjustment. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Orange County Planning Board: Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commis- sioner Willhoit, to reappointment Ms. Nancy Laszlo and Mr. John Wilson to the Planning Board for three year terms. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. 'p0524 Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to appoint Ms. Saragene Beerieke to the Orange County Planning Board for a three year term. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. The Board said it would solicit applicants from the Cedar Grove Township for that vacancy on the Planning Board and asked the County Attorney to do like- wise. Commission For Women: The Board delayed action on this Commission until the new - coordinator-has updated her-files. .' - --- - - Health Systems Agency: Conmissioner Gustaveson added this item, saying that it now appeared that funding would be available through next January for the Agency and his terns were completed and he was ineligible for reappointment. Commissioner 1 Whittedvolunteeredto serve as the Board's representative on that Agency. 9. Northside Space Allocations: The Manager reviewed the proposed space assignments with the Board of Cormnissioners (the various proposals are on pages of this book). Some Board members voiced opposition to the Sheriff's Department and 911 Communications being located in that residenl-il neighborhood. 10. Execution of Special Use Permits: Carrnissicner Willhoit moved, secondel by Commissioner Gustaveson, to authorize the County Manager to execute Special Use Permits which are recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds on behalf of Orange County and to ratify execution of all such Permits which are recorded in the Office of the Register of Eeedsexecutedby the County Manager on behalf of Ithe County from September 2, 1981, to March 1, 1982. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. . 12. Added Items: Out of District tuition charged by the Chapel Hill-Cartboro School District: Comr missioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Cannissioner Walker, to table this discussion to a later meeting. Vote: Ayes, 4 (Commissioners Whitted, Gustaveson, Marshall and Walker); noes, 1 (Cczmnissioner Willhoit) . A Festival '82: The Board chose to answer phones on Sunday, March 14, 1982, from 6:00 P.M. till 11:00 P.M. for UNC Center for Public Television. The County Attorney is to be notified. There being no further business, th. r...rd adjourned by ,o, sensus. / i /#4( i iil 4/ Ri lor . 4 r1"1/11 ed,PChair Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk /.9 %I:No %. ?range (Guilty , r11001e • .• COUNTY •• ek_ 'yr 200 EAST KING STREET (!PeOniC61.':' HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT (919) 732-0126 February 18 , 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Commi loners - . 7_ • , 414p, FROM: R, Mike Simmons 7 Dan G. Lunsford REFERENCE: Status Report - Exceptional Child Services In preparation for our presentation at the March 1, 1982 , meeting, please review the attached information. Attachment #1 is an actual count by area of service and school for exceptional children . Attach- ment #2 shows similar information with the inclusion of the current staff who provide services. Since the report date of December 1, 1981, there have been some changes which we will share with you during the discussion. We look forward to meeting with you in a few days. crm Attachments • /// ,*--/ Yz- , ATTACHMENT #1. ORANGE COUNTY ;SCHOOLS EXCEPTIONAL CHILD PROGRAMS HEADCOUNT SUMMARY* December 1, 1981 CATEGORY SCHOOLS EC GAB CE CP . ALS CWS OHS Total Emotionally Disturbed 9 0 i 2 0 11 0 0 22 . Educable Mentally Handicapped 18 7 ! 6 5 21 31 27 115 . , _ . . ._ . ... .. _ _ . Learnin; Disabled - 63 52 34 36 72 46 38 341 i Speech Impaired . . . 19 4 '14 20 4 2 0 63 Severe/Multi-handicapped 10 10 Autistic i 1 1 Visually Impaired 1 1 Physically Handicapped 1 li Trainable Mentally Handicapped 9 9 I Total Handicapped 109 73 56 62 118 79 66 563 Gifted/Talented 24 46 30 48 71 49 31 299 Total Exceptional Children 133 119 86 110 189 128 97 862 1 i Identified Unserved 0 3 ; 1 6 3 4 7 24 _ Suspected 29 25 12 : 25 5 4 0 100 _ Grand Total . , 162 147 99 141 197 136 104 986 *This represents an unduplicated count. It does not accurately reflect teacher case load. EC = Efland-Cheeks Elementary School GAB = Grady A. Brown Elementary School CE = Central Elementary School i CP = Cameron Park Elementary School ALS = A. L. Stanback Middle School CWS = Charles W_ Stanford Junin,,,, p. Emotior Handic6 4 SCHOOL o 4 474. EFLAND CHEEKS G. A. BROWN 0 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 1111 CAMERON PARK A. L. STANBACK MIDDLE C. W. STANFORD JUNIOR HIG o --------_--- ORANGE HIGH 111 • TOTAL -- Abbreviations TA = per teacher and aide T = per teacher FAS = Full and appropriate S, * = Recommended pupil/t ratio by SDPI 2.- NE-i.DS AS5.6SSMENT. FINAL aiLPoaT ANTICIPA.TED CONTENTS * j . Acknowledgements * 2. Executive Summary * 3. Introduction - Background, Process and Rationale for Study x 4. Summary of Priorities x 5 . Summary of Fit Between Needs and Services , with Service Recommendations * 6. HSACRecommendations and Comments si 7. Recommendations for Further Study APP.LNDICES x 1 . Age Group Reports - Needs Data by Age Group - Services Data by Age Group 1 2 . Definitions of Barriers x 3 . Criteria for Ranking Barriers x - 4. List of Citizen Committee Participants , Facilitators and Staff 5 . List of Needs Assessment Committee and Affiliations TO MANAGER ONLY 1 . Agency Profiles 2. Services Data Forms by Agency FOR FILES (ARCHIlms) 1 . All other information collected 2. All details of process * 3. Evaluations $ 4. Coordinator 's , Chairman 's and Consultant 's Comments * Indicates sections still to be developed x Indicates sections presented in preliminary report ,9f 9*-v AL SECTION 1. 2 DEFINITION OF THE JOINT PLANNING AREA. The Joint Planning Area includes the area defined between the corporate boundaries of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the outer edge of the Joint Planning Area: Rural and Joint Planning Area: University Lake Watershed. The Joint Planning Area contains the following area designation Joint Planning Area: Ten Year Transition Joint Planning Area: Twenty Year Transition Joint Planning Area: Rural Joint Planning Area: University Lake Watershed SECTION 1 . 3 CREATION OF THE JOINT PLANNING PROCESS . There is hereby established a joint planning process for the re- view and management of land development in the Joint Planning area. SECTION 1. 4 MUTUAL PROMISES AND CONCERNS. It is agreed that a mutual policy of good will is essential to this process, and shall be adhered to by all parties to the Agreement. ARTICLE 2. MUTUAL ADOPTION OF STANDARDS SECTION 2. 1 MUTUAL ADOPTION OF THE JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND US PLAN AND MAP. It is agreed that the joint planning process will be based upon the mutual adoption of the Joint Planning Area land use plan and map which delineates those areas likely to be developed at -urban densities within a ten and twenty year period : Joint Planning Area: Ten Year Transition and Joint Planning Area: Twenty Year Transition and those areas that will remain rural during the twenty year period: Joint Planning Area: Rural and Joint Planning Area: University Lake Watershed. The Joint Planning Area land use plan and map are based on the Orange County Land Use Plan, specifically those relevant porti( 2 of the Chapel Hill and Bingham Township Components , and incorpo- rate certain policies appropriate for the implementation of the Joint Planning land use plan and process. SECTION 2. 2 MUTUAL ADOPTION AND APPLICATION OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. lt is agreed that development standards appropriate to the Joint Planning Area will be adopted by all parties to the Agreement. Orange County will adopt and apply development standards in the Joint Planning Area: Ten Year Transition and Twenty Year Transition, as delineated on the adopted Joint Planning Area land use plan map, which meet or exceed Carrboro, Chapel Hill and OWASA development standards. The Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill will adopt and apply development standards in the Joint Planning Area outside of their corporate limits , but within their extraterri- torial planning jurisdictions , as delineated on the adopted Joint Planning Area land use plan map, which meet or exceed Orange County development standards . SECTION 2 . 3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ESTABLISHED. It is agreed that development standards for the Joint Planning Area will be adopted by all parties to the Agreement as follows : a. Standards for density of development will be adopted in accordance with the Joint Planning Area land use plan and zoning ordinances of the Towns and County subject to the courtesy review process . b. Within the Joint Planning Area: Rural, outside the watershed, a two acre minimum lot size will be re- quired along with performance standards which pro- vide for : 1) two drainage fields to be required in the subdivision regulations ; 2) stormwater management measures ; and 3) setbacks to keep a rural area looking rural; as well as any other performance measures that may be necessary. c. Within the Joint Planning : University Lake Watershed a minimum residental lot size of five (5 ) acres wil] be required without stormwater management measures and a minimum residential lot size of (2) acres required Coupled with stormwater management measures . Also required will be performance standards which provide for : I) two drainage fields to be required by the sub- division regulations ; 2) appropriate setbacks , as well as any other performance standards that may be necessary. d. Standards for appropriate types of uses in the Joint Planning Area will be adopted in accordance with the Joint Planning Area land use plan and zoninF ordinances of the Towns and County subject to the coureesy revlew nrnopq. • xiT r,4"...:"Z'P.7-,AW 7:L6a:TaKCMZaeiMdalaIIIMElaaaonseansusw.a...m.....+m•.... ......-.Aw e. Standards for roads and streets will be adopted in ac- cordance with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro TransPortation Plan subject to the courtesy review process. f. Standards for police and fire services wAli be adopted subject to the courtesy review process. g. Within the Joint Planning Area the specifications and standards of OWASA are accepted by the governmental units as the development standards for water and sewer services. ARTICIR 3. WATER AND SEWER EXTENSIONS The planning and extension of water and sewer services in the Joint Planning Area shall be accomplished in confonmance with the policies of OWASA and the following general principles: a. Water and sewer extensions should be made in a manner which conforms to the Joint Planning Area land use plan. b. Water and sewer extensions outside the corporate bound- aries of the Towns should be made within the timing and locational framework provided for in the Joint Planning Area land use plan categories: Joint Planning Area: Ten Year Transition Joint Planning Area: Twenty Year Transition Joint Planning Area: Rural Joint Planning Area: University Lake Watershed c. Water and sewer extensions should be considered in light of the policy of the Towns and County to promote infill development in the Towns. d. The extension of water and sewer lines in the Joint Planning Aera is most appropriate in the area desig- nated Joint Planning Area: Ten Year Transition, first and the Joint Planning Area: Twenty Year Transition, second. e. The extension of water and sewer lines in the Joint Planning Area: Rural and Joint Planning Area: University Lake Watershed should be discouraged. f. The extension of water and sewer lines into a new drainage basin should be considered in light of the facility and desireability of serving the ehtirety of a drainage basin. g. The sizing of water and sewer extension lines should reflect the prinicples Outlined above. The courtesy review process for water and sewer extensions is contained in an Addendum to the Agreement. ARTICLE 4 . COURTESY REVIEW SECTION 4 . 1 COURTESY REVIEW ESTABLISHED. It is agreed that Orange County , Chapel Hill and Carrboro, through their respective planning departments , will advise each other and OWASA in writing as to their respective land use plans and asso- ciated land use policies and regulations and amendments thereto . OWASA in turn will advise the governmental units of their water and sewer extension policies and regulations and amendments there- . to. SECTION 4 . 2 COURTESY REVIEW SCHEDULES. Each party to the Agreement shall establish a review schedule for projects within their respective jurisdictions . These schedules are outlined in a Addendum to the Agreement and may be changed by the respective parties without requiring an amendment to the Agreement . Each party to the Agreement shall be given proper notification of the change. SECTION 4 . 3 COURTESY REVIEW AREA. It is agreed that within the Joint Planning Area courtesy review is extended as follows : Orange Colnty 's courtesy review area encompasses the entire Joint Planning Area. Chapel. Hill' s and Carrboro' s courtesy review areas are delineated to the north by the Southern Railroad line and to the south by a line 250 ' east of the centerline of Smith Level Road (SR 1919) . Chapel Hill's review area lies to the east of said lines and Carrboro' s review area lies to the west of said -lines . SECTION 4 . 4 COURTESY REVIEW PERIOD. The governmental unit in whose jurisdiction a request is made will allow sufficient time for the other parties to conduct their review prior to final action on the request . The parties reviewing a request within the jurisdiction of another party will conduct their review as expeditiously as possible . The courtesy review period will begin on the day a request is acc- epted by a particular party, at which time they will mail additional copies of the request to affected parties of the Agreement for reviev The courtesy review period will be forty-five ( 45) days during which period the reviewing parties will provide the party with final responsibility with a written response. The single exception to the specified courtesy review period are minor subdivisions . The courtesy review period for minor sub- divisions will be fifteen (15) days . 5 In all cases failure to respond by any party to the Agreement is deemed to be inappropriate. In all reviews the parties involved will notify each other of their review schedules and the party with final review will accomodate the review schedules of the other parties. ARTICLE 5 . AMENDMENTS SECTION 5. 1 AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLA1 Proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area land use plan shall be heard and discussed by the Joint Planning Advisory Commission. The parties agree to refer all amendment requests to the Joint Planning Advisory Commission for its comment, coordination and recommendation before aetion by any of the parties to the Agreement. A recommendation for amendment to the Plan shall be proposed by the Joint Planning Committee to the Boards of the parties to this Agreement for consideration and mutual adoption. Procedures shall be established whereby amendments to the Joint Planning Area land use plan are to be requested, con- sidered and mutually adopted by the County and Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. These procedures shall reflect the intent and purpose of the courtesy review process. These amendment procedures are outlined in an Addendum to the Agreement and may be changed by the respective parties without requiring an amendment to the Agreement. SECITON 5 .2 AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT. Proposed amendments to the Agreement shall be heard and discussed by the Joint Planning Advisory Commission and mutuall adopted by the parties to the Agreement through the following process: a. Each party will receive notification of the amendment proposal prior to the consideration of the proposal by the Commission whole. b. Sufficient time will be allowed to permit consideration of the amendment by the respective Boards of each party. C . Each party will bring their Boards' recommendations on the amendment to the Commission during the Commission ' s de liberations on the amendment. d. Amendments to the Agreement shall be made by mutual agreement of all the parties to the Agreement. e. Amendment to the Agreement will be properly noted in an addendum to the Agreement. ARTICLE 6 . IMPLEMENTATION SECTION 6 . 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT. The parties to this Agreement recognize the need for cooperation among all in order for each to carry out important governmental functions. In the interest of promoting that cooperation , it is agreed by all that the Planning Department or staff of each shall establish administrative working procedures to implement the purposes of this Agreement. SECTION 6. 2 AUTHORIZATION OF INSPECTIONS. (RESERVED) SECTION 6. 3 JOINT PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION. The Joint Planning Advisory Commission is established for the purpose of joint planning to include, but not be limited to, periodic review and evaluation of progress on joint planning activities, further definition of joint standards for develop- ment proposals, amendment of the Joint Planning Agreement, amendment of the Joint Planning Area land use plan and map, the establishment of an urban services area and the recommend- ation of policies for the extension of water and sewer facilities , and other means as may be necessary to assure desired develop- ment patterns in the Joint Planning Area. The Joint Planning Advisory Commission shall consist of four- teen members as determined by the following representation scheme: 2 Orange County Commissioners 2 Orange County Planning Board members 2 Chapel Hill Councilors 2 Chapel Hill Planning Board members 2 Carrboro Aldermen 2 Carrboro Planning Board members 2 OWASA Board members SECTION 6 . 4 DURATION. This Agreement shall be effective upon its execution by the designated parties hereto, and shall continue thereafter until termination by mutual agreement or when all the designated parties have withdrawn from the Agreement. 7 ADDENDUM COURTESY REVIEW SCHEDULES 1. Orange County will establish the following review schedule for projects within the County' s jurisdiction , after which time the County will take final action on the request. A. For minor subdivisions , following a staff review period of thirty ( 30) days, the staff will make a final de- cision on the request unless appealed to the Planning Board. B. For major subdivisions, following a staff review period of thirty (30) days , the Planning Board will consider the request at their next regularly scheduled meeting at which time they will either make a decision on the project or table it for later consideration. A final decision on the request will be made at the second regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting. C. For special use permits , the review period shall extend up to and including the public hearing. D. For rezonings and planned development requests , the re- view period shall extend up to and including the public hearing held during the last regularly scheduled meetin in August, November, February, and May. 2. Chapel Hill will establish the following review schedule fo projects within the Town' s jurisdiction : A. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY SKETCH: 144. STAFF REVIEW: Maximum of 30 days after acceptance of completed application. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: Maximum of 30 days after the meeting at which the staff recommendation is presented. COUNCIL ACTION: No time limit. B. SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND MODIFICATIONS TO,,SPECIAL psE PERMITS ,' INCLUDING PLAVNED' DEVELOPMENT: STAFF REVIEW: Maximum of 30 days after acceptance of completed application, unless extended by Council or consent of the applicant. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: Maximum of 35 days after the meeting at which the staff recommendation is presented unless extended by Council or by consent of the applicant. 8 PUBLIC HEARING: Council holds Public Hearings on the third Mondays of January, March , May, September and November. TOWN MANAGERS REPORT: Maximum of 30 days after completion of Public Hearing, unless extended by Council or by consent of the Applicant. COUNCIL ACTION: No time limit. C. ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS . STAFF REVIEW: Maximum of 21 days after acceptance of completed application, unless extended by Council or by consent of the applicant. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: Maximum of 35 days after the meeting at which the staff recmmendation is presented, unless extended by Council or by consent of the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING: Council holds Public Hearings on the third Monday of January, March, May, September and November. TOWNS MANAGER' S REPORT: Maximum of 30 days after completion of Public Hearing, unless extended by Council or by consent of the applicant. COUNCIL ACTION: No time limit. 3. Carrboro will establish the following review schedule for projects within the Town' s jurisdiction : In general, the courtesy review period for alp_ proposals submitted to the Town under the Joint Planning Agreement shall be thirty (30) working days. This period will allow the Town staff to review proposals and make recommend- ations in a staff report prior to the proposal ' s being presented to any Town Boards. The Carrboro Planning Board will be notified of all proposals received for courtesy review. The courtesy review schedule for projects within the Town' s jurisdiction sharibe as follows : A. For projects requiring a Special Use Permit, the Town' s review period shall' be a' minimum of fifteen (15) working days before a final determination is made by the staff or the Board of Adjustment. B. Projects requiring a Conditional Use Permit shall have a review period of tEIT-E'i (30) days :--The review period shall include a Planning Board meet- ing and final action by the Board of Aldermen. C. For Major- Subdivisions that require a Conditional Use Permit,- the t--F‘:577-6- review period sha l ' be a minimum of thirty (30) working days before final action is taken by the Board of Aldermen. (Note : Major Subdivisions are generally defined as proposals which create more than three lots .) D. For projects determined to be suitable for Minor Subdivision review, the staff review period shall be a minimum of ten (10) working days before final action is taken by the Planning Director. (Note : Minor Subdivisions are generally defined as proposals which create no more than a total of three lots'.) E. For Amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance or Land Use Plan and for Rezoning requests , the Town shall review the request within a minimum of thirty (30) working days before final action is taken by the Board of Aldermen. Carrhoro will make a reasonable effort to review projects or proposals covered by this courtesy review agreement within a maximum courtesy review period, of forty-five (45) days. At the time materials are distributed for courtesy review, Carr- boxo will notify other jurisdictions of any meetings or public hearings scheduled where the proposals will be discussed. Carrboro shall not be required to delay approval of proposals or regularly scheduled Planning Board and other advisory board meetings until review comments have been received from other parties to this agreement. 4 . Orange Water and Sewer Authority will establish the followi review schedule, subject to revision from time to tile , for projects involving the need or anticipated need for Novidi water and/or sewer service to projects within the jointly planned areas of the governmental units of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro . A. For projects serving subdivisions subject to the planning process of one or more governmental units , a final determination will be made by the staff, subject to appeal to the Board of Directors, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the essential water and sewer service data for the project in addition to the proposed development plan required by the governmental unit. 10 B. For projects within existing service areas or extending 8" or smaller diameter mains not more than 750 feet be- yond existing facilities, a final. determination will be made by the staff, subject to appeal to the Board of Directors, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the essential water and sewer service data for the project. C. For proposed projects extending the area served and not subject to the planning process of one or more govern- mental units, following a staff review period of up to thirty (30) days, the proposal will be presented to the Board of Directors at their next regularly scheduled Committee of the whole meeting at which time they will either make a decision on the project or table it for later consideration. A final decision on the request will be made within thirty (30) days of the initial consideration. D. Projects not subject to the planning process Of one or more governmental units which l) extend mains 8" or above more than 750 feet or 2) extend mains into the Joint Planning Area: Rural and Joint Planning Area: University Lake Watershed, shall be submitted to the parties of the Agreement for courtesy review. E. Implementation and interpretation of the Water and Sewer Extension Policies and the Courtesy Review Agreement is the responsibility of the Executive Director. The Executive Director is authorized to make clarifications and minor revisions to assure a fair and equitable application of the extension policies and the processing and review procedure. F. For proposed projects requiring a public hearing, the review period will extend through the meeting next succeeding the public hearing. G. From time to time on a pro,Wt basis the above schedule may be departed from if adequate information, is not available that is necessary for a determination. Lack of definitive action shall not be presumed to be implicit approval. 1• ADDENDUM # 2 COURTESY REVIEW PROCESS FOR WATER AND SEWER EXTENSIONS 1. The Courtesy Review Process for proposed water and sewer extensions within the jointly planned area, as defined in the Courtesy Review Agreement, shall be as follows : A. Orange County, chapel Hill and Carrboro, through their - respective planning organizations, will advise OWASA in writing, through its Executive Director, as to their respective planning programs which might involve the extension or expansion of water and sewer facilities , and will keep OWASA informed as these plans and pro- grams are modified and updated. B. Orange County , Chapel Hill and Carrboro, through their respective planning organizations, will notify OWASA in writing, through its Executive Director, of all request made to them for proposed development involving water and sewer facilities and of all permits applied for wit] said respective units of government which require water and sewer service and/or will, cause OWASA to be notifies by referring the applicants specifically to OWASA. C. Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro agree that no final approval for subdivision development, constructio conditional or special use which requires connection to or an extension of the water sewer system of OWASA will be granted without the express approval of OWASA. D. OWASA will notify Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrbo of all proposed major extensions of the water and sewer system of OWASA, wheterh such extensions are to be made by OWASA, or by a private developer with OWASA' s approv OWASA will allow an appropriate period for review by th unit (s) of government in whose planning jurisdiction th porject is proposed for development, provided OWASA sha not be obligated to delay its review, processing and de- velopment of the proposed extension for longer than (45 forty-five dyas for this purpose, said period being deemed to have begun on the day OWASA mails or other- wise delivers to the governmental unit notice of the proposed extension. OWASA will consider such comments as are received from the governmental unit (s) affected, and may implement the extension or development fifteen (15) days after the comments are received or forty-fivE (45) days after notification, whichever is sooner. E. OWASA agrees that it will not authorize or undertake ax project without considering comments received by OWASA from any governmental unit as provided 'herein, provide( such comments as the other governmental units may offer are received within the allowed forty-five (45) day pe. F. Review and comment requirements hereinabove set forth shall not apply in the case of an emergency or any con- dition which reasonably requires prompt remedial action in the interest of health, safety and public welfare. OWASA shall give the units of governement as much notice as possible of the steps proposed to be taken to remedy such emergencies. 13 ADDENDUM #3 JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCEDURES A. The Orange County procedures for consideration and adoption of amendments to the Joint Planning Area land use plan are as follows: The Orange County Board of Commissioners with input from Chapel Hill and Carrboro will hold public hear- ings to hear amendment proposal requests twice a year , to be held in like manner to other public hearings . The Board of Commissioners will refer the amendment proposal to the Orange County Planning Board who shall have sixty (60) days within which to make a recommend- ation to the Board of Commissioners . Adoption of the amendment shall occur after a properly advertised public hearing at which the requesting party to this Agreement shall formally address the proposed amendment . Public Hearings for amendment requests shall not be held at the same time as rezoning public hearings unless the amendment has no link to the property being rezoned. B. (Reserved for Chapel Hill) . C. (Reserved for Carrboro) . 14 OMS Approval No.24-•00 • . • • 7, • s.UMBER • 2, STATE 1..MADER ' 4111•■■■•■■■••■■•••••••• FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 2. APPLI. APPLJCA. CANTS -- TION 1- F 7"e 0 PREAFPLICATIDN APPLI. b.DATE IN:Hr. b. DATE Yor month dc O riper eseinth clay ACTI" 0 PFLICATION CATION 19 82 3 Fl ER MIMED 19 F, rroime'lt4P- El NOTIFICATION OF INTENT (Opt.) L... . p Kole box: 0 REPDXT OF FEDERAL ACTION Mole 4. LEGAL APPLICANT/RECIPIENT 5. FEDERAL EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NO. The County of Orange 56-6000327 0. Appliamt Hone I . "II. Ottillitatkin Unit t 5. : 106 East Margaret Lane a. KUM* I. F- Strset/P.,0. Boa PRO. IL C1 Hillsborou a Orange Hillsborough S. b. TfltE 0 : Deis* 3 (Prowl I. Meta ; NC "P"C 27278 Federal N/A .- 16.owtict ps n Ka I wand, Mr. Bill Laws (919) 732-8181 Catalog) g 4 tetepkotee No.) : Assistant County Manager 6 7. Trn.s AND DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANTS PROJECT ' B. TYPE OF APPLICANT/RECIPIENT A-State Ii-Community AdJea 11-tolerstala II- her EducetleneI MO elloa EFLAND ESTATES SEWER SYSTEM T.-Subsoils District tialeriaZI/Os D-Conoty (-Dry Package wastewater treatment plant and F-Sctifx4 Dhhict approximately 6230 LF of 8" gravity sewer line GO=P11444 to serve 44 residential lots and the Efland- Cheeks School . . 9.TYPE OF ASSISTANCE ga147"22""4".1114. A-Dasic Stant 0-Inwood 10.AREA OF PROJECT IMPACT 11Newursof cities,coineties. D-Supplawatol Grant E-Other Emu,arm, O-Lnao 11. ESTIMATED NUM. 12..TYPE OF APPL/CATION Fria.letterte)Eu Stator.de.) SER OF PERSONS A-H. C-RwrIsloa E-AuftneithrtIot ITENEFITING 13-flowsl D-Coatinualled ORANGE COUNTY, EFLAND COMMUNITY 176 XlsIer appropriate LOW[ 13. PROPOSED FUNDING 14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF: 15. TYPE OF CHANGE IFor ISo or 7k) A-lnuesse Donors F-Othee (Specify): • FEDERAL $ 134,950 .to a• APPILICAnT b. PROJECT ' B-Dectone Dollars C-lincreots Muslim h. APPLICANT 0 Ay; Fourth Fourth -D-Desrecto Deratioe -.......______- -"- E-Caocaltaios 17 PROJECT - STATE 66,250 .00 16. PROJECT do ' DURATION V DU ON Enter*pm- 01 d. LOCAL 68,710 .90 1982 7 15 10 U. plate letter(s) a. OTHER ' - sto 13. ESTIMATED DATE TO Yew' wow& day 19. EXISTING FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER BE SUBMITTED TO S. TOTAL 3 269,920 •00 FEDERAL,AGENCY p• 19 ga. FEDERAL AGENCY TO RECEIVE REQUEST ■Natm;City.State.ZIP weld) 21. REMARKS ADDED NONE C. DNRCD fa Yas 0 No ...-. it. To the best of pey Moduli.sad belle, b. If requited by OW anorlar A-95 this applIcatioe we*eutottted. eursout b le. Nora- Reno, d3ty I. Ibis prespormieolypHotico ars *Khoo thereda. 4 oppnotiato chlorin/haw add all moose' are Winked: woo. atedriu THE true and correct, the dacumat kas boo APPUC.ANT duly otticnited hi UN Comilla; body of 0 0 CERTIFIES the applitent and the eppliotet will empty (1) • THAT ip. with the ottaclud owed= U the itra14- co 0 0 MS lie apprant2. C3) 0 0 23. a. TYPED NAME MD TITLE b. $1911411/RE a. DATE SICKED CERTIFYING Ali , ri. ,,,ith, ddiv RICHARD E. WHITTED, CHAIRMAN L_ / RUM* SENTATIVE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ?-2/62(... 1/4070Pfr4- 19 . • ________ 24. AGENCY NAME 25. APPLICA. Yelop swum, do: TION - RECEIVED 39 26. ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT V.ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 214 FEDERAL APPLICATION I D ENTIFI CATI ON - 1 32. ADDRESS 30. FEDERAL GRANT IDENTIFICATION d a d . Year month dov 1 31. ACTION TAKEN 32. FUNDING 1.o swth ay 34 STARTING g 0 $_AWARDED e. FEDERAL $ _ .00 33. ACTION DATE le. 19 DATE 19 h. REJECTED b. APPLICANT 40 35. CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORM* 36, Year stunt day TION (Now sod tetaphone enreeber) ENDING 0 C. IDETURIELI FOR o.., STATE .00 DATE 19 ARMREST 4. LOCAL .00 I 37. REMARKS ADDED p 4.DEFER.RED e. OTHER .00 0 u. LYTIHDRAWN f. Tout S .00 - 0 Yds JNo - -- 33. a., le takina shore. en,say cooweeta received Beal cherleshowo were ow, b. FEDERAL MACY A-95 OFFICIAL Oland. It stem,,sus la doe undo provisions of Pan 1,OM COtailei A-05, (Noma sad telephone wo.) FEDERAL AGENCY It bat Owl or W IS ail lode. A-95 ACTION • - 424-101 4 STANDARD FORM 424 PAGE 1 (10-71 . Prialerlibed 3.•GM.Fedora Alanapeuwit Circular 11- STATE OF NORTH CAROL"INA _ Department of Human Resources • Department of Natural Resources and Cammunity Deve Division of Health Services Division of Environmental Management .'.PPLXCATION FOR STATE GRANT UNDER THE CLEAN WATER BOND ACT TO BE FILLED IN BY STATE 1977, AS AMENDED, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT DATE RECEIVED aKs, WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS AND WATER. SUPPLY SYSTEMS To be submitted in duplicate PROJECT NUMBER See INSTRUCTION before completin a plication SECTION I - REQUEST FOR STATE GRANT I. LEGAL NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT 2. TYPE OF PROJECT(Check Ong Name THE COUNTY OF ORANGE Wastewater Treatment Street. 106 B. Margaret Lane P. O. Bog. ;{ Wastewater Collect±ol System City Hillsborough,, tdc Zip Code 27273 • ri Supply System Telephone Number (919) 732-8181 . ' 3. PROJECT TITLE 4. TOTAL STATE GRANT REQUES' FOR THIS PROJECT The above named Unit of Government (herein called the "APPLICANT") hereby makes application to the State of $ 66,575 'North Carolina (herein called the "STATE") for State grant assistance as herein indicated- in the construc- 5. ALLOCATION FROM WHICH GR tion of IS REQUESTED Efland Estates Sewer System a. [xJ County Allocatiol herein called the "PROJECT") Amount $ 66,5751 7. CERTIFICATION County Amoun • The attached statements and exhibits are hereby made part of this application and the undersigned repre- Orange _ e 66,E sentative of the Applicant certifies that the infor- mation in the application and the attached statements $ • and exhibits is true, correct,, and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief. He further certi- , $ flee that: He has been authorized to file this appli- cation by formal action of the governing body of the $ _ Applicant as is evidenced by the ATTACHED CERTIFIED COPY OF AUTHORIZATION MADE BY THE APPLICANTS GOV- _ $ ERNING BODY; the governing body of the Applicant agrees that if a State grant for the Project is made pursuant b. 1 1 Statewide Alloca to the Clean Water Bond Act of 1977, as amended, the Applicant will arrange financing for all remaining Amount $ costs of the approved Project; the Applicant will pro vide proper and efficient operation and maintenance of 6. TYPE OF PAYMENT REQUESTS the approved Project after completion of construction thereof; and the Applicant has substantially complied n Lump Sum or will substantially comply with all Federal, State, and local laws,' rules, regulations, and ordinances I X 1 Progress applicable to the Project. 8. NAME AND TITLE OF REPRESENTATIVE 9. SIGNATURE OF REPRESENTATIVE 10. DATE RICHARD E. WHITTED, CHAIRMAN BOARD OF COUNTY COM1ISSIONERS or..ssva sx - rau4nu4 utbi:KlelLUN Describe the proposed Project detailing the work to be performed. Construct a 17,000 GPD tertiary package wastewater treatment plant, one small pu station, and approximately 6230 linear feet of 8--inch gravity sewer line to serve 44 residential lots and the Rfland-Cheeks School in the western part of Orange County. _._.. SECTION III - LEGAL INFORMATION 1. Classification of Applicant County (City, Town, County, Sanitary District, Water and Sewer Authority, etc.) 2. •Cite legal authority for financing, construction, and operation of proposed Project. 3. Population: • a. 1970 Decennial Census 57,567 b. Estimated present population 77,055 c. Population served by present system 0.. • d. Estimated population to be served by the system upon completion of Project construction 85 residents, plu son e. Design population 170 p.e. (Give design year 2002 ) (Give percent design for industry 0 ) SECTION IV - FINANCIAL INFORMATION AS OF DATE OF APPLICATION 1. Financing construction of Project: SOURCE AMOUNT DATE AVAILABI a. Funds to be made available by the Applicant: Cash $ 0 General obligation bonds . (Re.i.ssue! . . . $ 69,035 s March, 1982 Revenue bonds $ 0 Other (specify) $ 0 Sub-total $ 69,035 b. Federal grant-in-aid $ 135,610 : Sub-total $ 204,645 c. State grant requested $ 66,575 2. ,tame sources and amounts of Federal grants and loans requested, and indicate status of - each request. 50% grant from Farmers Home Administration. Application will be filed in April, 1982. Response expected in July, 1982. 3. If bond financing is required for the Project: N/A a. Has a bond issue been authorized by the governing body? El Yes $ 0 No (Explain plans) (amount) (date) b. Is a bond referendum required to approve the bond authorization? r--, Yes ri No If yes, has referendum been held? Yes rift . If yes, . . Results: 1--1 Passed ED Failed '(date) If no, explain plans and proposed date for referendum. 4. Indicate most recent official total tax rate: $ 0.544 . ' per $100 of assessed valuation. 5. Indicate official assessment ratio: 100 %. 6. Indicate estimated tax increase required for debt service because of this Project: $ 0.00 per $100 of assessed valuation. June 30, .1981 7. Outstanding bonded indebtedness not including bonds for this Project: $ 8,405,000 8. Indicate total appraised property valuation: $ 1 809,312,895 (for 1981) 9. The proposed water bonds of $ and/or sanitary sewer bonds of when added to the Applicant's existing indebtedness, are within the present debt limitation provisions of the general laws of the State. Yes No • If no, explain. N/A 10. The Applicant has followed proper accounting and fiscal reporting procedures, as evidenced by the Applicant's most recent report of audit, and the Applicant is in substantial compliance with provisions of the general fiscal control laws of the State. Yes X No _ . Explain exceptions. SECTION V -, ENGINEERING INFORMATION 1. Project cost estimate suminary: Indicate under item 1. a. major items of work for which separate contracts are propos and estimated cost. Eat. Project Cast Est. Total. Eligible for Stat. Project Cost Participation a. Construction: Wastewaier Treatment Plant (1) Contract . . . . . . . . . . . $ 83,000 $ 83,000 Wastewater Collection System $(2) Contract . . . grim setego • se • • • q . 54,830 $ 148,150 (3) Contract (4) Contract (5) Contract (6) Contract (7) Equipment & materials $ $ Sub-total $ 235,830 $ 231,150 b. .Technical services t 22,600 $ 22,600 , c. Legal and fiscal $ 1,000 $ , 1,000 d. Administrative e. Contingency $ 11,790 $ 11,550 f. Other (specify) g. Site and other real property interests . • $ 0 0 Total $ 271,220 $ 266,300 t 1 2. Time schedule proposed for construction of Project: a. Estimated date of submission of final plans and specifications August 15, 1982 If approved, give date and approval number N/A b. Estimated date contract can be awarded October 15, 1982 c. Estimated construction time (calendar days) 120 d. Estimated percent of completion of Project by fiscal years: FY E'83 100 %; FY , 2; FY 2. -5- 3. , Site, easement, and rights-of-way information: a. If acquired, describe the precise interest which has been acquired and date of acquisition. N/A b. If not acquired, describe the proposed method and time required for. acquisition. The County ihtends to negotiate with the Orange County School Board for land on the Efland Cheeks School property for the treatment plant site. Approximately 15 sewez line easements will be needed, but have not yet been acquired. 4. Engineering services (name, address, and telephone number of Applicant's engineer). The John R. McAdams Company, Inc. Post Office Box 2896 (919) 967-7079 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 SECTION VI -- SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND NARRATIVE STATEMENTS 1. Resolution or resolutions of governing body providing required assurances and agreements and designating an authorized representative. a. Certification by recording officer b. Affidavit of compliance with Federal, State and local laws, rules, regulations and ordinances 2. Environmental impact statement 3. Preliminary engineering report 1 4. Financial feasibility analysis 5. Agreements with other units of government 1 x 1 6. Engineering and other professional services agreements and contracts executed as of date of application I x j 7. Copy of "Notification to Clearinghouse of Intent to Apply For Assistance," OMB Form #424, as submitted and I I a. State clearinghouse comments b. Regional clearinghouse comments 8. Resolution establishing capital reserve fund (if applicable) [.�_ 1 9. Sewer use ordinance (wastewater projects only) j X I 10. Other documents, narrative statements or data in support of application Report from Orange County Health Department Additional copies of this application form and instructions may be obtained from the Divisior. of Environmental Management, Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, P. 0. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611; or the Water Supply Grants Unit, Sanitary Engineering Section, Division of Health Services, Department of Human Resources, P. O. Box 2091, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. DHS Form 2102 (10-74) (revised 2/79) Clean Water Bond Administration RELATED DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION a. December 15, 1980 letter from Orange County Health Department to each homeowner in Efland Estates, concerning the health threat associated with the failed septic tanks. b. December 22, 1980 memo from Orange County Health Department Director aerry Robinson, to Orange County Commissioners, describing the health situation at Efland Estates and asking their assistance. -5- Resolution Authorizing the Town Clerk to Release the Construction Letter of Cre for the Cable TV System Mr. Secrist presented background information: a $200,000 letter of creel "guarantee timely construction and full activation of the Cable TV system" had provided by Village Cable. As the company had "satisfactorily completed and activated the cable system pursuant to the terms of the franchise agreer Management recommended that the $200,000 letter of credit be released. COUNCILMEMBER KAWALEC MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WALLACE, TO AP THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN CLERK TO RELEASE THE CONSTRUCTION L OF CREDIT FOR THE CABLE TV SYSTEM (81-R-216) WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill finds that Village Cabl satisfactorily completed and fully activated the Cable system pursuant to the to the franchise agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill th Council hereby authorizes the Town Clerk, David B. Roberts, to release the lei credit deposited with the Town Clerk to guarantee timely completion and activai the Cable TV system. This the 14th day of December, 1981. Councilmember Smith requested that a letter be sent from the Mayor' s commending the local Cable TV system for their completion and activation o system prior to the deadline. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Reports Revaluation of the Corn•rehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Roscoe Chairman of the Planning Board, stated that the Planning Board wished to i! Council' s prior instructions to review the Zoning Ordinance and the Compreh Plan. The review would be mostly independent of staff commitment and would i citizen input and professional assistance from the University of North Carolina of City and Regional Planning. Councilmember Smith expressed concern as to whether the Zoning Ordinance ha around long enough to determine its workability and wondered if the timint appropriate for such an exhaustive study. Be also expressed concern regardi amount of staff time that might be taken away from the Thoroughfare Plan wo he did not wish to see this work delayed. Mr. Reeve responded that the work phase of the revaluation would be done predominantly by the graduate class at Mayor Nassif did not wish to have a review if it meant another extensive revi: the current Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Howes, however, felt that such a would be an invaluable exercise; it did not seem to represent a diversion fr ongoing responsibilities of the Planning Board to provide advice to the Council. DRAFT December 28, 1981 (undistributed) January 25 , 1982 February 1 , 1982 February 21 , 1982 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this the day of , 1982 , by, between and among th-e—MTNTY OF ORANGE , a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina, THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, and TOWN OF CARRBORO, municipal corporations duly created and existing under the laws of North Carolina, hereinafter for convenience referred to as a whole as "GovernmPn- tal Units" and ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, a water and sewer authority created, organized and existing under the pro- visions of the Water and Sewer Authority Act contained in Chapter 162A of the General Statutes of North Carolina, hereinafter re- ferried to as OWASA; WITNESSETH : That for and in consideration of the public benefits expected to flow from the cooperative efforts of the Governmental Units , be- tween and among themselves from the establishment of coordinated and comprehensive planning within their respective areas of public concern, and. OWASA, that the parties to this Agreement do hereby mutually agree as follows : ARTICLE 1 . PURPOSE AND DEFINITION SECTEON 1 .1 PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT. The purpose of this agreement is to establish a method whereby coordinated and comprehensive planning may be provided for in t-.11 Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Area as deline- ated on the adopted Orange County Land. Use Plan Map and herein- after referred to as the Joint Planning Area. OWASA, ORANGE COUNTY, CHAPEL HILL and CARRBORO were created end exist under the laws of North Carolina and are bodies politic and corporate and exercising public and essential governmental func- tions to provide for the public health and welfare . It is under- stood and agreed that this Agreement is intended simply as an administrative agreement and procedure for the mutual coopration of the parties in dealing with the subject matter, and that the Agreement does not abridge or amend the statutory authorizations and responsibilities of the parties to the Agreement as exercis2 under the Statutes of North Carolina and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. ':-•7:-..!' •1 - ':''':::::::t;'::'";'=77i-T*741.::-:.: 7.-i' :•-•=7-:•.:'''''.-,.'':".7'''''''.''''."-;'''''.:..4%,":•7t:,,-:.:7:',.:.;:c7-e:.Z.-;--:,74,:""7:7'.W.:::F-VIPET. . IN- .SZ.-,,,,,,■,- 7:13b.:7-1V.D 07 CO:•3.1.ffsioNE..? :-.,-..: ,.--,,....:-::;-,,1■:c6 7,7 , ,,.,-0::4:1---:,,.;_g-i: .. .... Ite.7: ACTION 2:',17,r7NDA TIT24 iSSTRACT tial=t3 DATE 3-1-82 Subject: Request by Duke Power Company for Planned Development - Office - Institutional; Class A Special Use Permit; Rezoning LI).'Par-T'' PLANNING ' I IFUbliC 1[.? ring: X yeS . no . . • • ,. .. . . . . ,. . .. . ' . .. . . . • • . . I. . . . At, ..ch-aartt.(S):Plat; Application pg.. 3..12; InLormation. CO at:act: Jim Polatty Na-trative pg. 3-4; Tax Map. pg. 6; Letter , Pg. 11: Chapel Hill Review pg. 9-10; Staff PhOrLE.... NtrezeX: 732-8181 Ext. 342 7ftnainos pp. 14-2W; Necommencations pg.-21712. . .. . PUPPCGE:To receive input nd comments concerning an aoolication for a Planned Development " Office Institutional; Class A Special Use Permit; Rhzoning. . - . . NEED: The applicant has requested a PD-OI designation for property located at the intersection of NC 86 and Homestead Road (SR. 1777) . An office -building to serve customers, and a maintenance/warehouse facility is planned by the applicant. The 14 acre tract is proposed to have access only onto Homestead Road. Traffic figures for the area are 8900 trios/day on NC 86 (1980) and 3000 trips/day on Homestead.Road- The Planning Staff estimates this use. would generate' an additional 680+ trips., Chapel Hill Planning Board has made recommendations concerning the project. Sanitary sewer is not yet available at the site, however discussions about servicing the area are cotinuing. The Orange County Health Department has approved the lot for on site sewage disposal. OPASA has existing water lines on.86 and Homestead . Road. The site is generally wooded and the building is proposed to be , •••• -set far back from the road. An extensive landscape plan has also been - ,' • - submitted. • -. Went to public hearing on January 25, 1982. . . . . . Duke Power Company is in agreement with the Planning Board . • - - - recommendation,. IMPACT: This request for PD-OX is located at a Commercial Transition Activity Node (CH"-2). The use proposed conforms to the permitted uses in the district requested. The development intensity of the proposal meets the minimums required for open space; pedestrian/landscape space and does not exceed the allowed Floor Area. • RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval with conditions as outlined in the findings of fact. :',.'.7-:.„;"]:,"::.-• .1...,.',7.....:,,,.:,:....,;_ 00526 . • :-...-. , - .:-:" :'..:..:' .., . '( 1.1 ..........._....,_._ ...._.._.__„._ ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEF'ARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTE( CAROLINA p7278 „ , . ..—... 11......, 41•4 c:0" .... MEMO TO: Ken Thompson, County Manager ' ) FROM: Jim Polatty, Planning Director-__J) SUBJECT: Staff Recommendations on the Approv&I of Duke Power, Class A Special Use Permit, Rezoning Request. DATE: February 22, 1982 The Planning Staff recommendations on Duke Power's request for a Class A Special Use Permit and rezoning differs somewhat from the Planning Boards. . . -- a Trl. That sanitary sewer exist to the proposed .„. site or be constructed as part of this development proposal. Recommendation .#1 contained in the imposed conditions is the Planning Board's replacement. . ... Staff feels that sanitary sewer and all other urban services should exist at this Commercial Transition Activity Node, because of the intensity of development that could be allowed at the node. The Planning Board also added recommendation number 12., JP/sw . . , ' - • ' . LJ27 7..13 APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION DATE .0acertther 21, 1.981 . The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Orange County, North Carolinft COMMISSIONERS: The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Number 2a Block number - , Lot number 41 Shown on'the accompanying plat, which is presently in a R1 District be rezoned to PD-OI for the following reasons: To construct the Duke Power Company Operations Center. See attached narrative. Signed: Address: A -1 O'Brien/Atkins Associates. P. A. William L. O'Brien, P. O. Box 2656 Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 0 — Duke Power Company J. n J., /P. Kincaid, Jry 91 S. Elliot Road Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 1 .. , . • , .. , . , ,„ '„,, .■ ; •' ....'' r'. '' '''•'1-.','.:'':.,'';1',.;';'.,^r'.,-"?:,.',.. ."'.',II.;17..:7i'''''' '.f..::1::..!: OP 59R - --:- . , . , .. , ... IA 0.) 4-, to G G r-I U n:r •,--I ,:.. 4.);.4 'In ,-I a In . tr, co , a.) N 14-4 0 -,,-.1 • Cs1 .r-I 0 -,. 0 H 0 4.1...., 1-1 ° 8 c..) LI 0,T,o) tn • • el 0 •-• In Q H In - _ ._ . ._ • ta•H ca .. ._. . Q.1---- H • 6) 0 CD C7 cji ` H .,._1 rj U ri0F 3 H H a ,,-4 0 G- cp -0 t O 4-1 0 4-1 04 a) c._.) .,c, 4-4-4 c0 c,) ..„, • ,,, ✓ 0 7 P. •4-I 0 .44 . . 4 f0 1-4 "0 '0 1-.. C.) 0 C.) 0 ",. In •. H.--. 0 . 0 0 r-I H • r0 1:14 ‘7, 0 N 0 7° 41 0 0 g a) Ct. co 0 rj 0 P4 H Y, U3 4-1 P-4 cn 0 0 g 0,, .,,, ›, /-, 1)) •ri },, 0 0 4-• 4-' co pl U -0 -0 0 ° •rl , H )--:: rd sr) a 4..1 . . • . • ,--1 0 0 0 -H ro 4 0 U) 13, 0 0 0 . 0 0 G Q1 0 oZ) al 1-1 , c.J . . P • .44a• 0 ' 0 d , • .. . . -•.0 -.. DI ,..-1 P• LH 4 -d . • • . . Li c4 g ,i C.-5 0 03 H 4 11-1 Z n -ri 1-4 4-1 r-4 ri, n3 Z Q) Z 0 '0 • :74 14 H 4J. •• 0 0 H .-0 •-.1 0 0 a) ,-.1 0 14 7 if/1 O 44 0 o 4-■ > ra , I H ' 0 -4. • O }• 0 P4 p4 0 0 .65C0 r- m 0 n 0 H 0 g 0 o ai IA 0 al )-t 4. En z.;,...-- a. ni 3 tr) ,....-.-. o .. r3 7., Q) {3., -0 •0 0 0 H .. O ... 0 0 0 0 E "H o, 4-1 0- 0 14 „0 ,...1 0 4.4 P4 at 0 P" r'' 1., 0.1 P:1 0 .•.. 4..1 I 0 0 4j0 •• ul i it, O t..7 -ri • o t-,1 G r•I 17,- 0 H r'. 0 0 ,--.4 4.3 .--. In 14 Cl 4, 0 tr) 4-1 44 P-... .° •ri 0 O 0 0 1-1 ° ° N 0 0 U 7. ° "ri 4H a) a) ..0 0 'ri 0 •rt .?-,... 34 al X 1-4 H c., 14 0 -0 • >4. 0 0 P -‹ 5 E.) H 'ct Li 2 ._ ....... ., . . .... . . . . . ._ ..,.. . . , . '0O:529' DUKE POWER COMPANY OPERATIONS CENTER - CHAPEL HILL, N.C. Narrative for Rezoning and Special Use Permit Application December 21 , 1981 Relation to Major Tnansportation Facilities The site is located at the intersection of a major arterial (N.C. Highway No. 86) and a minor arterial (Homestead Road) . Access to the facility by public and employee automobiles will be provided from Homestead Road 500 feet from N.C. Highway No. 86. In addition, a service entrance will be located 890 feet from the intersection. The Chapel Hill Transit bus route passes by the site headed north on N.C. Highway No. 86. A crosswalk across Highway 86 will link the bus stop with the walkway to the main entrance. Dedication of additional street right-of-way and highway improvements will be in accordance with Orange County and North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and requirements. Sidewalks and bikeways will be as required by Orange County and constructed to Chapel Hill and N.C. D.O.T. standards and requirements. Relation to Public Utilities, Facilities and Services The proposed planned development district is adequately serviced by existing water and power lines. Power is supplied by Duke Power Company overhead lines located along the north side of Homestead Road and the west side of Highway 86. Water is supplied by Orange Water and Sewer Authority lines along the centerline of both Homestead Road and Highway 86. The sanitary sewer and storm and surface drainage systems proposed for the development will be contained within the site. No sanitary sewer service exists in the vicinity of the site. A septic tank is proposed for the facility. No storm sewer system exists adjacent to the site. The proposed storm and surface drainage system is described in detail on the soil erosion and sedimentation control plan submitted with this application. Necessary public services and facilities are adequate to serve the development. Solid waste disposal will be by private collection. The site is under the jurisdiction of the Orange County Sheriff's Department. The facility will be in the New Hope Rural Fire District and will be served by the South Orange Rescue Squad. 3 -- - --- - --- -• • -- - , - . • • ' . . , . . 00530 • •- PhysicalCharacter of the Site Relation to. Surrounding Property "Development of this site in the manner proposed will create no hazards to persons or ,property, on or off the tract. The , development includes a single building locate near the penter of the site with associated parking and storage areas. The existing house and outbuildings will be removed when they are vacated by the present inhabitant. New construction will occur within a setback line located 100 feet from the rear property line and thirty-five feet from the property lines along Highway 86 and Homestead Road. Property to the west is owned by Duke Power Company. Actual buffers will be a minimum of 200 feet wide along Highway 86 and 70 feet wide along Homestead Road. There are no adverse conditions on the site. The design of the complex limits cut and fill and areas to be cleared and graded, A 4 71 • 1 . . ' -------- , .. 4, . . . - / N & -,:k.'".5.) \,,CI 1 A.„ "1" IS.P.°/.NI.0" ta eS raS /43,ro• , ,,s,..,? ). 17 -d HO- SO 10)- _. . \ X.--0° .._ ..•,‘ \ /0 ,..,\ \ /4.. `;`/'°. „A CONC, -f "7 .. AREA 7-, ,P of "Pe , +:.:•••,)'4 ot '0 e < .... 47 .7' ..D.3 1..5. 1 6.:° 4 r- „ 00• ,• c..,,,,,, -50 ...\\,... . . CHAPEL HILL BRANCH r6; OPERATING CENTER or A, • t. k - %, ... „,... I? ii 0 "ai AREA = 14,84 ACRES .1.,v0,10-• ":„....„, , t. LA 14, ,4 •:., 7.......tv, K. tg)„...-..5„.• ook.. . , la •••,4- , v3 v '.1.0 - • •-• cp r; . c..-7.4 93i. ./.011 • ,. ' (CHORD) '1.•-•0. I SO' 'I'Ilt. NAIL FOR TOPOC.RAPHIC mA.p SEE DWG. NO 6O -45 .....`" ••• .....6‘ NOY 6 : REVISED: 0-10-at ■ ;:2". .1'1‘ A/9.r.' DUKE POWER COMPANY CHAPEL HILL BRANCH OPERATING CENTER PROPERTY ACOLI1RED Fhom . LILLIE C. FREELAND _ CHAPEL H ILL,N.C. CHAPEL HILL TOW NSHIP • CHANGE COUNTY . ScALE I 1-='200' KtRcH 31, tOet TO 0a 5521 MISC 000x 00.590 0 OX&16E9 FAX tiCt 6-606 . ' 5 FR.:: NO 6-60 6 .,. ,-...;...,-,::,:,:: ,. ,',,,:. ,.:.„,,.: , : . •.:' , .. , '.-..,..,,,y: ,- L-, ...-.-L.:. '-: :- '......::.; .f. ;,'„,',.'.`.;-..`:1-1-.?'"7,,,;.-,,,.i4',,:...':.;,...7,,.',.'.:";:-.-= ' ' ' '"-.'''''''','-',''''':.- ', , .:. . : ..-- , .:- - - -. : .,,,,,...,,,,, ,..„ ,......•., „.„...„....,..,.. .no5P•,? - .. , . - . ... s 1 P: , . 1 I : i .. , ,0*.rxc4 !.!, 0 4.4 4',.• ... 17 'Q.. 1 , I I I • 1201) ---..---„---,. — 1. 1 il" • ''.••t.!,•"•^:••Tri7IRY) 1 III,`: l'i• I: k 1 ri L . - .. \ . • .i,i, • p.-.------------. 2. ) -———"-—--"Z.-_-....,...._,,,_ ,... .5570-, -.-1, ...• 911 . N.,--- , - - -- . I 1 \ • \ J. \' 5?. AC - t '1,4 . (. . 1 I • / 7 AC \ 122 t I . i --4 t • 85152 t i .' ' t \.\\ . .. . . ■ C^ 1 I 1 . . i i .......... . I I • 0/ -,...) asus 0 I I 4 /110A 6 67 AC I( ,,...., i .„.„,,,„,...,, ,,......_,_„...------,...-Li P47./6157nr,- ';':'^',,''',.:,;P"', ;:;4,1",”.%,"ii.:',- ;,,,,,,,:;.0,;.,,,-*;,'•/ 0. ,,,r,...,... . ,.......,.... . — 1........-....,--„...,,,,,, .",,.:, ,,,;: ;',:',Z3T.,..,7:,.....;.:',Iitirg...:?X‘I.iz.,4 r i ‘,•:„ CO :',-1 • AC, = ! I • ..:-.,,,,,,,,-::::;',:k;•,-,:,,i'g.:: 1.,,,,.., :sp.::.,,, .., , .1 147tt,CO3,,W:J:, : 4h... ..s753 ' / :••• '...t4,. '''l -:a'.:A"='i '' '. _ -- ... .- • e.5'47 ■ .! . '...• % C •it.: : IA_ t / ,___,,....-- 18.9 AC ,, " -4 I ,I i,,,. I il,A036/ ! I I' I''''......,,,,,........„,,....„, I i t ........„ I O (CHI) CH) . \***"....„ I . . 0 1 12.14 AC. 1.11 i • e .... 10 AC 1 1 40 ! , :22-5A:711 "..* . . /1. ... . , i _.. 4 Sirr ..,,,,..." „1 il a..d• 14710„,/, /I; i L LS•C4:•'..LI:LIILI e''' ...e....75 t' -:- li'; ., . I rc., 'ii { : •''777... i''' Si<1.771 ''....e4".■7`. it!...' , \.!....7."(M., rfzei..,:l...., _,.. --, ,. iv. ii? I IVSVPI"*".04.45'',...--'•&■‘;"1 11715 i 74 4',- 1.6P. -, ..›.1-ee':\-S-1 Gr., Vri:IS„ 15 SAC CAL- 1 448,...,1 It_2_, ° di : ,,,-7.44:::-:?-1,' .1 -."--, b.'437$7: A ...■ ;. !`I • i 1>Z4tV7.) :1':,-tg:2.-:,,,,t-A....marit_Et21. I c, --........ -0 2.9s 6.0-7-:-,;q. .---.--- ----*------ 3:.. Ac 1,..r:;,,r S. _......,,t _,...._..,7.,;.:.."'•L' 4 r.ri,f^.. : Tr' :•••.^ , •■ i.E.r) l''''- • A . ... 1 EC..E.%rf.) .. -......... _ .......... .........__________......._..... ........... ____ ......_......__ ....._ ,•..i.•.r•,,,,I.I.15 - . ....--— . i•.1 I •■..a.cf.1,.. :^..,, ..-- -- - -- --....--...---- $7,t,4 ,.....- . .,.....,,.._ ,....■ 'L.::;.1.;f7};:;1Z.,V,r V. :::. '"■=1-----...''''*"'........"'''' . ......„..,,,,,.„.......... : $1.,..A 0 e.r., ,. ,,, 7.1 6 . . 1 :ix:. ::::-I.97.• 1, : +'- -'a- ... • . , . , •i„:::::•.-.,...•. „..-- . .-- .• . - -•_--.. _ . _ -.. - - - - . 0053 • , 721 • _ . _ .._, , . .. _.. _ ._ ORANGE C(YUTNTY PLANNMTG DEPARTAIENT ITILLSBOROUGII NORTII CAROLINA 27278 ,),%1 Of ..i. ., , ".:• -3:• "Parctoe NOTICE The Orange County Planning Board and County Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing on Monday January 25, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina. In this meeting Duke Power will be requesting a rezoning to PD-OI and "Class A" Special Use Permit under Section 8.8.23 (Planned Developments) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Duke Power is requesting to construct their Operations Center at the North- west intersection of S.R. 1777 (Homestead Road) and NC 86. This property is located in Chapel Hill Township on Tax Map 24, part of lot 41, involving 14.84 acres. ? . - We are required to notify all property owners within 500 feet of the property concerning this request. All persons who wish to speak concerning this request will be heard at this meeting. The Orange County BoardofComni5_ssiorersacts in a Quasi-Judicial matter in hearing this special use. If all requirements in the Zoning Ordinance are met, the Board must approve this application • unless the Board finds one of three other.conditions applies.. Those opposing approval of the application on the grounds that the use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare, will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property or is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the County,shall have the burden of establishing, by competent material and substantial evidence, the specific manner in which the proposed use does not satisfy the requirements for approval of the application for a Special Use. • /sw • , _.--- _-.:-,•',-:-.,•:,,,.-::. - ... .:.;'-•-,- - ' ..;,• ; „,:.- -,• • , - '- '-: - , -.-...; ",•-•01=4:.::-.:: .-, r:=?T• I,IE3R1( ORDER TAX MAP V- ,--2'2-1 •.- „ . BLOCK4 : , , , LOT ) s.• : - NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER; ' - PERSON REQUESTING.TEaT; If different from owns authorized by owner; ---1"YES • :- .NO i : - - " I) it) ' i ' ' ci . 41.1; ..' . 2-1 ., 19) • •-;/ ,25? • . C.., /IV.- . '' ADDRESS; 0/3; r(7 Z-I - ( Cr/ • • 4, E,f/..-:' ;• r v ...) I' f'...... • ,....• . :: TELEPHONE:. 97 2-4_,V- _:.:....-............:___„,..... . . . . DIRECTION/PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: r; -, " ik ! "' ''''' 1' t I • " 1 - . ' . WORK REQUESTED; FEE PAID : . PRELIMINARY LOT EVALUATION P" ' SOIL A . • ' • _ ANALYSIS . . . ..--"-- _IMPROVEMENT PERMIT INSPECTION ------------- . p--*" CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION INSPECTION i' „...---......--,,„. PURPOSE OF REQUEST is to determine suitability for ground absorpkion sewage die— : nose' system. -- . SP-ECIFICATIOR OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE: '•':.• : • • :1• :. OWNER OF AUTHORIZED AGENT: .......... (This signature indicates parMission has been ranted to enter priverty for purposes authorized by this work orders) - :;*.? :: `i • „ : -,• :';'; .- CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL FACTORS (CIRCLE): ::. •.--: •:::::,. :: '-:: ' ':-: :,-'', S „ s ..! . , ..../.5...;;;•; •.,..-•.:: :,- '...: ':7;.-- : :-' ;:- (•:•5.--).' 1:•••••.,'•:' SLOPE :p.5. TEXTURE :(13 t.STRUCTURE'.cP '.., DEPTH LPS . RESTRICTIVE HORIZONS ; -*-;1.';"'-.--. •:- 0 Er .-;:'-rt'l,i-±.; •;-.-:- : ::, S.......;.,T;;,‘,.,•:: :;-::, :..;,-: :': : ;. 0:)'-1-V`'” ._.- ...7f,;N .: ' Vt:::\''f-,-.ANI:t.kic•;4,.i m-,../... bATNAG—r., PS) --: PERMEABILITY (PS' "xi..,:. .,.tri 5-"I''''''1`)^:4 ', 11--". ..'• , ' - ' .. U ; - ' ',: . : :,.,-.• ., U (11--i 0-'ti,IY 1".0 3 g. •\';fi.,1 !-NP:= ,*,;•,-111j -i.:T 1 L-.,;:•,.,2 pir:.. ^,-..-: 1,y/it-ill:: „ cYs..\.16r;L: sIft... CLASSIr ICA fION (CIRCLE);.;--::::: SUITABLE : " UNSUITABLE ,i ':::- PROVISIONALLY7SUITABLEI;r! Explanation - p : . • DALE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: • -• ,STnNAlliPr nc. cAMTTADTAM ProcnOurmi, ccourr.cc. ' 7 ../ ..8 .. 00535 - TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL JUG NORTH COLUMBIA STREET CHAPEL ItILL. NORTH CAROLINA 27514 Telephone (919) 929-lilt January 15, 1982 Kenneth R. Thompson Orange County Manager 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear M5Tirt5g5Son: I am forwarding the attached resolution on behalf of the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill. The Town appreciates this opportunity to comment on Duke Power's request for a planned development for its proposed operations center on Hbmestead Road. The attached resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council at its January 11, 1982 meeting. Should you have any questions, feel free to call. )4' Ronald A. Sacrist ' Interim Town Manager /ba Attachment 9 • - . u0536- A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PD-01 FOR DUKE POSTER COMPANY 82-R-7 BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby recommends that the Orange County Board of Commissioners approve the request for a Planned Development-Office and Institutional for property located at the northwest corner of NC 86 and Homestead Roads subject to the following stipulations: 1. That both driveway access points on Homestead Road be located to achieve a sight distance of 462 feet each way for each driveway. That plans for these relocated driveways, including topographic contours across the roadway or a profile of the roadway be submitted to the Town Manager for his approval prior to construction. 2. That left turn lanPs and right turn deceleration lanes meeting the requirements of the Chapel Hill Design Manual be provided prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3. That all parking and storage areas with the exception of those to be used for heavy equipment parking and equipment storage be paved to the standards contained in the Chapel Hill design and construction manuals. 4. That the proposed pedestrian access to NC 86 be relocated to the intersection of Homestead Road and NC 86. 5. That the proposed dumpster be placed on a 10' x 20' concrete pad, 6" thick, with wire mesh. 6. That the applicant dedicate additional right-of—way, as necessary, along the frontage of the subject property with Homestead Road and NC 86 to achieve the following standards: For NC 86, 45 feet of right-of-pay measured from the centerline. For Homestead Road, 40 feet of right-of-way measured fram the centerline. 6 $ 7. That at such time as public sewer service is available within 200 feet of the site, that the applicant will connect to that system. This the 11th day of January, 1982. • 10 - .;-•..:-- •...-,--,". .- ,..7.,..,:-..-..;:•.-_ ... ' . ---'.• • • , . '-•,•.'-:-•V Li a 4.1 ( • ';'. ...... . .. . . .-- - ,-. . ..-, • ..... • . , 7"--) .....k) . . . . ' 1 , ' 1 i 1 J -S _., s) -1.• , _,-,-,--,-p. ---F 3 (7) i't i '=- -,.. - -- ---.3 .v' - .•=4 ,,.,.,,,_ ri ii?4, 44 1 ,),1_ ...,, , , J __..) 7---.. 1 --k-,,, 4 ,, 1 1 t 4 J ....,/ 4., . .....11... °14 d '' ''--' 4 4 ' --I .i ..i)" i -1- -S-1, - "t- N -''' . 1 .3 -1= i-,' ,,.,. ,4f •\ 9 ,. % 4 3t -IT, 5 ,,,,„-.3 1 ,_,,,,. . 1 --.4 d ■-..4 •:)-C 1 q -1 i p , d 3 . I i . . I . I .. 7- . -Z ' -;`. 4 , . . , '0 -I •I _.4 7 • . t° 3 :....1 .11 e5N-4: li 1 ..`-'• 7 k .. .4. H 1 . ; -II i -, . t (: . ,1 - — >" ...s„1--- .x. J ••••CZI, VT-Li ''S k CS -:z- , -- . I. g g • --; o 1 (1." .-- _1 , ° 1 (' _ .::.-.... s:;.. 1. - ;ss'-...,? ',, "----'3: ci ''; r-~•r) ---71 ■J v • - 1 ; 4_ cl ro - 4 r-, :t --? 1 ! I il rt. ..) z • ‘.I I, i , 1 .,,' . ''-•, - A b ..._..":=- i"-----..1 5,1 '-iF `'' .. 'i c- d Iri -..._, Y ,I. .. t.; f"----An J C.-....-- ... . , , . 0-0538 • . Duke Power Company's Class A Special Use Permit • Application The following information is the Orange County Planning Boards findings of fact concerning Duke Power'S request for a Class A Special Use Permit under section 8.8.23 of the 'Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The corresponding zoning dis- trict applied for is Office - Institutional. • The following evidence has been supplied by the applicant or by the Orange County Planning Department. Article 8 Special. Uses. Ordinance requires: Findings: 8.2.•1 a) The applicant shall have the The Planning Board finds that the burden of establishing, by competent applicant has presented competent material and substantial evidence, the material and substantial evidence existence of the facts and conditions for the approval of the request; which this ordinance requires for with the attached imposed conditions. approval; and 8.2.1 b) The Board shall make written The applicant has provided figures findings certifying compliance with that indicate compliance with Article the specific rules governing such in- 5 Dimensional Requirements and Ar- dividual Special Use and that the use, ticle 6, Application of Dimensional which is listed as a Special Use in the Requirements. There are no requested district in which it is proposed to be variances from requirements. located, complies with all required re- 011. gulations and standards, including the provisions of Article 5 and 6 of this /IP ordinance, unless greater or diffprent . regulations are contained in the indi- vidual standards for the specific Special Use. It shall be the res- ponsibility of the applicant to pre- sent evidence in the form of testi- mony, exhibits, documents, models, plans and the like to support the application for approval of a Special Use. 12 . _ . 00539 7;;_rto 8.2.2 Where the Board finds a perpon- derence of evidence to indicate compli- ance with the general standards, spe- cific rules governing the specific use and that the use complies with all re- quired regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless the Board shall also find, in some specific manner that: a) The use will not promote the public a) The Planning Board finds that health, safety and general welfare, if there is a perponderence of. evidence located where proposed and developed to indicate compliance with the gen- according to the plan as submitted; eral standards and specific rules governing the Special Use and that the use complies generally with re- quired regulations. The following imposed conditions are to be con- sidered a part of the general stan- dards and specific rules for this request. b) The use will not maintain or en- b) No evidence was presented to the hence the value of contiguous property Planning Board to show that it will (unless the use is a public necessity, not enhance or maintain property in which case the use need not main- values of contiguous property. tain or enhance the value of contiguous - property); c) The use is not in compliance with c) No evidence was provided to the the general plans for the physical devel- Planning Edard indicating that the opment of the county as embodied in these use is not in compliance with the regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan. The use is located or portion thereof, adopted by the Board within the North Office Park (CHT-2) of County Commissioners. COmmercial Transition activity node. 8.2.4 In addition to the General Stan- dards!s"statedin 8.2 the:following Specific Standards shall be addressed by the applicant before the issuance-of a Special Use Permit: a) Method and adequacy of provision of a) The Orange County Health Depart- sewage disposal facilities, solid waste, ment has approved an area on this lot and water for an in ground sewage disposal system. The Planning Board feels that sanitary sewer lines should be extended to serve this site and since it is located at a node and more commercial development will take place. OWASA will provide public water from existing water lines. Solid waste disposal will be by contract with a private hauler. 13 '00540 726 b) Method and adequacy of police, b) Police protection will be by the fire and rescue squad protection. Orange County Sheriff's Department, Fire protection will be provided by the New Hope Rural Volunteer Fire Department, rescue protection by South Orange Rescue Squad. This development should not present any problems to these agency's. c) Method_and adequacy of vehicle c) This site is located in Chapel Hill access to the site and traffic condi- Township at the intersection of-NC 86 tions around the site. and Homestead Rd. (SR 1777) . Traffic counts by North Carolina Department of Transportation were 8,900 ADT on NC 86 (1980 3000 ADT on 1777 (1978) . These streets are designated as an Arterial (NC 86) and Collector (SR 1777) by the Orange County Land Use Plan. Eventually both roads will be 4-lane facilities. The Plan- ning Staff feels that some road im- provements axe necessary at this point, as out lined in the attached conditions. The Planning Beard estimates that this development will generate 683 trips per day. There are two entrances proposed for this development; the public entrance is lo- , cated approximately 500' from NC 86 on Homestead Rd. The second entrance, a service entrance is located 390' west of the first entrance. • Public transportation is available to this site from Chapel Hill Transit and the applicant has proposed to construct a sidewalk from the intersection of 86 and Homestead to their building. 0 d) -..;:pecific requirements of all special use requests: 8.8 a) The following additional infor- The following are specific requirements mation is required for all Special Use for this special use request: Applications: Three copies of the Site Plan prepared A site Plan has been supplied. by a registered North Carolina land sur- veyor or engineer which shall contain the following: 1. North point scale and date, 1. North Point, scale and date shown. 2. Extent of area to be developed 2. Extent of area to be developed is indicated; possible future develop- ment is also shown. 14 :- 00541 7 g 3. Locations widths of all easements 3. The location of easements and rights and rights of way within or adjacent of way are shown. to the site. 4. Location of all existing or pro- 4. All existing and proposed structures posed structures on the site. are shown on the site plan. 5. Location of all areas on the site 5. There are no flood prone areas on subject to flood hazard Or inundation the site, as shown on flood maps or soil's maps. 6. location of all water courses on 6. There are no water courses shown on the site, including direction of flow, the site plan. 7. Existing topography at a countour 7. Existing topography is shown. interval of five feet based on mean level datum, 8. Proposed or existing fencing, 8. Storage and warehousing facilities screening, gates, parking, service are shown on the site plan. They are and storage areas. screened and fenced from adjacent uses. A Landscape Plan has been submitted with this proposal and the Planning Staff feels the plan is adequate. 9. Access to site including site 9. Access to the site is shown on the distances on all roads used for site plan. . access. 10. Elevations of all structures 10. Architectural elevations have been proposed to be used in the develop- supplied to the Planning Staff. ment. 11. Names and addresses of owners and 11. The name and address of the owner applicants. have been supplied. 12. A fee, as set by the Orange 12. The application fee has been paid County Board of Commissioners. by the applicant. 8.8.23 Planned Developments 8.8.23_1 Additional Information 8.8.23.1 This refers to the standards set forth in Article 7 Planned Development. In addition to the information re- quired in Subsections 8.2 and 8.8, information shall be supplied as part of the application as per applicable requirements of Article 7. 15 . --.•,'---• ,,,,. .: • .-.,•----..*.--,:.-----: .,' ., ,..-.- ..:7-, ...•.f. 1:' ...- - - • - '.=r•.:.---. ....:'.:Y',L.zt-i';'•Kr.'.7;?...' .::.•'F,-,.-+ . . .,„ . .. ..,.. 542 Article 7 Planned Development Districts 7.4.1 Relationship of Planned Devel- 7.4,1 Relationship of this project to opment to Major Transportation Faci- major transportation facilities. (See lities. 8.2.4 c above) Requires that Planned Developments make use of major roads for access; and public transportation facilities available. - 7.4.2 Relationship of Planned De- 7.4.2 Relationship to Public Utilities, velopment to Public Utilities, Fa- Facilities, and Services. (See 8.2.4 a cilities, and Services. above) Requires that Planned Developments make use of existing utility systems and not require the public extension of such systems. It also requires that the Planned Development make use of public transportation if available. 7.4.3 Physical Character of the Site; 7.4.3 Physical Character of the Site; Relation to Surrounding Property. Relation to Surrounding Property. The Site shall be suitable for the type This Site is gently rolling with a maxi- development proposed and be free from mum elevation of 512' near the proposed adverSe-natural impacts. building to a low of 476' at the inter- section of 86 and Homestead Road. There is an existing occupied dwelling on the property with associated farm buildings. The site has mature tree . • • , •) growth on the majority land, with more recent pines growing on the east por- tion. This area has a mixture of devel- opment types with single family dwellings, a church, and an abandoned service sta- tion' all 1dCattp near thd-Proposed prcly , , . . / . ject. There is also an undevelgped 18 acrea tract zoned CC-3 across Homestead Road from this development, 7.16 planned Development - Office and Institutional Districts. 7.16.1 Planned Develo merit - Office The Board feels that this development and Institutional Districts Defined; as proposed is substantially in compli- Intent; where Permitt ed. ance with the intent of the PD-OI section- . Planned Development - Office and Institutional Districts are districts for the establishment of complementary groupings of office and institutional uses. 16 • . . .. . . _ , 731 Where existing developments exist, are proposed and previously approved devel- opments are (in progress, which are of nature substantially in accord with the intent of these regulations they may be rezoned to PD-OI status, and shall there- after be subject to the regulations and requirements for such districts) . It is the intent of these regulations to provide for development of such districts at locations appropriate in terms of the Land Use Plan and the Orange County Thoroughfare Plan and in accord with standards set forth herein. It is further intended that PD-OI devel- opment shall be scaled, balanced and located to reduce general traffic con- gestion by providing employment to close to principal places or residence, and convenient pedestrian circulation systems and mass transit devices to iclIatfritihz:.reduce need for private auto Within such districts, it is intended that uses shall be arranged horizon- tally and vertically: l. That major vehicular flows and other disquieting influences be so sep- arated from residential areas as to protect privacy and tranquility; 2. That general commercial and service uses be concentrated for maximum pedestrian convenience and located , for easy accessibility by workers • . , and visitors arriving by mass transit; and Where such districts adjoin resi- dential neighborhoods, it is in- tended that arrangement of build- ings, uses, open space and vehi- cular access be such as to pro- vide appropriate transition and reduce potentially adverse effects. 17 . _ 00544- ' . _ ..._. ... ._. 7.16.2 permitted Principal Uses and Structures The requirements and limitations that The proposed use and building are permitted apply within PD-OI districts are estab- in the OI district and the proposed build- lished in Article 4 and Article 5. ing does not exceed maximum allowed levels. 7.16.3 Height Limitations . , . . . Height limitations within PD-0I din- The proposed building does nOt-exceed tricts shall be as established in allowed heights. - Article 5 and Subsection 6,2. 7.16.4 Permitted Intensity of Development The requirements and limitations that The intensity proposed for this develop- apply within the PD-OT District are ment does not exceed allowed levels. established in Articles 5 and 6, 7.16.6 Site Planning a) External Relationships: The site plan should show how the development will provide protection for the development from potentially adverse-surrounding influences and .. provide protection for surrounding areas from potentially adverse in- fluences within the development. 1. Principal access points shall be 1. Access to the site as proposed is designed to encourage smooth . good and should allow a smooth flow traffic flow. Street layout of traffic into the project. The shall not connect minor resi- proposed access makes use of a 2-lane dential street S with collector collector street. streets. . . IP • .. . 2. Access for pedestriarig and motor 2. , There is a concretesidewalk proposed. cyclists shall be safe and con- Walk should be moved to the inter- venient. Where there are street section of Homestead Road and NC 86. crossings, they shall be so loca- ted as to be safe, shall be marked and controlled. 3. Protection of visibility at inter- , 3. The sight distance at both drives sections. Shall be as set forth in should be a minimum of 462' in Article 6. each direction. 4. Uses adjacent to single family dis- 4. There is a 100' buffer proposed tricts which cannot be used for along the northern property line, parking. and the building is at least 100' from all other property linos. 18 ,,.':.:2. .;:!:-: -:''''.:,'.'1,',7:!.;''-,.- ';,-.f.';;''.._:'''=,- -- 'F'.:;2 .-'.^i-':,--, - --•-■•,-• ,--•.;-.1:,,,:,.::;,•7:4•TA,..774..:•-:,17,%;_ t4., 0054 - i::,,,., .., . ,-:, _ :. , , ..,,-- , . .' '. ,,.; : ..'%'...':' ..`‘,^.:1::;•*■..,;`r,lt. ,;.4.',.,27",:'!: 'O.z.r.(V;•:=' ,. .4-2 ■ :' ' ' , , - .' ' .-... _. ,.',.....;'...1. ; !...1+.,,,,.: :i. •.':- ,--1•, 5. Yards, fences, walls or vegetative 5. There is an outside storage yard screening, at the edges of the PD- proposed, this is to be fenced and -- 14 district shall be such as to pre- should be screened from all adjacen vide protection for the development property by existing vegetation. adjacent properties. The building itself will have earth berms around it, and an extensive landscape plan has been submitted . to plant disturbed areas. b) nal- atthnsilnterlis The site plan shall provide for safe, efficient, convenient and harmonious gourpings of structures, uses and fa- cilities, and for preservation of de- sirable natural features and minimum disturbance of natural topography. 1. Streets, drives and parkin'. 1. Generally the site plan makes safe and convenient use of the property. Streets and drives shall provide There is separation of visitor and safe, and convenient access to service access to minimize conflict_,- the site and other facilities if The parking areas will be paved with necessary. Streets shall di-s- curb and gutter and the spaces marked. courage through traffic and blocks The proposed number of spaces meets shall be laid out to maximize the minimum requirements. efficient use of the property. 2. Ways for pedestrians shall form a 2. Pedestrian access should be moved safe logical and convenient system to the intersection of Homestead for pedestrian access to all units, Road. The system does connect project facilities and any principal this project with the Chapel Hill off site destinations. Transit System Stop across Hw: : .:. 3. Protection of visibilit for auto- 3. Visibility should be good at all in- mobile traffic, c clists and pa- tersections where motor vehicles, 1 destrians. Visibility protection cyclists and pedestrians might meet. 0 shall be as set forth in Section 7.16..6 a) 3 above. 4_ •.en s^ace and spacing of buildin s. 4. The project uses about 1/B of the The requirements for open space, allowed floor area, and provides pedestrian/landscape space; and more than the required minimums in spacing of buildings are contained open space, pedestrian/landscape in Articles 5 and 7. Definitions space and parking spaces. The pro- are in Article 6. bbilding is sited at least 100' from any property line. 7.16.7. SinLirons- General Identification Signs for the development as a whole. 19 - - _ _ _ fj.°5 4 73 11 • - . . - Shall be permitted as follows; One Signs for the project shall conform sign structure, not exceeding twenty in all ways to the standards contained feet in height, and having not more in 7.16.7. than two sign surface areas, each limited to twenty square feet, may be erected inside or outside required setbac%s adjacent to public streets, provided that no such sign shall over- hang any public way or beso located or constructed as to create a dangerous impediment to traffic visibility. Such signs may identify the development as a whole and bear directional informa- tion, but shall contain no advertising matter. Minor Directional Sign Sturctures. Having not more than two sign surface areas, each limited to four square feet may be erected as reasonably necessary for the safety and convenience of visitors to the center. Such signs shall bear no advertising matter other • than the name of the development as a whole or an indication of the portion of the development to which direction . - is given. . _ 20 . . • . . 0.0547- •• 730 The Planning Board finds that there is a preponderance of evidence to indicate substantial compliance with the General Standards and specific rules governing the Planned Development-Office-Institutional, Class A Special Use Permit. The Planning Board recommends approval of the request, with the following imposed conditions: 1. That sanitary sewer exist to the proposed site or be constructed as part of the development proposal or that construction be sought through a cooperative effort with nearby landowners; or that, after six months form date of approval, an on site sewage disposal system may be installed. provided, however, that when gravity flow sanitary sewer is within 300' of the project boundary Duke Power will extend the line and tie on to the sanitary sewer system. 2. That a plat showing the dedication of 15' additional right of way on N.C. 86 and lO'of additional right of way on Homestead Road (SR 1777), and a 35' wide landscape buffer from the new right of way line, and any necessary sanitary sewer or drainage easements be recorded prior to the start of any construction. 3. That all structures presently existing on the site shall be removed at the time that they are no longer inhabited by the present occupants. 4. That all signs for the development shall be according to Section 7. 16,7 and Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. Drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation plans shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County. The installation of control devices and on going construction work shall be inspected by Orange County- ' 4 The site shall at all times be in conformance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 6. That both driveway access points on Homestead Road be located to achieve a sight distance of 462' each way for each driveway. That . . plans for these relocated driveways including topography contours across the roadway or a profile of the roadway be submitted to the Town Manager of Chapel Hill for his approval prior to the start of construction. . " • 17- That all parking and storage areas"with the exception of those to be used for heavy equipment parking and.equipment storage, be paved to the standards contained in the Chapel Hill design and construction manual. 8. That the proposed dumpster be placed on a 10' x 20' concrete pad 6" thick with wire mesh. 9. That the proposed pedestrian access to NC b6 be relocated to end at the intersection of Homestead Road and NC 86. 10. That left turn lanes and right turn deceleration lanes be constructed to the Town of Chapel Hill Standards, at both proposed entrances to the project on Homestead Road. These improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 11, If a fire hydrant does not exist within 500' of the building, one should be installed at the intersection of Homestead Road and NC 86 and one should be installed adjacent to the service entrance on Home- stead Road. 21 - - . • •- - UUb4 : . • • . • • - ,3o 12. That Drake Power be reminded that the approval of this request for a Class A Special Use Permit does not in any way radlca e future approval of a sub-statlon adjacent to this project. /sW . _ 22 V.f5,=4.1P!"!.--40k-414:9=1.4qq4,1fiC".5j„ .1--7.. ' ■ 7-7 o CSII ' • C151a: E . . 00549 Item ACfIO P:Or7\TDA ITI MSTRACT )TL7-Tac. DATE ,3-1-82. I SUbj'2Ct: Request of William C. Ford Planned Development Housing - Bingham Woods, Class A Special Use Permit; Rezoning LD.paria-ra,-it PLP./RIING ---------j PUbliC X yes , no • Attachnact(s):Plat; Application.pg. l-2; -u,u-ormationaintact::: qim Polatty Narrative pg. 3-4; Tax Nabpg. 6; Letter pg. 8-9; Planning Staff Findings pg. 10-1_7. 'Phone INArrhar= 732-8181 Ext. 342 , Recommendations pg. 18-19. PURPOSE: To receive public input and comments concerning an application for a Planned Development-Rousing Special Use Permit (PD-H) Rezoning. NEED: The applicant has requested a PD-H for 75 mobile home spaces on 78 acres of land. The property is located in Bingham Township off of SR 1949 (Ford Road) south of Old dreensboro Highway (SR. 1005). Ford Road has an average of 340 trips/day (1978). This project could generate about 500 trips/day. The property lies next to a large cornfield on the east, William Ford's land is on the south and west sides and Foxboro Estates is to the north. Building separAtion will be 30' minimum from the road and 75' center to center and 75' back to back. Two off street parking spaces/unit will be provided. There are central sewage disposal and water systems proposed for the development. Two recreation areas are shown on the plan, each unit-i-s connected to these areas by a pedestrian path. Private roads are proposed to service the units in the development. Went to public hearing on January 25,1982. The developer is in agreement with the Planning Board recoMmendation. - IMPACT: The request for units on 78 are of land rieets the minimum reqUire- . ments otpe zoning ordihance7 flooruarea is below the maximum allowed; open spau,, liveabilite, and recreation space are all in excess of re- quired minimums. Privacy for this development should be good since the whole site is woodea. The property is located within the AR district, on land that is not used for agricultural purposes. RECOMEODATION : Planning Board & Staff recommend approval with conditiions as outlined in the findings df fact. However, Staff raises a reservation for the Board to consider regarding the adequacy of the chemical binding agent to control dust. See February 22 memorandum of Planning Director (attachment) . • - • - 0W550 736 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tirrir.LSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Widij MEMO TO: Ken Thompson, County Manager FROM: Jim Polatty, Planning Direct° SUBJECT: Staff recoMmendation on Bingham. Uoods, Class A Special. Use Permit and rezoning. DATE: 2/22/82 The Planning Staff recommendation on the request of Bingham. Woods for a class A Special. Use Permit and rezoning differs somewhat from the recommendation of the Planning Board. Recommednation # 2 from the imposed conditions: The roads in the project shall have a 20' wide travel surface, with 14"• compacted crusher run and 2 applications of asphaltic treatment and pea gravel. The Planning Staff is unsure of the ability of the "chemical binding agent" to inhibit dust. The Staff recommendation for ashpahtic treatment was to provide postive dust control and provide a surface treatment that would require little maintenance on the developers part. The large number of vechicles that will be using the main road could cause a trem- endous dust problem if not adequately handled. • .111e general liveability of the developNent could also suffer if the "binding agent" proved to be sticky. RC/dg 00571 APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION • DATE Decer____L--Lber The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Orange County, North Carolina COMMISSIONERS: The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Number 3'7 Block number 45 , Lot number . , Shown onnthe accompanying plat, which is presently in a Agricultural Residential District be rezoned to Planned Development District for the following reasons: 1. We do not feel that the County Commissioners erred when applying the Agricul- tural Residental District to this property in 1981. However, the intent of the County Commissioners was to allow changes to the AR district where appro- priate and that most changes would be handled best as Planned Developments- 2. One of basic criterion for the selection of AR districts, areas where water distribution and sewage collection mains are not likely within 10-20 years, has changed. A community water and wastewater system is to be built to sup- , port the proposed planned development. We would like to emphasize that the rezoning would not result in a higher density for the tract, but in fact would - by the owner's decision be developed at less than the allowed density- 3. The proposed rezoning from AR District to Planned Development District will allow for the use of a portion of the owner's family farm's marginally productive farm land for housing purposes, while retaining the more productive lands on the property for continued agricultural and forestry uses. 4. - This is an orderly and proper request which meets the performance criteria set out for Planned Developments and satisfies t related goals and objec- tives for AR Districts in the Comprehensive Plan for the County. Signed: " - Address: -re-e . • 4111,4 Box 287, Route 5 • - William C. Ford - Chapel Hill, NC 27514 1 ,, , -. , ' , ---_.!., ,,:-., -----._,---,-_, :•- 74 il to x g -,t LI tn .H I >: 4-.1 al G -!--: C) W , 7 0 .0 U) 13 74 . .....i• .. 14 g ..., 0 U) r...) c.1 u-1 N. -7 _ (-4 P 1.■ 1:3 - _ U7 0 a. r-i a) TO -o ti 4-1 to a) H 0 ' 2 co H _1 it c■j, U 0 .ri 7 .7:1 a) ,-) P4 H ,--1 -0 a) ..-1 0 43 •,-t 0 7 ri Z -,-.1 7 J-1 0 p., -,-I a) tr) to H r .r, .-cs 34 0 0 0 0 0' 0 g ° r° 0 0 P-1 „...1 1- '0 0 C) •.0 CI 0 0. 61 1-1 0 0 0 P4 • i.1 0 • 0 0 m 0 0 H . 4, P4 0 .._i tn to to ,..1 a) si z o 0 TO 7 0 0 4,,, ?-. A ;-1 0 14 Cl) cc, 4-, 4-1 co ,... --... E-I,a P4 t., r 4-4 g 0 , .-4 cr: ' e., -0 -0 g > u o H o el E co E 0 to " ' ,--4 0 0 g 4-1 1.4 N. ..-1 ba Cl 0. 0 V En ci e cx-i Pc -0 o o r o Z13 , W 14 0 0 ..o ,.... 10. 0 .... _ •- t..1 CO 0 0. 0 . — ;.; 1-1 . .■-1 Cl) N.-—0. 14-1 0 r-I i H _ (.0 LA 0 ‘a.t .0 0 .0 ,-1. 0 .1. M P 0 Q tj 0 .," 7, 0 0 0 0 „0 .--t 7.• H 4.1 O .0 t•-• 1:4 ^ cvl H ? E5 0 -7 C) 71 1., 0 Ul NI 41 0 E 4-C n g al 0'' •.? - ..0 P• 0 4-I — X 0 g O ''-'4 0 14 Z C) 0 44 5 (9 • o 4-, ,--1 H cv 0 -4 H co Pi ,$4 0 .13 0 V .. . .1-1 ° {U. .. /-I 0. - . • 14 • -0 0 IE-, - LO . O 0 ,a1 ra ,, . u - • .. . H ,II 0 1.4 • . • al C7v / P. U) , 0.1 0 '4 0 0 .1.J •.-1 0 0 61 • 0 -0• 73 0 61 a) 1-) .7 .t„, to -----, g• " 0 . 0 •• 0 rcl 0 a) la, 7 121 H •1-1 •■-t p ,... 0 0 0 F,.! g_, 1-1 P ,;;• 0 14 0 0 1-1 /3.4 I- r-I Lv C-1 ° a) to 0 1-1 r-I 14 0 "0 p ai 4,J 0 trl I.J F.13 •• GO 7 r-I 0 , to to a. •r 1 Cl) W 0 U 0 0 N. W 0 P rl 0 rn 0 14 rd 0 0 ,..4 .0 0 H 2, 0 . • r..7 I-1 '44-- 0 g H 0 4-1 ;.; o ar > V)0 U 0 •r-1 41 7 0• X .t1 C-) 111 0 71 co f..) H E-4 H --`• 2 , -.. .. . .. ... December 21, 1980 Revised December 30, 1981 f - •:',.,.,f i-ounbelt , .::::::.:" \A Plan.r.iing Associates, Inc. , .. ._ 411 N. Boylan Avenue Raleigh,North Carolina 27603 919-834-8620 _ . BINGHAM WOODS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION . Project Owner: William C. Ford, Jr. General Bingham Woods is a planned residential community to be located on a portion of the William C. Ford, Jr. family farm in the Bingham Township of Orange County. Approximately 78.5 acres of the 248 acre farm will be used to provide spaces for 75 homes, roads, open space, recreation areas and utility systems. The development tract is mostly forested on rolling topography; all planning efforts have been directed at maintaining the visual character of the site. Bingham Woods will be a well planned residential community designed to accom- modate mobile homes on a lease agreement basis. Site design for the develop- _ meat will focus on providing clustered wooded home sites that are well-sited , to the topography and are a comfortable distance apart. Most of the tract is wooded; all home sites will be located to maximize privacy by allowing the forest to act as a visual buffer throughout the development and to provide a buffer to surrounding properties. Facilities . . Site Development - Grading, drainage and land clearing for site development will come under the review of the Orange County Sedimentation and Erosion Con- trol Officer., site grading and clearing will be minimized to retain amuch • . * - - ' - forested land intact as reasonable Street and unit signage.WilL.be provided ..- as required by Aalcle 9 i'and. 10Of'ihe 'Orange Count Z-aning OYdinsTic-e:'-"A Mini-' - mum thirty foot buffer along the eastern portion of the property-will be estab- lished: No grading or clearing will take place in this buffer. Relation to Surrounding Property - The site is suitable for the intended develop- ment without any hazards to persons or property on the site or surrounding prop- erty. Roads - The development will be served by state road 1949 a section of which is currently unpaved. A 20 foot gravel collector road will connect S.R. 1949 and access the interior of the development. The collector will be designed to control road dust to as great an extent as possible through the application of an asphaltic/oil surface spray. The road system will be maintained in good repair by the project owner. Road alignment has been dictated by ease of unit installation and removal, accessibility, and cost. The project will not impact 3 . . . ' . - . _ • ' • Yord Mobile Home Development Planned Development Application Page 2 traffic flows in the adjacent subdivision and will be readily serviced by the existing county and state road system. All parking will be off access roads adjacent to each unit. Water Distribution System - A community water distribution network will be con- structed for the development. A community well will serve the project and will be owned and operated by theoroject owner, The design and construction will meet the highest applicable standards of the State Health Department for-com- munity water systems. Sewer Collection and Treatment - A gravity sewer collection system will be con- structed for the development. The treatment system will consist of primary lagoon, storage lagoon and spray irrigation field. The project owner will, own and operate the wastewater system. The wastewater system will be constructed and operated in accordance with N.C. Division of Environmental Nanagement rules and regulations. Electric/Lighting - Electric utilities will be installed underground throughout the project. Street and area lighting will be provided in selected areas such as roadways, intersections and community recreation facilities. Solid Waste - A private garbage collection service will be contracted to pro- vide twice weekly solid waste disposal for individual units in the development. Open Space - Over fifty acres will remain as open space for use by the residents. The vast majority of open space will remain wooded. Pedestrian pathways will be provided in the wooded open space to facilitate access from units to recre- ation areas and throughout the project. Recreation Areas - Over an acre of maintained recreation space will be provided for the exclusive use of the residents. Two recreation areas are planned both with grassed open play areas, a basketball court and playground equipment as is necessary to adequately serve the project population make-up. One recre- ation area will be provided with the first phase of the development with the second recreation area provided as needed in later stages of the development.. . , . . 4 ... , . • •.- :..-..-.-....;-. .,, .;,,',-;:..,.!'.;..'i.,;.',-:-,. '.... .- -..':':',.2..- :H ...-,' ':.',,:;.,...7.,--',.....-:.. ,..:-'.r-.',:,f'.,..:..!•::...,.-.;.i.,,:...'-',.":---..1;:..,.:,4,,;:...,..,:.i.,?.-...1:A:"..Z;-,,!,.1,',.:,:,:',',;,:.J,ri.4.-,i.l.:. . .. I' -4 . . . r pjS/NtrP . .. . ....... „. ..., ..... “....._ — . . i .,„„ti.......„...-to ...„ -,-...L...Z . - _VA 11 4 k" ID Ir .7 . .,14 ' • OWL A Li . "a — WA tItt I - 12,,,.• .., •sk,a , 1 4) ...... 1 • Lnt I 441 I, 73-. • .• J '":4411141. . • '`.4%, • 4.tht , .1 Wt.+j lilt . 's N. rpr /.,,..1,:,_ . • '''. 1 r 4 •rt i".il.:13 . v .... I„' to. , .2..t. . .,..,.... ,..„. .., Trpa• tia ' . ..' . 41.4'''T::'6,341i11111.• •-. *V^ 4.1 .._. SI:- , .,.4;.•.t ,t,. .,,,, • ';',,,2 "P r.....d.....1 , -,--,• 'i 44,', ' LW- ti c°' r 4.4, "- .L.T.M. Lit , • e: ,1,4..'•7, '''t•TT. ... LLTs....1 ,3' ••,.-,-.V T 42 ISM ,I. .... . '''. I.:I al" i .,.,..„.:r.)..V% L.11 fl- , v..e• !■•'. / " . • ar t MO''''',:',,a,, ettst - . . ua .."... -.... ITITE fti'1,P;f11)116 N. • • '''''', ' Doth,,,* '".-..,, `",t-' • '' - t \ ‘. a ,.. ...„, ....^t .t ""--- -. ,4 Ina 4," .414... WL ;T, trt. It 41,!‘,..T,..:eA. "2 wn. ‘,1/11 l''" rt • ;„.. le- i •ib. s.A. .,1' c. •, 1-•‘.., ..0. . t'•'.1.■:.., ,,,, »........,31.4‘...” ..' . .4 SOI. 7,...,41 C:■:.. *"4; # 2.,... NME.I..,,CA • .144Tos 4 k•)".' aa0:Tp.1 T T ... 1 7T = ,.. r.s. '''. , ,T..: WT. .' / 1.-\:'1 v •,`" 1 s-.-4. T,'; 4:'• '-. VAT-, I',-...'"''''''',.„ ..11.. .' . 4 • Ti.; I c,...., 4 . _....- . TIAT- LW 1.14.7 .0- , ri TORT..? ''.1. ..15 il. I 4• '' . ...., ..• , .V: '''-'-' ..1):5;.."'-.\ • , . -.ck 1 • ' . ,. 0 .• 1 ■;,,,"4.,!la ...„ ,,, -staz .., :,....1',.:'T 7,r,, '',,,:,..../ :::itna- 1•• .;;; .1 • .. • rr -■-•• " CHAPEli 6(,,,/ - ,Y,/ "•_....! tt,, .... , 1.,, I ..N.•crt. •••• IN 1 A j W .:A.!:_ 1,,,j, 1 ... .....,..,. ,- is3.-7:7/, '1 . 1 •■• 1 Wt. ',.'' rt. ■ .':44 : 4 . . 'fa'Xt...— 1.,..t. ; .1' .. 1.; / .,,.1.:.•,,., , T.T.T...10,,Alf 14i.''' a 41 I al, a, tgfr-14 44..,_ a tv .1 (7. ,Tro.,4"P ,. MYER- 4g, .;- t*t '*41';:- C'rv• - `, ,7.•-•.1 ..,,..; -. -,, ., ,$)tw 4, LAKE lik s\'''JT"" . . — . „vv.- ,.... . / I t.a.„ ,,,'', ... 1.l ...T4 . .... t.\‘...,,, ....., ''' ^----,,N) -P. N - ..pez,(76-0,ei ?...' ..„., .. . ... y. •. -.... • ,,.r.eA. q, P... A-1.J-AAi"ar P- e/ 4W-a r - . - ....”• ... _ - f / 40 6i 1 '• •'G'i.";,' .Nr:•,•,-... *. .. . . .. ea. . .,.' -- N i. C H A T H A m .. C O U T Y .s9 .. .. .. ,, 11111) - • . . • TM-ST It rrf TO CCI...'ff DEAD.141WAKS ILK:Ns.** l44.1 tag 4,4,40T„4.4”4, 4 orrisirin4 0,146110051,1eaw:NW? ,,orE,...v.,4,40,MXIS(T4,4,1'ITATt P.....47./.140 TT: Ot s.rarariv...0.-TYS11.1 T. 1041/40411rATAIIMITVV41444 AO ''' lirlralkileta 111110k 1.4.E.A.0.015...01.40,,41,leg:0%4 Cl...4.4 ti TS:11.0 .-. lglige lil ".. 1 .« 11?"7 :: . -.. . . . . . .. • • —. . , . , . . — .. . . . .. I... .- . ._ 5 „ - . ".... ....... ,_........•._.. ._ . „... . _. _........_ . . _ . .. __. . . .. ..........__.. .... ...____ .._ ............ ' • . .. • ...-_ . . - ,it!1; .k/' ' '' - 7 ' ... zit ( i... •• ..,... . . ......_____..... .. . . . .. . ... . — ,,. cil: 'r- • 4,,,, 1 1,.t. , ,„.,„,,.......- • r"--...7,-,-.— ..'1 • • ., I 14 I''''' '•I ' I.4 T.----, CJI ' - ; /-711.t.:: I. I 1 ' . aotit s- +50'7,t'e..) 47.i:- ...:.4....;I:...... . t, : %,..--,., . .,,, , •':.--t,,...3..,.—L,' " ..1:,.::.;,!..1 "..-., f*.d1 .1o.5..i.-14.E.;:t. 71-..,- 11 s',® tars "-..-.4.4. 7 ! ■,3.: tIM-0 I■•=1 ' -..- 1 - sSE. i i • - ., (votiEiF^Z,, II:5C— als;Ivo 17.?) 53ss,e ' —-. „..,.?....Lt..; ,. „,1,....1 ,-.1 /...• a.05 v.-- • .1,te, ----....,...e — ....--"—_——-- . • rt' 1 r_ . . ... : „„.....--..7 2: I....) e .--, '0"-• P'"'1 1 . -,■:',/,'re 7,A*t:.:1 7,.. :::.':4 494;4 4C, :".• ' ii5 . z•3 AC , . 1 SI "N,/.2 :0 '. :-:.-,;...•:7;' :1.1 C1• / g-,,,"/ - ...... . / i •"/"./..' ....t.,...• ::... . . , „..: :.,:. ..... ... •• • I. 10 :41 •"" ..- ..- , .... .. ..... ... .... , — ::::. str, " • ... EP .. : v„/ ...:-.-..• 9 , z 6:. i '. ; , 7.2:::•?:::c) . ,:,:i .... . . . . . ...i .. 1 III:-^ .^ — . .. . :'• :-...- t---—-1 . — / • *-- 0 ... f /I . . i ., ./ t i • \ 1 6 I : i .. ...., ., . . . , ................. . - : 00557 .• . ._ ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING- DEPARTMENT 111LLSBOROUGU NORM CAROLINA_ 27273 17:$ • .C".s 4;'''S Co" NOTICE The Orange County Planning Board and County Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing on Monday JanuarY 25, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina. In this meeting William C. Ford will be requesting a "Class A" Special Use Permit under Section 8.8.23 (Planned Develop- ments) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ford is requesting to construct a Mobile Hone Park known as Bingham Woods on his property. This property is located on State Road 1949 (Ford Road) in Bingham Township, Tax Map 37, part of lot 45, involving 78.5 acres., We are required to notify all property owners within 500 feet of the property concerning this request. All persons who wish to speak concerning this request will be heard at this meeting. The Orange County Board of Commissioners acts in Quasi-Judicial matter in hearing this special use, If all requirements in the Zoning Ordinance are met, the Board must approve this application unless the Board finds one of the three other conditions applies. , . Those opposing approval-Of the application On the grounds that the use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare, wil; not,maintain or enhance the.v'alue of contiguous property or is not in compliance with the general'plans for 'the- - physical development of the County,shall have the burden of establishing, by competent material and substantial evidence, the specific manner in which the proposed use does not satisfy the requirements for approval of the application for a Special Use. 7 - . _ - , 4 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH • NOR.12.tt CAROLINA. 27278 oti, 17., gal 1: r December 30, 1981 Sunbelt Planning Associates 411 N. Boylan Ave. Raleigh, N.C. 27605 ATTENTION: Larry Zucchino Dear Larry, This letter is to confirm our conversation of Tuesday, December 29, 1981 concerning the Planned Development Application by Bill Ford, There are several areas that need to be addressed before the complete review of the project can be done. Generally, they are additions to . _ the-site plan or additions to the narrative about the project. The following shoul4baddras5ed in„„tha.narrative. 1. Method and frequed-dY7i5f solid-waSt-e-disposal. 2. Type of road construction planned in the development; roads should be a minimum of 20'. The main road will have to have some type treatment to inhibit dust. 3. Indicate that grading around units will be kept_t_o_a minimum that, _ units will be-at-Teast 75' apart=-' and 100' back to back. That the 4,- • main road will be a:mi'nimum Of 30'.: from,-.Ehe east property line arnd.tbAt • all grading will be OUtside' of this area.. - 4. State what type recreation facilities are planned and when they will be constructed in relation to the total development, 5. Will concrete pads be constructed for each unit? State that all parking will be off the access roads adjacent to each unit. Necessary changes to the site plan are as follows: 1.. The site data needs to be expanded to include: Gross land area Maximum floor ara allowed Floor area proposed Required minimum live- ability area 8 go 5 59 , . . - ' ,':'.i'''', ..-. - '.''•-' '' '..-- '::,:i'.'.;.; .:,'. - - '::,...' ',..-:..:::'..':::;.:g'.; ::., ,,:::...,,,,,,,,,, -,,--:=,.- . ' ' - '.' - •---- :'.',:-.:-:,;.-:.:.::-,'-.,,,,-L7.,,,:,,,..,::,: ,.-2.,, . - .,:- :. .-•,:.',-.,:,, ,:::,-,.::: ..-,::,...,.,w.-,,,,:-.. . . - -,.:.:-.,,,--- , •,:-,,..,.- -/:-.::,:. . _ __ ___ .. . ...... „_. ,......... . ... , Sunbelt. Planning Associates December 30, 1981 Page 2 Liveability area proposed Required minimum open space . . . Open space proposed . . . . ... Required minimum , recreation space .... ___ Recreation space proposed it of:residential units proposed 0 of parking spaces required. 4 of parking spaces proposed . . Lineal feet of streets All areas should be expressed in square footage. Those areas that can be esaily delineated should be shown (especially recreation) so that we can double check your figures. Show the buffer along the eastern property line and the main access road. Put a north arrow on the site plan. Submit a utility layout with water and sewer lines and sizes shown. Indicate on the site plan the approximate location of the sewage disposal facility and the various improvements associated with it. Name the roads; all names must be checked with Orange County to . avoid duplication. Pedestrian circulation should be accessible to all Unies, The Signage for the Mobile Home Park shall be in conformance with, . . '2...-.L'' '÷'•-rfi:....t—:_e-77-aq-L-7,-7 . 1.1.khO's-F±1,47":,--.1-+If ee--1-441.4-4) .-reqvr,ecl.iof- tilis.1develoia..-.-_, ment that you and your client should b eawake of The-stae-road from the existing pavement to the project entrance would be paved to State secondary roadistandards. Road signs and unit identification will be erected by the developer. The road signs will be according to private road sign standards. The main road of the project will have to be treated . for dust inhibition, ate minimum. :.:.:: :7-7.T:-.'.::•'. 7: -:1- ii"i:74- 47t4ie.4iainage-,,Sterosion„-and sedimentation. control_shall , . be reviewed and approved by Orange.County. In addition, Orange County shall • inspect the.instglation And on going Work or the total pAcject. The project shall at, all times meet the requireMents of the Orange County Soil EroSion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. IfYOu have any qu4stions please call.me. Sincerely, .1T5a-14 Rick Cannity .. _ RC/S7 9 '00560 ?4j The following information is the Orange County Planning Board's findings of fact concerning the request of William C. Ford for a Planned Development-Housing Special Use Permit. This request is made under Section 8.8.23 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. There is no request for an increase in the allowed intensity of development. The following evidence has been supplied by the applicant or by the Orange County Planning Department. Article B Special Uses. Ordinance requires: Findings: 9.2.1 a) The applicant shall The Planning Board finds that have the burden of establishing, the applicant has presented by competent material and competent material and substan- substantial evidence, the exist- tial evidence for the approval ence of the facts and conditions of the request; with the attached which this ordinance requires for imposed conditions. approval; and The applicant has provided figures 8.2,1 b) The Board shall male that indicate compliance with written findings certifying corn- Article 5, Dimensional Require- pliance with the specific rules meats and Article 6, Application governing such individual Special of Dimensional Requirements. Use and that the use, which is listed as a Special Use in the district in which. it is proposed 7- to be located, complies with all required regulations and standards, including the provisions of Article 5 and 6 of this ordinance, unless greater or different regulations are contained in the individual standards for the specific Special . _ Use. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to present evidence in the form of testimony, exhibits, documents, models, plans and the 14k? to SuPport the aoplication.for" approval of a Special Use. 8.2.2 Where the Board finds a' Perpon- The Planning lloard finds that there derence of evidence to indicate compli- is a perponderence of evidence to ance with the general standards, speci- indicate compliance with the general fic rules governing the specific use standards and specific rules govern- and that the use complies with all re- ing the Special Use and that the quired regulations and standards, the use complies generally with required application must. be approved unless regulations. The following imposed the Board shall also find, in some conditions are to be considered a specific manner that: part of the general standards and specific rules for this request. 10 005(31 . . . . . 74,3 Ordinance requires: Findings: a) The use will not promote the a) There have been no findings public health, safety and general the the project would not promote welfare, if located where proposed the ,public health, safety, and and developed according to the plan welfare. as submitted; b) The use will not maintain or b) no evidence was presented to enhance the value of contiguous the Planning Rolard to show that property (unless the use is a it will not enhance or maintain public necessity, in which case property values of contiguous the use need not maintain or en- property. hence the value of contiguous property); c) The sue is not in compliance c) This oroject is located in the with the general plans for the Agricultural-Residential area as physical development of the county indentified in the Land Use Plan. as embodied in these regulations The project is located in the or in the Comprehensive Plan, or forested portion of an existing farm. portion thereof, adopted by the The location of the project and the Board of County Commissioners, type of sewage disposal system pro- posed will not adversely affect the continued use of the remaining portion of the land for agricultural purposes. Further this project adds to the diversity and quantity of housing available in Orange Count The project is in substanital co7- pliance with the following c and policies set forth in th Use Plan, inlcuding: GOAL 8: Adequate, reasonably price-:"., safe housing in an appropriate variety of types in proximity to jobs and daily activities for all Citizens, • 8.1 Encourage the construction and rehabilitation of a diverse range of housing types in response to the needs of various household sizes and incomes. q.3 Encourage the provision of a range of affordable and suitable lo '-in come housing by means of development incentives in order to provide a balanced housing stock for the residents of Orange Court 8.7 Support the use of individual mobile homes as a useful housing resource in the County by affording 11 • • UOf A.) # Ordinance requires: Findings: these homes the same locational opportunities as single family units meeting the State Building Code., 8.10 Discourage medium and higher density residential development in the rural portion of the County. 11.1 Identify the type of sewage disposal facilities appropriate for an area as a function of the magnitude of present and future demand. The distribution of users; and the capacity of the natural environment to absorb the impact. 11.5 Facilitate the use of alternative: to the traditional septic systems on land unsuitable for septic tanks and not served by public sewer. 12.7 Develop a road classificaiton system to classify major roads by function for purposes of effective long range planning including the evaluation of highway capacity. 13.1 Locate parks and recreational facilities close to residential areas to reduce long trips for re- creational purposes. 13.3 Require developers to provide adequate open space suitable for passive/active recreation in res- idential development. This project is not in compliance with policies 5.3, 7.5 and 7.6 which address the preferred location of intensive residential development in areas designated Urban and Transi- tion. However, the design and locatiox of the project and the relationship of the residential use to the exist- ing agricultural use substantially meets the intent of the Land Use Plan in preserving viable farm operations. 12 00563 r 7 5 Ordinance requires: Findings: 8.2_4 In addition to the General --- Standard's stated in 8.2 the following Sppcific Standards shall be addressed by the applicant before the issuance of a Special Use Permit: a) Method and adequacy of pro- a) There is a central sewage - - vision for sewage disposal disposal system proposed for facilities, solid waste, and this site. North Carolina water. Department of ErniironmentaI Management will be in charge of issuing the final permit for this system. There is a central water system proposed which will have 2 wells drilled on the site. Solid waste disposal will be handled on a contract basis with a private contractor. The applicant will supply containers to each individual unit. b) Method and adequacy of police, b) Police protection will be mro- fire and rescue squad protection. vided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department, fire protection by thc Eli Whitney Volunteer Fire Departv t on a volunteer basis, and rescue • protection by Orange County E.M.S. - c) Method and adequacy of vehiale c) Access to this site is from state access to the site and traffic secondary road 1949 (Ford Road) . 1900 conditions around the site North Carolina Department of Trans- portation figures show an average of 340 trips/day on Ford Road and 1978 show an average of 1300 trips/ day on Old Greensboro Highway (SR 1005). SR 1005 is designated a collect( road in the Land Use Plan. Ford road runs south off of SR 1005. Ford road is also presently a dead end road. This project could generate an add- itional 600 trips/day. It is aoprox- imately ,3 of a mile from the entrance of the project to Old Greensboro High- way. Hoard feels the access to the site is adequate, with the imposed conditions. • 13 . . . • . , 0 564 Ordinance requires: Findings: 8.2.4 d) Specific requirements The following are specific of all special use requests: requirements for this special use: 8.6 a) The following additional 8.8 a) A site plan has been supplied information is required for all Special Use Applicapions: Three copies of the Site Plan prepared by a registered North Carolina land surveyor or engineer which shall contain the following: 1. North point scale and date. 1. North point, scale and date shown.. 2. Extent of area to be developed. 2. Extent of area to be developed is indicated. 3. Locations widths of all ease-- 3.. The location of easements and ments and rights of way with- rights of way ard shown. No in or adjacent to the site, widths are indicated on the site plan. 4. Location of all existing or 4. All existing and proposed proposed structures on the structures are shown on the site. site plan. 5. Location of all areas on the 5. There are no flood prone areas site subject to flood hazard on the site. or inundation as shown on flood maps or soil's maps. 6. Location-of all water courses 6. The water courses are shown on on the site, including direction the site plan. of flow. 7. Existing topography at a countour 7, Existing topography is shown. interval of five feet based on mean level datum. 8. Proposed or existing fencing, 8. There are no storage or service screening gates, periling, areas proposed. The sewage treat— service and storage areas. ment lagoons are indicated and a fence around the ponds is shown.. The site is presently wooded and the developer intends to minimize grading around each unit in lieu of landscaping. 14 00565 . . . . „ . ., . I vt..! . Ordinance requires: Findings; 9. Access to site including site 9. Access to the site is shown ... distances on all roads used on the site plan.. for access. 10. Elevations of all structures 10. The applicant, proposed that proposed to be used in the mobile homes will be set up development. in the development. 11. Names and addresses of owners 11. The name and address of the and applicants, owner have been supplied. 12. A fee, as set by the Orange 12„ The application fee has been CoUnty Board of Commissioners. paid by the applicant. 8.8.23 Plal___n_.leaD. .----2---tel° Inerits 8.8.23.1 Additional, Information In addition to the information re- The applicant has supplied the quired in Subsections 8.2 and 8.8, following information as required information shall be supplied as in Article 7 Planned Developments, part of the application as per the housing section. applicable requirements of Article 7. Article 7 Planned Develo•ment Districts . . 7-4.1 Relationshi• of Planned Development 7.4.1 Relationship Of this proje( to Ma'or Transportation Facilities, to major transportation facilities- (See 8.2.4 c above) Requires that Planned Developments make use of major roads for access; and public transportation facilities available. 7.4.2 Re1ationshipg_pylpriel121: 7.4.2 Relationship to Public velo•ment to Public Utilities, Utilities, Facilities, and Services Facilities, and Services. (See 8.2.4 a above) . Requires that Planned Develop- ments make use of existing utility systems and not require the public extension of such systems. it also requires that the Planned Development make use of public transportation if avail- able. 7.4.3 Physical Character of the 7.4.3 Physical Character of the Site; Relation to Surrounding Site; Relation to Surrounding Propert _ . Property The Site shall be suitable for the This site is very gentle slopinc_ type development proposed and be free from the east to the west. It is from adverse natural impacts. well timbered with pine and some hardwood. it appears well suited 15 . _ _ . ' . ' cue!' Ordinance requires: Findings: for the type development pro- posed. To the north is an exist- ing subdivision, (FOX0ORO ESTATES) . to the northeast the existing Oak Grove mobile home park with approximately 30 units, immediately to the east is a field under cultivation in corn- The applicant owns the surrounding land and expects to continue to farm and manage the forest land. 7.14.3 Site Planning a) External Relationships: The site plan should show how the development will provide protection for the development from potentially adverse surrounding influences and provide protection for sur- rounding areas from potentially adverse influences within the development. 1. Principal access points 1. Generally, vehcicular access to shall be designed to encourate the site is good and allows smooth smooth traffic flow. Street traffic flow. The main access does layout shall not connect minor not connect minor streets or cause residential streets with collector through traffic in residential areas. streets. Circulation indicated on the site plat Separates vehciles and pedestrians which is good. 2. Access for pedestrians and 2. Pedestrian circulation as shown motor cyclists shall be safe on the site plan allows access to and convenient. Where there recreation areas without much con- are street crossings, they flict with vehicles. shall be marked and controlled. 3. Protection of visibility 3. Protection of visibility at inter- at intersections. Shall be as sections. Visibility at the external. set forth in Article 6. intersection is good and unobstructed 4. Uses adjacent to single family 4. The Planning Board finds that the districts. This section requires proposed setbacks of units 30' from a permanent 100' buffer or lot roads; 75' back to back to be adequat sizes within the district equal The proposed 30 buffer along the to the adjacent residential east property line will protect both district this development and the existing farm. 16 _ - - • 00567 . . Ordinance requires: Findings: The applicant owns the remaining property adjacent to the site. 5. Yards, fences, walls or 5. It is the applicants stated vegetative screening, at intent to minimize grading and teh edges of the PD-H district clearing on this site, since shall be such as to provide it is wooded no additional protection for the develop- landscaping or screeing should ment adjacent properties be required. 6. Height limits at the edge 6. Maximum height limits will be of PD-H districts shall be as met by all structures in this set forth in Articles 5 and development. Articles 6. 7. Signs visible from outside 7. All signs for this project shall the district shall be according be in accordance with Article 9. to Article 9. b) Internal Relationships. „ The site plan shall provide for safe, efficient, convenient and harmonious groupings of structures, uses and facilities, and for preservation of desirable natural features and minimum disturbance of natural topography. - - 1. Streets, drives and parking 1. The proposed street pattern pr.. _ Streets and drives shall provide vides adequate internal ciruclation. safe, and convenient access to The parking proposed will be off the units and other facilities_ street; 2 spaces/unit are designated. Streets shall discourage through The cul-de-sac layout minimizes th.:-.. traffic and blocks shall be laid number of vehicles using the seconder; out to maximize efficient use of roads. the property. 2. Vehicular access to Streets 2. The site plan with the proposed shall be limited and controlled. parking layout minimizes friction If the street serves less than between the parked vehicles, the . 50 units parking can be directly circulation of vehicles and pedestrian: off the street. If the street serves more than 50 units parking shall be from controlled points. 3. Wa a for fedestrians and 3! The circulation proposed minimizes cyclists Walkways shall form the points pedestrians and motor a safe logical and convenient vehicles conflict. It allows access system for pedestrian access to recreation areas without utiling to all units, project facilities streets. and any principal off site des- tinations. 4, Protection of visibility 4. The site plan adequately for automobile traffic, addresses visibility protection cyclists and pedestrians. 17 for motor vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists, by separating them to a large degree. , . _ - " • " ;.' 058'a 7 5 0 _ - The Plannine Board finds a proponderance of evidence to indicate compliance with the general standards, and specific rules governing a Planned Develop- ment (P.D.H-R-1) request. The Bingham Woods application substantially complies with all required regulations and standards. The Planning Board further finds that the following conditions should be imposed on the Planned Development Bingham Woods. 1. That the main road be relocated to lie along the eastern property line of this project and that all grading for this road be at least 30' from the eastern property line. This 30' shall be main- . tained as a buffer between this project and the adjacent agricul- tural use. 2. The roads in the project shall have a 20' wide travel surface, with 4" compacted crusher run and that all roads within the project be treated with a chemical binding agent, at least once/year or sore often if necessary to control dust, 3. If the project is phased, that all improvements for each phase be completed before the start of construction of any subsequent phase. 4. Prior to the start of any construction that the State Health Depart- ment approve the final plans for the water distribution system and that the Division of Environmental Management approve the final plans for the sewage collection and disposal system. 5. All roads will be named and the names not duplicate any other names within Orange County. Road name signs to Orange County standards shall be erected at all intersections. G. All units shall not be closer than 30' to the roads,•75' center to center, or 75' back to back, 7. Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum. In lieu of planted landscaping, existing vegetation shall be maintained between units. 8. All plans for drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation control shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County. In addition, Orange County shall inspect the installation of control devices and the on going work for the total project. The project shall at all times meet the requirements of the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sed- imentation Control Ordinance. 9. The pedestrian circulation system shall serve each unit, it shall be cleared and grubbed path at least 8' wide. The surface treat- ment shall be suitable for easy walking. 10. The recreation areas shall be cleared and grassed, a hard surfaced basketball court installed and 2 tot lots built. The first area shall be completed before work starts on units 39-75. The second recreation area shall be completed before the last ten units are completed. 11. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be reco? led by the developer. 12. The development shall be built and run according to the site plan, _ . • 005.69 ( and written narrative supplied by the above conditions. the developers and in compliance with 13. That the pro ject remain in unitary ownership and that no lots be sold to individuals. ._ 4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COY,?4.1SSIONE2S Action krencla Item no_ E-11 icrroN AraNaT1 ITT:24 ARSTR.ACT DATE MARCH 1, 1982 ,r.=rucc; Sub.52ot: Sewer Problems: Efland Estates Subdivision • Manager 1 [Public Heari.ng: yes xno L formation Contact Attachmerxt(s): Yes,Resolution and In Ken Thompson John/ McAdams' letters of 12/10/81 nrober: 732-8181 ext.- 501 & 21/82 PURPOSE: To consider a Resolution of intent to make application for Clean Water Bond Funds. NEED: The Board of Health has for some time been seeking a solution to health problems resulting from seepage of sewage from faulty septic tank laterals within the subdivision. Two measures are proposed. One is to have the fact of the malfunctioning stipulated on the property deeds. Another has been to approach the County to become agent to construct, operate and maintain a sanitary sewage collection system for the Subdivision. Preliminary study of this shows that it may be cost effective--particularly —if construction cost can be borne by Farmers Home and Clean Water Bond money. Assuming the operating and maintenance costs are found to be affordable to the residents and a combination of grant/bond proceeds/loan pay the full cost of construction there remains the policy question of whether the County should assume the responsibility. It needs to be decided on a tentative basis now in order to meet application schedules for Clean Water bond funding. A Resolution of intent is attached for the Board to consider. If the decision is to go ahead a full application would be brought back for the Board's authorization before the end of March to meet a March 31, 1982, deadline on Clean Water Bond funds reserved for Orange County. INPACT: Full details will be presented later in March pending the com- pletion of further cost analysis and preliminary design work. A "no go" decision could be made at that time if the results are unfavorable. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. 00571 RESOLUTION BY GOVERNING BODY OF APPLICANT WHEREAS, the North Carolina Clean Water Bond Act of 1977 has authorized the making of grants to aid eligible units of government in financing the cost of construction of wastewater treatment works, wastewater collection systems, and water supply systems, and WHEREAS, The County of Orange, North Carolina has need for and intends to construct sewerage facilities for Efland Estates Subdivision, and WHEREAS, The County of Orange, North Carolina intends to request State grant assistance for the project, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, NORTH CAROLINA: That the County of Orange, North Carolina will arrange financing for all remaining costs of the project, if approved for a State grant award. That the County of Orange, North Carolina will adopt and place into effect on or before completion of the project a schedule of fees and charges which will pro- vide adequate funds for proper operation, maintenance and administration of the system. That the County of Orange, North Carolina will provide for efficient operation and maintenance of the project on completion of construction thereof. That the County Manager of Orange County, North Carolina is hereby authorized to execute and file an application on behalf of the County of Orange, North Carolina with the State of North Carolina for a grant to aid in con- struction of the project described above. That the County Manager of Orange County, North Caroli is hereby authorized and directed to furnish such infr mation as the appropriate State agency may request in connection with such application or the project; to make the assurances as contained above; and to execute such other documents as may be required in connection with the application. That the County of Orange, North Carolina has substantially complied or will substantially comply with all Federal, State, and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the project and to Federal and State grants and loans pertaining thereto. , 1982, at Hillsborough, Adopted this the et- day of tvt_ North Carolina. Ar 11 - 40119"/ 44117 - SQL•1 Richar. E. Whi ted Chairman, Orange County, North Carolina, Board of Commissioners CERTIFICATE OF RECORDING OFFICER The undersigned duly qualified and acting Clerk of the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby certify: That the above/attached resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution authorizing the filing of an application with the State of North Carolina, as regularly adopted at a legally convened meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners duly held on the day of , 1982; and, further, that such resolution has been fully recorded in the journal of proceedings and records in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of , 1982. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BY: CLERK 7424, -1 1111, 11111 THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 100 HAYES BUILDING,GLEN LENNOX CENTER, CHAPEL HILL P.O. BOX 2896,CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 (919)967-70; December 10, 1981 Mr. Kenneth Thompson County Manager, The County of Orange 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 RE: Efland Estates Sewer Problem OCO 8002 Dear Mr. Thompson; I think our discussion earlier this week concerning the sewer situation at Efland Estates was beneficial to both of us. You probably need to be aware of the background of the Efland Estates situation, and I bene- fitted from your insight into the situation. The problem at Efland Estates is not so much how to dispose of the wastewater or even how to finance the sewer improvements, but rather it is a problem of determining what agency might act as lead agency or sponsor of the sewer system, to receive the grant, operate the system, and bill the users. As we discussed, I have contacted many agencies in the search to find a sponsor, including the County, Orange-Alamance Water Corporation, Farmers Home Administration (who is willing to provide funding, but is unwilling to act as lead agency) , the residents them- selves, the Orange County School System, the Chapel Hill Housing Authority, Triangle .3 Council of Governments, and OWASA. For various reasons, each of these agencies is unwilling or unable to undertake the project, with the possible exception of OWASA, whose executive director is willing to recommend to the OWASA Board that OWASA undertake the project, provided the County invite OWASA to do so. We all acknowledge that the County would want to consider the precedent being set and the long-range planning implications before asking OWASA to initiate sewer service in Efland Estates. You pointed out that the County has asked Dr. Ed Bergman, Chairman of Orange County's Revenue Bond Financing Commission, to formulate a water and sewer extension policy, and that perhaps the County would be in a better position to decide on an invitation to OWASA after the extension policy has been adopted. I can understand your point. I will contact Dr. Bergman to be sure he is aware of the particular Efland Estates situation, and then I will await further developments from the County; but I do suggest that once the extension policy is formulated the County then consider again the Efland Estates matter. AIM Mr. Kenneth Thompson Page 2 December 10, 1981 I was frankly impressed, Ken, with your quick command of the complicated Efland Estates matter, and with your insights into all of the associated planning ramifications. I am sure I will enjoy very much any further opportunities I have to work with you. Sincerely, THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC. J BY; .1 f4A ./Ate./.44 JO, R. McADAMS, P.E. Pr-sident JRMc:cw cc Mr. W. Everett Billingsley, Executive Director Orange Water and Sewer Authority Orange County Commissioners Anne Barnes, Commissioner Emeritus 011 / Cf ottC=7=1‘i" cry, tret•-e..x,--rt—ezr -4-14"<1 (F1) 2 ‘7-. Flk To% _cr cist ,s2 /2-5.4(Ch ■-tr"r"ir.o I *-- 1 3---g 0 . . -A) 1111 :.1 THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC CONSULTING ENGINEERS 100 HAYES BUILDING, GLEN LENNOX CENTER, CHAPEL HILL P 0 BOX 2896,CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27514 (919)967 707( February 1, 1982 Mr. Kenneth Thompson Orange County Manager 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 2 7 2 78 RE: Efland Estates Sewers OCO 8002 Dear Mr. Thompson: Several weeks ago you and I discussed the Efland Estates Sewer situation, and I brought you up to date on all of the alternatives that we had con- sidered for providing sewer service to that area. You suggested I contact Mr. Ed Bergman and apprise him of the situationso that he could include Efland Estates in his thinking as he formulated the water and sewer extension policy for Orange County. Mr. Bergman told me that actually the Orange County Planning Department, Jim Polatty in particular, was carrying out most of the work on the proposed Utilities Extension Policy, and that I should contact him. I spoke with Jim briefly, and he said that more work remains to be done on the policy before presentation to the Commissioners, and that to date their considerations had included only extensions for industrial use. I believe I recall that he agreed that it would be wise to bear in mind situations such as Efland Estates in the formulation of this policy. You and I had discussed deferring further recommendations on Efland Estates until the extension policy could be formulated, so that the Commissioners could respond to the Efland Estates situation within the context of their new policy. I thought I would call to your attention the fact that the opportunity to apply for 25 percent funding from NC Clean Water Bond funds will expire after March 21, 1982. Beyond that date, future Clean Water Bond funding is uncertain, as it depends on the existence and the success of a future bond referendum. Currently the remaining Clean Water Bond allocation for Orange County stands at $67,747 (which would be 25 percent of a $270,988 project) . Our estimate for the Efland Estates project is $239,400. If a grant application were filed before March 31, then a grant award would be in early July, 1982, and the sponsor would have up to two years to arrange the balance (75 percent) of the funding. ----"—m" Mr. Kenneth Thompson Page 2 February 1, 1982 I call these matters to your attention in case the County might want to take some action on the grant application before the deadline. It would be necessary for the County only to pass a resolution of intent to apply for assistance (copy enclosed) , and then this firm could prepare the other documents in the application in about one or two week's time. We would be willing to do that for no further fee, provided we had some type of agree- ment from the County that the County would continue to work with this firm in any further involvement that the County might have in this project. Please let me know if you would like to discs s this matter further. Sincerely, THE JOHN R. • PAMS COMPANY, INC. BY: JOHN R. McADAMS, PE Pre-ident JRMc:cw Enclosure i 11rángcëountv 732-9361 ext.305 ' Chapel Hal line 968.450 c,. HEALTH DEPARTMENT �ebane� 227.2032 Durham Nee 688.7333 Cart Min Maly Soho 225 100 N.Greensboro street Carrboro.N.C.27510 942.4168 Jerry Robinswr.M.A.PA. December 15, 1980 Oiie�tor - near Homeowner: In late April and mid-May of 1980, the Health Department conducted an en- vironmental survey of Efland Estates Subdivision. Department sanitarians found that 21 of the existing 26 septic systems were failing (See Attachment No. 1). The area was therefore experiencing an 81% septic system failure rate. This discovery was surprising since the weather had been unusually dry. 'Under dry conditions the ground will absorb more septic effluent. Conversations with residents of your subdivision led to the understanding that many septic systems have been failing for some time and that several resi- dents have invested considerable sums of money in unsuccessful attempts to have their systems repaired. Since mid-May of 1980, the Department has brought in several experts and conducted its own extensive analysis towards finding a solution to this significant problem. On December 12, 1980, the Department again formally inspected the septic systems. This time we found that 22 of the 26 systems are failimg (See Attach- ment No 1). The area is now experiencing an 85% failure rate. This finding was. also surprising in that since May we have had unusually dry weather. Each of these failing systems is expected to dispose of a minimum of 300 gallons of . waste water per day. The failing systems would represent a potential of 6,600 gallons of waste water per d being improperly disposed of. This is an extreme- ly heavy pollution load on the environment of this subdivision. Most ditches and many yards are contaminated with human excreta. Therefore, concern lies with diseases of the gastrointestinal tract. They include typhoid fever, paratyphoids, dysentery, poliomyelitits, infectious hepatitis, hookworm disease and a few other parasitic infections. The following chart is presented to show how one of these diseases of concern is spread: SPREAD of TYPHOID Excreta ---- Fingers of Humans - ----- - - Mouths . from of Carrier "~- Cockroaches Foods .. Persons . t �' Flies - vegetables 1 LAI + rJ 1 Efland Estates Subdivision Homeowners 2 December 15, 1980 • All the vectors listed on the chart (flies, pets, children, etc.) are exposed to the contaminated environment of the area. Mosquitoes would be of concern due to viral encephalitis and the possibility of a resurgence of malaria. The De- - partment has not detected evidence of unusual rates of illness. However, the De- partment's position is that the single factor which prevents major morbidity problems is the protected public water supply. Unfortunately, water lines are -- -- running through contaminated ground. Contamination of the water supply could easily occur in a variety of ways, such as; freezing and cracking of lines, plumbing cross connections, etc. Such an occurrence would have severe effects. We are concerned that the contaminated environment you live id could be of harm to you. Therefore, in January of 1981, qualified medically trained personnel from our Department will conduct a health status survey. This will be completely voluntary on your part. If any resident does not wish to participate, they will not do so. I would not expect this survey fo prove any major health problems related to the septic malfunctions since you have a protected water supply. This survey will be a cautionary move on your behalf. . On June 20, 1980, the Director of the Department, et al, was sued by the present owners of 18 undeveloped lots in the subdivision to either reimburse them what they paid for the lots or validate the 1972 percolation tests on the lots, which would allow them to construct homes. The Director refused to reconsider the decision of the environmental staff (on 14 of the remaining 18 lots that the staff has soil tested) that the lots are unsuitable for on-site individual ground absorption septic disposal systems, except lots 33 and 32 which would be pro- visionally suitable if combined into a single lot. Based on extensive soil testing and consultant analysis of the area, the Department's position is that further development of the area would lead to an Increase in the health hazard to residents. The request to honor the 1972 percolation tests can not be honored for multi-. ple reasons. Important among those reasons is that the percolation test was deemed an extremely unreliable indicator and test and was discontinued as a primary test of July 1 , 1977, by change in the State regulations. Orange County adopted the new State regulations and there exists no basis to honor perk tests. Secondly, of the 26 developed lots, 23 of these lots were only able to pass the perk test on a second try when the hole was dug to a depth of 48 inches. This procedure was not in accord with State regulations but was acceptable by the District Health Department regulations of that era. (Until July 1, 1977, Orange County was part of a five county health district, after that date it formed its own department.) This procedure put .the perk test into saprolite soil which is unacceptable soil for ground absorption septic systems. Under regulations adopted in July, 1977, Efland Estates Subdivision would not have been allowed to be constructed. How- ever, this subdivision does exist and a solution must be found to this serious problem. I am constrained b law to notif you that our malfunctionin' septic s stem is a nuisance and a health hazard. North Carolina law authorizes two procedures for abating a nuisance "which in the opinion of the local health director is dangerous to the public health" (N. C. Gen. Stet. 130-20, 1974). Under the first procedure, the health director - Efland Estates Subdivision Homeowners 3 December 15, 1980 must give to the person responsible for the nuisance, written notice of its charac- ter and how to abate it. The .erson ma a. •eal from the health director's deter- mination, first to: the Board of Health and then to Superior Court. The second pro- cedure allows the local health director to seek an injunction'through'the Superior Court to cause immediate relief of the nuisance. I am selecting the first procedur in this instance. It is my responsibility to advise you as a resident creating a health hazard as to measures to lessen the hazard and severity of the problems. .. The measures listed below should not be expected to completely relieve the problems. (1) You should be alert to your health status and take preventive measures advised by your physician or the health department. - (2) Areas where the effluent is breaking out to the surface should be fenced off in such fashion as to keep children and pets out. (3) Water use inside the house should be reduced. - (4) Diversion of septic effluent into ditches must immediately and permanently cease. You may, therefore, have to have your tank pumped regularly. (5) Trenches should be constructed to divert excess surface water away from the system absorption field (with care not to divert onto a neighbor's system). • (6) The absorption field should be properly graded to prevent surface water from saturating the system. At this time I am not setting time limits for other corrective actions to be taken. It is my desire to aid all concerned by provision of suggestions for permanent relief of the problem. Should adverse health problems be proven to re- sult from the contaminated environment, I will advise as to further action you must take. I am at this time directing that you implement the first four measures listed above and explore the feasibility of measures five and six with a sanitarian from the health department. Under the condition of your system being ruled a healt hazard, the Department will not certify your property for a loan transaction. This would, under most circumstances, prevent you from selling if your purchaser re- quires a loan. It is not my desire to overstate the hazard or create unnecessary concern on the part of residents. Unfortunately, the problems will not go away by themselves and the conditions will further deteriorate without corrective action. You ma a. .eal this rulin. to the Oran•e Count Board of Health. You may appeal by writing to the Chairman, Orange County Board of Health, at the Depart- ment's address in Hillsborough. You may discuss this with the Board, without filin a formal appeal, at its meetin. on Thursda December 18, 1980. The Board will meet in the Health Department offices in the new Human Services Center in Hillsborough on West Tryon Street (old Grady Brown School). The Board will thoroughly discuss Efland Estates starting at 9:00 p.m. Prior to 9:00 p.m., the Board will only cover other scheduled items. Please feel welcome to attend. The Board wishes to be responsive to citizens. At the December 18 Board of .Health. meeting,._the,enviror rental.staff will discuss two proposed solutions to the problem. Both solutions would require Efland Estates Subdivision Homeowners 4 December 15, 1980 collective action by residents and are potentially expensive. The solutions ere .. a small package waste treatment plant or a single, large low pressure ground absorption system constructed away from Efland Estates. The Department staff and the consultants we have called in have ruled out any further attempts to use your on-site systems. Once a health hazard is identified by a local health director, the director is constrained to pursue relief of the condition. Please contact our Hillsborough office and talk to a sanitarian or nurse regards concerns this letter may create. • Sincerely, Jerry Robinson, 'H.A.P.A. Director JR/gg Attachment • 12/11/80 4 /981 -5/14. survey � �, ,� �,•x = ,.�. 4 • se tics tern us Unsuitable fcr� any p Ys lots - 8 .• 3 a . PS Provisionally Suitable {i 4 ....,..,_,_. 33 and 32. combined) 4/ ? Not Sail Tested /Vacant Lots TtiA 26 26 . md.sting How 2sa #A. 4 .. 16 15 Extreme Wfunctioning Septic '-System , "'+ `'c 1.9 Z1� left Light Malfunctioning Septic System 5 6 + ' tS 11 Properly Rmotio ing Septic System On 12/11/80, The area was resurveyed and all findings were • �,�� w identical except Lot 19 was changed to Extreme Malfunction. � � • � $ha .. �, 1r ..a .. MCK = Pau X • r � e QD oil 04 0 1.0% Jw. * "•r��r ""••i a %kp ROAD 4 m range county• • )1 303 W.Tryon Street Hillsborough.N.C.27278 732-9361 ext.305 Chapel Hill ree 9684501 HEALTH DEPARTMENT Mebane line 227-2032 Durham rune 688.7333 Can Mi9 Mat.Suite 225 100 N.Greensboro Street Cartboro.N.C.27510 - 9424168 &ay Robinson.ALAPJ4. • Okeator • • • MEMO TO: County Commissioners County Manager FROM: Jerry Robinson -as- Secretary, Board of Health DATE: December 22, 1980 RE: Alleviation of Health Hazard Attached is a document describing a subdivision with significant environ- ment problems. On December 18, the Board of Health upheld the _ftalth,Directoos decision to declare the area a "health hazard". The BoarPA tit m* yamts immediately provide necessary county staff to seek a solution to this problem. The Board Griffin,'specifically had in mind for WiZlie ffin, planning staff, and others as necessary to be assigned to put together a HUD proposal before January 20, 1980. Thank you. JR gg Attachment • ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT REPORT ON EFLAND ESTATES, SECTION II December 12, 1980 Efland Estates Subdivision, Section Ii is located along and north of Route #70, one crossroad west of Efland Cheeks School in the Efland Community. This phase of the subdivision consists ,of 44 acres divided into 44 one-acre lots. Prior to January of 1974, Bitton Builders, Inc. (presently a non-existent corporetipn) developed this subdivision and•homes were constructed on all but 18 of the lots. The subdivision is served by the Orange-Alamance Water System. The housing stock is, predominately, 3 bedroom homes of 1,100 or less square • = ==feet The principle financing is through the Farmers Home Administration. The homes and yards are well kept up and the area is visually pleasant and reflective of pride of ownership. Presently, there are 26 homes in the subdivision. The environmental staff of the Health Department has been concerned about numberous septic failures in this subdivision for approximately two years. The staff has advised residents on attempts to repair their systems and has exten- sively explored alternative methods of waste disposal, as such methods were ap- proved by the Board of Health for use. Attempted repairs have been of minimal, short-term assistance. The area has been rejected for alternative on-site systems. The staff, during the past year has brought in experts and consultants to suggest solutions to the problem. Notable among those experts were Dr. Robert Carli.le of N.C. State University, Dr. Robert Rubin of.the Agriculture .Extefsioo Division, 4nd'Edward:Holland of the Triangle J Council of Governments. It has been concluded by all parties that individual on-site sewage disposal systems of known technology will not properly function in this area. The Attachment indicates that on first survey 21 of the 26 homes. had failing systems. The first survey was accomplished on April 18 - May 14, 1980. This high failure rate (81%) was dramatic considering the Spring had been unusually, dry. On December 11, 1980, the area was resurveyed. On this survey the only change in status was that the lot 19 system was now found to be badly malfunc- tioning versus properly functioning before. Therefore, as of 12/11/80, 22 of the 26 systems were failing (which is an 85% failure rate). The resurvey results were unexpected since the area has had many months of dry weather. Each of the - failing systems is expected to dispose of a minimum of 300 gallons of waste water per day. This would represent a potential of 6,600 gallons of waste water per day being improperly-disposed of. This is an extremely heavy pollution load on - the environment of this neighborhood. • Most ditches and many yards are contaminated with human excreta. Therefore, concern lies with diseases of the gastrointestinal tract. They include typhoid fever, paratyphoids, dysentery, poliomyelitis, infectious hepatitis, hookworm disease and a few other parasitic infections. The following chart is presented to show how one of these diseases of concern is spread: SPREAD of TYPHOID Excreta ---i Fingers of HumansJ"--- " - $ Mouths from of Carrier "��.� Cockroaches _- Foods Persons < < Flies } Vegetables :a /IN it. • • • Report on Efland Estates, Section II -2- December 12, 1980 All vectors listed on the chart (flies, pets, children, etc.) are exposed to the contaminated environment of the area. Mosquitoes would be of concern due to viral encephalitis and the possibility of a resurgence of malaria. The department has not detected evidence of high rates of illness. However, the Department's position is that the single factor which prevents major morbidity . problems is the protected public water supply. Contamination of the water sup- ply could easily occur in a variety of ways such as freezing and cracking of lines, plumbing cross connections, etc. Such an occurrence would have severe effects. At the May 15, 1980, Board of Health meeting, the staff presented extensive evidence of the problem in Efland Estates and the best solution, which would be a community waste disposal system. The Board requested the Director to meet with the County Manager and request that Mebane be asked to explore extension elf•y„ sewer to this area, as one possible solution. The Director has since met with .the Manager. As the nearest sewer line is over five miles away, the Director has concluded this solution is not practical. On June 20, 1980, the Director, et al, was sued by the present owners of the 98 undeveloped lots in the subdivision to either reimburse them what they paid for the lots or validate the 1972 percolation tests on the lots, which would allow them to construct homes. The Director refused to reconsider the decision of the environmental staff (on 14 of the remaining 18 lots that the staff has soil tested) that all lots are unsuitable for on-site individual ground absorp- tion septic disposal systems, except lots 33 and 32 which would be provisionally . suitable if combined into a single lot. Based on extensive soil testing and consultant analysis of the area, the Department's position is that further de- velopment of the area would lead to an increase In the health hazard to residents. The request to honor the 1972 percolation tests can not be honored for multiple reasons. Important among those reasons is that the percolation test.. was deemed an extremely unreliable indicator and test and discontinued as a primary test on July 1, 1977, by change in the State regulations. Orange County adopted the new State regulations and there exists no basis to honor the 1972 perk tests. Secondly, of the 26 developed lots, 23 of these lots were only able to pass the perk test on a second try when the hole was dug to a depth of 48 inches This procedure was not in accord with State regulations but was acceptable by the District Health Department regulations of that era. This put the perk test into saprolite soil which is unacceptable soil for ground absorption septic systems. (Until July 1, 1977, Orange County was part of a five county health district. On that date Orange County formed its own department.) Under regulations adopted July 1, 1977, the subdivision would not have been constructed. However, it does exist and the Department considers a serious health hazard to exist in this sub- division and will continue to explore solutions to abate the problem. During the week of December 15, the Health Director will send a letter to the 22 homeowners with failing systems notifying them that their system consti- tutes a health hazard. Secondly, they will be directed to take certain procedures to reduce the hazard. During mid-January, 1981, the Health Director will have trained medical personnel conduct a health status survey to determine any correla- tion between the environmental pollution and health problems. This is seen as a cautionary measure and not expected to document illness due to the protected Watl?r c I. r'.la. ( t AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, NC, AND , THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC. RE: EE'LAND ESTATES SEWERS OCO 8002 _ / 1.1., THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this the ),1(0I-!day of P(4101t4 , .- 1982, by and between THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, NC, hereinafter referred to as the OWNER, and THE JOHN R. MCADAMS COMPANY, INC., hereinafter referred to as the ENGINEER. WITNESSET H THAT WHEREAS the OWNER intends to construct sewer collection system and treat- ment facilities to serve Efland Estates Subdivision and Efland Cheeks School in Cheeks Township of Orange County. NOW, THEREFORE, the OWNER and the ENGINEER, for and in consideration of matters hereinafter set forth, do hereby agree as follows: I. PROJECT SCOPE • — The engineering services that are the subject of this Agreement are for Efland Estates Sewer System, which project consists of gravity collection system and package wastewater treatment facility to serve Approximately 44 lots in Efland Estates Subdivision, and Efland Estates School. II. ENGINEERING SERVICES AND COMPENSATION The ENGINEER agrees to perform the following services, and the OWNER agrees to pay the following compensation: A. Project formulation and planning services, including: --Preliminary site designs. • --Preparation of cost estimates for proposed construction, and I mod. . fIcations in the type or extent of construction in order to make the project fit the budget. --Analyses of cost allocations among the proposed users of the sewer system. --Assistance in establishing a system of user charges. --Assistance in applying to the NC Utilities Commission for a franchise. --Assistance in establishing a special tax district, or other administrative arrangement for operating the sewer system. --Assistance in preparation of grant applications for grants from Wort Carolina Clean Water Bonds, and a grant/loan from Farmers Home Administration, including supporting documents. Engineering fee shall be by hourly charges listed in Section IV of this Agreement, not to exceed $4500, payable monthly. The Engineering Services under this item shall also include docu- mentable project formulation work performed by the ENGINEER. under an agreement with the OWNER dated January 6, 1981, for which project formulation work the ENGINEER has not received reimbursement as of _ the date of this Agreement. Payment by the OWNER to the ENGINEER under this Agreement for project formulation work performed before- the date of this Agreement shall be in lieu of any further payments under the January 6, 1981 agreement, and payments under this Agreement shall be included within the above-stated fee limit of $25.00 for this Item IIA. B. Preliminary surveying as required. Preparation of construction plans and specifications and contract documents. Preparation of a detailed cost estimate and an erosion control plan for the construction of all improvements. Engineering fee shall be $9,800, payable monthly in proportion to work accomplished. C. Presentation of plans and specifications for approval to, and securing approval from appropriate regulatory agencies, including North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. Engineering fee, due upon completion, shall be $1,000. D. Property surveying as required, for the purpose of easements or rights-of-way. Preparation of easement and right-of-way agreements. Engineering fee shall be $40.00 per easement. E. Securing of easements and right-of-way agreements, if requested by the OWNER. Engineering fee shall be by unit hourly charges in accordance with the Schedule in Section IV of this Agreement. F. Assistance in receiving bids for construction, including preparing legal advertisements, answering contractors' questions, conducting the bid opening', and preparation of a certified bid tabulation. Engineering fee, due upon completion, shall be $900. G. Engineering services during construction, including: --Stakeout of all work for construction. --Conducting a preconstruction conference. --Engineering inspection of construction to insure that construction is performed according to contract specifications, and conducting final inspection of all street improvements with officials of the NC Department of Transportation. --Administration services during construction, including reviewing contractors' monthly payment requests, preparing and processing change orders, coordination with regulatory agencies, approval of shop drawings, and preparation of as-built drawings of all construction. Engineering fee shall be $6,300, and shall become due and payable monthly during construction in proportion to the monthly payments to the contractor(s) . III. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE The engineering services described in Section II shall be accomplished on the following schedule: The ENGINEER shall diligently pursue the project formulation activities under item hA. The Clean Water Bond grant application shall be prepared such that it can be filed before March 31, 1982. The ENGINEER shall accomplish Item IIB, design, within 60 days of being notified by the OWNER to begin the design. The engineering services for approvals, negotiation with contractors, construction stakeout and inspection shall be diligently pursued by the ENGINEER. IV. PROVISION FOR EXTRA SERVICES At the request of the OWNER, the ENGINEER shall perform other engineering services associated with this project. For these additional services; the OWNER shall compensate the ENGINEER monthly in accordance with the following schedule of hourly charges: Engineer $35.00/hour Planner $27.00/hour Technician $24.00/hour Sr. Drafter $20.00/hour Jr. Drafter $16.00/hour Secretary $14.00/hour Survey Party $35.00/hour Inspector $18.00/hour V. COSTS NOT INCLUDED The compensation for engineering services stated hereinabove does not include the cost of: --legal advertisements for construction contracts. --the cost of reproducing plans and specifications for the bidding process, or postage for mailing plans and specifications to contractors. --the cost of soils tests to assure the contractors' compliance with compaction specifications. --redesigns of facilities after final plans have been approved. --court appearances for litigation. 1 VI. TERMINATION AGREEMENT This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven (7) days' written notice should the other party fail, substantially to perform in accordance with its terms through no fault of the party initiating the termination. In the event of termination due to the fault of parties other than the ENGINEER, the ENGINEER shall be paid his compensation for services performed to termination date and all, termination expenses. VII. CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTINGENT UPON PROJECT FINANCING - - It is understood and agreed between the parties that the ENGINEER'S responsibility to perform services beyond item 2A and the OWNER'S obligation to pay any fees under this agreement shall be contingent upon the ability of the ENGINEER and the OWNER to arrange a package (acceptable to the COUNTY) of grant and loan financing for the Efland Estates Sewers project. THIS AGREEMENT embodies the whole agreement of the OWNER, there being no promises, terms, conditions, or obligations referred to the subject matter other than contained herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said COUNTY OF ORANGE, NC has caused this instrument to be executed and attested, and the said THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC. have set their hands and seals, all as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, NC, OWNER • Ay. IVO .01V I Air- merramoirr PAULETTE PRIDGEN-POND, CLERK RICHARD WHITTED, CHAI' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ATTEST THE JOHN R. ,ADAMS COMPANY, INC., ENGINEER s°'1•. ) ' BY: ill CARLA L. WINDHAM JO 10 R. MCADAMS, .iSdISTANT SECRETARY PRE IDENT 4". Ibis instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. BY: FINANCE OFFICER ORANGE COUNTY, NC RESOLUTION BY GOVERNING BODY OF APPLICANT WHEREAS, the North Carolina Clean Water Bond Act of 1977 has .. authorized the making of grants to aid eligible units of government in financing the cost of construction of wastewater treatment works, wastewater collection systems, and water supply systems, and WHEREAS, The County of Orange, North Carolina has need for and intends to construct sewerage facilities for Efland Estates Subdivision, and WHEREAS, The County of Orange, North Carolina intends to request State grant assistance for the project, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF COMMI$SIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, NORTH CAROLINA: That the County of Orange, North Carolina will arrange financing for all remaining costs of the project, if approved for a State grant award. That the County of Orange, North Carolina will adopt and place into effect on or before completion of the project a schedule of fees and charges which will pro- vide adequate funds for proper operation, maintenance and administration of the system. That the County of Orange, North Carolina will provide for efficient operation and maintenance of the project on completion of construction thereof. That the County Manager of Orange County, North Carolina is hereby authorized to execute and file an application on behalf of the County of Orange, North Carolina with the State of North Carolina for a grant to aid in con- struction of the project described above. That the County Manager of Orange County, North Carolina is hereby authorized and directed to furnish such infor- mation as the appropriate State agency may request in J • t, • ..71z • . 005-7. ORANGE.' couNTY. • BOARD OF CCX,24ISSI0NEB'S Item Ea.. 1\CTION /111.5,MCf >PARCH 1, 1982 N.E,ET.M; ' `'btl subject: JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT 1 REC.Gf--i-C1=.aring: yes • x rip 1)-0,..rb-rent: PLANNING • • .• • Attac.hMent(s): JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT Irlf°Eraatial Cant-act' JIM POLATTY (FEBRUARY 21, _19B2 DRAFT) phar. omber: 732-B181 EXT. 342 -, puRposE, To donSider Whether the lateSt draft agreement is in Conformance with Board intent and to set a work session for reviewing comments from the other participants', once they are received. . _ NEED: The Joint Planning Committee has completed its consideration of the Joint Planning'Agreement and has directed the staffs to take the Agreement to their respective Boards for review and recommendation. The-AgreeMent IS Close to A-finai draft and commente-on'the'llsgree",:- ment are expected shortly from the Towns and °NASA. IMPACT: Following review by all the parties to the Agreement the final draft of the Agreement will be considered at a joint meeting of the Boards and mutually adopted. Adoption of the Agreement would formalize the. joint planning process and body. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board set a date in March for a work session on the Joint Planning Agreement. /sw ' " U057 oaANGg cousTy. 1k51 BOARD OF cmassioNEas 1\ction. rsentla ICTION ;GM:\ TrEN :ABTRACT 1,1EXEMGD;vrz ...1,3At23..._ Sub?ct: PARTICIPATORY PAVING PROGRAM Public Hearing: yes y. 7 D.->perbrent: PLANNING . • Attac,i—Ittent(S): REQUEST LETTER. Infclitiajaa (717311tt: JIM POLATTY ITme l'Arciber:: 732-8181 342 -- ' - ; " • , • " ' PURPOSE: Official acceptance of request that Mace Road (SR 1384) be paved under the Orange County Paticipatory Paving Program. NEED:- Mace Road is an unpaved state maintained road carrying a considerable amount of residential traffic. The residents request that, 8 miles of the road serving 45 lots with frontage be paved:, Approximately5 of the freetage owners with frontage have signed a preliminary petition requesting pavement of Mace Road under the Program. -- , „ . IMPACT: Acceptance of the project into the Program will allow for improvement of the road sooner than likely given DOT paving schedules and financial resources. If accepted, Mace Road will become project '47 on the Orange County Approved Projects list. 4 aECOMMENDATION: Acceptance of Mace Road (SR 1384) as a Paticipatory Paving Program project. /sw .55 cL 00374 '162 ,&e.,t/tort /Wet L+ r' '11T -107 • } l 3 .„..',./77'%/1"4-.41,77/eiz„,7 'T__:c_e_..... .C-e-ee-1-4-e-e--/:.1..;/a.Ta6t-,e--Tla'r"1:-c;---46"'."7e--e";e-'''-761-e:"-- Le."-' - ?ilktiisto)'.‘ 00 53 5 p. ORANGE COUNTY BOZNIO O Ca2kt.5510L7,115- A:ftion Agenda. Itcm ACTION ii(TAZDA AP,STleAC_IC - March 1, 1982 D1F.Pari_x.-G - • Subject: Retired Senior Volunteer Grant Public Hearing: yes X : D.,paint: ___Dept. on A.in. Infocrica. a:Intact: Jerry M. Passmore Attachmeht(s , RSVP Resolution of Sponsorship Pne 732-9361r ext. 280 hoNkr4zer: PURPOSE: To consider authorizing submission of the application for the period July 1, 1982 through June 30, 1983 INTED: On September 28, 1981, the Board voted to assume responsibility from Chapel Hill for the program. It was noted in the process that this did not mean the County would assume full funding as it was expected that the benefiting towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro would want to continue their contribution to the local matching funds. Both towns have been contacted on this. The reply of Chapel Hill is that the Town's Contribution will be made a part of the Manager's recommended budget for FY 82-83. The application must be submitted now. We are awaiting a reply from Carrboro concerning funding. IMPPCT: Total grant amount for the coming year is $66,202 of which $24,775 is Federal, $28,846 is local cash ($14,698 County, $12,277 Town of Chapel Hill and $800 from Carrboro) and $12,571 is local in kind (title 3 transportation funds) . The in kind is included because personnel cost exceeds the 60% Federal Cap. RECOMMENDATION: Approve attached resolution , . :. ()(4761 ' • A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A GRANT :,-IPPLICATION FOR RETIRED SENIOR VOLUqTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) _ . BE IT RESOLVED by the Commissionerrof Orange County that the Commissioners authorize the County Manager to submit an application - , to ACTION for a $24,775,1 grant for continuation of the Retired Senior Volunteer Program for six months and to certify to the federal government the willingness of the County to assure a minimum of 30% in cash , goods, and services as the non-federal share in support of the program. This the -1st day of.-Pa rchi982 : • .,!•:'. '''''14,',..h.,.. .....t. .7.W.% 4,604, ,,,,,,44.5.1:;,3,:y.341-r''.a...,,, • ,..,... V..tre,,V 7,7.41. ,A., , . ,..,/ ‘'), 'Tr:. Z..1 4.4.4,,,e,def".... Att.,,,..... ,,,,t,,p-z,,,,,,,,t , '":"'"4.?At 7:'''-'.' A'''''Pirr''.'11.441,‘'..,;r4'.i577-4ge$a•7ktAF44,1-4.04.*5.:451:0MA.S,,V,:,,.. ,'-':',,%,-,F.a.,,,ff' q.' 4 :6.1.,.,,,71,.., .,,:X4,',..•....,;,, ,,,,t$,v. 1 -'' - .^.0- ..-4'.71:41.4ft r"--.14,4174:1=V^t,..,- 1 ,oftleittet00.., „, :i',;'1''"'.,p),,:ma,'.; ,. 'IX, e43 .„■rt,,,-,...4,+.,,er-s-.m..,---,4-Ftir* ...,z' ;.." ..-A4P-471:1:772- 4.-:„.„,,z1,,t,n$:",-0-=‘,.1',.. r;0,-.-- ?2,,,,t----t:1427e1,-.1.,t;',..-,.t"' -14'...; •- 71,.'"' .7--.41/4.•-‘,.. .7*41-- -','.**:•-t. .--.i'-,`,",:4/. ••P' ' '.** r,•'..V.4..h .L'Vq11 -1:**4,4-17SSW4t-'''''W.tiff.. 51."''',VI■RIgttf-4^st''' .'1* . • 4''''.•:4,....A..tf:'74U 4i,`Cbt'''.0.41.:440,-;:l.W: -:.- 3.61i7t'4';;,At r • 1.-. 'IP,x),V1:1■04411". '1" ' ,;%,'S4,-,t.1.1.,*rta,%-t--"Atr.7. : -T•.et"'"Y.:7ZA,'re.,. .. .. -..,..,,_`1"4"+j-r4;*,a,, _ip," - ' ',V'''''re:V.,1,. '-',47..: 7,,,'..„, ,"-,-S.A; .„,„;;;S:ArT-..r.4.-ampit-2:4;",--"Ix--4,Art. r......t.7.-.:,Velkitt.", eN- vr.!.• . -r'' - .....'''r--"P2.Z .15,-, .~.---..- ...."'.,-'. '41.4'•. k.... -.;'''' 1“,",'T,-"';$4.,lg.* -04.4441-‘1%tr.11-;;'".--7f' rfr*, -..,,,Ii-41,..1„„z{z,....,:..,:p... .,... .E. .;..--,•04._ .. ..2. :,...,,,,,,mr, .„--,....- .. s..,,::—.5-,c.,-,—. ,.....,,,.. .......„,;.....„... .,...,_ .1.41A,e,,c..4,. .. . ....,*;:.-z, - , z„f..... ..„.0 ..,... .t.- ..,..,... .4 .gtfy . ..:-.,.. ......, 0.,..."„....z.,--..v .0. . ., r ot- -'7',. ...5,-*I'•-Ii....; L'al" '0,'lik.,4-,,,...*4....'...z. "ii '" ,.., t-' : "1,, ,F,..t. ro-ot ",,".44-t„ , t :-4.0 '-. ,c,.-7 ..-,•3--'"-1,.*tri.4-1. rttA%,2 .;. 4--',I.5.0..,14.1/4. ,-..%%k. ty ,.,,.. .;*,.....,,,,,,.,; 42,1 ,4,...wit - - -t. -a'*?---.. gf.yo,...„3.,---.-- - ,,t,--..r..„0...#.,-A. *44-,..wy,.r..,, -.,_.„-,._:,, .,.......gitym:- .. -%r.pr,.... -•.:42.3.,. . T''',•,'"4`. :4".• ""'t• We; 4„, , 4',.. ' p —...:),,./q„.4.: .4.41.•- .1tititfr.,,,,,,Yint.,Pii-.A- .,UNA1-4Z-V::,7,:,,V ..., --y1'44.r41-W4c4e .t.'5X'Vz.''%''. TO s‘Tare WrcleA 4-7j- 4'"' *4 w--ttet.A.,401V.;`,N4*',';',..V2,...L'iViAgSZ,,,,Ige,t--,'`I'1',.....t&TAW.:44a•-"''a..t.a.41• 5'14'14- .--4,-,X4-4.4- Ii•-'4"''..''Y CI:- i-- liekk•* '$ * ;;'-..,,w..- "-jgisia. ,i5..A4kirCi*:- .*fiflriPattejA.1.4.9V.X.74,4,0 ,".....',Z .'-'.V,A.1.: iew,r,,-- - : ;-,- — ..„srprs•Arocis.t. 144, , •,t.-,,,,. ,,...4:?-...-: ty.-.4k,.=k-••:,-. ,5:' ,4,wrowgzig.ow. 44-vd...,....,;-'"-F.,..4 k , ' .„ ,.. --:4'.--)6.--'''At,- 4 .-1,-*. ... ;.141.'ff.4 ; „', it_,A• ..'' %.s.'.<)*(Vi,S,'"d;••"rg t:Pfje-3Z-''' e''.Nr..t. ••„*.44. 13...,V.A.-i-4,14,:ftir.:i0. tieNV'Sdk•4 •zA fed. - • - ,4( re), -"P".0 ---;--,,, :, .,-?4,4"... ''....t&-....txo.A....44, t.•'.,VP).4re, '41,:rt 3.i.g.,,Wr.. .frt,,,ws1-1/4.4.t'oltra ' 1,- ..". .■ .1.1.5sNmr'r-,..., '7,-!:: r ' ":".176' ,‘'""-:''..1- 1e-a ,4'14.1.44*"-. ..'"...,. - 4,-.4,:::-.&411%. .4),,ia•ate ..,b ,...„.....,''',71,.•' '"'""'.i„.4 ■, "L'' ''''''rfl'''AP,,' '''. li-V.F.-0-ne'*- .4 aZ --L,-- 4- 2,.. .5.... .,4,-- f7-ba:',i4mAty --- -4•• ge:OV *iklili- - ', ''''. ". f11,Y,. '....'. TAirzcA.-%- ' .. --it, -,st ...r.,%.,.,..-F.Y., -.N,,,. Ixt,:a...A*,...to Ay,,..T,,,,:-,,-,:74,,. •,1,4?"44 7,4;2;417,* . -ra,-,!,.ogio,„. -.3.4...yeg,„stx .: ",,,,.:4A-...*.e, , oi ,:;11:'-'''--4-1‘. ''-.r g-:• "4,....--- -,'.,..A•. --,-,;;;. -.7#4$1-4-..-. . .---•,-.. , ' ,z,!,,,:d„ii,:;• ,,;‘iii,14141z434.*At..‘-v,--t-W&,42...kith . ,...,,,--._ .,,PiF., $4,-- ..d..,-,,,zr...,.•‘..„)i-, . • -1, 4q, W '''''. 44..P.' -,,,;r,--1,.: ,-i-,..'"' .. - ".,44=',-A,'',:-, -...,..., ,.,:tola...W-ir.q... .- .-,L„ , , , I ,,r40,1- • '-'' -- r-• 1-• -fat," "4,.1.44 1 -''''. .*x44-1''''' '1%43,''-•-,,zer,(V0t--,'-„.„41-,--. ,,Sr- ' '44. 'Ve4- - .t`is• .,:,..,-4.,„„ .,--r,v2.,,4t.fr 2,1-4-....t%..cp.,-,-1.. -,f , f-ls,"4„,,g,,',„ ,- „e'Ab''".'re•-..-',....Vrt-,4,.. y.piiirt....' 4 4, .b!.-Wis,'.,/ rs'4, 1 ,-,,,'sgr-W..,;1•4.?41.4,1 , .;,,..1.11 4.N... 0,,,..71,,,, '. IL_ ,,,r,cff' •-•.‘,. 1...-1 4.0t."6 :5, .1,PT,'';17nT.:.PA*1' ' 4.r4tVr3.4E.I.T.'4;4!Ce:..'t(.4 ,,-' F:"tfr.-WW/Fa":: :'":::■r:Af:' ..,..'.',?::8 , ..,, ,.../.. ,':''`• 7r.12,' , ... A:4.."'42 4,u,„1- ,,:^7•1",„7- 5;'45t4-Z"424k':''','V-'5117tAieZilte"t?'4', 14-ZI.,-.. .X•kl;itV. IV • 44., WIA...,",r4-.1-411-, ''...„ --.1.-.,;:'''' ..r.t.1..' .4.1t-'4., —*I., --,. 'N...44-• -v.. t-^;.47-',,...,P- --.. .1- -.3 .Z7,tx..-.,_-,--45414,4,4- :,*"" ,.. ,...,...4r,,N ' 'n.„7„tri.,;5:-.°-1 -01- -117 ij.14°•ts—o* -,,troW, ' ;,.±.(1...g VA--,,t§.1 ,-IR-No.-14:1,..-.5;..44:4N-C.it.'-,'-e4,141.V.-!...1-M-;-4.-*-k; r.svf...,,...,-.-,e. -,,,,,..if ,l'At,'"40,, 4 ,, ,- .1.i... ,',:- p3.- ..„*,;.:.-i-r...3,, .sle- ilv.w... ies*W.-a:-44.151-4.-v ' : l'. . •,,'16i'-'k-K',,.---E,'`'.0",-g ''. ....7...irg:::t-gttc.7-, ,,,-,..1,t• i. ;, -A-.,4"-"Aii-g---'. ..- -1.-----...:A --6*-1-1:...S-4514Y.Fc-- --*. :1-,:qi.-Iii.,-.4e,1014,,,,,-1,g-r, -,:tmlr.tmu'---',. .;:ta,4i,..m?,-,,,., -1,04‘tz.314.1-.gt7..z-WITItteatD i,::::-..-t-...wiplp.tc,,,.--4-,.,..-t .Fr . r.t. ..5•••,.., .11 A4p.„SluothiA, r-, - - •<,,,e, tP.514,,t.•24,i.,tpw 44''' ,.1 A-tc-.,,,,,,,...,,,,,..114,-;,:r4-,1... . lr;,,L'-'.',4:;,..4e„;..u.". ., • - ,57,-.'5"01* ..e.-:-.4014Ve.1.4,1„:. .., ,..-,1 '5,1.,..1,:r.:1-4,:,,,,,,,,,s,w4.4 ---1.-....- —...,...0.?- 7,-,...w.,- - 4 '4••• :NSW SW .4.....41,.. L". • ..i ... `..” '`' 't`P• '''. Kn.'. 4.... ''':P-. •,,:".74;9.4. l'Or ORANGE COUNTIILLSDOBOLII 1.1011-TX- CArt.OLIN 'tat; effirc ealaCritteed 1, February 22, 1982 Mr. David R. Taylor Town Manager Town of Chapel Hill 306 North Columbia Street Chapel Hill , NC 27514 Dear Mr. Taylor: Orange County Commissioners will shortly be asked to decide on the sponsorship of the Retired Senior Volunteer Program beginning July 1 , 1982. The Town of Chapel Hill is the sponsor at present. In considering the transfer to the County, Board conditioned its willingness on the Towns and County continuing to pay their respective shares of the matching requirement. This would mean that of the $28,845 local share the County would in FY 1982-83 contribute $14,698, the Town of Chapel Hill $11 ,412 and the Town of Carrboro $800. I need to know at this time if you see any problem in the Town of Chapel Hill budgeting these funds. Without all participant contributions the RSVP operation would likely have to be reduced or eliminate '. Please advise as to the position of the Town on this matter. Sincerely, 0.1-1 Kenneth R. Thompson Orange County Manager KRT:nm As444a4S- • -6- 4464 COUNCILMEMBER HOWES MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BOULTON, THAT COUNCII SUPPORT THE PLANNING BOARD IN THEIR EFFORTS TO REVIEW T" • r. 7- WE PLAT AND THE ZONING • r - OTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. / Retired Senior VoluntesLProaramiLyyl. Mr. Secrist stated that Council had agreec to relinquish its sponsorship of the RSVP to Orange County on January 1, 1982. Management had been notified by ACTION officials in Washington that there had beer certain changes in the handling of grants, and a change in sponsorship for RSVP would require the awarding of a new grant. As it was not feasible that such funding could be initiated and approved by January 1, 1982, it was recommended that the Town continue to house the RSVP program for the remainder of the fiscal year and to begin work with Orange County officials tc develop a grant for the new fiscal year so that a smooth change could take place in July 1982. This would have no budgetary impact. Councilmember Broadfoot asserted that this should not preclude allocation of funds in the upcoming budget. Mayor Nassif instructed Mr. Secrist to proceed with plans to continue support of RSVP until June 1982, and to begin necessary steps with Orange County for grant application to effect a smooth changeover of sponsorship for the new fiscal year. Resolution Accepting a Gift of Land for Tax Purposes - II • - • 4 - erre. I a ter the Executive Session scheduled to follow this meeting. Consent Agenda Councilmember Howes requested to remove Consent Agenda Item "a" (reduction in parking required for the Church Street Public Housing Units for elderly and handicapped persons) and Consent Agenda Item "b" (contract for purchase of fire truck for Fire Station North near Weaver Dairy Road) . COUNCILMEMBER BOULTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KAWALEC TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION: A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (81-R-218) . BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the following resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Manager in regard to: Stop Regulations in CD Street Project Area Taxi Franchise for Day Thorpe (second reading of franchise ordinance) This the 14th day of December, 1981. ., _ • Resolution Authorizin: the Town Clerk to Release the Construction Letter of Cre for the Cable TV ystem Mr. Secrist presented background information: a $200,000 letter of cred "guarantee timely construction and full activation of the Cable TV system" had provided by Village Cable. As the company had "satisfactorily completed and activated the cable system pursuant to the terms of the franchise agreer Management recommended that the $200,000 letter of credit be released. COUNCILMEMBER KAWALEC MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WALLACE, TO AP THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN CLERK TO RELEASE THE CONSTRUCTION L OF CREDIT FOR THE CABLE TV SYSTEM (81-R-216) WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill finds that Village Cabl satisfactorily completed and fully activated the Cable system pursuant to the te the franchise agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill th Council hereby authorizes the Town Clerk, David B. Roberts, to release the lel credit deposited with the Town Clerk to guarantee timely completion and actival the Cable TV system. This the 14th day of December, 1981. Councilmember Smith requested that a letter be sent from the Mayor' s commending the local Cable TV system for their completion and activation a system prior to the deadline. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Reports Revaluation of the Com•rehensive Plan and Zonin: Ordinance. Mr. Roscoe Chairman of the Planning Board, stated that the Planning Board wished to ii Council' s prior instructions to review the Zoning Ordinance and the Compreh Plan. The review would be mostly independent of staff commitment and would i citizen input and professional assistance from the University of North Carolina of City and Regional Planning. Councilmember Smith expressed concern as to whether the Zoning Ordinance ha around long enough to determine its workability and wondered if the timing appropriate for such an exhaustive study. He also expressed concern regardi amount of staff time that might be taken away from the Thoroughfare Plan we he did not wish to see this work delayed. Mr. Reeve responded that the work phase of the revaluation would be done predominantly by the graduate class at Mayor Nassif did not wish to have a review if it meant another extensive revi: the current Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Howes, however, felt that such a would be an invaluable exercise; it did not seem to represent a diversion fr ongoing responsibilities of the Planning Board to provide advice to the Council. 1fl57 e-rf. I Ok- ORANGE COUNTY BOARD Ca-2•1ISSIONERS Action. .?••gencla Item M.. 4"--,5- ACTION AGENDA pro,' Al.s.c3TRACE 1.1EZTE\G DATE MARCH 1 , 19)32__ Soil & Water Conservation Service position Subject.: Public Hearing: Yes I Ev.,partrrent:County Manager • ttachment(s) Idforirtation Contact:Ken Thompson A No pbon. Nathar: 732-8181 ext: 510 PURPOSE: Board of Commissioner to consider unfreezing the position of Soil and Water Conservation Technician. NEED: Position is responsible for scheduling and providing technical services required in applying all kinds of conservation practices on the land in Orange County. Currently the Technician has 30 contracts totaling $100,000 that have not been completed. In addition, there are 6 new contracts under review at this time. The position is critical to continued departmental operations. IMPACT: The position is funded 100 percent by the County. Approval would insure continuity in the level of service provided by the department. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize unfreezing the position of the Soil and Water Conservation Technician position. /6 - ORA1.■:GE COUNTY B0iIRD O Ca,TylISSIMTOS Action Peanda Item Vo. icriO: r-tGFTDA lT21 PaSTRACC TIFEEENG DATE 3-I-B2 F,t.lbject: CD Housing Rehabilitation Contracts Public Hearing: ______yes • x no r..loartment: Communit Develolment Information Contact: Kittrell - 7\ttechment(s): Bid Results phone m.,,--rber: bct. 425 Albert • Puilpose: Award of three housing rehabilitation contracts 17=ma: Sealed Bids were received and opened on February 11 , 1982. Attached is a tabulation of the bids by dwelling unit numbers. TImp. t: Award of contract to the lowest bidder will be consistent with present housing rehabilitation bid procedure. P-c..c.‘7707.n.:27.1tion(s) : Award the following contract amounts. DU # Street Contractor Bid Amount 34 Torain McDuffie Construction $ 6,335.00 107 Harper Eugene H. Morrow 2,560.00 151 Harper McDuffie Construction 11,650.00 K8��7� _ - - ^ � RESULTS OF WV 0PEx| G Vera Watts APPLICATION xo;DER 161 Harper Street COST ESTIMATE: S11,219'00 :n::.ENTAGE OF BID OVER 3'70 UNDER -_COST ESTIMATE JOB - � ONE: JOB BID NEGOTIATED i '- I X J �_--� COMPANY AMOUNT Taylor Home Improvements $12,200J0 - 13,432.48 — - _ . Gates �nut��i� Company . . Eugene H. Morrow 12,200.00 : Winstead Construction Company 18,386.00 ; McOuffie Construction Company 11 ,650.00 Bids opened by: _ Albert Morrow, Rehab Specialist _ Time of Bid Opening: 3:00 PM Date of Bid Opening: Thursday, February 11, 1982 __ Wilbert McAdoo, Rehab Finance Specialist Witnessed by: Acceptabl-e Bid: S11,650l0 ' _ _ otioccd Amount: N/A McDuffie Construction Company _- ���accur� � � --- ---� NAME Rt. 4, Box 402, Hillsborough, NC 27278 ADDRESS 732-6901 PHONE NUMBER • COMMENTS: � -�����P�� ceg by: Ofi� �, / ____ ` id Approved by; �ocred Order: Issued [--- Not Issued L ] 5 8 0 7 13� RESULTS OF BID OPENING :En: Joe Bradsher APPLICATION NUMBER 34 7.: COST ESTIMATE: $7,208.00 C0�pE��� Torain Street � [ENT»GE OF BID OVER UNDER 12 COST ESTIMATE ONE: JOB BID ) X JOB NEGOTIATED 1 -- AMOUNT Foxboro COMPANY Foxboru Home Improvements $8,960.0 8,149.30 Gates Construction Company ' -- McDuffie Construction 6,335.00 Eugene H. Morrow ___ _ 6,920.00 Winstead Construction Company, Inc. 12,123'00 • . D. Taylor Home Improvements 7, 87O.00 Bids opened by: Morrow ,'Albert Morrow Rehab Specialist Time of Bid Opening: 3:DU PM Date of Bid Opening: February 11, 1982 (Thursday) Vicnessed by: Wilbert McAdoo, Rehab Finance Specialist °^°~^~°°^+~°~°~°~°°~°~~~°°°°~~°~°~°°~°~~*~^°°^^°°~°°°~~°°~°~~~°^~_°~°°°°*~~~~~ ~es�'&c��table Bid: $6,335.00 _ � :-:! N/A Amount: McDuffie Construction '�n�ractor`' NAME ' - Rt. 4, Box 402, Hillsborough, NC 27278 • ADDRESS 732-6901 PHONE NUMBER COMMENTS: • �� �- /�_�Z_ l .�~� /7��.i�' DATE: .*' ,�wi��ed b?� 0-((u2, ' ' '` ^'^~- � id Approved by: �---� : -oceed Order: Issued � � Not Issued I \ IJwMEnTS: „ 00581 _`` '2i3J ' RESULTS OF BID OPENING 7zER: Charlie Daye APPLICATION NUMBER 107 T_I $2,606.00 p[�5� Harper Street COST ESTIMATE: 1.77 COST ESTIMATE UNDER ' ��CEoTAGE OF BID OVER ___� 77 {0� _. .F.Cx ONE: JOB B7D \ _Li JOB NEGOTIATED ----1 COMPANY BID AMOUNT Foxboro Home Improvements ____ $ B5.O0 _ — Carolina Mobile Home Parts 2,995.00 Gates Construction Company __ 3,548.08 __ _ ` Eugene H. Morrow 2,560'00 3,876.00 ' Winstead Construction Company --- McDuffie Construction 2,981.00 080.00 � Taylor Home Improvements __ J, . Gids opened by: Albert Horrnw, Rehab Specialist Time Of Bid Opening: 3:00 PM Date of Bid Opening: Thursday, February 11 , 1982 Witnessed by: _ Wilbert Mc&dou, Rehab Finance Specialist _°~°°°**w*^°°~*°°°^*^°°*°°°°~°*°°°°+°^°°~~°°°°°°~^~~°°°~°^°°°*°°°°*°^°°**~*°°°° ' ' rest'Acciptable Bid: $2'560'00 - ivcioted Amount: __ N/& ________ m�rac�or Eugene H. Morrow ' � NAME Rt. 2, Box 394, Mebane, NC 27382 . . ADDRESS 563-3023 . PHONE NUMBER COMMENTS: 2 _/'�_ �� / '/ / --- '�/ �v/� DATE, �� /� o c- —' 'v��icted by: ( � . ��� � ' ~��'— \/Y 5id Approved by: , proceed Order: Issued Issued \ \ ued \ \ ' :9nnEoTS: , . ORANGE COUNTY 00S82 BOARD OF C0.7-:.%1ISSIONIS I i Action. Ager,cla / Xtem .ACT.EON AGay.DA iT1 ABSTRAC.0 I•lEhrLN:C; DIE Subject: Reauests for tax refunds and tax releases Public Hearing: yes x no D.:_,parrent: Tax Supervisor Attechm--n'' t(s): list of requestp; Information. Contact: Kermit Lloyd Summaries of each request phone /qtraber: 732-8181 ext. .412 • PurPoSe: See G.S 105-380,381 reed.: prar3t; See attachments It1;thion(s) : See attachments UU583 • - . • . . . . . _ . 771 .••" TAX REFUND AND RELEASE REQUESTS BOARD OF COUNTY COMISSIONLBS MARCH 1, 1982 TAX REFUNDS Barry D. & linne Nakell (house valuation reduced on appeal) E. N. Richards (double listing of business personalty) John D. & Celia Poe (change in effective date of annexation by City of Carrbbra) Jack R. & Jrilie D. Bowen (change in effective date of annexation by City of Carrboro) Thomas E. & Willie Mae Kimball (change in effective date of annexation by City of Carrboro) TAX RELEASES Romeo, Inc. (Linda Mews, President) (late appeal of valuation of discovered business personalty) Thomas E. & Willie Nee Kimball (change in effective date of annexation by City of Garrboro) - - , 0:004 ?irf, . _ . TAX REFUND REQUEST Barry D. & Lynne Nakell 1310 LeClair Street Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514 Chapel Hill TownShip Account 0'27353 (1981), Bill!#8124067 Tax Map 51A, Block C, Parcel 3, Tract #708721 The 1981 tax valuation of the Nakells, house was reduced on appeal from $67,137 to $64,119 by order of the Board of County Commissioners October 13, 1981. The Nakells paid their original 1981 bill before a release based upon this reduction was made and now reauest a refund of tax attributable to the valuation difference. (The refund amount shown includes an amount attributable to a proportionate reduction in the 5A valuation of household personal property ($151) and a correction of a clerical error-in the original calculation of the V. valuation ($13)) Refund Requested (1981 tax): County tax $17.31 Chapel Hill—Carrboro School District tax 4.45 Chapel Hill City tax 21.88 - —Total $43.64 Recommendation: Approve _ _ 00585 . , ,nom, f- 1 e/_ L � 1'�� . ,t • r art cu 7- . f r 1 , . 1 " _a/1,4 4-� ALL ' - 7-sip..0-3 • 13/0 U..C(aiY4/ cI fft1J • • • H00586 TAX REFUND REQUEST E. N. Richards P. 0. Box 17004 Raleigh, N. C. 27609 Chapel Hill Township . _ Account 4457832 (19e1), Bill #B12334 Part of the business personal property listed for 1981 for University Nall Shopping Center/North Hills, Inc. (account 7135364) was also listed separately to E. N. Richards (owner of the shopping center site) through clerical error. Both accounts have been paid in fi11. Refund Requested: County Tax $25.68 Chapel Bill—Carrboro School District Tax 6.61 Chapel Hill City Tax Total $64.74 Recommendation: Approve . , ) ...`"VOstaalisliumillsommor 1.3‘..--435 .1.11111 1:31:rwalln"L54 BOX 17004•RALEIGH,NORTH CAROUNA•27819•119191787.E662 TELEX EIGE504•TELEC.OF4ER MI917E749E3 cranionwoomumnar Araterawspoinnottagen January 22, 1982 . . _ Orange County Commissions 208 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Sir: Please refer to Account No. 57832 listed under E. N. Richards and Account No. 35364 listed under University Mall Shopping Center. Personal property of $4,720,00 listed under Account No. 57832 is also shown under 35364 for 1981. We respectfully request a rebate of these taxes in the amount of $64.74. Your attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, ' 16 Bryant T. Nash BTN/smj • . . . „ 00588 roj , . _ •TAX REFUND RILUEST John R. & Celia D. Poe 204 BaringtOn Hills Rd. Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514 Chapel Hill Township Account #17125 (1980), Bilaive091065 Tax Map 108B, Block A, Parcel 9, Tract #713523 This is a reauest for refund of the pro rata amount of 1979 Carrboro city tax assessed in 1980 for this parcel based upon its annexation by Carrboro, the effective date of which annexation was changed from December, 1979 to November, 1980. This account was listed in the name of the previous owner of the property and the Foes have provided verification from their mortgagee that this tax was paid from their own tax escrow funds. Refund requested (1979 tax billed in 1980): Carrboro City Tax $171.46 Recommendation: Approve • 005179 • 0• . . . October 13, 1981 Mr. Archie Kelly, Assistant Tax Supervisor 208 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: John Robert Poe, Jr. and Celia D. Poe Tract Number 13523 Dear Mr. Kelly: This is to certify that John Robert Poe, Jr. and Celia D. Poe paid to the Orange County Tax Collectors Office 1980 City and County Taxes and 1979 Annexation Taxes in the following amounts from their escrow account with Orange Savings and Loan Association: • 1979 Annexation Taxes - Paid December 5, 1980 $171,46 1980 City and County Taxes Paid December 5, 1980 687.83 Total $859.29 We hope this provides the information you need. Sincerely yours, kehaefie" Catherine-A. Pendergrass Assistant Secretary cap cc: Mr. and Mrs. John R. Poe, Jr. 11. _ a b1 4 - - • Orange . aving,s and L©a E6,4R. !I 14, Lgi 3..., ;OA, " • • 101 EAST ROSEMARY STREET,CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 21514 . _ _ ". •• • • • • ' • • . . i"?6 • , TAX REFUND RLQUEST Jack R. & Julte D. Bowen Rt. 8, Box 424A Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514 Chapel Hill TounshiP Account #39083 (1980), Bill. #8091640, #O020883 Tax Map 108A, Parcel 5, Tract #706901 This request is based upon a change in the effective date of the annexation of this property by the city of Carrboro from December, 1979 to November, 1980. Refunds of the principal amounts of Carrboro city tax for each of the bills listed were approved by the Board of County Commissioners March 2, 1981 and paid by Carrboro; however, these bills were paid late (February, 1961), and the interest paid for late payment has not been refunded. These bills were listed in the name of the previous owner of the property and the Bowens have provided verification from their mortgagee that the bills were paid out of their own tax escrow funds. Refund requested (1979 tax billed in 1980 and 1980 tax): Carrboro City Tax Interest for late payment Bill #8091640 $5.06 _ .--Interest for late payment Bill #8020883 8.42 Total 613.48 Recommendation: Approve _ . '77 September 29, 1981 - - . . _ Mr. William T. Laws Orange County Tax Supervisor 208 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Jack R. and Julie D. Bowen Dear Mr. Laws: This letter is to confirm that Orange Savings and Loan paid the following items from the escrow account of Mr. and Mrs. Bowen on February 9, 1981; 1. $189.12 1979 taxes due, Tract 6901, Chapel Hill Township 2. $685.18 1980 taxes due, Tract 6901, Chapel Hill Township Tract 6901 (Route 8, Box 424-A, Chapel Hill) was listed in the name of Gary H. and Sally M. Taylor on January 1, 1980. Please.remit to Mr. and Mrs. Bowen the total refund due. They will expect to be rebilled for all 1980 taxes due, including personal property and dog tax. Sincerely, (#0 ulia E. Shields Loan Officer 4 afT 11.7119g—ru: g 't"-LS,L'414 0 rancre Savings and Loan „0,Q 5?-1=, !. 1.?..1 " 11;1* !RviTafa, • 101 EAST ROSEMARY STREET,CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA 27514 • .441492 7 REQUTST FOR TAX REFUND AND TAX RELEASE 4' Thomas E. & Willie Oae Kimball Rt. 6, 63 Calvander Trl. Park Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514 Chapel Hill Township Account 6-'94/1/10 (1980), B1110091354, 718013718 This reauest is based upon a change in the effective date of the annexation of the site of the Kimballs former residence by the City of Carrboro from December, 1979 to November, 1980. The Kimballs request a refund of that portion (5/12) of the full years' 1980 City tax (10_108013718) which they paid but for which they are not liable as a result of the change in the effective date of annexation and a release in total of Bill #8091354 for a pro rata amount of 1979 City tax which they have not paid but for which they are not liable upon the same grounds. Refund requested (1980 tax): Carrboro City tax (1111648013718) $39.47 (includes interest for late paymen Release reauested (1979 tax billed in 1980): Carrboro City tax (Bill. #0091354) $44•55 (original levy) . . • . . . . 00593 , .. . ..-k .. . . . " . .....-. --- REQUEST FOR RELEASE OR REFUND OF TAXES OF CARRBORO PROPERTY TAXES (See attached instructions sheet) Name of Taxpayert'LLefLe. ... _L„, 0 a-e-e--• .. Address , i 0 ea-,---- ■ /=7 _ ef,- . . - Telephone Number 9c 7-350 . . . - Parcel Identification Information ___-- V/ I am requesting a refund of Carrboro property — taxes paid in the amount specified below- _- I am requesting a release of the Carrboro ____ ' claim-- ---- property tax claim in the amount specified below. The basis for this request is that, by virtue of a decision of the N. C. Supreme Court in the case of Moody v. Town of Carrboro, the effective date of the annexation by the Town of Carrboro of territory described in an annexation ordinance adopted on December 19, 1979, was November 26, 1980. Therefore, under Section 160A-58.10 of the North Carolina . General Statutes, the Town of Carrboro was not lawfully ' entitled to taxes on this property for the months of January'-- through and including November, 1980, and taxes billed or paid for the months of December, 1980 through and including June, 1981 are not due and payable until after September 1, 1981. . . . , . AMOUNT OF REFUND OR RELEASE REQUESTED . . „. Amount of taxes billed or paid $ 0 . (1) Less Fire District Tax refund for January through June, 1980 V 1-7 This amount will be deducted .' - from the refund or release you . are entitled to. / ) n- , (2) Less Carrboro fiscal 1980 taxes (December 1980 through Juee, 1981) This amount may be deducted from the refund or release you are entitled to at your election. If you do not want this amount deducted mark through the amount indicated. . . • :. .. . . • . . . ';005-94 784' TAX RELEASE REVEST Romeo, Inc. (Idnda News, President) F. O. Box 3004 Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514 Chanel Hill Township Account #60206 (1981), Bi11 #8150218 This corporation failed to file timely listings of business personal property for 1980 and 1981. The property was discovered for taxation in October, 1981 at a valuation of $20,000 for each year. No timely exception to the October, 1981 notice of discovery was filed. The corporation subsequently (December, 1981) submitted listings for each year for inventory (as the only property owned by the corporation) at a valuation of $4,156.74 for 1980 and $9,436.20 for 1981.7and in January, 1981 formally protested the valuations assigned the property through discovery, presumably requesting a release based upon the valuation differences. This account was assigned an incorrect rate code (was assessed Carrboro City tax instead of Chapel Hill City tax for property located in Chapel Hill), and the following computation assumes correction of this clerical error and rounds the corporations valuation figures to whole dollars. Release requested (1981 tax): CoUnty tax $274.39 Chapel Hill—Carrboro School District tax 60.73 -- Chapel Hill City tax Total $676.57 _ . , 00595 - I 4.)Li RpiviEd ROMEO,INC 106 NORTH GRAHAM STREET POST OFFICE BOX 3004 CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROIJNA 27514 (919)929-11013 January 29, 1982 - - Orange County Board of Equalization & Review % Tax Supervisor 208 S. Cameron St. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Gentlemen: We do not agree with the $898.91 personal property tax levied against our company for 1980 and 1981. . Your assessment and our 1980 and 1981 personal property listings evidently crossed in the mails. We received a December 29 letter from Donna Smith in the tax office, stating that the amount could not be changed except by Equalization and Review Board. We were delinquent in filing the 1980 and 1981 listings. However, there is no way that anyone could have valued our inventory except ourselves. We did not realize that taxes were collected from companies that made no profit. A timely 1982 listing was filed this month. Please let me know if you need anything else in addition to the listings submitted. I would like to have this matter resolved as soon as possible. Sincergly, Li da Mews, resident for ROMEO, INC. M0059' - 78q " Rpm Ed ROMEO,INC 106 NORTH GRAHAM STREET POST OFFICE 80X 3004 CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27514 (919929-1,108 December 1, 1981 Bill Laws, Tax Supervisor ORANGE COUNTY TAX SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE 208 S. Cameron Street Re: 1980 & 1981 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Lisitng of Business Property Bill No,, 50218 Dear Mr. Laws: We received an assessment of 8881.28 for years 1980 and 1981 for business property. We received this, I presume, because we could not respond within 30 days to your note requesting a listing of property. I apologize for the tardiness, but we had not filled the bookkeeping position at that time. -Enclosed please find listings for both years. The 1982 . form will be filed on time within the month of January. Please advise me if you would like a detailed listing of this property. Sincerely, Linda Mews President Enc: 1980 Business Personal Property Listing 1981 Business Personal Property Listing 00597 ORANGE COUNTY TAX SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE 208 SOUTH CAMERON STREET HITJSHOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Hillsborough Mebane Durham Chapel Hill 732-8181 227-2031 688-7331 967-925]. . _ . Romeo Inc 106 N Graham St OCT 2 9 1981 .Chapel Hill, NC 27514 NOTICE OF DISCOVERY OF PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR AD VALOREM TAXATION Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 105-312 the Tax Supervisor of Orange County has listed the following described property (in your name) for ad valorem taxation for the year(s) indicated and has tentatively appraised the property at the valuation(s) specified: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Business •ersonal •ro•erty located in Orange County •- ASSESSED VALUE FOR: YEAR 1981 $ 20,000 YEAR YEAR 1980 $ 20,000 YEAR $ yEAR $ yra. $ This listing and valuation will become final unless written exception thereto is fiind vith the Orange Ocklint.yr Tax Supervisor- within thirty days frCm thr ...3.1Let or this „tir,,, Sincerely, ti bi)„, Bill Laws, Tax Supervisor :t:)09R 78 ti ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CO:21ISSIONERS Actioa 1..genda ILem No F-4, 2\crux. ACNDA. ITEM i,IsSTMCP EETPG avri-, MARCH 1, 198 Subje-ot= Appointments Public H=Dring: yes 1_132-2a-.11q1EDL;Linall, *4 ouu 411Lr Informatioa Contact: Clerk- to the Board Attachme.nt(s): Yes, LraiI resumes PhOne M.-ober: 732-8181 ext. 510 PURPOSE: To update the Board on various vacancies on Boards/Commissions/ Council the BOC has established. NEED: Carrboro Planning Board: This Board recommended that Mr. Toy Cheek be reappointed. This seat has not been advertised. Hillsborough Planning Board:, Several months ago the Board appointed Mr. Larry Carter and Ms, Nancy Goodwin to the Hills. Board without designation of terms. One term expires in March of '82 and the other in March of '83; The BOC should designate who occupies which term on the Hills. Board. Who ever is designated as filling the term due to expire this March is eligible for reappointment; both; I understand, are willing to continue service. This has not been advertised. The following 'vacancies have been advertised, some several times. Board of Equalization and Review: The BOC passed the Resolution setting up the E & R Board on Tuesday, February 16. Those members of last year's E & R Board who are willing to serve again are: Ms. Elizabeth Walters, Messrs. Ken Collins, John McKee, Paul McAllistc Recreation Council: Please see attached memo dated 2/4/82 Energy Commission: The status has changed only in that Chapel Hill- Carrboro Schools' recommended representative has been appointed by the BOC on 2/16/82. I have contacted Carrboro, again, for its recommendation. This representative's seat has been vacant for several months. Orange County Board of Adjustment: The alternate delegate seat is still vacant; Mr. Pattishaw was appointed the delegate last August Orange County Planning Board: Two seats are open as of March (Messrs. Cleary and Greer) which have been advertised. Two other vacancies will occur in April (Nancy Laszlo and John Wilson, both of whom are willing to be reappointed) ; these have not been advertised. Commission for Women: The status is unchanged from the last several updates. There are several vacancies. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. • . . r)fr,,•99 ; oRivs:GE COUNTY 130ARD COMISS tONE:R. .Action rq,eerla Item Ac.n.uoN AcIpzaA ITEM ABSTNACC NEETLNG DATE._ MARCH 1, 1981_ Subiz-'ct: Space Allocation pungTic g: _ Yes X r 1 • Information Contact: Ken Thompson Attachment(s) • Yes--Memorandum from Manag=r Phone. MT:bar:732-8181 ext 501 PURPOSE: To consider how best to allocate space to County agencies needing to reside in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, Alternatives were presented at the February 16, 1982, Board meeting. ICED: Further study has been made of ways to 1) combine agencies havin: the most compatible functions; 2) secure cost savings over existing rental arrangements; and, 3) minimize renovation costs. Attached memorandum provides the results of this study. If concensus can be reached on it further steps in the approval process would include: 1. Approval by the affected agencies and community through , public hearing. 2. Approval by the Mental Health Board. 3. Approval by the Town of Chapel Hill. DIPACT: See attached 4 RECOMMENDATION: Approve as recommended. 7 8 6 MEMORANDUM. TO: The Board FROM: The Manager RE: Space allocation Agenda Item # E-9 DATE: 2/26/82 In reviewing alternatives for Northside at the 2/16/82 Board meeting several comments were voiced which showed the need for revisions in terms of which agencies should occupy that building and other buildings in the surrounding area. Staff has tried to take all of the comments into account in arriving at the follow- ing realignment for short and long range needs: NORTHSIDE MULTIPURPOSE CENTER 1. Maintain existing agencies (including Day Care) except CETA. Relocate CETA to the Housing Authority should that become necessary by the time the renovation is completed. 2. Provide space for RSVP. 3. Bring in Department on Aging and Social Services from rented space. This would save $22,000 annually ($16,000 for Social Services and $6,000 for Department on Aging) . 4. In order to accommodate Social Services, Aging and RSVP, Day Care would have to be limited to 1,827 square feet instead of the 2,116 square feet it now occupies. Moreover, were it located on one side of the building the amount of fire rated doors and walls and the amount of air conditioning ductwork could be lessened. This would save $2,500 in construction costs. Consider what utility cost would be under the arrangement. The 1,827 square feet would be 19% of the 9,500 square foot building. Utility cost from February 1, 1980 through January 31, 1981 was $11,869, not including telephones which are paid separately by each agency. Day Care has been paying 13% per month during this period. If one takes 19% of $11,869 this would come to $2,255 or $188 per month; $49 more than it has been paying while occupying more space. When air conditioning costs are added the per month amount would be even higher. Its ability to pay its fair share may be dependent on the amount of space it occupies. 5. Construct a 2,000 square foot offset addition to the front of the building to provide permanent housing for the Willie M. or a Day Hospital or other mental health programs. With Mental Health having secured $100,000 for construction there would be $50 per square foot. The architect believes this would be ample. Besides expansion the additionwould permit the architect to design a more pleasing entrance and permanent handicapped access to the building. 10,00.1 76J MEMORANDUM Space allocation 2/26/82 Page two OLD CAFETERIA BUILDING 1. Reconstitute the building for public safety purposes by providing for 911 Emergency Telephone service, the radio dispatch service and Sheriff office. The former requires approximately 900 square feet while the latter needs 700 feet. Cost to renovate for both would run $8,000 to $12,000 whereas bids to renovate the Old_ Post Office basement for just 911 have ranged from $18,000 to $25,000. The savings in renovation would thus be from $9,000 to $13,000. Avoided Sheriff rent would amount to an annual savings of $3,150. More important than savings, this would provide a permanent home for 911--not hostage to rent increases or lease can- cellations and not boxed in by inadequate parking (as could exist at the Old Post Office) . Still further it would avoid incompatible spacing or co-mingling of public safety per- sonnel with private citizens (as could exist were these agencies made a part of the Multipurpose Center) . RENTED COMMERICAL BUILDING IN CARRBORO 1. Relocate the Driver's License Office at a cost of $4.50 per square foot. Owner is willing to drop the ceiling and tile tb. floor. The store front exposure with ample parking off a _ main thoroughfare is ideal for visibility and public access. There would be $6,000 savings from this. 2. Permit the ABC Board to occupy all or part of the remaininc. portion of the 4,500 square feet. cL- Kenneth R. Thompson 4 ''''00602 0:1.01 .GE COUY2Y- BOARD OF COISSIONERS Action .Item ACTION liGENOA r.11,7,1 AT3STRAC2 MEETD:O Drvre MARCH 1, 1982 Subjc.,ct: Execution of Special Use Permit LPublic Hearing: yes 1 1>partment: County Attorney Attechment(s): Informa.tion COntact: Geoffrey Gledhill No phorp, Na-pber: 732-2196 PURPOSE: To designate a County official to sign the special use permits on behalf of the county when conditions, if applicable, are met. NEED: The Orange County Zoning Ordinance, adopted on September 2, 1981, authorizes the Planning Officer to sign Special Use Permits after conditions are met. Some doubt exists whether the Planning Officer does, or should, have the authority to sign such documents on behalf of the County. 01. Will the Board authorize the County Manager to execute Special Use Permits which are recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds on behalf of Orange County? 02. Will the Board ratify execution of all such Permits which are recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds executed by the County Manager on behalf of Orange County from September 2, 1981, to March 1, 1982? IMPACT: If the Board adopts 0 1 and 0 2 above the Zoning Ordinance authorization for such signatures will be superceded. RECOMMENDATION: The Board approve the statements (0 1 and 0 2) above.