HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-05-1989 \„7"
ORANGE COUNTY
• BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
'MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1989
7:00 P.M.
OLD COURTHOUSE
HILLSBOROUGH, NC
BOARD OF E & R ADJOURNMENT
EXECUTIVE SESSION - Attorney-Client Communications
A. BOARD AND MANAGERS COMMENTS
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS
1 . Matters on the Printed Agenda
(We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of
time so that you are not overlooked. )
2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
C. MINUTES
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of
Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens
to conduct themselves in a respectful , courteous manner,
both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any
time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail
to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the
offending person to leave the meeting until that
individual regains personal control . Should decorum fail
to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until
such time that a genuine commitment to this public
charge is observed.
PUBLIC HEARING
1 . Renaming of Central Human Services Building
2. PD-1-89--McLennan's Farm
D. RESOLUTIONS OR PROCLAMATIONS
E. REPORTS
1 . Orange/Chatham Counties Boundary Taxation Policy
=
ASMISMY
.0
t• • or^Z...
F. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA
(Any item may be removed for separate consideration)
1 . Memorandum of Understanding with RSVP
2. Signature Authorization for Financial Instruments
3. Lease Purchase Proposal
4. Interim Assistance Grant Application
5. Emergency Shelter Grant Agreement
6. Request for Release of Funds and Certification--
Rencher Street CDBG Program
7. Eno River Estates--Phasing Plan
G. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA
1 . Solid Waste Collection--Site Leases
2. Comprehensive Plan Amendments
a. LUP-2-89 Eno-2 Commercial/Industrial Node
b. LUP-3-89 University Station Associates
c. LUP-4-89 Envirotek, Inc.
d. LUP-5-89 Cazwell, Inc.
e. LUP-6-89 Town of Carrboro
3. Seven-Mile Creek Reservoir Development Schedule
4. Zoning Atlas Amendments
a. Z-3-89 Town of Carrboro
b. Z-4-89 Town of Chapel Hill
5. Efland Cheeks Community Center and Park
6. Implementation of University Lake Watershed Study
7. New Hope Creek Open Space Corridor
H. APPOINTMENTS
I. ADJOURNMENT
(*) Indicates items that need immediate attention.
4 /./.5:74',P
NAME (PLEASE PRINT) . ITEM # ..
. 1... . . ( a-kard. 15- f a.i per ( 4 . j ) G. .2. _. -
2._ ..
/ ��' Z--
. . 3. . --J D _. , . .. . G act e....
4..
. 5. . . . . . . . . _ _ . . _ q ...
. 6. u•
7. ..
. 8. • -
9. • . .
10.. . .
11 .
12.
13.
14.
15. , . . . .
4.
. 16.
•
•
17. -- - i •
18.
•
19.
20.
21 .
22.
23.
•
24.
25.
26.
27. ..
28.
29.
30.
31 .
32.
33-
34.
35.
36.
37. - .. _
38.
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. E.1
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: JUNE 53_1989
. • - •
•
SUBJECT: Report on the consideration of a Agreement between Orange & Chatham County
to address the taxation of properties 1(Ira tp0 on a raw preTem,n; boundary.
• -
DEPARTMENT: Central Land Records PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHKENT(S) : 1 Page Policy Proposal INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roscoe Reeve
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Hillsborough — 732-8181
Chapel Hill — 968-4501
• Mebane • — 227-2031
Durham — 688-7331
•
•
PURPOSE: To receive a report on a possible policy between Orange & Chatham
counties, in anticipation of a mutually adopted new boundary line,
that will resolve the taxation of those properties that have been
determined to be located in one county, but traditionally have
been taxed in the other county. •
The commisbioners could consider a policy that would allow, under
certain conditions, those properties affected to continue to
pay taxes to the county they have traditionally paid taxes to,
•
- . by agreement of both boards. u
• -
• -
• •
• •
• •
•
BACKGROUND:. Orange & Chatham commissioners held a joint public hearing (3/29/89,
to receive citizen comments on .a new proposed boundary line between
the two counties. Citizen comments indicated that some properties
that have considered themselves located in Orange County, . willmbe
located in- Chatham' County as a result of adoption -of. a. new boundary,
or:.partially located in Chatham County. The County's old "tax maps"
are most inaccurate at the boundary, and indicate that the properties
have been in Chatham County since the courts set the East corner in
1968. None of the property owners involved spoke at the joint public
hearing, nor have they contacted the staff about the new boundary. All
were sent a notice of the hearing. Chatham has the same problem with
a few .properties, according to citizen comments.
A agreement on the taxation of boundary properties is a normal and
frequent practice of counties throughout the State, and can be
considered expected when new lines are drawn.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : That the commissioners receive this report on a boundary
taxation agreement between Orange & Chatham counties, and that they
consider instructing the Manager to prepare & . present such an
agreement at an upcoming meeting of the Board, for adoption by both
_
_
•
,aJ
•
2
COUNTY of ORANGE
CENTRAL LAND RECORDS OFFICE
Roscoe E.Reeve Patricia B. Smith
Manager Mapping Supervisor .
April 6, 1989
Orange and Chatham County have agreed to establish a
permanent boundary between the two counties. In this process
both counties have reviewed a proposed boundary line and -
have taken that proposed line to a public=heath-•-cxhich-Ttas
held on March 29, 1989 .
As a result of the hearing it was determined that properties,
with residences, are located in Chatham County and have been
paying Orange property taxes, and that residences In Orange
County have been paying Chatham property taxes. In two cases, •
Wolf's Pond and the Walter Atwater property, the proposed boundary
was moved to reflect that each had always been perceived as being
located in their respective taxing counties, but the line was
found to put them in the other county.
•
It is proposed that where the new boundary has determined that
a parcel that was perceived to be in Chatham County, but has been
taxed.-in Orange County, and where a parcel was perceived to be in
Orange County, but has been taxed in Chatham County, be treated
" 'with the following mutually agreed to policy:
If the deed to the boundary property was recorded in both
Orange and Chatham counties, and the property has been
taxed traditionally in the county which the residence does
not reside in , by the adoption
of the new permanent boundary, the Boards of Commissioners
agree that the subject property will continue to be taxed
in the county it was traditionally paying property taxes
to, unless the property owner petitions the Commissioners
to change the status of their property to be taxed in their
county of residence.
This policy does not apply to Wolf's Pond area or the Walter
Atwater properties because they were perceived to be in their -
taxing counties, but were discovered to be in the other county ,
in terms of their residence.
208 South Cameron Street • Hillsborough. North Carolina 27278
Telephones: 919 732.8181 • 919 967-9251 •919 688.7331 •919 227-2031
•
- • p.a
+'«.`'.Iota.
COUNTY of ORANGE
CENTRAL LAND RECORDS OFFICE
Roscoe E. Reeve Patricia B. Smith
Manager PROPOSED BOUNDARY TAX RESOLUTION Mapping Supervisor
WHEREAS, Orange and Chatham counties ' Boards of Commissioners
have agreed to establish a new boundary line between them; and,
WHEREAS, each County wishes to make the impact of that new line
on boundary property owners minimal; and,
WHEREAS, there appear to be properties that were taxed according
to agreements between the Tax Assessors of each County, because
it was difficult to determine on inaccurate or nonexistant tax
maps where residences were located; and,.
WHEREAS, the Tax Assessors allocated border properties for tax
purposes based on a "historical" understanding; and,
WHEREAS, the property owners of said properties have become use
to paying taxes in one County, and receiving that County's services;
and,
WHEREAS, the new boundary line will "move" said properties '
residency from the County they are currently being taxed to
the other County; and,
WHEREAS, the 1963 tax maps of Orange County also indicated said
properties were located in the County that was not taxing them; .
•
and,
WHEREAS,both County's Boards of Commissioners desire for. said
property owners not to experience a negative disruption of
expected services;
208 South Cameron Street • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Telephones: 919 732-8181 • 919 967-9251 •919 688-7331 • 919 227-2031
4
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County and Chatham
County Boards of Commissioners agree:
that a property that is on,or near,the old inaccurately mapped
boundary, and by—adoption of a new boundary has been moved in
taxing and residency jurisdiction into a new County, and who's
current owner's deed was recorded in both counties, may continue
to be taxed in the County with which they listed said property
in the month of January, 1989, and to continue to receive those
services available in the taxing jurisdiction, that are allowable
by law; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said owners may petition the County
that is taxing them to move their tax jurisdiction and service
delivery to their County of residence, and the taxing County
Commissioners will approve that petition, and the change of
jurisdictions will be permanent; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon the approval of a petition to
change taxing and service jurisdiction, the Board of Commissioners
of the old taxing jurisdiction will direct their Assessor to notify
the other County's Assessor, in writing, of the property's change of
status; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that both counties agree that a change in
jurisdiction, by above referenced petition, will become official upon
January 1 of the next tax listing year.
•
•
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No.
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: JUNE 5, 1989
SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH RSVP
DEPARTMENT: DEPT. ON AGING PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S) : YES INFORMATION CONTACT: JERRY PASSMORE
TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: Simplify the procedure for requesting volunteer assistance by
approving the RSVP Memorandum of Understanding.
BACKGROUND: All non-profit agencies interested in utilizing the talents
and skills of senior volunteers through RSVP must first have a signed
memorandum. To simplify the procedure, it is proposed that (1) a blanket
memorandum be signed between RSVP and the Orange County Manager's Office
representing all Orange County Government agencies, (2) that the
memorandum be updated annually through the Orange County Manager's Office,
(3) that RSVP provide a. copy of the blanket memorandum to each Orange
County agency requesting volunteers and (4) that each Orange County agency
expressing volunteer needs be asked to submit detailed job descriptions
which will be updated once a year.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve the Memorandum of Understanding with RSVP and
authorize the County Manager to sign.
Att. 1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Between 2
Orange County-Chapel Hill RSVP
410 Caldwell Street
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27516
Phone: 942-7248
•
and
Volunteer Station
Address
Telephone No.
It is agreed that the Basic Provisions will guide our working relation-
ship and that the Memorandum of Understanding may be amended, in
writing, at any time with the agreement of both agencies. It will be
reviewed annually to permit needed changes. '
BASIC PROVISIONS OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
•
A. The Retired Senior Volunteer Proaram will:
1. Recruit, interview, and enroll RSVP volunteers.
2. Provide orientation to the volunteer station staff prior to
the placement of volunteers, and at other times, as the need
arises.
3. Refer volunteers to the volunteer station for assignments and
review the acceptability of volunteer assignments.
4. Furnish accident, personal liability, and excess automobile
liability insurance coverages as required by program policy.
• 5. In cooperation with the RSVP Advisory Council, arrange for
an appeals procedure to address problems arising between the
volunteer, the volunteer station, and/or RSVP.
6. Reimburse Senior Volunteers directly for transportation costs
in accordance with RSVP policies or arrange with the volunteer
station for the transportation of volunteers to and from their
assignments.
7. Arrange with the volunteer station for meals, when possible, for
volunteers on assignments.
8. Periodically discuss and/or assess the needs of the volunteers
and the volunteer station.
B. The Volunteer Station will:
1. Make the final decision on the assignment of volunteers.
•
•
e' 444
•
2. Implement orientation, in-service instruction or special
training of the volunteers.
3. When. possible, furnish volunteers with any materials or
' transportation required to carry out the assignments.
4. I Provide for the adequate safety of the volunteers.
5. Investigate and report accidents and injuries involving
. ,volunteers to RSVP.
6. Collect and sign .appropriate volunteer reports and submit
• them to RSVP.
7. Provide supervision to the volunteers on assignments. .
8. Not request nor assign Senior Volunteers for religious,
: sectarian or political activity or instruction.
9. Not assign volunteers to any task which would displace
employed workers or impair existing contracts for services.
10. Prohibit discrimination by actively complying with provisions
of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
C. Separation_from Volunteer Service •
•
The: volunteer station may request the removal of a senior
volunteer at any time. The RSVP volunteer may withdraw from
service at the volunteer station or from the Retired Senior
Volunteer Program. at any time. When needed, discussion of
individual separations will occur between RSVP staff, the .
volunteer station• and the volunteer to clarify the reasons,
resolve conflicts, or take remedial action, including placement
with' another volunteer station.
•
•
•
•
•
3
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR ARRANGEMENTS FOR COOPERATION BETWEEN RSVP
AND THE ORGANIZATION:
The volunteer station representative who will serve as liaison with
RSVP and who will be responsible for volunteer orientation and super-
vision is
PURPOSE OF THE ORGANIZATION
VOLUNTEER TRAINING PROVIDED
DESCRIPTION OF VOLUNTEER ASSIGNMENTS HOURS/DAYS
•
VOLUNTEER SKILLS REQUESTED/NUMBER OF VOLUNTEERS NEEDED
•
•
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (eg. , parking available)
1
Signature for
Volunteer Station Title •
Telephone Date
Signature Date
RSVP Director
•
• .
- •-• .
?,--:-ii :-..,,
•.. 1. . --
. 1 , S.? :. .,. .'.:
2
v. - • AO' ,.. .... . , • - • ..- :' 3 .
'i. '...-v-•• • . • 01:Cd .- • r - ,
REM:MMniai OF -4.ii
- . 1.?;?..1;1:.- MEINSMAMUM OF.ULVERS'IMIlik:t * :'•r ..i •.• i •
•
2 . ."
aummetitafrr - arim, mammon) SENICR VianitlEIR IlloGEVim • •
•
and .
. .
. . . •
- VOunteer Station: • . .
. . .
We would like to reconfirm that we desire to be an RSVP Volun-
.
tear Station, as detailed in the Memorandum.of .Understanding .
signed on
• Are there any changes from the original agreement? (3f so,
• please specify.) . .
• . i ' - i
. - •
: •
. • ,
•
Dg- you have any -new requests for volunteers? (tad, please
• sOecify, the job- description and number of volunpOprs.) .
. .
..
. .
. .
. . .
. . . ,
,. . • ,
. • . .
.. f •
• .
•
. . .
* .
• .
. I
Comments: . . .
• . .
. .
. .
. .
. •
' .
. .
•
. , .
• . i
.. I
(7
Superviso, !..1 Signs. ' re/ le for Vol steer S- ation
/
Volunteer Station Address - PhOne
. .
•
.
RS40 Director's Signature • Date
a.... ,. ,., .
.... •
. ?• i •
1 -
•
• .. • -. : '
r •••• .
. ., .._ ...:.N.A.....:...i...,
YLEAbE RETURN TO:
t, Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) Att. 3
A 410 Caldwell Street
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 Date
942-7248 or 732-8181 ext. 280
5
' REQUEST FOR RSVP VOLUNTEERS
NAME OF ORGANIZATION:"
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
CONTACT PERSON:
TITLE:
AGENCY HOURS: •
PURPOSE OF ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTEER TRAINING PROVIDED: YES
NUMBER OF VOLUNTEERS REQUESTED:
TYPE OF VOLUNTEER ASSIGNMENTS: HOURS/DAYS
VOLUNTEER REQUIREMENTS:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: (eg., available parking, tangible & intangible
fringe benefits)
RSVP staff will be happy to discuss the details of your needs with
you. Although RSVP has many more requests for volunteers than
available help, we will make every effort to fill your need.
10/85
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1
Action Agenda
Item No. f.-A,
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
SUBJECT: Signature Authorization for Financial Instr.uments -
DEPARTMENT: Finance PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Chavious
Resolution
TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: Adoption of Resolution authorizing Ellen G. Liston to sign
county financial instruments.
BACKGROUND: Ellen G. Liston has been promoted to- Assistant County Manager,
effective June 1, 1989, and is no longer authorized to sign or preaudit
County financial instruments. In the absence of the current Finance
Director, Ken Chavious, there is presently no other person authorized to
sign financial instruments on behalf of the County.
G.S. 159-28a of the North Carolina General Statutes permits other County
officials to perform the signature and preaudit functions if designated
as Deputy Finance Officer by the Governing Board.
•
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
Adopt the attached resolution and authorize Chairman to sign.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ELLEN G. LISTON TO SIGN AND
PRE-AUDIT ALL COUNTY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
WHERE AS, Ellen G. Liston has been promoted to Assistant
County Manager, effective June 1, 1989, and no
longer authorized by law to sign County financial
instruments.
WHERE AS, The County needs an authorized person to sign and
preaudit its financial instruments in the absence
of the Finance Director.
WHERE AS, G.S. 159-28a of the North Carolina General
Statutes permits County officials to perform
the signature and preaudit functions only if
designated as Deputy Finance Officer by the
governing Board.
WHERE AS, Ellen G. Liston has performed these functions
previously as Finance Director and is currently
bonded for such purposes.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Ellen G. Liston be
authorized to sign and preaudit, as Deputy Finance Officer,
all County financial instruments.
This the 5th day of June, 1989.
• /
V
Moses Carey, Jr.
Orange County
Board of Commissi; era
1
2
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ELLEN G. LISTON TO SIGN AND
PRE-AUDIT ALL COUNTY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
WHERE AS, Ellen G. Liston has been promoted to Assistant
County Manager, effective June 1, 1989, and no
longer authorized by law to sign County financial
instruments.
WHERE AS, The County needs an authorized person to sign and
preaudit its financial instruments in the absence
of the Finance Director.
WHERE AS, G.S. 159-28a of the North Carolina General
Statutes permits County officials to perform
the signature and preaudit functions only if
designated as Deputy Finance Officer by the
governing Board.
WHERE AS, Ellen G. Liston has performed these functions
previously as Finance Director and is currently
bonded for such purposes.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Ellen G. Liston be
authorized to sign and preaudit, as Deputy Finance Officer,
all County financial instruments.
This the 5th day of June, 1989.
Moses Carey, Jr.
Orange County
Board of Commissioners
• 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. F-3
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
SUBJECT:Lease purchase proposal
DEPARTMENT: Finance PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: x
ATTACHMENT(S) : Proposal INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Chavious
TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane 227-2031
Durham - 688 -7331
PURPOSE: To consider approval of a lease purchase proposal submitted by
First Union National Bank of North Carolina for the purchase of computer main
frame hardware.
BACKGROUND: The purchase of computer mainframe hardware was approved by
the Board at their regular meeting scheduled for March 8, 1989 continued to
March 21, 1989. Financing for this purchase is to be provided by a 5 year
lease purchase agreement.
County staff, through the County Commissioner's Association, have arranged for
such an agreement with First Union National Bank of North Carolina. The
proposal from First Union Requires 20 quarterly payments of $13,409 at a 5
year fixed interest rate of 7.72%.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve proposal from First Union and authorize
Chairman to sign.
•
• . - First Union National Bank 2
of North Carolina
• First Union Plaza
Charlotte,North Carolina 28288
FON
May 9, 1989
Mr. Ken Chavius
Finance Department
Orange County
109 Orange Street -
Hillsborough, NC 27278 -
Dear Ken:
On behalf of First Union National Bank, please accept my thanks for the
opportunity to submit a proposal that demonstrates our effort to assist Orange
County in its acquisition of computer hardware. First Union is actively
interested in supporting the County in this endeavor, and as such, we are well
prepared to help you meet your needs.
The rate and payment factor contained within our proposal is effective for
fundings accomplished within the next thirty days. Upon your acceptance of
our proposal and final credit approval, we will issue a commitment on the rate
and terms established therein. To the extent that interest rates are stable,
we will endeavor to hold the identified rate and payment factor beyond thirty
days if a commitment cannot be made prior to the proposal expiration date.
Thanks again, Ken, for your time and consideration in this matter. As you
review our proposal, don't hesitate to contact me should you have any
questions. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincere! ,
P. Scott Nagelson
Assistant Vice President
Public Finance
1p
•
3
LEASE PROPOSAL
The enclosed proposal Exhibit (1) contains additional information
regarding this proposal and is incorporated herein by reference. If the
terms are mutually satisfactory, they will be incorporated in a Lease
Agreement which will be executed by the parties.
The lease proposal is as follows:
1. LESSEE: Orange County, North Carolina
2. LESSOR: First Union National Bank or its nominee.
3. EOUIPMENT. LEASE TERM AND LEASE PAYMENT: See attached exhibits.
4. TYPE OF LEASE: The lease will be a net lease whereby the Lessee will
be responsible for all expenses related directly or indirectly to the
use of the equipment including maintenance, taxes, insurance coverage,
etc.
Should this proposal be acceptable in principal, please sign, seal and
date this document in the space provided below and return it to us as an
indication of your acceptance. In addition, please include the required
lease deposit and one copy of the County's three (3) most current
Financial Statements (FYE 86, 87 and 88) by May 19, 1989. As is our
standard practice, this proposal is subject to final approval by our
Pricing and Credit Committee.
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK ACCEPTED PROPOSAL EXHIBIT NO. 1
I. _,-,44-1 ,_� Orange County. North Carolina (Seal)
�t
P. Scott Nagelson By:
Assistant Vice President
Public Finance .
Title
Date:
THIS PROPOSAL SHALL EXPIRE ON June 9. 1989 UNLESS ACCEPTED
BY LESSEE PRIOR.TO THAT DATE.
•
4
PROPOSAL EXHIBIT (NO.J 1
The terms of this Proposal Exhibit are incorporated by reference within
the Proposal letter dated May 9. 1989.
1. TYPE OF PROJECT: Lease-Purchase of computer hardware.
2. AMOUNT TO BE FUNDED; Approximately $225,000.
3. PROJECT LOCATION; Orange County, North Carolina.
4. ANTICIPATED FUNDING DATE: May 1989
5. LEASE TERN: Five (5) year fixed interest rate alternative. The lease
will amortize over the term selected, with payments at the interest
rate and payment factor as illustrated below. This rate and payment
factor provided are effective for fundings accomplished within the
next thirty days.
No. of Payments (in advance) 20 quarterly
Interest Rate 7.72%
Payment $13,408.70
Payment Factor 0.059594
6. PURCHASE OPTION: Zero at the end of the lease term. 102% of the
remaining principal at any time during the term.
7. TITLE: Title to the equipment will pass to the Lessee on the acceptance
date. Title will remain in the Lessee's name so long as all payments in
the agreement have been made.
8. NONAPPROPRIATIONITERMTNATION: The lease provides that the Lessee is to
make reasonable efforts to obtain funds to satisfy the obligation in each
fiscal year. However, the lease may be terminated without penalty in the
event of nonappropriation. In such event, the Lessee agrees to provide
an attorney's opinion confirming the events of the nonappropriation and
the Lessee's exercise of diligence to obtain funds.
—9. TAX STATUS: This proposal is subject to the Lessee being qualified as a
governmental entity or "political sub-division" within the meaning of
Section 103(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended. The
Lessee agrees to cooperate with First Union in providing evidence as
deemed necessary or desirable by the Lessor to substantiate such tax
status.
10. LEASE DEPOSIT: The Lessee will be required to remit a deposit equal to
one percent (1%) of the cost of the equipment upon acceptance of the
proposaL If a commitment from the Lessor is not received within thirty
(30) calendar days this deposit shall be returned to the Lessee. Upon
acceptance of a commitment and execution of the documents the deposit
(without interest thereon) will be applied on a pro rata basis to the
first payment. If the commitment is issued on substantially the same
terms and conditions as outlined in this proposal and is not accepted by
the Lessee by the commitment acceptance date, the Lessor shall retain the
deposit.
5
Exhibit No. 1
Page Two
11. EXPENSES: Any expenses associated with the revision of the basic lease
documentation which would require the use of outside counsel will be paid
by the Lessee.
12. RENTAL ADJUSTMENT: Lessee represents that this lease is designated as a
qualifying obligation under the $10,000,000 small issue exemption as
described within Section 265b3 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
•
•
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No.
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
SUBJECT: Interim Assistance Grant Application
DEPARTMENT: Housing/Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: x
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes
TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To establish a public hearing date to receive public
comments regarding the County's Interim Assistance Grant
Application.
BACKGROUND: The Orange County Housing and Community Development
Department along with the Colie Development Company is
preparing a NRCD Interim Assistance Grant application for
submission to the state on or about June 30, 1989. This
' application will request approximately 2.5 million dollars
financing to be used in the development of housing for low
and moderate income hcmebuyers in a planned subdivision,
Culbreth Park.
NRCD requires applicants to conduct one public hearing
prior to beginning the application process and another
after the application is prepared but prior to submission
to the agency. The initial hearing was conducted on
February 2 , 1989. Therefore, County staff proposes setting
the final public hearing date for June 28, 1989 to receive
citizen corments regarding the completed application.
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
Establish June 28 , 1989 as the public hearing date to
receive citizen comment regarding the County's Interim
Assistance Grant Application.
•
•
. I
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
• Item No F-..5
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
SUBJECT: Emergency Shelter Grant Agreement
DEPARTMENT: Housing/Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: x
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes
1—Funding Approval Form
2-Emergency Shelter Grant Agreement
3-Agreement: w/InterFaith Council TELEPHONE NUMBER-
; Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To approve the execution of the Emergency Shelter Grant
Agreement and Funding Approval Form with NRCD and the
execution of an Agreement with the subgrantee - InterFaith
Council for Social Service. ,
•
BACKGROUND: : On May 1 , 1289, Orange COunty was awarded $13,338 in
Emergency Shelter Grant funds to be used for the IFC
• Shelter for the Homeless in Chapel Hill . The InterFaith
Council will serve as subrecipient of the grant funds and
will expend funds for the ongoing operation and maintenance
of the Shelter.
In order to receive funds, the County must execute a Grant
Agreement and Funding Approval form. These documents along
with the approved Grant .Application and regulations
constitute a contract between NRCD and Orange- County.
Additionally, an Agreement between InterFaith and Orange
County must be executed. This agreement will govern the
expenditure of funds for the approved activities.
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
• Approve the execution of the Emergency Shelter Grant
Agreement , Funding Approval and the Agreement with
InterFaith Council and authorize the Chair to sign on
behalf of the Pcard.
•
2
EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM
FUNDING APPROVAL FORM
1. Name and Address of Recipient 2. NRCD Grant Number
Orange County
Post Office Box 8181 89-H-1293
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
(X) ORIGINAL Date:
3. Name .of Subrecipient: ( ) AMENDMENT Date:
Interfaith Council
Community Shelter
4-. ESGP Funds Approved for: ( ) OPERATIONS $
Services $
0/S Total $
(X) Rehabilitation $13,338.00
5. Activities Approved for Funding:
See application submitted.
Secretary of N.C. Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
BY: ie eAtfe40.��iC..P..6.-
Robert B. Chandler, Director Signature of Chief Elected
Division of Community Assistance Local Government Official
Date e Typed Name of Local Government
Official
Title
Date
ESGP 1108 (Revised- 4/89) .
•
•
3
s •
•
•
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND •
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
GRANT AGREEMENT
EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAMS
Upon execution of this grant agreement, the North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD) agrees to provide the
recipient the Emergency Shelter Grants Program assistance under the Stewart
B. McKinney Homeless Housing Amendments Act of 1988, (P.L. 100.628),
authorized :by the NRCD Funding Approval, the North Carolina Emergency
Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, applicable laws and all other
requirements of NRCD now or hereafter in effect. The grant agreement is
effective on the date the grant agreement and funding approval are signed
by the recipient. -The grant agreement consists of the rules in Title 15,
•
Subchapter I3Q of the North Carolina Administrative Code (Emergency Shelter
Grants Program Administrative Rules), subsequent guidelines prepared by
NRCD, the approved application, any subsequent amendments to the
application, and the following general terms and conditions:
1. Definitions. Except to the extend modified or supplemented by this
document, any term defined in the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants
Program Administrative Rules, 15 NCAC 13Q, shall have the same meaning when
used herein.
(a) Agreement means this grant agreement, as described above, and any
amendments or supplements thereto.
(b) Recipient means the entity designated as a recipient for grant
assistance in the funding approval.
(c) Certification means the certifications submitted with the grant
application pursuant to the requirements of Paragraph (e) of Section .0301 of
the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, 15
NCAC 13Q.
(d) 'Assistant provided under this agreement means the grant funds
provided under this agreement.
•
(e) Program means the program, project, or other activities for which
assistance is -being provided under this agreement.
2. ' Obligations of the Recipient. The recipient shall perform the
program as specified in the application approved by NRCD. The recipient shall
comply with the certifications pursuant to Paragraph (e) of Rule .0301 of the
North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program Administrative Rules, 15 NCAC
13Q. The recipient shall also comply with all other lawful
ESGP #118-I (Revised 4/89)
4
requirements of NRCD, all applicable requirements of the General Statutes of
the State of North Carolina and any other applicable laws and Executive Orders
currently or hereafter in force.
3. Obli_ations of Recipient with Respect to Certain Third Par •
Relations. NRCD shall hold the recipient responsible for complying with the
provisions of this agreement even when the recipient designates a third party
or parties to undertake all or any part of the program. The recipient shall
comply with all lawful requirements of NRCD necessary to ensure that the
program is carried out in accordance with the recipient's certifications,
including
Rule .0certification 1 Northa Carolina Emergenccyy�Shelter Grants responsibilities,
Program.
under Rule ..
Administrative Rules, 15 NCAC 13Q.
4. Interest of Members, Officers, or Employees of the Recipient, Members
of Local Governing Body, or Other Public Officials. No member, officer, or
employee of the recipient or its agents, no member of the governing body of
the locality in which the program is situated, and no other public official of
such locality of localities who exercises any functions ,or responsibilities
which respect to the program during his tenure or for one year thereafter,
shall have any financial interest, either direct or indirect, in any contract
or subcontract, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in
connection with the program assisted.under this agreement. Immediate family
members of said members, officers, employees, and officials are similarly
barred from having any financial interest in the program. The recipient
shall incorporate, or cause to be in s rP� interest o pursuant to the purpose of
subcontracts, a provision prohibiting
this section.
The assistance provided under this agreement shall not be used in payment
of any bonus or commission for the purpose of obtaining NRCD approval of the
application for such assistance, or NRCD approval of applications for
additional assistance, or any other approval or concurrence of NRCD required •
under this agreement or the North Carolina Emergency Shelter Grants Program
Administrative Rules, with respect thereto; provided, however, that reasonable .
fees 'for bona fide technical, consultant, managerial of other such services,
other than actual solicitation, are not hereby prohibited if otherwise
eligible as program costs.
5. Remedies. NRCD shall have grounds to carry out the actions described
in 15 NCAC 13Q .0704 REMEDIES when it determines that program goals and
objectives have not been met, that state or federal requirements have not been
followed, or that grant funds have been improperly expended.
6. Access to Records Related to ESGP Activities The recipient will give
NRCD, ADD and the Comptroller General, through any authorized representatives,
access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers or documents
related to the ESGP grant and will require the subrecipieat(s)• to provide the
same access to and _the right to examine its records, books, papers or
documents related to the ESGP grant.
ESGP #118-2 (Revised 4/89)
5
Upon execution of this agreement by NRCDtandthe tecipient of t n thessgaces
below, the recipient hereby accepts the a
agreement, effective on the date been adult'uthaxi authorized by the certifies
recipient's
the' official signing below has
body to execute this grant agreement.
Secretary of Department of Natural
Date: / ��y Resources and Community Development
•
By:
Robert E. Chandler, Director
Division of Community Assistance
Date: • Name of Recipient
$y:
Signature of Chief Elected Official
Typed Name
•
(Title)
•
ESGP f118-3 (Revised 4/89)
•
!• . . 6
'
•
AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into this day of •
1 , 1989, by and between; the County of Orange
("County" ) and the Inter-Faith Council for Social Service,
Inc. a non-profit corporation ( "InterFaith") .
W EREAS, the County is the recipient of a $13,338
Emergency Shelter Grant; and
•
4EREAS, InterFaith was designated as the subgrantee in
the application; and
W EREAS, by the terms of the Emergency Shelter Grant,
the Co nty and InterFaith must meet certain requirements.
N W, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the premises and the
mutal 4romises set forth below, the parties hereby agree as
follows:
1 . As evidenced by the attached current year budget
showing its source of funds, InterFaith certifies in
accordance with Federal and State Emergency Shelter Grant
Prograni requirements that it can and will supplement or match
the Emergency Shelter Grant program funds. .
2. InterFaith will expend $13,338 in grant funds for
Operations Activities by no later than June 5, 1990. No
funds Will be reimbursed for expenditures incurred before the
date f execution of the Grant Agreement-June 5, 1989.
InterFaith will make a concentrated effort to expend all
funds .5 rapidly as possible.
3. InterFaith will expend the funds in the following
manner:
1 . Rehabilitation - Rosemary St. $13,338. 00
Shelter
4. Upon InterFaith's presentation of receipts of
expenditures made in accordance with paragraph 3, the County
shall reimburse InterFaith with grant funds.
5. InterFaith will continue the operation of the . .
shelter for the homeless for at least 3 years.
I
. . _
,..t• . . .
7
,
6. InterFaith shall comply with all applicable Federal
laws, 5tate laws, regulations, rules and executive orders
cited in the attached provisions of State and Federal
Administration rules (15 N.C.A.C. 13N C.F.R. 575) .
7. In the event that the County is required to refund '
any portion of the grant due to the InterFaith noncompliance
with any of the above provisions, InterFaith will reimburse
the County for such refunds.
This agreement is executed the day and year first above •
written.
COUNTY F ORANGE INTERFAITH COUNCIL FOR
. SOCIAL SERVICES, INC.
BY: BY:
Chair, Orange County Board Richard Edens, President
of CLmmissioners
ATTEST ATTEST:
Clerk t4) Orange County Board
of Commissioners
This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by
the Loc 1 Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
Finance Officer
.
.. ,
..
•
Issomassommennow
1
. ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No.
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
SUBJECT: Request for Release of Funds and Certification
Rencher Street CDBG Proaran
DEPARTMENT: Housing/Community PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: x
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes.
Request for Release of Funds and
Certification TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: Tc approve execution of the Request for Release of Funds
and Certifioaticn fr the Rencher Street CDBG Program by
the Chair of the Board of Commissioners.
BACKGROUND: The 1988 CDBG award of $600, 00C for the Rencher Street Area
listed four conditions which had to be met before CDBG
expenditures in activities except administration could take
place. These four conditions were:
1 . Completion of an Environmental Assessment;
2. Citizen Participation Plan Development and •
Certification; •
•
3 . Flood Plain Certification; and
4. Fair Housing Flan Development .
All four 4) conditions have been met and therefore, the
County must now make a formal request to NRCD for the
release of all CDEG program funds.
This -formal request is accomplished with the attached
Request for Release of Funds and Certification which must
be signed by the Chief Elected Official of the County.
4 .
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
Approve the execution of the Request for Release of Funds
Funds and Certifcation by the Chair of the Board of
Commissioners as the Chief Elected Official of the County.
I NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2
• REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS AND CERTIFICATION
4
ENVIRONMENTAL -
1. Rehdplent's Name - T. Gant Astionent WNW -•
88—C-7730
County of Orange 3. Proton Number
C-1/L-1
4. Reclplmnt's Add(Include Stoat,City.State and ZW Cede) S. Dad fed R. alitti•enlneaaon
P.O. Box 8181 June 5, 1989
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
G. REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS.Release of approved gnat funds-for the folowhte project is requested:
PROJECT
Rencher Street Improvement Area
C-1 Rencher Street Revitalization Area
L-1 Local Option
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
7. CERTIFICATION: With reference to the above project,the undenigned officer of the recipient hereby certifies:
That the recipient has fully coined out hs weeportibiliths for estvtnorunenta l rovlew,dedsionan icing,notice,publi-
• cation, and action to the project named above;that the recipient has complied with the National
Envikormnental Policy Act of 1989 ;that the recipient has complied ivith'the Div tai procedures,permit
• requirements and the statutory obiiaations under such laws dtsd in 24 CFR 58.5;that the recipient has e into
at ount the environmental criteria,standards,permit requitement and other applicable the pr
• tender the other related laws and authorities deed hi 24 CFR Pan 58;and that the incipient has compiled all
applicable regulations of the North Carolina Deportment of Natural Resources and Community y D
that
the level of envirosanental clearance carried out by recipient ht connection with this said project( )did . did not
require the preparation and dheamiltstion of an enviraoe rental impact statement;
That the dates upon which all statutory and regulatory tine periods for reaiew,camtment,•or other rest or• ••
action In regard to this clearance began and ended as indicated below;and that with the eutlratton of calm of the
time periods Indicated below,the redpient is in compliance with the requirement of 24 CFR Part 58;
CDBG#102(1.83) 35
•
•
s • 3
- r Commence Expire
ITEM MOIDAY/YR MO/DAY/YR
4 Notice of Finding of No Significant Enrbonmental .,wx:Jr
Publication r {: •} { C
Same: Comment period --:.:.-,•-.•••.•.- --.-.•..• t
Notice of Finding of No Significant Environmental impact and Notice
of intent to Request Release of Funds:Simaitenooss Puldiced n 5/18/8 9
scene: Comment period - 5/18/89 6/5/89
Notice of Intent to File EIS:Publication
Draft E15: Comment period
Same:
90-day period(CEQ) •
Final E15: 30.day period(CEQ)
7.Day Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds:Publication 111111111
•
Request for Release of Funds:IS Dar NRCD come period 6/5/89 6/22/89
Other(specify)
Attach a copy of notice(s)to pobtk aired aftldaedt(s)of publication.
That the undersigned officer Is authorized to,and does censent to assume the status of rehoottelble federal official
utder the National Enrirorenental Policy Act of 1%9 and each provbion of law specified In 24 CPR S8 insofar as
the provisions of these laws apply to NRCD"s responsibility for environmentd review,idec blg and action
assumed and carried out by the recipient;that by so consenting,manes the regponeylities,where applicable,for
the conduct of environmental review,decislormaddng and action as to environmental issues,preparation and dr-
. culadort of draft, final and supplemental environmental Impact statements,and ateumpdon of lead agency or
cooperating agency responsibilities for preparation of such staternents on behalf of Federal and State agencies
inclutfing HUD,when these agencies consent to such ;
That the undersigned officer is authorized to consent to,and does accept on behalf of the recipient and personally,
the jurisdiction of the Federal courts for the enforcement of a0 these responsibilities,io his/her official capacity as
• certifying officer of the recipient.
•
Signature of Certifyl g Officer
Chair, Board of Commissioners
Tide
County of Orange .
P.O. Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 2727:
Agency and Address
• -&moon 1001 of Title 18 of the United Stares Code wed Oionbut Powder Owl appfp to ebb eertilionie&Tuk 18 provider.
• oneomlt other thing that amaiver btowki ly end imp makes or awes n document or writing eattodmbrt onnr 1 e.feritioar.or
ftanduknt statemtent or emery,bt any nattier wkkib the Ittesdietion of arm department a ogeney of the United Stereo.obit be timed not
agar diem i10.f100 or bmpriaoned not mow thaw Ampere ws both.
•
CDBG*102 1143)
36
t ,
1
ORANGE COUNT Y
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date June 5, 1989
Action Agenda
Item I I 7
SUBJECT: ENO RIVER ESTATES - PHASING PLAN
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ga
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo
Letter from Applicant dated 5/1/89
Preliminary Plat
Vicinity Map
5/15/89 Draft Planning Board
Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031 .
Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
PURPOSE: Consideration of revision to the Phasing Plan for Eno
River Estates.
BACKGROUND: The property is located in Cedar Grove Township at the
end of Lake Orange Road (SR 1323) . The preliminary
plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners
on July 6, 1987, and included 27 lots on approximately
81 acres. Three phases were indicated on the
Preliminary Plan. Phase A contained 2 lots, Phase B
contained 14 lots, and Phase C contained 11 lots.
A Final Plat for the first Phase of the subdivision
was approved on June 20, 1988. Seventeen lots were
created at that time, more than was required by the
Phasing indicated on the Preliminary Plat. It was
expected that the project could be completed in two
phases rather than three. All of the requirements of
Final Plat approval were met, including construction
of a bridge over the Eno River.
Immediately after the Final Plat for Phase A was
recorded, a lawsuit was filed by an alleged partner,
2
and a lien was placed on the property. The applicant
was unable to maintain the prior schedule of
development due to the difficulties encountered as
result the lawsuit.
The Preliminary Plat will expire on June 20, 1989,
which is one year from the approval date of the Final
Plat for Phase A. The applicant has requested that
the phasing shown on the preliminary plat be revised
to allow an additional six months for approval of the
second phase. The third phase would be approved by
June 1990.
At the time that Eno River Estates was approved, the
Subdivision Regulations did not contain specific
provisions for the scheduling of multi-phase
subdivisions. It was the practice of the Planning
Department to allow 1 year between each Final Plat
submittal. The proposed phasing plan would allow an
additional six months for recordation of Phase 2, but
would reduce by six months the time permitted for
approval of Phase 3.
Current regulations pertaining to subdivision approval
do address project phasing. The applicants request is
consistent with the provisions of the Subdivision
Regulations which allow a specific phasing schedule
to be included as part of the Preliminary Plat
approval.
The Planning Board considered the revision on May 15,
1989 and recommended approval.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed
Phasing Plan for Phases 2 and 3 of Eno River Estates,
including aproval of the Final Plat for Phase 2 by
December 31, 1989, and approval of the Final Plat for
Phase 3 by June 30, 1990.
u 4
-
or Off► . t:3 CONTOUR AND 620' -4
CONTOUR 5C60210$TV
•
LAKE ORANGE•INC. 3
W
ACREAGE INCLUDED W
. A 56.02 AC." P/0 46—w MATCH LINE
_ _ , •
pPi1CAaT"TET 4 ww�ftuA .
l,J�TfIMe .\
at AMUcialluaL
237
OM I.-
-
•
44 22.1 AC. CAL. 5 + •
•
156.57 AC.
LANE
AND
TO I.
•
• ACRE
)0474 55.0.
•
AC. ' �r
85 2274
. S, A
`
•
1 O d9$
5
\ ' -6;1\
•
•
!j 2� r I
•
•
_ �f
•
• 'Ppiort-0a
•
----z--==
- -
4
NT Land Surveys,Inc.
226 South Churton Street
PJO°Box 1%6x
Hillsborough, NC 27278
1 May 1989
Ms. Mary Scearbo
Orange County F'l anni no Dept .
HiYlsborouoh , NC
Dear Marv:
On behalf c1i ents, Georae and Marcia Lattimore , I hereby
request a revision of the phe.sino plan for Enc. River Estates, as
shown on the enclosed revised Preliminary Plan .
As you are aware , al l of the required d imr.-:rovertients -for Phases A •
and B (with the exception of that portion of Lake Orange Road
fronting lots 9 and 10) as shown on the original Preliminary Plan
have been completed.
At the time that the Final Plat for Phas-e One of this subdivision
was submi tted and approved (May 1988) , the dec | si on was made to
complete more than was required by the or ginal phasing plan with
the expectation that sales • hrouoh the Sprino and Summer of 1988
would al low the completion of the entire oroject in only two
phases.
Immediately upon the recordation of the Final Plat -for Section
One , a lawsuit was i led by an allacteci partner , and a l | en was
placed on the property which prevented the marketing and sale
of the lots. The l ien was not 1 fted until essentially al of
the 1988 s*llino season had ended.
The proposed new phasing schedule is as fol lows:
Phase Two- Final Pl at approval in .December 1989
Phase Three- Final Plat approval in J une 1990
Thank yqu -for your consideration .
SincereYy,
Steve F. \'yha.sz
.
`
5
tract.
Eidenier asked about the buildable area on lot 4
considering the steep slopes and the creek.
Crudup responded that it was not that the lot is
unbuildable but would probably cost more to
develop. She indicated there are building plans
that adjust to such slopes.
There was more discussion about the location of
lot 6 in the alternate Staff plan.
Crudup agreed that the alternate plan was not
unified with lot 6 separated from the other lots
but indicated she still felt this plan more
accurately addressed the concept of a cluster
subdivision.
MOTION: Eddleman moved approval of the original plan
presented by the applicant with the Homeowners
Association to provide easement and tree
protection with no disturbance of the setbacks
and buffers. Seconded by Lewis.
VOTE: 4 in favor.
4 opposed.
1 abstained (Yuhasz - due to professional
conflict of interest. )
MOTION: Best moved approval of the alternate Planning
Staff plan with the deletion of lot 6 which would
reduce septic tank areas and a Class B private
road. Seconded by Jacobs. '
VOTE: 2 in favor.
6 opposed.
1 abstained (Yuhasz - due to professional
conflict of interest. )
MOTION: Cantrell moved approval of the alternate plan as
presented by the applicant with a Class B Private
Road to serve lots 4, 5 and 6. Seconded by
Lewis.
VOTE: 6 in favor.
• 2 opposed.
1 abstained (Yuhasz - due to professional
conflict of interest. )
•
DRAFi b. Preliminary. Plats (27 Lots)
•
(1) Revision of Eno River Estates
(27 Lots - Cedar Grove Township)
f___
DRAFT6 . .
Presentation by Mary Scearbo.
The property is located in Cedar Grove
Township at the end of Lake Orange Road (SR
1323) . The preliminary plan was approved by
the Board of County Commissioners on July 6,
1987, and included 27 lots on approximately
81 acres. Three phases were indicated on the
Preliminary Plan. Phase A contained 2 lots,
Phase B contained 14 lots, and Phase C
contained 11 lots.
A Final Plat for the first Phase of the
subdivision was approved on June 20, 1988.
Seventeen lots were created at that time,
more than was required by the Phasing
indicated on the Preliminary 'Plat. It was
expected that the project could be completed
in two phases rather than three. All of the
requirements of Final Plat approval were met,
including construction of a bridge over the
Eno River.
Immediately after the Final Plat for Phase A
was recorded, a lawsuit was filed by an
alleged partner, and a lien was placed on the
property. The applicant was unable to
maintain the prior schedule of development
due to the difficulties encountered as result
the lawsuit.
The Preliminary Plat will expire on June 20,
1989, which is one year from the approval
date for Phase A. The applicant has
requested that the phasing shown on the
preliminary plat be revised to allow an
additional six months for approval of the
second phase. The third phase would be
approved by June 1990.
At the time that Eno River Estates was
' approved, the Subdivision Regulations did not
contain specific provisions fr -the
scheduling of multi-phase subdivisions. - �1t
was the practice of the Planning Department
to allow 1 year between each Final Plat
submittal. The proposed phasing plan would
allow an additional six months for
recordation of Phase 2, but would reduce by
six months the time permitted for approval of
Phase 3.
Current regulations pertaining to subdivision
•
7 .
approval do address project phasing. The
applicants request is consistent with the
provisions of the Subdivision Regulations
which allow a specific phasing schedule to be 4
included as part of the Preliminary Plat
approval.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
proposed Phasing Plan for Phases 2 and 3 of
Eno River Estates.
MOTION: Eddleman moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Lewis.
VOTE: 8 in favor.
1 abstained (Yuhasz - due to professional
conflict of interest. )
AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT 4/6/89 JPA PUBLIC HEARING
a. Joint Planning Land Use Plan
DRAFT (1) LUP-4-89 Envirotek, Incorporated
A copy of the abstract is an attachment to
these minutes on pages
Collins summarized as follows:
The Joint Staff recommendation presented at
the public hearing was for denial of the
proposed amendment. Since the public
hearing, both the Planning Board of the Towns
of Chapel Hill and Carrboro have recommended
denial of the proposed amendment. The Joint
Staff recommendation for denial remains the
same as presented at the public hearing.
• Eidenier asked about references in the
minutes that Mr. Wayne Phears made to being
• unaware of the vote about the Rural Buffer
and a meeting being postponed until after
that time.
Jacobs noted that part of the property was
the subject of a lawsuit in which the County
is involved.
Collins indicated the location of the
property in question on the map and responded
that the comments questioned by Eidenier
involve issues related to the lawsuit.
MOTION: Best moved to accept the Planning Staff's
. .
•
f-
AGENDA ABSTRACT COVER SHEET
Abstract New Hope Creek Corridor Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
Attachments: Yes Study Agenda Deadline.
Department _161A ., -1S11 .140
Head Signature: Toclay's Date: May 31-' 1989
Comment: Date in:
Purchasing Date Out:
Director
•
Review Requested
DID Signature
Copy • " Attorney Action:
•
Sent to Attorney: 5/31/89 - OK as is
Date OK with attached changes
Attorney • - Hold for more work
Review Requested •
130
Signature/Date
• Comment: Date b: CiE
Date Out: Ij 3/
• • / Finance
- Director
•
Review Requested
rott_fro
••
Comment: Date In: • •
_ -
Date Out:
•
Asst Manager
• •
- .
---•
• signature
• ....,
Courtesy Copies To: . •
Recreation & Parks Director
. INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE: -
1) This form must accompany ALL angenda abstracts and should be properly completed BEFORE the
agenda deadline.
2) Attach the originals of your agenda abstract to this form. It Attorney review needed,forward
• copy of abstract and this cover sheet to attorney.
1fANA.CERS OFFICE REVIEW .
•
1ST REVIEW
•
• Abstract Approved on 1st Review
Revision Required
Attorney Response Required
Comments: •
'" Revision Received
• - •
• Create copies for 2rul review.
i
2ND REVIEW •
r-1 Approved
•
• •Revision.Required' •
•
•
j ! • • Review complete; ready for duplication
•
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
Action Agenda
Item #
SUBJECT: NEW HOPE CREEK CORRIDOR STUDY
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _Z_NO
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
New Hope Corridor Resolution Planning Director - Extension 346
and Statement of Objectives
Consultant Proposal TELEPHONE NUMBERS: .
. Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
PURPOSE: To consider a consultant proposal to prepare a detailed
plan for the preservation of an open space corridor
connecting New Hope Creek and the Eno River.
BACKGROUND: At its April 18, 1989 meeting, the Board of
Commissioners considered a resolution to preserve a
corridor of open space connecting New Hope Creek with
the Eno River through Orange and Durham Counties.
The resolution included a provision that the -
Administration of each jurisdiction prepare more
detailed plans for the project, including
identification of the exact route, the amount and
location of land and easements to be acquired,
responsibility for acquisition, possible
funding sources, and a timetable for completion.
The Board agreed by consensus to refer the resolution
and statement of objectives to the Manager for
recommendation. The Board also requested comment from
the Planning Board and Recreation and Parks Advisory
Council concerning the proposal. Both Boards have been
informed of the project and are willing to work toward
completion of same.
Coulter Associates, a landscape architecture and land
planning firm, from Durham has been retained to prepare
the more detailed plan for the Durham County portion of
the corridor. The work of the firm is being
supplemented by support from the Durham City-Council
Planning Staff, the Triangle Land Conservancy, the
2
Durham County Inventory, and Duke students.
Rather than limiting the scope of the study to Durham
County only, Coulter Associates is requesting monetary
($5,000 each) and staff support from Orange County and
the Town of Chapel Hill to include the Orange County
portion of the corridor.
Coulter Associates also proposes the formation of a New
Hope Creek Citizens Advisory (or Steering) Committee
comprised of public and private organizations and
individuals in plan preparation and implementation.
Completion of the detailed plan is anticipated within
three months.
RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that Orange County participate
in the development of a detailed plan for the New Hope
Creek corridor as outlined by Coulter Associates,
including the provision of staff and financial support.
An agreement between Orange County and Coulter
Associates can be developed and presented for the
Board's consideration on June 16. Funds for the project
are available in the Board of Commissioners Contigency
Fund.
3
RESOLUTION TO PRESERVE EEKRITH CORRIDOR OPEN
NO RIVERS
CONNECTING NEW HOPE CREEK
ORANGE AND DURHAM COUNTIES
WHEREAS, the rural and natural beauty of Orange. and Durham
Counties is prized by our residents; and
WHEREAS, the urban areas of Orange and Durham Counties are
experiencing unprecedented growth; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Durham County Orange the
shown concern for preservation
Chapel Hill Greenway Commission, the Durham Urban Trails
and Greenways Commission,. and the Durham County Open
Space Advisory Committee; and
WHEREAS, preservation of open space as an accompaniment to growth
- can mitigate the impacts of growth and help retain
natural beauty; and
WHEREAS, preservation of open space provides environmental
benefits such as protecting water quality and providing
habitat for native plant species and wildlife; and
WHEREAS , open space could for an aesthetic link between Durham
and Chapel Hill , while allowing the two communities to
remain distinct; and
WHEREAS, an open space *corridor can serve as a recreational
and jogging ,
providing a place for walking 9 g ,
becoming part of the regional trail network; and
WHEREAS, an open space corridor can provide opportunity for
environmental education and observation of nature,
THEREFORE be it resolved that the jurisdictions of the Town of
Chapel Hill , City of. Durham, Durham County, and Orange
County support the following:
1 . The preservation of a corridor of public open space
linking New Hope Creek with the Eno River, including the
100-year floodplain of New Hope and Mud Creeks and a
200' wide corridor connecting the Duke Forest Divisions
to as� showntconceptuallyoonhtheaat Durham
tachedmap
counties, map.
C
2, Each County and the municipalities within will support
and fund the project in a proportionate manner.
•
4
3. The Administration of each jurisdiction is directed to
prepare more detailed plans for this project, including
identifying the exact route, the amount and location of
land and easements to' be acquired, responsibility for
acquiring, possible funding sources , and preparing a
timetable for completion.
4 . These plans are to be completed so that they can be
included for consideration as early as the 1989-90
budget for each jurisdiction.
Adopted :
•
•
•
•
.. .
• i
• ,
5
. ,
PROPOSED OPEN _SPA_ CLE
.10*,......••■■••■■••■■■■••••••• kr. •
a
. a FOR DURHAM AND ORANGE COUNTIES
.....
......,„) 44 "
FA :
11 INCLUDES 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN OF NEW HOPE
C
AND ULM CREEK AND A 200 FEET WIDE CORRIDOR
.t * LINKING NEW MOPE CREEK TO THE ENO RIVER
....' -;'
, ..:-••• ...
.. a- STATE PARK THROUGH ORANGE COUNTY AND
-- ' AIL DURHAM COUNTY.
' *
-•r- . ...
. :7--:-.•• 7:5744.:igiiti ...Ise
-:-• ft 341t:::::.Pgiiii NI
Illie
. ::::::::::z-zo:K.:::::0E-4,:::*---::•,:::: Jtr.
--4,-„,---.---- - ...*::iii-.:.--:::: • .
' ■ ,-...... ---:-:-.:: , ::-: e
cri .
........ . . .............. „. % .,:
::::::::::::,,..: , . :.:.:...„.:,..,••,.. ...x.: .,.
a
:....1.::•.:::::::::::: z tt.::•:::::.• W "ni I. ;•:.:,:":'' ....:•::',..,.•...;::.•:::
•.• .•."•;0:;::::•:•1: 0 :.:::•::,.. ..":•:".•:: ....7':'
W
::*:•,•.:..•;:•::•.•:•,g ..::;a.'". a . •• .,:•:•:::...:$1
....., . SI
a. ••. •
. •-•••...•••••...•.•. ... el
'.. . Fest..".* • w 4'.
. ea 0::::K.N41111
w
, a
6757,1 :-.7,!, . 0 • go. .....\--..::::::::::):1111.::.:
:....-::::..... '' • -....-..si'al*.....:- : ..41.1 --:,-AC:"
." :. "--1 :;:y
WO", .-44'.44!--16°.:■, - a w - ..,...:• :::::: .
•.
.,.•...a.......... ..,.,... ...:.0..... :„..............,. ,...-. :.• 1
•.
. •• 5
..:......• ................,.....:.---- . -. 501
:•". • Z. •:.'
...1. • - 0
. •tt V :;:ieKeTT Ina
• .1
*--.....4 aw.
: ••
F^^ .
r„,.....---
\i \-.%),Irk..; .I.-.•„% r •
• .
r •'. „. . .
a •• •,,, ,11.
a •C :
• ,43-1'‘' k
.4* ,...;:••••■•".7\ .t%I.a. pytev .1. .
• 4' 1. 04 ..4
• Ot :
III la 1
i- ' •ZI
1 a
No
a
t. 11:2..,41,..=
‹z:z Z
C::I..)::fazwit
0:0 te
•
::: s 44.7
t):c.) 1..
• .
SO LI/alz:
SO1
...<
Z ....
:N4"%•--LC4'......r•S............_. ( •4:1:1k .............
i ...-----Q
CD:CI . t •
.ct
0 7 Inns
. .
LEGEND • ;
. . •
U.S. ARMY CORPS OWNERSHIP 0::-::*0-,::-:::-.'A CORRIDOR
tabidal 1,..3, ......o.
JORDAN LAKE 4„,.......x...x...xi. - WITHIN DUKE FOREST
--:-,i-‘•--. 200FEET WIDE
---,........,,,
2...- .., -,......
. l':7"-------7- - ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
:.•.----10PEN SPACE CORRIDOR:
MUD CREEK AND . 7
R NEW HOPE CREEK ::1/15 DUKE FOREST
-- --iiiios
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
DEPARTMENT OF DURHAM CITY-COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 1989
. . . .
• .
6
NEW HOPE CREEK OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR
GOAL: Preserve an open space corridor linking the Eno River State Park, the New Hope Creek Corps
!ands and the growing communities of Durham, Chapel Hilt, and Carrboro for aesthetic,
environmental, educational, and recreational purposes, and as a means of shaping the urban
form of the area
OBJECTIVES:
Coordination
1. Coordinate corridor preservation and possible trail development activities among the jurisdictions
and agencies involved.
Open Space
2. Identify lands presently preserved as open space and as open space with public access.
3. Identify the preferred location and size of the open space corridor to be preserved.
4. Identify strategic segments where open space needs to be protected and where public access
needs to be secured.
5. Develop a program for acquiring land, conservation easements, trail easements, or otherwise
preserving land, as necessary to protect the open space corridor.
Trails
6. Identify a primary trail route through the open space corridor.
7. Develop a program for trail development where appropriate, including such elements as priorities,
financing, roles and responsibilities of major actors.
8. Identify appropriate locations for and develop facilities for parking and trail access.
9. Identify and coordinate trail access to activity sites along the corridor such as schools, educational
and interpretive centers, etc.
Educational Facilities
10. Identify facilities to be used for nature and environmental education.
11. Develop a plan for and facilitate acquisition and management of educational facilities.
• DESCRIPTION OF THE CORRIDOR:
The proposed corridor extends nonh•from Jordan Lake Corps land on New Hope Creek. and includes
a loop, one side utilizing Mud Creek and the Durham Division of Duke Forest The other side of the
loop extends into Orange County through the Korstian Division of Duke Forest, and follows a trail
already blazed by the Triangle Greenways Council from the Korstian Division into the Durham Division
as part of the Circle4he-Triangle Trail In the Durham Division both sides of the loop join again and the
corridor then extends to the Eno River along one of several possible alternative routes. The entire loop
from Corps land to the Eno'River is approximately 18 miles. The entire floodplain of Mud Creek and
New Hope Creek in Durliiiri County is approximately 800 acres:-Of this perhaps 400 acres,are either
in Duke Forest or within existing developments. Perhaps another 100 acres of New Hope Creek
floodplain is in Orange County outside Duke Forest
All available floodplain will be acquired, perhaps 500 acres, on Mud and New Hope Creeks. A 200'
wide corridor will be acquired connecting the Duke Forest tracts and connecting with Eno River State
Park. This 200 wide corridor could consist of approximately 7010 140 acres depending on which route
is selected. A total of approximately 640 acres would be acquired.
ACOUISMON: •
Cost Estimates
The cost of land for this project is extremely difficult to estimate. An appraiser was consulted and it was
suggested that making a reasonable estimate would be quite time consuming since the area is large
and types of land values quite diverse. This appraiser suggested that even an investment of several
hundred dollars in a reasonable estimate would not necessarily be accurate, and the money spent on
appraisals would be better spent on the land itself. To illustrate what the costs might be, at $5000 per
acre,the cost of 640 acres would be$3.2 million dollars,to be shared by the four jurisdictions. Durham
County and City,Chapel Hill,and Orange County. It is possible that floodplain land could be purchased
for much less than $5000 per acre, and that some of the land would cost more.
Acouisition Mechanisms
1. Conservation Easements
A conservation easement could be obtained from the owner with conditions providing for public
access and preservation of the natural vegetation.
One factor that increases the value of floodplain land is the density credit allowed for property
zoned for PDR, PUD, or multi-family residential. This problem could be overcome by the owner
selling or donating a conservation easement which allows the owner to retain title to the property•
and thereby have the original allowable density.
2. Donations
The local governments could work to create a highly positive public acceptance for the project
so that land owners will be inclined to participate by donating land or easements, and thereby
receive the tax benefits of donating to tax-exempt organizations.
3. Bargain Sales
Land owners could sell at a reduced price if they wish to obtain some remuneration for the land
and at the same time receive tax benefits. The advantage of this option is that the expenditure
of public funds for the land is reduced and at the same time the land owner receives some
remuneration as well as tax benefits. The land owner can probably claim as a tax deduction
the difference between the appraised market-value price and the reduced price for which he sold
the property.
• 4. Public Funds
Each local government whose citizens will have reasonable access to the recreational and
environmental benefits provided by the project,could allocate public funds or hold a referendum
on issuing bonds to raise funds.
5. Private Conservation Efforts
Local conservation groups such as the Triangle Land Conservancy, may wish to contribute to
the project by helping to raise funds or purchasing a portion of the land.
•
• - 8
•
Proposal fo.r New -Hope Creek Corridor Master Plan
] Presented to Orange County
• May 18, 1989
The New Hope Creek is a special riverine system. . Unlike
streams such as the Eno River, it exhibits a very wide hydrologic
influence. lellfrInft=r2sIlltatitn-large land areas
1 or
valuable for habitat. stormwater filtration and absorption, .and •
• other open space needs. including recreation. But at the same
time, the New Hope Creek corridor enjoys little public awareness
and appreciation because it is not often visible to the passing
traveller. The corridor is a difficult phenomenon to visualize
as it presently exists, but the tremendous potential remains.
Rapid urbanization occuring in Orange and Durham Counties
has made us more aware of the opportunities and problems
associated with the New Hope Creek corridor. Public concern is
focusing on the quality of our many waterways. Intense
development pressures eminating from Durham and Chapel Hill are
causing these two cities to grow together. The World Class
Region Land Use Advisory Committee of the Triangle J Council of
Governments has targeted the New Hope Creek corridor as crucial
to the large-scale network of regional open space needed for
. 1 conservation and recreation. Increasingly, planners are
factoring ecological considerations with transportation and
utilities as part of the infrastructure required to support .
1 • quality growth and development.
Why a Master Plan is Needed
"Master Plan" is a term used to describe both a process and a
product. . The major reasons this project should be undertaken
are:
-to culminate the lengthy period of inventory, study,
philosophies, and discussion in a systematic and meaningful way.
to show decision-makers the options which are available to them.
Such a document will enable Orange County to take action on
available policy choices. including regulations, preservation,
and acquisition.
-to serve as a forum among the many entities with interests in
the future of the New Hope Creek corridor: local government
agencies. conservation groups, developers, and land owners;
-to balance the beneficial functions of land left in its natural
state with the need to develop land for human activities in this
corridor;
-to aid in public visualization of the landscapes which comprise
1 the corridor -- beyond scientific value as habitat, recreational
value as open space -- a vast swath of land which few people
presently see or comprehend.
ii
I - 9
•
•
Purpose of Proposal
• The purpose of this proposal is to describe the manner in
which a joint public/private effort should be undertaken. to
intelligently plan both the development and the preservation of
1 the New Hope Creek corridor. We propose a structured approach to
the evaluation of the landscapes which comprise the corridor.
We also propose a method to involve the numerous public, quasi-
] public, and private entities in the process of devising a master
plan for its conservation, development and management. -
•
we describe a method to disseminate information concerning the
New Hope Creek corridor and its plan to the public through the
use of printed and electronic (videotape) media.
To build upon past work. the Master Plan will be guided
by the initiatives taken by The Orange BOCCI Mayor Howe. Mayor
Gulley. the Durham City Coundil and Durham Board of County
Commissioners, the,Triangle Land Conservancy, and the Durham
County Inventory of Natural and Cultural Resources. In context
of current work, the consultant will work with the Orange County
Planning Department as its client, to assist carrying out key
components of its plan to implement the Goal and Objectives
1 associated with the "Resolution to Preserve a Corridor of Open
Space Connecting .New Hope Creek with the Eno River through Orange
and Durham 'Counties. "
We believe that. as a professional landscape architecture and
land planning team, we can bring to this project a unique
viewpoint and methodology to achieve the goal and objectives as
outlined by the planning department. Our office has worked
closely on local .and regional planning, recreation. and
conservation efforts since the 1960' s.
I
I •
. - .
4
L. . 10
1 .... ... .
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED NEW HOPE CREEK CORRIDOR PROJECT
1. ANALYSIS •
An information base must be created with sufficient
breadth and depth to support decisions in the planning
stage. Typically this information can be categorized into
the following outline.
a. Existing context within the regional patterns of
1 urbanization. transportation, open space, recreation,
and ownership.
b. Landscape characteristics including physiography,
geology, hydrology, soils, vegetation, and wildlife.
o. Historical/archaeologic/cultural features.
. d. Projected patterns of growth, development.
• - transportation, infrastructure.
e. Perceptual factors: landscape types, images, public
perceptions.
. ,
These data should be mapped in a consistent and easily-
] understandable format. with a final "composite resource -
analysis" drawn and described. This last map will serve as
the basis for group discussion in the following phase of the
project.
2. COORDINATION. DISCUSSION & PLANNING
In cooperation with staff of the Orange County
Planning .
ing Department, we will schedule meetings of other
public, quasi-public, and private entities. The purpose of
these meetings will be to discuss comcepts for planning
segemnts of the New Hope Creek corridor, based on the
. findings of the inventory and analysis phase. Upon .
- acceptance of our proposal we would establish a project
schedule and assign responsibility for liason with various
groups. Based on the outcome of discussions, we would
prepare a draft master plan for the corridor, to be reviewed
by elected officials, appointed boards, and those groups who
participated in the process. A final plan would be the
product delivered.
A preliminary list of agenices and groups who should be
involved is as follows ( in random order) :
" .
Orange County Board of County Commibsioners
Durham County Board of County Commissioners
Chatham County Board of County Commissioners
Duke University (Duke Forest;
Triangle Greenways Council
Triangle Land Conservancy
Durham County Inventory
Orange County Inventory
1 Chapel Hill Town Board
Durham City Council
Chapel Hill Planning Department
1 . . .
1 •
I .
-
• 11
14
Triangle Council of Governments. World Class Region Land
Use Advisory Committee
Friends of the New Hope
. Association for the Preservation of the Eno River
Durham Greenways Commission
Durham County Open Space Commission
property owners
1 Audubon Society (New Hope)
Sierra Club. Headwaters section
North Carolina Wildlife Commission
N. C. Department of Natural Resources & Community Development
' Durham City Schools
Durham County Schools
NC School of Science and Math
North Carolina Central University
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
•
Durham County Cooperative Extension Service
U. S. Soil. Conservation Service
Museum of Life and Science
Durham County,Historic Properties Commission .
Durham City Historic District Commission
Ducks Unlimited
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
North Carolina State Parks
North Carolina State Archives & History
Durham Parks & Recreation Department
Orange County Recreation & Parks Department •
Chapel Hill Parks & Recreation Department
North Carolina Recreation & Park Society
North Carolina Nature Conservancy
Orange County Planning Board. Department .•• •
Orange County Rural Character Study-Commission
commercial/development interests
• 3. PLAN REPORT. PUBLIC INFORMATION
Preparation of a report is essential to inform the
citizens of Durham and Orange counties of the New Hope Creek
corridor plan. The report should document not Just the
proposed plan but the entire process, information about the
landscapes of the New Hope Creek. decisions made concerning
development versus conservation, and implications for the
future role of the corridor in the context of the region.
• A printed booklet with foldout maps may be the most
effective means of transmitting this information. Feature
newspaper sections may be another. Videotaped presentations
would do a great deal to explore the landscape features of
the corridor, and to explain the process and product of the
planning effort. Taped presentations could be duplicated
and shown in schools, at civic group meetings, and
tourism/interpretive facilities.
At the time a plan is adopted, the counties should
• assess the nature of informational needs and arrange for
the production of a report in the appropriate media.
•
1 12
4
1
4
•
4. THE PLANNING TEAM
This proposal is made by Coulter Associates. Landscape
Architects and Land Planners. Persons responsible for
conducting this project will be Kenneth Coulter. ASLA
(project director) , and Charles Burger, ASLA.
5. DURATION OF PROJECT
Following a notice to proceed,- this project will take
. three months to complete as described, to the point of
a final draft report to the Boards of County Commissioners,
the Durham City Council. and the Chapel Hill Town Board.
,d• ..
•
•
•
•
I
I
I
ii
1
I
e. .0- •-
1 f.•;... .•..;.:•,. 1• -. .
. .
D ok L ut iCrt.......--'7.--"--.. ..- A. : v.ii\.:, -i .-.z.'efiri 13
' ..::::-".i 4. i ,z4 - . • .•..... -. . ,,,,,„,,._,..... ...,, •..........-• .....-:-....,;. i
. . •-•.,.....1z,,,„) If, ''...v-...,:,.•*.z.) -8• .1 ■ „.. II 1/q)
; .i.t., ...... ..44:"gr,,,l,'41..,4, '4 ci •i 10111c0 I I ,.• . t,.....,P$.\ ......, • .. di( Nt - C..t: ...--•.• ). 0•*, kirits:: •
''-i.•,•'• -..' .2-%;• -;i 101.41. •'MI . 1: v-7 1,4( ....-- "•2 "•)... l'''‘, wl •• 4-t\tV *:1..* k%' • ' 13
,..,. .1.? ........5. ay . ...-$ .
fitk..,/
II " ,... • Ali,.. • q' 1.. r•A f t.`44.6.!. ,t::A -.3■16f N .x. A*--,,
/ e1 illir c.! d .
. .,......•'N 1,-ei -- ;0.- '.., )1 . l'‘.... )* • \ ------C-2),..
k
1
.. 1 i• .. • . e.in • ..., .... 0 •■■••■■••' . •r ( "....%q......(<04 4. .45f Alc,t'dr 1:."N
2'.''''''. • ,n; 7, fit? t'lt," 'W., P ,A ,
ve., ._ ,.9,..■ .......1.,.-44
'4.1",;.,
. ,1 -13,..:.,,...........:...1:,.r4 ie., .`ii..:* .:',:- ,\\,s,. 1,, 1 ...alci ) ... ......./ ,./VOL__%%•=4:44.4.;,. .;„ .■:cii .i.fytiiit ii `•-•-
•if AM RA,--,c^^' -.,; •102'; '%:'-1-: .,.. . '' id ( 0 : , • ' '..kif4)-Y"44 \`'''-• Siiii.k. 7.... ..4
\ 1/ ./41447:‘ 4- "V"••••,.e''''... 7 A ..4". . ; I i .V-
•• .6.4,X"' •4•• "*• .., "PO•.•1,e a 41.. ":,..). • /\44‘"•• .... .;.. .7. .r;.,,,.. C'es i.t:4, .. , ,i1 ..ii.„.: 1 yr,„
..,-)WV % l'Th• 1 *-1 if:. 0. 114.1 1. , A... • . \
4;1\ crt . .... w.. 1 \.4. L .z.br..... ....,,47..... : . -.•.-4, r--5:- a,- fi. - Ato.,„ -.-•.-.-_---t , r-
P. i_.....A •
•::gi, ,.,..„... ,.. , .e,,,. .„... . CA, ,,k- Orielif ,i, .''' sr--,: •,1
O.. 1 It 1 1 ...• i". • fi,,, .in: I t .1.:•.... .....\•".". ,,N011.1-,, - -• ......• r-••• • 4,, f , ..
1E q •••••P 41;:-..st:""•-.!te/) ..--- r•- id ' ." ISI A•'-:-.--
: t: i tlio.,:. ... -_,.s. •••4200..„1" ..:. ,.1.- :1_`,1 c....,4b1,1 I.*.1` ••....P7 411). 6... .....--....,,, cutr.14 A ...,,p. • :AI, ,
..,.... . .. ,...,- ,
;,..-m .-- ... . ,0 L .• .A.,....,..-• , . .:, .. ..,a.YAI■
' ,..' il ..--17,...• e -i - : •-- 1 = 4wi.._
)...:•4 ••-• .w, L fr • 4,.,, ;.,1,•,.. ::::.:r.t n •• 10,41f; ;..:It -
..v..,. 1 1.••••.-- s • . -
• c•■ . 0
k_ 0 IS. ,,..-i I 4 i ii"ik 1..,,1 , A ve4,k,,•;:
1 . f>,-.■.,. , ,..., . kpla. 4. 1 _.,_.■••"""*.... -... it
4•.c.,•' 6.y • list 1.: .. ,P,' • •: .',::- .., r-, 1.. 4 ‘i (I."- •-, , ../ 1 1.....--•-• .•
.. .a2Eta • 'ff --.1......44.44,1%...8 ,. ..'.-',Y,7 'NI
„-.v. w.I., s..y/p/,N. . - ...., ,..).‘41,,,I, ;.. .
, 4 V.1..,1". 4, 4,....?....r.f., r
ri. : ......•...„....../.../. / ,,,,.: -•. 4.54, 4; b....10, ., i • . ... ,_. wmtic .,11 rii. .• -...„0,161, „..",...,....7,FAt:Al
. ...d/...4 ilt,....r .: , _:, ,12,. , p 1. • ( -.4.,:•-j.\.v
\ ;.•:„....•*-17.-:•fr I • • . ... ..•7 • 1: A • - it -1..\ : .•.‘ .....,../ ' A .,...4.-:•,.„,,,.,
Mr..' . '' .e.411"'' '- • 4\11,47" g' .
....:.:4- ?....-.- .. i• ) . . . 46. ,• • ....•.,- 4 _ ; -
■4;;;;:,.. ,z „••• , •-_,• p,,;.,, 1,,.••• A, ......(1 .'1/4 „....; -P.144 OP ' Ls ,, fixhz
..... ,..- ,,,.....,...- ........ . .,,,,,,, 4-,.- 6 ' . ..... ;•.- , * . , Lt' 1.;
s.:.z..........-- , ../... \ . , v. , . . • elf /X,..,..-:-. . nwv- . -it,- Pi
1.....ey....v. 4.. .... ...---s. is ..„ ("). 0 ... • -
• , 1/4, 11-,,......, -(7--vi• it - ar ' 1 kk,::•1/4.•-•, •r. . /I'. ' -1:-1 X‘' ..)r 1,V3.r1,c---Vt
• -.... ,..--/-•,...;•: -,..-.•v it, ,.........-, • .....„„- 1..,..;., „„,...;,..,,,..-% ... . - 1." ' 1" iclii ..r -h. : i.,,..,•,.; i).;',...,,,,,41,,,...
"k ,• ../,4•.':"•,:..- r1 4.0 Ns....• - ‘1.1,-...-g- .... -kt //j.k* ,), frt r( .w. 4-41.1.,,,,-.
,.N '■- •.: "\ :ierlf-7.\. _ '. ...--- '.....,,;.. ......-;,:v - • . ,246. i ,f, • kite/ -ia,
---., . ,,,,,, .... . . -._.,,_„,-;-. , -,c;.-: .p...,„ -. - re •r•k. ../. . .. , , 4 0&„,t
:p • ',.<1.••■) iTh\lit.3.0.... ':-'ds,411 Agfri7.1_,-,th--Al 9 . : ,..--. .".. . . :.:k 1 f.'...**41, kl,,,,e-t4'4.1-' . \'
.1 'lb *.. (......, e , le.g e,..*•:.P l' 4.: -I..;..:,...',tt...ecirecieod..... .,. . •
o.o.,,. •• s, IT'4.2.?,.,- .,
: -- /t,,,5.'•\:. A .1--.753p....14,"
ic.• ,- ...e. 4.14.0 ,,,„•.- : • i-.-%4.4 .\ ‘ '■, ___,,, ..i- ••,,,,,,,,,,-1,-- . ,, ...-,,c.tpa.-
. c- ii-'%': ‘l• / " +,
;11111.... IP .S:r 1••••;;;^-7 cl-y 11. ''' ' . "• . .114 V•■. yr' ' "..- * " f. .1,,,,,Vr'.-4,,.. ci• ,
41 .3, -- .•% - • :t( • .4••ii .--e.T,-- •` . eN ..-•. 4•1I ri' 'V.' 1:
/•I' • ' ":ii= 1..."4"A'Ait"..."" allTh'il.;.'''''' ......4'h 4. - c, . • •.;„ ,-..-;.,.:...,,,... ,
- i., (Th. - _,.,7:-..- . e. IV; • Nil' ',
''.....,‘.:0 0,21° "."..rAZP... 0:4•1,..X4.,..4.31' - • -,..f 4,---ft ..• , ......::/.: - e.,,,t)„.,,--, -...:.;_.
••-••••••••,,,,.....,:?..,;,..0:9, ;-:-; . ....,,,•••'-1:..Lr3 1•1•(r. pi .,,x0 . , ,,
• :**%., %. .1,- 1. .0:"S"e. "...••• '\ . ilri ..j AI Ore';' rj ild 'D jr •lit 0 • • ... '•i'. ""••• t ‘''. / .7' 1...%, _ •
re.ri V . .1 ' t .-st, ".. .,• • , .. eN
.-: 1•*;:."....'•'0.--.1.°2-,"5") ,;\*. ,1/4.''N4,•-r: ''11741':-.C41-'fwd' e-.' - 1 '\ , N ,.-. "...-A,,,,•% .• 41: . 7
'AI t.• - • .• . ..0/e; „ , „..,,,.. ..„... - _ ,,...... . . . • • •_• \,.., ,... ..,.„ . ....„ , .....: _. .. . ..c,.;f,... 't
Ft . . / , ..d:r 1,1 . h,„ ,;,..4: !7..- C....,-1....f-- i • • " 1, • :" 1 v„,....VY.: , • .03 awl
••t„,..1 ....• 0•,..,,
lliv.,-,--t• ;IA: . i ...4. . ip,„..s.A.•::.. -1-"‘"#.1". .... . . - (......,;„ ....: 4„..,,
.7-..-7..-1,--v..e 1. ••-eP ,--•",\..p --14 e *s ., j‘ Ill • .1)c..,...,..... cy. ...„.r - .0... _ :. 4 1
) I .,. -.. ,:- • ..E r:4 „' .- t is 's is , .e : •
A ' v:71 ."--f-Ai„,... ,. . .7;41 t 0.^-, '
, 1,:y ••.'?"‘. I r:,-; . r)1 ,;•••• .• \coidp......... ... 11•••■ 7:• 11 1' •,..0•.] I S•..e?..f...e..r . tr.: es Itz,„„ 11 ‘.0...:,„ . ii.•,.:
• .?.4 • •1..•.- ' \
•'•f•.. 'ry •,,,,4. • --•• \ ._.,.-.h. 5-z.,....----14,...-, '.. e• \t:"..*. •:.• --44 k A ....'.‘ (0, . A. t ?s,11' ,J..,.
i
• ., r‘ ‘::::"...-. .. ;. r:. . ., \oat 1..• .,..... .....7)) .), ,-:;.•,..-)2)1 , \p,., ,...t.2.;...... " • Z 4:,..,. .., . .141* Ari;.4 i•
,..• ,A.:, r,,•„„.„, •„. ,„:,iv., i..f• mo„,„, /, -,A: k„,...,„ ..1 ..,‘i.,,,,, ,,,I...... , .„ ....„ ...„..N, ...v,...y.
• ertt.:z•-:14,, .;.,.'.'‘,,,-.'..i/ ".1'......-8,v- ,,c.',.: . r. .r f -. ;,,,..TV .--; . , . : ...v..--..---•••• 'Tv i..,,•.‘ c....;t1
r4;4,-.-.4*. - . : :.. . ,,,,, .,,,:fr Ir......-1,z.. ,:r ' ..3-Litr,f1---... 0..t.:1,(r •■4e-VIV.T.:':•,...„ii-, ' -ki..- • t■-•
•,.. ,,,., t ,L) ...
--. ....- ..t, ...., „„.-- . - :i -. ''ytri:5 ,
• - r • •,-;.. I e- 1-' • ; f l i ._ ".7.4-.... 4 4• (..-ilisi .. Cy::'1 -01:4•14141\
.4e ..--- - ' tf.
1_ • 3t.'3.f
/ • 4, ••!•.lilt::el "7; iiv i lk i f.., J4,,;.: ••- • , -.4 ott b •
1
,..4.4.C\)C7
,. Ia..6." • q r''' .,
ilre.."A14' -.. /l'' •. kg.... "1 ).4 .- •:----i ,.. .t.-2?F'5.-% . .:1 rAf' ,-1-11:11‘3P7 . **Wi-ev'17, -r'AV"--...:31v .."‘..
isji \'.:'.77.-,- %-n:I r...4. ..: . - ----.-. .-.\ -r--714-% ,....19 1 it.7.., il';,' -ye. 1 .4.7- ':.,.-\ '','s 4. .
A. Duke Forest - -1-/f'(-'s• I 0..3.F.-0.c4'■\-4!, ,.. ki‘": j•:r..\h'i ;14-4V 144, ‘,■1.4.‘
a. U.S. Government . gr. A...-,-• . . .rit-ii.f I k*.r.al2. t'l 1 V-P" 1;b:1' •- rip' r
ez. .1\ 40 1..."j 14...7.., i'l•Alk:,,,f1.4•3_, • -,11040,;4444Whirt..1
•
1. • Hollow Rook Store -w-
..#'A . (theld. - .. tt..k• V?"171(i4,1-
2. The Browns' Meadows • e/)r,.." ("\\ -'74, ..... ! rit.-3;,.---;0. . N.,„?....-7... ,„e*,,“._k r\v4t. .,
, 1.4,.., 1,. .
3. Dry Branch Swamp / Lot N. 1 p. ';`,..."'•• • - .. • R. •.-.t,a,..,,,,, ,,,,•-•,,,,,,,-.. .:, " _.:-....r. -i/..._
4. Patterson's wildflower Slopes
r\......._„ , ‘,. -- , -.5,,,,..:.- .itc:-‘,/, • LI
5. Lone Branch Trail (;99-'1r.7 t" /ege.:- ''' ;-,•.--m7- -1. -.4Azi,.-- ri.-‘ --. .. 4'
-1 s -r..*:.- t. , 'ii2 :,r4... •`.. 111. •
6. Latta Landfill . e----d e i '.-t'ret•,--.6) ,
7. New Githens School ) rile '96,27.
0. Old-Growth Bottomland Forest ifi r \-
-."?.,..!:1/4'rt?4.1%, /( ■ . . tzr.,,Aaw. ii...--t.tor: ...,„7.f.r; ,,,,, ..A.
9. Leigh Farm ,.,.... 9
. t , Tt- 0. - ..-t I .k.t.APAxj':tit,. :i... ?J' '.ii
10. Overcup Oak Swamp Forest k c.) \- ,-;•:....--,i;\'::::1 II) ) fiptr,;.!;•4,;+,..-,=.7.5!"piff- (Vite.„.01 r k
11. U.S. Army Corps Subimpoundment SX 1.. ,,-- 'gent" f'..,1•4 , 1-0.. zrir .
: p c)...• l',..--:_,sc.\ ' %•<beii 1.1. ......M:""4"..146-1: :' !• ...-Nt
...• ij.f7'n,.":4.. ., .. ",.."', l .7.; '3 '...c...44tllinigfi
.4, - ...,:. 1•.• .0-. ...-.),.;:••„:.'"e•'...tri.:'. .;..., '-.. - ,• 1„, :.,„?!„6,,...../
* EW* -HOPE COAR1DOR - ,.. ,,,,/,,i-v , -
..,-... -...„,
:--v.... - ...1--,.e 0.•Arr.-,4 'A- 1- *" ->Az
' : •li .":1?;14; - ....10,,..;7'li •:' •,-. pi- : 'i,, ...; .--_,..0.12-1 ,,,,„ el
. 1.• • • ).. :,fr-s;:1-.: --4.ipaq......., • '''''llr- .:';••;I....tt. S eig:.;7.co k•,
;,•••-, qs :...,All. - .\': ,_,„,,,,-1.- .-- .r-■• •It.; .
V %a. .•: I) 'n v"%'.: kiN.. '"-,?... .-:,.- v•‘.-- . .; '- '.
• ,00-.44\ • -.• • • rai., . „. . . . ..„. -...4. .. . ...,,.. .,..
.., [4,1 -. \., ....... . „.-1,,....4.,. kyi., , .,.. ,;,...,......t." • .,i i
4........... • , .:1:„..... .•.!....... . .k• .. .....;,.... .. 4 i u II., J
. .
SCALE' 1. .2.600'
1
ORANGE COUNTY
• BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. &--+_
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Collection
Site Leases: Bradshaw Quarry Road and Orange Chapel-Clover
Garden Road
DEPARTMENT: Public Works PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S) : Leases (2) INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilbert McAdoo
TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501 •
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham • - 688-7331
PURPOSE: The Lease Agreements are a part of the overall plan to
consolidate greenbox sites for Orange County. These actions are
being undertaken to improve efficiency, improve aesthetics and
reduce operating cost. The sites will be approximately one acre
in size and meet the criteria outlined for consolidated sites.
BACKGROUND: Sanitation Division collects and transports solid waste for
non-incorporated Orange County residents. The leasing of
above listed sites will bring the total number of
consolidated sites to five.
• RECOMMENDATION(S) : To approve leases and authorize Chair to sign.
•
_ .
1/27/e/61
, 1
NORTH CAROLINA
LEASE
ORANGE COUNTY
N IL
This lease agreement entered into this day of
'ty\- - - - — , 198F by and between J. F. Morris and wife, Dorothy
ay/
S. Morris, of Bingham Township, Orange County, North Carolina,
hereinafter referred to as Lessor and Orange County, North
Carolina, 109 Court Street, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278,
hereinafter referred to as Lessee,
W I T N E S S E T H:
Lessor hereby agrees to lease the property described below
to Lessee upon the following terms and conditions:
1. The Property. The property herein leased is a tract
and parcel of land, together with all improvements located
thereon, located in Bingham Township, Orange County, North
Carolina and more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at an iron stake set which iron stake is located N 40
deg. 44 36" E 674 . 10 feet from a mathematical point in the
intersection of Morrow Mill Road (S.R. 1958) and Orange Chapel-
Clover Garden Road (S.R. 1956) running thence from the beginning
point along a new line with J.F. Morris, S 88 deg. 00 ' 00" E
188.62 feet to a 6" oak, a new corner with Morris, thence S 02
deg. 00 ' 00" W 200 feet to an iron stake set, a new corner with
Morris, thence N 88 deg. 00 ' 00" W 269.44 feet to a P. K. Nail
set in the centerline of Orange Chapel-Clover Garden Road, thence
with the centerline of Orange Chapel-Clover Garden Road 206.27
feet along the arc of a circle having a radius of 970.00 and a
chord distance of 205.88 feet and a bearing of N 15 deg. 43 ' 47" *
E to a P. K. Nail, thence S 88 deg. 00' 00" E 31.96 feet to the
point and place of beginning, being 1.14 acres more or less, and
a part of the property of J. F. Morris all as shown on an October
3, 1988 plat of a survey of the property entitled "Property of J.
F. Morris," which plat was prepared by ENT Land Surveys, Inc.
2. '11 ki e • " T1, 6.a,.a e . The lease will commence
A131
JJAA1 5, leigq 8 and terminate ■JAAJLA- 51 OW .
1
, .
19 . Lessor or Lessee, however, may terminate this lease upon
giving one hundred twenty (120 ) days written notice to the other.
Lessee shall pay Lessor rent in the amount of Fifty Dollars
($50.00) per month for each and every month of the term of this
lease, payable on or before the 5th day of each month of the
lease term.
3. ImiorovementindMaintanance. Lessee shall have the
right to make any and all improvements, temporary or permanent,
to the premises as deemed necessary and desirable by Lessee for
its use of the premises. It is anticipated that Lessee will use
the premises for solid waste collection. Lessee agrees to fence
the dumpster site and leave and provide a buffer strip of
vegetation in its natural state of at least eight (8) feet in
width along Orange Chapel-Clover Garden Road, also known as
N.C.S.R. 1956. All improvements made to the premises shall be
made at the expense of Lessee. All such improvements which are
made to the premises which cannot be removed without damage to
the premises shall become a part of the premises and upon the
termination of this lease shall be the property of Lessor. Any
additional ad valorem taxes resulting from any permanent
improvements to the premises shall be the responsibility of the
Lessee.
From and after the time Lessee takes possession of the
premises it shall be the responsibility of Lessee to maintain the
premises in a neat, clean and orderly condition at all times.
Roadways, parking areas, and other public access ways shall be
•
2
=UMW
maintained by Lessee. Fences installed on the premises by Lessee
shall also be maintained by Lessee.
4. Taxes. Lessor agrees to pay all taxes and assessments
during the term of this lease, including but not limited to
municipal, county and state taxes assessed against said premises
which are incident to the ownership of said premises. Provided,
however, Lessee shall be responsible for any additional ad
valorem taxes resulting from leasehold improvements as provided
in paragraph 3 of this lease.
5. Insurance and Indemnity. Lessee shall, at Lessee's
expense, obtain and keep in full force during the term of this
lease a Comprehensive Public Liability policy with limits of
$300,000/$300,000 for personal injury or death and $100,000 for
property damage. The Lessor shall be named as an additional
insured in this policy. Lessee shall deliver said policy or a
certificate of insurance to Lessor together with evidence of full
payment of premiums.
To the extent permitted by law and to the extent provided
for in insurance contracts owned by Lessee, Lessee shall
indemnify and hold harmless Lessor from and against any and all
claims arising from Lessee's use of the premises, or from the
conduct of Lessee's business or from any activity, work or things
*done, permitted or suffered by Lessee in or about the premises or
elsewhere.
6. Notices . All notices to be given under this lease
shall be made in writing and mailed by certified mail, return
3
receipt requested, to the other party at its address set forth
herein or at such address as the party may provide in writing
from time to time. Any such notice shall be deemed to have been
received five (5) days subsequent to mailing.
7. Parties. This lease shall be binding and shall inure
to the benefit of the parties and their heirs, successors and
assigns.
8. Entire Agreement; Waiver. This lease contains the
entire agreement of the parties and there are not
representations, inducements, or other provisions other than
those expressed in writing. All changes, additions, or deletions
hereto must be in writing and signed by the parties. Any
provision of this lease found to be prohibited by law shall be
ineffective to the extent of such prohibition without
invalidating the remainder of this lease. The waiver by Lessor
or Lessee of any breach by the other of any term, covenant, or
condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent
breaCh thereof.
J. F. MORRIS
114RAZIJ, —)124W„0.)
• DOROTHY S MORRIS
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
I, a Notary Public of said State and County do hereby
certify that J. F. Morris and wife, Dorothy S. Morris personally
appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of
the foregoing Lease.
4
•
A / A
Witness my hand and official seal, this the .A.0 day of
—May
, l98$
NAP--1
Notary Pubic
My commission expires:
• 6/ S; S
ORANGE COUNTY
BY: ei • Al
Moses Carey, Jr. , V4r Chair
and Acting Chair,fiange
County Board of ; +mmissioners .
ATTEST- •
(OFFICIAL SEAL)
=e,eIly Bdthe, C -rk to
the Board of Commissioners
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
I, jIJt f Clkenrixr.S , Notary Public for
said Counts/ and State, certify that Beverly Blythe personally
came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the
Board of Commissioners of Orange County, and that by authority
duly given and as the act of Orange County, the foregoing
instrument was signed in its name by Moses Carey, Jr. , Vee–Ga4r
ag74.1....Ac.t..i.ag, Chair, sealed with its official seal, and attested by
herself as its Clerk.
Witness my hand and official seal, this the ISA day of
NctAr,y,,Zublic
...„
1. CLr
v "r
N...7 crr- N,4>ki
My commission expires:
CD nt k\O.A Ry 10,cr,
r;
1&52.Clera,-4,1/0
15
r '
puRI \Z, 17
t.. 4 ,.„
'1:;•:74).! 01911.A.C.L1,4 e
5
`.**stelict.^.101
•
. .
.. . -
' NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
Notice is hereby given that the parcel of land hereinafter
described is of restricted development potential because of the
. unsuitablility of the subsurface soil for the installation of an
on site soil absorption sewage disposal facility as determined
by the Orange County Health Department pursuant to Section IV-B-2
of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations .
The parcel of land is situated in Bingham Township , Orange
County, North Carolina and is more particularly described as follows :
Beginning at an iron stake set which iron stake is located N 40
deg . 44' 36" E 674.10 feet from a mathematical point in the inter-
section of Morrow Mill Road (S.R. 1958) and Orange Chapel=1Clover
Garden Road (S.R. 1956) running thence from the beginning point along
a new line with J. F . Morris , S 88 deg . 00' 00" E 188. 62 feet
to a 6" oak, a new corner with Morris , thence S 02 deg . 00' 00" W
200 feet to an iron stake set, a new corner with Morris , thence
N 88 deg . 00' 00" W 269.44 feet to a P. K. Nail set in the center-
line of Orange Chapel-Clover Garden Road , thence with the centerline
of Orange Chapel-Clover Garden Road 206.27 feet along the arc of
a circle having a radius of 970.00 and a chord distance of 205. 88
feet and a bearing of N 15 deg . 43 ' 47" E to a P. K . Nail, thence
S 88 deg. 00' 00" E 31.96 feet to the point and place of beginning ,
being 1.14 acres more or less , and a part of the property of J . F .
Morris all as shown on an October 3 , 1988 plat of a survey of the
property entitled "Property of J . F. Morris , " which plat was prepared
by ENT Land Surveys , Inc.
Witness my hand and seal this 6.(G, day of -hay 1989 .
r .01/1/144 (SEAL) • biAllally .1'79,),..41/1.-,-4,1, THAL)
f
NORTH CAROLINA
•
ORANGE COUNTY
I , wrak... V: gp.., , , A Notary Public, Asst. Re_gister
4(
tf De dsh for said County and State , do hereby certify that .9 , a4rovi_
J.S.. S.:anew:, personally appeared before me this day nd
acknow edged the due execution of the foregoing instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal, this the .v-rk day
of ihal • 1989.
, .
41
Notar Pub lice,
Asst. Register of- Deeds
My Commission Expires: 9 . SI_ 9:5 .
•
j NORTH CAROLINA
LEASE
ORANGE COUNTY
This lease agreement entered into this 14th day of
June , 1 - by and between James C. Thompson and wife,
Betty A. Thompson, of Bingham Township, Orange County, North
•
Carolina, hereinafter referred to as Lessor and Orange County,
North Carolina, 109 Court Street, Hillsborough, North Carolina
27278, hereinafter referred to as Lessee,
W I T N E S S E T H:
Lessor hereby agrees to lease the property described below
to Lessee upon the following terms and conditions:
1. The Property. The property herein leased is a tract
and parcel of land, together with all improvements located
thereon, located in. Bingham Township, Orange County, North
Carolina and more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at an iron (control corner) which is set at the
intersection of the southwest right-of-way line of S. R. 1117 and
the. northwest right-of-way line of Bradshaw Quarry Rd. (S. R.
. 1115) ; thence with the northwest right-of-way line of Bradshaw
Quarry Rd. the following courses and distances: S 37 deg. 26'
34" W 53.56 feet to an iron; thence S 41 deg. 28' 45" W 69.34
feet to an iron; thence S 45 deg. 29 ' 25" W 67 . 63 feet to an
iron; thence S 49 deg. 36 ' 44 " W 69 .75 feet to an iron, the
•
southeast corner of Effie W. Bradshaw; thence with Bradshaw N 15
deg. 30 ' 00 " W 178. 00 feet to an iron in a fence line, the
southwest corner of James C. Thompson; thence with Thompson N 37
deg. 30' 50" E 260.16 feet to an iron in the southwest right-of-
way line of S. R. 1117; thence S 19 deg. 52' 38" E 202.90 feet to
the point and place of BEGINNING, containing 1.00 acre, according
to plat and survey by Dale D. Faulkner, R.L.S. , dated November 8,
1988, entitled "Property of JAMES C. THOMPSON & BETTY A.
THOMPSON, which plat is recorded at Plat Book , Page
of the Orange County Registry.
2. The Lease . The lease will commence
June , 1989 and terminate June 5 , 1994 .
19 Lessor or Lessee, however, may terminate this lease upon
1
.or
./.// giving one hundred twenty (120) days written notice to the other.
Lessee shall pay Lessor rent in the amount of Fifty Dollars
($50.00) per month for each and every month of the term of this
• lease, payable on or before the 5th day of each month of the
lease term.
3. .Improvements and Maintenance. Lessee shall have the
right to make any and all improvements, temporary or permanent,
to the premises as deemed necessary and desirable by Lessee for
its use of the premises. it is anticipated that Lessee will use
the premises for solid waste collection. Lessee agrees to fence
the dumpster site and leave and provide a buffer strip of
vegetation in its natural state of at least eight (8) feet in
width along Bradshaw Quarry Road, also known as N.C.S.R. 1115 and
along N.C.S.R. 1117. All improvements made to the premises shall
be made at the expense of Lessee. All such improvements which
are made to the premises which cannot be removed without damage
to the premises shall become a part of the premises and upon the
termination of this lease shall be the property of Lessor. Any
additional ad valorem taxes resulting from any permanent
improvements to the premises shall be the responsibility of the
Lessee.
• From and after the time Lessee takes possession of the .
premises it shall be the responsibility of Lessee to maintain the
premises in a neat, clean and orderly condition at all times.
Roadways, parking areas, and other public access ways shall be
maintained by Lessee. Fences installed on the premises by Lessee
shall also be maintained by Lessee.
2
• • . /
4. Taxes. Lessor agrees to pay all taxes and assessments
during the term of this lease, including but not limited to
municipal, county and state taxes assessed against said premises
which are incident to the ownership of said premises. Provided,
however, Lessee shall be responsible for any additional ad
valorem taxes resulting from leasehold improvements as provided
in paragraph 3 of this lease.
5. Insurance and Indemnity. Lessee shall, at Lessee's
expense, obtain and keep in full force during the term of this
lease a Comprehensive Public Liability policy with limits of
$300,000/$300,000 for personal injury or death and $100,000 for
property damage. The Lessor shall be named as an additional
insured in this policy. Lessee shall deliver said policy or a
certificate of insurance to Lessor together with evidence of full
payment of premiums.
To the extent permitted by law and to the extent provided•
• for in insurance contracts owned by Lessee, Lessee shall
indemnify and hold harmless Lessor from and against any and all
claims arising from Lessee's use of the premises, or from the
conduct. of Lessee's business or from any activity, work or things
done, permitted or suffered by Lessee in or about the premises or
elsewhere.
6. Notices . All notices to be given under this lease
shall be made in writing and mailed by certified mail, return
receipt requested, to the other party at its address set forth
herein or at such address as the party may provide in writing
from time to time. Any such notice shall be deemed to have been
received five (5) days subsequent to mailing.
3
7. Parties. This lease shall be binding and shall inure
to the benefit of the parties and their heirs, successors and
assigns.
8. Entire Agreement- Waiver. This lease contains the
entire agreement of the parties and there are not
representations, inducements, or other provisions other than
those expressed in writing. All changes, additions, or deletions
hereto must be in writing and signed by the parties. Any
provision of this lease found to be prohibited by law shall be
ineffective to the extent of such prohibition without
invalidating the remainder of this lease. The waiver by Lessor
or Lessee of any breach by the other of any term, covenant, or
condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent
breach thereof.
)0'
:tr2A6.!/
'In C. THio • o .
44r
BETT / A.- TROMPSO /
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
I, a Notary Public of said State and County do hereby
certify that James C. Thompson and wife, Betty A. Thompson
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due
execution of the foregoing Lease.
Witness my hand and official seal, this the I1/41- - day of
, 1989.
• J .
Notary Public?'
My commission expires:
q 5- ?.-5
4
I . •
k
s
ORANGE COUNTY
By: ii41414-"'°-
Nose.- Carey, Jr. , ' 4ir
• Orange County Bo/ i of
Commissioners
ATTElo?
(OFFICIAL SEAL)
./4
Beverly B ',the, erk to
the Board of Commissioners
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
I,. 5 yui TCLmt -rs , Notary Public for
said County and State, certify that Beverly Blythe personally
came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the
Board of Commissioners of Orange County, and that by authority
duly given and as the act of Orange County, the foregoing
. instrument was signed in its name by Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair,
sealed with its official seal, and attested by herself as its
Clerk.
Witness my hand and official seal, this the ts-cA day of
u. e- , 1989.
• 40-11; CLere
/ 00
Notary Public. c, 1,01ARre\Zi)
riN
TZ
g ,
g g
My commission expires: * .
UBLI oCc4) 1
It
471,*.i., N-•
e ...it:ans320°
•
•
•
5
..... _ .
I ■ ,
„
NORTH CAROLINA '
• ORANGE COUNTY
•
Notice is hereby given that the parcel of land hereinafter
described is of restricted development potential because of the
unsuitability of the subsurface soil for the installation of an
on site soil' absorption sewage disposal facility as determined by
the Orange County Health Department pursuant to Section IV-B-2 of
the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
The parcel of land is situated in Bingham Township , Orange
County , North Carolina and is more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at an iron (control corner) which is set at the
intersection of the southwest right-of-way line of S. R. 1117 and
the northwest right-of-way line of Bradshaw Quarry Rd. (S. R. 1115) ;
thence with the northwest right-of-way line of Bradshaw Quarry Rd.
the following courses and distances : S 37 deg. 26' 34” W 53. 56 feet .
to an iron; thence S 41 deg. 28' 45" W 69.34 feet to an iron;
thence S 45 deg . 29' 25" W 67.63 feet to an iron; thence S 49
deg. 36' 44" W 69.75 feet to an iron, the southeast corner of
Effie W. Bradshaw; thence with Bradshaw N 15 deg. 30' 00" W
178.00 feet to an iron in a fence line, the southwest corner of
James C. Thompson; thence with Thompson N 37 deg. 30' 50"
E 260.16 feet to an iron in the southwest right-of-way line of S.R.
1117; thence S 19 deg. 52 ' 38" E 202.90 feet to the point and place
of BEGINNING , containing 1.00 acre , according to plat and survey
by Dale D. Faulkner, R.L.S. , dated November 8 , 1988, entitled
•
"Property of JAMES C. THOMPSON & BETTY A. THOMPSON, which plat is
recorded at Plat Book , Page of the Orange County
Registry.
rL
Witness my hand and seal this 14 day of - ---w,sx..., 1989.
di'-IA /, e if 4 (SEAL) 1/1" /
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY . .
1 , - 1Z 6/ - 4%;•/72 , A Notary Public , Asst. Register
pf Deeds, for said Count and State, do hereby certify that .
•, C.scl 4 V . (1,..,..! 7 6..)< ,-42personally appeared before me-
/this day a d acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument. ..
• r -M-- .
Witness my hand and official sal, this the /r-t 1 day
of ..,.. c.k.,-,-- , 1989.
. .
•
. ..ds.--9..., V / <.:-.72...Q..........-
Notary Public 1
Asst. Register of Deeds
a, --
My Commission Expires: / - 6 - /c
—,
A
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
Action Agenda
Item # '&Za
SUBJECT: LUP-2-89 ENO-2 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE
PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT - ENO TOWNSHIP
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
- 2-27-89 Public Hearing Minutes David Stancil, Extension 566
- 4-4-89 Planning Board Minutes Gene Bell, Extension 565
- Previous Agenda Materials
- Staff Analysis
- August 22, 1988 Public Hearing
Agenda Items
- 12/20/88 Board of Commissioners TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Minutes Hillsborough - 732-8181
()Refer to May 16, 1989 Commissioners Durham - 688-7331
Meeting Agenda'for attachments) Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and/or amendment to
the Zoning Atlas for Eno Township.
BACKGROUND: The area in question, in its original form, contains
six lots and a portion of another north of the
Interstate 85/U.S. 70 interchange in eastern Eno
Township near the Durham County line. The 25.44-acre
area fronts on Interstate 85, but it is accessed by
Laurel Ridge Road and Pleasant Green Road. The Eno
River is located less than 1/4-mile to the north. The
proposed amendment, if approved, would change the Land
Use Element designation on the property from Rural
Residential to 20-Year Transition.
Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted for Eno Township
on July 5, 1988 and staff-initiated rezonings to
promote consistency with the Land Use Element of the
Plan would have changed the zoning on 10 acres
of property belonging to Mr. Johnny Kennedy from GC-4,
the classification it has had since 1981, to EC-5.
The Board of Commissioners withheld a decision on the
property at its December 20, 1989 meeting following
comments by Mr. Kennedy's attorney that it was his
2
understanding that the property was in the activity
node and was correctly zoned. The Planning Staff was
directed to investigate the node status of the
property and report back to the Commissioners at their
meeting on January 3, 1989.
The Staff reported at the January 3 meeting that the
property was outside the node and was incorrectly
zoned in 1981. As a means of addressing Mr. Kennedy's
concerns about non-conforming status, zoning ordinance
text amendments broadening the scope of the EC-5
district were proposed. Mr. Kennedy was not pleased
with this suggestion and was instructed to meet with
Planning Staff to discuss alternatives.
Mr. Kennedy met with the Planning Director and Planner
III's on January 18 to discuss the case. He again
indicated his opposition to the proposed rezoning of
his property to EC-5. An amendment to the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan was identified as
an alternative which would provide consistency between
the Zoning Atlas and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Kennedy indicated his approval of this suggestion.
The proposed amendment would enlarge the existing 20-
Year Transition Area that abuts the area on the south
and which includes the other three quadrants of the
U.S. 70/1-85 interchange. Property other than that
owned by Mr. Kennedy is included in the proposal,
since it adjoins the access road which parallels U.S.
70 and I-85, is in the path of Durham's urban growth
corridor, and would result in a uniform expansion of
the Transition Area lying to the south.
Because of the origin and nature of the request, the
Planning Staff conducted two separate evaluations of
the area. The first included the entire 25.44-acre
area at the intersection of Pleasant Green Road and
U.S.70. The second analysis included only the
property of Mr. Johnny Kennedy (10.14 acres) .
This matter was presented at public hearing on
February 27, 1989. Concerns relative to the proximity
of the Eno River State Park were made by Carol
Tingley, N.C. Department of NRCD, Division of Parks
and Recreation. Comments in favor of the amendment
were made by the applicant and a nearby property
owner.
On April 4, 1989, the Planning Board considered this
item for recommendation. A motion to deny the proposed
land use plan amendment failed 5-4, and a subsequent
motion to approve the proposed amendment also failed
5-4. Therefore, this item appears before the Board of
3
Commissioners without recommendation. Some Planning
Board members expressed dissatisfaction with either
approving or denying the request.
A related proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance text
is also being considered. That amendment, if approved,
would permit mail order houses in commercial zoning
districts. The amendment would permit Mr. Kennedy to
continue his school bus parts mail order business.
If the Land Use Element amendment is denied by the
Board of Commissioners, the Board may proceed with
rezoning of the Kennedy tract from GC-4 (General
Commercial) to EC-5 (Existing Commercial) to provide
consistency between the Land Use Element and
the Zoning Ordinance.
A public hearing on the rezoning of the Kennedy tract
(as well as other parcels in Eno Township) was held on
August 22, 1988. On December 20, 1988, the Board
approved the rezoning proposals except for the Kennedy
tract. Since a public hearing has been conducted on
the proposal, action on the rezoning from GC-4 to EC-5
may be taken.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends denial of the
proposed Land Use Element amendment. The
Administration further recommends that the Kennedy
tract be rezoned from GC-4 to EC-5 as proposed at the
August 22, 1988 public hearing.
The rezoning, coupled with approval of a proposed
amendment to the permitted use table (Retail Trade) ,
would permit the applicant to continue his mail order
operation.
DK2:ENO2ABS.DOC
. .
. ' 1
. ,
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT i
. -Meeting -Date: June 5, 1989 1
1.
Action Agenda
Item 4 61-41)
SUBJECT: LUP-3-89 UNIVERSITY STATION ASSOCIATES
. •
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X_No .
ATTACHMENT(S) : . INFORMATION CONTACT:
- 2-27-89 Public Hearing Minutes Planning Director - Ext. 346
- Minutes of 4-4-89 Planning Board
- Application Materials
' - Staff Analysis • .
(Refer to May 3.6, 1989 Commissioners ,
-Meeting Agenda for attachments) TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
. . . Hillsborough - 732-8181
. - • Durham . - 688-7331
• • . Mebane - 227-2031 . • .
• - . . - Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation •
. ' on a proposed amendment to the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan submitted- by -
University Station Associates. This item has been
. .
continued from the Board's May 16 meeting.
. BACKGROUND: • The property requested for amendment by University .
Station Associates is located south of the Southern
. . Railroad on both sides of Old N.C. 10 (SR 1710) . The
site is further referenced as lot 20 of Orange County
* .
Tax Map 27, Eno Township; lots 20A, 47 and 48 of
. , Orange County Tax Map 26, Eno Township; and lot 13 of
• Orange County Tax Map 3, Chapel Hill Township. The •
• property contains 575 acres of land and is located .
• primarily in Eno Township - although the southernmost
boundary crosses into Chapel Hill Township. The
. • ---%
property fronts on New Hope Church Road for a distance
.. of 2900 feet and Old N.C. 10 for 4920 feet.
. The area is currently zoned R-1 Residential and is -
• • . shown as Rural Residential-Agricultural Use and
Resource Conservation on the Land Use Element of the -
.
- Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment to the plan
would reclassify this site to the Ten-Year Transition
plan category. This amendment would apply to both the
Eno Township and Chapel Hill Township components. of
the Plan. The purpose of this request is to allow the
• applicant to make application for approval of a *
planned residential community.
.
• Additional information is provided in the attached
staff analysis. A less comprehensive version of this
. amendment was submitted in August of 1988 and later
_.._ _.... .
•
2
withdrawn.
•
This matter was presented at public hearing on
February 27, 1969. Eleven citizens spoke in reference 1
to the proposed amendment. Three spoke in favor of the . R
amendment; five were opposed; and the remaining three
expressed serious concerns, but no outright
opposition. The attached minutes indicate specific
citizen concerns.
On April 4, 1989, the Planning Board considered the
proposed plan amendment, and recommended approval of
the request by a 6-3 vote. Draft minutes of this
meeting are also attached.
RECOA DATXOD: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed
amendment per the Planning Board recommendation.
•
•
•
L - 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
Action Agenda
Item # L4--2�C•
SUBJECT: LUP-4-89 ENVIROTEK, INC.
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No
ATTAC (S) :- INFORMATION CONTACT:
(Refer to April 6, 1989 JPA Public Marvin Collins, Extension 346
Hearing Agenda for Application Gene Bell, Extension 565
and Staff Report) David Stencil, Extension 566
- Recommendations of Governing TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
and Advisory Boards Hillsborough - 732-8181
- JPA Public Hearing Minutes of Durham - 688-7331
4/6/89 Mebane - 227-2031
- Draft minutes of 5/15/89 Chapel Hill - 967-9251
Planning Board meeting
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation
on a proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Area,
Land Use Plan for Orange County, Chapel Hill and
Carrboro. This proposal received public input at the
April 6, 1989 Joint Planning Area, Public Hearing.
BACKGROUND: This proposed amendment is submitted by
Envirotek, Inc. of Raleigh, N.C. The proposal requests
land use classification changes for 18 parcels of land
in Chapel Hill Township. The land in question is
located on the western half of the Interstate 40
interchange with New Hope Church Road. The property
contains a total of 424 acres, and is bounded on the
west by New Hope Creek.
Currently, all property in this proposed amendment
area is designated Rural Buffer on the Joint Orange
County/Chapel Hill/Carrboro Land Use Plan, and is
accordingly zoned Rural Buffer.
The applicant is requesting that 159 acres, located
near the I-40 interchange and south of New Hope Church
Road, be redesignated Commercial Transition Activity
Node. This change in designation would permit zoning
that could introduce commercial and related non-
residential land uses into this area. The node
classification is also designed primarily for areas
utilizing water and sewer service.
Applicant further requests that 265 acres to the north
of this proposed node be redesignated Agricultural
Residential. This change in designation would permit
a higher density of residential development, as well
2
as assorted non-residential land uses that can occur
in rural, agricultural areas.
Staff analysis of the proposed amendment is attached.
This analysis was prepared by the planning staffs of
Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
At the April 6 JPA public hearing, four persons,
including three property owners of land in the subject
request, spoke in favor of the amendment.
Approximately 20 persons rose in opposition to the
proposal.
Since the time of the public hearing, both the
planning boards and the governing bodies of the Towns
of Chapel Hill and Carrboro have considered this
proposal.
The Planning Boards of the Towns of Chapel Hill and
Carrboro have recommended denial of the proposed
amendment.
The Chapel Hill Town Council has voted to deny this
proposed amendment by unanimous vote, as have the
Carrboro Board of Aldermen, again by unanimous vote.
On May 15, 1989, the Orange County Planning Board
considered this proposed amendment, and returned a
unanimous recommendation for denial of the request.
Draft minutes of this meeting are attached.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends denial of the proposed
amendment as per the Planning Board recommendation.
3
JOINT PLANNING ITEMS FROM APRIL 6 - STATUS REPORT
EW'VIROTER
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Denial
Chapel Hill Town Council Deny
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Denial
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Deny
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Denial
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
CAZWELL INC.
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Approval
Chapel Hill Town Council Approve
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Denial
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Approve
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
CARRBORO 400-FOOT BUFFER
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Denial
Chapel Hill Town Council Approve
Carrboro Planning Board. . . Recommend Approval
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Approve
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval (8-1)
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
ZONING
CARRBORO 400-FOOT BUFFER
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval (8-1)
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Approval
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Approve
GREEN TRACT
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Approval
Chapel Hill Town Council Approve
ds/51989 jpastat.doc
4
AGENDA #8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council •
FROM: David R. Taylor, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Follow-up to April 6, 1989 Joint Public Hearing
DATE: . April 24, 1989
On April 6, the elected boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and
Carrboro met in a Joint Public Hearing to consider requests
related to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Tonight the
Council is asked to take its . final action on the requests.
Adoption of the attached resolutions would approve or deny
requests for changes to the Land Use Plan, and will be forwarded
to Orange County for final action.
Background
The items heard at the Public Hearing were:
1)' ` Envirotek;: Inc. ' request for change to Land Use Plan.
2) Cazwell, Inc. request for change to Land Use Plan.
3) - Carrboro request for change to Land Use Plan.
4) Carrboro request for-change to Zoning Atlas.
5) Chapel Hill recommendation for zoning of Greene Tract.
• Now, subsequent to the Joint Public Hearing, the Council needs to
approve or deny the first three items, which are requests for
changes to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, and forward
these actions to Orange County. . (Changes to the Land Use Plan
can only be made if Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro all
agree) . The fourth item, a. zoning request, does not come before
the Chapel Hill lTown Council l because t is a
i i on the Carrboro
side
- of the Joint Plannin g Area.
The fifth item, recommended zoning
of- the Greene tract, was taken up_by. the Council previously; the
Council's •recommendation to zone that property. Rural Transition
was presented at the April 6, 1989 Joint Public Hearing. •
copies of Staff Reports presented at the Hearing are attached,
along with correspondence that was made a part of the record of
the hearing. .
Discussion
1) Envirotek: At the hearing on April 6, the Planning
Staffs of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County recommended
denial of this request. Reasons for the recommendation included
the fact that the requested change was of a scale that would
serve to damage the Rural Buffer Concept, and therefore be in
" conflict with adopted plans and policies. The Planning Staffs
suggested that there was no justification for the requested
change. .
Comments at the hearing focused on what use might be made of this
property (approximately 424 acres) if the land use plan were
changed as requested and the property were to be . rezoned.
Concerns about traffic, environmental degradation, and noise were
expressed. The applicant stated that low-density residential use
was not suitable for this property, and that the change should be
approved. •
Planning Board's Recommendation: At its meeting of . April 18,
1989, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend that Town Council
deny the request.
Manager's Recommendation: We recommend that the Council' adopt
Resolution 3B, denying the requested change to the Joint Planning
Area Land Use Plan. (Same as staff recommendation presented at
April 6, 1989 hearing) . '-.-
Adoption` of the alternative,- Resolution - 3A,-• would. approve the
request. .
2) Caz well: At the hearing, the three Planning Departments
recommended approval of request. Reasons included the fact that
this 1.5 acre parcel is a fraction of a 25 acre parcel, most of
which is located in Durham County; -• the 1.5 acre parcel is on the
outer edge of the Rural Buffer, adjacent to the Durham Urban
Growth Area; the larger parcel has been approved for a subdivi-
sion by Durham City and County, with sewer to be provided by
Durham; and the fact that most of the 1.5 .acres, if this request
is approved and zoning adjusted accordingly, will be used as back
yards for lots that are mostly in Durham County.
Comments at the hearing-- focused on . the, question of whether
' granting this request would damage the concept. or integrity of .
the Rural Buffer. - _ •
' Planning Board's Recommendation: -. Adoption of the - alternative,
Resolution 4B, would deny the request. • At. its meeting of April
18, 1989, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend that the Town
Council approve the request.
Manager's Recommendation: We recommend- that the Council adopt
Resolution 4A, approving this request. We believe the circum-
stances of this .case are such that approval of the request is
reasonable, and can be accomplished without damage to the concept
III
3
6
or integrity of the Rural Buffer. (Same as staff recommendation
presented at April 6, 1989 hearing) .
3) Carrboro Realest: Carrboro requests Services Area boundary, quests an adjustment of the
arisen with the boundary bisecting to eliminate a properties. that has
resulted in properties being hal in the Rural Buffer, half has Transition Area, with jurisdiction for development regulation
split between Carrboro and Orange County.
Departments recommended approving this adjstment. three Planning
Plannin Board's Recommendation:
1989, the Planning Board voted 4-3 t its meeting of April 18,
.,. McLendon dissenting) to recommend denial of Raney,here Guild, Ms.
Resolution 5B) . The prima quest (see •
Carrboro Transition Area. I justification another 35a acres would be an
unwarranted intrusion into the Rural Buffer.
Manager's Recommendation: We recommend that the Council adopt 5A, approving this re believe reasons
stated by the Town of Carrboro are t reasona ndh that Sthe
adjustment would not damage the concept or integrity of the Rural
Buffer.
Adoption of the alternative, Resolution 58, would deny the
request.
Summa of Recommendations
We recommend that the Council adopt Resolutions 3B, 4A and 5A.
3B would deny the Envirotek request.
4A would approve the Cazwell request.
5A would approve the Carrboro request.
•
: r 7
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPLICATION OF LUP-4-89, AN AMENDMENT TO
THE JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN (ENVIROTEK, INC. )
(89-4-24/R-3b)
•
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered
the. application of Envirotek, Incorporated, to amend the Joint
Planning Area Land Use Plan by creating a Commercial Activity
Transition Node on 159 acres near the I-40 interchange and south
of New Hope Church Road and redesignating another 265 acres north
of the proposed node from Rural Buffer to Agricultural Residen-
tial, and
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has determined
that the proposed amendment cannot be justified as " due to
changing conditions in a particular area of the County," does not
correct an •error or omission in the Joint Planning Area Land Use
Plan, and is incompatible with the operating principles of the
Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it
denies Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan LUP-4-89 - Envirotek,
Incorporated.
This the 24th day of April, 1989.
I -
- -
APR 26 359
. 6,, , ;
..-
....4 .
-
:: ::: --' a.-- r-r- ID-o----r-o------- ---- -- - - - - - -- -
_.:
-7:- -.
0 0 Box 337
30,Wes,Main Street
Lord:icor, Non? Cerounir 27510
ME. Eil1F- 707. 11••(442-0541
. .
April 26, 1989
Mr. John Link .
Oranae County Manager
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
Dear John:
• -
The Carrboro Board of Aldermen at its meeting held on April
25, 1989, adopted the following documents:
(1) A resolution opposing the Joint Planning Land Use Plan
Map amendment to change the designation of 424 acres of
land on the western side of the intersection of New
Hope Church Road and Interstate 40 from Rural Buffer to
• Commercial Transition Activity Node and Agricultural
Residential (LUP-4-89) ;
(2) A resolution supporting the Joint Planning Land Use
Plan Map amendment to change the designation on 1.45
acres of land on the east side of Kerley Road at the
border of Orange and Durham Counties from Rural Buffer
to Ten Year Transition (LUP-5-89) ;
• (3) A resolution .supporting the Joint Planning Land Use
Plan Map amendment to change the designation of the
400-foot strip of Rural Buffer located between
Carrboro ' s Transition Area II and Duke Forest to.
• Transition Area II (LUP-6-89) ; and
(4) An ordinance amending the Joint Planning' Transition
• Area zoning of the 400-foot strip of new Transition
Area II created by LUP-6-89 from Oranae County Rural
Buffer to Carrboro It-R. .
I would like to request that you pass the Board's action
along to the County Commissioners for consideration. . •
, -
9
Page Two
Mr. Link
April 26, 1989
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Homan
Town Manager
RWM/scw
Enclosures
cc: David Taylor . •
•
•
• •
•
•
1
1
1.•
P.O Box 337
ar r b o ro C. rrooro.Nor;Caroline Street
rP19196F-7711S r41P.542.1541
,Nt . _ __. '
The following resolution was introduced by Alderman Tom Gurganus
and duly seconded by Alderman Jay Bryan.
A RESOLUTION OPPOSING LUP-4-89
A JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION ON 424 ACRES OF LAND
' ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION OF
NEW HOPE CHURCH ROAD AND INTERSTATE 40
FROM RURAL BUFFER TO COMMERCIAL TRANSITION ACTIVITY•
NODE (159) ACRES AND AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL (265 ACRES)
Resolution No. 46/88-89
WHEREAS, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County adopted
Joint Planning Agreement and Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Map
on November 2, 1987; and
• WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Agreement calls for a public
hearing to be held jointly by all parties to the Agreement and
for all parties to then concur on any changes to be made to the
Joint Planning Land Use Plan or Map; and
WHEREAS, the three parties held a Joint Planning Public
Hearing on April 6, 1989 to hear several proposed amendment to
the Joint Planning Land Use Map; and
WHEREAS, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen opposes the proposed
change LUP-4-89, made by Envirotek, Inc. ;
•
NOW, THEREFORE , THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE TOWN OF
CARRBORO RESOLVES:
Section 1. The Board of Aldermen denies the proposed Joint
Planning Use. Plan Map amendment (number LUP-4-89) , to chance the
designation' of approximately 424 acres of land on the western
side of the New Hope Church Road and Interstate 40 intersection
from Rural Buffer to Commercial Transition Activity Node (159
acres) and Agricultural Residential (265 acres) .
Section 2. This resolution shall become effective upon
adoption.
Ijl The foregoing resolution having been submitted to a vote ,
received the following vote and was duly adopted this 25th day of
April, 1989:
• Ayes: Randy Marshall, Tom Gurganus, Hilliard Caldwell, Eleanor
Kinnaird, Judith Wagner, Frances Sbetly, Jay Bryan
Noes: None
Absent or Excused: None
•
I, Sarah C. Williamson, Town Clerk of the Town of Carrboro, do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a
resolution adopted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen at it
meeting held on April 25, 1989.
' •
(/:/'
Town Clerk
•
•
•
•
•
•
CARRBORO PLANNING BOARD
RECOMMENDATION
MARGi 30, 1989
Envirotek Request to Amend the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan by removing
the Rural Buffer designation from approximately 425 acres of land on the western •
side of the 1-40/New Hope Church Road Intersection,and that the area be
redesignated Agricultural Residential and Commercial Transition Activity.
Jim Manor moved to recommend that this request to amend the Joint Planning
Area Land Use Plan be denied..
seconded by: Susan Rodemeier
vote: 5-0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Algausseawas
., 1 13
MANY CITIZENS SPOKE FROM THE AUDIENCE. UNFORTUNATELY, THEIR
COMMENTS WERE UNINTELLIGIBLE. WE HAVE INCLUDED THOSE
COMMENTS WHEN WE COULD HEAR ENOUGH TO MAKE SENSE OF THEIR
STATEMENT, OTHERWISE, WE HAVE INDICATED THAT SOMEONE SPORE.
APRIL 6, 1989 —
VERBATIM MINUTES OF CITIZEN'S COMMENTS
Dl. A. LUP-4--89 ENVIROTEI{, INC.
Mr. Carey: At this point, I would like to open the floor for
public comment. we have a list of people who have signed up
and would like to call them in the order in which they occur
and we'll give you an opportunity to comment and raise any
questions. The first person is Mr. Michael Majeski and the
second person will be Mr. Todd Zapoiski.
Micheal Majeski: Good evening, My name is Michael Majeski
and I'm with Envirotek of Raleigh, ' North Carolina.
Envirotek, I. would like to clarify something that has been in
the papers recently. Envirotek is a firm of architects and
engineers that have been acting as agents for the individual
property owners of the land use change request. We are not
developers. I would like to begin my presentation by calling
to your attention a further look at the sites that we are
talking about. The site is critically located between Chapel
Hill and Hillsborough, approximately half-way. i just wanted
• to point that out at this time. This map is a larger edition
of the map you see to your right that essentially shows
existing conditions and what we're trying to illustrate here
is that the site itself is predominantly Rural Residential or
Agricultural in its existing state of being predominantly
undeveloped.ed
p One of the h things that we wou
from • ld like to clarify
o
ur application and that is that in review of the
application, and in review of the staff's review of the
application, we would like to say that we believe we have
made an error, or an omission, in our application, and that,
our application was originally based on changing conditions
only. We believe that there has been an error in policy that
caused the plan to come into existence in the first place,
-• - • and these are the reasons why. We would like to point out
that the present plan violates fundamental principles of
planning by not providing for a variety of residential •
services available to. the residential areas that are
developing i
p g n the area. The plan does not allow for orderly
provision of services to support desired residential usage of
• the area. By this we mean, there are a number of residences
in the area that are being built, the further away from 1-40
you get the more desirable the residential the land becomes -
and there are really no services out there to support the
residences. We also would like to point out that the present
•
2 14
=.z . .— __ -- — ---.- - - -�., - -�- •-- _ -----•-- — --- ---------------{-DRAFT � - - ..
plan failed to recognize the negative impact of the
interstate highway on the adjacent properties and allow for
reasonable acceptable usage of these negatively impacted
properties. By this we mean, the land immediately adjacent
to the interstate which is this land in question is not
necessarily useful for residential purposes. We would also
like to point out an additional reason for the change in the
Comprehensive Plan. 1.40 will allow for commercial center to
exist at the interchange and traffic that would serve the
center would not necessarily have to pass through any
residentially developed areas. What we feel we are proposing
here is an innovative way to establish a buffer between 1-40
and the surrounding community. Giving not only those buffers
required, but additional buffers. I would also like to point
out that this is not .a zoning case but it has some
similarity. The issue of utilities which Marvin pointed out
earlier could be a determining factor in the densities that
could occur, and of course, that could be addressing the
zoning. That concludes my presentation at this time and I
would like to introduce Todd Zapolski.
Todd Zapolski: I'm Todd Zapolski and I'm a developer I am
here as a developer looking at a piece of land wherever it
might be, I'm not commenting on the merits of the proposal.
I've been asked to simply look at the Teer property in its
context as a developable piece of property. We're not
developers here either. I have been asked to look at it for
development potential for a site. We looked at it strictly
as a developer. Given its location, obviously, from a
developer's point of view it has a lot of merit for certain
uses. It is not a practical development for residential
property because of the highway and the site conditions of
very poor soil. The topography and the access that make it
very difficult to be used for residential property. Again,
all I would aske of you is look at this land as if it were
anywhere in the country not just Orange County.
Mr. Carey: Thank you. If someone has some questions they
can address them to you either now or when they have the
opportunity to speak. Yes, please state your name.
Reggie Ball: I just would like for you to repeat the last
- sentence, I'm afraid-I didn't quite get that. Did you say it
was or was not and in your opinion, regardless of where it
is, a developable piece of land under current zoning?
-- ---• Mr. Zapolski: Next to the highway, in its current use, it is
definitely not developable.
Mr. Rail: In other words in order for it to be a
developable site, in your opinion, the zoning would have to
be changed?
Mr. Zapolski: That is correct.
•
3
__z...- - ._..__.__DFiA 'T-- 15•--
,
Mr. Carey: You can also at this time address questions to
Mr. Collins, our planning director if you have any questions
for Mr. Collins. Yes, please state your name.
Mr. Zapolski: The only parcel of property that I was asked
to look at was the property owned by Nello Teer.
Unidentified Citizen: Mr. Collins you stated that the green
area could be used for a quarry, is that correct.
Marvin Collins: If the Land Use Plan designation was changed
to agricultural residential, they could apply for one of two
options, they could apply for a straight agricultural
residential zoning then they would have to apply for a
special use permit for a quarry or the other option is they
could come in as a plan development, which would address
zoning to AR and the special use permit for the quarry in one
process.
Mr. Carey: Another question in the back, please state your
name.
Unidentified Citizen: Would you just briefly explain why we
would not be recommended in its present state for zoning but
with a passage of the amendment to the Land Use Plan somehow
it would be. I'm a little confused, I just wanted your
reasoning for why you think it can't be used not but can be
it if is rezoning. What's the difference in a house on two
acres or a 7 11 store?
Mr. Zapolski: I am looking at current zoning. Given the
topography of that land out there. Almost all the land sits
below the highway. A home at the price it would have to be
built at on that location is not feasible.
Mr. Carey: The next person on the list is Mr. Wayne• Phears
and after Mr. Phears is Mr. Jack Tapp.
Wayne Phears: I represent the Nello Teer Company and I'm
hear to speak -principally to the AR designated portion of the
property. As Michael Majeski explained a little earlier,
Envirotek has been the coordinator for a group of people who
are separate property owners out there, but who have filed a
plan to make the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan because
of the application made to the Comprehensive Plan. But we,
in turn, each have our own separate speakers and we each have
our own interest in this matter ourselves. Envirotek is not
the developer, they are the coordinator. There is no overall
developer at this time, because there is no re-zoning
application at this time. In view of the fact that we have
all the planning jurisdictions here, I have, to give a brief
recital of the history of this property from Teer's stand
4
16---
point, I know it's well known in Orange County, but it's not
well known among all the other jurisdictions. Mello Teer has
owned this property since 1984 purchased the property for
$440,000.00 roughly give or take $5 or $10. At the time we
purchased the property it was to operate a crushed stone
quarry on the property. Mining was a permitted use on the
property at this time, with a Special Use permit. This of
course is all pre-rural buffer. Nello Teer went out and
spent a lot of money and a lot of time drilling on the
property, doing other exploratory research, and getting to
the point where we could file an application with the Orange
County Government for a special use permit. Unknown to Nello
Teer, however, when it became known that it was seeking to
mine on the property a moratorium on mining permits was
passed in February of 1985. Hello Teer didn't know about the
moratorium and we were going along developing our mining
permit. During February and March, Mello Teer spoke with the
Orange County Planning Department to develop its mining
permit and never heard about the moratoria. In the latter
part of March, 1985, we called to set up an appointment with
the Planning Department to go over our Special Use
application and hopefully to submit our Special Use
application for consideration. We were told we couldn't get
an appointment in the latter part of March but we could have
one April 2. April 1 was a meeting of the Orange County
Board of Commissioners. At the meeting of the Board of
Commissioners on April 1, mining as a permitted use on the
Mello Teer property was deleted. The next day when we came
in to meet with the Planning Department, we were met with the
news that we could not mine on the property because the night
before mining had been deleted as a permitted use. We were
also told that the Joint Planning process was underway and
that the site had been designated as a Rural Industrial -
activity note. Any of you who follow the planning process
know that eventually a Comprehensive Plan was produced that
showed this area as a Rural Industrial activity note. A lot
of people apparently opposed it. I suspect some people in
this room here opposed that Rural Industrial activity note.
It was deleted from the plan then and the property which had
been classified, I might note, by the professional planning
staffs, who had recommended Rural Industrial activity node,
became not Rural Industrial activity note but rural buffer.
It went from one of the more permissive categories in. the
plan to the most restricted category in the plan. We are not
here without some history behind us, and I would hope that
each of you who opposes our effort in this area at least
recognizes that if you had the investment in this property
that we have, if you had the history on this property that we
have, your views might be tempered somewhat about that. What
we have done as part of the larger group of landowners here
is to try to develop what we thought was an innovative way to
cure that problem we're faced with. Any of you who read the
newspaper know that we have been in litigation with Orange
County over this particular matter and we are still in
• 5
litigation with Orange County over this particular matter.
It has been our hope that some more innovative solution to
some of these issues where we feel that we have been treated
unfairly, could be developed in this process. With that in
mind we made this application, and. of course, we made the
application without prejudice to the things we were then
engaged in with Orange County. But we are here,
fundamentally, because the plan that was adopted in 1987
finally, does not permit a reasonable use of our property.
We, as Mr. Zapoiski has told you, cannot reasonably in a
constitutional sense use our property for anything. I
sympathize with folks, I think there were chuckles when the
suggestion that there were some buffering that could be done
_between the interstate, some folks chuckled about that and I
think the chuckles are a part of the fact that it is nice to
have that buffer there now, it's nice to have that green belt
. through there that other people own that protects you if you
live further away from the interstate. The problem is there
are people who own that greenbelt, including my client, and
who think that they ought.. to have some reasonable use of
their property and that's what we're trying to do here. The
purpose, the reason we're here is to talk about a
Comprehensive Plan change, but I don't want to hide the ball
on anybody. We want to put a crush stone quarry on that
property, that's why we want it rezoned AR, that's .what we've
been after since 1983, when we first prospected on this
property. The reason we want to be there is that there are
roughly, in excess of 40 million tons of aggregate reserves
on that property. That's a substantial amount of money.
Those are valuable, natural resources-natural resources, by
the way, that each of you use everyday, they're like gold and
diamonds to us, they may look like a little prop to you but
they are our gold and our diamonds and the reason we're here
is that we desire to mine those valuable natural resources
and we can't under the current classification.
Mr. Carey: Mr. Phears, I would like to ask that you, this
public hearing is not on the specific use that you plan to
make of that property if the land use is changed, and I would
like to ask you to limit your discussions and your comments
to the applicability of land use change in that particular
location. I may have omitted saying .earlier that we would
like each person who speaks tonight to try to limit your
presentation to 3 minutes, because we want to give everyone a
. chance to speak who wishes to speak tonight, however, we will
not shut you off to 3 minutes. We do want to hear everything
you have .to say but we would like to ask you to make your
- comments specific to the issue before this public hearing
tonight.
Mr. Phears: Well, I had anticipated, frankly, that some of
the audience would raise the possibility of the quarry would
be permitted, in fact, I think it is already been raised here
so I assume that we're going to eliminate all the discussion
•
6 18
of the possibility of a quarry on this property.
Mr. Carey: We would like to very much because that's not a
specific issue of the public hearing here tonight.
Mr. Phears: O.K. Thank you very much and I will skip that,
I do want to emphasize as I know the County Attorney is here
that there are things I have to do in terms of making the
public record, I'm sure you're probably aware of that and to
that extent I did want to make my request quite clear. Let
me fast forward though and skip- over the detail of that
having made it, I think, clear in terms of why we are here.
There is no reasonable use for the use of the property from
the Teers standpoint. We have looked at the permitted uses
in Rural Buffer. You can look at them yourself, the
principle permitted use would be residential in the area.
The fact of the matter is that if you go out there and take
noise readings you'll get levels in excess of 80 decimals
along there. If you look at the Federal Highways
Administration Environmental Impacts Study for I-40, which I
think most of you in this room would say understated to
environmental impact it will tell you that the noise
footprint, the 70 decimal noise footprint is 500 feet wide
out there on each side of the right-of-way. That knocks out
a substantial portion of our property. What that EIS will
also tell you is that that under federal highway guidelines,
not our guidelines, but federal highway administration
guidelines, that's an intolerable level of noise for
residential development. Now I don't think I have to tell
you that if the federal agency says it's intolerable, chances
are you and I are going to find it intolerable.
Additionally, of course, in addition to the noise we have
difficult topographically features, we have very wet areas in
there, we have difficult soil to work with, we have no water
and sewer, in fact a very conscious policy not to adopt water
and sewer, we have the other environmental impacts of I-40 to
deal with not just the noise, visual impact, the general
indesirability of it, the concern that everybody has as to
what will happen in that corridor ultimately, so the
question, particularly when you take it into account the
building cost, reduces itself to a question of who would
spend, what will be 2 to 3 hundred thousand dollars to build
out there because of the development cost and the type of
house that has to be put with it so that they can live next
to an interstate, have no local services, have an intolerable
level of noise, have no water and sewer, drive 5 miles to get
a loaf of bread, and it may be a large group of folks out
there, we don't think so. We haven't seen any yet. I think
there's at least one.
That is the reason that we're here for
the record, we do believe that the original classification
was an error, we do believe that the policy underlying the
classification ought to be changed, and that the conditions
are such in the area that the Comprehensive Plan had to be
changed. Finally, I'm
7
-_ -- -- . — _.-� -_--_.-,- •-- --._ �,_ — ---- - .. : - -- DRAFT
lc
changed. Finally, I'm through, I know Orange County fought
1-40 through that corridor for a long time. It fought it
because it was of the belief that 1-40 would have adverse
environmental impacts. When it became pointless to fight
sacrificed were the people, right along the corridor who got
their property put in the Rural Buffer to be the buffer for
their property put in the Rural buffer to be the buffer for
everyone else. I think I have got to take questions now.
Mr. Carey - Are there any questions for Mr. Fears?
Mr. Carey: Are there any questions for Mr. Phears?
Unidentified Citizen: Mr. Phears you initially purchased
this property in 1987, however, am I correct that in the last
60 to 90 days you purchased the Blackwood property.
Mr. Phears: That's correct. The Blackwood property was
purchased for the purposed of additional buffer for this plan
precisely, and some of it is to be used, in fact I think the
majority, is to be used for a land application system because
of the absence of water and sewer.
Unidentified Citizen: This looks inconsistent to me.
Mr. Phears: I guess we were optimistic that if we put a
good plan together and we needed the Blackwood property for
land application system, we had to have it. Mr. Blackwood
system, so we bought the property.
Mr. Carey: We have another question, state your name please.
•
Unidentified Citzen: Comment was unintelligible.
Mr. Phears: That's a goad questions because the fact of the
matter is the noise limits that would be applicable to a
- quarry there are lower than what is there right now. If we
get a permit. There is a Special Use permitting process that
#1 requires the buffer two and a half times as big as the
requires the buffer be 2 1/2 times as big as the buffer the
interstate gives us, and. . . . I get to answer this, you asked
-• -• it.
Unidentified Citizen: Comment was unintelligible.
Mr. Phears: That's correct. The level of noise I presume we
measure at your property line and
the larger the buf
fer the
- lower the noise, I'm sure you have some familiarity with
noise as a declining function of distance. . I think it's a
square root. .
Mr. Phears: Let me just say this, the noise. . . .
Mr. Carey: Sir, Sir let me. . .would you please give Mr.
88
z.- ''_ _ • sir--1---- .=.r.:_ -_ _ ._— r_-- ,-•-.._ ._.-....___.- s--=--'s-_._i _.� -" D.LYJi i ', - ZQ
Phears a chance to answer the question before you make a
follow-up. Since Mr. Phears is representing one of the
proponents, we will give him a chance to answer the question
but after Mr. Phears we will ask you to direct your
questions, if anyone has any, only to the proponents.
Unidentified Citizen: Unintelligible comment.
Mr. Phears: Those type of things need to be addressed in the
context of a Special Use application, all of those things
were extensively regulated and they do need to be addressed
in that context.
Mr. Carey: We have another question, Is this a question for
one of his proponents of the staff? O.K. go ahead.
My name is . . . . . Scarlett,, I own property that Mr. . . . .is
Darrell Scarlett: I own property that is North of the
property they are talking about. (The rest of the comment
was unintelligible) .
Spence Dickerson: Do you know how much of the land is
perkable and have you had any soil analysis done on it?
Mr. Phears: Orange County and Nello Teer have been engaged
in an extensive analysis of the perkability of the land, but
it's a lot more complicated than just perkability. In
addition to perkability for septic tanks, you have slope
issues because slopes beyond certain gradation cannot have
septic tanks in them, you have drainage ways, if you have an
area that is consistently wet for example, which there are a
lot of those in there, the Health Department, as I understand
it, does not approve septic tanks in it, and then you have
the soil issues on top of that, then I might also tell you,
this will be a preview far Geoff Gledhill and his folks, that
you would find, if you went out there, that a very high
percentage of the lots that perk are the very lots which
border the interstate, which is unfortunate part, as you get
further away from the interstate on this property, you have
poor soils so that the more desirable residential locations
unfortunately have poor soils.
Spence Dickinson: I. would like to make the comment that I am
developing the use of property that is half that size with
. just the same kinds of problems. Only about a third of it
perks and its on Blackwood mountain so I am dealing with the
same kinds of slopes. I am about the same distance from the
interstate and that is a valuable piece of property. So I
don't believe that what you are saying is true that there is
no use for that property other than a quarry.
Mr. Carey: I would like to move onto the next speaker, Mr.
Jack Tapp.
9 __ _
_---,��.-_ _--- .- _- -• -�--p�_:_ i 1
Jack Tapp: I'm Jack Tapp and I'm representing myself and my
family. I live out there on 1-40 and the main reason I
wanted to speak tonight is just to let you know that since
1-40 has come through our community, there has already been a
big change. We were a quiet area, farmed, it was originally
a dairy farm in the area, we owned everything that was south,
- everything except for a small piece of Blackwood property,
south of New Hope Church Road, that runs all the way to
Blackwood station on both sides of 1-40. Since then it has
been cut in half, you've got to drive 3 and a half miles to
get around to the other side, it's like the Chinese Wall. If
you want to talk about sound, I live right there on the
interchange, a lot of you probably have seen my car. and all
parked there. I'm with the Sheriff's Department. I have all
kinds of problems day and night, not only do I have the noise
of the interstate but trucks rolling when they start about
4:00 in the morning. Also all the motorists that break down,
people that are lost, you name it, come to my door, day and
night. So if you think you have a problem with a little bit
. of noise, if you're over on the Hideaway Side or on further
down this way, you ought to come change places with me, but
as I said, the change has already occurred in our community
out there. The best use, and it has also been highlighted b
our Rural Character Study which the County Commissioners have
ongoing at this time, I think the man that is doing the study
has already presented this, that the best use of the land at
this time in these areas is to plan it well, plan it in
advance, to where you get something that is an asset to a
community, if it's only usable for urban type area or a
commercial node so be it. But as far as the way it is zoned
at this time, one dwelling for 2 acres, I don't think it has
any value with the way it is zoned at this time. Also part
of this property won't perk either for dwellings. We run
into the same problems that the Teer property has, the
desirable property that would perk and the desirable home
sites are right on the shoulder of the 60 and 70 foot cuts on
the side of I-40. Also I know that we have some neighbors
that probably wonder why in the world we went with Nello
Teer, we don't look at them as enemies and I've been accused
of siding with Envirotek and all this, but the thing is we're
trying to look a little bit further down the road. I know at
this time I don't want to stay there, this is my home and it
has been my family's home since the King of England gave the
' we've a
grant to the family back in the ].600 s, so we ve been around
9r' Y
long time and now we are being moved because of the
atmosphere that is in the area brought on by 1-40. I would
- - like for you to take that into consideration for those of us
- - who are landowners in this area for consideration. Thank
you.
Mr. Carey - The next person is Mr. Clint Burklin, followed by
Mr. Carey: The next person is Mr. Clint Burklin, followed
by Elizabeth Prioli.
10
-
Clint Burklin: I'm representing the Stonycreek Neighborhood
Association. I want to address this to the Commissioners,
Councilmen, and Planners. The Stoneycreek Neighborhood
Association called a meeting about 3 weeks ago to discuss the
proposed Land Use Plan changes and has asked me to present
the following unanimous concerns. First of all, we're
surprised that you're even having this Public Hearing to
consider these changes to the Land Use Plan . You and the
community work together for almost 3 years to craft a Land
Use Plan that guarantees the organized and logical
development of southern Orange County. We expected this plan
to be a zoning guideline for at least 5 or 10 years. Now in
less time than it took to craft the original plan changes are
being considered. If the plan is going to be changed so
quickly for small pocket interest, then it ceases to be a
Land .Use Plan and simply becomes an extensive of zoning
process. We also want to address the specific land use
changes proposed for the Rural Buffer at the 1-40 - New Hope
Church Road interchange. We know you worked hard to
establish the Rural Buffer, in fact, the Rural Buffer is, in
our opinion, a bold and brilliant component of joint Land Use
Plan. You've even hired consultants this year to find ways
to strengthen and enhance the Rural Buffer and the rural
character of the community. Any changes proposed for the
Rural Buffer should be designed to strengthen and enhance it.
However, the changes that have been proposed tonight, do not
strengthen the Rural Buffer, they punch a hole in the middle
of it, right at one of its most vulnerable spots. If
approved, we are afraid these changes would be the initial
leak that would destroy the dike. If you must consider
threatening the fabric of the Rural Buffer, it should be for
the sake of an urgent requirement that benefits a significant
portion of the County and it can be located nowhere else.
However, the changes have been presented tonight fall way
short of being urgent or-of benefiting a significant portion
of the County are being unlocatable elsewhere. We the member
of Stoneycreek Neighborhood Association urge you to consider
two points. Only change the Land Use Plan on a five to ten
year cycle. With any more frequency cycle it ceases to be a
plan. We urge you not to punch a hole in the Rural Buffer
that you've worked so hard to establish for the sake of
trivial uses easily located outside of the Rural Buffer. I
have a series of letters that go with this that have been
submitted by tembers of our neighborhood, for the record. I
also would like to say that I live in adjacent to that
intersection and I do not feel deprived of commercial
conveniences, in fact, if you have to drive 5 miles for a
loaf of bread you have passed up a bunch of good stores like
the Blackwood Station.
Mr. Carey: I might add here that we have received through
the mail a number of other letters that, on several of these
items that are going to be considered tonight, we will
include those in the record at the end of this meeting and we
will also include those that you give to us tonight, Ms.
Prioli, the next person is Mr. James Shrinburg.
Ms. Prioli: I would like to speak on behalf of my family and
one of two other residents of Stoneycreek. I also am a
member of the Neighborhood Association of Stoneycreek. I
have a letter I would just like to read into the records. "
To the Orange County Commissioners, we support the present
Land Use Plan which governs the note of the intersection of
New Hope Church Road and 1-40. This node is zoned
Agricultural, we do not support changing the Rural Buffer in
any way with any commercial, or industrial type businesses.
We do not want the zoning at this node changed or even partly
changed. We live in north Orange County because we like the
agricultural atmosphere and scenery and we want to remain
that way". Thank you and I will put this into the records.
Mr. Carey: - O.K. Mr. Swenberg and the next person is Ms.
Ginnie Sellars.
Mr. Swenberg: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My land is adjacent
to this land that is being proposed for the change. We own
the land that is on New Hope Creek that adjoins the pink area
there. I would like to commend the Orange County Planning
Board for their recommendation for denial of this change. We
purchased this land approximately 2 years ago after the
decision was made that this would not be a commercial node
because we wanted the rural character of the land. Yes,
there have been negative impacts of 1-40 and we hear it, not
quite as much as Jack does but certainly when the wind is
from the east or from the north I guarantee you we hear it a
lot more than we would like to. I don't want to trade that
for having commercial activities and a rock quarry right up
the road from me so. I-have to hear that in addition. If a
rock quarry goes in there, we would be seeing 80 to 100
trucks a day going down that road in addition to what's
already there. That would be a very negative impact.
Currently we have approximately 18 Canadian honkers that fly
over at least 4. times a day. They are probably going to be
diverted if this commercial use goes through here because •
they'll not want to go past shopping centers. We have a
wonderful creek there that we don't need disturbed further
and I would ask very much that you deny this proposal. Mr.
Carey-Mr. Schwinburg, for the record, I would like to say
. that the Planning Board has not made a recommendation on this
matter yet. The recommendation that you heard was the .
. Planning Staff recommendation. Ms. Sellars and next is John
Blackwood.
Ms. Sellars: Good Evening, my name is Ginnie Sellars and I'm
representing my family and the heirs of Benjamin Neville. I
received this letter a few weeks ago and its says that our
properties about 500 feet from one of the listing in the, but
they didn't specify which one.
Ili
•
•
12
. ----------
24
Mr. Carey: I don't know which one. Which one of the
properties that yours is the closest to?
Ms. Sellars: It's closer to, it's off of Rogers Road and
it's between, it's off Rogers Road and it's between
Ms. Sellars: I talked to someone on the phone and nobody
seemed to know and so I would like for somebody to.
•
Mr. Carey: That's the Town of Chapel Hill zoning request,
which is the last item on the agenda. O.K.
Ms. Sellars: O.K. Now which is that on your map?
Mr. Collins: The two blues
Ms. Sellars: The two blues, that's what I thought it was,
the two blues, what are you going to do with that?
Mr. Carey: Ms. Sellars, we'll get to that one a little bit
later in the evening. I'll put a note by your name so that
you can comment and it will be identified on the map at that
time.
Ms. Sellars: O.K. Thank you very much.
Mr. Carey: Mr. Blackwood and Mr. Heiwig did not list
specific items in which to speak on is this the item that
you, this is the one. O.K. you're next.
Mr. Blackwood: My name is John Blackwood. I live on New Hope
Church Road, in fact I live on the property that is in
question here tonight: I'm representing myself and other
Blackwoods, my brother, cousins, and so forth, that own this
property. I just wanted to point out that we have been
around a long time like the Tapps. Our property came from a
grant from the King of England so we do have some roots here,
I was born and raised on the property and worked it all my
life. The highway saw fit to come through, the state saw fit
to put 1-40 through and disturb our property considerably and
somewhat dictated what could be done with the property by
putting an interchange right, at that particular point. Due
to that, Jack Tapp expressed my sentiments exactly. We live
there. The present land use devaluates our property
considerably. A lot of people laugh at this and say as long
as we own the property and you guys don't you live down the
road who cares, but we do own the property and it has been
devaluated and we feel like we have the right to get the
highest and best use out of this property. That's simply all
that we want. With that in mind we do request that we make a
change in the land use and be permitted to submit this with
careful study for a different use of this property. I think
that will cover it. Thank you very much.
13
_. .. _. -- _ - — - - ---- - h - -- _ - . `_. - DRAFT
DRAFT
Mr. Carey: Thank you. Mr. Helwig and Mr. Trawick is next.
Mr. Helwig: Mr. Chairman, elected officials, I am here as
chairman of the Orange County Democratic Party. I have in my
hand the platform of the Orange County Democratic Party which
is been in existence for quite a number of years and has -been
amended many times and- most recently adopted at the County
Convention on April 9, 1988. Last year this platform was
revised over a period of years with a lot of people
throughout the County participating in that revision. Quite
a great deal of discussion in the County Convention last
year, a major revision. At that point, we had divided the
platform into something like 8 major areas, let me read a few
selected pieces please that I think might be relevant in your
deliberations on this item. The preamble starts out with a
sentence that says The Orange County Democratic Party
believes the purpose of government is to guarantee the
greatest possible freedom for all people. We have a section
on human rights. Going to Section 2 under Planning
Development and Growth. This section does speak quite often
of County and municipal cooperation. I would like to read a
few selected pieces out of there, these are very brief
sections but perhaps they're relevant here. The Orange
County Democratic Party supports Municipal, County, Regional
and state planning to meet the challenge of population growth
and economic development in the coming years, while
maintaining the unique quality of life in Orange County. We
support balance and appropriate economic growth to provide
jobs i
and increase tax base. Under the section Local, item A,
I think is relevant, it reads--County and municipal
governments should adhere strictly to Land Use Plans in
improving development projects to insure minimum disruption
to existin neighborhoods. Further down, item f under local-
County officials should continue to support the Orange County
Planning Staff's proposals to control development along the
1-40 route. The next section, section 3 under environment is
perhaps relevant also--The Orange County Democratic Party
supports policies which guarantee clean water, clean air, and
other elements of this safe and attractive environment. We
expect our elected officials to insure that industrial,
commercial, agricultural, and residential development does
not lower the quality of the environment. We support-
research for public and private institutions into the causes
and cures of-pollution. Under local there are 2 sections, A-
-the County municipal government should identify preserve
reserve
natural open spaces for scenic, educational and recreational
pleasure, and item B--the County municipal governments should
set aside natural habitants for the protection of wildlife
and plantlife. I think the most relevant of these is item A
under Local, under Planning, and under Development Growth,
which is to urging county municipals governments to adhere
strictly to Land Use Plans in improving development projects.
We understand that those Land Use Plans are developed with
a
14
--_.---_---.- ------ - - 1-. -man. 26�
broad public input over a broad period of time and should
stand for quite some time. Thank you.
Mr. Carey: Thank you. I indicated earlier that we would
entertain questions from the audience to either the County or
the proponent of either the projects but we don't want to get
into an exchange among the individuals who are making
presentations. If you have a question, please preserve it,
if it's addressed to the County but we don't want to get into
a dialogue among the speakers tonight.
Mr. Carey: The next person is Mr. Trawick and the next
person is Mr. Lloyd Gardner.
Mr. Trawick: I live along the Gulfcreek, not too far
upstream from the proposed development and I'm speaking to
some extent for the neighbors that live along the street that
I live on and I would like to say that the main reason that
. we object to the zoning change is that the area out there
along New Hope Church' Road is currently and rapidly
developing in the direction of low density residential use.
As I understand it this was the original intent of the
establishment of the Rural Buffer. Today from Arthur Minnie
Road to the west all the way over to Old NC 10, is a mix of
houses that blend into the surrounding countryside. As a
matter of fact, you can drive along the road and I'm sure in
the 9 years that I've lived out there the population is
probably increased by 10 to 20 fold. But the only evidence
you see today of that population increase are mailboxes and
small gravel driveways that connect the houses to the main
road. In fact, this new growth is going to be serviced, or
is planned to be serviced, by what will be a model elementary
. school located less than a mile from the intersection of 1-40
and New Hope Church Road. The point is that things are going
fine out there now. We do have development, we have managed
development, we have managed growth. One other point that
I'd like to make is that to say that low density residential •
development is inconsistent with 1-40 is to ignore some of
the recent house construction along the interstate between
New 86 and 15-501 exit. In fact, one of the biggest houses
I've ever seen in my life abuts the 1-40 quarter just a few
hundred feet from New 86 so I think this is an inconsistent
form of logic. I had some other points I wanted to make but,
When you have an exit 2 miles to the south and you have an
exit 2 miles to the north, both of which are already zoned
• and willing and capable and able and wanting the kind of
• development that is proposed for New Hope Church Road
interchange and having the development focused on New Hope
Church Road instead of these other 2 alternatives I find
totally. incomprehensible. I'm sure that the Commissioners
and the Planning board members will continue their program of
manage growth and I. hope that we can continue to have the
managed growth and I hope that we can continue to have the
15
enviroment and natural setting that we all anticipated when
we moved out into the neighborhood. Thank you, by the way
I've been in Orange County 20 years, not quite as long as a
grant from the King of England but that does give me some
status I- would hope, in terms of longevity, at least. Thank
you.
Mr. Carey: I would like to recognize Mr. Roosevelt Wilkerson
. and anoth: member of the Chapel Hill Town Council who has
arrived and Alderman, Tom Broganus has also arrived. Mr.
Broganus and Mr. Wilkerson, where's Mr. Wilkerson, Oh, O.K.
The next person is Mr. Kevin Morley. -
Mr. Carey: Mr. Morley and the next person is Mr. King Jolly.
Mr. Morley: My name is Kevin Morley, I live in the Foxlair
development which is south', it joins the area that is being
considered for rezoning. I've lived in quite a few places
around the country and I've lived in various areas of Chapel
Hill and I chose Foxlair, where I purchased land a couple of
years ago because of the wildlife that's there. We have wild
turkeys, the fox, the deer, and the stream and the virgin
forest and it concerns me if this is approved with the rock
quarry going in there, the noise, the pollution, the traffic,
I know I wouldn't want my kid to grow up in an environment
like that. I could see once you dig a deep hole in the
ground to move all that aggregate stone the next thing they
would want to do is say it's O.K. to put a landfill there and
fill it back up with trash.
Mr. Carey: Sir, the specific uses 'of the property is not
under consideration tonight and we would like to ask you to
limit your comments to the appropriateness of change in the
land use.
Mr.Morley: O.K. I don't think it's appropriate then, I guess
my concern would be the environmental impact t •and then the
argument for local, the convenience for the local needs.
Well, I think you can find just about any need you want
within 10 minutes of there, I mean I know I drive 20 or 30
minutes a 'day to go to work. I don't see there is going to
be any gain, and my major concern is once this place is
approved and they're allowed to do what they want where it's
going to stop once they get their foot in that area, or their
truck I should say. Thank you.
Mr. Carey: Mr. King Jolly and then the next person is Mr.
Pat Keenan.
Mr. Jolly: I appreciate having the opportunity to address
this body tonight. First of all I would like to say that I'm
very pleased with the Planning staff that they voted to
recommend the request to changing zoning. Part of the nature
16 - -
- --. -- -.-_ - -- --DRAFT 28
of my work is that I travel a great deal all around the
country, even though I'm from North Carolina and I've
probably seen just about every state, and one of the things
that has surprised me is how much it improved my appreciation
for the quality of life that we have here for the unspoiled
nature of our environment and I grieve for people like the
Tapps and the Blackwoods, I understand their problem and I
regret it sincerely. But, what concerns me very much is that
commercialization of land in this particular area, on
consideration of the commercialization of the land above and
below will result in sprawl, will result in an increased '
center of commercialization all around this area. I happen
to be one of those people, who if you've listened to the
Envirotek spokesman, is not very smart. I built a new house
within 1100 feet of the interstate just last year. It is not
quite as big as the house that the earlier gentlemen referred
to but it's a sizable investment and while I acknowledge that
the interstate noises are not particularly desirable, and
they do not make it an uninhabitable environment. In fact
I'm very please with my purchase, I enjoy very much my
quality of life there and I would just like to speak in
strong opposition to this plan I think the Land Use Plan is
brilliant, I think it's what sets this state apart from other
areas of the country, and I would strongly encourage a public
opposition to the rezoning.
Mr. Carey - Pat Kinner and the next person is Jade Zarogozo
Mr. Carey - You're Pat Keenan, O.R. and Jade Zaragoza and the
next person is Spence Dickinson.
Jay Zaragoza: A couple of nights I was in the southern part
of Chapel Hill and I had something similar to say. I know
something specific about the site because about 2 years ago,
I tried to buy this property of 13 acres owned by the
Girlscouts at that time, 'it was a terrific piece of property,
. highly desirable from where I live, I know the highway was
still coming, I still wanted to own my house. In the
process, however, I got to know -what else was here and who
owned what and who some of- my neighbors might be, at least in
terms of the land. It turns out that at that point the
Blackwood owned this land, I believe this is the one they
• just sold. But also there was a group called Carolina Realty
that was a major part of the real estate on this part of
North Carolina instead of all of North Carolina they own this
part too so if you think you're improving something here
you're also improving something here too. It's obviously not
the debate tonight but they're there. I think what I'm
- trying to ask you tonight to be in consistent not only with
the plan but with what's happening throughout this area and
the southern part of Chapel Hill elsewhere these multi-use
nodes, as they call them, are under siege right now, I think
whatever happens here tonight will have a effect elsewhere.
Mr. Carey: Mr. Spence Dickinson.
17
Spence Dickinson - Good evening. For the record I have a
store at Blackwood Station so that's just one. There is
bread within a short. distance. It's definitely a real
situation here I think everybody can see that. I just found
out about it a couple of days ago and I put a little petition
up at my store and it reads - protect our Rural Buffer, we
strongly support the town and the County zoning which
provides for and preserves the Rural Buffer. I didn't have
much chance and not many people could sign it but here's 94
signatures. I think that's really one of the major things
here. You know here we live in a community that people like
the Tapps and Blackwoods have protected for many, many years.
I mean a lot of people have sold off their land and there is
a lot of development around and if you look at a lot of the
other communities, you'll find that there are a lot more
developed than ours. I think it's because of people like the
Tapps and the Blackwoods that have held on to their land and
kept our place a really nice place to live and it's kind of
sad in a way that there some of the people who get hurt, you
know it was their land this interstate went right through and
they're the people that have preserved it for us, they are
the ones that are suffering. So in some ways, you and I
can't say I want them to suffer, obviously, I'm not sure what
way they can be compensated. I think for me if this was a
designation of just a small node around that which encompass
their particular houses, I'd feel a lot better than 400 acres
or even 150 acres. It would be a little easier to bite off,
but as a store owner I would have to say that would hurt me
if it was a commercial establishment there, so I can't say I
want to see that. I think the main thing that really
disturbs me the most besides trying to understand how to
compensate the Tapps and the Blackwoods, that's a main thing
to me, how can we compensate those people that are right
there at that intersection. The other is when are we going
to have to deal with this again. I mean here we are a year
after it was approved, 6 months from now, it will be the
other side or it will be another idea or a year from now it
will come up again. It will come up again and it will keep
coming up until one day it will slip through because half of
us aren't here. So, I think part of what I see is just
people trying, to get free land,• you know, how can we get this
Rural Buffer and not have to pay for it. How can we enforce
this on the Blackwoods and the Tapps without having to pay
for it. So I would like to make a suggestion. There's an
organization called the Triangle Land Conservancy, and •they
are buying up pieces of property that can help maintain the
quality of this community and I would suggest that they would
be the people who would approach the Blackwoods and the Tapps
to take it out of, you know it's the Blackwoods and the Tapps
have kind of been the stewards as long as they can stand to
be the stewards. We need to find an organization or a group
that will not develop this, it will hold onto it and preserve
it for us, they have to get out, whose going to take care of,
' 18
_ �_.. z.--..r,- ,— -- .�- - - ....__ .._._._ - . _< —_ --_ ---- _ ---- -• -• - DRAFT 30 —
who's going to take it from there? If it doesn't get into
the right hands then we're going to have to be dealing with
this over and over and over. One thing I talked to my kids a
lot about is just the big issue right now about gasoline.
What is a bond, you know, a lot of people if you think about
investments you might think a bond is a good thing but when
you get a bond and when you build a road or you build a
school, who pays for it, we pay the interest, we get to use
it but the next generation has to pay for it, not only do
they have to pay for the total cost of building the road but
they get a depreciated piece of property, a building that has
to be repaired, a road that's in disrepair, but to me doing a
bond and buying this property would be a good idea. Because
to pass that bond onto the next generation, I can tell you
right now, my daughter signed this because she would like to
be given something like that, she would like to be turned
over something for her future that she could enjoy. There
are people that have moved here to move into the community
that I'm developing that have come from places like
Knoxville, Tennessee where they say uncontrolled development
has ruined that town. We know that we have a really special
place to live and I would like to thank again personally, the
Tapps and the Blackwoods for contributing the specialness of
this community. But how can we preserve it and how can we
compensate them?
Mr. Carey: The next person on the list is Ms. Mary Ellen
Priestly but she doesn't have a number by her name. Is this
the item you would like to speak on. O.K. would you please
come forward.
•
Mary Ellen Priestly: I'm Mary Ellen Priestly and we live on
Cheyenne Drive which is off of 86 and our property was split
by I-40 so that the property around the house is to the east
of 40 and the property west of 40 is just north of the
Bingham property which is part of the green we're talking
about, so we are right next to it. Nobody has asked to buy
our land and are very we ar a pleased because use we are conservators
se to
rY P
on rva rs
of the forest, we are conservators of wildlife and we came
here because of the rural area and because of the University
which was close by and all the cultural activity there. We
built a .substantial house, which is a family home, and we
hope that our sons or daughter will continue to live there.
So I am rather shocked, a little angry that we have come to
try to defend this Rural Buffer again and I hope it's not
again and again. For the ink is' hardly dry on a document
which we all wanted, I think the majority of the people in
this County wanted to have a Rural Buffer. I am skeptical of
a name such as Envirotek, because environment is good,
environment sounds good, but hearing what I have heard, I
know that this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. We have known, /
for some time, that the land near us was wanted for a quarry,
now to add that plus a commercial node that is not needed.
19
We go out and carry our garbage, trash 5 miles away, we
compost as much as we can. It's not far to the Sunrise
Market, it's not far to Hillsborough or to Timberlines, to
buy anything we need so far as grocery are concerned. We
don't need more gas stations or stores even single-family
homes, or apartments, or condos, especially in the middle of
the Rural Buffer. John Falls, who is a real estate analyst
from Raleigh, recently spoke to the Homebuilders Association
of Durham and Chapel Hill, he said this market for all
singled homes is overbuilt and that this is due to the fact
that employment has stabilized in the Triangle Area. He
predicts that the demand for single-families homes will drop
about 50% by 1990. Now we all need to do what the Tapps and
the Blackwoods have done in the past and I intend to stay
where we are and keep on trying to preserve this in spite of
the noise from 1-40. We need to think globally and
nationally and work at a grass roots level in. preserving open
space, forest, clean air, and clean water or our children,
our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren won't be able to
breathe in this area. So. I appeal to you, Commissioners,
Planning Board, Mayors who represent, I think the majority of
the people in this County, to say NO, NO, NO to this rezoning
proposal. Thank you.
Mr. Carey: The next person to speak is Mr. John Mackowiak
after Mr. Mackowiak is Mr. Richie Bell.
John Mackowiak: My name is John Mackowiak and I live
slightly west of the area along New Hope Church Road on
Walnut Cove Road. ' I oppose the change in the plan. I again
would like to. ask as others have said that it seems that its
a shame that we have to keep looking at this over and over.
One of the major reasons why I and a number of other
neighbors, who have met twice in the past two weeks in our
community oppose it, is that because it doesn't seem to be in
need at this point in time, there's areas to the north and to
the south and those points have been brought up already, I
don't need to bring that up again. One point that has not •
been brought up and I don't need .to repeat again is that I
have bought a home in the area and to me I understand how
much $440,000.00 is but I have a lot invested in that
property- too. I think Nello Teer Company, may be able to
afford that $440,000.00 a little bit more than the damage it
may do to the people in that neighborhood. So we do have a
lot there and we would like to protect what we have. Thank
you.
Mr. Carey: Mr. Richie Bell and the next person is Mr. Chet
Cavallito.
Mr. Bell: Mr. Chairman, I have two things, I have a question
for the County which I would like to present first since it
came up, if you will permit.
--<--
Mr. Carey: Go right ahead. -
Mr. Bell: The question I have is Can the County working with
the other Planning Boards find someway to implement the
suggestion of Spence Dickinson so that these people who have
been impacted and have borne the brunt of this can be
• compensated fairly for their land to find other homes. I
think that's very important and I would support that in
anyway that we can. I would like to ask that the County look
into that and work with the land conservancy or whoever to do
this because if we're to benefit from this then I think we
should perhaps try to find a way that it can be paid for.
The other thing I wanted to do was to express the thanks of
many people for a tremendous job of 2 or 3 years of effort in
putting together the buffer zone plan and I am very hopeful
that the people that put this together can keep it together.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Carey: The next person is Mr. Chet Cavallito. •
Chet Cavallito: I represent myself and a few neighbors in
the area just to the east of Old 86 and just to the west of
the area that is colored. I believe the Commissioners and
the residents of these areas are at least entitled to let the
paint there dry before it is smeared and changed. We're not
talking .about changing a node, there's a whole gerrymandering
stretch there, which without much extension will extend from
the northern edge of Chapel Hill to almost the southern edge
of Hillsborough. There are a total of 3 so-called nodes or
intersections in that area. In regard to the changes
proposed who knows what might be necessary 10 years from now
or even less. As of now, other than possibly making some
adjustment to those people directly impacted by that change.
I think the joint planning groups that were involved in
creating this certainly are to be commended and supported to
the extent that is feasible and reasonably possible. I
appreciate hearing from the gentlemen representing Teer that
they have an investment here. Considering it was purchased
in 1984
I believe he 1984, h said, perhaps s that at show d
be
categorized as a speculation rather than as an investment
since the direction of this was already taken was quite
evident. Certainly living
in proximity Y g p xa.mity of the highway is
noisy. I lived in Connecticut for a number of years and some
of the most expensive real estate in the country is right •
along the Merid Parkway going through Connecticut where.the
houses are right smack next to the Parkway and if you think
your housing is expensive here don't try to buy one up there.
The other thing is trading highway noise for blasting noise.
Highway noise, for the most part, travels through the air,
blasting noise travels through the air, it travels through
the rocks, and
Mr. Carey: Mr. Cavallito
-
- PAGE 21 . 33--Mr. Cavallito: That's all I'm going to say about quarries.
Thank you. But since they were talking about noise, I
thought I would address the issue of noise and I don't mean
through the air but through the ground. So with that I
wonder if it would, if I might indulge you long enough to ask
if the people who support this present program would please
stand up so that the Commissioners at least could see what
kind of support they have. Would you please stand up if you
support this, those who are impacted by it. Support the
rural buffer. Thank you.
Mr. Carey: That concludes the list of individuals who signed
up to speak on this matter if there is anyone else who would
like to speak on it please come forth and give us your name
and do so at this time. If not we will move onto the next
item on the list of public hearings for tonight and at the
appropriate time at the end of all three items we will refer
these matters to the appropriate boards and planning boards
for recommendations and decisions. You have a questions?
You were going to take questions for Mr. Collins I believe?
Mr. Carey: Yes, If you have one.
Mr. Phears: Does the applicant get the opportunity to
respond?
Mr. Carey: If you still wish to. I indicated that anyone
who still wishes to comment on this matter can speak so if
you wish to speak on it please do.
Mr. Phears: I will be brief much more so than
Mr. Carey: Thank you we appreciate that.
Mr. Phears: Let me emphasize what we're talking about here
is not property that's 1100 feet from the interstate, it's
not property that is close to the interstate, it's not
property where you hear the interstate in some distance, it
is property smack dab on the interstate right-of-way. It
runs roughly a mile, 4 to 5 thousand feet, a little short of
a mile; down the interstate. If you take the noise overlay
that the Federal Government admits exist, and I think you
will find the noise footprints is actually much larger, takes
a major portion of that property. It makes a tremendous
amount of difference when you begin to get away from that
interstate. We wouldn't be here frankly f this ro ert and
most developable lots did not back right p up right The fact of
the matter is that the noise level on the property doesn't
meet Orange County's own noise standards for residential
property much less the noise standards propagated elsewhere.
The acreage size that I would like to clarify, because the
400 acres sized by Mr. Dickinson was mentioned. One of the
�..r,�r---. _, _.r-c•. .- _ __ _rr.--mot .-.. -_ - .RV:a-r._._ ... —_
-- —-- -- - _ PAGE 22..
reasons for the acreage size is that a tremendous amount of
this property is committed to the land application sewage
system which is a spray system they use on golf courses in a
lot of places now because of we don't have any water and
sewer out there. Roughly 100 acres I believe, isn't that
correct Michael, goes to that. 204 acres of it are in the
agricultural residential zoning for the rock quarry of which
a major portion of that actually remains under developed and
remains forested in terms of land conservation. You all will
get a chuckle out of this, let me finish, in terms of land
• conservation we're actually much better at leaving you some
open spaces in those areas than any other, virtually any
other use you put in there. Put a subdivision in there of 1
to 2 acre. lots and come and look at the density of it. Any
of you who followed our Durham application, for example, we
have roughly 500 acres up there of which we were using a very
minor amount 100 and some acres out of total use. The
balance of it is in buffers and woodlands. We were asked
earlier why we bought the Blackwood property, that's one of
the exact reasons, it's going to stay in buffer and woodland.
. I -would like to make one clarification which is that the
staff report treats these as one big application. We don't
view them that way. We have an AR application. Each
individual property owner has an application. We don't treat
them that way, we want the record to make it clear that we
have separate applications. Secondly, there is a statement
in the staff report that this property could be rezoned to
AR, without having a land exchange, that is the Teer property
and I wanted to ask Mr. Collins if that was correct at the
present time?
Mr. Collins: There is within the land use plan, what we call
a land use plan zoning district matrix. The question that
Mr. Phears asked is whether or not the property could be
rezoned to AR at this time. Based on that matrix, there are
two zoning districts which are lined with the rural buffer
classification, that is AR for Agricultural Residential and
R1, so rezoning is possible at this time. I would point out,
however, that a public-hearing was held back in February of
this year for the very purpose of changing that matrix, so
that the only zoning district that would be permitted within
the rural buffer for Land Use Plan designation would be the
rural buffer zoning district. The Board of Commissioners
will in all probability consider the change in that matrix at
'their first meeting in May.
•
. Mr. Phears: For the record that pending amendment has
created some uncertainty on our part in connection with the
application. To the extent I can request this, I wish our
application, that is Teers AR application, to. be treated as a
request to rezone. I recognize that the County may well not
permit that, but the fact of the matter is there has been
some confusion over that but for the record that is the
request i do make. That's all I have, I wanted to thank
•
-- --- -- _ _._ ___ _.PAGE 23-
everybody for indulging me with my remarks tonight. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Carey: Yes Sir.
Jim Swenberg: Once again, I would like to bring up one other
alternative that hasn't been mentioned but the County could
be a big help to everyone here. That is working with the
Department of Transportation, and putting up some natural
barriers for sound to reduce these problems for the parties
that are impacted and all of the rest of us.
Mr. Carey: The next item to come before the Public Hearing
tonight is Item Dl. b. cazwell, Incorporated Land Use Plan,
Mr. Collins.
Dl. B. LUP-5-89 CAZWELL, . INCORPORATED
Mr. Carey: Public questions for Mr. Collins, we will ask
Carol Ann Zinn to come forward and make any comments you
would like to make.
Carol Zinn: My name is Carol Ann Zinn and I'm president of
Cazwell Development, which is the developer of Montvale. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to you tonight. i have a
couple of comments that I have prepared before you folks made
your comments and I would like to speak first from the
prepared comments then also to talk a little bit about some
of the things that are your concerns. i don't know to what
extent the people here have read this very thick print-out
that came before today's meeting, but I would like to give
you a little history about Montvale. It says, it's currently
a 27 lot subdivision that went through the approval process
in the city of Durham; it is served by Durham City Sewer,
individual wells, public 'service gas, so it has the sewer
which is not something that anything else the rural buffer
has. It is bordered on the west by Curly Road. Because of a
freak of geography, the County line which divides Orange and
Durham counties does not follow Curly Road. So Montvale
backs up onto Curly Road but the County line kind of
straddles that road. Therefore, a tiny sliver of orange
County crosses the four lots in Montvale that we're talking
about. Each of these four lots have a portion of land in
Orange County, but most of the land is in Durham County. But
the entire Montvale subdivision has only 6% in Orange County.
94% is in Durham County and Durham City. Lot 27, we don't
. have a map of the subdivision here but it is now a 27 lot
• subdivision. Lot 27 as shown on our final plat it over
60,000 square feet while the other lots are approximately
30,000 or more square feet. It's twice as large as the other
Montvale lots. It was intended, originally, that this be 2
30,000 square foot lots, Lot 27 and lot 28 but because of the
fact that this line straddles Modville a very small portion
of what was to the part of what was to be like 28 is in the
•
41=:77 I ■•••11 14-4 a 0. a_ iLi‘c(cic z .36
. . . •
• . • .. . .
•. •. • • .. . . •
t Arm I _
••••••••••••••••,••■•••••••• ••••• •■• •••••••••••••••••■••••••■••••11•••••••*.•••■•
C CaLt wgn.r•rao.••••
vei Go f?..ork. t. __Co;#1 Py6 Lt.;0 _. _ _
O1__66 <,
.• •
1.-c,L9 .
•••■■• •••••••■•••••••• ■•••■■•••01..••••••••••••••■■••••••••■••A•••••••••••......• ■••■ ••• •■•••• ••-• •or • • ••••■•••• •. . . ••••• •4. • • e.. •■•
••■•••••••1•• • .•■•■■ ■••••
4t0a
A . indi ono ti
• . _•_ . . •
• ..r....w•'•1•"......•'..•'•"P•".....r."•r.•..•......"••••••
411A%ad— c a ke —_ k — 4."*I'o•r____q .11 t._ .
NoLe_ERS °wit.
_ tor Qs_ 14c`f C e Lk; o
CAA aye --17111e...._:_ c.
___; eo %A c cc
*-1
• • .
-I-- •
•crc rn vr c.
v s Pczt . tic ‘4.4
6.w_rho 1 --. _1 trolui4_4
V •
7-
k
e.1
att-*—..a_.cis-rcett _se r - 7 0,5—
•••••••MaIMININNO•om ftwowl...••6••••■■••■•••••.•
a
•
0 I
. .
. • . . •
• -c•-e..;;;;/• • * - •
4 „. •
..1.011111.4/OM•111.■■■•.' ■••■ WEIMMO OIMOMOOMI=141.1.1•1..1.11.■/......01=4.1.11...... •
ea• . . 1.• •... .• 6. .
•
MagatIMIMINEIMONIMMIIIIP
•
37
approval do address project phasing. The
applicants request is consistent with the
provisions of the Subdivision Regulations
which allow a specific phasing schedule to be
included as part of the Preliminary Plat
approval.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
proposed Phasing Plan for Phases 2 and 3 of
• Eno River Estates.
MOTION: Eddleman moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Lewis.
VOTE: 8 in favor.
1 abstained (Yuhasz - due to professional
conflict of interest. )
AGENDA ITEM *10: MATTERS HEARD AT-4/6/89 JPA PUBLIC HEARING
a. Joint Planning Land Use Plan
DRAFT (1) LUP-4-89 Envirotek, Incorporated
A copy of the abstract is an attachment to
these minutes on pages
Collins summarized as follows:
The Joint Staff recommendation presented at
the public hearing was for denial of the
proposed amendment. Since the public
hearing, both the Planning Board of the Towns
of Chapel Hill and Carrboro have recommended
denial of the proposed amendment. The Joint
Staff recommendation for denial remains the
same as presented at the public hearing.
• • Eidenier asked about references in the
minutes that Mr. Wayne Phears made to being
• unaware of the vote about the Rural Buffer
and a meeting being postponed until after
that time.
Jacobs noted that part of the property was
the subject of a lawsuit in which the County
is involved.
Collins indicated the location of the
property in question on the map and responded
that the comments questioned by Eidenier
involve issues related to the lawsuit.
MOTION: Best moved to accept the Planning Staff's
38
recommendation for denial. Seconded by
Eidenier.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Jacobs noted that there were property owners
expressing concern about the devaluation of
their property at the public hearing. He
suggested that they be put in touch with the
Triangle Land Conservancy regarding possible
solutions to their concerns.
(2) LUP-5-89 Cazwell, Incorporated
� Collins noted that both Chapel Hill and
_D Carrboro governing boards have recommended
approval of this amendment. The Joint
Planning Staffs of Orange County, Chapel Hill
and Carrboro also recommend approval.
MOTION: Lewis moved approval as recommended.
Seconded by Yuhasz.
VOTE: Unanimous.
DRAFT (3) LUP-6-89 Town of Carrboro
Presentation by Marvin Collins.
A copy of the agenda abstract is an
attachment to these minutes on pages
The Planning Staffs of Orange County, Chapel
Hill jointly recommend approval of the
request that the 400-foot Rural Suffer area
located between Carrboro's Transition Area II
and Duke Forest be removed and that the area
be designated as Transition Area II on the
• Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan.
Best asked how this affected development.
Collins responded that there were two
different zoning designations - one for
Carrboro and one for Orange County.
Properties split by the boundary must deal
with two jurisdictions and two sets of
development standards.
Jacobs asked about the proposed amendment to
the Transition Area Zoning Plan. Collins
responded that if the Board of Commissioners
approves the Land Use Plan Amendment, then
the County could also act on the proposed
zoning plan for the area; i.e. , designate the
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989 Action Agenda
Item # Q-104
SUBJECT: LUP-5-89 CAZWELL, INC.
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING Yes X _,No
ATTACHMENT(S) INFORMATION CONTACT:
(Refer to April 6, 1989 JPA Public Marvin Collins, Extension 346
Hearing Agenda for Application Gene Bell, Extension 565
and Staff Report) David Stancil, Extension 566
- JPA Public Hearing Minutes
of 4/6/89
- Recommendations of Governing
and Advisory Boards TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
- Draft Minutes of 5/15/89 Hillsborough - 732-8181
Planning Board meeting Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation on 1
a proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Area Land
Use Plan for Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
BACKGROUND: This proposed amendment is submitted by
Cazwell, Incorporated of Chapel Hill. The proposal
requests s a land
use classification change for a
portion of a parcel which is divided by the Orange ..
County/Durham County line. The parcel
is located ed
on
the east side of Kerley Road, and is further
referenced as parcel 14 of Chapel Hill Township Tax
Map 15.
The total acreage of the parcel is 24 acres, with 22.5
acres lying in Durham County and 1.45 acres in Orange
County (6%) . The portion of this tract in Orange
County is designated Rural Buffer on the Joint
Land Use Plan, and is zoned accordingly.
The Durham portion of this tract now contains the
Montvale subdivision, which features lot sizes of
30,000 square feet and City of Durham sewer (private
wells are utilized as the water source) . There are
several houses either built or under construction in
this subdivision.
• 2
The small section of this parcel in Orange County has
not been subdivided, since the Rural Buffer
designation and zoning requires a minimum lot size of
two acres. The Durham subdivision plat shows that this
Orange County portion would eventually be the rear and
side yards for three lots which would have Durham
County residences.
The 1.45-acre section in Orange County would be
undevelopable under any current Orange County
ordinance requirements, due to setback constraints.
The applicant is requesting that this 1.45-acre
portion in Orange County be redesignated from its
current Rural Buffer category to Ten Year Transition.
This change would permit smaller lot sizes than
the current two-acre minimum, and would enable
the Orange portion of the tract to be subdivided
in a manner consistent with the Durham County
Montvale subdivision.
At the Joint Planning Area public hearing on April 6,
this item was presented for public comment. One
person, the applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal.
One person spoke against the proposed amendment.
Since the time of the public hearing, both the
planning boards and the governing bodies of the Towns
of Chapel Hill and Carrboro have considered this
proposal.
The Planning Board of the Town of Chapel Hill
recommended approval of the proposed amendment. The
Planning Board of the Town of Carrboro has recommended
denial of the proposed amendment.
The Chapel Hill Town Council has voted to approve this
proposed amendment, as have the Carrboro Board of
Aldermen.
On May 15, 1989, the Orange County Planning Board
considered the proposed amendment and returned a
unanimous favorable recommendation. Draft minutes of
this meeting are attached.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the
proposed amendment as per the Planning Board
recommendation.
3
JOINT PLANNING ITEMS FROM APRIL 6 - STATUS REPORT
ERVIROTEK
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Denial
Chapel Hill Town Council Deny
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Denial
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Deny
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Denial
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
CAZWELL INC.
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Approval .
Chapel Hill Town Council Approve
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Denial
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Approve
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
CARRBORO 400-FOOT BUFFER
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Denial
Chapel Hill Town Council Approve
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Approval
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Approve
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval (8-1)
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
ZONING
CARRBORO 400-FOOT BUFFER
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval (8-1)
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Approval
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Approve
•
GREEN TRACT
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Approval
Chapel Hill Town Council Approve
ds/51989 jpastat.doc
4
_ .
AGENDA #8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: David R. Taylor, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Follow-up to April 6, 1989 Joint Public Hearing
DATE: April 24, 1989
• -
On April 6, the elected boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and
Carrboro met in a Joint Public Hearing to consider requests
related to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Tonight the
Council is asked to take its final action on the requests.
Adoption of the attached resolutions would, approve or deny
requests for changes to the Land Use Plan, and will be forwarded
to Orange County for final action.
Background
The items heard at the Public Hearing were:
1) Envirotek, Inc. request for change to Land Use Plan.
2) Cazwell, Inc. request for change to Land Use Plan.
3) Carrboro request for change to Land Use Plan.
4) Carrboro request for-'change to Zoning Atlas.
5) Chapel Hill recommendation for zoning of Greene Tract.
Now, subsequent to the Joint Public Hearing, the Council needs to
approve or deny the first three items, which are requests for
changes to the Joint, Planning Area Land Use Plan, and forward
these actions -to Orange County. (Changes to the Land Use Plan
can only be made if Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro all
agree) . The fourth item, a zoning request, does not come before
the Chapel Hill Town Council because it is on the Carrboro side
of the Joint Planning Area. The fifth item, recommended zoning
of the Greene tract, was taken up by the Council previously; the
Council's recommendation to zone that property Rural Transition
was presented at the April 6, 1989 Joint Public Hearing.
Copies of Staff Reports presented at the Hearing are attached,
along with correspondence that was made a part of the record of
the hearing.
- - - - - _ -- — - — -5 -
Discussion
1) Envirotek: At the hearing on April 6, the Planning
Staffs of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County recommended
denial of this request. Reasons for the recommendation included
the fact that the requested change was of a scale that would
serve to damage the Rural Buffer Concept, and therefore be in
conflict with adopted plans and policies. The Planning Staffs
suggested that there was no justification for the requested
change.
Comments at the hearing focused on what use might be made of this
property (approximately 424 acres) if the land use plan were
changed as requested and the property were to be rezoned.
Concerns about traffic, environmental degradation, and noise were
expressed. The applicant stated that low-density residential use
was not suitable for this property, and that the change should be
approved.
Planning Board's Recommendation: At its meeting of April 18,
1989, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend that Town Council
deny the request.
Manager's Recommendation: We recommend that the Council adopt
Resolution 3B, denying the requested change to the Joint Planning
Area Land Use Plan. (Same as staff recommendation presented at
April 6, 1989 hearing) .
Adoption of the alternative, Resolution 3A, would approve the
request.
2) Cazwell: At the hearing, the three Planning Departments
recommended approval of request. Reasons included the fact that
this 1.5 acre parcel is a fraction of a 25 acre parcel, most of
which is located in Durham County; the 1.5 acre parcel is on the
outer edge of the Rural Buffer, adjacent to the Durham Urban
Growth Area; the larger parcel has been approved for a subdivi-
sion by Durham City and County, with sewer to be provided by
Durham; and the fact that most of the 1.5 acres, if this request
is approved ppr ed and zoning adjusted accordin gly, will. be used as back
g
yards for lots that are mostly in Durham County.
Comments at the hearing focused on the question of whether
granting this request would damage the concept or integrity of
the Rural Buffer.
Planning Board's Recommendation: , Adoption of the alternative,
Resolution 4B, would deny the request. At its meeting of April
18, 1989, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend that the Town
Council approve the request.
Manager's Recommendation: We recommend that the Council adopt
Resolution 4A, approving this request. We believe the circum-
stances of this case are such that approval of the request is
reasonable, and can be accomplished without damage to the concept
3
. _
or integrity of the Rural Buffer. (Same as staff recommendation
presented at April 6, 1989 hearing) .
•
3) Carrboro Request: Carrboro requests an adjustment of the
Urban Services Area boundary, to eliminate a problem that has
arisen with the boundary bisecting numerous properties. This has
resulted in properties being half in the Rural Buffer, half in
the Transition Area, with jurisdiction for development regulation
split between Carrboro and Orange County. The three Planning
Departments recommended approving this adjustment.
Planning Board's Recommendation: At its meeting of April 18,
1989, the Planning Board voted 4-3 (Mr. Raney, Mr. Guild, Ms.
..,. McLendon dissenting) to recommend denial of the request (see
Resolution 5B) . The primary justification was that extension of
Carrboro Transition Area II to another 135 acres would be an
unwarranted intrusion into the Rural Buffer.
Manager's Recommendation: We recommend that the Council adopt
Resolution 5A, approving this request. We believe the reasons
stated by the Town of Carrboro are reasonable, and that the
adjustment would not damage the concept or integrity of the Rural
Buffer.
Adoption of the alternative, Resolution 5B, * would deny the
request.
Summary of Recommendations
•
We recommend that the Council adopt Resolutions 3B, 4A and 5A.
313 would deny the Envirotek request.
4A would approve the Cazwell request.
5A would approve the Carrboro request.
•
7
. .__________ ._• . -
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF LUP-5-89, AN AMENDMENT
TO THE JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN (CAZWELL, INC. )
(89-4-24/R-4a)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered
the application of Cazwell, Incorporated, to amend the Joint
Planning Area Land Use Plan by redesignating 1.45 acres east of
Kerley Road along the Durham County line from Rural Buffer to Ten
Year Transition, and
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has determined
that the proposed amendment can be justified as "due to changing
conditions in a particular area of the County," and is compatible
with the operating principles, of the Joint Planning Area Land Use
Plan;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it
approves Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan LUP-5-89 - Cazwell,
Incorporated.
This the 24th day of April, 1989.
err rt
—• _
BOX 337
33' Wes"Mom Street
arrboro t...a"trort rvcrt* Ca-uuna 2751C
tP1,9 942-e.f.c,
- .c.
April 26, 1989
Mr. John Link
Orange County Manager
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
Dear John:
•
The Carrboro Board of Aldermen at its meeting held on April
25, 1989, adopted the following documents: -
(1) A resolution opposing the Joint Planning Land Use Plan
Map amendment to change the designation of 424 acres of
land on the western side of the intersection of New
Hope Church Road and Interstate 40 from Rural Buffer to
Commercial Transition Activity Node and Agricultural
Residential (LUP-4-89) ;
(2) A resolution supporting the Joint Planning Land Use
Plan Map amendment to change the designation on 1.45
acres of land on the east side of Kerley Road at the
border of Orange and Durham Counties from Rural Buffer
to Ten Year Transition (LUP-5-89) ;
(3) A resolution..supporting the Joint Planning Land Use
Plan Map amendment to change the designation of the
400-foot strip of Rural Buffer located between
Carrboro ' s Transition Area II and Duke Forest to
Transition Area II (LUP-6-89) : and
(4) An ordinance amending the Joint Planning Transition
Area toning of the 400-foot strip of new Transition
Area II created by LUP-6-89 from Orange County Rural
Buffer to Carrboro R-R.
I would like to request that you pass the Board's action
along to the County Commissioners for consideration. •
•
•
Pace Two
Mr. Link
April 26, 1989
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Morgan
Town Manager
RWM/scw
• Enclosures
• cc: David Taylor
•
• .
• '-
10
t'-
.- . - - ------ — -- .. -- - _
P 0 Sox 337
A
"I:: arrboro
c-
i 301 West Maur Street
Cpar•oorc ND:1r...-....trOtme 275,1C
...*. -I-
SP1S.•C•=;-851.1
N.C. iticK0.-.44....---4.-:,:„z„ ,_,-.
The following resolution was introduced by Alderman Tom Gurganus
and duly seconded by Alderman Hilliard Caldwell.
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LUP-5-89
A JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION ON 1.45 ACRES OF LAND
ON THE EAST SIDE OF KERLEY ROAD
AT THE BORDER OF ORANGE AND DURHAM COUNTIES
FROM RURAL BUFFER TO TEN YEAR TRANSITION
Resolution No. 47/88-89
WHEREAS, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County adopted
Joint Planning Agreement and Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Map
on November 2. 1987: and'
WHEREAS , the Joint Planning Agreement calls for a public
hearing to be held jointly by all parties to the Agreement and
for all parties to then concur on any changes to be made to the
Joint Planning Land Use Plan or Map; and
WHEREAS, the three parties held a Joint Planning Public
Hearing on April 6, 1989 to hear several proposed amendment to
the Joint Planning Land Use Map; and
WHEREAS , the Carrboro Board of Aldermen supports the
proposed change LUP-5-89, made by Cazwell, Inc.
NOW, THEREFORE , THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE TOWN OF
CARRBORO RESOLVES:
Section 1. The Board of Aldermen approves the proposed
Joint Planning Use Plan Map amendment (number LUP-5-89) , to
change the designation of approximately 1.45 acres of land on the
east side of Kerley Road at the border of Orange County and
.Durham Counties from Rural Buffer to Ten Year Transition.
Section 2. This resolution shall become effective upon
adoption.
The foregoing resolution having been submitted to a vote ,
received the following vote and was duly adopted this 25th day of
April, 1989:
Ayes: Randy Marshall, Tom Gurganus, Hilliard Caldwell, Eleanor
Kinnaird, Frances Shetley, Judith Wegner, Jay Bryan
Noes: None
Absent or Excused: None
i
ARIMM
I, Sarah C. Williamson, Town Clerk of the Town of Carrboro, do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a
resolution adopted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen at its
meeting held on April 25, 1989.
(":7•
Town Clerk
•
•
•
12
—PAGE-2-----
everybody for indulging me with my remarks tonight. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Carey: Yes Sir.
Jim Swenberg: Once again, I would like to bring up one other
alternative that hasn't been mentioned but the County could
be a big help to everyone here. That is working with the
Department of Transportation, and putting up some natural
barriers for sound to reduce these problems for the parties
that are impacted and all of the rest of us.
Mr. Carey: The next item to come before the Public Hearing
tonight is Item Dl. b. Cazwell, Incorporated Land Use Plan,
Mr. Collins.
Dl. B. LUP-5-89 CAZWELL, INCORPORATED
Mr. Carey: Public questions for Mr. Collins, we will ask
Carol Ann Zinn to come forward and make any comments you
would like to make.
Carol Zinn: My name is Carol Ann Zinn and I'm president of
Cazwell Development, which is the developer of Montvale. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to you tonight. I have a
couple of comments that I have prepared before you folks made
your comments and I would like to speak first from the
prepared comments then also to talk a little bit about some
of the things that are your concerns. I don't know to what
extent the people here have read this very thick print-out
that came before today's meeting, but I would like to give
you a little history about Montvale. It says, it's currently
a 27 lot subdivision that went through the approval process
in the city of Durham, it is served by Durham City Sewer,
individual wells, public service gas, so it has the sewer
which is not something that anything else the rural buffer
has. It is bordered on the west by Curly Road. Because of a
freak of geography, the County line which divides Orange and
Durham counties does not follow Curly Road. So Montvale
backs up onto Curly Road but the County line kind of
straddles that road. Therefore, a tiny sliver of Orange
County crosses the four lots in Montvale that we're talking
about. Each of these four lots have a portion of land in
Orange County, but most of the land is in Durham County. But
the entire Montvale subdivision has only 6% in Orange County.
94% is in Durham County and Durham City. Lot 27, we don't
have a map of the subdivision here but it is now a 27 lot
subdivision. Lot 27 as shown on our final plat it over
60,000 square feet while the other lots are approximately
30,000 or more square feet. It's twice as large as the other
Montvale lots. It was intended, originally, that this be 2
30,000 square foot lots, Lot 27 and lot 28 but because of the
fact that this line straddles Modville a very small portion
of what was to the part of what was to be like 28 is in the
13
rural buffer and therefore, we had to originally plat the
subdivision with 27 lots that go through the Durham city
approval process and that's how the subdivision was platted
and filed. In late summer 1988, we applied for a variance
with the Orange County Board of Adjustment so that Lots 27
and lots 28 would be consistent with the remainder of the
subdivision and layout in size and in intent. The variance
was denied, at that time the County Attorney and Mr.
Collins, the Planning Director, suggested that we go the
rezoning route which is why we're here tonight. They
consulted with us when we prepared our proposal. Montvale is
caught in a situation where the municipalities have not
considered what to do with projects cross boundary lines.
This is not a significant problem and this problem will
happen again as Mr. Collins stated. We believe that a
rezoning is a sensible, practical, and appropriate way to
deal with our problems. I agree with the Planning Staff's
recommendation, and I'm almost quoting from this, it would
create the consisentency that is the intent and purpose of
the joint planning area Land Use Plan. We support an inter-
local agreement to deal with situations such as ours, we
believe that it is necessary, but it has already been since
late summer of 1988 that we have come to the municipalities
with our problems and I would feel, I would hope that we
would be, that our problem would be considered a minor
adjustment or• fine tuning as Mr. Collins has said of the
rural buffer and not something that is major and that the
inter-local agreement, which I think does need to be in place
is something that could actually take several years to come
about and our problem is now. The question had come up how
many lots are affected and how many lots will we gain, right
now this sliver of Orange County goes through four lots. It
does not effect 3 of them except for a little bit but on one
lot, lot 27, it goes through almost half of that lot so what
would it been if lot 28, .1101W is a big lot 27--so in effect if
this rezoning is passed we would gain one lot. The lot would
be developed in consistency with the rest of the subdivision
which has 30,000 square feet lots. Concerning the fine
tuning, it's interesting to know that the next item on the
agenda tonight it something that the Town of Carrboro has
requested and this also deals with the fine tuning so it's
not only individual developers such as myself, who need this,
I say the municipalities recognize the fact that we do need
some fine tuning. The Town of Carrboro, the next item on the
agenda, has requested that a 400 foot rural buffer area
located between Carrboro transition area 2 and Duke Forest be
removed and that the area be designated as transition area 2
on the joint planning area Land Use Plan, again when it comes
down to practicality there needed to be some fine tuning and
carrboro recognized that. So I'm hoping that we can have
your support tonight and the support of Joint Planning in
moving ahead with our effort to fine tune the Land Use Plan.
Thank you.
14
Mr. Carey: Are there any questions? One question.
Unidentified Citizen: Comment unintelligible.
Carol Zinn: If, lot 28 is separated from lot 27, than it
would be mostly in Orange County part of it would be in
Durham County-Durham City. Actually the curious thing is
that the fellow who we bought this land from never paid taxes
in Orange County always paid Durham taxes, yet he has this
little 6t with 1.45 acres that was in Orange County and his
home is on the site that we want to call lot 28, so his house
was actually in Orange County.
Mr. Carey: Ms. Marshall? Other questions?
Unidentified Citizen: Comment unintelligible.
Carol Zinn: No, we don't have a problem with them. They
just have this little sliver going through and the house site
is in the part that has already been approved by Durham City.
Mr. Carey: Mr. Willhoit.
Don Willhoit: On the lot the house that is to be built
on, whatt school district is it in?
Carol Zinn: Durham.
Mr, Carey: Gentleman, right here, yes.
Unidentified citizen: Did you purchase this land without
knowing that part of it was in Orange County?
Carol Zinn: Yes, I know you think that I should have known
and I should have been but I wasn't. Yes.
Unidentified citizen: Comment unintelligible.
Carol Zinn: Yes, and I think there's a reasonable
explanation for that. The tax maps are not accurate. The
tax map showed a much smaller portion that was in 'Orange
County, much smaller, it didn't look like any problem at all,
and when it was finally surveyed we saw that it was larger
and we were told initially by the Planning Staff and Orange
County by a new employee, I would think, on the Planning
Staff that it was an administrative matter and there was no
problem at all. We went through the whole approval process
with Durham City believing that and then right near the end
when we were about to file our final plat, we found out that
we indeed had a larger problem than we thought. Lot 28, if
you look at what is now 27, that is twice as large as the
other lots in the neighborhood and approximately half the way
coming across the left of that lot, lot 28 would start.
15
•
Citizen Comment: Unintelligible comment
Carol Zinn: We could proceed that way and we could also
pursue other avenues to try to get the 28th lot.
Mr. Carey: Other questions?
If this was approved and I'm curious about your other
avenues, but if this was approved would that be a
noncomforming lot. If something was built and there was a
disaster would that be a noncomforming use so that somebody
could not go back and rebuild.
Carol Zinn: I'm not an attorney. I can't answer that
question. I'm sorry.
Mr. Carey: Perhaps, Mr. Collins could answer that question.
Carol Zinn: Or perhaps Mr. Gledhill could.
Unidentifed: Would this form a noncomformative lot, in terms
of insurance and other matters. Would there be a problem in
rebuilding the house if something destroyed it. And if you
don't know the answer we can come back to it later.
Mr. Collins: I can't really address it from an insurance
standpoint in terms of nonconformity standpoint of zoning.
We have two different definitions of a lot within our zoning
ordinance. One is called a zoning lot, if you look at just
that portion of this lot 27 that is in Orange County, it
would be a zoning lot zoned rural buffer and from that
standpoint would be noncomforming. If you look at it from
the Durham County side, they do have a buildable portion in
Durham County and they could built there and not have any
conflict whatsoever with the Orange County rural buffer
provisions.
Unidentified: So the buildable portion of lot, the proposed
lot 28, is in Orange County, i mean is in Durham County and
not in Orange County?
Mr. Collins: No, I'm talkin about lot 27 as a whole now.
Lot 28, if you cut it and leave it rural buffer it would be a
noncomforming lot.
Mr. Carey: I don't have anyone else who have signed up to
speak on this matter, but if there's anyone in here who would
like to do so please come forward.
Cathy Ming: I'm Cathy Kling and I would like to speak in
support of keep your rural buffer. I do think that the
people who border this Montvale development would appreciate
that extra space in the Montvale development as open space
•
- PAGE 16
and I think we're going to be back here as mentioned earlier
tonight, we're going to be back and back again to defend the
rural buffer as it slowly gets nibbled away. I think it's
important that we stick by principle and the rural buffer.
Thank you.
Mr. Carey: Is there anyone else who would like to speak?
Are you coming forward to speak?
Yes.
Mr. Carey: Come on down.
Jeff : I don't know if I should talk to you or to
you. I would like to speak in support of this fine tuning
basically because it shows that the plan itself is flexible
enough to be used by the people who own the land and I think
that if you come up with noncomforming, the lots that are
straddling the jurisdictions all around us, you are going to
have to start looking at each one individually anyway and
there's going to be no formula you can come up with as Mr.
Collins said, you know 20% or 50%, etc. , etc. , and I think
this is a real valid use of time to not only amend the plan
but to show the flexibility in all of jurisdictions that as
we grow we're not going to be stuck with a designation, a
zoning designation, which is a dinosaur eventually and I
think the rural buffer will be nibbled away slowly and that's
what it was designed for eventually we're going to grow in
all directions including through the rural buffer and that
was in the plan when we all labored over it for many years.
Thank you.
Mr. Carey: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like
to speak on this matter. If not we'll move onto the. next
item and that's item Dl.0 Town of Carrboro's class Mr. Roy
Williford will make this presentation and also make the
presentation for item 2a but before you make the
presentation for item 2a let me refer to the first three
items to the, go ahead and make the first one.
Dl. C. LUP-6-89 TOWN OF CARRBORO
Mr. Carey: ' Are there any questions for Mr. Williford on this
Land Use Plan amendment proposal? Yes.
Unidentified: Is this in the Rural Buffer?
•
Mr. Williford: Well, the word, the term Rural Buffer would
be this green area which surrounds Duke Forest, Duke Forest
is, of course, within the Rural Buffer so it's the southern
edge of the Rural Buffer.
So, it is, literally, in the Rural Buffer.
Mr. Williford: It is literally the Rural Buffer. Right. It
17-
recommendation for denial. Seconded by
Eidenier.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Jacobs noted that there were property owners
expressing concern about the devaluation of
their property at the public hearing. He
suggested that they be put in touch with the
Triangle Land Conservancy regarding possible
solutions to their concerns.
(2) LUP-5-89 Cazwell, Incorporated
DR &F IT' Collins noted that both Chapel Hill and
Carrboro governing boards have recommended
1.
approval of this amendment. The Joint
Planning Staffs of Orange County, Chapel Hill
and Carrboro also recommend approval.
MOTION: Lewis moved approval as recommended.
Seconded by Yuhasz.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(3) LUP-6-89 Town of Carrboro
DRAFTPresentation by Marvin Collins.
A copy of the agenda abstract is an
attachment to these minutes on pages
The Planning Staffs of Orange County, Chapel
Hill jointly recommend approval of the
request that the 400-foot Rural Buffer area
located between Carrboro's Transition Area II
and Duke Forest be removed and that the area
be designated as Transition Area II on the
Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan.
Best asked how this affected development.
Collins responded that there were two
different zoning designations - one for
Carrboro and one for Orange County.
Properties split by the boundary must deal
with two jurisdictions and two sets of
development standards.
Jacobs asked about the proposed amendment to
the Transition Area Zoning Plan. Collins
responded that if the Board of Commissioners
approves the Land Use Plan Amendment, then
the County could also act on the proposed
zoning plan for the area; i.e. , designate the
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
Action Agenda
Item #
SUBJECT: LUP-6-89 TOWN OF CARRBORO
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X_No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
(Refer to April 6, 1989 Public Planning Director - Extension 346
Hearing Agenda for Application
and Staff Report) TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
- Recommendations of Governing Durham - 688-7331
and Advisory Boards Mebane - 227-2031
JPA Public Hearing Minutes Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
of 4/6/89
- Draft Planning Board Minutes
of 5/15/89
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Joint Planning
Area Land Use Plan for Orange County, Chapel Hill and
Carrboro.
BACKGROUND: The Town of Carrboro has requested that the 400-foot
Rural Buffer area located between Carrboro's Transition
Area II and Duke Forest be removed and that the area be
designated as Transition Area II on the Joint Planning
Area Land Use Plan. The land in question is immediately
south of the Duke Forest Blackwood Division on either
side of N.C. Highway 86 and Eubanks Road. The area
consists of approximately 135 acres.
On May 4, 1987, the Board of Commissioners approved the
extension of the Transition Area into the full extent
of Bolin Creek basin north of Carrboro except in Duke
Forest and for those properties abutting Duke Forest.
The properties abutting Duke Forest would remain in the
Rural Buffer. The Transition Area boundary which
resulted was a very irregular line, varying in distance
from 200 feet to 1,600 feet from Duke Forest.
On August 16, 1988, the Board of Commissioners approved
the relocation of the Transition Area boundary to a set
distance of 400 feet from the Duke Forest border. The
boundary relocation was initiated at the request of
property owners. A consistent "buffer" dimension was
sought through the amendment process.
2
Since the approval of the 400-foot Rural Buffer area,
some difficulties have been experienced by property
owners whose land is split by the boundary line. The
approval of two jurisdictions, Carrboro and Orange
County, is necessary, creating administrative as well
as design problems. Developments are resulting in a mix
of one and two-acre lots. In some cases, water and
sewer extensions may be possible to part of a
development and not to the remainder.
Factors having a bearing on the proposed amendment
include the recently completed study of Duke Forest
lands and the completion of the Natural Areas Inventory
by the Triangle Land Conservancy. The Duke Forest study
recommends that the bulk of the Blackwood Division be
retained as Class 1 Permanent Research Forest or lands
most intensively used for academic and research
purposes. Such lands would be dedicated for academic
purposes for a period of 50 years. A portion of the
Blackwood Division south of Eubanks Road and near
Carrboro's Transition Area has been designated Class 2
Research Project Land.
Class 2 property is expected to remain in its present
forested state and continue to be used for current
research and teaching activities. Because such areas
have less intensive academic usage at the present time,
and research and teaching may not be the most
appropriate use over the long term, any proposal that
would lock in land use for more than five years would
be made only after proper deliberative review by the
Duke Land Resources Board.
Four sites were identified in the Natural Areas
Inventory as significant areas. They include:. (1) the
Bald Mountain Hardwood Slopes; (2) the Bald Mountain
Gabbro Depression; (3) Meadow Flats; and (4) Eubanks
Road Montmorillonite Forest. Two of the sites, Bald
Mountain Hardwood Slopes and Meadow Flats, have been
recommended for registration as a State Natural Area
with the N.C. Natural Heritage Program.
Concurrent with this request, the Town of Carrboro has
requested that the property in question be rezoned from
Rural Buffer to Rural Residential (See Z-5-89) . To
address concerns regarding natural areas and the Duke
Forest Study, the Town has indicated a 100-foot
undisturbed naturally vegetated setback would be
retained along the Duke Forest border.
This item was presented at public hearing on April 6,
1989.
3
The Chapel Hill Town Council considered the item
on April 24, 1989, then voted to approve the proposed
amendment at its May 8, 1989 meeting.
The Carrboro Board of Aldermen voted to approve the
proposed amendment at its April 25, 1989 meeting.
The Orange County Planning Board voted to approve the
proposed amendment at its May 15, 1989 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the request
that the 400-foot Rural Buffer area located between
Carrboro's Transition Area II and Duke Forest be
removed and that the area be designated as Transition
Area II on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan.
_4 ;/
JOINT PLANNING ITEMS FROM APRIL 6 - STATUS REPORT
ENVIROTEIC
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Denial
Chapel Hill Town Council Deny
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Denial
Carrboro Board .of Aldermen Deny
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Denial
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
CAZWELL INC.
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Approval
Chapel Hill Town Council Approve
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Denial
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Approve
- Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval 0
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
CARRBORO 400-FOOT BUFFER
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Denial
Chapel Hill Town Council Approve
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Approval
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Approve
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval (8-1)
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
•
ZONING
CARRBORO 400-FOOT BUFFER
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval (8-1) .
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Approval
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Approve--- .. ..... . .. . .. - - .
GREEN TRACT -
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Approval
Chapel Hill Town Council Approve
ds/51989 jpastat.doc
and I think we're going to be back here as mentioned earlier
tonight, we're going to be back and back again to defend the
rural buffer as it slowly gets nibbled away. I think it's
important that we stick by principle and the rural buffer.
Thank you.
Mr. Carey: Is there anyone else who would like to speak?
Are you coming forward to speak?
Yes.
Mr. Carey: Come on down.
Jeff : I don't know if I should talk to you or to
you. I would like to speak in support of this fine tuning
basically because it shows that the plan itself is flexible
enough to be used by the people who own the land and I think
that if you come up with noncomforming, the lots that are
straddling the jurisdictions all around us, you are going to
have to start looking at each one individually anyway and
there's going to be no formula you can come up with as Mr.
Collins said, you know 20% or 50%, etc. , etc. , and I think
this is a real valid use of time to not only amend the plan
but to show the flexibility in all of jurisdictions that as
we grow we're not going to be stuck with a designation, a
zoning designation, which is a dinosaur eventually and I
think the rural buffer will be nibbled away slowly and that's
what it was designed for eventually we're going to grow in
all directions including through the rural buffer and that
was in the plan when we all labored over it for many years.
Thank you.
Mr. Carey: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like
to speak on this matter. If not we'll move onto the next
item and that's item Dl.0 Town of Carrboro's class Mr. Roy
Williford will make this presentation and also make the
presentation for item 2a but before you make the
presentation for item 2a let me refer to the first three
items to the, go ahead and make the first one.
Dl. C. LUP-6-89 TOWN OF CARRBORO
Mr. Carey: Are there any questions for Mr. Williford on this
Land Use Plan amendment proposal? . Yes.
Unidentified: Is this in the Rural Buffer?
- Mr. Williford: Well, the word, the term Rural Buffer would
be this green area which surrounds Duke Forest, Duke Forest
• is, of course, within the Rural Buffer so it's the southern
• edge of the Rural Buffer.
So, it is, literally, in the Rural Buffer.
Mr. Williford: It is literally the Rural Buffer. Right. It
- - -_..;._ _:.__.. .. — PAGE 28 6 -
is the Rural Buffer.
Mr. Carey: Other questions? Yes. Did you have a question?
O.R.
Unidentified Citizen: Unintelligible comment.
Mr. Williford: The primary reason is not for the limination
of the Rural Buffer per se, but the Rural Buffer is creating
a jurisdictional boundary which existing lots all along
. the boundary of Duke Forest and in order to remedy that
situation, yes, we're asking that the Rural Buffer be removed
and that many of the features along Duke Forest be retained,
however, such as the set back.
Mr. Carey: Is there a question in the back of the room?
Unidentied Citizen: Comment unintelligible.
Mr. Williford: Yes, there are two issues, one issue would be
to amend the Land Use Plan, joint planning Land Use Plan to
remove the rural buffer and then once that is removed and the
transitional areas are extended. Then that area would have
to be zoned and we're saying that it be zoned the designation
which all the other transition areas to be currently zoned,
which would be RR, in our case, one unit per acre so it would
be a density change.
Unidentified Citizen: Unintelligible Comment.
Mr. Williford: Right. Would be a additional, 67 units over
135 acres.
Unidentified Citizen:- Unintelligible Comment.
Mr. Williford: The only one we have would not entirely be
consistent, would be in the water shed. We would have to
create another zoning.
• Mr. Carey: Yes sir.
Unidentified Citizen: Unintelligible Comment.
Mr. Williford: It doesn't differ in terms of administrative
problems which we encounter with those splits, it's the same.
A lot split by jurisdictional boundary is to be subjective to
review by, more than one jurisdiction.
Unidentified Citizen: Unintelligible Comment.
Mr. Williford: Excuse me, the extended boundary around the
Rural Buffer?
Unidentified Citizen: Unintelligible Comment.
III
Mr. Williford: This is probably a little different, in so
much as it doesn't honor existing lot boundaries whereas the
other designations of the Rural Buffer have pretty much
honored existing lot boundaries. It's just a set distance.
Mr. Carey: Others, Mr. Willhoit.
Don Willhoit: The presentation, what it came across to me,
was that it sort of presumes the VIP zone, would be adopted
and therefore it makes it remain a strict Rural Buffer
because it is somewhat strange. On the other hand, the VIP
zone are not adopted, then the Rural Buffer is strictly
removed, then it seems that it is designating new forest land
as the Rural Buffer and as something to do with forest so
they want their land having the same consideration as other
lands but some other classification. I think that this
decision on this at some part has to wait until the larger
questions of the VIP and designation of the Rural Buffer has
been decided.
Mr. Carey: O.K. Mr. Zaragoza.
Mr. Zaragoza: Comment Unintelligible.
Mr. Williford: It's 135 acres.
Mr. Carey: Other questions. Yes
Unidentified Citizen: In a previous meeting you were
speaking of the buffer zone, in terms of Duke Forest right
along where that green line is there. Now, my problem is
this, my property is against Duke Forest but between me and
Duke Forest is also a 60-feet state road. Now, I read in the
letter that in some places maybe, that the buffer zone
speaking of 100 feet would be smaller or could be smaller
would this highway have any reflection on that maybe when
Mr.. Carey: Is that question addressed to the Town of
Carrboro or, because the issue that I think you're speaking
of is not the subject of this public hearing that was a
li considered, that hundred foot buffer was around .the proposed
PID districts.
Citizen: Yes, but it's also in that same thing he's talking
about.
Mr. Carey: O.R. You're
y probably located somewhere in this. .
Citizen: I'm located toward the end of You see my
property is not against Duke there. Right up in here. Yeah.
With this road separating you here. The road is separating
and the is so close to where I live I was wondering
about this buffer.
8
Mr. Williford: In terms of this for the Rural Buffer, in
looking back at the information, we could not totally decide
as to whether not this went across this particular
subdivision in fact it looks as though it's to the north of
that so down to the right of way. Marvin, you may have a
better feel for that.
Mr. Carey: Is that correct Mr. Collins based on what you
know.
Mr. Collins: The 400 feet goes from the border of Duke
Forest and we would cross over that right-of-way and effect
those properties in the Hickory Forest there.
Unidentified: O.K. So it would then, in terms of the set-
back, I said the Town of Carrboro gets to a point where it
would amend its text to create a hundred foot buffer. There
are provisions in our ordinance where you have an existing
noncomforming lot or a buildable lot that the set-backs would
not prevent you in and of themselves from using your
property.
Mr. Carey: Other questions?
Unidentified:
Well, actually it came up whenever you propose something you
think you have it all together, something comes up the next
day and makes you re-examine it and this situation occured in
the subdivision up along Rogers Road and this area, which
have basically in the 404 feet Rural Buffer area or Orange
County and half of it' in Carrboro. We've been working trying
to resolve this since October in terms of how to actually
treat this particular subdivision under this new situation.
This seemed to be the best alternative in terms of being able
to designate that property in one jurisdiction.
The total concept we were looking at, we had it uniformed
distance which disregarded property lines and that was the
same all the way across.
Mr. Carey: O.K. At this point that concludes all of the
Land Use Plan amendment proposal we will refer these three
items to .the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and to the
-• Orange County Planning Board for decision no sooner than June
5 and we will move onto Item D2. A.
D2. A. Z-3-89 TOWN OF CARRBORO
Mr. Carey: Are there any questions for Mr. Walter?
APR 281919
_
9
P.O.Box 337
301 West Main Street
arrboro ...rt., No Garonne 27510
1," 1 1P•965-7700 (919 942-8541
April 26, 1989
Mr. John Link
Orange County Manager
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
Dear John:
The Carrboro Board of Aldermen at its meeting held on April
25, 1989, adopted the following documents:
• (1) A resolution opposing the Joint Planning Land Use Plan
Map amendment to change the designation of 424 acres of
land on the western side of the intersection of New
Hope Church Road and Interstate 40 from Rural Buffer to
Commercial Transition Activity Node and Agricultural
Residential (LUP-4-89) ;
(2) A resolution supporting the Joint Planning Land Use
Plan Map amendment to change the designation on 1.45
acres of land on the east side of Kerley Road at the
border of Orange and Durham Counties from Rural Buffer
to Ten Year Transition (LUP-5-89) ;
(3) A resolution .supporting the Joint Planning Land Use
• Plan Map amendment to change the designation of the
400-foot strip of Rural Buffer located between
Carrboro ' s Transition Area II and Duke Forest to
Transition Area II (LUP-6-89) : and
(4) An ordinance amending the Joint Planning Transition
Area zoning of the 400-foot strip of new Transition
Area II created by LUP-6-89 from Orange County Rural
Buffer to Carrboro R-R.
I would like to request that you pass the Board's action
along to the County Commissioners for consideration.
10
Page Two
•
Mr. Link
April 26, 1989
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Robert W. MOM=
Town Manager
RWM/scw •
Enclosures . •
•
cc: Dairid .Taylor
•
•
•
• •
• • .
• •
•
•
....
_
_P 0 Box 337
.•r•
Et ; arrboro Carrooro 301 West Main Street
Norm Carol.nd 27510
(019.966-7700 (019 942-851
N.C. ,-,..-,.. . - -. ._-.-,-,.„--- -
The following resolution was introduced by Alderman Tom Gurganus
and duly seconded by Alderman Randy Marshall.
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LUP-6-89
A JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE 400 FOOT STRIP
OF RURAL BUFFER LOCATED BETWEEN CARRBORO'S
TRANSITION AREA II AND DUKE FOREST TO
TRANSITION AREA II
Resolution No. 48/88-89
WHEREAS, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County adopted
Joint Planning Agreement and Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Map
on November 2, 1987; and
WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Agreement calls for a public
hearing to be held jointly by all parties to the Agreement and
for all parties to then concur on any changes to be made to the
Joint Planning Land Use Plan or Map; and
WHEREAS, the three parties held a Joint Planning Public
Hearing on April 6, 1989 to hear several proposed amendment to
the Joint Planning Land Use Map; and
WHEREAS , the Carrboro Board of Aldermen supports the
proposed change LUP-6-89, made by the Town of Carrboro.
NOW, THEREFORE , THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE TOWN OF
CARRBORO RESOLVES:
Section 1. The Board of Aldermen approves the proposed
Joint Planning Use Plan Map amendment (number LUP-6-89) , to
change the designation of the 400 foot strip of Rural Buffer
between Carrboro ' s Transition Area II and Duke Forest to
Transition Area II. •
•
Section 2. This resolution shall become effective upon
• adoption.
• The foregoing resolution having been submitted to a vote ,
received the following vote and was duly adopted this 25th day of
April, 1989: .
Ayes: Randy Marshall, Tom Gurganus, Hilliard Caldwell, Eleanor
Kinnaird, Judith Wegner, Frances Shetley, Jay Bryan
Noes: Eleanor Kinnaird
Absent or Excused: None
•
1, Sarah C. Williamson, Town Clerk of the Town of Carrboro, do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a
resolution adopted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen held on
April 25, 1989.
••
11. 6 Li./..(044a)AA--)
Town Clerk
•
•
i
AGENDA #8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: David R. Taylor, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Follow-up to April 6, 1989 Joint Public Hearing
DATE: April 24, 1989
On April 6, the elected boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and
Carrboro met in a Joint •Public Hearing to consider requests
related to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Tonight the
Council is asked to take its final action on the requests.
Adoption of the attached resolutions would approve or deny
requests for changes to the Land Use Plan, and will be forwarded
to Orange County for final action.
Background
The items heard at the Public Hearing were:
1)- Envirotek, Inc. ' request for change to Land Use Plan.
2) Cazwell, Inc. request for change to Land Use Plan.
3) Carrboro request for- change to Land Use Plan.
4) Carrboro request for-'change to Zoning Atlas.
5) Chapel Hill recommendation for zoning of Greene Tract. •
Now, subsequent to the Joint Public Hearing, the. Council needs to
approve or deny the first three items, which are requests for
changes to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, and forward
these actions to Orange County. (Changes to the Land Use Plan
can only be made if Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro all
agree) . The fourth item, a zoning request, does not come before
the Chapel Hill Town Council because it is on the Carrboro side
of the Joint Planning Area. The fifth item, recommended zoning
_of-the Greene tract, was taken up by the Council previously; the
Council's , recommendation -to zone that property. Rural Transition
was presented at the April 6, 1989 Joint Public Hearing.
Copies of Staff Reports presented at the Hearing are attached,
along with correspondence that was made a part of the record of
the hearing.
2
14
Discussion
1) Envirotek: At the hearing on April 6, the Planning
Staffs of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County recommended
denial of this request. Reasons for the recommendation included
the fact that the requested change was of a scale that would
serve to damage the Rural Buffer Concept, and therefore be in
conflict with adopted plans and policies. The Planning Staffs
suggested that there was no justification for the requested
change.
Comments at the hearing focused on what use might be made of this
property (approximately 424 acres) if the land use plan were
changed as requested and the property were to- be rezoned.
Concerns about traffic, environmental degradation, and noise were
expressed. The applicant stated that low-density residential use
was not suitable for this property, and that the change should be
approved.
Planning Board's Recommendation: At its meeting of April 18,
1989, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend that Town Council
deny the request.
Manager's Recommendation: We recommend that the Council adopt
Resolution 3B, denying the requested change to the Joint Planning
Area Land Use Plan. (Same as staff recommendation presented at
April 6, 1989 hearing) . -
Adoption 'of the alternative, Resolution 3A, would . approve the
request.
2) Cazwell: At the hearing, the three Planning Departments
recommended approval of request. Reasons included the fact that
this 1.5 acre parcel is a fraction of a 25 acre parcel, most of
which is located in Durham County; the 1.5 acre parcel is on the
outer edge of the Rural Buffer, adjacent to the Durham Urban
Growth Area; the larger parcel has been approved for a subdivi-
- sion by Durham City and County, with sewer to be provided by
Durham; and the fact that most of the 1:5 acres, if this request
is approved and zoning adjusted accordingly, will be used as back
yards for lots that are mostly in Durham County.
Comments at the hearing% focused on the. question . of whether
', granting this request' would damage the concept. or integrity of
the Rural Buffer. • -
* Planning- Board's Recommendation: Adoption of. the - alternative,
Resolution 4B, would. deny the request. _ At its meeting of April
18, 1989, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend that the Town
Council approve the request.
Manager's Recommendation: We recommend' that the Council adopt
Resolution 4A, approving this request. We believe the circum-
stances of this case are such that approval of the request is
reasonable, and can be accomplished without damage to the concept
3 15
- ...._ _ yam,
or integrity of the Rural Buffer. (Same as staff recommendation
presented at April 6, 1989 hearing) .
3) Carrboro Request: Carrboro requests an adjustment of the
Urban Services Area boundary, to eliminate a problem that has
arisen with the boundary bisecting numerous properties. This has
resulted in properties being half in the Rural Buffer, half in
the Transition Area, with jurisdiction for development regulation
split between Carrboro and Orange County. The three Planning
Departments recommended approving this adjustment.
Planning Board's Recommendation: At its meeting of April 18,
1989, the Planning Board voted 4-3 (Mr. Raney, Mr. Guild, Ms.
-. McLendon dissenting) to recommend denial of the request (see
Resolution 5B) . The primary justification was that extension of
Carrboro Transition Area IX to another 135 acres would be an
unwarranted intrusion into the Rural Buffer.
Manager's Recommendation: We recommend that the Council adopt
Resolution 5A, approving this request. We believe the reasons
stated by the Town of Carrboro are reasonable, and that the
adjustment would not damage the concept or integrity of the Rural
Buffer.
Adoption of the . alternative, Resolution 5B, would deny the
request.
Summary of Recommendations
We recommend that the Council adopt Resolutions 3B, 4A and 5A.
3B would deny the Envirotek request.
4A would approve the Cazwell request.
5A would approve the Carrboro request.
16
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF LUP6-89, AN AMENDMENT
TO THE JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN (TOWN OF CARRBORO)
(89-4-24/R-5a)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered
the request of the Town of Carrboro to amend the Joint Planning
Area Land Use Plan by redesignating the 400 foot strip separating
Duke Forest and Transition Area II from Rural Buffer to Transi-
tion Area II, and
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has determined
that the proposed amendment can be justified based on an
evaluation of the request against the appropriate natural and
locational criteria,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel
Hill that it approves Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan Amendment
LUP-6-89 - Town of Carrboro.
This the 24th day of April, 1989.
•
17 --------•
—
MOORE & VAN ALLEN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW rxr-cla Orr.cES
301 WEST MAIN STREET. Sw1TC 500 c.ARL0rTe.
c
0057 Orr.0c. BOX .3Baa
EEC TD CAA*, C
C. K. POWE
01.07414AM. N.C. 27702 SOUT*4 AAA., • CAAC..OT-E. C.
AAATNEA
ACCT CAL,.10101 611:17-2415 April 4, 1989
OuR-AM e• e2-5es.
c.c..-.L.,.
p.c.-602.7729
The Orange County Board of Commissioners
Chapel Hill Town Council
Carrboro Town Council
Orange County Planning Board
c/o Orange County Planning Department
306F Revere Road
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Re: Joint Planning, Area Land Use Plan Amendments
Joint Planning Area Rezonings
Public Hearin. A.ril 6, 1989
Dear Members of the above named Governing Boards and Planning
Board:
I represent Mr. James M. Verner and Mr. Berl Bernard who
are the owners of property in Orange County which is situated
in the 400-foot buffer located between the "Carrboro Transition
Area II" , as defined in the Joint Land Use Plan, and the
. Blackwood Division of Duke Forest.
My clients fully support the Town of Carrboro request
that the 400-foot buffer be removed and that the land
redesignated as "Carrboro Transition Area II" consistent
with the adjacent land to the south.
My clients also fully support the request of the Town of
Carrboro that the zoning designation of Rural Buffer currently
applied to the said 400-foot buffer strip south of Duke Forest
be changed to Carrboro Rural Residential (RR) , pending the
said Land Use Plan Amendments referred to above.
• •
My clients respectfully request that the respective
governmental authorities and Board take such appropriate
action as may be required to amend the Joint Planning Area
Land Use Plan and to rezone the affected property as requested
by the Town of Carrboro,
Please include this letter as part of the official record
of the public hearing to be held on Thursday, April 6, 1989
•
The Orange County Board of Commissioners
Chapel Hill Town Council
Carrboro Town Council
Orange County Planning Board
April 4, 1989
Page Two
at 7:30 p.m. at Phillips Junior High School on Estes Drive
in Chapel Hill.
Sincerely yours
MOORE & VAN ALLEN
/-)
t *It (e"r2c,r2
E. K. Powe
cc: Mr. James M. Verner
Mr. Berl Bernard
Orange County Planning Department
Carrboro Planning Department
Chapel Hill Planning Department
DURHAM
NORTH CAROLINA
27706
•
SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES • --- E PHONE MS)6 ~ 1
OFFICE OF THE DUKE FOREST - - •
March 31, 1989 , • 'fl .L, ►
Mr. David Stencil
Orange County Planning Department
306F Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Mr. Stancil:
•
In response to your request for comments on proposed amendments to the
Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan I have some preliminary observations
related to item LUP-4-89, Envirotek, Inc. Two parcels of Duke University
land are located immediately across New Hope Creek from the southern end of
the Proposed Commercial Transition area (Chapel;Hill twp. T.M. 14 Lots
11&12). They are, however, recommended for removal from the Duke Forest by
the recent report of the Land Resources Committee and will be classified as
residual endowment land, and I will not comment on the possible effects on
those parcels. Rather, as resource manager of the Duke Forest, I am interested
in those aspects of the proposal which could affect the continued ability of
the Duke Forest to provide those resources necessary for it to operate as a
teaching and research facility.
It appears that the potential for changes in water quality of New Hope
Creek constitutes the most obvious possible'effect on research in the
Forest, primarily in the Korstian Division several miles downstream.
Sedimentation during construction, increased storm water flows from
additional impervious surfaces, failure of sewage disposal systems or a
possible chemical spill each could be detrimental to current and future
• studies utilizing New Hope Creek.—Without more information on the
development plans such as water supply sources, waste disposal methods,
density, types of commercial activity, etc. it is difficult to comment on
specific downstream effects.
Review of additional information will assist in providing a basis for
additional comment. I would appreciate the opportunity to look over the
details as they become available.
Sincerely,
• yd_
Judson Edeburn
Duke Forest Resource Manager
JE/kb
cc: Dr. Norm Christensen
Dean George F. Dutrow
Mr. Max Wallace
puke pnittersitg
DURHAM
NORTH CAROLINA
27706
SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES TELEPHONE(919)694.2421
OFFICE OF THE DUKE FOREST aa`
Comments for Joint Area Hearing April 6, 1989
On June 29, 1988 the attached comments, prepared by the Duke Forest
Advisory Committee, supported the recommendation of Orange County Planning
Staff to incorporate a limited 400 foot Rural Buffer Zoning strip and a 100
foot vegetative buffer along the southern side of the Blackwood Division of
the Duke Forest. The concerns expressed at that time remain important.
Please note that we have always supported proper use of reasonable zoning to
protect important and sensitive areas including portions of the Duke Forest.
The University's objection to the proposed PID zoning of the Forest does not
conflict with this position.
Relative to the current proposal to remove the Rural Buffer designation
and portions of the 100 foot buffer, several additional issues arise which
could affect the long term viability of that portion of the Forest as an
outdoor laboratory. The recent report of Duke's Land Resources Committee
has classified portions of the Blackwood Division in both Class I, Permanent
Research Forest, and Class II, Research Project Land. Though continued use
of Class II land for teaching and research purposes is likely and
redesignation of this area as Class I land is possible, development
pressures which will increase as the result of the removal of sections of
the Rural Buffer Zoning and the limited 100 foot vegetative buffer may
jeopardize continued use of this land for academic purposes. As has been
stated in the past, the stability and permanence of any buffer zoning or
other measure adopted to protect environmental or aesthetic considerations
or to accommodate academic uses of the Duke Forest is of utmost importance.
Secondly, several areas in the Blackwood Division, including Bald
Mountain, Blackwood Mountain and Meadow Flats, are designated and protected
as sensitive plant communities for non-manipulative research by the Forest's
management plan. They have also been suggested for inclusion in the Natural
Heritage Areas by the State of North Carolina, and are noted for their
Areas and Wildlife
nto o the Natural
Inve u 1
significance in the recent of
i
Habitats of Orange County. North Carolina.
•
In addition to the often noted potential for increased recreational
pressure, vandalism or intrusion by motorcycles or four-wheel drive
vehicles, each of which can damage fragile habitats, let me cite one example
of a specific development impact which could threaten the Meadow Flats
wetland ecosystem. Should either residential or commercial uses of land
develop north of Eubanks Road and east of Old N.C.86 to such an extent that
the quantity and quality of run-off entering Meadow Flats change
significantly, the viability of that swamp forest and its native flora and
fauna could be placed in jeopardy. Similarly, it would be inappropriate for
a sanitary sewer easement, designed to serve the area, to follow any route
which would traverse that section of the Forest. Also, extensions of water
lines and easements for electric service or road widenings which do not
. .
21
properly account for critical environmental factors, can result in long term --
adverse impacts. The complexity of what may appear a minor zoning change
may result in an irretrievable loss of resources.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to items such as these
which represent areas of mutual concern to Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange
County and Duke Forest.
Judson Edeburn
Duke Forest Resource Manager
•
•
•
•
•
. ,
' Attachment
This statement was prepared for the Joint Planning Area Hearing on June 29, 1988
Slightly more than two years ago, Duke University commented on the
Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, prior• to its adoption. These comments
focused on portions of the plan which could potentially affect the operation
of the Duke Forest as a natural outdoor laboratory. - A section of that
statement may bear repeating at this time. -
Several important forest management criteria should
be taken into consideration in the planning process.
•
Teaching, research, and demonstration require both
undisturbed areas of vegetation and areas that are
•
actively managed to provide a diversity of stand types and
conditions. Increasing development around the Forest,
greater traffic flow on roads beside it, and recreational •
pressures including foot traffic, horseback riding, and
the intrusion of motorcycles and four-Wheel drive vehicles
make our management job increasingly complex. Not only is
it difficult to protect sensitive areas of vegetation and
expensive scientific equipment, but there may also be
adverse public reaction to management activities. These
activities include timber harvesting, site preparation,
and prescribed burning, each of which is an integral part
. of the Forest's operations. .
Duke University appreciates the consideration given by all governmental
•
agencies for the sensitivity of the Duke Forest as an academic resource. and. -
recognizes the difficult task of meeting the pressures for development and
allowing for planned growth throughout the county. It is obvious that the
Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the Orange County governments have each given
careful consideration to the Duke Forest in this regard.
Given the developmental pressures Which exist today, and undoubtedly
will increase in the future, The Rural Buffer designation seems to
- incorporate criteria Which can reasonably protect teaching and research
interests of the Duke Forest. The stability and permanence of any adopted
buffer surrounding the Forest is of utmost importance. Changes in the .
current Rural Buffer boundaries, which would permit more dense development
near the Forest, or extensions of water, sewer, and roads through it. would
likely compromise its use as an outdoor laboratory. •
•
Current plans are for continued use of the Duke Forest to provide
research and educational opportunities. We are currently evaluating the long
term use of all Duke University property to access changing research
requirements and external influences wbicb might affect the Forest . This
study may require reevaluation of these lands in the future with respect to
the mission and purpose of the University. Pending the results of this
study, any action taken by the Board of Commissioners which further
enhances the current protection of the Forest is appreciated by Duke
University and consistent with past University policy.
With respect to the specific proposal under Item D.1.C. to relocate .
Carrboro's Transition Area II, we recognize that the current designation
which incorporates an irregular line, varying in distance from 200 feet to
more than 2500 feet from the Forest, may not be equitable for adjoining land
owners. The alternatives to move the Transition Area boundary to set a
distance has been reviewed by the Duke Forest Advisory Committee, which is
• composed primarily of faculty who utilize the Forest for teaching and
research. It has been difficult for that group to determine an adequate •
scientific basis for-an approprate distance to the Transition Area, though .
the 400 feet recommended in Alternative 4 is certainly a minimum for
continued research uses of these lands. Also, recommendations by the Chapel
Kill Planning Board and the Orange County Planning Staff to incorporate a
100 foot natural buffer would enhance the protection value offered by the
400 foot buffer to the Transition Area. We believe it is more critical to
incorporate the 100 foot buffer rather than to suggest the longer 670 foot
. distance in Alternative 3.
We therefore concur with the recommendations of the Planning Staff that
• include a 400 foot distance to the Transition Area and a 100 foot natural
buffer.
•
•
•
•
.
21
• recommendation for denial. Seconded by
Eidenier.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Jacobs noted that there were property owners
expressing concern about the devaluation of
their property at the public hearing. He
suggested that they be put in touch with the
Triangle Land Conservancy regarding possible
solutions to their concerns.
• (2) LUP-5-89 Cazwell, Incorporated
PRA; F: Collins noted that both Chapel Hill and
Carrboro governing boards have recommended
approval of this amendment. The Joint
Planning Staffs of Orange County, Chapel Hill
and Carrboro also recommend approval.
MOTION: Lewis moved approval as recommended.
Seconded by Yuhasz.
VOTE: Unanimous.
1=2. (3) LUP-6-89 Town of Carrboro
DRAFTPresentation by Marvin Collins.
A copy of the agenda abstract is an
attachment to these minutes on pages
The Planning Staffs of Orange County, Chapel
Hill jointly recommend approval of the
request that the 400-foot Rural Buffer area
located between Carrboro's Transition Area II
and Duke Forest be removed and that the area
be designated as Transition Area II on the
Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan.
Best asked how this affected development.
Collins responded that there were two
different zoning designations - one for
Carrboro and one for Orange County.
Properties split by the boundary must deal
with two jurisdictions and two sets of
development standards.
Jacobs asked about the proposed amendment to
the Transition Area Zoning Plan. Collins
responded that if the Board of Commissioners
approves the Land Use Plan Amendment, then
the County could also act on the proposed
zoning plan for the area; i.e. , designate the
7RAFT 25
400-foot strip Rural Residential which was a
zoning district specifically created by
Carrboro for the Transition Area II Land Use
Plan classification (one-acre minimum lot
size) .
MOTION: Best moved approval as recommended. Seconded
by Yuhasz.
VOTE: 8 in favor.
I opposed (Jacobs - concerned with the
message that Duke will be receiving that this
is a more imminently developable portion of
Duke Forest now classified as Class II - the
Blackwood portion) .
b. Orange County Zoning Atlas
DRAFT (1) Z-3-89 Town of Carrboro
. A copy of the abstract as an attachment to
these minutes on pages
MOTION: - Best moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Lewis.
Yuhasz noted that he would prefer a different
zoning classification which would better fit
in with the present zoning classification.
Collins stated that he had asked that
question of the Carrboro Planning Director.
The response was that was not an option to
explore. It would not address the split
development standards and they wanted to have
only on jurisdiction approving the projects
• as well as having uniform development.
standards.
•
VOTE: 6 in favor.
2 opposed (Jacobs & Yuhasz - both preferred a
different zoning classification) .
(2) Z-4-89 Town of Chapel Hill
tV FT
A copy of the abstract is an attachment to
these minutes on pages
Presentation by Collins.
The Orange County Planning Staff recommends
approval of the proposed zoning of the Greene
tract to Rural Transition (RT) and
incorporation of that designation into the
Orange County Zoning Atlas.
— wig,.n.�_.•__._
• "L'- 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. G-3
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: JUNE 5, 1989
SUBJECT: SEVEN-MILE CREEK RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE
1 . DRAFT ORANGE COUNTY/TOWN OF X501
HILLSBOROUGH AGREEMENT ON OWNERSHIP
AND OPERATION OF SEVEN MILE CREEK RESERVOIR
2. RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
TELEPHONE NUMBER--
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To present a revised Seven Mile Creek Reservoir schedule as
proposed by the County Engineer. To present for initial
Commissioners' comments a Hillsborough proposal for the
operation and ownership of a reservoir at Seven Mile Creek.
BACKGROUND: A site on Seven Mile Creek has been chosen for a raw water
reservoir by the County Commissioners. With this step taken,
the preliminary engineering and permitting process should
begin. Prior to the beginning of preliminary engineering,
the details of the financing, ownership and operation of the
reservoir must be addressed in an executed agreement between
the County, Town of Hillsborough and/or other jurisdictions.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : Review the estimated development schedule and
Hillsborough's proposed operation and ownership agreement .
Direct the Manager to respond to the Hillsborough proposal
based on the Commissioners determination of the scope of the
County's participation in the reservoir development process.
2
REVISED RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
The remaining steps for the development of a reservoir on
Seven Mile Creek involve a process that will take a minimum three
to five years to accomplish. Reservoir scheduling discussions
have been held between the County Manager's staff and John
Pridgen, the engineer for the Town of Hillsborough. Mr. Pridgen
proposes a development schedule of approximately three years,
through completion of construction. The following schedule
anticipates a total project time, including construction, of
approximately five years. The primary differences between the
schedules are the result of additional time for delay being
allowed in the County's estimated schedule as described below.
The schedule for the Town is based on the project progressing
smoothly and without delay.
There are three major areas in the development process where
major delays can occur. The first area involves the execution of
an agreement between the County, the Town of Hillsborough, and or
other jurisdictions concerning the financing, ownership and
operation of the reservoir. The financing details must be
finalized in order to commit the funds required to pay for the
preliminary engineering design phase. Commitments to financial
arrangements can not be made until the ownership and operation
decisions are finalized. Until this agreement is executed, all
other steps in the development of the reservoir are held in
abeyance.
The second area of the reservoir development process where
the possibility of delay exists is during the permitting process.
If community opposition arises, the possibility of multiple public
hearings and the full environment impact statement process becomes
more certain. The extent of delay engendered in the hearing and
environmental impact process is difficult to judge, but could
reach two or more years.
The third area where the possibility for delay in the
reservoir development process exists is in the acquisitions of
property. The timetable for this process is difficult to assess
with any degree of accuracy, because it depends on the willingness
of the property owners to sell their property.
-1-
18252113
'
3
OUTLINE SCHEDULE
Step No. Description Time Time Period
Step I Town/County Reservoir Control 4 mos. 6/1/89-10/1/89
Agreement
Step 2 Advertise Bond Referendum 3 mos. 10/1/89-1/1/90
Step 3 Property Surveys, Appraisals, 38 mos. 12/1/89-2/1/93
Acquisition
Step 4 Bond Referendum 1/15/90
Step 5 Preliminary Engineering, 8 mos. 3/1/90-11/1/90
Construction Surveys, Geotechnical
Investigation
Step 6 Environmental Assessment Process 24 mos. 5/1/90-5/1/92
Step 7 Permit Approval & Certifications 2 mos. 3/1/92-5/1/92
401 ,404
Step 8 Final Plan Preparation 8 mos. 3/1/92-11/1/92
Step 9 Project Advertisement, Bidding, 3 mos. 11/1/92-2/1/93
Negotiation, & Award of Contract
Step 10 Dam Construction/Reservoir 2/1/93-2/1/94
Clearing
Step 11 Permit to Impound-Begin Impoundment 2/1/94-3/15/94
-2-
EXPANDED SCHEDULE
Step i Town/County Reservoir Control Agreement
Execute agreement between the County and the Town of
Hillsborough whereby the details of reservoir financing,
ownership, operation, maintenance, watershed protection, etc.
are finalized. Complete by October 1 , 1989
Step 2 Advertise Bond Referendum
Begin approximately three month process for Bond
Referendum for Town of Hillsborough to obtain funding for its
share of reservoir development costs, as proposed by the
Town. Complete by January 1 , 1990.
Step 3 Property Surveys, Appraisals, Acquisition
Complete all property acquisition surveys and
appraisals. Negotiate with property owners, purchase
property, prepare final deeds and plats. Complete by
February 1 , 1993.
Step 4 Bond Referendum
Hold actual referendum on sale of bonds by the Town of
Hillsborough. Referendum on or about January 15, 1990.
Step 5 Preliminary Engineering, Construction Surveys, Geotechnical
Complete field survey of proposed dam site, lay out
geotechnical boring locations; have geotechnical boring
investigation and analysis report completed; determine
geotechnical basis of preliminary design; confirm design
concepts, property acquisition limits, reservoir water
elevation, capacity, and safe yield; develop preliminary
design drawings and detailed preliminary cost estimates.
Complete by November 1 , 1990.
Step 6 Environmental Assessment Process
Environmental Impact Assessment (FIA)-document the need
for proposed project, alternatives to proposed project,
nature & historic inventory. Study impact on natural and
human environment; accomplish impact mitigation study and
negotiation. Hold Public Hearings as required. Complete by
May, 1992.
-3-
Step 7 Permit Approval and Certification
a) Federal Section 401 Certification - The Federal
Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972 require that
the owner obtain a certification from the State of North
Carolina for any activity, including construction of an
impounding dam, that may result in a discharge of a pollutant
into waters of the United States. This certification is
generally obtained prior to or during the 404 permit
application process. Complete by May, 1992.
b) Federal Section 404 Permit - Section 404 of Federal
Clean Water Act requires that a dredge or fill permit for
reservoir construction be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. The COE will require that this permit
application be accompanied by an EIA. The 404 permit will
establish requirements for wildlife mitigation and instream
flow. Complete by May, 1992.
Step 8 Final Plan Preparation
Final plan preparation - confirm final design concepts;
perform final engineering design (i .e. civil , structural,
geotechnical , electrical , etc. ) develop contract documents;
obtain State and local construction permits. Complete by
November, 1992 '
Step 9 Project Advertisement, Bidding, Negotiation, and Award of
Contract
Advertise contract to bidders through national
magazines, newspapers, Dodge and AGC. Take bids on
contracts. Negotiate bid prices with contractors as
required. Award Contracts. Complete by February 1 , 1993.
Step 10 Dam Construction, Reservoir Clearing
Construct dam and control structure, clear trees from
inundated areas. Complete by February 1 , 1994.
Step 11 Permit to Impound
Obtain final dam safety permits and certification,
secure permission for regulatory authorities to begin
impounding water. Begin reservoir impoundments. Complete
permitting process by March 1 , 1994.
-4-
RESERVO2
D ir , 6
•STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, N.C.
AND ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. •
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of •
1989, between the TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. , hereinafter
referred to as the TOWN and ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. , hereinafter
referred to as the COUNTY.
WITNES SETH
The TOWN must immediately begin the development of a water
supply source in addition to the currently used direct with-
drawal of water from the Eno River.
The TOWN has selected the Seven Mile Reservoir as a first
choice of water supply alternatives.
The COUNTY has selected the Seven Mile Reservoir as a first
choice of water supply alternatives.
The COUNTY has passed a referendum authorizing the sale of
bonds in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00)
and designated for the development of a reservoir.
The COUNTY now owns one hundred and sixty acres of land in
the Seven Mile Reservoir basin.
The TOWN and COUNTY have prepared sepaiate schedules for the
construction of the Seven Mile Reservoir for the purpose of
an additional water supply.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Town and COUNTY, for an in consideration
of matters hereinafter set forth, do hereby agree as follows:
The TOWN, after signing this agreement, will immediately
schedule a referendum requesting authorization to sell
bonds for funding of an alternative water supply in
accordance with the referenced schedule.
The TOWN, after the passing of said referendum, will
proceed with the design, securing of all required approvals
DMMEF Page 2 of 3
7
and construction of the Seven Mile Reservoir water
supply.
The TOWN, after the passing of said referendum, will
proceed with the appraisal and purchase of all proper-
ties needed for reservoir construction.
The TOWN will execute a payback agreement for utilized
bond sale proceeds plus interest with the COUNTY, and
will utilize the proceeds from the sale of the COUNTY
bonds for the purchase of land and reservoir clearing
inaccordance with earlier verbal understandings. The
title for purchase of reservoir property will be held
in escrow until the utilized bond sale- proceeds have
been paid in full.
The TOWN AND COUNTY will enter into an AGREEMENT with
ORANGE-ALAMANCE WATER COMPANY relative to the supply of
finished or raw water to ORANGE-ALAMANCE and the deve-
lopment of alternative water supplies on watersheds
other than ENO RIVER.
• The TOWN will be the sole owner of the reservoir and
water contained, and will withdraw and release reservoir
water in accordance with the needs of the TOWN water
supply system and for instream flow in accordance with
the voluntary capacity use agreement between the parties.
• IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or
caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials,
this AGREEMENT in copies each of which shall be
deemed an original on the date first above written.
TOWN:
BY:
NAME:
TITLE:
•
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
NAME:
TITLE:
f1 1i3 Page 3 of 3
8
COUNTY:
BY:
NAME:
TITLE:
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
NAME:
TITLE:
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1989, by
My Commission expires:
Notary Public
WITNESS my hand and offical seal.
[J] If
9
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH May 12, 1989
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR SEVEN MILE RESERVOIR
May 15-June 1, 1989 Draft Agreement Hillsborough/
Orange County
June 1-July 1, 1989 Consider and sign Final Agreement
July 1, 1989 Advertise for Referendum
September 15, 1989. Bond Referendum Date
November 1-7, 1989 Bond Referendum alternate date
(General Election date)
November 7-15, 1989 Begin preliminary engineering -
site study .
Begin land surveying for property
purchase
November 15-30,. 1989 Lay out boring-..(surveying)
December 1, 1989 Mobilize geotechnical crew (one
week to mobilize)
January 15, 1990 Complete Geotechnical Report
May 1, 1990 Complete Preliminary Plans
June 1, 1990 Complete Approval of preliminary
engineering
Begin Final Plans
September 1, 1990 Complete Final Plans
January 1, 1991 Complete Approvals of Final Plans
Advertise for Bids
February 15, 1991 Receive Bids
-
March 1, 1991 Award Contract
March 1, 1992 Complete Dam
April 1, 1992 Begin impoundment
PRIDGEN CONSULTANTS, INC.
1811-204. AVent Ridge Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27606 919-851-6462
•
' e 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
Action i:Ing
Item 0
SUBJECT: Z-3-89 TOWN OF CARRBORO - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
TOWN OF CARRBORO TRANSITION AREA ZONING PLAN
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins
(Refer to April 6, 1989 Public
Hearing Agenda for Application TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
and Staff Report) Hillsborough - 732-8181
JPA Public Hearing Minutes Durham - 688-7331
of 4/6/89 (See LUP-6-89) Mebane - 227-2031
Governing Board Recommendations Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
Draft Planning Board Minutes
of 5/15/89
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Plan for
Transition Areas located within the Carrboro Joint
Development Review Area (CAJDA) .
BACKGROUND: The Town of Carrboro has requested that the zoning
on certain land in the Carrboro Transition Area be
changed from the Orange County designation of Rural
Buffer (RB) to the Carrboro designation of Rural
Residential (RR) . The property is located east and
west of N.C. Highway 86 and south of Eubanks Road. The
property contains approximately 135 acres.
The basis for proposed rezoning is contained in the
staff report included with the proposed amendment to
the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan (LUP-6-89) .
Provided the Land Use Plan amendment is approved, the
rezoning proposal would be consistent with the Plan.
This item was presented at public hearing on April 6,
1989.
The Carrboro voted to approve the proposed amendment at
its April 25, 1989 meeting.
The Orange County Planning Board voted to approve the
proposed amendment at its May 15, 1989 meeting.
2
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed
zoning to Rural Residential (RR) and incorporation of
that designation into the Orange County Zoning Atlas.
3
• --
JOINT PLANNING ITEMS FROM APRIL 6 - STATUS REPORT
ENVIROTEX
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Denial
Chapel Hill Town Council Deny
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Denial
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Deny
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Denial
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
AZ WELL INC.
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Approval
Chapel Hill Town Council Approve
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Denial
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Approve
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
CARRBORO 400-FOOT BUFFER
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Denial
Chapel Hill Town Council Approve
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Approval
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Approve - -
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval (8-1)
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
ZONING
CARRBORO 400-FOOT BUFFER
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval (8-1) .
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Approval
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Approve
- GREEN TRACT _
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Approval
Chapel Hill Town Council Approve
ds/51989 pastat.doc
APR 8 1489
4
. .
,
Box 337
arrboro 30' West Mem Street
• Carrborc txotir Cerossn 27510
Nr; 9SE-77oc.
9. 942-e 54
-
April 26, 1989
Mr. John Link
Orange County Manager
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
Dear John:
The Carrboro Board of Aldermen at its meeting held on April
25, 1989, adopted the following documents:
(1) A resolution opposing the Joint Planning Land Use Plan
Map amendment to change the designation of 424 acres of
land on the western side of the intersection of New
Hope Church Road and Interstate 40 from Rural Buffer to
Commercial Transition Activity Node and Agricultural
Residential (LUP-4-89) :
(2) A resolution supporting the Joint Planning Land Use
Plan Map amendment to change the designation on 1.45
acres of land on the east side of Kerley Road at the
border of Orange and Durham Counties from Rural Buffer
to Ten Year Transition (LUP-5-89) ;
(3) A resolution. supporting the Joint Planning Land Use
Plan Map amendment to change the designation of the
400-foot strip of Rural Buffer located between
Carrboro ' s Transition Area II and Duke Forest to
Transition Area II (LUP-6-89) ; and
(4) An ordinance amending the Joint Planning Transition
Area zoning of the 400-foot strip of new Transition
Area II created by LUP-6-89 from Orange County Rural
Buffer to Carrboro R-R.
I would like to request that you pass the Board's action
along to the County Commissioners for consideration.
•
•
- ft
5
__-
Page Two
Mr. Link
April 26, 1989
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Morgan
Town Manager
RWM/scw
Enclosures
cc: David Taylor
•
•
• •
• •
L. P0 Box 337
3o1 West Maw)Street
arrboro Carroore.Morin Carolina 27510
'919.955-7700 at10,0A2-0541
N C
The following ordinance was introduced by Alderman Tom Gurganus
and duly seconded by Alderman Randy Marshall.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE JOINT PLANNING TRANSITION AREA
ZONING OF THE 400 FOOT STRIP OF NEW TRANSITION AREA II
CREATED BY LUP-6-89 FROM ORANGE COUNTY RURAL BUFFER
TO CARRBORO R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) '
WHEREAS, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County adopted a
Joint Planning Agreement and Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Map
on November 2, 1987; and'
WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Agreement calls for a public
hearing to be held jointly by all parties to the Agreement, and
for Orange County and Carrboro both to approve an ordinance
amending the zoning of lands in the Carrboro Joint Planning
Transition Areas, in order for such a rezoning to occur; and
WHEREAS, the three parties held a Joint Planning Joint
Public Hearing on April 6 , 1989 to hear several proposed
• • amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Map and zoning in the
Transition Areas; and
WHEREAS, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen generally supports
the proposed zoning change Z-4-89, made by the Town of Carrboro.
NOW, THEREFORE , THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE TOWN OF
CARRBORO ORDAINS:
Section 1 . The zoning of the 400-foot strip of new
Transition Area II located generally between Duke Forest and the
Carrboro Transition Area II, and created by the approval of Joint
Planning Land Use Plan Amendment LUP-6-89, is hereby changed from
Orange County Rural Buffer to Carrboro R-R (Rural Residential) .
Section 2. All provisions of any former ordinance in
conflict with this ordinance are repealed.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective upon
adoption.
•
room
The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote, received
the following vote and was duly adopted this 25th day, of April,
1989:
Ayes: Randy Marshall, Tom Gurganus, Hilliard Caldwell. Judith
Wegner
Noes: Eleanor Kinnaird, Frances Shetley, Jay Bryan
Absent or Excused: None
I, Sarah C. Williamson, Town Clerk of the Town of Carrboro, do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of
an ordinance adopted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen on April
25, 1989.
Town Clerk
•
--ram
AFT8:
400-foot strip Rural Residential which was a
zoning district specifically created by
Carrboro for the Transition Area II Land Use
Plan classification (one-acre minimum lot
size) .
MOTION: Best moved approval as recommended. Seconded
by Yuhasz.
VOTE: 8 in favor.
1 opposed (Jacobs - concerned with the
message that Duke will, be receiving that this
is a more imminently developable portion of
Duke Forest now classified as Class II - the
Blackwood portion) .
b. Orange County Zoning Atlas
1)
)AFT c' >* Z-3-89 Town of Carrboro
(
A copy of the abstract as an attachment to
these minutes on pages
MOTION: • Best moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Lewis.
Yuhasz noted that he would prefer a different
zoning classification which would better fit
in with the present zoning classification.
Collins stated that he had asked that
question of the Carrboro Planning Director.
The response was that was not an option to
explore. It would not address the split
development standards and they wanted to have
only on jurisdiction approving the projects
as well as having uniform development
standards.
VOTE: 6 in favor.
2 opposed (Jacobs & Yuhasz - both preferred a
different- zoning classification) .
(2) Z-4-89 Town of Chapel Hill
? •• A
A copy of the abstract is an attachment to
these minutes on pages
Presentation by Collins.
The Orange County Planning Staff recommends
approval of the proposed zoning of the Greene
tract to Rural Transition (RT) and
incorporation of that designation into the
Orange County Zoning Atlas.
f l.. .
;.• 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF CCOMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
Action Agenda
Item #
SUBJECT: Z-4-89 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL TRANSITION AREA ZONING PLAN
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X J0
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins
(Refer to April 6, 1989 Public
.Hearing Agenda for. Application
and Staff Report) TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
JPA Public Hearing Minutes of Durham - 688-7331
4/6/89 Mebane - 227-2031
Draft Planning Board Minutes Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
of 5/15/89
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Plan for
Transition Areas located within the Chapel Hill Joint
Development Review Area (CHJDA) .
BACKGROUND: The Town of Chapel Hill has requested that the zoning
for a parcel in the Chapel Hill Transition Area be
changed from Residential-1 (R-1) to Rural Transition
(RT) . The property is located south of Eubanks Road
and west of N.C. Highway 86. It is known as lot 17A
of Orange County Tax Map 24 - Chapel Hill Township. The
property contains 169 acres and is also known as the
"Greene" tract.
On June 30, 1988, a Joint Public Hearing was held to
consider municipal recommendations for zoning in
Transition Areas. The zoning designation advertised
and discussed for this parcel at the hearing was
Residential-1 (R-1) .
On August 22, 1988, the Chapel Hill Town Council made a
final recommendation of Rural Transition (RT) zoning
for the property. When the RT recommendation came
before the Board of Commissioners on October 3, 1988,
the Board deferred application of RT zoning to the
Greene tract upon being advised that the designation
had not been part of the legal advertisement for the
June public hearing. The Board asked that the matter be
placed on the next Joint Planning public hearing agenda
2
for consideration.
The basis for the Town Council's action on August 22,
1988 is contained in the attached Chapel Hill Planning
Staff report. The Orange County Planning Staff has
reviewed the proposal and finds it to be consistent
with the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan adopted in
November, 1987.
This item was presented at public hearing on April 6,
1989.
The OrangeCounty Planning Board voted to approve the
proposed amendment at its May 15, 1989 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed
zoning of the Greene tract to Rural Transition (RT)
and incorporation of that designation into the Orange
County Zoning Atlas.
• 3
JOINT PLANNING ITEMS FROM APRIL 6 STATUS REPORT
ENVIROTEK
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Denial
Chapel Hill Town Council Deny
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Denial
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Deny
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Denial
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
CAZWELL INC.
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Approval
Chapel Hill Town Council Approve
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Denial
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Approve •
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval
Orange County CommissionersJune 5
CARRBORO, 400-FOOT BUFFER
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Denial
Chapel Hill Town Council Approve
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Approval
Carrboro Board of Aldermen Approve
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval (8-1)
Orange County CommissionersJune 5 •
li
i
ZONING
GARRBORO 400-FOOT BUFFER ..
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval (8-1) -
Orange County Commissioners. . .• June 5
Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Approval
Carrboro Board of Aldermen . Approve __ ..__...._.. _ .. _.-_._.
• G REEN TRACT . .
Orange County Planning BoardRecommend Approval
Orange County Commissioners. . . .June 5
Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Approval
Chapel Hill Town Council Approve
1
ds/51989 pastat.doc
1
-- -
Mr. Williford: In terms of this for the Rural Buffer, in
looking back at the information, we could not totally decide
as to whether not this went across this particular
subdivision in fact it looks as though it's to the north of
that so down to the right of way. Marvin, you may have a
better feel for that.
Mr. Carey: Is that correct Mr. Collins based on what you
know.
Mr. Collins: The 400 feet goes from the border of Duke
Forest and we would cross over that right-of-way and effect
those properties in the Hickory Forest there.
Unidentified: O.K. So it would then, in terms of the set-
back, I said the Town of Carrboro gets to a point where it
would amend its text to create a hundred foot buffer. There
are provisions in our ordinance where you have an existing
nonconforming lot or a buildable lot that the set-backs would
not prevent you in and of themselves from using your
property.
Mr. Carey: Other questions?
Unidentified:
Well, actually it came up whenever you propose something you
think you have it all together, something comes up the next
day and makes you re-examine it and this situation occured in
the subdivision up along Rogers Road and this area, which
have basically in the 404 feet Rural Buffer area or Orange
County and half of it in Carrboro. We've been working trying
to resolve this since October in terms of how to actually
treat this particular subdivision under this new situation.
This seemed to be the best alternative in terms of being able
to designate that property in one jurisdiction.
The total concept we were looking at, we had it uniformed
distance which disregarded property lines and that was the
same all the way across.
Mr. Carey: O.K. At this point that concludes all of the
Land Use Plan amendment proposal we will refer these three
items to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and to the
Orange County Planning Board for decision no sooner than June
5 and we will move onto Item D2. A.
Z-4-8g Teased N t culbt✓►Et_
D2. A.
Mr. Carey: Are there any questions for Mr. Walter?
9
PAGE 31— 5 > "
Unidentified Citizen: Comment Unintelligible.
I'm not sure exactly where your property is the map that you
and I were looking at before, this is the property that I
believe covered, it had a number on it, no. 5.
It's adjacent to the railroad, to the southern railroad line
and the property is immediately west of the southern railroad
line so on the map that is in the packets, this 170 acres
partial is identified with a no. 5, I believe on the map that
is in the packet.
Citizen Comment: Unintelligible.
South of Eubanks Road. It is between the railroad and Rogers
Road.
Mr. Carey: Yes sir.
Unidentified Citizen: Unintelligible comment>
I have to argue with your perception that the
City is trying to pull anything over on anybody I really take
issue at that. This item was, this hearing was published in
the newspaper, a very large display ad, the notices were sent
out by the County, to property owners, the display, the ad
that was in the paper had language in there that said that
this was one possible use of property in an RZ zone is a
landfill operation. In terms of the current thinking on
this, this property may or may not be used as a landfill,
there's no
Unidentified: Unintelligible.
Mr. Carey: There was no way the City or anyone else could
predict whether this was going to occur at 9:30 or 10:30
because of the other items that was on the agenda g tonight.
Unidentified: We have been here many times on this issue, we
are here again tonight because there was never a decision.
The rest is unintelligible.
Mr. Carey: Sir, we tried to give as much notice as we can on
this item and you are certainly entitled to your opinion but
we have to consider these items as we get to them on the
agenda and we try not to schedule so many on an agenda that
they go much later than this but we can't always predict that
that is going to occur.
Citizen: Unintelligible.
Mr. Carey: What error are you referring to?
Citizen: Unintelligible.
Mr. Carey: Well, that wasn't an error because the notice we
gave was for, what we considered the property for at that
time. That's why we didn't consider it for something
different than what we advertised it for the last time. We
are advertising it propertly this time we did so according to
the laws and to the procudures that we normally follow and we
try to put it on our agenda at a time that it wouldn't be so
full. There was no way we could predict exactly what time it
was going to come up. We followed the proper procedure for
notifing the public about this item coming up tonight.
Citizen: Unintelligible.
This item that is before us tonight the zoning of
this parcel is not the decision to locate a landfill here.
That decision is not made. before Anything located on
this property would have to have permits applied for and
granted and a special use permit applied for with public
hearings and ample opportunity for citizen comment and so
forth and again this action here is not an action to
authorize a landfill on this site.
Mr. Carey: Thanks for making that clear. There's a question
here.
Unidentified Citizen: Comment unintelligible.
Mr. Carey: Are there any other members of the audience who
would like to raise a question or a comment? Please state
your name so we can get it for the record.
Unidentified Citizen: Comment unintelligible.
In response, I would suggest that having a
zoning designation of RI that doesn't permit a landfill when
there is distinct possibility that it may be used as a
landfill, would be more misleading than zoning it RT. It
seems that the comments that the Town council are making were
that the zoning and RT is more appropriate and is the least
misleading because
g it indicates that it may be used as a
landfill, it may not but there is the possibility.
Mr. Gledhill: Comments Unintelligible.
Mr. Carey: Thank you Mr. Gledhill. That does help clarify
matters. The lady in the back.
Citizen Comments: Comments Unintelligible.
Mr. Gledhill: Comments Unintelligible.
Mr. Carey: I saw some hands back here before yours, if you
have a question please hold it, I think Mr. Reed had his hand
up first. Mr.
Reed: Comments Unintelligible.
Comment: Unintelligible.
Mr. Carey: Please state your name.
Bill Elliott: For the record, I would like to be sure that
points are being heard. I represent the Northwest Chapel
Hill Neighborhood Association, a group of about 50 residents
in the area south of the green tract. Basically, we feel
that RT is inappropriate for this piece of land, because,
first of all it is surrounded by residential zoning. There
is no logical reason to have different zoning for this piece
of land other than for the purposes of a land fill. since
that decision has not been made, it doesn't seem reasonable
to go ahead and rezone to allow that to happen before the
decision has been made. It is also in the urban services
district of Chapel Hill which was specifically put in to
encourage higher density, efficient use of land and public
facilities, sewer lines and so on. Now we have this big
whole in the urban services district which is again, even
with the very large lots, not consistent with the rest of the
area. There is no reason for it at the present time. Again,
to allow a landfill in an area where people get their water
from wells, we think is very dangerous and unreasonable. You
are seeing a lot of anger here among the people that are
present. Part of my anger has to do with the time that is
being spent on this issue. When you see the consultant hired
by the Solid Waste Task Force has said that this is not a
good -site. The Chapel Hill Planning Board has said that this
is not a good site. The Planning Staff originally, before
the Manager essentially overrode them, was going to recommend
R-1 for this. Yet, we are here spending time on this rather
than spending time on finding alternative sites. It makes me
angry and I'm sure it makes other people angry that we are
going through' this when we should really be look for a more
appropriate site. This is going to be the center of town.
It is going to be in town within the next 5-10-15 years. To
have a landfill right in the middle of residential
development makes no sense. To push this forward at this
time is inappropriate and difficult to understand. People
wonder what the motive is for pushing this forward and not
putting your energy and our energy into finding a better
solution and a better site. Thank you.
Mr. Carey: The gentlemen in the back. Please come forward
and state your name.
8
Mr. Stroud: Unintelligible.
Mr. Carey: Mr. Stroud, if a landfill is proposed for this
piece of property, there will be public hearings held on it,
because a Special Use permit will have to be obtained by
those who wish to use it as a landfill, i.e. the County and
the two Municipalities that own the property. Those kinds of
questions will be answered at that time, because that is the
time to approve a Special Use. At the time a permit is
issued we have to make sure that the appropriate protections
are in place. I would like to ask, I see a gentleman here
who has not spoken. We would like to give everyone an
opportunity to speak, but we can't be here all night and we
are going to have to limit the comments of those who have
already spoken once or twice before.
Unidentified Citizen: I own property near, the proposed
landfill. I am reminded that he that shall be first shall be
last and he that shall be last shall be first. I would like
to commend the task force..that the Mayor got together a year
or so ago. They have been working very diligently in an
attempt to solve the problem. We need to make people realize
that we are all part of the problem and we are all going to
have to be a part of the solution. I, too, feel that many
times we have not been given due respect, or proper attention
to our concerns. I hope that you won't wait so long that it
has become another crisis like the present landfill did some
years ago. They waited until the University closed the
entrance to the landfill before they went to find another
one. That is not the kind of approach that an enlightened
government, like we are supposed to have here in orange
County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro, would operate under. I
believe that if we continue to work hard, that this county
and these governments; with the help of the citizens can
solve this problem through a combination of recycling,
composting or whatever is finally recommended.
Mr. Carey: At this time I am going to close off discussion
on this item. I believe we have given everyone an
opportunity to speak at least once. I will close the Public
Hearing and refer Item 2 (a) to the governing board of the
Town of Carrboro and 2(b) to the governing board of Chapel
Hill and both items to the Orange County Planning Board for
recommendation to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than
June 5th, 1989.
, 117
400-foot strip Rural Residential which was a
zoning district specifically created by
Carrboro for the Transition Area II Land Use
Plan classification (one-acre minimum lot
size) .
MOTION:
Best moved approval as recommended. Seconded
by Yuhasz.
VOTE: 8 in favor.
1 opposed (Jacobs - concerned with the
message that Duke will be receiving that this
is a more imminently developable portion of
Duke Forest now classified as Class II - the
Blackwood portion) .
b. Orange. County Zoning Atlas
1 --ii
RAFT\. _ (1) Z-3-89 Town of Carrboro
A copy of the abstract as an attachment to
these minutes on pages .
MOTION: • Best moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Lewis.
Yuhasz noted that he would prefer a different
zoning classification which would better fit
in with the present zoning classification.
Collins stated that he had asked that
question of the Carrboro Planning Director.
The response was that was not an option to
explore. It would not address the split
development standards and they wanted to have
only on jurisdiction approving the projects
as well as having uniform development
standards.
VOTE: 6 . in favor.
2 opposed (Jacobs & Yuhasz - both preferred a
different zoning classification) .
(2) Z-4-89 Town of Chapel Hill
D P T r
21EC'
N-. A copy of the abstract is an attachment to
these minutes on pages .
Presentation by Collins.
The Orange County Planning Staff recommends
approval of the proposed zoning of the Greene
tract to Rural Transition (RT) and
incorporation of that designation into the
Orange County Zoning Atlas.
ry---- ------
10
MOTION: Best moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Eddleman.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Meeting adjourned 10:40 p.m.
1
i -.,f
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No.Cr-5
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
SUBJECT: Efland Cheeks Community Center and Park
DEPARTMENT: Manager PUBLIC SEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S) : Memorandum INFORMATION CONTACT: Manager's Office
Project Profile
Financing of Projects
TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To approve the Efland-Cheeks Community Center and Park Concept
Plan.
BACKGROUND: On December 5, 1989 the Board approved the 1989-1994 Capital
Improvements Plan. The plan included the construction of the
Efland-Cheeks Community Center to replace the leased Efland-
Cheek Multipurpose Center. The proposed center would house
JOCCA and Department on Aging sponsored senior citizens'
activities. The park would be western Orange County's first
Community Park.
Ten acres of a 12. 15 acre tract of land contiguous to Efland-
Cheeks Elementary School and owned by the County School Board
has been identified as the most suitable site for the
project. The proximity of the site to the existing Efland-
Cheeks Multipurpose Center would ease the transition of
senior citizen programs. Construction of the park adjacent
to Efland-Cheeks Elementary School would promote joint use of
park facilities particularly for school related physical
education and recreational activities. Access to the
Community Center and Park would be from Richmond Road
alleviating the mix of school bus and center/park traffic
(see attached map) .
The Recreation and Parks and Department on Aging Advisory
Boards along with the JOCCA Board of Directors recently
approved the concept of the project. The County Board of
Education discussed the concept on May 22.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve the project in concept and authorize the
Manager to begin negotiations with County School staff
for 10 acre tract of land.
1
t, •
2
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: John Link, County Manager
FROM: Albert Kittrell, Assistant Manager
DATE: April 10, 1989
SUBJECT: Efland-Cheeks Community Center and Park
Directors from the Department on Aging (DOA) , Recreation
and Parks and Joint Orange-Chatham Community Action Agency
(JOCCA) have tentatively identified a site and outlined the
design features to be included in the Efland-Cheeks Community
Center and Park. A 10 acre tract of land owned by the School
Board and adjacent to the Efland-Cheeks Elementary School is
the recommended site for the project. The colocation of
public facilities would centralize many common activities.
The Community Center would accommodate senior citizen
activities currently taking place at the leased Efland-Cheeks
Multipurpose Center. Proper scheduling would permit the new
structure to be used by the Community, all of the departments
listed above, and the school system. Design of the Community
Center would be a joint venture among JOCCA, Recreation and
Parks, DOA, and School System Boards/Staffs and Community
citizens.
The Community Park would serve as a focal point for
joint recreational activities. The design elements of the
Park would be developed by Recreation and Parks, the School
System, and community citizens with proper attention given to
the following: security of park grounds, controlled access/
entrance gates, vehicular traffic, security of school
grounds/buildings, security lights and selective cutting of
trees.
AK/ltc
MJL4-10
3
EFLAND-CHEEKS COMMUNITY
CENTER AND PARK
The proposed project would serve as a multipurpose building
replacing an existing leased facility on Highway 70 west and
provide community and school related recreational opportunities.
Project Profile (Community Center)
Proposed Square Footage: 3,000
Project Cost: $ 200,000
Project Description: Brick or Pre-Cast Concrete Building
with Landscaping and Parking Lot
Occupants: Recreation and parks
Department on Aging
Joint Orange-Chatham Community Action
Building will include: 1 Nutrition/Dinning Area
1 Activity/Multipurpose Area
1 Kitchen (Food Preparation Area)
4 Offices (Recreation, JOCCA, Clinic
Room, Visiting Agency Office)
4 Restrooms (2 indoor, 2 accessible from
outside for park participants)
2 Storage Rooms (1 inside, 1 outside for
park equipment)
Project Profile (Community Park)
Proposed Acreage: Approximately 10 acres
Project Cost: $ 115,000
Project Description:
Picnic Shelter
Picnic Area (tables placed in wooded area)
Pedestrian trails (walkways from shelter to parking)
Play Equipment Area
Access Road and Parking Area
EProfile
ros*
. 4 1
FINANCING PLANS FOR EFLAND—CHEEKS COMMUNITY CENTER AND PARK
C>M1vIr3r.4I'll'"Y" mrszerml:z.
Thru
88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 Total
PROJECT COSTS
Land
Architect 15A00 15,000
Construction 35,000 150,000 185,000
Other
Total Cost 0 50,000 150,000 0 0 200,000
FUNDING SOURCES
Pay-As-You-Go -50,000 150,000 200,000
Bond Funds
Grant Funds
Fees . .
• . .
Total Funding 0 50,000 150,000 0 0 200,000 •
E".PL la I.‹.
Thru
88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 Total
PROJECT COSTS
Land
Architect
Construction •
Other 25,000 90,000 115,000
Total Cost 0 0 25,000 90,000 0 0 115,000
FUNDING SOURCES
Pay-As-You-Go 25,000 90,000 115,000
Bond Funds
Grant Funds
Fees .
Total Funding 0 0 . 25,000 90,000 0 0 115,000
TOTAL FOR PROJECT S 315,000
EC—FINAN
--___
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. C--G
ACTION AGENDA /TEN ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: JUNE 5, 1989
SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED STUDY
DEPARTMENT: COMMISSIONERS OFFICE PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
WATE'RSBEO S AYY PROPOSAL TELEPHONE NUMBER--
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To consider approval of a procedure and schedule for imple-
menting the University Lake Watershed Study.
BACKGROUND: The attached proposal recommends steps to be taken in
implementing the University Lake Watershed Study.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides.
Chapel Hill Added to #1 and #2
2
• PROPOSAL - IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED STUDY
1. Planning Directors of Carrboro, Orange County, Chapel
Hill, and Chatham County should be asked to develop a list of
issues to be resolved in deciding how to implement study
recommendations; OWASA staff should be given an opportunity
to recommend additional items at an appropriate time -
deadline for completion of this task would be June 5.
2. Planning Directors of Carrboro, Orange County, Chapel
Hill, and Chatham County should develop a report outlining
how each jurisdiction's ordinances can be changed to
• incorporate the CDM recommendations July 6.
' 3. Orange/Chatham work group should be asked to convene a
series of informational meetings to facilitate preliminary
discussion of issues identified by Planning Directors; all
jurisdictions (Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Chatham, Orange) would
participate in these discussions although it would be ,
understood that the final decision making authority on land
use regulations lies with Carrboro, Chatham and Orange; OWASA
- would participate as an observer; meetings would be public
meetings open to any other interested observers;
representatives of each jurisdiction may be changed by the
respective, jurisdictions in light of the specific task to be
undertaken by the work group at this time; the goal would be
to clarify areas in which coordinated action might be
advisable and possible and to describe areas where there may
be some disagreement; the work group would prepare a short
report to decision making jurisdictions outlining areas of
possible agreement and possible disagreement, necessary
initiatives, and recommendations concerning ultimate decision
making process - deadline for completion of this task would
be approximately September 30. 4
4. Governing Boards of Carrboro, Chatham and Orange would
review report from work group and decide about additional
steps needed and decision making process; goal would be to
take necessary action in a coordinated fashion, taking into
account other related ongoing planning efforts such as rural
character study being conducted by orange County - deadline
for completion of this task would be determined once issues
and areas of possible agreement and disagreement are more
clear.
-
---
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
Action !a:2f:
Item #
SUBJECT: NEW HOPE CREEK CORRIDOR STUDY
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X_No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
New Hope Corridor Resolution Planning Director - Extension 346
and Statement of Objectives
Consultant Proposal TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
PURPOSE: To consider a consultant proposal to prepare a detailed
plan for the preservation of an open space corridor
connecting New Hope Creek and the Eno River.
BACKGROUND: At its April 18, 1989 meeting, the Board of
Commissioners considered a resolution to preserve a
corridor of open space connecting New Hope Creek with
the Eno River through Orange and Durham Counties.
The resolution included a provision that the
Administration of each jurisdiction prepare more
detailed plans for the project, including
identification of the exact route, the amount and
location of land and easements to be acquired,
responsibility for acquisition, possible
funding sources, and a timetable for completion.
The Board agreed by consensus to refer the resolution
and statement of objectives to the Manager for
recommendation. The Board also requested comment from
the Planning Board and Recreation and Parks Advisory
Council concerning the proposal. Both Boards have been
informed of the project and are willing to work toward
completion of same.
Coulter Associates, a landscape architecture and land
planning firm, from Durham has been retained to prepare
the more detailed plan for the Durham County portion of
the corridor. The work of the firm is being
supplemented by support from the Durham City-Council
Planning Staff, the Triangle Land Conservancy, the
2
Durham County Inventory, and Duke students.
Rather than limiting the scope of the study to Durham
County only, Coulter Associates is requesting monetary
($5,000 each) and staff support from Orange County and
the Town of Chapel Hill to include the Orange County
portion of the corridor.
Coulter Associates also proposes the formation of a
New Hope Creek Citizens Advisory (or Steering)
Committee comprised of public and private
organizations and individuals in plan preparation and
implementation. Completion of the detailed plan is
anticipated within three months.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Board consider
participating in the development of a detailed plan
for the New Hope Creek corridor as outlined by Coulter
Associates, including the provision of staff and
financial support.
An agreement between Orange County and Coulter
Associates can be developed and presented for the
Board's consideration on June 28, Funds for the
• project are available in the Board of Commissioners
Contingency Fund.
•
r---
3
RESOLUTION TO PRESERVE A CORRIDOR OF OPEN SPACE
CONNECTING NEW HOPE CREEK WITH THE ENO RIVER
THROUGH ORANGE AND DURHAM COUNTIES
•
WHEREAS, the rural and natural beauty of Orange and Durham
Counties is prized by our residents; and
WHEREAS, the urban areas of Orange and Durham Counties are
experiencing unprecedented growth; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Durham County and Orange County have
shown concern for preservation of open space through the
Chapel Hill Greenway Commission, the Durham Urban Trails
and Greenways Commission, and the Durham County Open
Space Advisory Committee; and
WHEREAS, -preservation of open space as an accompaniment to growth
can mitigate the impacts of growth and help retain
natural beauty; and
WHEREAS, preservation of open space provides environmental
benefits such as protecting water quality and providing
habitat for native plant species and wildlife; and
WHEREAS, open space could form an aesthetic link between Durham
and Chapel Hill , while allowing the two communities to
remain distinct; and
WHEREAS, an open space corridor can serve as a recreational
resource providing a place for walking and jogging,
becoming part of the regional trail network ; and
WHEREAS, an open space corridor can provide opportunity for
environmental education and observation of nature,
THEREFORE be it resolved that the jurisdictions of the Town of
Chapel Hill , City of Durham, Durham County , and Orange
County support the following:
1 . The preservation of a corridor of public open space
linking New Hope Creek with the Eno River, including the -
100-year floodplain of New Hope and Mud Creeks and a
200' wide corridor connecting the Duke Forest Divisions
to the Eno River State Park through Orange and Durham
counties, as shown conceptually on the attached map.
2. Each County and the municipalities within will support
and fund the project in a proportionate manner.
— i
s .
r _
' 4
3. The Administration of each jurisdiction is directed to
prepare more detailed plans for this project, including
identifying the exact. route, the amount and location of
land and easements to be acquired, responsibility for
acquiring, possible funding sources , and preparing a
timetable for completion.
4. These plans are to be completed so that they can be
included for consideration as early as the 1989-90
budget for each jurisdiction.
-A
Adopted:
•
•
i .
4
♦ Lr t-.---- OPOSED OPEN__SPACE
4.. ' FOR DURHAM AND ORANGE COUNTIES
-
p i INCLUDES 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN OF NEW HOPE
0
0 • AND+IUD CREEK AND A 200 FEET WIDE CORRIDOR
-• %=1 a i LINKING NEW HOPE CREEK TO THE ENO RIVER
_" r STATE PARK THROUGH ORANGE COUNTY AND
C.,. DUAHAM COUNTY. •
*.... .;•././ftwa -..--------.''''S,,,,,%ssissss4.4„,..„,. o
. -- NI ..,:-.:.:-*•.:::$ .. :::. e a
:::::::,:::::. ..„ :...:.:. .,... • :::::::
..:::::::.:::„..,. , .„,:::::::.,.„ ...:: .:::::::: •
,::::,..„.::::::::.: ...„.....,„:.:,:::::: :4.. a ::} ; i .Vr-?.}
M1: 1. r .-----4 ••:-:•:•:-
*4\
IF; '-'• }t•
..:::::&. . • : ,- to 0,1;:A: I t'y \ 1.......... ...
. ...:...i::::::::::::::::::::.. ....:.:.:3:.::.:.:....::.4:::::....::.......:. :. tr.• .,. r •.''Ir
' ;;;.V.:•'....... •1‘...,i!..**::::*•;: '•''Sr::::'.::'?'" ••• tr..: 11 k,..
•
1 ' ••• ':: . .".7. 75
rr� .. 75 501
,'e V ,rKKETT RA.
501 _at
r� 41111p 1
r
• '/ 4
c
• P 4V k
r /�
-/ ,111 1T
r
or e e e \ --.. 7 '
e
1
• _
r �
. •
al Z.,81Z
r iv
Jn
V/V
bo III e
„J..: .
501 .izz• � i
. ,.......--9 .
°:CI ----
r w
0 7 mlI.
LEGEND ,
KI W U.S. ARMY CORPS OWNERSHIP a CORRIDOR
ti : �
" ' JORDAN LAKE - WITHIN DUKE FOREST
200FEET WIDE .
1OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR:
t -"'- ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
• MUD CREEK AND -
NEW HOPE CREEK DUKE FOREST
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
::-.4.:;.:::::::•:,
DEPARTMENT OF DURHAM CITY-COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 7969
•
t.
I 4•
6
• NEW HOPE CREEK OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR
GOAL Preserve an open space corridor linking the Eno River State Park, the New Hope Creek Corps
lands and the growing communities of Durham, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro for aesthetic,
environmental, educational, and recreational purposes, and as a means of shaping the urban
form of the area
OBJECTIVES:
Coordination
1. Coordinate corridor preservation and possible trail development activities among the jurisdictions
and agencies involved.
Open Space
2. Identify lands presently preserved as open space and as open space with public access.
. 3. Identify the preferred location and size of the open space corridor to be preserved.
4. Identify strategic segments where open space needs to be protected and where public access
needs to be secured.
. •
S. Develop a program for acquiring land, conservation easements; trail easements, or otherwise
preserving land, as necessary to protect the open space corridor.
Trails
6. Identify a primary trail route through the open space corridor. •
7. Develop a program for trail development where appropriate, including such elements as priorities,
financing, roles and responsibilities of major actors.
8. Identify appropriate locations for and develop facilities for parking and trail access.
9. Identify and coordinate trail access to activity sites along the corridor such as schools, educational
and interpretive centers. etc.
Educational Facilities
10. Identify facilities to be used for nature and environmental education.
11. Develop a plan for and facilitate acquisition and management of educational facilities.
• DESCRIPTION OF THE CORRIDOR:
The proposed corridor extends north from Jordan Lake Corps land on New Hope Creek. and includes
a loop, one side utilizing Mud Creek and the Durham Division of Duke Forest. The other Side of the
loop extends into Orange County through the Korstian Division of Duke Forest, and follows a trail
already blazed by the Triangle Greenways Council from the Korstian Division into the Durham Division
as part of the Circle-the-Triangle Trail. In the Durham Division both sides of the loop join again and the
corridor then extends to the Eno River along one of several possible alternative routes. The entire loop
from Corps land to the Eno River is approximately 18 miles. The entire floodplain of Mud Creek and
New Hope Creek in Durtivirii County is approximately 800 acres Of this perhaps 400 acres are either
in Duke Forest or within existing developments. Perhaps another 100 acres of New Hope Creek
floodplain is in Orange County outside Duke Forest.
All available floodplain will be acquired, perhaps 500 acres, on Mud and New Hope Creeks. A 200'
wide corridor will be acquired connecting the Duke Forest tracts and connecting with Eno River State
•
park. This 200'wide corridor could consist of approximately 70 to 140 acres depending on which route
is selected. A total of approximately 640 acres would be acquired. „
ACQUISMON:
Cost Estimates
The cost of land for this project is extremely difficult to estimate. An appraiser was consulted and it was
suggested that making.a reasonable estimate would be quite time consuming since the area is large
and types of land values quite diverse. This appraiser suggested that even an investment of several
• hundred dollars in a reasonable estimate would not necessarily be accurate, and the money spent on
appraisals would be better spent on the land itseff. To illustrate what the costs might be, at $5000 per
acre,the cost of 640 acres would be$32 million dollars,to be shared by the four jurisdictions, Durham
County and City,Chapel Hill,and Orange County. It is possible that floodplain land could be purchased
for much less than $5000 per acre, and that some of the,land would cost more.
Acquisition Mechanisms
1. Conservation Easements
A conservation easement could be obtained from the owner with conditions providing for public
access and preservation of the natural vegetation.
One factor that increases the value of floodplain land is the density credit allowed for property
• zoned for PDR, PUD, or multi-family residential. This problem could be overcome by the owner
selling or donating a conservation easement which allows the owner to retain title to the property•
- and thereby have the original allowable density.
2. Donations
The local governments could work to create a highly positive public acceptance for the project
so that land owners will be inclined to participate by donating land or easements, and thereby
receive the tax benefits of donating to tax-exempt organizations.
3. Bargain Sales
• . .
Land owners could sell at a reduced price if they wish to obtain some remuneration for the land
• and at the same time receive tax benefits. The advantage of this option is that the expenditure
of public funds for the land is reduced and at the same time the land owner receives some
remuneration as well as tax benefits. The land owner can probably claim as a tax deduction
the difference between the appraised market-value price and the reduced price for which he sold
the property.
4. Public Funds •
Each local government whose citizens will have reasonable access to the recreational and
environmental benefits provided by the project,could allocate public funds or hold a referendum
on issuing bonds to raise funds. •
•
5. Private Conservation Efforts
Local conservation groups such as the Triangle Land Conservancy, may wish to contribute to
the project by helping to raise funds or purchasing a portion of the land.
13282=81111=11111r
_.T............
8
. • .
Proposal for New .Hope Creek Corridor Master Plan
Presented to Orange County
III May 18, 1989
The New Hope Creek is a special riverine system. . Unlike
streams such as the Eno River, it exhibits a very wide hydrologic
influence. Vast floodplains result in large land areas which
III have been left in their natural state -- a corridor of land
valuable for habitat. .stormwater filtration and absorption, -and •
other open space needs, including recreation. But at the same
a time, the New Hope Creek corridor enjoys little public awareness
and appreciation because it is not often visible to the passing
traveller. The corridor is a difficult phenomenon to visualize
as it presently exists. but the tremendous potential remains.
Rapid urbanization occuring in Orange and Durham Counties
has made us more aware of the opportunities and problems
associated with the New Hope Creek corridor. Public concern is
focusing on the quality of our many waterways. Intense
development pressures eminating from Durham and Chapel Hill are
1 causing these two cities to grow together. The World Class
Region Land Use Advisory Committee of the Triangle J Council of
Governments has targeted the New Hope Creek corridor as crucial
to the large-scale network of regional open space needed for
conservation and recreation. Increasingly, planners are
factoring ecological considerations with transportation and
.:., :.
utilities as part of the infrastructure required to support
quality growth and development.
. .
Why a Master Plan is Needed '
1 • "Master Plan" is a term used to describe both a process and a
product: • The major reasons this project should be undertaken .
are -
Ill -to culminate the lengthy period of inventory, study, --..
philosophies, and discussion in a systematic and meaningful way,
III to show decision-makers the options which are available to them.
Such a document will enable Orange County to take action on
available policy choices, including regulations , preservation.
and acquisition.
-to serve as a forum among the many entities with interests in
the future of the New Hope Creek corridor: local government
agencies. conservation groups, developers, and land owners;
-to balance the beneficial functions of land left in its natural
state with the need to develop land for human activities in this
corridor; .•,.
-to aid in public visualization of the landscapes which comprise
ill the corridor -- beyond scientific value as habitat, recreational
value as open space -- a vast swath of land which few people
presently see or comprehend. •
111
9
•
•
Purpose of Proposal
•
• The purpose of this proposal is to describe the manner in
which a Joint publio/private effort should be undertaken. to
intelligently plan both the development and the preservation of
the New Hope Creek corridor. We propose a structured approach to
the evaluation of the landscapes which comprise the corridor.
We also propose a method to involve the numerous public, quasi-
public, and private entities in the process of devising a master
plan for its conservation, development and management. Finally
we describe a method to disseminate information concerning the •
•
New Hope Creek corridor and its plan to the public through the
use of printed and electronic (videotape) media.
To build upon past work. the Master Plan will be guided
by the initiatives taken by The Orange BOCC. Mayor Howe, Mayor
Gulley, the Durham City Council and Durham Board of County
Commissioners, the, Triangle Land Conservancy, and the Durham
County Inventory of Natural and. Cultural Resources. In context
of current work, the consultant will work with the Orange County
Planning Department as its client, to assist carrying out key
components of its plan to implement the Goal and Objectives
associated with the "Resolution to Preserve a Corridor of Open
Space Connecting .New Hope Creek with the Eno River through Orange
and Durham Counties. "
We believe that, as a professional landscape architecture and
land planning team, we can bring to this project a unique
viewpoint and methodology to achieve the goal and objectives as
outlined by the planning department. Our offioe has worked
closely on local -and regional planning, recreation, and
conservation efforts since the 1960's.
1.
111
111
10
I . ... .
1 . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED NEW HOPE CREEK CORRIDOR PROJECT
• 1. ANALYSIS
It • An information base must be created with sufficient
breadth and depth to support decisions in the planning
stage. Typically this information can be categorized into
. .
allA
III the following outline.
a.. Existing context within the regional patterns of
ill urbanization, transportation, open space, recreation,
and ownership.
- b. Landscape characteristics including physiography,
geology, hydrology, soils, vegetation, and wildlife.
III c. Historical/archaeologic/cultural features.
U. Projected patterns of growth, development.
• transportation, infrastructure.
111 . e. Perceptual factors: landscape types, images, public
• perceptions.
111 - These data should be mapped in a consistent and easily-
understandable format, with a final "composite resource
analysis" drawn and described. This last map will serve as
the basis for group discussion in the following phase of the
illproject.
2. COORDINATION, DISCUSSION & PLANNING ,
ill In cooperation with staff of the Orange County . . .
Planning Department, we will schedule meetings of other
public, quasi-public, and iirivate entities. The purpose of
ill these meetings will be to discuss comcepts for planning
segemnts of the New Hope Creek corridor, based on the
findings of the inventory and analysis phase. Upon .
. -
acceptance of our proposal we would establish a project
MI schedule and assign responsibility for liason with various
groups. Based on the outcome of discussions, we would
prepare a draft master plan for the corridor, to be reviewed
111 by elected officials. appointed boards, and those groups who
participated in the process. A final plan would be the
product delivered.
A preliminary list of agenices and groups who should be
involved is as follows ( in random order) :
a•• a
Orange County Board of County Commisioners
ill Durham County Board of County Commissioners
Chatham County Board of County Commissioners
Duke University (Duke Forest)
Triangle Greenways Council
0 Triangle Land Conservancy
Durham County Inventory
Orange County Inventory
Chapel Hill Town Board
ill Durham City Council
illChapel Hill Planning Department
• - •. ,
,
I : 11
•
• • •
• .
. •
Triangle J Council of Governments. World Class Region Land
Use Advisory Committee
• Friends of the New Hope
• • Association for the Preservation of the Eno River
111 • . Durham Greenways Commission
•
Durham County Open Space Commission
. . . property owners .
lea .
Audubon Society (New Hope)
111 Sierra Club, Headwaters section
North Carolina Wildlife Commission
ill N. C. Department of Natural Resources & Community Development
- Durham City Schools
Durham County Schools
• NC School of Science and Math
North Carolina Central University
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Durham County Cooperative Extension. Service
III U.S. Soil Conservation Service
. .. Museum of Life and Science
Durham County,Historic Properties Commission
III Durham City Historic District Commission
Ducks Unlimited
• U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
North Carolina State Parks
North Carolina State Archives & History
.
111 Durham Parks & Recreation Department
Orange County Recreation & Parks Department
• Chapel Hill Parks & Recreation Department
North Carolina Recreation & Park Society
North Carolina Nature Conservancy
Orange County Planning Board, Department
1 • Orange County Rural Character Study-Commission
.commercial/development interests • .
• .
3. PLAN REPORT, PUBLIC INFORMATION
• Preparation of a report is essential to inform the
III . citizens of Durham and Orange counties of the New Hope Creek
corridor plan. The report should document not just the
proposed plan but the entire process, information about the
a■111 landscapes of the New Hope Creek. decisions made concerning
11.1 development versus conservation, and implications for the
future role of the corridor in the context of the region.
A printed booklet with foldout maps may be the most
II effective means of transmitting this information. Feature
newspaper sections may be another. Videotaped presentations
would do a great deal to explore the landscape features of .
1 .
the corridor, and to explain the process and product of the
ill planning effort. Taped presentations could be duplicated
1 • and shown in schools, at civic group meetings, and-
tourism/interpretive facilities.
At the time a plan is adopted, the counties should
assess the nature of informational needs and arrange for•
the production of a report in the appropriate media.
111 . .
1 .....----
' 0
^
12
11 4. THE PLANNING TEAM
This proposal is made by Coulter Associates, Landscape
•• Architects and Land Planners. Persons responsible for
conducting this project will be Kenneth Coulter. ASLA
(project director) , and Charles Burger. ASLA.
5. DURATION OF PROJECT
Following a notice to proceed. this project will take
• three months to complete as described, to the point of
•a final draft report to the Boards of County Commissioners,
11 the Durham City Council. and the Chapel Hill Town Board.
PI . 41.
•
o
f_
.
•
. - • . . 4 4/....--,e, . ) C.,;-: ", : 1-.•
•.• ...
k 11. IL, Ocf.,,00...„... - ii. . . . ...v\ ., .1,
'17;.. . :- *44.'44 `-• -• .'• : ••-...., : 1.)0 i•a.. ....i. i .0.4.1..,..e.:.4, - .• . ..,.. . , 13
r •••• -.7.• ••••' • ., ,%-: . 'limit, I ' • ' -x*, i .NAW"'":"'"' /4 ........ ,
....;....),,,,j. . fir .,'' ,IN';,..e•ri-i --,..' ' • #./. T'
.--...1.--- , 4 •. • ,ci„,,t ) p,m1% , I. r;,•'. ( „ .......:-.---3---%..,. ..N.,... 0 t . 4.- .. 45.: .k.: : .p
,,,,,,. 5.--,...-...', ,„7.!... , ,1 ,.e - -
r, ..../
A ,,,4-...e•:.
, ‘.-Allt .t- . a•i • ••„.
- --0) 4-••• •• ' .i. , ..•,<', ,,- i,P,.i
.: .."--- ;'.......:-::.if'•5":411.. ' • • .
# T 1-Ntot
•t,,; ...N.V.,yr . ,,,,i - Ire, 4,.. g
,ii ,., A '4. q,....z. , %,,,i, .: ......• , 1 r„.,A),4„--
.,,, , ,. , , .• 114 e; ", • ..r., \ 1$41111 ..„1,4 ,,,,,,P. cy i Co` ,, /41...S.,L,_•,....•i--4(.-^-1^
' •1........)" I' .0,A.:,.; - 4:0"' i If/Cc
r"\-4-•ek s 'i;'%/iftrt:61. „4
• .;,..,..-,,v. ...- .:,,,,,,,c,...„ . ., 1, if 1 ,, a : 1,.,. ,. ,.•,----......„*.- 4/3! . , -.-,..--- .4't, kr ..3
VI,,i ......,', ...*"...../..
/ 1 f• ,•• 474...a/• • . -
...... -
..N■. . i•Viti 16? ■,..,:::..... ,_„");;....,
..". IC N, ••-•••,. ‘ 1,/, ,A.,16: • ; . )ko,4.•-•
C'e'lF.,. -..,-, ) - iplifiri?'"Att : ,_,•• •
lirk'og ,... --.1;.,• 1. ''1::-."... It'i'lf .4 i ., • `,1" '
• sr,,..,-,....• .45,
• 0.N, 1 ...,... ;.-• .`... . - .... p.f. _ 7- ' '4. "."-Alb,/re-'Z...-.11 / -0°.# li • tidal'Oa .4/..);(1-5/ ...,... /r-....f(.1
ki i 1 I. I 1,;..../v. le4 - 1 ,1,-- ..."`-' 111:1<c...;:tuNlirtlr-f.4 -- •,..„.• • A it jr,4 ! _..1.7 ,. •
7 .1'r .. / il r•;,,...J.,ts, ,,, -„,.. Li-, ,04 , it
i y if •:•,* --440- ,,,,j,,„:-. ..: ,,,.!„:.•sarbt.„s kt k.'.„'".r.r A, .t ., ....x•.,f.•• ...%.4...E4- .of
4,
.,, al:a_
., .10,-....• ,.
7,/pp.„.
,. - •4"': J,-•..
% 1' %I i...7H.alli; vy)"--- 41 't. fOr. c3 ',
)-)) 1,:-• •-''' ri),.s. ,, „:,. .,...1,,,,..., ..,-.7 i, - ,,-, fa 1... ,i rrsiply ilA
..., f
4\ l"./..,"fit I .,1"fr- . . ,'...;* l zr •::.?..,':.. .. -1■Itiki i t)..' 0 'IC .4 ° ,•-',is ‘ "tov;',/':,11 I..0--..
JO 4,,S...; .4 . .1, o„... -2.-... !.....,:-. :,-,.:.:::_;-,..›, ,--. 1 , ., i Ilk, ,...,. . ,t"?;%.. i..1%."7";•••• - •'.**,-All
iikiiii , 1 .."'. -,. .'"!...'.7 I...."' \).t ,iL , OM • - - 0...,,I.,4,/ p-,,,,A-A ,;. ,/,-.......,‘
.,.., .,.. ,t...T, ,.,-, 0-s, „ „ •1_,* -- Wit • . :/- ,•41...C);(:;;:s'"„1",..Pi;'44". .. ..ilt: .
#tyf ...11',.......":°.f4,1"";7.,,AV' , - F••.. -.:-.1.„..-iu, •,1%.4,0#1.1.: ) ,-. :\,.. ..- ...„ f, • , 4, _v , . - . 1
..-.4,..,.., •••
e&'.....-S•f9/Itt.../ " - -..• ....- •1120 ' di;. 1:- - f -. ' Vi.V4.9 • -,. "4,f...!, ;11'.. -$.-..,.,,i
_, . ,.,. , .. .• .. .„,.,„ „•_,...,9) ....., .
,,,,. ,,••••-,.7,,r,.... . .,....„ „„„„ .
• .... . .,.,. .
. ,- ,...,.. .- •:. , -••k„ • 4'7 14 vs,l' "' .- "iikriA,' 1■'i' hrftil6F4
. r•-1,„.... .,• , , ....• • i.p. 4.- , Pe 4 • - , 0 O -.. * ie ri •„.."• --70-
..-. ,4.3:_•,.... ..4,,,, I.
:. •,4*"47'../.6s ..,,44.14:::, ._.4) .c.)x r. .'240 .::... 4 , „ L.fe," s:q , nvernillt,:X•7
1 ■ ••0 1,2),,...,-: •(..1 \,■ •,- ..;.. ":.„- % •`. 1.1./i . °' ••" I /V, .4" ,.,/ ; / tyri --.01: %
'i....- .'„,1,41•#- 4.,•• •• ,..- • , I# .. ..--,; ./.. ..
. .
/At , ..,4„., ;:.... ' :4,4,;N-..! - .. '..,...qe- , -V 6.- Its.., .4.; ff' fr- /44440,-;.--•
\...,N „,---,..„- '. " '7/-**•:\11„.•\/.-„•;\ '1/71-41,
. •,-• !,,r•,,I.*:•.,1/4-;,;r,._.;:.1 ",....," , ,,,,•!' c.,, . '44:3 , V A ' /Cf••^1•"\.
•.‘.1 .''• . i'':f•i_ ..;7:::■:*9 r•••\.r)/:Tr ‘,•:;r1 - ..",.-••; ....,,,',V,I• .•:---, , ,i,•-)•.• •r'....!.„1.1: .• \ k,„ ,44, ..it.0 ...i.. •-•.-4 .
i,.. : •, '.•„,......./ / i I II/ •. 4 VII 0.4 ;10•t4r■-•'•-Q-3■7•2...._ )...,*„...4 •4•'• :,41: . c''.6,;• ' ./';','..'f'ro-k„.__zt':F',.; .
'i, \,.... ..• • -.....s.c...,1 %„•• . -1.1 .4 5:-.07r7.--(A,, ......-..„-4, 0r.,1%,,„
q. i •••••/__,/, ‘1110Z"..,
if , AC,,.. ..... '''....", ............„, .tit,;.„7: :10.4,;, r. ....1, ri,,,(.. ,k...* ..,.5...e....4:4-,. -%'.... ... .ii;\, ff---... .., ..--.....*.tett.
".....,- „--,,.......,,,,„0.\-Nr75%.: - a ,I(4:744; .4? t r*p0. ''..- ',' (110 Irt.,..'Pf.'...r . - 0"1".■l ak
1%*
, \:::•::?:I. 2..■;Zk...Z.:17: ,' 'N<V714"•s r.e•"1• *11.10 #: ' , ' ° 1 - ti.le! .) '......; .. e 0-4-‘,.,NA, :.-- ,), ..ivs ).,...
,.„....., _ ...,.6.,.4„. ..(;.. it-N.„ „:„..,,...;,...,..5. ,,.;) i i,.. 0 -„,.4.14, .... .
.7"..N. ..".**. ,V!?IS% N !!. 1 , It' •'-',.>;,,e r 14, •P 14 • •....1. .4 ."
fc)4;., io•-% "..',.; ■ IP./ IN -•,3‘,, - 401,1,..,:.--.:...."`-r i(If-) li ,-A., _ 'S, 4i,/,:. !g‘%•, ...,,,,... . ok„„,it ': -,,, ..e
,-,...,t4:.0../-31 7•,: t ihs..„4 \ ./.... ..• so. •.1, ..• 4 i.l■ ,.., N . ......
•-• ... c. • i . ;,•• me-,..."., ,•'• .- ‘,Fi.-., '...- -4- ....--,.....,- '' • -.... ....k , :,.,..iø 4L
...,.. - -
flIf"..a, ....I , .,41........111 . ( fr. • J . .- .td'i ''.1•,:-74p-I '..; " i:. '....1 L...•7--.-4 or: „di
ii: c.44....c.te wl,f; i • p,..,!..-- .--•"----- t. •--t i , ze.4-1.r: ? ,olgi- 1...4.
3
.,. .,7... . ,.....,,,,,. .) „..
-......4.4',..i5-k......:- . .,:f-4..t... ,
.1-:::V;,. -•'.J.7"4•:•f.„..0 If-%
4 11/ 's.'r...*" I.I 'r-'''' I% , 4•'' \‘1 r'...e"l'i .-- - A::,-- A . ,14) 1 frki..;-.,-frgle- -...-.. . A •(•,..,.. lotr-., i :.,,,,,.
,...:.;.-- ..... l'i.' -• ........• ■\ttil Pik, • .....-.--A- 1.... • N%:-.• .. ' ....."';', 4-i' S't?. ...... c•• \ 4‘ii.t,1'.41. .7.!
........ . i• ,, ., •
- ---'',...;.1.1
.' ri . s'''A.:.....". :".. t■ ul l•Is --90:12:eftsi'g .41/b)) ."' '''-'i 2 Ni.) 1 .1 4,1-1,•1-4-,,,,, 4 N,, k Eva ,
. ./ .:....z,s.r.,....,,,,--- 4 .,•,;,:p ,,,c7,
.,204. )
.r ..., •..::•........, ...r,.v.;i.,.....- Fit, it .••..... 'I ...te, . •••-r It...7 . • 0 ,...i..!...;:fixr ,,1;:;;. ',...).- ■••••• ;4,6
%.t /,...,,e,....,--. . ,. A .,:rktr , ‘a..1,;)• . . . • .•:•:( .: •0•1, ar%,,, 1 %, ...)■ .,,.../.'W
• • ..Vallg. ( , .."4:. it f ... " \\-ici,...... T :74 .-r'4. .11. . c...,40,p i.„) -.,„ er..t., -9. ...... .
1
. , 11, .0'
' " ./..i, ..••=14“11111 1".. )4 '" 1 1 •'al I i/4'4. ; •rt': 1 '4.... " ,,ik - (1,re,•''S„.5.t.44:1., 7,..f.ttl, ...;..r \..
°17. *k 1,y•f7/ YA'747ti? il, r !r' . • ION i .. k ...... .ift** V...1-Ci•-• ..; li /-••• .t. • i .
., i ..* t. i • NI p, - ....,i
i '•■•• )1 •1 • *• V.I ...'" J4,0'.'lhl'zVali....,,-,ie,,,, h : I
I. # % .-•u .::=......„).i \ . 4 ...',44.0... .4,0V,,,,... • h` ; '.I,
, t.......e. c" „ \v. , ....i g. ; . 1 • - 1
./.ji :t:- i ;,/r,,4 )_.1. ...--.- ....it:\ ., i,--- -v- ,re-_:,e*-Irg .,• ...9. L tfk,„,--t-Itir, , NZ
4) - . , 1 ',:,,,,"•".;',15` ',••••., • •
4:- rt. ''t.e....' , S. .. , ', .INA,,,,•'• '-'• , .. ,
A. Duke FOrest • ‘ ft ;" #.1 •. •/3....v.--r-Arr --fi;;„• 44- •,-41• 0,i,,, c..
nta '4 •.ci• pdtre• •' ; )',V.,.„.%;,-,\
B. U.S. Government . ,•:. tt,,../;•-..... t. *t/re•oi.,f ,,,,.,.*.(f• ...,.-.17.,,,JA (1.:\1..t. .. f/47)i,c isM.71
.. .., A, ..: ,......„. ,,,„....„,..,,-„,,,, p\S. I•j'y • .°'"'. W • 4
• • 4.111 -'i;;AChi/ •... ty,,,,-,t/4;..A:•• .•i r .-•'`I ••- •'01. ',1.:,L'"• .../ .
1. H011ow Rock. Store . ,."/■• • ',1, -"' ,1:e4'4'-`4 •4" " c4.,1,4•.% ''' ,- - 1 %mil
2. The Browns' Meadows . ••:- 4„:„.,•, I, Iv
0(/ /:\ -"....:.q Pir-44.4J.(1*.:2. , mr,.
3. pry Branch Swamp : Gr il ■ .11:4V.=*.;1,1:::.N.- g,''.1...:-...t."--1-'. 451:71teA.Viiikt -.,p, P -
4. Patterson's wildflower slopes ".....-._ ) 1,.. \l ',, ,t.t.,k1-3,4.1-.Z.p.,,
5. Lone Branch Trail 099-.1 r-7 •.. - Fil,..."'-5-ut.W''r),Y;:t:',..gii.4'.(,'"*--''• '-' 4. (4,'
6. Latta Landfill .
New Githen School 5 . .... eci . ,,-- ..:.;-...,,1:4?-,,,,,,.., •-......ya -vs,,,,,„,,t_ ,t. ,
s OlOY .;3k."-;.:1'.4.; "1.1 're''''g'..../e'.....E.4[ '-st. ATIPI• 11 -Is' (
8. Old-Growth Bottomland Forest /1 X* A\
9. Leigh Farm .ti1."- •41/4..1: \T"•21..1) '.,.( . 64. I 'kt;."7-: ... 1'!.:.Lli,,tt 4B
1 a I t•) ) ,r..it,-3.1,1:■2_,,--101*,-.1. '(W14,..4i•A •••
10. Overcup Oak Swamp Forest \ ••:;;:-,.. \,...,.? ., • ,.....,.. ,.„:,,....,
11. U.S. Army Corps Subimpoundment ...i -1.1 1 ,r1 •d-...-7,Vs7.4.1„.::-.1,4 V.,AN-.."•;•••••1... . -- .1
.... •4 . .„ .
./...-I••• ...-?").'''' =11 4
-•4) •••• ea •
*. • 0 f, r.77,...,...-„\i'l......."0;41.,..,.:„.., „„ ,.....-,__.w...„.,..:levi, ..: ,,rj: ....4. .,..........-..„ ,
NEW. HOPE COFIRIDOR ..h.:/.4. ..,,,,P,#. ,.,,. . , :Art_ pc.:4',4„. . A• •• 1-, A .4
• ‘ • vo..„ . .;:y.,,,,..: . .,,, ,, 41 . 4:1 . I,
' 4 .q •„,„,..1,..„4.-L1,,,,:%--A,,,.,,,,T ...?? "F.,,,-•.=-4.2: , " " ..g,iir. .,...... -,
.
r r 1'A 1,44;(41:1!...... :‘::,.':*:::-•+:.P.' 4' ,, _eitiff- . %;At; ... el'`.1
• N .. t.a.t..;. . ., raw .1-• ?..2,?...4, ct J..,:,,, ..,I.,f:.:,.z. . • ,0 .% ,\....,:-... i;
) 1.1 ... • ..r.-:(... A_.-t=.7.3,441,tylym&k...,,,,,,i •,. (.. ,_ sT\--('
.... \ .,. '° .if:y 4i4Amat:4- ,..--.-.,,gil?.-.; -"4 f/
,.. • Aort.Z.,....-- , • -•.- .......4- ,,,,sile•,. 44,..•
1 z ly 0,, ,,,, ‘ - ,-,,,,,. _,... .,. .- .w. .
SCALE' 'I' .2,o00' 11)/4;,:. . :ft !I. -\ • 3., m...n... 'r;••:.11`. 2-'1' .*/1 k I... I
P....°••••••• 141111111111111ts
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No.
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS
DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S) : UNDER SEPARATE COVER INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE
TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill • - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Gommissioners'
appointed boards and commissions.
BACKGROUND: The following recommendations are presented for consideration
of appointment:
BOARD OF HEALTH: Reappoint Allen Rosman to serve his first full-term
as the Pharmacy representative. He has completed the term of Nick Holland
who resigned when he moved from Orange County. Mr. Rosman's term will
expire June 30, 1992.
Reappoint Dr. Philip Singer to his second full term as the medical
representative. His term will expire June 30, 1992
Appoint Dr. Richard A. Beane to serve as the dental representative
for a full three-year term. Dr. Eugene Howden did not wish to be
reappointed.
BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES: Reappoint Richard Smyth to a second three-
year term as the Governor's representative. This recommendation has been
approved by the other board members and the Chair of the Orange County
Republican Party. His term will end June 30, 1992.
PERSONNEL ADVISORY BOARD: To reappoint Michael Hendricks and Charles
Rivers to full two-year terms. They have each filled out uncompleted
terms.
NURSING HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Reappoint to full three-
year terms Marian Donaldson and Richard Binkley. Each has completed the
one-year training period. The resignation of Chair Lynn Bechard leaves a
second vacancy on this busy committee.
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: Reappoint Ted Latta to a second
full three-year terms. Latta has served one full term.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANING BOARD: Appoint Clinton E. Burklin to serve as
an "At Large" representative. His term will end in February, 1992.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides.
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. WA
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
SUBJECT: Renaming of the Uelitrar-Darasie6i
DEPARTMENT: Manager PUBLIC HEARING YES: X NO:
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Manager's Office
TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Bill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
• Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To receive public comments regarding the renaming of the Central
Human Services Complex, Hillsborough.
BACKGROUND: On April 18, 1989 the Board discussed a request to rename the
Central Human Services Complex in honor of Richard Whitted,
former County Commissioner. After receiving a report
highlighting information that must be considered before
renaming a county building/facility, June 5 was established
as the public hearing date. A public hearing notice has been
published in local newspapers.
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
vv. •NOW.I L." ri 1 I rudi/WEE
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL
• 306 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET
CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLEVA 27516
Teleplicar 549)9684700
June 5, 1989
Dear Honorable Commissioners of Orange County:
I am writing to ask youffavorable consideration for naming the Human
. Services Complex in Hillsborough for our friend Richard Whitted.
There are three reasons I offer for this naming. No one did more than
Richard to help bring together the people--black and white, rural and urban,
northern, southern, and middle--of our Orange County. Richard's association
with social and human services is an important connection. (I wouldn't want
to name the jail for him. Maybe for someone else.) And I believe that we do
not do enough to praise our famous men and women living and dead. Now would
be a good time to do more for one of them.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely ours,
1:41E 0 JO " AP
Joseph Her
Member, Town Council
,41 Icr7.
June 5, 1989
Dear Commissioners:
I stand before you this evening with a memory of the past,
and a view of the future. I trust that it is in this same light
that we all have assembled, because we must never forget from
whence we have come. For lost memories of the past will soon re-
sult in a lost view of the future.
It is to this end that the Northern Orange ran of NAACP
strongly urge you to consider naming the Human ReBui1ding
after the late Mr. Richard E. Whitted. It is known throughout
this county that Mr. Whitted devoted kstrpmendous amount of effort
toward the establishment of a Human RgaUfeeCenter. In point of ,
fact, there are probably some citizens realizing great benefit
from his (Richard E. Whitted) efforts today, but just a few years
ago they may have been in direct opposition to what is now a .
realized vision.
As Commissioners of this County, you all are setting inAposi-
tion to elevate a Black Roll Model in the eye of all citizens of
this County. Let's not forget that Blacks once owned a great deal
of property throughout this entire Town even in close proximity of
the Human Ilt.sCenter.
„twycee5
We further urge you to consider placing an enlarged picture
of the Late Mr. Richard E. Whitted in some prominent location in ',
the Human ' e-eelteca-Center.
aervi&46
We are requesting your unified consideration on this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
dl
- - G. I. Allison, President of NAACP
•
I _
1
_ I
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COI4MISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date June ,5 1989
Action Agenda
Item # 1P14-2.
SUBJECT: PD-1-89 McLENNAN'S FARM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC BEARING: xYes No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup
Letter from Applicant Extension 574
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
PURPOSE: To consider a request to continue the public hearing
for a Planned Development-Special Use Permit for
McLennan's Farm.
BACKGROUND: At the May 22 public hearing, citizen comments were
received on McLennan's Farm (PD-1-89), a proposed
residential Planned Development. The Board of
Commissioners voted to continue the public hearing to
June 5 to receive a report from the County Engineer
regarding the adequacy of the proposed system for
wastewater disposal.
The County Engineer and the Planning Staff met with
the applicant and requested additional information on
the system. Since the information is not yet
available, the applicant has requested that the public
hearing be continued to the June 28 Board of Commis-
sioners meeting. The County Engineer will submit his
report at that time
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the public hearing
on the Planned Development/Special Use application for
McLennan's Farm be continued until the Board of
Commissioners June 28, 1989 meeting to receive the
County Engineer's report. The Planning Staff
recommendation will be also be presented.
•
Young•Jewell • 2 I
&Associates •
landscape Rig-teas
Plccnnets
June 1, 1989
Marvin Collins
Director f • - -
Orange County Planning Department
306F Revere Rd.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
RE: McLennan's Farm Subdivision
Mr. Collins:
Due to the request for information on the wastewater treatment system by
the County Engineer and the impossibility of gathering that information in
time for.submittal of that information for the June 5 Commissioners
meeting, we hereby request that the hearing be continued to the June 28
meeting in order to properly work out those details.
•
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Young-Jewell & Associates, PA
,4 141,
Daniel A. Jewell, ASIA
cc:
Leon Todd
Paul Thames
Craig Morgan
1507 East Franklin Street, Suite 160 • Chapel Hill,North Carolina 27514 • 919•968.3405
•
jjii 2 It389 111
DISTRIBUTED };')
UU
-2212 Stansbu*
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27516
June 1, 1989
Moses Carey, Chairman
Orange County Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 8181
•
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
Dear Moses:
•
• I would like to urge you, and other members of the Board, to deny the Special
Use Permit application for McLennon Farm Subdivision.
I have great concern about the alternative wastewater system proposed close to
intermittent stream draining into Neville Creek. The chances of such systems
failing at some time are high, and the procedures for correcting failures are not
very satisfactory. If suitable soils--even marginal ones--are in short supply
(as at the McLennan Farm site), there may be no way to bring the system into
compliance.
What then? The developer who put in the system to maximize profits is usually
long gone. The Division of Environmental Management provides minimal supervision
of these systems and has not acted decisively or quickly when failing systems
are brought to their attention. (See attached news article) . Continued Con-
tamination of the water supply is likely unless, and until, sewer service can
be extended.
Sewering in the University Lake Watershed so far from axisting lines would
be very expensive. Constructing sewer lines in some parts of the waterhsed
would be also technically difficult and environmentally damaging, involving
the risk of lift stations and above water crossings of major tributaries, or
even University Lake itself.
Allowing the use of alternative systems in other areas of the county may cause
problems for unsuspecting home buyers and their near-by neighbors, but experimenta-
tion in our fragile University Lake Watershed has the potential for threatening
• the health and safety -of the entire community.
Sincerely yours,
Lois Herring
•
• . .
-
. - . . .•
. .- . .
• • - •
•'''' 1r ...:-.'''':'',", •:':' ;--- —"`" •.•'••..."':" . : ' ‘ ljz: P..-AA' :. 7 .'S.Ir...•:.,40,-"Ykft■iPP,!'11470,30•11-"*Air-•"'"' .:'7-• i.„....
*;: .-if• I *.-r.'' ".- • -`" • -."..-, ••But even - mes esca!.. .'n,P. se ,this - ,,,;.:...,:',:.,:..,-•,--- *;.."..,-7.:,.. .',"..:.'...' ••'* -:- 1---.4.-.'-..::.
..-:' ' -•- -..-.:., her that Ican't Iv -0 deliver the rest ot•T :.:. .'-, -/. ."-',...,•_-.- -.;c4,--...*-c-,,--4.--,,:.,---...,,..• . -, ..._.:.,_ !!! ,.-.:t.s.
I . . l?'....... -'-",-.-TestiagegaL9u-,-...-:',..'::--fiwidbth':ont nY. -twisithousghorts ionn*:: -.. ),1.4:11,A.i 141157..'\ ; 6.4",..ki ,...-;::-...- - ::1--:..f'''....'--.7.7..::::
: .,,,, -...,.,....:Iola , below the surface 0 ...,1 news..:., .2--, ,.m 1...,,,,,,t,,,,.....44a., ,, „...,.. ,,,. ..,....„, ... . ,.
• :.-:-.,..:„, , .t,--.,-..„, , .-;„.„4•.t.s;.-.-'1 " --
. e' -. NI te me. Call me if it's urgent 428.6- :i,_. _„_,..„14,iimira... . , , ...kl. ,,, . ,,,,,,e,?_. , 2 ....
I
vtlii else,this page-snotholie :61.--'--'.--'q,--.4;;'6.:514;.),4;,--4-4:4-4atl:-Lri,:::::": - .4 .•
i _
' Mme rh an' 11- - .'..r. - . .14 riqt-7. ';',,,',...".-t.-:"7.'-, .■1, .1-..*- .
• ;lours..
-• -.,...i. .., ,__,' ,,,-,.-,,c-. --...,•-,,,, ,..;.:-...„,,,J,,-.5.,g-,:-•„.2,.-_,..,-,..; ,-. ... ,,• ..
- -- . .., - -1:‘,t7r,;,, ,,..•.:.-Fr-,`IT';?4.9=4,4:‘,1.1•4,',"*".r:- .',.'"'-t-..s.7'. '. ..... 2- •
...,,...4 1.1,.. t...A. .7, .1:7..": ,e.:..4/4..t ..42.41-.. I 1S •••• i • •:-'.• . :atr.r4 ...;.: • —
l'..-: ..i?..3,3!.„1.„......`4 '',P'-I"": -l'..i..''' '....' . --An,
. ''. ., .4.1. , ,, r -.. . .
-1 .., 2.4 .,.. ...,,, 1 -, ,. L ,,,,' oozing = ; : m:-
; 4.„1"... ... ..;,.:,.. .-1.41;;,,,.ii.,,iiiigil.-b7m,,,,,:a..-.: •
, . ....s., ......,,q, !. 1.,"'-11. 11 t■11. - (1004,-., that UU41,11,6 •. ..fecca.ifigkj,"P'''''..:■: -..fe ,;,.,,:
").f.1 i
, g.,,, ;tilit4:•:. ,..... - • • ..., r.... . 1,,,,,,,,r.tzeoth,,,,..... ..::::, ,...,
t •;. ' c, - i'-'1 • i',174A, ,f,it.;,,,-,A,VOTAT:rstV,1 -,''''... .:- ..7- (7i. -
D-- - -
.t Co i , -j!,-.. . ,..,. ..:. . -.c.r. ........- . L.,ary sevvag,, . ,... „ ,
..,-,- ...,..,,,,,,,,.,,:,,,,,,,.',11,-,u'dirrA.,rer';'■ . ,.....1,..' 4,.„,;:a„,• . . ..
1'.'.ii fog ..11*. - •-.' fl.%-.-1. ' .:471.14' , ,, .. . , . • . t".44,HttAg.#7_ ,Ali4"1,''''''*-AC,r.:71;!■:,:4;;T)!....«....f:,;:'‘`' .7.. S:.1' •
-.4.of Rai. ..-f-.,..t-TiT4'-"Pere.gr.ozy'.,,,,i'llf,,-,:,•;-"',3"',,,;-.,4;F:---c.i.-;,:422.-:::.2 ., .. ". • -
- ---- i . •.•• In a small,elegant subdivision v.s....0 . ..,...,zft,„gz.....:rtit.,::,,,,,-,,..:;,;4;4:,,-,v1: -';,•:14;.i"..,;:;:,
7 .... ...or:, -.441.,,,x;f..._ ..i. .3---- cigh,, homeowners have come home at tunes Zl174-.'7,i'54,!_,-2",,,.4`,,i.:4..- *_•.-1!..":4::',..,..;.•,-;::-.---, , .• .
--* during the past.year to yards and driveways l',1'..:=-1-i7.-1.4 „,..,,•;,...;,,,z:z....--,..-...!::::.;.T.-',-, -; ....4,...., • • •
biza re- .:,;:i.--t.q..-pa-r,t,,..., ...,-1 ,.......c....i?..,;.1,i, .f. .':,`,. • -,... ••
.•.'-';., --_r-- , , • - • 'flooded with sewage.This may seem-. .r 1--...37.5..--...;..- •• , ...::.. ..:,..,,,,
--s'...I.-- -----.:::.-•,•- 'A. :1 7-:::.... .: some weird; isolated case. But according to-; ' . , .. . .. ._. •
. •, . . " _. ...
• • ---.4-- - .. -.-- both engineers and regulators,residential sew- - -• . :.
age-systems throughout the Triangle are be- Th. *; developer, Bob King, and various.real : • .. _:„-- .
coming increasingly undependable.e. 1 - estate agenti continued selling empty lots and• • _
• • Home buyers can't foresee the problem. (d DEM continued writing home-loan offi-.
waded through hundreds of documents and . . ..
- --.. •dozens of interviews for two weeks before .cersshoapeth.that ibnyg'sFebruaagery 11;m87,itproblems wasin gohoadd.*
• ' understood it.) It-'tan cost developers and.: reached such overwhelming proportions that •
homeowners a bundle.And our bodyguards in Dennis Osborne,the developer's's soil engineer,- - . •._
' government often sit paralyzed. - .: ..- . wrote,."I am not certain this system can be
TOD!) OPPENHEIMER . Abeautiful mess of this sort started mWind-_-. fixed*(Osborne found the soil around much . . .
• • •• - • • •• - ., ,• ':- - • • sot Oaks,which lies on the southern edge of- of the system had been permanently ruined. •
- • .... • . •
this time-.in ...mi. Cary,about three years ago,on February 25, - Other en._gineers later found flaws in almost '.
• Co un•-• icy elaper- scored
. - of these ...: ....ories. Send me a si ,•.r tidbit . 1985,when the state Division of Environmen- _every pipe and ditch.) •
.• and I'll send p. a lollipop.No dding.) .. . rat Management(DEM)approved the subdivi-, . Two months after Osborne's report,DEM
sewage system.If the soil ever failed"to . inspected the subdivision and found smelly
s •.- • ••.'•
One last thing. . page n-:.i. a good name-.. -ama's .
-a short one(three, • most)' adequately absorb the wastes," or "nuisance suds in streams .that run into utchman -
...conditions"arose,the state said,"immediate- Creek,which runs into La eWheeler,a reserve. .. -
that signals the energy .be edge line,..,-;:il reservoir for Raleigh; :-.-- - .
f. -aim for;We've thouli, of a v:.ty of options-- _. cOrrective action"must be taken or the permit - drinking_water reservo.r oel,have fined Kin . •-•
,."The Local Ed y 71 Underneath .e Trion
"Eye 40"-b one have really so • us.So if
you mail .•• the chosen suggestion,you.to .outer.We'll even try to gu hoe,.. could be revoked. - - - : •' ' .• .By federal law,DEM con d ave n.a King
take. system's 7
figure re o. a' -tern
story on your primary concern about life here. . months later,John Harris,the sewage up to$ 0 00
tern's engineer,found a few leaks in the sys- for every day of violation,and
still could 0sofotoday.But R.ghobert Van Tisaiyhsait• _
but considered them insignificant.."1 hereby supervisor of DEM's Raleigh.office, h
certify that.the Windsor,Oaks.field-is fully., withheld penalties-to,avoid bankrupting the _. .- '
' . operational," he wrote DEM. By October, companies min charge And driving them out of .-- ---
- •
•
• — DEM had inspected the system and stamped • .business."My job is to make'sure 80 residents
• •'-*---"77-----------• •••,-*....,,',,.'..,,,-;,....... it with their approval.After another six months, atent left in the lurch,"Van Tilburg explains '•
-.• •-'' ' ";' -•• • • ------__ _ , in March 1986,the utility running the sewage Van Tilburg's office did instructWalce County
. ..': .4••••••• .:'••••••••:••••••'---. • • :••-•••... : ..' ••_ : - '.:' system had found still more failures •• to withhold building permits for the subdivi- --.
- •••• • '. ,-. . -. • . The reason such troubles happen is quite. sion for the next five months Both DEM and - . •
•••..•- -...*-' .•••:* • ''• •••'•• : '. -- - --- = - simple.Much of the land still open around the John Melvin,owner of CAC Utilities(the corn- - .. .
• ; ........''.'...•-'7. ••••• • ".:•••• •••• • 4. ' .Triangle lies .m reservoir watersheds Town -pany in charge of the sewage system) then
•. • ••••• "•• '••- '' ' 1 sewage pipes often don't run through these. started warning banks that the system was in
1
••• .'• s .-.; . • - •—• • • ' I.- areas,and sewage plants that treat waste and_ trouble. One homeowner's loan ended up in .
,....-,..:..- ,......--;:.--:,-,L.•-•::.,-:-.---.:-.,:-...::. --.-: - ..,-,.t:.--.-.--. •• • 'r
/...•'•••-:•r•-••••••'''':**.•;*••••• -:••••?'•••*':''''''''''' ---'-'r•---:' • 1 pour it into streams are prohibited.Therefore, limbo for months During much of that rime,
-• •••-•"•'•- •••••••'•-.';.•' --•••••••-- - •• • •• --' -.• ••• * ' some kind of septic system is the only imme- King had to haul the subdivision's sewage to
• , '.; , •• - diate option. But many of these open areas Holly Springs,Sept t an average cost of$460 a day. -••
• • -- •• - ' • • . .. also lie above gooey,clay-like soil;too dense . Finally,last September,after good luck dur- .• .
. ••• ••-• • .- ' • • * J to absorb the sewage of traditional septic ing the dry months,DEM wrote Wake County .
..1
. - that illegal discharges" had ceased and the
; i,...,;‘,:..,v,...a..1-..,-,:in.,...:1,;;....-,2:4 Developers have thus been winning approval system was in"conditional compliance."'Waite :
. . • ... . !
o build in such spots by using a new septic began releasing apesrm_finding more . ..
-
"-'••••• ••!"....'-''''''''''-'f'5"••••• ••''''''-'-'' r'''.'''' ' .*;v. :- system,which forces Sewage into these"mar-- vember,CAC's Melvin fi di g tl.
•
“ • • • - -• ' - : j ginal" soils with a pump.When the earth is of sewage. . .
porous,during dry months,most.of these ys:, 'On Dec.4,Melvin wrote property owners -.
. •
• . tems work.During wet months,if there's that there would.be.no new.stacewifefracollynrenectpaiireonds
• slightest problem,they often fail. - •until the system had proven .
. LOCAL NEWS I page 8 ••
• . . .• .• At'Windsor Oaks, each failure was fixed. - -
. . . • . . • . .. - •• - •
•. .. .. ..
. . .
• --.
• . . .
• • .
.... '
- .
. ,
44A-fr.7'
_.11r7 •
ts2vGR I CULTURAL RESOURCES C -
- •
PEST PESTicide EDuc act i n p 4:31j L- •
115 WEST MAIN STREET
CARRSOR6g .NORTN CAROLINA 27510 I 3 0 M
919/967-1886
•
May "4, 19:-
Ms. Beverley Blythe, Clerk
Board of Commissioners
Orange Count),
109 Court Street
Hillsborough, NC 27278
RE: Hearing on McLennan's Farms
Subdivision, May 22 & June 5, 1989
Dear Ms. Blythe :
Enclosed is a copy of a statement which formed the basis of
my remarks concerning the McLennan's Farms subdivision and
development in the University Lake watershed to the joint public
hearing held by the Orange County Commissioners and the Planning
Board on Monday, May 22, 1989. I neglected to leave a copy with
YOU at the time . I understand the hearing has been continued to
June 5th .
Also enclosed is copy of the letter from Mr . Paul Wilms,
dated, April 19, 1989, relating his decision to reject the
application for the Amberly subdivision in Carrboro. His
decision was based primarily on its contribution to pollution and
urbanization of the watershed. Commissioner Shirley Marshall
• read parts of the letter into the record, and I quote from it in
my statment . I thought that YOU would want to have a copy of the
entire text .
Also enclosed is a copy of the statement made at the earlier
hearing on McLennan's Farm, in November , 1987, which should be in
your files and which is, I believe, still relevant .
- I would appreciate it if you would enter these materials -
into the hearing record and pass them on to the planning staff,
the Planning Board, county manager, and others who will be
considering the issue .
Thank you very much for your help.
Sincerely,
Allen Spalt
4<
PFt crr EE crr OUR 40. I.dATER ee
300 JAMES STREET
• CARRBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27510
c/o Allen Spalt 967-3054
May 22, 1989
TO: Orange County Commissioners
• FROM: Protect Our Water, by Allen Spalt
RE: McLennan's Farm and Protection of University Lake Watershed
. Chairman Carey and Members of the Board of Commissioners:
There was substantial controversy Just two years ago over
the Town of Carrboro's consideration and approval of intensive
development in the University Lake Watershed. Water quality
experts, Carrboro residents, officials from OWASA, Chapel Hill ,
and Orange County agreed that the Amberly project as then
proposed posed an unacceptable risk to the public water supply.
The development , as you recall , consisted of over 150 houses and
a polo complex served by an experimental low pressure underground
waste water disposal system.
The citizens group Protect Our Water (POW) was formed to
fight the Amberly project and to work for protection of our
invaluable water resources.
McLennan's Farms, in the watershed in Orange County's
jurisdiction, was proposed at about the same time . Though
smaller than Athberly, it was no better . POW members testified at
an earlier public hearing in November, 1987, against approval of
the subdivision. We said, among other things, "A public water
supply is not an appropriate place for research on alternative
waste systems" .
What has happened since on these issues:
--Approval of Amberly became the major issue in the next
Carrboro election. All the supporters of the project ,
including the former mayor , who were running were
defeated and replaced by candidates who opposed Amberly
and favored greater protection of the watershed. r
--Citizens filed suit against approval of the Amberly CUP by
the Carrboro Baord of Aldermen . The suit was dismissed
on proceedual (standing) rather than substantive grounds.
--OWASA enacted a moratorium on extension of water and sewer
lines in the watershed pending the outcome of a study of
the carrying capacity of the watershed.
--Carrboro adopted a moratorium on developments with
alternative systems or more than four septic systems -•
pending consideration of the OWASA study.
--Orange county adopted the mrtiral buffer (RB) designation
with 1 unit per 2 acre minimum lot size .
--The NC Division of Environmental Management (DEM) classified
University Lake as a "WS-I " watershed--its highest
rating, after extensive study and public hearings.
• --The OWASA study by Camp, Dresser , and McKee concluded that .
protection of already threatened University Lake required
• at least the following:
•
--development at no oreater than, 1 unit per 5 acres; or,
--density of 1 unit per 2 acres only with structural
"BMP's" ; that is, wet detention ponds which are
publicly, owned and maintained; or,
--clustering in which approximately 85 percent of the land
remained permanently undisturbed;. and,
--use of individual septic systems as the prefered means of
waste disposal ; and,.
- - - e-x tens i on---of-water---an-d -sewer-serrctrze' intim- the ---- " -
watersehd except , perhaps, to serve cluster
developments near existing service ; and,
--no use of alternative waste systems because of their •
greater unrelia.bility.
--The DEM, permitting agency for Amberly's waste treatment
system, held in Carrboro its first ever public meeting on
a non-discharge system because . Citizens and public
officials, including Orange County Commission Chair Moses
Carey, ,urged extreme caution in protecting the watershed.
•
--DEM Director Paul Wilms turned down Amberly's permit stating
the development "will allow urbanization of the
watershed, and, therefore , will not be compatable, with
the requirements" for WS-I watersheds. Specifically, Mr.
Wilms found that :
•
• 1 ) The development and its waste waster treatment facility
"are not in . accordance with the requirement that the .
• watershed remain in . a natural and predominately
unihabited state" ; •
2) "The development will contribute to nonpoint sources of
• "
• -poltutron-ln -the7-Wailif.-thedn '
3) "The development could significantly compromise the
pristine quality of Morgan Creek" ; and,
4) "All of these factors could exacerbate the quality and
• eutrophic status of University Lake, particularly with
•
regard to nutrient loading, which' in turn would,
comproimise the quality *and use of the' Lake as a
drinking water source . "
. .
. --The State Environmental Management Commission (EMC) upheld
OEM's decision to reject the Amberly permit . •
---,The developer of Amberly announced his intention to redesign -
the project to make it "consistent with the
recommendations of the OWASA study. Specifically, he •
will submit plans with no more than 1 unit per 5 acres,
reducing the number of houses from 157 to about 40 . •
I
In summary, over the past two years the largest single
threat to University Lake from development in the watershed has
been substantially reduced in scope as the result of a major ,
combined effort of many citizens and public officials.
What , however, has happened in the meantime to the
McLennan's Farm proposal? Well , very little . It is back before
you in essentially the same form as before . (We are told the only
change is in waste system operation. It proposes an arangement
similar , and similarly unacceptable as at Amberly. ) As with
Amberly, the McClennan's Farms proposal will need DEM approval .
The proposal does not meet the state rules for WS-I
watersheds, it is not in conformity with the OWASA study
recommendations, it threatens the quality of a major public
drinking water supply, and it is not fair to other landowners who
follow responsible development limits. McLennan's Farms should
be rejected for the same reasons that Amberly was rejected. The
proposal is deficient , among other reasons, because :
--It would lead to "urbanization" of the watershed. Although
"only" 14 units, it is the first of three planned phases
and is otherwise very similar to the original Amberly
project .
--The proposal does not, meet the recommendation of 1 unit per
5 acres necessary for protection of water quality. At
about 1 unit per 2.6 acres, it is almost twice as dense
as recommended.
--The Watershed Study allows such density only with the use of
Publicly owned and maintained wet detention basins to
control storm water runnoff . No such ponds are included
in the plans. The waste disposal system is in the only
spot on the property which perks and which is closest to
drainage to University Lake .
--The development calls for a low pressure underground waste
disposal system. This technology is unproven, is highly
unreliable , and is not suitable for a WS-I watershed.
The OWASA study recommended against such systems as the
most unreliable choice for the watershed. In addition,
its use allows denser development than could otherwise be
achieved with individual septic tanks.
--The proposal requires a DEM permit for its waste disposal
system, a permit that is inconsistent with the Amberly
decision rejecting "urbanization" of the watershed.
DEM's recent moratorium on such permits will probably
affect this proposal .
?
We asked the County Commissioners two years ago to turn this
proposal down as unacceptable in the University Lake Wateshed.
Everything we have learned in the past two years confirms that
judgment . We ask you again tonight to reject McLennan's Farms,
The OWASA study clearly confirms that here is a finite
amount of development consistent with acceptably clean water.
Any development in the watershed--whether in Orange , Chatham, or
•
c � /
t
J
• State of North Carolina •
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James C. Martin, Governor
R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey,Jr., Secretary Director
April 19, 1989
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. William F. Spang, President
S-A Utilities, Inc.
2327 Englert Drive, Suite 300
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
SUBJECT: Project Denial (WQ0000793)
S-A Utilities, Inc.
Amberly Subdivision
•
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
LPP Disposal
Orange County
Dear Mr. Spang:
Your application for a nondischarge permit for the construction and operation of
a 65,000 GPO wastewater treatment facility with subsurface low pressure pipe disposal
was received by the Division of Environmental Management on November 16, 1988.
Subsequent design information and other supporting documentation was received on
February 1, 19$9,
• On February 2, 1989, a public meeting was held at the Carrboro Elementary School
in order to receive public comments on .whether to issue or deny the subject permit.
The meeting officer's report and recommendations have been submitted to me and I have
completed my consideration of this permit request.
In making my decision, I particularly considered the Environmental Management •
Commissions regulations regarding "Procedures for Assignment of Water Quality
Standards," 15 NCAC 2B .0100 and "Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina," 15 NCAC 2B .0200. These regulations
- basically describe Class WS-I as water supplies which are in natural and uninhabited
or predominantly undeveloped .(not urbanized) watersheds, with no point source
discharges and "relatively unimpacted by nonpoint sources of pollution."
•
PG.Ilex 27 M7, Ralngh,Nonh t amlina 27M1 7M7 irleph me 919 711 700
1 �
While local governments have a role in protecting WS•I. watersheds, it is � .`
ultimately the responsibility of the Environmental Management Commission to protect
the quality of Class WS-I waters. Since the proposed Amberly Subdivision is located
in the University Lake watershed and University Lake is classified as Class WS-I, I
find that the issuance of 'the subject permit will allow "urbanization" of the
watershed, and therefore, will not be compatible with the requirements of the
regulations. Accordingly, I am hereby denying your request for a nondischarge permit
for the construction and operation of the subject wastewater treatment and disposal
facilities for Amberly Subdivision in Orange County. My reasons are as follows:
1)' The construction of the subject wastewater treatment and disposal facilities
and subsequent development of the subdivision are not in accordance with the
requirement that the watershed remain in a natural and uninhabited or
predominantly undevelope&(not urbanized) state; . -- - . .
2) This development will contribute to nonpoint sources of pollution in the
watershed;
3) The development could significantly compromise the pristine quality of Morgan
Creek; and
4) All of these factors could exacerbate the quality and eutrophic status of
University Lake, particularity with regard to nutrient loading, which in turn
would compromise the quality and use of the Lake as a drinking water source..
If this denial is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory
hearing upon written request within thirty days following receipt of this denial.
• This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150E of
the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Drawer 11666, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604. Unless such demands are
made this denial shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions on this matter, feel free to contact . . Arthur
Mouberry at (919) 733-5083. � .
/0111,S er-
/
e
4107 •
• R. Paul Wilms •
RJ/tla •
cc: Raleigh Regional Office
Permit File
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
11y
Carrboro--greater than the OWASA study recommen4s Jepordizes the . .
public 'water supply. Moreover , greater density for one property
owner will have to be compensated for by less dense development
by others. Or, the public in general will pay through lower
water quality and/or .greater cost to treat water . Neither
prospect is in the public interest . •
DEM did not reject Amberly on narrow technical grounds. It
did not find that the enoineerino of the its waste treatment •
facility was inadequate. Rather , Amberly was rejected because
the , development was in the wrong place--it was inappropriate for
a WS-I watershed such -as University Lake. This is exactly the
same reason that McLennan's Farm should be rejected. It not
acceptable in the interest of the public health and safety.
Adoption of the recommendations of the Camp, Dresser', McKee
.study of University Lake must be a top priority for Orange
County. The county controls the largest share of the watershed
and, hence, has the greatest responsibility to protect it . It
must not allow devilb0Mt4f 64--the-i&laterWed -iiit bybit . you • -
so effectively expressed opposition to Amberly, I urge you in
turn to reject McLennan's Farms. We must not have Amberly by
• degrees.
In addition to McLennan's Farms, members of Protect Our
Water are very disturbed by a number of other development
proposals in the watershed. These concerns include :
-- Satellite septic fields for lots that won' t, perk in the
watershed in the Laurel Springs area. This practice
allows more density than the natural constraint of poor
soils would otherwise allow. OWASA consultants estimate
that leaking septic systems are not repaired for an
average of 5 years! How much longer will it be for those
that are not even in one's own back yard but rather down •
the road and out of sight (and smell )? •
--Proposed auto parts, boat storage , and wharehouse facilities •
at Starpoint . Intensive commercial development proposed
for the intersction of 15-501 and Smith Level Road is
completely inappropriate for the watershed. . The
- -
• Starpbinte Star:age- Facility proposes to disturb up to 95
percent of the site and put about 20 buildings on 10 .5
acres. Most are large; some are 4 stories tall .
Incredibly, I was told by county planning staff that it
might be approved without a public hearing. This must
not be allowed to happen .
This proposal highlights the need for the county to
revise its definition of impervious surface to include'•
gravelled areas.
Thank you very much for your attention to these important .
matters. We look forward to working with you to Protect Our
Water .
AS.5.22.89
ALLEN SPIALT
300 JAMES STREET -
CARRBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27510
H: 967-3054 Ws 967-1886
•
ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING ON McLENNAN'S FARM
November 23, 1987
Chair Marshall and members of the Board of Commissioners. I
am Allen Spalt . My family and I live at 300 James Street , in
Carrboro. Thank you for' the opportunity to address the Board on
the sublt6st of the proposed McLennan's Farm subdivision . I 'd •
like to relate my comments to watershed protection .
In July, on behalf of a group of concerned Carrboro and
Orange County citizens, now rosely organized as "Protect Our
Water" , I addressed this Board and asked your help because we
faced the impending construction of a large and ill -conceived
• development in the University Lake watershed. We appreciated the
concern of this Board then , and I know that you are still -
concerned about protecting the quality of the principal drinking
water source for southern Orange County. The issues involved
with McLennan's Farm are a part the larger situation .
The basic- question is what level of development can be
permitted in the watershed consistent with a long-term supply of
safe drinking water? We don' t yet know for sure . OWASA is
conducting a study of the University Lake Watershed to help find
the answer . A study of Cane Creek is to follow. What do we do
in the meantime? I think it is best to do proceed with extreme
caution and to do as little as possible .
In debates over watershed protection in Carrboro, nationally
recognized water quality experts testified that the level of
development is directly related to water quality. As Dr.. . Daniel
Okun put, it,. "degradation (of the water quality] is a function of
development . . . in every instance" . The more development , the more
problems, sooner and later .
McLennan's Farm proposes to use a common , septic system to
dispose of waste water . What do we know about such systems and
what is their effect on development?
It is easy to answer the latter question first--community -
systems allow greatly increased density of development . In the
current case , public water and sewer is not available--OWASA has
a moratorium on extension of service pending the outcome of its
study. According to the developers' consultant , only about 2 •
acres of the land perks. Without an alternative system, most of
•
'2.
• the land could not be developed. With such a system, 14 houses
are proposed for phase one , with what looks like at least an
equal number proposed for later .
Cluster development with community systems may be a good
idea in some places. But it is not suitable for the watershed.
• We have had to learn a lot about such systems in recent months,
and the news for the watershed is not good. Among the problems
are : •
--new technology: these systems have not been used long
enough to know how they will stand up in critical areas;
OWASA plans to use University Lake until the end of the next
century-- how long will these untested systems last?
•
' --elaborate equipment prone to failures: read the
consultants' report on low pressure systems carefully—there
are a lot of potential problems with the expensive pumps and
electrical and plumbing systems. The report is a cross
between a sales pitch and a technical report and is very
sobering. _ .
•
• --uncertain responsibilities: who is to maintain the system?
the howeowner? a homeowners association (such groups have a
very poor record in these areas)?, a public utility? It is
not clear from the proposal . Who puts up the money right
away when a pump or drain field fails?
•
' --unclear jurisdiction : approval is by the Division 'of
• Environmental Management if it is to, be operated by a public
utility and by the Health Department if by a homeowners
associatton--the proposal refers to both as- if they were the
same . If the permit is to be granted by DEM, the county has
little or no say and the public has no right of appeal --only
the developer if he or *.she is turned down .
• --inadequate regulations: the state rules on these systems
make NO distiction between low pressure systems in just any
watershed and those impacting public drinking water
supplies; higher standards are needed for the later . The
OWASA comments. are very pertinent on this question . OWASA
also offers further critique of the relation of this design.
to the state standards. It's conclusion : there is top 1tttle
- • -- maroin for error . "Marginal " Piedmont soils in a Watershed
are not suitable .
A public water supply is not an appropriate place for
reasearch on alternative waste systems. This conclusion holds
whether they are to serve 14 units or 158. It would be
apprpriate for Orange County to consider implementing a
• moratorium on such systems at least until the OWASA study is
completed and evaluated. I suggest YOU to do just that .
It is important to ask how a development such as McLennan's
Farms: fit into the County policy on the watershed? I was
surprised when I called the Planning Department to find that the
•
•
3.
. - staff wasn' t sure at first if the land in question was in the
watershed. The "Action Agenda Item Abstract" prepared for the
Planning Board's November 16th meeting just last week did not
mention that it was in the University Lake watershed. I suggest
that all such proposals be highlighted in big red letters.
People rightfully protested when Carrboro approved a major
development in the watershed. Some citizens, including myself ,
have gone to court over it . Watershed issues played a major role
in Carrboro election. But Carrboro does not hold all the keys
to the watershed. Far from it . More land is controlled by the
county. We must not, have Amberly by degrees. It won' t take many "
McLennan's Farms to add up to Amberly.
We are at one of those junctures where science and politics,
short-term pressures and long-range interests, all, intersect .
And, as always, we are forced to make choices on the basis of the
best available information without "all the facts" or a crystal
ball to tell us how everything will turn out . We are at one of
those forks in the road where the road not taken is as important 4
as the one we choose.
We do not have a perfect water supply now, but the OWASA
area is blessed with very good quality water . The University
Lake watershed has been well protected by both foresight and good
fortune . We are now past the point where we can afford to rely
on luck--only a determined effort to keep it free from
potentially harmful effects will now suffice .
It is also clear that a high quality water source is as much
a matter of dollars as it is of health . New standards that are a
,part of the recently passed federal drinking water act will be
difficult to meet ; read that "expensive" to meet . .Guess who will
bear the costs? We have cleaner watersheds than many places, yet
ours are not pristine . Many drink out of the Hudson , the
Potomac , or , closer to home , the Haw. Your constituents and
• their grandchildren will not thank you if we let University Lake ,
Cane Creek, and other local sources deteriorate .,
Given the long-term nature of the problem and the
irreversibile effects of development , I urge the Board to err on
the side of excessive caution in dealing with the watershed.
In sum, I urge you to reject the proposal for McLennan's
Farm, to initiate a moratorium on community systems in the
watershed, and to continue to protect our water for the long
haul .
Thank YOU very much for your consideration of these views.
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Age da
Item No. Ca
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S) : UNDER SEPARATE COVER INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for
consideration:
APRIL 18, 1989 REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 24, 1989 AIRPORT WORK SESSION
MAY 1, 1989 REGULAR MEETING
MAY 8, 1989 SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 15, 1989 AIRPORT WORK SESSION
MAY 16, 1989 REGULAR MEETING
MAY 22, 1989 SPECIAL MEETING AND JPH
MAY 24, 1989 AIRPORT PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 25, 1989 AIRPORT PUBLIC HEARING
JUNE 5, 1989 REGULAR MEETING
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the
governing Board has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered
into the official journal of the Board's proceedings.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides.
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Age da
Item No.
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 1989
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S) : UNDER SEPARATE COVER INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE
TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for
consideration:
APRIL 6, 1989 JOINT PLANNING AREA
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the
governing Board has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered
into the official journal of the Board's proceedings.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides.