Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 07-06-1982 ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BOARD Ot COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1982 10:00 A.M. COMMISSIONERS' ROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the printed agenda; 2. Matters not on the printed agenda. C. MINUTES..... . .. .May 3, June 15, 17, 21, 1982 D. REPORTS. ...COMMISSION ON WOMEN E. ITEMS FOR BOARD DECISION 1. Appointment of Tax Collector 2. NCACC Voting Delegate Designation 3. NCACC Resolutions 4. Child Support Enforcement Lease Agreement S. Old Police Building Lease Agreement 6. Surplus Property Disposal 7. Legal Services Contract for DSS 8. Jail Facility 9. Community Development-,-Hous'ing Rehabilitation Contract Awards 10. Community Development,--CDBG Application Resolution 11. Community Development--Just Compensation Resolution 12. Community Development--Right of way Acquisition 13. Tax Sheltering 14. Planning a. James Bennett Property b. Revisions in Sedgefield Subdivision Preliminary Plan c. Rezoning Request--Tommy Merritt Property d. Rezoning Request--Paul Kempa Property e. Rezoning Request--Roy Wilkerson Property f. Rezoning Request--Willie J. Wilson Property g. Fox Run Preliminary Plan (Section 9) h. Brack's Mobile Home Court Preliminary Plan i. Proposed Text Changes to the Zoning Ordinance j. Participatory Paving Program Policy Review k. Participatory Paving Program Consideration of priorities I. Addition to the State Secondary Road System 4 23 MINUTES r JULY 6, 1982 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday July 6, 1982, at 10:00 A.M. in the Commissioners' Room, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Commissioners present: Norman Gustaveson, Vice-Chair, and Commissioners Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit. Commissioners absent: Chairman Richard E. Whitted, Vice-Chairman Gustaveson presided in the absence of Chairman Whitted. A. BOARD COMMENTS Vice-Chairman Gustaveson added two items: Clean Water Bond Grant Application and Food Stamps Contract. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were none, C. MINUTES_ Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, approval of the Minutes of May 3, 1982, as submitted. Vote: byes, 4; noes, 0, Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, the approval of the Minutes of June 15, 1982, as submitted, Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to approve the Minutes of June 17, 1982, as corrected. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to approve the Minutes of June 21, 1982, as submitted. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. D. REPORT-COMMISSION ON WOMEN Ms. Verla Insko, Coordinator of the Commission on Women, introduced Ms. Dana Baldwin, Vice-Chair of the Commission, to the Board members. Ms. Baldwin told the Board the Commission was focusing on leadership training and interagency coordination and moving into research, addressing needs and making recommendations to agencys. Ms. Insko said she welcomed direction from the Board. Board members stressed continuity in membership on the Commission, and surveying the needs of i all women, not just those in one age group. Ms. Mary Copeland, a County citizen, accused the Commission on Women as pro- muting lesbianism and homosexuality and criticized the telephone bill for one month in the Commission office. She said the Commission was lobbying for ! for passage of a State Bill (# 159). She feels that the "status of Aomen" is not necessary. Some Board members responded that Ms. Copeland was probably confusing the i County Commission on Women with the State's Council on the Status of Women. E. ITEMS FOR BOARD DECISION 1, Appointment of Tax Collector: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to appoint Mr. John Horner Orange County Tax Collector for a two year term. Vote: dyes, 4; noes, 0. 2. NCACC V6iing Delegate: Commissioner Walker moved to nominate, and with no other nominations, to appoint Commissioner Gustaveson as this Board's voting delegate to the Annual NCACC Conference in August; Commissioner Marshall seconded. Vote: Dyes, 4; noes, 0. 3. NCACC Resolutions: Board members suggested topics for Resolutions to be submitted by this Board for consideration at the Annual NCACC Conference to be held in August. There was a consensus to submit resolutions which addressed the following topics: That the State consider the impact on local government when it provides salary bonuses to State employees since most counties follow the State pay plan; that the tax structure be revised; and, the effects of the Federal budget cuts on County programs. 4. Child Support Enforcement Lease Agreement: Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to authorize the Manager to renew the existing lease for Child Support Enforcement on the same terms and rent on a month to month basis. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 5. Old Chapel Hill Police Building Lease: Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to authorize the Manager to enter into a lease with the Town of Chapel Hill for 2,900 sq. ft. , at the Old Police Building for a three year period. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 6. Suplus Property Disposal: Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to declare two items of County property surplus: a) fencing behind the Human Services Complex; and b) Dextrometer # 01700. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 7. Legal Services for Department of Social Services: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the contract for legal services with Northen, Little and Bagwell, as recommended by the Manager., Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 9,T B. Jail Facility---Change Order: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the change order (#I) for the Jail Facility in the amount of $1,866. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. C pal e- $� 9. Housing Rehab Awards: Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commis- ; sioner Gustaveson, to award a rehab contract to Taylor Home Improvements (unit # 14E for $8,726.00, as recommended by the Manager. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. (Complete bid results are on page/47/—/00f this book.) 10. Resolution Authorizing Filing of CDBG Application: Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the filing of the CDBG application (See page/oj-�/a4f this book). Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 11. Resolution Establishing Just Compensation: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to adopt the Resolution establishing just compensation for parcel ## 56 in the Northern Fairview Community. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. (See page/c0/a?of this book.) 12. Right of Way Acquisition: (property owned by J.W. Garrard, formerly Solon Turner property) Mr. Cyrus Hogue, attorney performing rights-of-way acquisition closings for the Community Development project, told the Board he was unable to certify title to this 11,430 sq. feet piece of property; the title is uncertifiable probably because the original deed (Mr. Turner's) was never recorded. Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Cohinissioner Marshall , to acquire this tract right-of-way by warranty deed purchase, as recommended by the Manager. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 13. Tax Sheltering of member contributions to Retirement System: Commis- sioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson to adopt the Resolution authorizing a tax shelter of employees' contributions payable as members of the NC local Governmental Employee's Retirement System, as recommended by the Manager. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. The Board took a five minute break and resumed deliberations with all members present as noted at the beginning of the meeting. 14. James Bennett Property: Mr. Carnity, Planning Staff, made the presentation for the Planning Department. He told the Board that the original plat, approved several years ago, was in error due to surveying errors; Commissioner Willhoit said he had serious problems approving subdivisions which lay within the Town of Hillsborough. Debate centered around maintenance of the road (Daphine Drive); 094 � the County Attorney suggested ways to solve the maintenance problem of the road. / Commissioner Walker mnved`tn approve the Planning Board's recommendation to ! approve the subdivision as redrawn and with the stipulation that the road meet County minimum road stands. Motion died for lack of a second. | Commissioner Willholt moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall~ to approve ! the Preliminary Plan for the James Bennett property, with the stipulation that a satisfactory maintenance agreement for the upkeep of the road be signed by the Town of Hillsbornugh" Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 14.b. GedQeffeld Subdivision Preliminary Plat Revision: Commissioner Walker moved" seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the Planning Board's recom- mendation to approve the revised preliminary plat for Sedgefie1d Subdivision, Sections 4 and 7 with the stipulation that the Recreation area, which has not been approved by the Health Department, be either combined or listed properly on the final plat- Vote: Ayes, 4; noes; O, 14.c^ Tommy Merritt Rezoning Request: Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the rezoning request from Residential-I to Neighborhood Commercial-11 at the interertiun of of US 70 and St. Mary's Road. _ Vote: Ayes, 4; ones, 0' I4'd, Paul Kempa Rezoning Request: (Intersection of U5 70 and Palmer's Grove Road) Mr. Cnnnity noted the Planning Staff had reservations regarding the safety of this intersection. Mr. Michael Parker, Attorney for Mr' Kempa, said there had been no fatal accidents in the past three years at that intersection and within that time frame there had been only one serious accident there. He added that, next to the intersection of US 70 with Lawrence Road, it was the second safest interectimn along that stretch of 70' He said there was no use for the site if it were not rezoned commercial since the site wouldn't perk. Commissioner Walker moved to approve the Planning Board's recommendation that the rezoning request be approved. Motion died for lack of a second' Commissioners Nillhoit and Marshall voiced concerns over approving u rezoning for commercial development without a specific commercial plan on file; additionally, they felt with such a large tract of land to be rezoned, this rezoning process did not provide enough "checks" on the solving of "serious problems by the owner' Commissioner Wfl|holt moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall" to table this rezoning request until the next meeting and that Planning Staff explore the impli- cations of the request on the Land Use Plan for this area, Vote: Ayes, 3 (Com- missioners 8ustavesnn, Marshall and Willhoit); noes, I (Commissioner Walker). 1099"�`� 14.0. Roy Wilkerson Rezoning: Mr. Cannity noted that this property/business use had been overlooked when the County Zoning Ordinance was being developed. Planning Staff is recommending that a lot on this tract 500' x 300' be rezoned EC-5; Planning Board recommends the whole 6,52 acres of the tract be returned to public hearing for rezoning consideration. + Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the Planning Board's recommendation (see above paragraph). Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 14.f. Willie Wilson Rezoning request: Mr. Wilson addressed the Board following Mr. Cannity's background on the request (see page /,;Z� for details) and said the land which he'd owned for 12-14 years was wasted at the time as he was unable to either build a home or rezone it for a commercial use. Mr. Cannity said Mr. Wilson's commercial use would qualify for a home occupation but that because the site won't perk he can't build a residence on it. Mr. Cannity said the request to rezone from Residential 1 to Neighborhood Commercial 11 is incompatible with the adopted Land Use Plan. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to deny the rezoning request for the Willie Wilson property as recommended by the Planning Board. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. The Board asked that the Planning Staff work with Mr. Wilson to explore his options for use of that property and to investigate economic depreciation of the property. 14.g. Fox Run, Section 9 Preliminary Plan: Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the Preliminary Plan for Section 9 Fox Run Subdivision as recommended by the Planning Board. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 14.h. Brack's Mobile Home Court: Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the Preliminary Plan of Brack's Mobile Home Court, located off SR 1956 'in Bingham Township, as "recommended by the Planning Board and with the stipulation that each lot show 40,00.0 square feet outside the road right-of-way. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 14.j. Participatory Paving Program: Susan Smith, Planning Staff, told the E Board that due to some recent changes by DOT differentiating between rural and i subdivision/residential roads and their eligibility for paving in the PPP Program the Board needed to either reaffirm its present PPP policy or revise the policy. (See page of this book for Ms. Smith's detailed summary.) The Board felt I that Planning Staff should confer with the community leaders of the affected roads � 7 � ' 8 �� ` i and explain the options to those residents and let them decide what ' | This item is to be returned to the Board's agenda after the Planning Staffh4s conferred with those communities affected by DOT's changes. 14.1- Bromley Road and Riverboat Road to State Maintained Secondary System: Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to approve the addition of Bromley Road and Riverboat Road in the Little River Farms Subdivision to the State Secondary Road System. Vote; Ayes, 4; noes, O. 14,m. Food Stamps Issuance: Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Com- m1ss,Toner N1llhoit, approval of the contract with Cost Containment, Inc. for direct mailing of Food Stamp Coupons to the County's 1,270 el1gible'`hnusehnldn. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, O, 14J' Proposed Text Changes to the Zoning Ordinance: Commissioner Nillhuft moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, approval of the addition of Article 4.2,19, Economic Development District application criteria. vote: Ayes, 3 (Commissioners Gustaveyun" Marshall and Nillhuit); noes, l (Commissioner Walker). Commissioner Willhnit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the Planning Board's recommendation on Article 6.3.1, to approve the wording as underlined but to have paragraph three in this section returned to Staff for study. Vote: Ayes, 3 (Commissioners Gustaveson, Marshall, and Willhoit); noes, l (Commissioner Walker). Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustuvesnn, to approve the wording suggested for Article 7.6-with regard to the Manager's certifying that conditions imposed by the Board of Commissioners have been met. Vote: Ayes, 4: noes, U. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the wording change in Article 8,5, that the Manager shall certify that conditions imposed by the Board of Commissioners or Board of Adjustment have been met for Special Use Permits' Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, O. Commissioner Nillhmit moved to approve the Planning Board's recommendation on the PW-11 District extra requirements, but withdrew his motion for further discussion. When asked if the Planning Staff could handle the stormwater managn- montor1teria, Mr. Cnnnity said the Soil and Erosion Officer thought so at the present level of work; problems may develop if the level of construction work in- creases significantly. M nn r' Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the Planning Board's recommendation to adopt Article 4.2.27 (establishing the P14-1I DistHcts) and Extra.-Requirements for those Districts except for 6.23,2 which addresses. minimum lot size. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to consider Article 6.2:3,2 at the next meeting. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 1 Mr, Cannity pointed out a technical change to Article 4.2,27, establishing the Protected Watershed Districts. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Com- missioner Marshall, to approve the clarification to Article 4.2.27 as detailed by Mr. Cannity. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. Added Item: Clean Water Bonds: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve acceptance of a grant for $42,712 towards the non-federal portion of construction costs for a sewer system for the Efland Estates Subdivision and to authorize the Chair to sign the acceptance. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. With no further business to come before the Board, it adjourned by consensus. Norman Custaveson, Vice-Chairman Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk E | - - � � � INDEX | JULY 6, 1982 ! SUBJECT -- ACTION PAGE Minutes June 15 11 11 June 17 Vcorr. June 21 Vsub, Report Com. on Women,--V. Insko Received 1-2 Tax Collector J. Horner appt'd 2 IV-D lease approved 2 Old CH Police bld, Lease appr'd 2 Legal services contract for DSS $1 2 Housing rehab contract apprId 3 Resolutions Right/way to Turner Property warranty deed purchase 3 James Bennett Property contin. on rd. main. 3�4 Tommy Merritt rezoning ti 4 Paul Kempa it tabled till 8 117 4 Roy Wilkerson to pub. hrg. 8/23/ 5 Willie Wilson denied 5 Brack's moblile home 11 $1 to 5 PpP staff to confer w/owners 5-6 INDEX JULY 6, 1982 SUBJECT ACTION PAGE Bromley Rd./Riverboat Rd. added to S. 2nd. system 6 Cost Containment for Food Stamps contract appr'd 6 Pro. changes to ,z. ord. Article 4.2.19 appr'd Article 6.3.1 " /para. 3 returned 6 Article 7.6 : Article 8.5 { Article 4.2.27 Article 6.23.2 cansid.8/17 7 Article 4.2.27 clarification appr'd 7 Clean Water Bond Grant accepted{42,712 for Efiand Est. 7 MONIVY BOARO Ca,:,JJ5SIwE5zS Ar_tiol A4-3nda Item 1,70._D 'kCT ACTIO�I AGalaN IrM'I ABST-r4 VEErr:C, DATE _Lull J 6, Subject: Report--Commission On Women ------- F rhiblic HearIng: x no Commission On Women 7_4no zmt:kn Contact: Verla Insko Attach'nent(S) Yes, written report 87 Phone Number: 732-8181 ext. 4877 PURPOSE: To present the Commission On Women's Annual Report to the Board of Commissioners, MM' To keep the Board of Commissioners abreast of goals and accomplishments in the Commission on Women's office, Ms. Dana Baldwin, Vice-Chair of the Commission on Women, and Ms. Ver7a Insko, Coordinator of the Commission on Women, will be present to respond to questions R ` Orange County Commission For Women 131 Court Street Hillsborough:t32.8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Chapel RW:MI-Mx za2 Mebane:227•wz T9urham: US-= To: Orange County 3oard of Commissioners Re: Annual Report for the fiscal ,!ear 1981-82 Date: July b, 1981 The Orange County Commission for women submits its annual report for the fiscal year 1981-82. This has been a transition year for the Commission beginning with several successful projects and publications followed by a period of low activity due to major staffing changes and ending with a major reorganization effort aimed at setting long range goals. The Commis- sion for Women welcomes the interest and direction of County Manager Ken Thompson and greatly appreciates the support of the Orange County Hoard of Commissioners. Respectfully submitted, V. M Peggy McCarthy, ivretsxzU7 ORANGE COLTNTy COMKISS1014 FOR WOMEN ANNUAL REPORT Jm 30, 1982 1, Introduction The Orange Count? Commission for Women, created in April 1976, works as an advisory board to the Orange County Board Of Commissioners to identify of the potential Orange County; to promote development the status of women in of all residents of the county, focusing on women; and to rec ommend appro- priate action regarding the status of women. The projects of the Commission for 1981-82 focused on training, out- reach, monitoring, interagency coordination, and talent bank/job bank activities„ The annual goals for the Commission were. 1. Leadership Training; to provide leadership training for Commission members, and othercitizens serving or wanting to serve on appointed or elected boards, 2. Outreach. to participate in publishing newsletters providing valuable information to selected populations, and to hold workshops and forums on subjects of interest to women., 3. Monitoring: to stay informed on local issues affecting women by monitor- ing meetings of selected boards and commissions and to evaluate the purpose and effectiveness of monitoring, 4. Interagency ecordination. to assist other agencies when appropriate and to identify and bring together organizations serving women,, S. Talent/Job Bank: to establish a resume file of women needing jobs or appointments and to serve as a liaison between applicants and employers or organizations needing qualified individuals. 11, operations The Commission office located at 131 Court Street in Hillsborough pro- vides an adequate and pleasant work environment. It has become a clearing- house for information on women's issues from the national to local level, Membership in the Commission has fluctuated this year. In July 1981, eleven of the fifteen positions were filled and four townships were repre- sented. Currently, the Commission has eight active members (roar two town- ships, Nevertheless, many individuals have made contributions of talent, time and avergy which resulted in major accomplishments during the 1981-82 year, The Commission staff also experienced change this year. Candace 3urt, half-time coordinator, resigned in January to return to school. Her position was filled in 4arch by Verla lasko. Susan ,Ialdrop, half-time aecretaj7, took a family leave from February 13 to June 20. .4, CET, worker, Sharon Lynch, was to type 10 hours per week. Her employment will last employed on April 6, to have the clerical services of Lillian Wagner, w through July, The Com=ssion has been fortunate ho works half-time under the auspices of the Council On Aging , Leadership Training 1981, the Commission for Women held its annual leader- on September 12, Triangle Park, at Burroughs Wellcome in the Research tended ship training workshop Through Boards and Cownissions", was at The workshop, entitled "Womanpower 11 day training session for members of by about 40 people and provided an a area, Betty Ann Knudsen, Wake County boards and commissions in the triangle Commissioner, was the keynote speaker� (See attachment A booklet On the concept of Power was produced from ideas discussed during the day. (See attachment 2 ) juations of the group leaders and the work- the participants gave high eva shop topics- TV, Outreach The goal OE outreach was implemented through publications, Lunch Hour Seminars, and workshops and forums• n's Center, a monthly newsletter was pub- in collaboration with the Wome lished and mailed or distributed to 1500 people. in January 1982, the Women's Center assumed full responsibility for this publication- Candace Burt worked vich the Women's Center to produce a brochure describ- ing the Women's Center and the three agencies it houses—the Women's Health Counseling Services, the orange County ?ape Crisis Center, and the orange County and Durham Y.W.C.A, Coalition for Battered Women, The Children's Services News, a quarterly publication edited by Nancy Park of the Interfaith Council for Social Services, was xeraxed by the Commission chrough November 1981. At chat time, a grant of 570,,00 was given to Children Services News which provided for 500 copies Of the publication to be distributed and day care centers. free each quarter through schools, libraries, series A, of eight lunch hour seminars was held during September and m, Guest speae $ dscusse October in Hillsborough, Chapel Hill,, and Durha sker. The i series d was topics centering around employment problems and Opportuniti excellent well attended and received, evaluations by jarticipancs. (,See attachment On December 9, 1981, the Employment committee of the Commission for Women held a conference at the Frank ?otter Graham Child Dejelopment Cancer in Chapel Hill, Seven panelists described the services offered by agencies they repre- sented, included: get Chamberlain, zmploymant Security Commission, Panelists al Insti- Jane Spanel, UNC Career Counseling Services; j, McDaniel, Durham Technic cute; Mar-I Freeman, Orange County Employment and Training Agency (CETA); Mary Hackenbrock, Work Incentive (Idl.'T); and Sunice Grossman, Duke Peer Counseling Center. Members of the Orange County Commission for Women found the meeting or very inp mative, the participants also learned from each other and new channels z of communication were established. -3- On April 25, 1582, the Commission for Women invited all Orange County women elected officials to participate in a work session designed to identify issues the Commission should address in 1982-83. The eighteen people attending discussed problems in six major categories, identified resources, and provided much useful background information. V. Monitoring The Monitoring Committee organized around six major boards and depart- ments this year including the orange County Commission, Orange County Women's Center, the Department of Social Services, the Health Department, and HSAC. Commission members or their appointees attended board meetings and reported to the Commission for Women on issues of interest, The purpose was to stay informed on policy issues and to make timely and effective recommendations to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. In April 1982, the Commission members agreed that this activity needed to be modified. The advantages of monitoring came from being well informed on current issues, The greatest disadvantage was the unproductive use of Commission members' time. Meetings are lengthy and deal with many issues outside the domain of the Commission for Women. Monitoring was restructured to include attending only those meetings which are of special interest and supplementing this by reviewing tapes and minutes of other meetings. Another aspect of Monitoring was initiated in 1981-82. Each Commission member selected an area or issue to research so she could serve as a resource person for the Commission for Women. Articles and pamphlets received in the office are used as a basis for information gathering. As ar individual ret- searches an area thoroughly and becomes "expert", speaking engagements are arranged to add to the outreach aspect of the Commission's work. VI. Interagency Coordination Interagency coordination was provided through activities described in other sections of this report, and include support of publications, the leader- ship workshop and employment seminar, lunch hour seminars, and participation in the Association for Community Agencies and the HSAC, VTI. Talent/Job Bank The Talent Bank concept was expanded to include an employment feature (see attachment 3.) This activity vas given hi.ghorior,_ty for 1981-82 as a way to provide valuable experience to women through service on boards and commissions and also to help improve employment opportunities For women, A comprehensive proposal was adopted hy the Commission and two committees were formed--the Talent Bank and the Job Bank (See attachment The Talent Bank Committee updated and compiled a directory of -boards and commissions, including information on each board's purpose, requirsmancs for membership, and vacancies . During the year, individuals who filled out Talent Bank resumes were called about vacancies. The Job Bank Committee explored additional funding sources to support and employment coordinator who could maintain an updated file of job openings and people looking for work. Because the Commission was ineligible !or a '7 members,foundation grant, the Committee was renamed the Employment Committee and a task force was convened to study and identify needs, The major activity of the Employment Committee was the conference held at Frank Porter Graham Center in December Conclusion The Commission -"or Women has made an impact on the lives of women in orange County, It has provided valuable information and services, A very real need exists for the continued activities of such an advisory body. 7he Commi,ssion for Women functioned quite effectively from July through December 1981, Most of the activities and services described above took place during that period of time, On December 14, Candace Burt announced her resig- nation as coordinator, effective January 14. At that same time, Susan Waldrop took a family leave, leaving a � time clerkas the only paid staff, For the next two months, activities centered around replacing the coordinator and evaluating the role of the Commission, The new coordinator started work on Xarch 15 and, under the direction of the County Hanager and Commission began planning a reorganization of the Commission. The focus for the remainder of the year has been to recruit new members and develop short and long range goals. It is hoped that a specific plan based on carefully identified needs will provide the continuity and clarity of purpose needed at this time, The Annual Report For the Fiscal Year of 1981-82 of the Orange County Commission for Women was prepared and comm nded by the membership as follows: Dana Baldwin Anneliese 'lark-us-Kennedy Sally Bernard Peggy %cCarthy Linda Brooks Ruth Royster Hargaret Brown BOFM W- Ca,2,jjSSj0ME2S JACtion Ac'enda Iten *N0. rM1 -7BVf'�;'Cr r):.\TF, July 6, 1982 Subject: Tax Collector At tent I i a Hea-ring Yt:;:- :) (sation Contact- Kenneth R. Thompson Na N No S)- 0 Phone 732-8181 e PURPOSE To consider reappointment and establishment of term of office of the Orange County Tax Collector. The current term of the Orange County Tax Collector expires July 7, 1982. Per G.S. 105-349(a) of the State of North Carolina the Tax Collector is appointed and reappointed by action of the Board and the length of that appointment is established by the Board. In order to facilitate future action the Board might want to consider setting the term of Tax Collector for one year to expire on July 7, 1983, and thereafter be set for two years so as to coincide with the expiration of the Tax Supervisor's term of office. EAPACT: RECOMMENDATION(S) As the Board decides. CRA�rE CCn,-TT BozLr�o C7- Ca^,USS1QN9RS Actiorn Agenda Ite-r, Eo. D.-M July 6, 1982 SUbied-- Voting Delegate Designation to Annual NCACC Conference. Wars— F Pub •c Hearing: yes y no —— ——-------------------- - — .I Efttac:�h:m:=t(s) OxIctItiOrl CO't��-c:t: Clerk to the Board b=: 732-81 1 ext. 510 Yes, Memorandum Ph=ie N= ptnUKSE: To designate a voting delegate to the Annual North Carolina Association of County Commissioners Conference in Raleigh, August 12-15, 1982. Ntm. According to the Constitution of the Association,"each county represented shall be entitled to one vote, which shall be the majority expression of the delegates of that county." U'11'ACT: One Commissioner will cast votes for Orange County, RECOMMENDATION: Designate one Board member the voting delegate. (FIX C:)F= C(:)L)rj-ry CONCMISSICNEFtS P 0 :tOX 1488 ♦ RALEIGH. NORTH CARt)JINA irLM!0NE ')10 U? June 25, 1982 DESMATION OF-VEING DELEME-3-0-ANUALLM-REN-LE- PLEAS' PI ACE ON YOUR UIRD-MTING AGENDA Each Board of commissioners is hereby requested to designate a commissioner or other official as a voting delegate. Each voting delegate should complete. s ent and RETURN IT TO THE ASSOCIATION OFFICE(—NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, AUGUST Gt hereby certify that I am thW—duly designated voting delegate for _ County at the 75th Annual Conference of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners to be held in Raleigh. Signed:___ Title : Article VI, Section 2 Of Our Constitution provides: "On all questions, including the election of officers, each county represented shall be entitled to one vote, which shall be the majority expression of the delegates of that county. The vote of any county in good standing may be cast by any one of its county commissioners who is present at the time the vote is taken; provided if no commissioner be present, such vote may be cast by another county official, elected or appointed, who is formally designated by the board of county Commissioners. These provisions shall likewise govern district meetings of the Association. A county in good standing is defined as one which has paid the current year's dues," District caucuses for the purpose of nominating board members will be held at the Annual Conference for those districts in which the term of the board member expires. Those districts are listed on the reverse side of this sheet. OVER PRESENT DISTRET DIRE BEAUFORT., BERTIE, HERTFORD, MR. R. GILBERT WHITLEY MARTIN, PITT CHAIRMAN, HERTFORD DISTRICT 4 BRUNSWICK, COLUMBUS, MR, FRANKY THOMAS NEW HANOVER, PENDER CHAIRMAN, BRUNSWICK CUMBERLAND, HARNETT, SAMPSON MRS. VIRGINIA THOMPSON COMMISSIONER, CUMBERLAND aMLELl FRANKLIN, GRANVILLEj PERSON, MR, JAMES WEATHERS VANCE, WARREN COMMISSIONER, FRANKLIN DISTRICT 10 ANSON, MONTGOMERY, MOORE.j MR. H. PAGE MCAULAY RICHMOND COMMISSIONER, MONTGOMERY DISTRICT 12 CABARRUS, GASTON, IREDELL, MRS, FRANCES MURDOCK LINCOLN, MECKLENBURGi ROWAN, COMMISSIONER, IREDELL STANLY, UNION DISTRICT 14 ALLEGHANY., ASHEj AVERY, MR, LARRY STANBERY MITCHELL, WATAUGA, WILKES,. CHAIRMAN, WATAUGA YANCEY DEMU-J-6 BUNCOMBE, HENDERSON, MADISON MRS, DORIS GIEZENTANNER TRANSYLVANIA COMMISSIONER, BUNCOMBE DISTRICT 18 DAVIE, FORSYTH, STOKES, MR, JACK F. SHORE SURRY, YADKIN COMMISSIONER, YADKIN r T- 4 1 A A"A w N-Ni r II N04 0 1 f,M�; t 7 tsmw s.4 1 ON1 '!I -il: '.,I I MEMORANDUM TO- Chairmen/Managers FROM C. Ronald, Aycock, Executive Director DATE: June 25.", 1982 SUBJECT: DOOR PRIZES: There JSL & prevailing, custom at' our Annual Conference concerning door prizes. Counties usually solicit voluntary contributions by local businesses. These contributions are used as door prizes and this feature adds a, great deal to the enjoyment of the officials and indeed to the success of' the-:Conference itself. We believie- every county should have the opportunity to contribute and. to share in:.makin_.,& succdsgf'af, our Conference. We would again like for you to bring _this. proposal to theL'attention of interested persons in your county We do not want any pressure exerted on local businesses nor on county officials to promote door prizes, but we do hope that those who can will bring, some local products- to our Conference for door prizes. Past experience indicates that most businesses and industries are happy to provide products as. a means of advertising and promoting their businesses and counties. WORTANT'i If you do bring door prizes, please he sure to identify each of the prizes and include they lame and address of the contributing business or industry together with the name 6f'the County and the countyofficials who; solicited the prize. This information should be on each separate ]2ackage or EEILF—el so that when re* won, credit max be given to the donor . Also, it will be, a: =eat RM s,iation. Office, if you will submit a. 1'ist3-fig Of the prizes contributed, donor name and address and county official. This will enable your- Association toersonall thank each contributor. Door prizes should be taken directly to the Raleigh Civic Center in Raleigh. Someone at the. Registration Desk there will direct you to the area in which the- prizes will be stored: We look forward to seeing you in Ra2eigh. s. CRA-ZrGE CCUN-r-T EoIkRo OF ca'XISSIGNERS Acti.on Pour ACT 10 T ;G FzUk I=I E BSUPACr item vo. =rNG D.NTE July 6, 1982 sllbj9ct" Resolutions for Annual NCACC Conference ____yes X no Attachment(s) C=tact-* Clerk to the Board Yes, Bulletin Phone Nuntmt: 732-8181, ext. 510 PURPOSE: To consider Resolutions for introduction at the Annual North Carolina Association of County Commissioners Conference in Raleigh, August 12-15. Deadline for submission of Resolutions to be considered at the Conference is July 15, 1982. Board may wish to consider ideas for Resolutions and give Staff direction for the preparation of Resolutions. IMPACT- If the Board decides to submit a Resolution (s) at the Annual NCACC Conference, Staff will have ample time to meet deadlines for such sub•- missions, RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. NC>FR'r" C^FRCN-INJA, C>P CC3urWrY 1;,11it-11 HUILrOJ6 t, PDX 1444 0 RMFICH, NOP.Tit CAN(AIMI, 77t,rj' • T(UPHONE 9V) 832 28Q3 June 9, 1982 ADVANCE NOTICE OF RESOLUTIONS PROCESS FOR 1982 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Within the next week,, information and reservation forms will be mailed to county officials for the NCACC. 1982 Annual Conference to be held in Raleigh August I2-15. However,, because of time- constraints, county, mjn!�gerE are being sent this notice so that each county will have ample tige to draft any ' resolutions to be submitted for consideration. The resolutions should be submitted to the Association beadquarters no later than July 15, L9821 This submission. date. will enable us to publisF-pFF—poseT.—res-5TUME-ro—Es in— North Carolina Coun Lines prior to the beginning of the Conference. Article V11, Section I of the Association Constitution reads as follows: Section 1. Submission of Resolutions to Resolutions Committee, A -resolution may be, su an to tor cons Ideras ion b-y--the Resolutions Committee at. the Annual meeting of the Association in one of,'the following, ways: (1) by official action of a member board of county commissionert, (2) by official action of a standing or special committee of the Association; (3) by official action of an affiliate organization of the Association; or (4) by motion. of a member of the Resolutions Committee, The Association Board of Directors will serve as the Resolutions Committee, Resolutions Committee meetings at the Annual Conference are scheduled as follows: Thursday, August 12, 1982 - 10:00 a..m. Friday, August 13,, 1.982 - 4:30 p.m. PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESOLUTIONS TO THE ASSOCIATION BY JULY 15 1982� *This information is only being mailed to county managers at this date. Even though Resolutions information will be mailed to managers, commissioner ;, and attorneys next week, we wanted to make sure that the managers were aware of the deadline as soon as possible, MANGE CCUMY • BOARD C-- Cac-as'SIOHMS zztian Agarda item no. SUbjjeCt: Lease renewal for Child Support Enforcement office 22r--ttn1--1t.1 Purchasing & Central Services none 1rif=M&ti= czrreact: Hark H. Rees, Director Ph=U-- MtrbeX: 732-9361 ext# 498 To authorize the \ianager to renew the present Child Support lease on the same terms and rent presently existing, except the renewal will be on a month-to-month basis. lies (A) A written lease agreement is necessary for the County to receive reimbursement from the State for rental of the Child Support office, (3) A month-to-month basis lease is necessary because it is anticipated that the Child Support Office will be moving into the county owned property in the 1982-83 fiscal year. (C) This item was acted on during May 1982. It is being brought back seeking renewal on a monthly rather than annual basis, he rent will remain ac 5175.06/month, which is within the budgeted figure (s) - Authorize 4anager to renew lease 0 ,C- ccalr SA Z ,, T BOA kF- -PD �=- ccteass:n—AS k--icn Asgerida =IaN Lease of former Police building in Chapel Hill Exircbasing & Central Services &posed terms of the lease Bill. Laws ph=e NL%zter 732-9361 ext#503 1?t1L"�Se: To authorize the Manager to enter into a lease with the Town of Chapel Hill for 2,900 sq. ft., of the former Police building over a three (3) year period under the attached terms and conditions. The Town of Chapel Hill as already agreed to in the proposed lease, .7eed- The County has need for three offices in the Chapel Hill area; the Sheriff's Department, the Dt ver's License Bureau and the Court Probation Offices. The Sheriff's Department is presently located in the former Police building and will be forced to vacate if a lease is not agreed to; the Di.ivet"s Bureau lease will expire September 15, 1982; and the Court Probations offices' space has just experienced a considerable rent experience. Approval of the lease will result in saving the County a minimum of $1,900 in rent for FY 82-83 and $7,000 per year in the remaining two years of the lease. ".4p—,,t:-,r-w4aticn Is) t Authorize Manager to enter into lease. - PROPOSED TERMS OF TEE LEASE The County would lease the 2,900 square feet of the main floor with the possibility of negotiating additional space at a later date. (2). The County would have the use of the 25 parking spaces in the "upper" lot adjacent to the building, while the Town would retain the use of the "lower" lot with about 15 spaces. to include costs of electricity and heat it would increase each subsequent increases in utility rates, year, to cover any (4). The $150/mo (1,800 yearly) which the Town now contributes to the rent of the Driver's License Bureau office (now in Carrboro) would cease as of June 30, 19M (5). The County would be responsible for janitorial services, while the Town will be responsible for exterior maintenance, and all extraordinary maintenance and repairs on the building, heating, plumbing and electrical (6). Internal alterations only would be allowed with the prior approval of the Town Manager and at the expense of the County. (7), The County would be liable for and would hold the Town harmless against any claim relating to personal injury, dekth or property damage with respect to the leased premises and other areas of 100 West Rosemary Street under County control, CRANr3t C0UZ%4—,Y ISSIWERS BOARD OF =,X Action Ager4a ACTIaN RGMMP, ITE4 JSSIT-ACr Item Nlo- ME=UG DA' July 6, 1982 Subject: Disposal of Surplus Property Purchasing & Central Service no Attachrrmt(s)- 0=mtion Contact: Mark H. Rees None phme Nuater: 732-8181 PURPOSE: To declare surplus two items of County property a) Fencing behind Human Services Complex b) Dextrometer - County Asset 0001700 NEED: -The fencing behind Human Services has deteriorated considerably. A non-profit athletic association has offered to take down the fence, if they could keep the usable parts. -The dextrometer would be used as a trade-in on a new machine. WACT: -Remove an unsightly fence from County property -Lower cost on new equipment purchase. RECOMMENDATION: Declare property surplus. DRAKE COUNTY ROAM 0-- Ca•�JJSSIWIERS Action, Panda Itam t"'O. ACMON =,M MS7M-ACr =ZG DAT-,__jujy_��� Subject: Legal Services for Department of Social Services 2-yatin-rent* Department of Social Se_ ic Pub]-ic Hearing: no Ahtacbment(s):- yes- tinn Contact: Tom Ward phmm Mmbar: 732-9361 ext. 201 PURPOSE: To consider renewal of contract with Northen, Little, and Bagwell , Attorneys at Law, for the provision of legal services for the Department of Social Services, NEED- Legal services are needed for the following: 1. To provide legal support for DSS in connection with its services to needy and dependent persons in Orange County, 2, To provide legal support to DSS in the administration of its functions under the applicable sections of the General Statutes of the State of North Carolina. 3. To represent the DSS, its caseworkers and employees before the various courts and agencies of the State of North Carolina. WACT- Services shall be,provided for FY 82-83 at the same rate as FY 81-82: $45.00 per hour for attorneys and $10.00 per hour for clerks and legal assistants. RECOMMENDATION(S)- Renewal. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF ORANGE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this the lat day of July, 1982, by and between NORTHEN, LITTLE S BAGWELL, Orange County, North Carolina, a partnership organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina engaging in the practice of law, hereinafter referred to as ATTORNEYS, and ORANGE COUNTY, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY: W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS the Orange County Department of Social Services (hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT) has need of special legal services, not otherwise provided by County government agencies, in connection with its services to needy and dependent persons in Orange County, the administration of its functions under the provisions of Article 8, Chapter 110 of the General Statutes of North Carolina and other laws of the State and representation of the DEPARTMENT, its caseworkers and employees before the various courts and agencies of the State of North Carolina; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the COUNTY and ATTORNEYS to enter into a contract, one with the other, for the purposes and considerations as set forth herein for a period of July 1, 1982 through June 30, 1983; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual terms and agreements hereinafter set forth, the COUNTY and ATTORNEYS do contract, each with the other, as follows: I. That ATTORNEYS shall perform such services and render such advice to the DEPARTMENT on such occasions as shall be required by the Director of the DEPARTMENT and with the approval of said Director, employees and caseworkers shall require the services of ATTORNEYS. 2. That ATTORNEYS shall be compensated for all services rendered in connection with Paragraph No. 1 above based on an hourly rate for services performed of Forty—Five Dollars ($45.00) per hour, such hours and amounts to be furnished to the County Finance Officer or his designate for payment. The ATTORNEYS shall also be compensated for and reimbursed for the services of clerics and legal assistants hired by them to assist them in the HOATHEN,L1TTLE performance of their duties to the DEPARTMENT, based on an hourly rate of &BAGWELL ATTQRttlNJ AT LAW services performed of Ten Dollars ($10.00) per hour. The COUNTY shall be 171 W.PRANKLIH ST CHAPEL Hitt k C 17514 E responsible for all costa and expenses incurred in the performance of the services rendered the COUNTY pursuant to this Contract. All costs and expenses advanced by ATTORNEYS on behalf of COUNTY shall be reimbursed to ATTORNEYS, 3. That ATTORNEYS shall keep an itemized record of work performed for the DEPARTMENT on a case-by-case basis and shall submit its bill therefor showing a breakdown of those services performed and the cost. 4. That this Agreement shall exist and continue from July 1, 1982 to and including June 30, 1983, unless sooner terminated by thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY and ATTORNEYS have hereunto signed this Agreement in duplicate originals, one of which is retained by each party hereto and either of which is sufficient as the original. ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA By: RICHARD E. WHITTED Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners Attest: Paulette Pridgen-Pond Clerk of the Orange County Board of Commissioners NORTHEN, LITTLE & BAGWELL Attorneys at Law By-, J. ANDERSON LITTLE This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Lo-cal Government Budget and Fiscal Control Art. NORTHElf LITTLE WALLACE HARDING, Orange County Finance Officer &GAGWELL ATTOONM AT LAW •1 W,FRANKLIN ST CHAP(I.HILL N.C.17514 AttacbMnt Yes 0 CQntact*- Kenneth R. Thompson Phme Nunbez: 732-8181 ext. 501 PURPOSE: To consider approving a chance order for additional work done to the flooring. NEED" Specification called for a cement floor with wax finish. The final floor layer was poured during early construction. As other work was done, such as by the moving In of the steel and laying of block walls, damage was done to the floor, This was in the form of holes that had to be patched and soil coloration that had to be removed through etching with acid. When it was clear that the floor would still have an irregular appearance after these measures were done and that such could pose a problem on future with epoxy p^/nn. ^ � ' - ' M5ACT- This is the first order on the project. Actual cost of doing the corrective work exceeded the $1 ,866 being billed the County. Architect recommends approval. RECOMMENDATION(S).- Approve change order Number l for the amount of $l ,866. T } . t ' ^ -- `--- ---------------` `--` - --------- ----- ' ` — �oseph 1~ nass.f. architect , 'f1 p.obpx 2616. chapel hill, nn, c7m*. 919'e*2-46*e June e, 1982 Mr, Ken Thompson, Manager Orange County Government 106 E. Margaret Lama Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 ma: Change Order wvmuerl'Genmro| Jail Facility Hillsborough, North Carolina Project Number: 76$3-08, File: 8-2. E~2 Dear Mr. Thompson: Enclosed please find three copies of Change Order Number 81 for the general contract of the jo|| +oc||i+y project. As written to you previously this change order concerns the pqln+yn8 of the exposed concrete floor. The county needs to sign in the designated area on three copies, retain one for your file and send one copy to the con- tractor and one copy uucx to this office. Should you have any questions please 4u not hesitate to call. 3ilnc rel Jo ph L. Nassif rchiltect c- Security Building Company Mr. Ward Sefzer CHANGE ARCOWNER HITECT 0 ORDER CONTRACTOR 1"-j 11CLl.) (_) AfA DOCUMENT 1701 OTHER. PROJECT: Orange County Jail Facility CHANGE ORDER NUMBER. 1 (name,address) TO (Contractor) ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 7803-08 Security Building Company P. 0. Box 961 CONTRACT' FOR: General Chapel Hilt, North Carolina 2751 ^f CONTRACT DATE: April 1, 1981 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: To paint all exposed concrete floors with Trme--Tred Epoxy paint In phase 1. The following rooms are affected: 118, 117, 115, 105, 131, 132, 128, 130, 129, 133. The County will respond later if they desire phase number 2 to be done in like manner. Please see attached cost analysis. The original Contract Sum was „ S 479,500.00 Net change by previous Change Orders ., S 0 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was , . , . . . , , „ . „ . ,. S 479,500.00 -t• 0 The Contract Sum will be (increased) RJexmied) (l pwboxgcd)by this Change Order. , , S 1,866,00 'The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be .. S 481,366,00 The Contract Time will be llKmt o¢A)Xdeotvyedf(unchanged) by ( }Days. The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change order therefore is Joseph L. Massif A I A � Secu_r l t Bu l l d i ng Coma_ny Orange County Government CH ARITECT CONTRACTOR OWNER ...CoJ-umbiaStreet ___ M,._.E..Jiar_garet—LaL?lw__.. Address Address Address Ht1l , 4.C. GhaJ1e1 HW�� Hi l Isborou�ch, N.C. t1Y k < r. RY RY DATE DATE AIA DOCUMENT 0701 CHANGE ORDER APRIL 1970 EDITION MAE) 0 1970 THE ONE PAGE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Or^"CHITECTS.1735 NEW YORK AVE,NM kVAS1nNCTON.DC.26006 9.99 Y _ ...,—«...�.....•,....... __...r...�..s...•...-..........,..saw•..:•....:...,_........:-....».,.,,._,,._.,_�-..._.,»,.•-. .,_,..».,.,...�.....,.._..».............�..—......»�.........w.+.....va.i...�..,_,.,_._ SECURITY BUILDING COMPANY, INC. RO Box 967!Chopel Hill,NC 27514,(Area 999)929,0356 June 9. 1962 Joseph L. Nassif, AIA P. 0. Box 2615 Chapel Hill., N. C. 27514 Re: Orange Co. Jail. Facility Hillsborough, N. C. Dear Joe, 4 In accordance with a request from the owner, we offer our proposal to paint the floor with Trme-Tred epoxy paint as described below for the lump sum of $1,666.00. Lasted below is a breakdown of this proposal: Material to clean and etch floor* $ 297.00 ----Labor to clean and etch floor* 667.00 .. Paint subcontractor 600.00 Sales Tax 12.00 18% Labor Overhead 120.00 Sub-total T: ,T916.00 10% Profit & Overhead 170.00 Total '1, 66.00 *A breakdown of the labor and material is attached.. The cost listed above is for the second time the floor was cleaned, acid etched and painted. This does not include any cost prior to the final inspection. The cost for removing the sealer the first time was more difficult and took approximately twice the labor. We trust the above is in order and a change order will be issued to our contract to cover this cost. If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me. s Yours,very truly, Ward L. Setter Vice president Manager, Commercial Div. WLS/b j h Attachment Q 3 Vii: fAy I' *Attachment to June 9, 1982 Letter Summaxy of Material Labor Cost LABOR ' 5/6/82 1 superintendent, 8 hrs. @ $10.00 $ 116.00 2 carpenters; 16 hrs. @ $7.25 1 laborer, 8 hrs. @ $4.50 36.00 5/10182 1 superintendent, 12 hrs. @ $10.00 120.00 5/11/82 1 carpenter, 12 hrs. @ $7.25 87.00 I laborer, 12 hrs. @ $4.50 54.00 5/12/82 1 superintendent, 8 hrs. @ $10.00 80.00 1 carpenter, 8 hrs. @ $7.25 58.00 1 laborer, 8 hrs. @ $4.50 56.00 Total for Labor $ 667.00 1SATER1 ALS 2 gal. wax stripper @ $8.00 $ 16.00 21 gal. 'Toluene @ $9.50 199.50 6 gal. acid @ $5.00 30.fl0 brushes, gloves 12.00 special sealer 40.00 Total for Materials $ 207•0Q . ..........�,..........,..._..�.....,.�.. �..�. . . - = ,,....._-.:.,.�..,..�,,..,..�:.,qua.�..�::.:.:._..._..:.,....:.,�:._..:.:d ,.._.: ogANrE cOUW1-' BoaRJ o- C 9`,!11SSZC>'g56 Action Agenda Item Ito. Ar- AC.0 CGS' AGEMN I'I'I 1 ABS'i' ICr I,=. TIu DAt'TE July 6, 1982 swjec't: Housing Rehabilitation Contract Award no xtrnt: Community Devela meet r1 T '` : e� -� Att cis n°x7t Ls3= nfo Lion�z Wilbert McAdoo Bid Results Phone Ntber: 429 Purpose: Award of one Housing Rehabilitation Contract. Need. Sealed Bids were received and opened on dune 29, 1982 Attached is a tabulation of the bids by dwelling unit number. Ir�act: Award of contractwto the lowest bidder will be consistent with present housing rehabilitation bid procedure. T'^cor'r�^.n:latia:t Ls) DO Street Contractor Bid Amount 148 Harper Street Taylor Home Improvement $8,726.00 ' RESULTS OF BID OPENING - ) ' APPLICATION NUMDE O�MER� Bryant Roberts .. :&DK2SI: DU # 148 Ha COST ESTIMATE: PERCENTAGE OF 8[D OVER UNDER 11.64 COST ESTIMATE CHECK ONE: JOB 8lO =Xi JOB NEGOTIATED COMPANY BID AMOUNT McDuffie Construction $11,04000 Winstead Construction v Z ] Gates Construglion $10,200.00 4� Taylor Home Improvement 5' frank Griffin & Associates ' ^` ^~=^'e H. Morrow- — Construction----- $ ' 7' Tomou $11,600,00 Bids npened by: Albert Morrmw Time of Bid Opening: 3:00 p.m. Date of 81d Opening, Juno 29 I882 Wilbert McAdoo ' Witnessed by* Lowest Acceptable 8id: $8 728 00 negotiated Amount: ' N/A Contractor: Taylor Home Improvement . NAM 1156 Fishe Street, Durham, N.C. 9I9 688-3214 ER CunnEmu: Community' Development's contribution towards the rehabilitation of this dwelling unit will be $6,000'00 � Bid was not signed. Unsigned bid could not be accepted. � Sohmitted by: [ Bid Approved by: , Proceed Order, Issued F---1 Nvt Issued [—__] ion . j 1 ORXNZE 00U%, Y B0pk7D O? ca-":llsslo Action Agenda 23 t�v July 6, 1982 subject: Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Filing of CDBG Application I� excrnG: Community Develo ment Public F[ rg: yes no At 'rk�m°n!:Resolution nformatioa Contact-. Albert T. K-i ttrel 1 Phone Natbarr Ext. 427 Purpose: Adopt resolution authorizing the filing of the County's Fiscal Year 1982 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application. Need- During the spring of 1982, the State of North Carolina assumed administrative responsibility for the Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program., The Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD) is responsible for the program.: NRCD regulations, require that local governing bodies pass an official resolution authorizing the filing of CDBG applications. The County is applying for its final installment ($938,000) which was previously approved and committed by HUD in July 1980. The third program year 'activities are: Acquisition of Real Property, Parks, Playgrounds and Other Recreational Facilities, Clearance of Diplapidated Structures, Relocation Payments and Assistance, and Rehabilitation of Private Properties. iulPactzAdoption will enable the County to apply for committed CDBG funds. Pecornwnlation(s) . Adopt resolution authorizing the filing of CDBG application. X.' .1C154 3 Fe CERTIFICATIONS The applicant hereby assures and certifies that: (a) it possesses legal authority to apply for the grant,and to execute the proposed program, (b) its governing body has duly adopted or passed as an official act a resolution, motion or similar action authorizing the riling of the application,including all understandings and assurances contained therein,and directing and authorizing the person Identified as the official representative of the applicant to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may be required, (c) It has provided and will provide on a continuing basis Citizen Participation in accordance with Rule.1102 of the North Carolina Community Development Block Grant Administration Rules,- (d) its chief elected official or other officer of the applicant approved by NR.CD: (1) Consents to assume the status of the"responsible Federal official"as that term is used in section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA),section 104(f)of Title I of the Housing and Come munity Development Act of 1974, as amended, and other provisions of Federal law,as specified at 24 CFR 5E..5 which further the purposes of NEPA. (2) Is authorized and consents on behalf of the applicant and himself to accept the Jurisdiction of the Federal courts for the purpose of enforcement of his responsibilities as such an official., (3) Consents to review and commenton all Environmental Impact Statements prepared for Federal projects which may have an impact on the applicants/recipients community development program.. (4) Consents to perform all coordination functions required under 24 CFR, part 58 and 40 CFR Parts 1500-1 s0a.. (e) The Community Development Program has been developed so as to give maximum feasible priority to activities which will benefit low- and moderate-income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight. The requirement for this certification will not preclude the NRCD from approving an application where the ! applicant certifies, and NRCD determines,that all or part of the Community Development Program activities are designed tomeet other community development needs having a particular urgency as specifically explained in the application in accordance with Section .0900 of the North Carolina Community Development Block Grant Administrative Rules. (f) It will comply with all provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(P.L 88-352)and Title Vill of the Civil Rights Act of 1968(P.L. 90.284), (g) It will comply with all provisions of Subchapter 13I..of the North Carolina Administrative Code,entitled North Carolina Community Development Block Grant Program.. (h) It will give NRCD, HUD and the Comptroller General through any authorized representatives access to and the right to examine all records,books,papers or documents related to the grant., (i) It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using positions for a purpose that is or gives the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or others,particularly those with whom they have family,business,or other ties. IU4 x RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED. y THAT, the Orange County Board of Commissioners authorize the filing of Orange County's Fiscal Year 1982 Community Development Block Grant Application, including all understandings and assurances contained within the application.. THAT, an application will be submitted to the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development on or before July 30, 1982. —The amount requested is $938,000. I hereby certify that the above resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution adopted at a meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners on the day of 1 19 J .a r ORANGE Cow BO.DRD CF CU`ZUSSIO*}"ac S Action P anda i Itc-un NO_4'a AGICION AGII' A r I ABSnUr C.0 I~IEIII\�, Db1IE 7-6-82 Subject.: Adopt Resolution Establishing Just Compensation (Right-of-Way Acquisition) �r�t: Community Development olioI` --°— ems Xo Attach.m-_nt(s): Review Appraisal Certifi- Information Conti'' Wilbert McAdoo cation. Recommended Value. Phane ar: Ext. 429 Puxpose: The establishment of just compensation (dollar amount the County will offer property owner for right-of-way). Need: After discussions with the N. C. Department of Transportation, Right--of-Way. Divisipn, and The John McAdams Company, it was determined that a right-of- way was overlooked by John McAdams'surveyors. Therefore, an additional right- of-way must `be acquired„ The right-of-way has been surveyed by The John McAdams Company; The parcel has been appraised by Fred Ruffin, Archie Kel,ly,:,, __ Assistant Tax Supervisor, performed review appraisal. The right-of-way informaFio is as follows: Square Feet Review Appraiser Parcel No. (Right-of-Way Area) First Appraisal Recommended Value 56 6,625 $ 1,700.00 $ 1,700.00 fact: Certification of Just Compensation will facilitate the timely implementation of the real property acquisition process, it;:cra:rz' n-2atio:z(s): Approve Recommended Value, ii RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION FOR.CERTAIN PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR ACQUISITION IN THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, HUD PROJECT NO. B-80--DS-- 37-0023 IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED: THAT, 'The Orange County Board of Commissioners has obtained appraisal and a review,appraisal for the parcel proposed to be acquired in the Orange County Community Development Program as required by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and HUD's implementing at 24 CFR 42.101-127. THAT, Just Compensation is hereby established for the parcel as follows_ Review Appraiser Square Feet Recommended Parcel No. Right-of-stay Area 0 First Appraisal Value 56 6,625 $ 1,700.00 $ 1,700.00 I hereby Certify that the above resolution is a true and correct copy o" resolution adopted at a meeting o the Orange County Board of Commissioners on the _ y of 1 � �tlrw t is MEMORANDUM TO: Albert Kittrell, CD Director FROM: Archie Kelly, Asst. Tax Supervisor DATE: June 25, 1982 ' SUBJECT: Certificate of Review Appraisal Northern Fairview Community Development Project (Right-of-Way Acquisition) parcel No. 56 I hereby certify that I have reviewed the property referred to above; that the appraisal is complete and consistent with acceptable professional appraisal techniques and practices; that the information furnished by the Community Development Department indicated the appraisal comply with all applicable statutory and administrative requirements of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and is assumed to be correct. In my opinion, the report is acceptable for use in determining the "Fair Market Value" of the property appraised. 109 4 ORANGE COUNTY a.RD a� CON24IsslcrRERs action Agerjaa Item ro-�- . ACLIGN AGMUN IT"-I ABS'IMUr PIES' E\ZG rJOC Ju1Y f��7 Subjecu= Right-of-Way Acquisition nt; Community Development pZlic Hearing. Attachments)_ �szformabion Cont�.ct:Albert T. Kittre1l Phone Wwber-- 427 Board of Commissioners determination whether to acquire by warranty deed LL or condemnation a 12,430 square feet right-of-way tract now owned by J. W. Garrard. Need: Cyrus Hogue, attorney performing right-of-way acquisition closings, has informed Community Development that there is no'chain of title into Mr. Garrard concerning his property needed for Dixie Avenue street improvem9r Mr. Garrard bought the property on February 17, 1978 from the heirs-o` Salon Turner by warranty deed. Lonnie Coleman represented Mr. Garrar, and Dalton Loftin represented the seller. Both Coleman and Loftin have been unable to establish a chain of title for this tract. This property was known by the heirs and all persons living in the area to be Solon Turner property according to Dalton Loftin . Mr, Hogue would like to speak to the Board about this matter. Impp t,: Purchase by condemnation procedures will delay street improvement activities. P^c"==-ndation(s): Acquire right-of-way by warranty deed purchase. a?.PuNr1; CGUNIT BOXRD 0 CQµusslomf�_-:Zs Action P.g=nda J1FET.CIG I7lTc July 6, 1982 Sujec�: Tax Sheltering of Member Contributions to the Retirement System Effective July 1, 1982 pY t: Personnel Public H irzgw yes K no y At nent(s): Yes, 2 pages _ Iriioraiation Confect: Beverly Murrell Whitehea. Phone Ntc 732-6181 ext. 516 PURPOSE: To consider, a provision which will allow employees' contributions to the Local Governmental Employees' Retirement System (6%.of annual compensation) to be paid out of gross salary before Federal and State withholding taxes are computed and deducted. (Federal and State withholding taxes only. Social Security taxes will continue to be deducted from gross salary.) NEED: With the anticipated increase health insurance rates,tax sheltering of retirement contributions will offset part of the change in withholding. IMPACT: There is no additional cost to the County to make this available to employees. The effect of the provision is to shelter the employees contribution from income taxes until after the employee retires. There is no additional cost to Orange County, and results in an increase in employees take-home pay of 2% to 4%. At retirement, an employee will have to pay Federal and State income tax on all amounts received over and above the contributions made prior to the date of election to tax shelter the contributions. This tax sheltering arrangement is not applicable to any employees who are members of the Law Enforcement Officers' Benefit and Retirement Fund. RECOMMENDATION(S): Adoption of the attached resolution authorizing a tax shelter of employees' contributions payable as members of the North Carolina Local Governmental Employees' Retirement System, as recommended by the County Manager. CARC?L.INA . - STATE OF NORTH C)EPARTMENT OF STATE TREASURER :;;_• _..- RETIREMENT AND HEALTH BENEFITS DIVISION ii �. T. eARNEs ARL.AN 6 BOYLE5 I�RPLITY TREASURED ,•{; TRCACURER June 18, 1982 MEMORANDUM T0: Participating Employers in the Local Governmental Employees' Retirement System FROM: E. T. Barnes SUBJECT: Tax Sheltering of Member Contributions to the Retirement System Effective July 1, 1982 The 1981 General Assembly (1982 Regular Session) has enacted legislation which allows participating employers in the North Carolina Local Governmental Employees' Retirement System to elect a method of income tax sheltering the retirement contributions of employees who are members of this System. A copy of this provision, which creates G.S. 128-30(bl), is herewith attached. The method enacted is the employer pick up of member contributions arrangement allowed under Section 414(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code. This pick up is funded--by the same 6% retirement contribution deducted from a member's gross salary. Using this arrangement, there is no additional cost to an employer for the pick up and will result in an increase in the take.-home pay of a typical employee of about 2% to 4%6 Before tax sheltering of member contributions under this new law can become applicable to employees of a participating employer, the governing body of the local government must elect the arrangement. The election can be effective only on and after July L 1982 and only as of the first day of the calendar month in which the governing body makes the election (prior to any payrolls paid that month) or the first day of the month following such election. A model resolution for a governing body to adopt is herewith attached. If a participating employer elects to tax shelter employees' contributions to the Local Governmental Employees' Retirement System, the following steps need to be taken: (1) The governing body must make the election by adopting an authorizing resolution in the form of the model resolution. (2) A certified copy of this resolution must be filed with the Retirement and Health Benefits Division of the Department of State Treasurer. (3) The employer's payroll office must: (a) deduct from the gross salary of an employee the required 6% retirement contribution; (OVER) 325 N. SALISBURY STREET., RALEIGH, NORTIi CAROLINA 27614 161'J1 7333 4091 ki A. (b) deduct Federal and State withholding tax on an employee's gross salary less the retirement contribution-, (c) deduct social security tax, if covered, on an employee's gross salary; (d) report an employee's gross salary to the Retirement System and, continue to report and remit the employee's retirement deduction in the same manner as previously required; (e) remit social security contributions on covered wages as an employee's gross salary (subject to. the maximum taxable covered wages under social security); (f) at year end, report on an employee's W-2 form for Federal and State income tax purposes for taxable salary an employee's gross salary less the retirement contribution deducted from an employeets gross salary after the date of election; (g) at year end, report social security wages as the salary on which social security contributions were deducted and, in the case of an employee who had not reached the maximum taxable covered wage, the reported amount on the W-2 form would be the gross salary paid to an employee. After this tax sheltering arrangement is effective, the Retirement System will continue to credit the amount of an employee's contribution to his account in the Retirement System. Also, the Retirement System would continue to recognize an employee's full salary for purposes of compensation. Should an employee terminate and request a ref6nd, the total of contributions both before and after the election would be refunded. Upon a refund, the System will report to the Internal Revenue Service an employee's contributions made after the election of the pick up as., taxable income in the year of the refund. At retirement, an employee will have to pay Federal income tax on all amounts received over and above the contributions made prior to the date of election to tax shelter the contributions. It is important to note that this tax sheltering arrangement is available only for employees of a participating employer who are members of the North Carolina Local Governmental Employees' Retirement System. the arrangement is not optional among members of the System in the employ of a participating employer making the election. This tax sheltering arrangement is not applicable to any employees who are members of the Law Enforcement Officers' Benefit and Retirement Fund. A separate memorandum on this subject regarding members of this Fund will be provided to local government employers with employees in the Law Enforcement Officers' Benefit and Retirement Fund. Questions regarding this new tax sheltering arrangement should be directed to the Member Services Section of this Division at (919) 733-4191 . ETB;esh Attachments: 2 Please Route to: Chief Administrative Officer Chief Financial Officer Budget Officer Personnel Officer NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTE 128--30(bl) "(b1 ) pick Up of Employee Contributions.--Anything within this section to the contrary notwithstanding, effective July 1 , 1982, an employer, pursuant to the provisions of Section 414(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended, may elect to pick up and pay the contributions which would be payable by the employees as members under subsection (b) of this section with respect to the service of employees after June 30, 1982. The members` contributions picked up by an employer shall be designated for all purposes of the Retirement System as member contributions, except for the determination of tax upon a distribution from the System. These contributions shall be credited to the annuity savings fund and accumulated within the fund in a member's account which shall be separately established for the purpose of accounting for picked-up contributions. Member contributions picked up by an employer shall be payable from the same source of funds used for the payment of compensation to a member. A deduction shall be made from a member's compensation equal to the amount of his contributions picked up by his employer. This deduction, however, shall not reduce his compensation as defined in subdivision (7a) of G.S. 128-21 . picked-up contributions shall be transmitted to the System monthly for the preceding month by means of a warrant drawn by the employer and payable to the Local Governmental Empioyees' Retirement System and shall be accompanied by a schedule of the picked-up contributions on such forms as may be prescribed. In the case of a failure to fulfill these conditions the provisions of subsection (f)(3) of this section shall apply." ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPAIRTME NT IYU-1 SBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 17 MEMO TO: Ken Thompson, Manager -FRM: Susan Smith, Planning DATE: June B. 1,982 SUBJECT: Participatory Paving Program Attached are copies of the two PPP agenda abstracts for the June 15, BOCC meet- ing. The first addresses a revision of the project Prioritization policy and the second addesses a reprioritizat ion of the projects. Staff recommendations on these two items are specified. The main concern. is that PPP projects #5 and #6 are rural roads which should never have been accepted into the Participatory Paving Program as the program was set Lip to pave subdivision and residential roads, DDT has not approved either of these projects for the Program because they are scheduled to be paved under the 1981 point system for unpaved secondary roads. From what I can estimate both rural roads would require approximately $50-- 70,000 in local ninding. Mis is double the amount of local funding required- for a- similar subdivision road project and would encumber the entire PPP appropriation for any given year if the annual appropriation' remains at $60,000. If projects #5 and #6 remain on the Orange County Program and the priority list not revised, the likely schedule for paving of the projects remaining in the Program would be the following: #1 Rangewood Subdivision 1983-84 (assuming completion of DOT Program water/sewer lines comstruction in July 1983) #2 Falls of New Hope Subdivision 1982 (ccupletion) #3 Oak Hill Road 1982 (completion) #4 Dimont Drive 1982-83 DOT Program NOTICE The attached memorandum was prepared .in anticipation of the adoption of the Appropriations Act by the 1981 General Assembly (1982 Regular Session) this week. At 4:30 P.M. on Friday, June 18, 1982, the best information was that it would not be adopted until one day next week. We have elected to place this in your bands in anticipation of its passage; and,should your Board wish-/to adopt the resolution before it has knowledge of the passage of the bill , they should feel free to do so.. However, if the bill is not enacted, we will advise you so you may take the appropriate action. RESOLUTION TO ELECT A TAX SHELTER, OF EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTIONS YA`IABLE AS MEMBERS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SY'STE12 WHEREAS, the 1981 Session (1982 Regular Session) of the North Carolina General Assembly, by a duly ratified bill effective July 1, 1982, enacted North Carolina General Statute 128--30(bl), a copy of which is attached hereto, which under the conditions specified therein permits an employer participating in the North Carolina Local. Governmental Employees' Retirement System to tax shelter the contributions payable to this System by its employees who are members of this System; and, WHEREAS, this employer is an employer participating in the North Carolina Local Governmental Employees' Retirement System with respect to its eligible employees; and, WHEREAS, this employer deems it desirable to tax shelter the contributions payable by its employees as members of the North Carolina Local Governmental. Employees' Retirement System, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Orange County Board of Commissioners iti iegulai7 session, that as-of .Tuly 1, 1982 the Orange County Employees elects pursuant to the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 12£3-30(b1) to pick up and pay to the North Carolina Local Governmental Employees' Retirement System the contributions which would be otherwise payable to this System by its employees who are members of this System and to treat in all respects such contributions in the manner specified in said North Carolina General Statute 128-30(bl). Upon motion of COMMIssionerUalker and seconded by y Commissioner Gustaveson the above resolution was introduced and adopted. The number voting in the affirmative was 4 and the number voting, in the negative was �C- OPP-9aE COUNTY f EO.%rZD OF M-2^11SSIGNE2a { � Acrzati ,t,uENM 1=11 !Es'r'�-Acr Item. I-IMTL c, UATr. Jul 6 1982 i I Subject: Property of James Bennett Planning Public Hearing: yes X rA Y Attarhm- eztt(s): Checklist pg. 1 lriforuatxoa Contact: Jan Polatty Plan _ Tax Map pg. � "Letters, from Hillsborough pg.3-4 Phone ?Vwbar: 732-8181 Ext. 342 Planning Board 'Ki;nutes pg,. 5 Pt7RPCGE• ' ) corasidei anzoval of the Preliminary Plan for the Property of Jams Bennett. NEED: Property is located in the Tcwn of Hillsborouq�i off Daphine Uri.ve. mlere are 11 lots proposed out of 4.56 acres. The public road is ca-Istrucued to the equivalent of the County's Class A private road standards. nie lot sizes neet the minimum standards of the Town of Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance. 'llte tract is designated as Urban in the Land Use Plan and is located in the Hillsborougb Fire District. 'This tract bad a subdivision plat recorded several years ago. After several building permits had been issued it was found the original survey was not accurate. 11he Taem of Hillsborough Planning Doard has reviewed ',,l7is subdivision. 'heir recommendations are that the subdivision be approved with 20 foot wide gravel road. IMAM- __, 7he proposal Teets the towns standards for lot size and is served by Hillsborough water and sewer. Most of the lots presently have mobile bones or houses located on them and the develoErrent has minimal impacts in an urban area. The road layout is based on the location of the existing structures on the property. Ii-ie road does not conform to generally accepted design standards, but was accepted by the man Planing Board. 7ECD!IZ 1M'I'IC`N: 'Aie Planning Staff recamends approval based cn the Tarn of ilillsboi-ou�x reamrendation, the fact that the subdivision is already partially developed, the road canstructed, and building are already placed en several lots in the division according to the original plat. The P Board recx>murends approval with the stipulation that the road meet mi,nimL n Oaunty standards. 6/21/82 ILUOR SUBDIVISION-CHECKLIST NAME OF SUBDIVISION Property of Janes Bennett OWNER OR DEVELOPER Jams Bennett ADDF:ESS P•O• Box 313 MI— sborough, 21.C. 732-2213 TOIN SHIP Ftal3sborough TAX.MAP 1-7 BLOCK LOT` 19 Fire District TMn of Hillsborough NAME OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER Alois Ca1_ln?r - - -_ - -- --- _ _ Total number of lots. 11 To be developed in "phase(s), Total number of acres 6.15 acres ( Typical dwelling units- at present ttr,1 cn 1-3,5,7-9,12,1.8 or.pr+oF,posed 14ATER SUPPLY: Public(name) X Community Individual � SL1?AGE TREATMENT: Public )', Community Tndividual Septeic tank SCHOOL DISTRICT ()rand Access onto State Road -# Road Standard,: Public X 'or Private Class A; B , C Etisting critical areas such as streams { , Flood prone areas ( }, Historic Sites { ), -Other {• }, Explain: None ' +Land uses in the general areal. Residential i SKBTCFI-PLAN.RECEIVED (Date) MAY 25f B92 Approved { X ) Recommended Changes { } PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) " June-'/,, REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Preliminary,Review by Health Department Erosion Control Officer OF 6-7-82 Board of Education uns - - Department of Transportation T ^01-ASA (i€ possible) Other. -Mebane (if possible) Ftillsborough (if possible). 6-3--:82 Planning Board Orange/Alamance (if possible) Preliminary Action by"the Planning Board reccUUME14 dM=M1.W t.h 1-be st,t t,,awe s that ,tbP =dam( Minim— s�� Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners 1 Fjj%'AL PLAT RECEIVED (Date) { ) All: lots were'approveT by thet Health Department { ) Lots failing health Departments-approval axe°combined.or listed properly on.the plat { } Road-Maintenance Agreement submitted wwhere. appl.icabld). Approved { ; -Improvements have.been provided for; completed, bond, letter of credit, cash. Date i ( ) Final, OWASA'approval (where applicable) .on all plans & specifications. Date ( } Final DOT approval, on plat ( " "� Final action by the Planning Beard' -------------- :�REELAND STREET o mgp 1,7A �',AWRENCE SENNETT) 14 15 eL V 1-3 '4! 4570 4462 Oi-M cm. - go= of ipjahorano Vows Ckh Ladus Cheshire It,. Asxft Johnson coromblionats HUISBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 272" $UPI, WgUr Work Allen A..Lloyd Rosemand June 10, 1982 Mr Eddie Kirk orange County Planning Department Orange County Courthouse Hillsborough, M. c. 27278 Dear Eddie: This is to inform you that water and sewer services are available to the property owned by James Bennett located at the intersection of Terrell Road and Daphiae Drive, Hillsborough Should you have further queatioas, please let me 'kiibw. Agatffd Johnson, Town Clerk 5 s C Y 1aw F ' Agathx jo£tttsohnson Haya, Works r: S Water Lucius Cheshire jr �Sg4iQJGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 C,E.Rosamund Con,mittionrrs Start Saps Allen A.Lloyd L,D.Wagoner W Paul Msrtln Remus j.Smith �� u,�`^' CbFr/ofN000 Rachel H,Stevens p Arnold W.,Ksmlttr Lynwood j Brown p June 21, 1982 Memo To: Eddie Kirk From; Rick Haug Re: James Bennett Subdivision The Hillsborough Planning Hoard recommends approval of the Bennett right of with y a twenty (20) foot aide road to be provided within Cho sixty (6©) foot right of way. base of the road is to be to County Standards with four (4) inches of gravel on the sur ace Capon approve] by the Town Board, Bennett is to enter into a contract to assure the Town Chat the road will be tarred and gravelled within three (3) years or upon the sale of Y of the lots in the Subdivision (whichever comes first). s DRAFT PLPN,ti MG BOARD MMtTMS June 21, 1982 SRS pMSM. pat Cr.-Wfnrd, (dbair) , john 13i1,scn, David Shamttl.%n, Steve Kizer, Sally Boerirke, Logan, Irvin, Tcm Bac m,. Hazel Luasford, Nancy Lazslo SMM aixn polatty, Rick Cannity, Fred Incer Sadie Kirk, -' Keith Posemond ACEiE, ITEM 7: days Bennett - preliminary Kirk gave a description of thq proposal stating that it met the Tom of Hills- borough's 2rning rem renmts. property is Located in the Town of HjllsJxn=gh off Daphine Drive. There are 11 lots proposed out of 4.56 acres The public road is o mst�ted to the equivalent of the County's Gass A private mad standards. the lot sizes meet the mini.nm standards of the Town of Hillsborough Zoning ordinance. 'lhe tract is designated as Urban in the Land Use plan and is located in the Hillsboroi4i Fire District. `his track had a subdivision plat recorded several years ago. After several building px- :. mits had been issued it was found the original survey was not ac=ate. xhe Tom of Hillsborough planning Board has reviewed this subdivisicxn. r�ei.r re- crm,cendati.ons are that the subdivision be approved with 20 foot wide gravel road. He referred the f Board to a letter m the to+m. Kizer expressed ccnaam about access for the lots. Cartnity explained that structures had been located on several of the lots and one would have to be related in order to fit the original plan. He added that the unusual suet configuration was chosed in order to give access to all of the lots. Cannity told the Board that the County enforces its subdivision regulation's within the 'I wn, at the Town's request. Shanklin stated that he didn't want to be involved with approving small bats and the request should be sent:back to the Town for further action. polatty told the Board only the County could approve the subdivisions and that the reo==dation is for the approval of the road and its aLigurent. Cannity added that this street aligmmt and surface treatment was not to be the Tckn's policy on all subdivisions. Boeri.oke was concerned that the Towa would not be able to pave the street. : Shanklin moved that the prelizpinary plat for James Bennett be approved with the stipulation that the road neet tninimutt County standards. Wilson seconded. : The motion carried unanimously. 130A20 c7= Ca-?'ISSIGMF-2S Action P.aenca: Item i7x0_'j a AUM 3 tiTX IT c°2 2z5S'I 21C£ z J. TENG DATE: :7ulY 6, 1987 2 SubjMc�--= Revision of Sections 4 & 7 Sedgefield Subdivision Prelix:s5.nazy Plan Planningriblic TTearin = yes X r� , EAtt�.chn ent(s): Checklist pg. 1 xorz-tion Contact: dim Polatty Tax liap "pg. 2 ter pg.3 Plan Phan° x� : 732-$3 BZ �C. 34? ' Pl.aryaing IIoxc� 't2inutes P$r 4T p(3RE7oS : ,u coiicic approval o the preliminary plans for the Ttevisions of Sections of Sections 4 & 7 Sedgefiled Subdivision. NMD; Property is located in Chapel FLUI 11bWnship off State Thad 1731 (Trlizi :field ;marl). There are 15 lots proposed out of 40.3 acres. The proposed. roads are to be public and constructed to North Carolina Department of Transportation Standards. r1here will be a comrunity water system and the lots will have e individual septic tanks. The lot sizes rreet the mixdmm standards of the Zoning ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. The tract is located in the liew Tope Rural Fire District. i.4 lin R �x C6i'a C� rz f° � T The proposal greets the e:dsti.ng standards for lot size and is bordered try other rG'Sidential developwent. This tract is designated Rural Buffer in the Land Use Plan and development at this density would have minima? inpacts. r,rcot�%IDATION: The Planning Staff recom- ends approval with one condition: o 1. The Recreation Area has, not been approved by F the Health Depart-iont it should either be cmbined or k� listed properly on the final plat. Ihe Planning Board recawend s approval with the above condition 6/21/82 Y.. c �t z �C •j YY Y {1 r, ii 5• MAJOR SUBDIVISION 9AHS Or SUBDIVISION. S�E� (revision Sec. 4 & 7) OWNER Olt DEVELOPER 4DDRESS I21 N. Coltnrt�ia `Street (fiapel H11-1, N.C. 27514 rOWNSHIP C.H.. TA7C MAP 17 -.BLOCK LOT. •15. _ Fire District h°r�vJ fiq MAIM OF.SURVEYOR.OR ENGINEER I twld Land Surveys, Inc. Total number of lots- 1S To-be dveloped in---L­phase(s), Total number, of acres.,_ I`1'Fieal duelling'units at present none or proposed 'individual. VMR-SUPPLY: Vublic(name) Community x Individual sEWt,GZ TREATMENT. Public .Community Individual Septaie tarok X SOHOOL DISTRICT Char3el Hlil Access onto-State Road #Lj2_UlRoad Standard- Public y -nr Private Historic Sites ( ), Other { ): Explain: _Existing critical areas such as streams { X.1, Flood prone areas ( ): streams throrinh Land upas in the general areas. A roved ( } Recommended Changes { ) ! SKETCH PLAN-RECEIVED (Date). proved PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) RE ! PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Erosion Control Officer PrelVainary.Review by Health Department, Pon Holdway 6115192 of De apartment- of Transportation 5 17/82 C;lke Neils Board" of Education G 2 82 P1a P r p OWASA {if poasib'le) Other'Town of Cha 1 Hill-Courtes 82 --Mebane Cif possible) f -Hillsborough (if possible) Orangi/Alamance-(if possible) Prue]iminary Action by the Planning Board: reeconnencis ap�r-oval 6-21-82 -Preliminary.Action-by the County Commissioners :FINAL PLAT. RECEIVED-(Date) the Health Department( ) -All lots were approved by ;( ) ,Lots 'failing Health Departments approval are combined or listed properly on the plat { y. Road Maintenance Agreement submitted (where applicable). Approved ( ) improvements have been provided.for, completed* bond, letter of credit,-eash. Data ( } Final OWASA approval: (where applicable) on all plane & sgecificatibns. Bate . 3 { ' ) Final-DOT approval on_plat �( i.Final action by the planning Board j _ • r SEE MAP 178 SEDGEFIELD SEC. SEE MAP 17D J I 4A s. SEDGERELD SEC.3 17 rt 3115AC SE GEFI LD SEC 4 r 9?at 48 2938 } 1 De 22.61 AC. ` . �'� SEE MAP 17C SEDGEFIELD J ; j SEC. 2 1 I SEE AP 7E S GE L S s MA 17 R ' SEDGEFIELt3 SEE M SEDGERE D/,SEC CL � T/34., OVERLAP �91 _ SEE GYj�y1/ 63731E 1 + t I5A MAP SEE 43r � y�k{IA G 1 M.n�/ t3 225-1A MAP og.3 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL 306 NORTH OOL11M51A STREET CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 37514 "Wephone (919) 929.1111 June 18, 1982 Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Mr. Kirke We have no further recommendations or comments on the revised plants for Sedgefield Subdivision, Section 4 and Section 7. Sincerely, Dana H. Staats Planning 'Technician /ba DRAFT PLWING BQARD M=S June 21, 1-982 W11SEM pWMT: pat Crawford, (du-dx), jobn Wilson, David Shanklin, Steve Kizer, Sally Boericke, Logan Irvin, Tom Bacon, Hazel Lunsford, Nancy Iazslo STAFF: aim Polatty, Rick Cmwdty, Fred Luoa, Eddie Kirk, Keith Fosemond AmjM ITEM 4: Sedge-field Sx*&visicn Section 4 and 7 - pxeLjz-dnary Kirk told the Board that the developers of Sedgefield waited until the T-nterstahe 40 corridor had been established before bringing in a revised plan. Property is located in Cuapal. Hill Tomship off State Road 1731 (Whitfield road). 9bere are 15 lots proposed out of 40.3 acres. The proposed toads are to be pubUc and =1str=bed to Worth Carolina Department of Txmspor- taticn, standards. Share will be a =mmnity water , system and the lots will have individual septic tanks. The lot sizes meet the minimum standards of the Zcning ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. The tract is located in the New Hope Fwral Fire District. Kirk told the Board that this plan had fewer' lots and a different road ccnfiguraticn. 11he Board heard that the recreation lot doesn't .have an approved septic site, but that lot 61 had been approved. YjMON: Irvin moved approval of the prelixdnanr plat revisim of sections 4 and 7 of Sedge-ELeld Subdivision. wiL-xn secaided. VOM. The motion carried aiaaimously. P,0�,T. Q: Ca 2,asS TON, Actiort z�r=nda-,' 4 ltea?t t:o_ ' AC SIG� i,:.DaA IT04 FsI3S',['i ACA t✓ z P r CL1C, DATE July 6,1982 I ISubject: Request by Tomty Merritt for a Rezoning from R-1 (Residential-1) to NC--2 (Neighborhood Commercial 11). �pw~ ' t= PLANNING Pa} lic Hearing: yes no zriforrnation G.1nt-c"- ` At�Clv�:e,1lt(s): Rezoning Application pg.1 Jim Polatty �k Rezoning Checklist pg_21 Location Map8pg.. ,4 i! Letter from the town of Hillsborough pg.5 PhOn°_ N-Mbar: 732•-SlBl Ex•t.342 i planning Boar.? Minutes pg. 6 PURPOSE: To receive Plaujing Board xecri-.rrndatim cmcerning Em-)� application for a rezoning from 4nesidential -• 1 (R-1) to Neichborhood cc rr�ercial-11 (NC--2) . f Dom: The applicant has requested a Neighborhood Commercial-11 designation for a zoning lot of 44,250 sq. ft. This lot is located on Highway 70 near the intersection of state road 1002 (Saint Mary's Road) and U.S. 70, in the Orange Rural Fire District, The property is shown on Hillsborough '?bwnship Tax Map 22 Block @ part of Lot 91. The traffic counts in this area are 6250 daily trips on highway 70 and 1600 trips on Saint Mary's Road. IMPACT; The intersection of Highway 70 and Saint Mary's Road is designated as a Commercial Transistion Node in the Land Use Plan. The NC--2 District allows appropriate type develop- nent according to the Land Use Plan. The 4 acre tract has Orange County Health Department approval for a septic tank, installation. The impact of this request on traffic conditions would be moderate. %.he zoning on the remainder of the tract should not he changed unless the request is handled under the Planned Development section of the Zoning ordinance. This request meets the following application criteria for the NC-2 district as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. It is located within areas designated by the adopted Land Use Plan as either a Oom;-,iercial Activity node or Rural Neighborhood or Rural Community Activity Node. Uses would serve a market area population confined to the immediate area and would generally not sei ca*nmuters or persons outside the surrounding neighborhood. Lot size for individual uses shall be appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal. All sites designated NC-2 shall have direct access to a street classified either as an arterial or collector as designated by the adopted Land Use Plan„ RCCOt-9,BUDAT2oN: The Planning Staff recommends approval because the request is in conformance with the Land Use Plan and application . criteria for the district requested by the applicant. ne Planning Board recant nds approval because the request 1 is in confoxmiance with the band Use Plan and application criteria for the district. 6/2V82 Ij 1 APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION DATE April Z3' The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Orange County, North Carolina COMMISSIONERS: The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Number 22 , Black number C Lot number 4.17 ac3 &jn an'the accompanying plat, which is presently in a Residential District be rezoned to NC-2 for the fallowing reasons: This property is in the southeast quadrant of U.S. Hwy. 70-A bypass and St. Mary's Rd. The land immediately adjacent on the west side is retail commercial - convenience store. Property on the opposite side Of U.S. 70-A and St. Mary's Rd. intersection is retail commercial. The.W property fronts on Hw% L. '70 1�- ~ Applicant wishes to have same opportunity on this property. Sign Address: Rt. 1,, Box 19-A G St. Mar 's Rd. Hillsborough, N. C. k z r REZONING ItC UEST CIMCKLIST Applicant's ca (XhVo=NAI Thomas L. M2 rit ADDRESS Bvx 194 gh r 73 3 5 Current zoning R-1 Total number of acre4 4:17 ,F Current land use Type of rezoning requested NC-2 Proposed-land use Retail-Comme # Tax map $ 22 B t lock C Number of lots 1 41roposed Water Supply: Public X Community Individual Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public Community Individual septic tank X Access onto state road # US--70A Average daily traffic. count on the state road Describe existing critical. areas: Flood prone areas Poorly drained areas Streams Otber:sensitive areas Describe land uses in: General Area Resi il Commercial, Apartments dential, °Rta Adjacent parcels of land Residential, Retail Commercial, S 3' z i 2 1 •yY „ {� Eb:k7 R0. •, ' i .�.w� 1"-410 0' .✓ f� x,5.71) SCAY CSS'l.SLL C."b.r� 1-.• r !�`k-*4� � Ca � w CJi,..tJ' I ry l t �•.,y�.,. � it <r fi. ki J� �»• -AMA �,:_...-..---•~"� _.------ �, � _ i�p It w \ �✓ �Y r ill G'-• 7 fL+fL E.�l '- � Af ZZ, 1.97 r IN Tows,Clerk MUZBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA T= 56pt. Water Warks W Fs-1 Mersin Street$not Lynwood J 9M." - Hay 14, 1982, Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Dept. 106 E. Margaret Lane Dear Eddie: In reaponse to the County request for a Courtesy Review for the Thomas Merritt property on Hwy 70 Bypass, the Hillaborough Planning Board considered same at their May 6th meeting. The proposal does meet with their approval, however, there was concern expressed re: traffic problems at that intersection and road frontage on Hwy 70. it is my understanding that this wi 11 ��--the County's jusrisdiction and knowing your track recora, '�you will resolve that concern. Rick Haug Hillsborough Zoning Officer LimAFT PLANNING BOARD =UIES dune 21, 1982 W-MERS PIT-SENT: Pat Crawford, (chair) , Tdm Wilson, David Shanklin, Steve Kizer, Sally Boericke, Logan Irvin, Tan Baccn, Hazel Lunsford, Nancy lamlo STMT: Jim Polatty, Rick Cmmity, Fred IA=, Eddie Ki3:k, Keith Posemand AQMM ITEM 9: Tammy Varritt -Razcning Cannity described the rezoning request stating that a neigbboz4mod comerctial - 11 (NC•2) district was being requested for a zming lot of 44,250 sq, ft. 7his lot is located on Hic#way 70 near the intersection of state mad 1002 (saint mazy1s Road) and U.S. 70, in the Ormge Rural Fire District. The property is shown on Hillsborough Township Tax map 22 Block @ part of lot 01. The traffic counts in this area am 6250 daily trips on niql7jay 70 and 1600 trips an Saint mazy's Road. He added that Health Daparhaent q*moval had been given. Cmudty told the Board the remainder of the lot would be zoned R-1. Kizer express- ed concern about controlling the nud>--r of curb cuts. MDTTCN Kizer roved approval of the T1cMT Merritt Rezoning zed quart. Bacon seconded. She notion was maninously approved. F:' wkM. wM:U:.rw:'.W'h W Au WY1k _ _ ■ _ ORANGE (OD—N-fy 80120 O: Ct?:2fitS Sf?:: Action Agenda Item t an - , July 6, 1982 Subjeat: Request by Paul, Kempa for a rezoning from Residential--1 (R-1) to Neighborhood Commercial-11 (ETC--2) Ippa. �..:Ce PLAPINING Public ft gyring: yes X no Attach•��tt(s): pg.l.. rezoning Application 7aYfor:na Ton Gantac Jim Polatty pg.2 rezoning Checklist pq. 3,x),5 Map i'hr3ne I`tt 732-8181 Ext. 342 Planning" Ra,ard riiputes' 4;' PL RFCS': =b re si,.ve Pi anning Board xe ldaticm aanc eMIn�r FM- i65316 £ acn for'.a xezoning from Residential - l 0-1 to Neic6bori ocd 0xijeraial II (IM-2). �,�{+�� The applicant has requested a Neighborhood Commercial-II designation for the 2.3 acres involved in this request. This lot is located at the northwest intersection of U.S.70 and S.R. 1562 (Palmers Grove Road) in the Orange Rural Tire District. The property is sha= on Eno Township Tax *,lap 21 as lot 31. The traffic cciuntp 3n this area are 6300 daily trips on Highway 70 and approximately 325 trips on Palmers Grove Road. IMPACT: The intersection of Highway 70 and Palmers Grove Road is designated as a Rural Neighborhood Node in the Land Use Plan. The NC-2 district allows appropriate type developmment according to the Land Use Plan. The impact of this request, if approved would be moderate, when considered with the existing commercial use across the road. This request meets the following application criteria for the WC-2 district as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. it is located within areas designated by the adopted Land Use Plan as either a Co=ercial Activity node ar Rural Neighborhood or Rural Community Activity Node. Uses would serve a market area population confined to the immediate area and would generally not serve commuters or persons outside the surrounding neigbborhood. Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned NC-2 at any node shall not exceed nine acres, but a maximum of 5 acres shall apply where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in the Transition areas. The Orange County Health Department has denied request for an Improvements Petmat on any portion of this property. The last criteria for an NC--2 distract is direct access onto either an arterial or collector sheet. This property has frontage on Highway '70. RECOML'uNDATION The type of development possible on this property is restricted because of the unsuitability of the subsurface soil for the installation of a septic tank and drainage field. Therefore, the amount of traffic generated by any use on this site should be reasonably small. 7ne Planning Staff reco-=ends approval. %e Planning Board recornrends approval because the re- quest is in oonfon:ence with the Lazed Use Plan and the � Zoning Ordinance application criteria for the district. (6/21/82) , APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION Y DATE— The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Orange County, North Carolina COMMISSIONERS: The undersigned request that property located on Tax trap Numberz"' , Block numbers Lot number 0/_, Shown owthe accompanying plat, which is presently in a District be rezoned to X./ X. for the following reasons: ..,�'/✓�'"�`-� .{aT,.. /-�..t2� .�G+e.+u�T.�^-..l ..^`'✓E� .� /...L^.e".��'"' .»mss T .7� �.•tJ�.iE'...5t=G.r.+.a..e.,�' Ot'• �'E'7�R�ra t� ('lr�sr %� tcs�- ., '�c.c r� .� Cr'S Tn e`sJ.� s-s ✓t',J tSES ,9.y G17 rr/' :n�7t c .4�ce^,a ciJ Vii✓ r G//Ci z�. y/ torte 7 /if�a rJ . � / �-•+•'.�'a'.�,r"-iJ f?/ 'T� ,'.{sJ,f✓./) �.,i.S",� l .�..! c^' C�..�L/�i.Jl� _ GOtr'r✓f" rr7/�$.� .�'LY�rrlirr°.x�c LG��S'�r_°�i.c�i� ✓in/.dz�..a- ,!r>.r.na-.=.�'�i.9�-- C���-c?,J/.,i,�'s- 1411 +�+ t^.'7. a'�ti' G'^ /'�/'� .��,� .r f . c' G Ir^G..:r.C' . ''Jc-..2r...G,✓itlro i��r,.. .L^.��?z--.� T .�.v✓t c �a�'c'a.�..a.A��:" i-7�.e icy u.c.,t��.s�c_ '�-�..r��k=�:rr�..v G. JF7.4%G"'�'..S" c.G.,�/.�'-s", v��r_�a�c°�.�..r�i..�.+c'�s' �r'•..r.� 6�r�..%r�..�✓.G,�.s`r�J".• %�`,rs �j.� �� /.['J .C"'r'.E",�,;lr✓� ,F"✓.+i'%fr�' ?./y'.t" Iy e�.'a.'!.1�.e1__GC'+./rIYJ...°�:f-/:".ta�",,•'r>� J`lrg2�,• Signed: Address` ,�' nZONING SS UEk CACKLIST A f /� y�+� OTdldEA=S NArD; �i�it1� �_imtA� 11DD12E5S / lCC-5 !/�r<•C,i� �/ i Current zoning_ Total number o£ acres_".4._f.�`.__Current land use V4�?.?�'r Type of rezoning taquested fYC Propos)sed land usef,oyr �escesj J Tax map �,Z/hlock Number of lots '$ H'°gfF'roposed Water Supply: Public Community i Individual Proposed Sewage Treatment2 Public _-.__ __._= Community Individual septic tank � Access onto state road Average daily traffic..count on the state 'road J', �> Describe existing I critical areas: Flood prone areas , Poorly drained areas I Streais Other.sensitive areas -Describe land uses. in: General Area fCf�l" �tf /79ca"�i�5� �-"� •��"`�rr / 1kc,r✓ Adjacent parcels of land lyFsT- rS s rr 3 r """M••1 R-�Ajn�+� C2v SCSI r or w r.i� +r. ma Lx€ us,7n 4000 .�'�''1•'). �..„� a4aY:y tw ""``�. Cf F(9RljiQ� 7f,d;5 or {( < s P:fiT CA.'6 iPR nm uS? let a{14.:1..x,'1„�wi�.;�, trte..��«C:y^•� i �!'� �• •��.r,gym� ' r:�aa�� _i t� .t`"�`3.ira, '...�.I`t' � •`,`r"� Q.�:.�.FZ�.���..�:�J'�::it�i',w5y t'.�3,=-j�Cj .r^� ��"' ./ � ,,.�;:t.`f�'X�\ \ � i,sue r :.1.._.w.•'��••-- � �c,r { � dy�r�^y-'•1�..�•� 4I��i �.-•��,\Chi fL'.«�•r..! =' i t ��1'�;"'� �L}"��i1 ; •..,.:,.�,C�. - f�!� r� •r-:.l :� L..../��� �•\'� r ;.f.�—.. 1 oii; 1111 ?,leAC t�''�, j*W i~i^•`:,',••;".�."1•�"a...� fl.;7'=t"iCi�i:r' •':'L•�`'\ ."1 :{ !• rv. ,�',� ”' _ ,..I E,✓:�.i. gar°....1, h,,�•• ht '. ., - • iE � .5Jy''� Tic. Nt�1r' 1" -x'00` =? PAUL KEMPA REZONING } � E �l s CIS to Q � {{�� sue' � � •} �� 5570 1-4 J G H W AY , T[0i 70/q irk': 20 �4 pg. 5 L—tu, a) At 19 At sz CAL. it• 11 -c!U, I I (a &" YA1 ;F1 176 AC Ift2s, = 73&C W7 Ac rk OCCAF, 22 .10 iAt w AIZ Ac tai ply*r- SAC Mc lu IA —7, mck a 43AAC 33 v Ac SAs me 63 At as 2 Ac 26 ORANM COUNTY NZ. ca1t06-0 WWIA M 't- PlAtVING BOARD MNUMS URAFT June 21, 1.982 MMEPS PMSENT. Pat CraiBord, (chair), John Wilson, David Shanklin, Steve Kizer, Sally Boericke, Logan Irvin, Tan Bacot, Hazel Lunsford, Nancy Lamlo S=: - Jim Polatty, Pick Cannity, F!red IA , Eddie Kirk, Keith Fosemoad AGWM 17EM 10: Paul Kempa - Ettzoning at the intersection of US 70 and Palmers Grove Church Road. Cannity described the Mirosal explaining that there was a possibility of two separate lots being created from the property. Mike Parker, Keirpa's representative, passed cut maps 6ianng nearby camnarcial uses. He told the Board that op- position to the rezoning voiced at the hearing was based an the belief that the intersection has a high rate of traffic accidents. Parker presented a =qnter printout from MT that listed me major accident at the intersection in the last 3 years. He added that other intersections almg U.S. 70 Fast have higher accident rates. Parker told the Board that the developers has no burediate plans for the property until an alternate waste system is approved. Boericke asked if 5 acres was the maximn total for comiercial development with- in the node. Cann ty told the Board that zcning lots had been created around the other uses, but that the Kempa retuning wruld take up most of the remaining acres allotted for the nods. A man from the audience told the Board that some erosion damage had been caused by trees being cut down on the property. QUuAty stated that until the stmps were removed or the lot cleared the County could not enforce the erosion control ordinance. Shanklin remarked that if the property was rezoned cone erosion stabilization would be done by the required. Polatty told the Board that the neighbors had not opposed the land use plan designation of a comtercial node at the intersection during the land use plan hearings. Barbour spoke fxom the audience that the neighbors might not have kna.4n that the intersection had been proposed as a conmercial area. Parker told the Board that the only "Logical." use of property would be coavercial. YMON: Kizer roved that the Board rec=mnd approval of the Paul Kempa remning request. Be= seconded. Irvin said that he was concerned that if the property were removed without se-wage disposal that other comerciaL proposals might be encouraged. Polatty stated that the applicants had acted according to the adopted land use plan. If the land use plan were to be amended, then so be it but the applicants should not be penalized for having acted in good faith an an adopted plan. VOM. is favor of =tion. Bacon, Shanklin, Kizer, Lunsford Opposed: Wilson, Boericke, Laszlo, Irvin cx-.wf=d bnalm tie by voting favor of the notion. _l. ....+w+.u..s.+..-..,....w...r...w.u..s ++^a-v.'.4ww+..a..:.w.:ta ......w.w..�wnr..'c.r.i.w..LLw.,���...r. 452 3 ORA-�nE COn-rY BO ro Oz CO."xISSSC Nn-,S .action Ag•enda c ' l t : P'a. ACflJti �xGENR x�I :.�SL2:1CC 4n/ � D.lTE July fir 1982 I r Su'ajec:,» Request by Planning Staff for a Razoning fro:-3 A•-R Agricultural Residential to EC-5 (Existing Commercial-5) on a portion of Ray Wilkersoty s Property. I s De ;�'n : Ps � xrtc iblic f[ ring�yes s r At clt r°'tt(s) Rezoning Application pg.l �orMa'cion Cont?C�--- dire Polatty Rezoning Checklist pgR 2 Letters pg. 4,5 Asap pg.? � Phone Nt��rm> : 732-8181 Ext. 392 Planning Board Vln'u pg. 6 Pt M,pC� e 'Lb receive Planning hoard xecamTendatic n concerning an atralication for a rezoning from Resideritial-1 (R-1) j j to Neighboxhaod,C mercial-1 l (NC 2). c i • NEED, T his existing commercial use is located. in Hillsborough Totmship and is shown an. Tax Map 5 Block B P/D Lot A. it is on Highway 57 north and is within the Orange Rural. Fire District. This cormercial use was overlooked when Wning was originally applied to Hillsborough Township on September 21 1981, IMPACT- All existing commercial uses in unzoned Township were given the appropiate zoning classification when Zoning was applied in September of 1981. since all other commercial uses were designated, the Planning Staff feels the Existing Commercial--V (EC-5) designation is appropriate for this use also. RECOIp ENDATSON Planning Staff reco=mmends approval of the EC-5 designation for a zoning lot of 5OO ' x 300' on Wilkerson's property. The Planning g Board reccxrr-ends that the whole 6.62 arms go bacl: to pubic hearing for consideration. 6/21/32 { 119 1 APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION DATE flay 10, 1982 The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Orange County, North Carolina .COMMISSIONERS: The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Number 5 Block number n , Lot numberma t of , Shown ow the accompanying plat, which is presently in a _ A--R District be rezoned to EC-5. for the -following reasons: The existing commercial use was overlooked. when zcriing was aiio ted in FMsborough Township. Signed. Address: Orange County planning Department Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, N.C. REZONING_REQUBST IMCKLIST OT,TNERts NMfg Paul ` . Wilkerson Sr & Sarah K, ADPRES5#t ''Z Hillsboro t I Currant zoning�A_P Total number of acre�,���43; T. Current land use Commercial Grading O rat% n Type of rezoning rnquested 8C-5 proposed,land use Existinq commercial Gradin a eratio Tax map !f S Block # $ Number of lotap2't of lab 4.Ptoposed Water supply: Puhlie Community______„____ Individual—Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public Community. Individual septic tarok. NC 57 Avers a dail traffic .count on the state roadl-110 �escxfbe existing Access onto state road �! g Y' critical areas: rlood prone areas Poorly drained areas Streams one runnin th ou t Other,sensitive areas -Describe land uses in: General. Areasidential and Adjacent parcels of land I-sidential and-undevelo ed Fare district Orange Rural r r _- ,444d total 1' ta39a7 r t 92/` .25.00+ T"S (9321 � 3 S+N'A J i� Qf 125 69-',," 232 95 y�� . X97:/7:28 H^ i 927.88' O ! Basalt oRivE rar��Qr�� � N 9T-IT.2$}!' 84O34+ Into/ W/ 421."17" 88P drP o t/ • N.ore.A I is fa D from oil On \ 7` ST ac � 111 N 70.09' s:-,2-^99-08w 3d Z3' 3 9.2.31-.3'6 E 90.42' r ea l,44 C3 N 8,3 i?T-W 2 r { NOTE"Access/a l //?IS tot is h Qd !I tram t/aaky Lane. �•� \� J D f4E a r 28,$; 4,V te- N� j - rA yt Pg4 ALMS CALLEMYN LAND SURVEYOR 122D C14URTON STRSET HILLSSOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 TELVHONC 772-3883 2 June 1962 Mr. Rick Cannity Orange County Planning Department Orange County Courthouse Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Rick; I would like to respectfully submit a revised map of Wilkerson Acres, Section IV, showing two tracts of land, and also a letter from Roy Wilkerson requesting that all of Tract A on the aforesaid map be zoned existing commercial. The 6.62 acres has always been a separate lot of record by deed, and has always been used by the Wilkersons commercially. Would you please submit this request to the proper boards. If I may be of any assistance in this matter, please contact me. Respectfully, Alois Callemyn AC/el FARM.L07;BOUNDARY. 7rooQ6,9APH1r—LOAN,AA10 co-vsrRucvaNsuRvLcys e suaCIVISION O'CSIGN ANC LAYOur Pg 5 Paul L. Wilkerson Sr. Route I Box 363 lill:5borough, NC 27278 May 25, 1982 Orange County Board of Commiasioners and Orange County PlsnnL-g Board ERUsborough, .11C 27278 Deer sirs: As an Orange County taxpayer since 195h I appeal to this Board of Co=issiorers to correct a zoning error made, concerning my b=L-oas operation on Hwy 57 about I mile I, crth of Hillsborough. Hy father and I started the business in 1954 with two pieces of equipment, and have been at this location for 20 years, The busir.ess now has 20 pieces of equipment and nine families earning their livring through this business. The property has four shop buildings. Coe shop was built in 1962. The second was built in 1971, and the other two were built, In 1981. aan zoning went into affect our property was incorrectly zoned residential. the Planning Department has recommended a 3COI % 5001 lot be zoned commercial. it would be difficult if not impossible for these nine families to continue to earn a living from this- -business if we are restricted to this small area. 'tie need for the Pull'93W x364' lot to be zoned ccmmercial. Space is needed for equipment, gravel, pipe, dirt, etc. I would also point out that all residents within 500, of this property moved ;'--. after this business was started. All adjoining property owners were properly notified )f ',-Ile reauested correction in the zoning and the date of the public hearimg. No one appeared to protest the Commemiol Zoning. Z have already had to pay $210,00 to meet with the Planning Board and have *vent many hours with Alois Cal-lemyn and the Planning :epartment to correct the Planning Departzents zoning error. Fours that I needed to be dovot.:Lng W my Busiaess.. I appeal to t4iis Board of Commissioners to take Cor-9ctive Action as soon as possible to zone my property Comercial,, the full 9332 x 3641 lot, where the nine gamily huaiaesa is located. I c=ot- afford to loose :more time or 4—neurr further expenses in this matte-. Sincerely, ?I3ul L. 5r. umAFT June 21, 1982 MNMEFS pjESENT: pat Cr"ford, (chair), John Wilson, David Shanklin, Steve Kizer, Sally Boericker Logan Tz*�dng Tcm Bacon, ' SWT: Jin Polatty, Rick Cannity, Fred Iwa, Eddie Kirk, Keith Fo�d AGUTDA =M 12: Eby Wilkerson - i�3=dng' Cannity described the request stating this existing ccamexcial use is located in Hillsborough Tadn-ShiP and is ShCAM on Tax 14ay 5 Block B P/t) rot 4. it is on Hic�way 57 north and is wjUiin the Orange Rural Fire District. 11his comercial use was over- looked when Zoning was originally-applied to Hills- borough Township on septanber 2, 2981. north sideof the property. He added that the four existing structuxes ware included in the zoning lot and that the staff felt that the 300' x 5001 in- cluded the entire grading operation. Bacon cited Uie stcrage of pipe on lot 4. Willoerson's representative, Callemym, asked that the request be taken back to public hearing for the larger lot. MMCN: Shanklin roved that the Planning Board recam-end that the whole _ g- _back _ public hearing for _consideration. Bacmse,condad. \m�z: nie motion carried cmaolaouo1y. � 45, ; : O?.A�r COUNTY naanD a ca'2'llssiamEiG Ar do z aenda AcrzM t.Gr:.��z,=� ITEM xis°ti�.7cr i Lr EUNG+ DATE July 6, .1 $2 �_.�___ SUbject: Request by Mille J. Wilson for Rezoning from agricultural-I to General Commercial IV (GC-A) Depwx,—M'-nt: PLANNING Public hearing: _yes x no s Attach:1m°nt(s)-. Pg. 1-2 Application Forms, fC} `3t1C1t2 CACiteCfi: Jim Polatty Pg. 3 Location Ma Planning Hoard Minutes pg. 4p Phone Ntmber= PURPOSE: To receive Planning Board xeccrr.-Mdation concerning an, { aonli.Ca__ar?n for a remaincr fmTn Rr sir xtti -1 (r-1} to I:eighborhood amrmiciai-ii (NO-2) . NEED: The applicant has requested General Commercial-IV (GC-4) designation for property located in Eno Township off Craig Road. The property is shown on Tax :lap 17; Lot 13F, it is a 6.32 acre lot. The property is located on Wilson Itaad, a private street.St does not have frontage on a state maintained road. The Orange County Health Department has denied an Improvements Permit for this property. IMPACT- ^ � This Proposed Rezoning is not compatible with the Land Use Plan, because it is not at a node. The intensity of dev- elopment allowed under the GC-4 designation would be inap- propriate at this location. The proposed request does not meet any of the!Application Criteria for GC-4 set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. The criteria are: The site is within an area designated as either Co--mercial or Industrial Transition Activity Nodes, by the adopted Land Use Plan, in Eno or Hillsborough Tovmships. Water and sewer mains exist at the site or are to be made available as part of the development, process or the lot size for individual uses are appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal. All property to be designated for new development under this classification shall have direct access to major collector streets, as designated by the adopted Land Ilse Plan. Rezoning this property would have adverse impact an adjacent Residential Property. RECO.vitMIDATION: The Planning Staff recommends denial of the rezoning request, because it is not in conformance with the Land Use Plan or the Application Criteria for the General Commercial-I'V Zoning Distract. 'nne Planning Board rec amrends denial based con, points brought out in planning Staff's rec omendatic n. 6/21/82 f 121 51j 5 , APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION �-- The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Orange County, north Carolina COMMISSIONERS: The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Number Block number_ , Lot number Shorn on°the accompanying plat,, which is presently in a -1e District be rezoned to for the following reasons: b a - 7`" Signed: Address: :2 7 Z'?'j'' 5 r � N _ REZONING g- t Lii' HECKLIST. OWNERS 14A2SE r1[l�{ �� ADDRESS .�3.2 c T r cT o. /mac 77z7 Y Current zoning Total number of acres` ;Y-:z Current land use .A-s/tt Type of rezoning requested (�I Pioposdd land use art Tax map �3 j Block 0 L Number of lots_ j 'E�roposed Water Supply: Public Community individual _Proposed Sewage Treatment: 'Public - Community individual septic tau11-1- Access onto state road average daily traffic count on the state road Describe existing critical areas! Flood prone areas_–_ /V T`'�-" Poorly drained areas Streams Other.sansitive areas / •Describe land uses in: General Area Adjacent parcels of land (tJ G 6. .S -. �- r e -. •-•tom + y f r ~�C'IZR l J U :1 1 S5s9 J/ ,rcao tzo. =4+( ' ', t i 3i.fi7 ��1., �\'�s"t� £3.5:7,�G+3 i�--•��� I { 1 � - ��1.55' ti 1•�<{ �::--�" :..� { ;,.s '� `�� f M..,� .� -• i c^r, i �5:35 • � t' 1 ti t 11 l� ,,{mow.-1..••_:+ j '', ;fit .. � ..r�•-- ��� �-. I"-400' ��tt � WILLIE J. WILSON REZONING PLXZUNG BOARD MNUIES DRAFT dune 21,, 1982 W-MERS PMSENT: Pat Crawford, (chair) , John Wilson, David Shank-Un, Steve Kizer, Sally Boericke, Logan Irvin, Tom Bacon, Hazel Limsford, Nancy Lamlo STAFF-. OJM Polatty, Rick Cannity, Fred Luce, Eddie Kirk, Keith lbseumd AQWM ITEM I.- Minutes of April 6, 1982 Yeeting 14XION: KizE;r m=ed to approve the minutes of the April 6 Meting. Irvin seconded. MENEA IMM 11: Willie Wilscn - Rmoning Cmnity descmibed the proposal stating the applicant has xeqmstad moral OmtMxaial-jv (M-4) desicjnaticn for property located in Eno Tmymhip off Craig Road. The property is dxwn on Tax 14ap 17, Lot 13F, it is a 6.32 acre lot. The property is located on Wils(itibad, a private street. It does not have frontage on a state maintained road. She orange comty Health Department had denied an Isprovemnts pendt for this property. C4-:unity added that the Planning Staff recommended denial of the request because the rezoning was not in conformance with the land Use Plan. mm(TN: Kizer moved that the Board recaurend denial of the Willie Wilson rezoning request. Wilson seconded. In favor: Kizer, Boericke, Wilson, Laszlo, Irvin opposed: Shadclin, Lunsford, Bacon 1,btion carried. 5-3. r �7�a ORA E COUNTY Item. tro..4 -fly IIk:TL�Cw War- ply 6r 1982 Subject: rox Ran section 9 Preliminary Plan I�pa. cent: Planninc- .bloc Hearing: yes no Attachment(s): Checklist pg. l lxiformation Contact: Jim Polatty ry Tax Map pg. 2 Plan Phone e - 732 42 Pln} isicoard PURPOSE: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Fox Paul Section 9 NEED: pro, is located in Little !'.fiver To�,mship off Little River L'rive and F'avin Broaac Drive. There are two lots proposed out of 13.8 acres. C]ne lot is 9.8 acres and one lot is 4.0 acres. Both lots will receive access through stub out roads that have not been constructed. The lot sizes meet the minir* standards of the Subdivision reT ations. Tlie tract is designated Fsgricultural Residential in the Land ate Use Plan ald is located in the Lit le River Fire District. FACT: The proposal meets the existing standards for lot size and is bordered by other residential develo:,r-nt and the Eouth Fbrk of the Little River to the North. Develofn-ent with lots this size would have minbTel inpacts. p=DgMIDATiMI: The Planning Staff recomends approval. The Planning Board recomends approval 6/21/82. MAJOR:SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST' RIAME-Or. SUBDIVISIOR Tbx Run Sggti OWNER OR DEVELOPER P& 4$'Develofxmrits Inc. 'ADDRESS-' 127 ggnt3n rowNSHIP a.j+_ i u; r.r TAx MAP_ � BLOCK - LOT P/09 _ Fire DistY`ict . Little River M OF, SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER' Total number of lots*, 2 To ba developed 3.n__j _,, phase(s), Total number of acres 13.9_ Typiedl 'dwelling units at present , or proposed WATER SUPPLY: Public(namd). Community Individual X- SE4AGE TREA4MENT: PubTie Community_ jndividual:Septeic' tank X SCHOOL DISTRICT Qrangg Access onto-State Road 0_10 _.._Road Standard: Public x or Private Class A . B : C :Existing critical 'areas such pis streams ( X 1, Flood prone areas { ), Historic Sites ( ), Other ( ), Explain: South Fork tbf-Little R Land uses in the general urea; SKETCH-PLAN RECEIVED {Date) 5j-7/8 Approved { ) Recommended Changes .{ ) PRELIMINARY.PLAN RECEIVED (Date) '5/$/432 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Preliminary Revie%i by Health.Department Dour€ Holyfield 6!11/432 Erosion Control. Officer6j2f432 -Board of Education Department of Transportation OtTASA (if possible) other —Mebane (if possible) —Hillsborough�(if possible) --Orange/Alamanee (if possible) Preliminary Action by the Planning Board recz3n�tnc vat 6 1 :Preliminary Action by-tree County Commissioners !FINAL .PLAT RECEIVED--(Date) ! ( ) All lots were approved day the Health Department ( ) Lots failing liealth,Departments- approval are combined or listed properly on the plat !( ) Road Maintenance AgreementFsubmitted (where applicable). .Approved j ? Improvements have been provided for; completed,. bond, letter of credit, cash, Date ! { ) Final OWASA approval (where applicabl.e) .onall plans b specifications: Date t R ( Final DOT approval on plat Final action:by the Planning Board j y 'P g. 2 (. )7392 4 4.0 9 AC, 084 t27 00 u 78 61 AC, TO TAU 82 37,41 AC OC 102 09' 113.1 A OT L *\A 0. jq N ,mot H. ti i+�5 N o1�E i 0 MAP -j Lo qSEE Ixt bu :!F �co 1 4 0-4 SOUTH FORK ton I �-j L N ion ESTATES,SEC 2) 1�1 14 Low 44V SEE MAP 30 (FOX RUN,SEC,6) PLAMING BOARD �4� DRAFT 3 ,rune 21, 1982 M4BE'RS PR8',SI NT: Pat Cxaiat'axd, (chair) , John «ilsca, David Shanklin, Steve Kizer, Sally Bceri d. ee, Logan Irvin, Tcn, Bacon, Hazel Lunsford, Nancy Lazslo S'IU7: Jim, Polatty, Ride Cannity, red Luce, Eddie Kirk, _ - Keith R3semctd AGENtlP, ISM 5: Fox Run Subdivision, section 9 - Pxelindnary Kirk told the Beard that the Health 17epartxmt could only find one septic site on each lot. He briefly desadbed the proposal. Party is located in Little River Tawnship off Little River Dive and Fawn Brock Drive. ire are two Tats proposed out of 13.8 acres. One lot is 9.8 acres and one lot is 4.0 acres. Bath. lots witl receive access ss through stub out roads that have not been constructed. 1he lot sizes maet the minimum standards of the Subdivision Regulations. The tract is designated Agricultural klesidential in the Land Use Plan and'is located in the Little River Eire District. LIi'TION: Kizer moved approval of the preli ina y plat for section 9, Fox Run Subdivision. Bacon seconded. VOTE: The motion was unardimusl.y aptaroved. 5 , ORANGE COUNMI BO:kRD Cr- CQ?74ISSJGNERS Action Fxracdx Ite�T. NO- ACE �i I LF ErI Tit,, 1?:ZTE July 6 r 19 82 Subject— Brack's mobile Fome. Court Dapart:rrwn Pl.ann* Public H acing: ..======Yes x no Abtac�'meot(s) Checklist pg. 1 T tforma i_on Contact: Jim Polatty: Tax Map pg. 2 Plat Phone Nurbar: 732-8181 ESst. 343 - PI.anriing Boiled Mliiixtei§ pg. 3 Pu—nPfJSE• `,o consiej-,r a�,droval of tr�A Preliminary Flan of Br'ack's mobile Home Court NEED: Property is located in Bingham Township off S.R. 1956 (Crawford Dairy Road,) There are 7 lots proposed out of approximately 76 acres. The proposed.- road is to be constructed. to Private Class B standards. The lot sizes reset the minimum standards of the Zoning ordinance and SWDdivision Regulations. The tract is designated Agricultural Pesidential in the Tand Use Flan and Eli I-bitney fire district corers this area on a volunteer basis. IMPP.CT:':.'he proposal meets the existing standards for lot size and is bordered by undeveloped land, Development would have mini*aal imp-act in this area. e M-CORTENDATIM The Planning Staff recommends approval. The Planning Board reconmands approval with a stipulation that each lot shmr 40,000 square feet outside the mad riot-of-caay. 6/21/82 i MAJOR SU3DIVIS104 CHECKLIST NAIIE„OF SUBDIVISION BRJCK YCBME HOME COURT OWNER OR DEVELOPER Route 1, flax 2IA Chapel apeT fIi:11, N.C. 27514 TOWNSHIP B! TAX MAP 39 BLOCK LOT i"-'r Fire District__E1ijfttney NAME OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER Dale Faulkner Total number of lots 7 To be developed in�_rhasa(s), Total number of acres 9 Typical dwelling units at present or.proposed 1-bbile Homes WATER SUPPLY. Public(name) Community Individual X SEWAGE TREATrMENT: Public Community Individual -Septeic tank X SCHOOL DISTRICT Hillsborough Access ontd,State Road # Road Standard: Public or Private Class A , B , C Existing critical areas such as streams Flood prone areas ( }, Historic Sites ( ): Other;( }, Explain: None Land-uses in the general area: Farming Residential _ ,SKETCH PLAN-RECEIVED (Date) Approved ( } Recommended Changes ( } .PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED.{Date) 5/4/82' REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Preliminary Review"by,Health Department Percy Earns 5/3/82 Erosion Control Officer yiF 6 14 82 -Board of. Education pan iAmi§fnrc? 6/3/82 Department of Transportation OWASA (if possible) -Other. —Mebane (if possible) —Hillsborough (if•possible) —Orange/Alamance (if possible) Prel.iminaiy Action by.the Planning Board s Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners FINAL FLAT RECEIVED (Date) ( ) All lots were approved by the Health Department ( ) Lots failing Health Departments `approval. are comloined •or listed properly on the plat ( Road Maintenance Agreement submitted (where. applicable). Approved ( Improvements-have been provided for; completed, bond, ;Ietter.of credit, cash: Date. (° )`-Final. OWASA approval (where applicable) on all plans & specifications. Date } Final DOT approval on plat }.Final action by the Planning Board r - - '013 AC los f { w 1 C.L41'=4 BOARD MIRVMS DRAFT a June 21, 1982 MEMBEFS PST: Pat CrOfford, (chair), John Wilson, David Shanklfn,, Steve Kizer, Sally Boerscke, Z�aa Irvin, Tcm Bacon, Hazel Ltmsford, Nancy Lazslo SfiA aim Polatty, Rick Cannity, Fred Luce, Eddie Kilk, . Keith Rosemcaad AGENM 17E,M 6: Bxacks Mobile Hare Park PreLim nary Ki=k gave a description of the regcrast.. Px0perty is located in Bzncbant 'Knshap off S.R.. 1956 (Crawford Dairy Road). Miere are 7 lots Proposed out of approximately 76 acres. % e Proposed road is to be ccnstn=bed to Private Class B standards. The lot sizes met the rmnimmi standards of the zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Pegul.ataons. The tract is designated Agricultural. Resident Eal in the Land Use Plan and Eli %ji.tney fire district covers this area on a volunteer basis, He told the Board that the Plat would need to show 44,000 sMmm feet for each lot outside of the road r:ightr-of-way. 7he Board heard that all bats had been appoved by the Health Depart mt' . MJLCC7: Kizer moved approval of the Bracks bile Horn: Park ar 4p ar Plat with a stipulation that each lot she r square feet outside the road xight:-of-way. Luasford seconded. VXE: Ule action carried unanimously. 0?,I,-,r.E Ccu"ay BakqU 0-7 CWUSSIO'�!� Action ,-a AjG-"%MN ITZ—L°l Pas!Mt = Item. Yo�,Z--Lzi-A� NIE6T? :C D-yTr-: July 6, 1992 Subject: Proposed Text changes to the Zoning Ordinance Planning joli -t� c Hearing: X nc a Contact- , Ri,&, Canrdty Attadmwent(s)*- Taxt Ammdnients = Phone Nj=bar: 32-8181 Ext 347 PUP,POSE To receive Planning Board rec=nandations on proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance Text. NEM.- The proposed changes in the Zoning Ordmance '.tact are intended to make the application of certain districts more specific, a-Ucw the County Manager to oartify that ocaditions for Planned Mvelag,=ts and Special Use Peintits have been rmt, and to implement some of the xeccxw. endations of the Water Rasourcems Tall: Form Report on watershed protection. nTACr.- The changes to Article 4.2.19, Economic Ve-velopt=t District are more specific about the application criteria of the district than the existIng wording. The proposed addition of Article 4.2.27 Protected Watershed 11 (P4�U) District would implement some recommendations on watershed protection. it will be applied to all watersheds except the urban portia-i of JJQCiowans Creek as designated by the Imd Use Plan. Me proposed change in 6.3.1 would be more specific than the existing wording about where and how duplex units would be allowed. Another change in 6.3.1 would require all new lots, have frontage on state maintained road or a private road built to Orange County private road standards. She changes to Article 3.5 would allow the County tSanaqer to certify that the conditions of a Planned Develop.-ent or Special ioL Permit have been mt. Planning Board recomiends approval of the promised changes as they are written, with the exception of the following item: The last paragraph of 6.3.1 should be held for further work by the Planning Staffj She changes in Section 7.6 and 8.5 should be rewritten so that they read the soma (Attachr.mt shows changes) Section 4.2. 19b.) Item 2 and 3 shbuld be =,tined as shown on the attached sheets i The deletion of Section 6.23,2.0 having to do with lot sizes for minor subdivisions in the PW-11 District. :,. . „ �rr in the adopted "end use Plan fat the t:zte of the aaplicaticn of the zcn=r ordinance to ?revicusly °.„nzcnecl `0,,rnsw-;;s) . 4.2.13 ?ESER,VBD :.2.14 RESERVED s 4.2.15 5 RcD T 4.2.1 6 D£=i.cef_'asti.tationa? Wr) District a) iaatent lie ?hose of the o�_ice/T_.astituticna' (0/1) District is to Provide locations 'or med-,= —intensity office and institutionaz Land uses and to function as a buffer between conflicting land use sit•.zations. b} acolication Criteria This district will usually be applied where the followLnq conditions exist- 1. Site is located La areas t!esiclnated b r the adopted Land Use Plan as C.artt;terrlal Ttansition or Industrial Activity .lades.. 2. Site would »rovide a buffer or stew clown -, % nte_zsit_, of land use °tom a ccmmercial use °.-a a �rei.;hbor`_:ood or wo=unitr Activity lode. 3. General?7, these areas should have water and sewer mains existLig at site or are to be made ava°?able d;.u=l„ng t.:-.e deve?ocnett process. 4. :formally, the maximum amount of land zcned to this 0/' class if-icamion shall not exceed ti7e acres. 5. Vehicular access trust consist ow access to a S-Zzeet c7assi!ied ei he_ ax­=zri.al cr col,"rector as 3esic:ated ;y the adopted, rand ::se ?!an. :!„2.17 ?wSc a!TzD 4.2.1 9 4.2.1-9 ?ccnscti z Dish a} :tent -he wt=-pose .7z ..:a Eczncni_ yel"@ ^.GMen� CE'D) .:riat=--ct :s o provide Locat,cns -mar a wide range .._ -aw .mtans:.=-1 1_ r---«'.....'r."r�a Y�,^.'ars�u 5' �'n ' '�F+!^.i`�.'�'•svt^ ...:r�i.'I'.�� �� �.+.,. institutional, office and research uses with no adverse impacts beyond the space occupied by the use. The Economic Development District shall always be designated in close association, with the Federal Interstate Highway System_ - b) Application Criteria This dist-rict will usually be applied where the fallowing conditions exist= 1. Site is located adjacent to a PAdexal Interstate Highway, with direct access to either an arterial or collector road, and wiz'Hin,- 1.5 miles of an .interchange on the ixxterstate system. 2. The site is located outside of the Chapel Hill-Carrhoro rural bu f ex area: es designated in the Land Use Plan. 3.. All lots shall be a minimum of 10 acres, and all lots shall have frontage on the interstate or on the collector/arterial street.. 4. No uses shall be located in a designated water supply watershed. 5, All operations other than loading or unloading, Vbuld be conducted entirely within the building or buildings. S• Urban services, such as water and sewer mains, are desirable, but x .. -not recuixed if acceptable alternatives are avazlabl.e. 4-7A 3e-aised Dec.. I, 19a? ?=o_rosed :Iate=shad :oninc :.evised jen. ?a, 1981- ?,avised :say 6, 196L Public 'hearing ':ay 24, i78? 4.2.26 CSC2Vr.'U ...' 4.2.27 ?ratected Wata.r3 ed MM (Pri^3.?') DistricW a) Intent , I-- as thm intent or orange Countf o rani`at° =•e uses ox land anc i —, 1 'tla ei^S arS :1h ch (j=a; ra =°SE3_Fa1W SLty].?L'j nl OT a ..J The 7 ` -. inn dri-z1;t,.'erg water a the _e^. a a-.� r^. L3Zi�r. _ clia....'...r r sdz oraM a wfeat+i- af :Dater' l.:t t::asa °n'ai,.°}_" SC.IPPL'ir �i,fate,..SC:_...a :3,.. a_____..._ by the acti,-rities a man i..c_Udi"."1g z�i x g ccnst_�ctia:i oI highways and rural su:mdi-risions and the graw!7 Of gowns are- ?^:dUst ial devel.o=ent. Trges Of water Wol?utants Was-a?'=5 =r'ce, these activities inc"!ude sedimment, bacterial r�zCaxri-�ia�orz. �°av^r metals, synthetic organic cot%gouncls a=- low-?evel "C1°"s has a t:G«°d.s3_4arce acc 42 yea by ',me Coun`ir C=-.- the problem of water =ollu.tioa. They :are dac: e t ad the—;- windings i--% a _e?or t entitled �ecazt o `�:e Cranc:e C^ur_t•t iJate� esaxzrces �'askMcorc° and dated y..ay, 1931. That staterIt-nt ot. problems and -eedds is i-jcludaj by reference, --he intent of t:he protected watershed 12 M-1-11) d.1s= Ct a-v?Y a set -0 OZ I aGar- or reg Wla io for watershed Pt Otect Lc n to mO sumoly watersheds in the County Which are *r25ently «oSa.1v und.eveloced and wnexe it is desi.r eahle t'.;' -;. 'ntai.'t `he r• _z!1 _ undeveloped character a_ the *oratars:ted i..-t the future,. 'h) Application Criteria the ?rotected ciatershe^ .i.i (P --T_1) district is es, a?i,shed as 2 dastxict wiaica overlays other• Zoning districts esta:olishec in. this 0rdiza.-xce. The new use of any land or any Me,; str`;ct:-,e Within the Protected Uatershed T_Z (2W-,') d'i.st=-ct sha?3 c Mnly _,.. with use regE:.?ati.ons acpL:cabLe to the zrder?_v=g zoning diwyt.-icW as we!"' as the remmixements of the ?W--?= di,st'--Ict- 1. x".:+is aistri.ct ail.l be ao9l ied to al? protected water sr-paly watersheds ,i.*:_ ~he:znd use ?Ian, in areas designated in the Land Use Plan as agr'cuI to al resident:-;ai .q ?rotecwed ..ateLsheCz. A.RTIC . VL. :yPPr—TCATjOGV OF DMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS 6.1 aagulations Encumbering Land Recuired 'b Satisfir Regulations ,,To Cortion of a lot, used in acnnection with an existing or proposed building, structure or use, and necessa*"r for compliance with the dimensional regulations of this ordinaace shall, through sale or ot`xerwi.se, be used again as a part of the lot required Ln connection wi-h any other building, structure or use. 6.2 Height Limitations 6.2.1 Except as provided in this ordinance, all structures shall. conform to the height limitations established in Article S. Within any zoning district the height of a building may exceed the maximum building height established in Article 5 provided that one foot additional front and side setbacks are provided for ever, ,-do feet of additional height. 6.2.2 'Lie height 13--its of this ordinance may be modified upon, appeal to the Board. of Adjustatent. Ih.e Hoard, when approving an applicatica for modification to the height limitations, may affix to that approval reasonable conditions to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. 6.3 Re aticn of Princi-al Uses, 6.3..1 _ it is the express intent of this ordinance to regulate the number of principal structures constructed on each lot within orange County_ There shat be only one single family residence per lot_ Duolexs may be constructed on lots that have twice the recu:i red lot area of the zoning district in whim t,e rot is located_ This nrovisicn does to aooroved multi--family developments. There can he more titan one principal structure on commexci.al. or industrial lots provided that the strt,ctu�"es existed prior to the application of this ordinance or the structures a- part of a Planned Developt. r v lot, crew cx axter the effective date of the amendment, shall, pr- r to th issuance of a building per-,tit, have frontage cn a state xai pined road or on a pri rate road that is constructed to tie aqn opriata orange County -private road standards. 6.4 2ny corner lot in a residential Zoning District have an abutting interior lot cn its side street., shall have a minimum, reciu2--ed open space of the Zoning District in which it is locates.; provided, _. I that this reanixement does not reduce the width saitable for a building on any lot of record less t,-ax 25 feet (SEE DIAGRAu 1) 6-1 �r �.F... F.C.- .f�h «,«.i - N�• ry �ti C`l d :T S «23._ St=-eam Burcers ecuzred In ?rotected ;$at?rsaheds Withia the ?rotacted Watershed District, an area of band along Perennial st--earn shah be required to rema m _n its :ta.7_al states, unless the area is subject to serious erosion in which case an erosion reS_4stant vegetative cover shall be establ'_shed and mai-ztained_ Perernial, stweams axe those screams in solid bLue and dashed. blue on the USCS ¢uaci angle mao series for Crange County. 6.23.1 a) Width of Buffer Calculated The st_=aam, b ffer am-pa shall staff at `%a outer edge of the flood plain and be meesuxed a distamre of fifty .(50) Mee:. wway f=cm the Blood plan plus an additional distzmce depending on the slope neax he st=eaat_ vhe slope she" be calculated by measuring a distance 250 feet from the cen- ter of the st=eam., dater--xini,g the average rise in elevati— and =u ti,- glying that value by ,:our. This value shall be added to the ai..n!== buf=e; of 50 feet to detYex:mine total «ietth of BuZf% er a_-ma recu?.=ed. The ma.x°=tm buffer in any case s'rall act exceed. 1.50 feet_ The flood olai.n is"defined in the Orange County Flood uantage ?;evention Ordinance,, by special survey by registered e=ngineers or su=rveyors, by the alluvial, sob? as designated in the Orange County soi? survey, or through a site analysis by the ... _ -- Orange Coup y 2??rtrsi tsg Staff. Slope s::all. be Bete i-ned from the TJ aC'S Quadrangle man, by on-site mearm-cements, ox, by sreci.al su hey by r.. gistered engiaee. o, surveyors_ 6.23.1 b) 0evelccmen W 5.dvisaxv Corm:i,ttee's Review of St=aam Buffers "visor cShe !:evelocment rydy mi la 2.0.2-, + can review the buffer requirements for al1 developments and may re-- co=end additional buffer area where :aecessar-(. 6_23_1 c) Pe--ii.ttad Cses Within Stream Buffer A.-eas - he fo11owi�na uses aza allowed as a mattar of zi.ght in stream bu;fe_s_ All other uses are orchi oit.ed_ 1» Wove ground and buried ed utility Li:ues =or I ocal., distri ution of electriciwy, telephone, and cable television ser-rice, accessory and appertant apcaarat.-s such as ;ales, guy Fri=es, t_t,-_ns,;armers and switchi:.g boxes. 2_ Bcna =ide fa.":rs except any use of fa= a.ropez ty =or ncr_-waZ-_ aur�,_csas_ 3. 'Teighbcncccd utd1i y facile ies located :-d-thin e Yubl.ic ~g.^.c of %ray wi h the per uission of the cwner of the _ight of way (State, Ciw!r ow Ewa 4. Public and Private st-e`*ts, '--ridges, and rai_,oad _wgzts of Way. u_era it '.s necassar-j "'o cons Zuct st=ee`s, br4...:',.F.1.'es, and r°,..:,.I oad lines .....=ss ,.mffer ]r`°'?„s, they ente.T .-"•.nd 3.".,4 t ...._e a=ea as .^.ear y =a en�,,^_'..',:.:..,.`. to it as =dssible.. e 3uf! included ss ?a-- Of .e x�T_1uLx ct Si 5,23.1 d) Str ear Stream buffers cay be used as _a.rt aW the recui.red Lot area or lot size for resident"al a.nd. :son-resi�2enrial developments. 5,23.1 a) cisti z °iec'etation in Buffer� E:Cisti_":Cj _or°_Sted areas or uiy ^ea.ltnir natural vecetatl.^.rl CaM not be removed ff--= a 5«.:""e'm :3tz.T: � extent "then .=eo a.G^4'd vegetation resulti, 9 in comparable stor=4ater velac4-t7 ar•,'» T� ^.t iu r one year after planting 6.23.1 r) 'few Vecetation In 3uf=-er _,x'eas Recuired New vege tion s xall be planted to cap tur° wri-source :all uta.nts before they reach the .:erenr+'al stream, as ,per apol-Ceisle orange County Standards. 5.23.2 Lot Size Rem.'-extents 1-1 the t�_otected watershed -1 M =I Dist'-iwt a) I=respec-tive of densities allowed by this ordinance, the development of any 'land or st=uct'u_:3 within the Protected. Watershed Ii district sha?I reaui.r° one of the follcwiag: a) a ainiman 5 ac--e lot size wi.t"Out swo'=4 .` managemer xi W ec^,ui cues. b) a mi_nw.'au= 2 acre Lot size;rkxen provision is made to L-.anage Storm ter ruaaf=. Runoff f-om the le-yea..=. storm an the developed site - M shall not be greater than tine rate of runof on the sane site prior to t1he proposed develop-- merit. 5,23.3 Reserved 0.23. 1 -fie*-virus St�zf=c° eau?atsd rs ?rcCect°3 :?atersxeTs An 1..'pe=7:OUS S'3r"-ace SS ar v a"�-- ac`.' th=Oucn. �� c...nxi0t genet--ate Car can oni-i tenet=ate .4iCwij. ='=`•is _;-_C1 tld . paved Streets :.rd aawcsng lots, cCnc:rate s,:.. ewal_z, and stw,.Ct es Wh cZ, c:ver�la nd. As a °vat°.-sired ^eacmeS :. tCWC ^arpelawed, the ?TaLSt a ;uer"7x?5 :3.«»wCe .:ZC=�aae5 CaL5 . a decrease in soil absor7 ticn nE stor7x 'wa_at and an c_-eas_- ' ?9ith a resui4- Lftc-_ease '-Y u^."eCt to streams ._.. cattyxn*al '»ar°r _011atIOn to 'rO ,Cte '.,:2.M�.,"..r,,.Y3,wT.nn of SzC7.= w2.t3''. ..:.to soi-1 and -.s; i e ...,""_d ':.[:ed:.a C? Cun'o. .: _'n WC L,:`tae:;'7woL'S sL=4-ace =a:,.'„CS Si-a .. . _e r°_W u.i,_"° 1 for :A:t�iw -.'.v,;,a :,r/'I s =L'?�:.G '-A:�s ► !ROSS ::.:ro ;,ZZ. 22 0.�9 5.qt 9S 22 22 22 24 26 7„^+! 7.&A ?3 33 3.a, 3.32A t 30 a »9 !waft R4 33 M0% 3s L00% 14.21 40 13.34 !lot as 43 203-9 22ON 45 24.3* z4_sb zx3 M 3x.J* sa 3x9 ;.�.. 30 xa.99 32 :3..34 4a za.aw 42 2i"I9 23:03 C= Sa 31.94 31.0% S2. 34.44 34,44% 53 36.31 3a_9* 5S 39.43 39.44 5 53 36.Jt 360-k 55 39.44 39.49 4a :3.39 12 2."..33 1_9t :3 5.39 2s 5.3s vw.39 .T _3 x.z9 -3.:'s 3s is% 3.3* 4z aa.s* :4w5It Z. wag 34.41 :4«.9 - A SMA a.»a OZ., The zoning Officer shall notify the Board of County Commission- ers when such approvals have been obtained for the proposed de- velopment as a whole or for any stage or stages of development as contained in the approval of the amendment, 7.6 zoning Administrator's Action On Approval Of Final Plans After a PD district has been established, no building permit shall be issued therein, unless and until the Zoning Officer has approved final plans and reports for the development as a whole or stages or portions thereof deemed satisfactory in relation td" " the total development. The form and content of such final plans and reports shall be as prescribed in the land development ordinance or other regulations, generally or for particular FD districts, and in the rules of the County and other affected agencies. Approval of final plans and reports shall be based on compliance with regulations applying at the time the land was zoned to PD status, including such specific modifications as were made by the Board of County Commissioners in its amending action. The Orange County Manager shall certify that the condztions.im- posed by the Hoard of County Commissioners have been met. Upon approval of final plans and reports, building permits shall be issued in the same manner as for building permits generally, provided that any requirements concerning the order and location in which building permits are to be issued in the particular PD district shall be observed. Except as provided below, final plans and reports approval shall be binding on the applicants and any successor in title, so long as PD zoning applied to the land. 7,7 Approval_ Of Detailed Plans, Etc. is An Administrative Action Approval of detailed plans and related material is an admini- strative action. No public notice or hearing is required in connection with approval proceedings of final plans or changes in approved plans, but the zoning Officer may hold meetings or cause such meetings to be held with such notice as is deemed appropriate in connection with such actions. 7.8 Changes In Approved Final Plans Changes in approved final plans, specifications and reports may be permitted by the zoning officer on application by the original applicant or successor in interest, but only upon making a finding that such changes are: a) In accord with all applicable regulations in effect at the time of the amendment creating the PD district, as modified in the amending action; or b) in accord with all applicable regulations ctx.rrently in effect, without modification; or 7-9 4 S4.r'a•t �. r 8.4.7 Imposed conditions The Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Adjustment, w as appropriate, may impose such reasonable conditions upon approval of a Special. Use as will afford protection of the public health, safety and general welfare, ensure that sub- stantial justice is done and equitable treatment provided. such conditions shall run with the land and use, and shall be binding on the original applicant (s) as well as all successors, assigns anal heirs. 8.5 Action Subsequent To The Board Action t The zoning officer shall within seven days cause notice of the disposition of the application to be sent by certified mail to the applicant and a copy of the decision to be filed in the office of the zoning officer. The Zoning Officer, in the case of approval or approval with conditions, shall issue the necessary permit in accord with the 4oard's action. The Orange County 'Manager- shall certify that the Special. Use Permit with_any_inposed conditions is as approved by the Hoard of County Commissioners or Board of Adjustment_ 8.5 C zmtents Of Application For Approval Of A Special. Use The application for approval of a Special Use shall be submitted on forms provided by the zoning Officer. Such forms shall be prepared so that when completed a full and accurate description of the proposed use, including its location, appearance, and operational, characteristics shall be disclosed. Additionally, the forms shall., when completed by the applicant, disclose the name (s) and address (es) of the owner (s) of the property involved, the owner (s), and all relevant information needed to show com- pliance with the general and specific standards governing the Special Use which is the subject of the application. (See Section 8.2) 8.7 Minor Changes To Be A proved By Zoning officer; Modifications Paauire Action By Approving Board The zoning officer is authorized to approve minor changes in the approved plans of Special. Uses, as long as they are in harmony with action of the approving Board, but shall not have the power to approve changes that constitute a modification of the approval. A modification shall require approval of the Board having juris- diction and shall be handled as a new application. 8.7.1 Criteria To Be Used In Determination The Zoning officer shall use the following criteria in determining whether a proposed action is a minor change or a modification: 8-5 p, %R 0: CCx?1TSSIGNERS Action _ ri " AC'. ON ?• L. CG D.:,Tz July 6, 1932 5uo7e Proposed Tent changes to the :.,cuing ordinance moo= Wit: P1 xg PubLc Hearing. Yes no ,«t ion Canted: Rick, AttaclMezt(s): Text Amzndi ts Ca��nitzy Phon° N x,,b.,er: 32--8181 Ext 347 vURPCSE: rro receive Planning Board reca7rendaticns on proposed changes to the Zaling ordinances Text. �w axe proposed changes in the Zoning ordinance 111ext are intended to make the application of certain districts mare sp ci fic,r allow.the _.. County manager to certify that canditicns for Planned Daveloazents and Special. Use Pendts have been rat, and to implerent some of the xeca=end'aticns of the Slater Jzesources Task Ibrc e Report ca Watershed protection. IMACC: the changes to Article 4.2.19, Eooaa-.t-i c revelopaient District are more spacific about the applicati_cnx criteria of the district than the existing wording. the proposed addition of Article 4.2.27 Protected watershed II (ni-II) District would i.Talerent scfne- recounendaticns cn watershed protection. It wi- 1. be applied to all watersheds except the urban por-tiax of McGcwans Creek as designated by the I,an.d Use Plan. Sze proposed change in 6.3.1 would be mre sprecifi.c than the existing wording about where and heir duplex units would be allowed. Another change in G.3.1 would re Dare all new lots, have frontage on state maintained road or a private road built to orange County private road standards. %e. chances to Article 3.5 would allow the County Manager to certify that the ccnditicxns of a Planned Develog-,ent or, Special. Lot Permit have been mi t. 10-TD Wit: Planning Board reoorzrends approval of the p+rpposed chances as they are written, with the exception of the following item: ' r1 he last paragraph of 6.3.1. should be held for further work by the Planning Staffs She changes in Secticn 7.6 and 8.5 should be rewritten so that they read the sa�ej (Attachx*ent shcxws changes) Section 4.2. 19b.) item 2 and 3 should be oar,•bi.ned as shown on tin attached sheets] The deletion of Section 6.23.2.0 having to do with lot sizes for minor subdivisions in the PW-II District. r C?k -E COir�"x"a' EoAro o- Ca•2•1ISSIOM� Ac ioa Aganda AG.£IrJ3 F:"z l IT1w1 riFs'r:nCf t.''E`.��.T.PN MTE June 15 1 n,2 Subjec�-,: Participatory Paving Program DepM.t,r.zut: Planning Public ltaar=g: yes V Attar.h.-,,e"lt(s): a) Approved Projects; lr�foixatioa Cantac:: Susan Smith~ b} LOT Policy for Paving Rural Roads; c) Yrao d 3 -83 Secondary Road pkon° k�"'u,^�- 732-3161 Ext. 359 � PURPOSE: To review the DW policy for paving rural roads by Property Owners Partici- pation (P.O.P.; P.P.P.) and existing orange County policy on prioritizing Participatory Paving Program projects. t1EED: DOT has recently formally established a policy fcn•different iati.ng between rural and suzbdivisioru esidential roads eligible for paving under the Participatory paving program. Subdivision and residential roads are roads specifically constructed to serve the residences along the road. Rural roads are roads which servee primarily as traffic corridors and secondarily provide access to residences:Aue policy requires that rural roads be subject to all cost for paving above ."x8.00 percenterline foot as opposed to a maximum $14.00 per centerline foot for subdivision and re- sidential roads. under this policy two Orange County P.P.P. projects are new classified by DOT as' rural roads: Libscorrb Grove Church Road (SR 1574) and Wi.l.let Road (SR 15G8). These roads are priorities =5 and A6 in the Orange County Program. Paving of these roads under the County priority system will require t-,te enmrioerance of a large proportion of the total avail- able P.P.P. funds in given year. It has not yet been determined whether affected residents will be willing to pay the larger cots for paving the roads. The remaining projects are eligible for funding on the regular basis of $4.00 per linear foot, and will be paved according to priority. Range- wood subdivision ((rl) cannot be paved, hazever, until construction of water and sewer Lines is ompleted in July 1983. Mace Road (V) , under current County policy, cannot be paved until 15 and rG (rural roads) are either paved, becone ineligible or withdrat-r from the Program. The County may wish to either reaffirm or revise the policy for prior- itizing P.P.P. projects. The fbIlcwi.ng policy options are available for the Board's consideration: 1. Feaffirn current policy which prioritizes projects on a "first come,e, first serve"^basis regardless of type of road. 2. Revise the prioritization policy for all new requests to distinguish between subdivision/residential and rural roads and prioritize subdivision/residential roads above rural. roads. Rural roads would be paved either as funds permit or cn the basis of a conbined funding and waiting period formula i.e as finds permit and within five years of the data of request. 3. Same as 142 except the revised policy would be immediately applicable to projects 05 and T6. Project ;r7 would then be prioritized before projects 1#5 and OG. d. Fevise the policy so that for new requests all rural roads would 3e. ineligible for the County paving progran. 5. Samoa as #rd except the revised policy would be iv ediately applicable to projects 1,15 and 11,16. 45 J 6. Split the annual allocation for P.P.P. into two parts: one for subdivision/residential roads and the other for rural roads. IMPACT: The Hoard's decision would either reaffirm existing policy with no change in the Program, revise the policy applicable to new requests or require repri.oritization of current County projects. TECONMFN'i)ATION: Staff recamends policy option rc 4. This option recognizes that the program was designed to provide a means to pave unpaved subdivision and residential roads, not rural roads, through owner participation. Linder this policy, rural road projects J 5 and # 6 would remain eligible, but no new rural roads would be approved for participation in the Orange County program. e ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MrArl BOROUGH NO ' CAROLMA 27278 a...4 Wr MEMO TO: Ken `Thompson, Mmager FROM: Susan Smith, Planning DATE: June 8, 1.982 SUBJECT: Participatory Paving Program Attached are copies of the two PPP agenda abstracts for the June 15, BOCC met- ing. The first addresses a revision of the project prioritization policy and the second add:essesareprioritization of the projects. Staff recomLandations on these two item are specified. The main concern is that PPP projects #5 and #6 are rural roads which should never have been accepted into the Participatory Paving Program as the program was set up to pave subdivision and residential roads. DOT has not approved either of these projects for the Program because they are scheduled to be paved under the 1981 point system for unpaved secondary roads. From what I can estimate both rural roads would require approximately $50- 70,000 in local funding. This is double the amount of local funding required for a similar subdivision road project and would encumber the entire PPP appropriation for any given year if the annual appropriation remains at $60,000, If projects #5 and #6 remain on the Orange County Program and the priority .List not revised, the likely schedule for paving of the projects remaining in the Program would be the following: #1 Rangewood Subdivision 1983-84 (assuming completion of DOT Program water/sewer lines camtruction in July 1983) 42 ?a -11s of New Hope Subdivision 1982 (camletion) #3 Oak Hill Road 1982 (co=letion) #4 Dumont Drive 1982-83 DOT Program Ken Thompson June 9, 1.982 Page 2 #5 Libscovb Grove Church Road 1984-85 DOT Program #6 Wallet Road 1985-86 DOT Program #7 Mace Road 1986-87 If the priority list is revised as recommended. Mace Road could be paved under the 1982-83 DOT Program or the 1983-84 Program along with Rangewood subdivision. Regardless of the County Program, Libscomb Grove Church Road will be scheduled for paving by wr in the 1983-84 Program (assuming State funding will be avail- able). Willet Road will likely not be scheduled for paving by DOT until 1986- 87. DOT's paving schedule for paving unpaved secondary roads is dependent on the number of County as well as DM Participatory Paving projects available for paving and funded through a given year's unpaved roads appropriation. /dg ORANGE CURIMY ?AITTCIPAMPY PA"MIG PROGRAM Approved -Projects C= TO DATE OF MAD PmPmM CONTACT PQRSON =UEST ME jV-JnCATION —Z*—TERS I. Nathaniel Davis 10/11/79 #2013-2017 $22,026 RarZawood Subdivision 2. Kenneth Rchrtach 5/25/79 #1873-1877 $36,674 Falls of New Fope 3. Milton W. Skolaut 10/19/79 #1835 $13,728 Oak Hill Road 4. WIllie Glover 8/4/80 #1595 $24,068 DLM=t Drive 5,-.Peorge TYk-,Pharscn 4/17/181 #1574 Libscomb Grove Church Fbad 6. David T,. McSroo. /81 #1563 Willet Road 7. Mrs Carol Doria 12/4/81 m1384 $18,184 12/8/81 Faceived Mace Road 3/1/82 Approved STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B.HUNT,A, RALEIGH 27611 GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS 'NIL-LIAM R.ROSERSON,JR. SECRETARY March 18, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: Division Engineers L District Engi 22 L082 FROM: Jack Murdock r" C- DEPT, OF TRANSPORTAT70M Secondary Roa Offic!r 01V'S"0'44 OF HIGHWAIM,7-M DIV. SUBJECT; Policy for P ing KRuralRoads by OISTRICT I,ORAHAM Rural Roads by Property Owners' Participation As you know, the Department of Transportation has never had a fgrral policy.fo paving rural secondary roads by progerty owners' participation., We have always operated under the general rule of thumb that such paving would be accomplished by the property owners_ aying all costs over $8.00 per foot. The MOO per t foot was used because t§a was the amount norms ljy.,pjgced.with property owners- parti ti cipa -on,.funds in paving subdivision- -streets. Many of you have never such a request; however, requests of this nature have been received to pave roads in the toy 20 in priority as well as over 100 in priority. The Board of Transportation felt that some limit should be placed on the number of roads eligible for such paving because spending State Funds for paving these roads simply could not be Justified for every road listed in priority in each county. Attached is a copy of the policy which was passed by the Board of Transportation at its meeting on March 12, 1982, which is for the most part self-explanatory. To determine those roads eligible in a oarticulLr n with the next road in line for paving an the current priori ty.-list and add the road lengths down the p riorit y list until you reach•a total of not more than 1004' of the *aounty's unpaved secondary road mileage. For example, Wake County currently has'321.94"-miles of unpaved secondary road, and 10110 or 32.2 miles would be eligible for paving under this policy. Last year, the first three priorities were approved for paying; so, beginning with the 4th road, priorities 4 through 30, total 32.35 miles, would be eligible. If priorities 4 through 7 (4.09 miles) are approved this year, then priorities 31 'through 33, total 4.11 miles, and would also become eligible for rural participation paving. In those counties where the number of oriorities are 'not as high as 20 after computing_- _ of the county's unpaved mileage, then the next ZO roads ante prio--ri-ty--T-is-,-.--w-a-u-ra—oe Division Engineers District Engineers Page Two March 18, 1982 eligible. Another example, would be a county in which the number one priority has been approved for paving; number two has been skipped due to right of way problems; number three was skipped due to excessive cost; and, number four has been approved for paving, then your computation would begin with priority-num- ber five. Always begin with the next road in line for paving on the priority list. In arriving at the cost to the property owners for paving roads of this mature, first determine the estimated cost of paving. Then subtract $8.00 per foot and the remaining cost will be that of the property owners. On roads which cost $12.00 or less per centerline foot, the property owners will pay $4.00 per fact. Attached. is a. copy of State Highway System mileages In each county as of January I, 1982. This shows the unpaved secondary road miles and should be used in computing those roads which are eligible for a rural participation paving In each county until an updated chart is available in 1983. If you have any questions concerning this policy, please call me- JM/pr Attachment cc: Secretary William R. Roberson, Jr. Hoard'of Transportation Members Mr. Billy Rose, State Highway Administrator Mr. R. F. Coleman, Chief Engineer POLICY FOR PAVING RURAL ROADS By PROPERTY OWMERS $ PARTICIPATION The Board of Transportation will review requests to allow certain rural* secondary -roads, which have priorities such- that they will not be paved., to be paved by the. property owners sharing, in the cost. The eligible roads will be those priorities in each county which fall within 10% of the counties unpaved secondary road aileage or the next 20 roads in priority, fracm the last priority approved for paving in the annual program, whichever is greater. As roads On the priority list are approved for paving Or Paving is not possible due to right-of-way problems or excessive cost, they will not be used in computing the 10% mileage or as being in the a top 2o-priorities. For ex=ple: if a county has 20 eligible road4 .4 and the first two priorities are approved for paving, then prior- ities 21 and 22 would become eligible. The cost to the property owners will be determined after the of the road is known. The Depart estimated cost for the pavia, of Transportation's cost will be $8.00 per centerline foot for rot that cost $12.00 per centerline foot and for roads that cost more than $12.00 per centerline foot. The pr"ercy owners will be re- quired to provide $4.00 per centerline foot for roads that cost less than 512.00 per centerline foot. out dollars per centerline root is the amount required of property owners for the paving of subdivi- �R i n the county Priorit--s for pavila s4on/residen�-,al roads root rated i SUMMARY OF THE PAVED AND UNPAVED-MILEAGE -- COMPRISING THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM- January 1, 1982 N. C. Department of Transportation Raleigh, North Carolina 30AAAA7 OF TF0 04*0 AIM 0044T0 a1L;A49 44*1katsiba T%1 STATE 6ta•.+Ar VOTE* AAbMAaT L. 1762 64,t0i 7i. 1161! 3EC044A#v 4 STA7*uAgAR "AT$4At11AST MT&4r ST&T0 Cw4Fri A4A4 STS160 ST3790 TIMM I43C144*6 371Tw4 ---�-' 94440 10010*4 TCTti 1&v#0 040010 TOTAL OAV40 1 wwavE4 V rml6 J*W4 HMAT00 TOM 44.66&407 !71.31 I66.t0 77X.11 71.1E 1.4'9 71.43 111.17 f 411.61 T!'1 M LiT.,a'1 /10.37 61.99&4015 412,4! 134.11 741.!4 4 L 4.1E 43.90 41.44 408647 t3l.7t 71t.T4, ALLACA614► 471.411 111.24 178.11 4.4E .13 4+33 14.17 60.37 3*1.70 SXt.6i 421.44 A67a6 147.31 140.33 147.14 16.24 26.14 tt2.A1 1X3.6.9 646.6& 144«37 436.44 A34E 166.34, 6Lr.aa 44L.43 0.43 .34 1.11 113.L3 113.43 39.31 *47.4+ T4+.44. Avg" 64.1? 144.04 234.*3 10.93 t.42 10.6• 16.11 77.31 1.2.10 ts0.36 112.90 1 two 360.14 146.41 61&.41 4641 07 41.16 113.61 113.11 $44." 100.44, 4r?"l a4AYt9 114.47 111.•6 *T1.3s 1.14 t.43 41.71 144.1% t44.44 *97.6: 1112.0s 644.34, 4X+446 3*1+7s t51.12 341.41 43.42 -.43 4T.44 X02.42 t62.3t 614.36 '44.14 #14.r3 1*t04 wcx 116.41 t*3.3i 414.44 40.3t 1.411 44.1% 101.10 14t.s0 176.46 1644\ 74619 9 4c46*7 4044.15 134.41 101.14 x4.13 1.01 14.1• 176.37 1.37 563.10 17T.4t 1'54.43 1.431.*► 4WA0 460.47 114.13 411.43 16..E 4.17 17.44 X51.31 123.31 017.11 133.311 130.44 C"Maus 64s.44, L26.11 11t.1t 32.47 .31 15.44 LC7.44 141«40 141.36- 136406 #".1s C"ft*" 174.17 232.34 S16.a1 •T.u .94 4.11 4063* 4.31 40.114 413.6t 1.3.70 447.41 CA64UA x2.6. 37.14 t4*.42 4444 44.11 L24.4 $3.06 112.76 CAAIRA0T t4a.46 46.3E 417.11 62.30 .93 49.:4 6T.31 61.31 330.16 44.30 304.1! CASSILL 134.21 417.0.4 444.41 t.46 I.&* t20.71 t961% 464.441 LIP..* W.10 c3TAr44 &03.44 LT1.L7 170.11 46.41 1.64 11.44 402.41 IOt.41 711.T2 11.17 964.04 cral6aF 146..60 %I6.3$ 742.11 27.41 «40 17.43 144.6$ 144.40 744.20 111.71 X.0424% catumas 101.41. 174.40 474.44 1*47 .1% 11.32 rl.34 73.10 11a.at 470.14 145.111 04Ca&Ar 144.94 36.46 142.11 1.76 1694 44.17 44.17 204.47 76.42 234.32 CLAY LSC.&S 12.44 2X142 1.14 .O1 1.11 36.43 14.47 X36.40 11.14 114.11 CLE7#1JA0 461.42 141.11 130.41 107.73 1.06 IXT.0 %4"4 14664 144.43 333.46 t.tl4.37 COLtAMS 426.42 271.10 431.33 77.44 3.44 S1.S* 114.3* 124.34 114.14 Ut.I* t.413.22 cuv06 ^366.41 t44.43 !34.61 44.31 L.44 41.31 124.41 12661 133.34 123.45 7t1.13 Cu+6t*U40 172.37 101.44 17a.M xa.17 1.41 11.46 4*1.42 Lll.t2 L..443.94 107.34 3.114.44 Ct4MLTUCA Ill.*! 10.14 t63.45 74.1 30 1 .16 t" 36 14.14 234.44 46#6 74.114 27.1t 6t.&1 44.01 .S4 40.43 121.40 1!X.44 114.51 17.-s 341.70 04410106 113.1# 171.14 1.1000.0 32.17 .33 M.-C ITt.93 111.45 1.117.60 173.42 1.4t0.41 OAVia 306648 476.30 141.44 11.12 lt.t2 144.47 100.a7 121.+7 06.&a 494.47 CA1LI1t 466.12 221.44 9X3.40 22.44 1.4t -.1.41 171.16 ITUIS 9t7.S1 331X1? 1,L49."0446►6 342.43 204.34 171.14 tl*.lt 4.44 t10.41 40.17 44.47 144.74 111.31 142.36 3GGcCC6al 414.41 1S.44 444.4L 44.&1 .41 61.44 W.I. t*7.*- 443.N 17.41 411.71 ma;274. 477.4% 243.12 14t.&s 171.54 1.35 tr7.34 434.42 116.47 916.40 10*.la t•L71.40 ►6666X26 -01.40 L44.46 61X.1* L6.&T .43 44.30 14+»34 t44.30 I2T.xr t4*.4 472.aa 0637461 544.44 X44.44 TC1.34 t4*.16 3.11 125.11 I44.11 !X3611 SU.11 141.47 110..4 OATPS 144.13 122.+4 319«it ].33 .11 1.22 1X.13 it.13 104.,41 311.70 141.3! 1446x6 tQS4z #044 142.4* 1.3t 1.33 54.34 14.34 ta-.30 40.21 244.41 cA44.v7tLE 306.34 213.37 641.L3 X747 .10 37.47 t1a.41 127.17 141.x* 01.11 214.41 :02946 19+10 76.42 :41..72 lQ»t♦ +33 t0«3* 76.41 4&647 363.03 71.34 444.1* :OILFCA4 407.41 313646 las4.11 116.44 W.$ 116.Qx, 147.11 241.11 1.11t.34 174«27 L.**7.4L »+LSF44 -SC.S4 173-73 434-IL 33.3* .40 7&642 t74.14 24%1& 7t4.as U4.71 41s.34 6JA61YT 440.14 I12.14 S23.-* 14.44 16.10 t4i.-4 144.44 ltl.42 at2.la *..417.14 -ATWIVI 215.31 214.65 612.41 0.47 .4,4 11.44 Lai.t6 t4t.44 370,34 424.AA 540.34 6TaMk*5414 72W4'! 1N.0L 46..14 04.14 .3t iSw*t 14.44 x6.40 -4 L.S4 14+.12 104.44 64*7FCa0 111.44 149.461 111.41 11.34 .14 16.44 x1.14 14.44 343.3* t04.31 *SS.S1 .040 122.71 14.44 3*2.43 11.:4 11.40 14.17 14-23 In.:* 30.44 ♦11.34 614* t21.A1 1..14 144.13 14.12 4a.42 Ito. l 4..16 171.42 1610014 Ott«41 Imaa 1.141.71 46.42 S.C6 !*..714 tat..! '11.41 1.0».t1 SII.x1 1.391.11 4AGAif6 tTX.74 167.3* .11.x4 L1 x44 A.A4 29.14 423.71 7151 913.1* 4".4t 193.4t 3T0.L2 +9:3x4 3Y*<r4•"IS:4660. .».Lt*`�0ta10411x11t ! 1t44w/aT 01• Ira 4A11q A.*%/644411.%%SA41 CC.►*40164 T►l Inve 11064AT SWIM JAAUAAY I. L9/2 MIS OcIl.0A71Y ` surt mm" STsTt:9RTRA0Y Milk STAN, col4tY AGA4 ITSTtw 173TtR 1!1114! 7464.x1 3337149 eATfER o1lRxtta Y4Yxt. PATH y4tw14 MAL xATIR UAaATt TCTY1 All"3 U6M/'® TOM 10++dTks 473,37 !21»24 !.176.24 11.99 .39 22.44 314«61 ti4w44 t.9Tt.ri 321.!9 4.3 13.74 3Crit3 1tc.22 17,46 L31 4 4.7! 4.77 01.11 0.11 409,01 MA 116.34 162 303.17 E2.St 174.75 44«91 •24 61.40 43.39 14.44 126.17 )W& 6rr,a1 60441* 45445 1!9,36 106.41 37.11 .41 70.44 941.97 173.47 $44.31 944.43 7411.34 LL1 cta Ni.42 4:++77 M.21 7.13 7.43 104.0% 142.31 144.41 434.41 t94d6 4ACCA 173.41 400.44 +21.41 74.43 14 73.ti 13.47 b«1T 144.7 St229.44, 440.21 xA4tSCA 174.34 1130.46 144.32 71.46 f,44 5.3C 11•.66 146.14 336.14 701.70 441.19 .14479.E 431.44 934.49 lot 21 111.4! 144 l.3/ t.l.f2 411.11 444WA0 419.12 1•4.9s •CCCLILL 104+7') 904.43 •41.41 4.rt .11 LO.tI 170.21 sway 620.46 144.97 !44.x4 xtLAlt7•r+4A4 637,46 97.44 MA.Ji 427.33 .74 YA0.8t t+f.3i 111..1! 1.3+1.44 11.3► 44444.40 4ITCMIL 123.45 433.4 2+7.37 '6.27 .11 11.6: 16,33 14411 44,94 134.61 917.11 ACRTI9CA4aY 744.14 SiarJa 441.119 T4.44 .ca 10.10 123..1 [2f.M 40.61 SLA.10 637»f7 ACCA4 437.41 tus.73 143.14 H.44 3.44 49.21 tw.4t iM.IS 441.40 304.31 L.dM.tf' TAaW 4134T 736.33 rst.10 r7.bt .rr MAO It•.43 431.43 ita.•t 937.31 t.833.Tt 6ts nJnC+r01 301.37 17.41 114.41 6.11 .44 71.13 30.1! 29.12 W..33 10.26 621.!1 44fAT7.AARtC16 I43.4Q L21r39 447.4% I*-A5 .31 37.+3 tl6.3l tilwtt 6!4.41 M-86 576.2E CRILUw U.S.• Ica 32 7%!414 54.43 .44 17.2♦ t6I.0! 46t.47 119.4t 101.1% •99.11 ,394.71 I2t.14 4tl.li 1s.rl t.Cl 44.1' 64.41 96.4L 11A.L4 123.73 76t.Al x49%%44 123.31 70.3! M.A. 73.11 $+91 74..11 17.33 67.11 11!.17 r;.Ia 263.141. PA1.144TA7•A 1!1.41 63.1+ Bull :3.14 .43 13.44 32.93 32.11 it4.it ' 64.37 364.0 Away }44.49 :%3432 wi•14 23.73 3.71 13.02 140.21 L444% E7Q.31 312437 143.46 17440%443 trl./aI 09.70 t30.414 14.49 23 11.11 13.36 LY.l. ib9.wt 47.93 491.74 PlAwe 224.641 111.11 $M44 t6.03 .47 1.43 14.44 1x.10 386.17 310.64 6...17 0111 $14.40 133-Zl rTl.cl 64.16 ..4 13.02 102.3% 902.19 771.07 X11.63 1.444,43 xp144 149.34 I41,A♦ ]77.H 1].17 .46 tA.l! full 136 IS 737.0 164.36 4%6,x4 044]414 1l4.2'! 4-r"I 1.fat.J11 11.24 4.t3 t43.34 t74r44 111.44 L.432.37 ♦1144 1.3+11.6 AICriwC7t6 441.1% ICS.YL 142.33 .t.31 .77 4201 94.41 4401 639.34 t94.sx 41.411 4449341 1.727.41 144.33 L.3A9.44 11.•3 1.34 fx,t• i117.ii 393«Y4 t.-A1.43 W.A9 t.7E1.1T Ar4AIAC446► 136.40 3:4.16 411.44 91,3/ .a! 14.2+ tC7.3t IOYr3A lt1•.r 734.44 9.17/..14 AC6AM T4A.73 226.11 445.44 14.11 .41 14,40 241.74 12%,71 46+.47 414.11 :.419.34 AUJMaPw+.: 144.34 449407 494.37 t6.94 2414 1t.$$ t44.44 904.44 Ttq,74 129.21 t.tl19.47 W1HCR t3U.93 4+7.11 %.171«!i 11.42 .++ 0A»37 2249./ IIA•1/ 4.206.47 1+x.43 2.6.!3.14 ICS rLA4q 270+47 4.,14 43!.x11 63.33 At 41.+4 44,411 44.14 +91.13 64.3: 147.14 STAftLy II4rM 1713.10 494.74 14.34 .tl 474!1 74.x4 w.t1 6x4.3+ 973.61 14+.91 174.73 44!.14 I72,i4 fb3.i4 /,xY .42 1.24 13!.41 13!.81 !72.74 28.66 46►.41 IYAAY 122.•4 774+14 913,41 )9.3t .xl V.]2 141.67 14%42 7121.63 +a11.31 9.1 bA.8a Sw4t71 47.43 Ar.,d/ 114.14 10.43 1,60 It.49 W.8/ 40.44 144.01 14.211 71#.64 T22.111ltAALA 9+1.13 t1q.34 111.47 1.3.43 .Ill 73.41 21.43 1.9tl 4443 331.40 133.44 4124.+t nmaftlL ♦4.13 414.2 L63.23 1.13 4 17 43.14! N.9A t+1.11 ./,.f -T0.t% 4n14T 143.72 2:4.73 1.it 4,44 36.41 7.43 14.12 %31.•4 43x.+4 %.811.13 402.49 5.331,14 .AACR 71.43 T7.M 144.84 77,11 1947 17.31 14..76 19.91 3T1.J0 .4.14 617..4 .61E t.3t6..3 111.14 :.444,.6 :19.4. 7.47 242.44 924.91 It4.II tx6wL.tt *36.43 I.1;1.11 rA8444 123.17 174.97 111.24 1.19 .Y4 /»44 41.5+ 99.1• 613.94 t14..J 06:1 4•Swl I47C.3 134.64 10.44 III." t4.71 LA.71 13.14 63.44 7411.14 10.11 114.11 .x4641 C4 %73.x2 I17.11 ,41.41 73•:3 1.3R 1•,.1 16.w! 9146. IM.11 lrulb 341..7 .xTnt 447,21 161.49 1611.44 67+75 17 ,F.wl 161.+3 16!.44 146.4t H].Zt t.81t.4t .11414 !76.14 213+A3 9.110.x4 47.47 .47 "1.3A 0-1 174.41 T16,34 f73.4Q I i'Q.1t .t137+6 ++3.33 74.34 1W,99 A.YO 21.44 !41.62 %36.63 433.79 16.07 rtb•1 1417144 164.21 711.31 147.73 92.47 .3] f].34 I2.tt -4r.rl 673-J4 tL9.x7 473.74 TanC1Y 14..14 949+1/ 233473 6.13 .39 ►.14 t3.10 0.31 46..4 I71.61 147.1♦ 374.77 207413 �+q.afi.lbjt t.wlL.0Ct1142.1.. C •.324.42 # 11:.8] 4«r 14,13it.O.T.:Y U.A41 tl.atl.11 57.334..x173«711.44{!6,:3•.ii '774r. so "1%4++2e task">!cuat0i7a1iX1911 ORAME COETN'£SC PROPOSED 1982--1983 SEWNDARY ROAD nVROVE14= PROM?.AAi 1982 Bond Fund Allocation $1161813.00 1982-1953 Secondary Allocation (Anticipated) W-00 - - — $589,1:56.00 :ap Priority SR Estimated :=a. Rio. No. 4lame and Descri tioa Len Cast Paved Secondary Road Improvements 1919 Smith Level Road from NC 54 Bypass to SR 1962 1.67 $12010OU. Widen and 5trmgthem Spot I MMvemeat of Unpaved Roads ] 1127 Borland Road — Improve klig=ent 0.2 101000. Spot Stabiliaatica -» 75,000. SR 15381 SR 13811 SR 15261 Sit 1341, SR 19181 SR 17941 SR 17981 M 1740, SR 114U, SR 15951 SR 157%, M 15441 SR 11751 SR 11271 SR. 19431 SR 2,5362 SR 15341 SR 1575, SR 15551 SR 15161 - SR 13651 SR 1383, SR 1340, SR 1540, Mt 1508 Paving jbpaved Roads 3 2010 Bayberry Drive from Azalea Drive Past to 0.25 141752• Exdst ing Pavement (P. 0. P. Paving) Chesi,dy Circle from SR 1935 to SR 1835 U.39 25:113, (,P. 0. P. Paving) :i Streets in nkus Manor Subdivision 0.22 151SC33. � (P. 0. P. Paving) U 1595 Dumont Drive from SR 1002 to Dead. End 1.14 751932• (P. 0. P. Paving) 7 3 1103 McCauley Road from SR 1104 to Dead Zhdd 1.5 102,000. 4 1716 Couch Mountain Road -» from SR 1714 to SR 1.811 0.55 b0,CQ0. 2 OR.ARGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1982--1983 =1 ONDARY ROAD IMPR=4ENT PROGR. 4 Priority- SR Estimate Na. No. Name and DescrLvta.cn LenM Cost " Grade Drain and Stabilize g2 ved 9 6 15?4 John Watkins Road from SR 1002 to SM 1548 1.4 $50,000 Vartial Funding) Contingency to be Used for Overruns, A Ktions 10,556.JO to System, Paving 1?4=al Fire Department Drives, and 'Property Owner Partid,pati.c a Note: If right of way is not available an the above -unpaved .roads, the f u34a will be programmed as other roads in the order of priority. Ml✓i.w-rur.i.F.l:�,�r+e r:r:ww.r+.+rrrr+r.rwnri4.`M "+.r.,.r.......w"' - ,V�,yy�C,N.....+. 0 kNCE CO;.o`N-MC i BO-Z,n 0: C0}Fr3IS5IGYE S A--tion Ranch I=:ENG D-ATF June 15 1922 Sc�jM Participatory Paving PrograMR Planning Public Hearing: _des X n Attacra�,_°_*t(s): Orange County irifc� ti n Contacts Susan Smith 1981 Point System }?hcsnn Iv'h.ry.be�= 732-3181 EXT. 359 PURPOSE: leprioritization of PPP projects nS Libsccarb Grove Church Road, N willet Road and n7 Mace Road. TAD: Project 47 Mace T3cad is a subdivision mad serving 53 residences. 'The local share of the construction costs for Trace ibad is $18,184. Local funds are available an the Cc)mty proposed 1982-83 budget allocation for the Participatory Paving Program to pave this road. However, projects 413 and 116, which are rural roads subject to the new DDT policy on the local share of construction costs for rural roads precede project ';r7 on the priority list. At a minimum these two projects will require the major part of a given annual allo- cation for the P,rogran. the result would be a disproportionate amount of funds being used to pave rural roads at the expense of a i ud5di v3sicn road which the program was designed to address. Neither of the rural roads have been officially approved by DDT for the Participatory Paving Program, but were Listed on the DOT 1981 point system. Both Libscorrb Grove Church Road and willet Thad are in the top 10% of the unpaved secondary roads on the 1981 point system. Lisccrrb Grove Church Road is the top paving project following completion of the 1982-83 Secondary Ihad ImproverTent Program. willet Road is project 118. Both are tentatively sched- uled by DOT to be paved as part of the unpaved secondary roads program, but not as PPP projects. DIPACT: Repriori.tization of the projects would remedy -the incaisistency between the Program's objectives and the prioritization of current County projects and would allow Mace Toad to be paved at a date eaxlier than presently anticipated. �EOD2+ ENDATIM: re-prioritize approved projects so that Mace Poad n7 is prioritized before projects RS and ;1'6. Request that DOT add Mace !bad to the 1932--83 Secondary Dads Improvement Program. om subuss SQ40WAY RAW tyavrae o2=,N/vo/es C?.v%N=- COIDITY 112,811- to= STSTV. A. Traffic Nam No, -Jame and Z'esc.--�.ztioh, Lersth =aces cotjj,.t pal 1 t Q Linden Road from US ?0 to a lead ind 1.2 28 390 L47 2 016 Arker Road from A 1992 to a Dead End 063 6 no 3 5C 3 1,";.03 Joe XcCaulle-y Road fr= SR 1101* to a Dead End 1-5 32 awy 250 32 IN, 4 1716 Couch Hourtain, Road f:wm SR 00 to SR 18L1 0.55 le 207 26 5 061 Lawrence Road ",am SM 1CO2 to Znd of Avement 0.7 6 230 2 W-W 6 - 'R 4 .�L Jahn Atkins Road from SR, to a ,!L8 VOOVAII 1.4 27 i V77 25 ;kO?At RW&L4 AKA 4jbWz*,* C4=W Cguam FaAb 7 1941 Jessie aeville Road from SR AN to a Dead 3W 0.5 20 04 2 1 1538 Dick Wes Road from SR Wq3 to NC 57 3.0 30 200 25 5 9 11306 Old Court7 Home Road Acm SR 1.338 to Dead Mad w 15 ps io 1137 D-Or Cook load fray SR KK to SR 1144 2.3 25 02 244 11 1,727 Wanks Road Crcm SR 1CO9 to SR 1729 sim 10 200 12 1312 Richmond Road from US 70 to SR 1306 1.7 16 185 23", Q 1127 Borland Road from SM 1102 to SR 1113 2.7 26 165 zo i • 1535 John Wartman. load from IIC 86 to 5a 3.332 1.8 22 1!6 20 15 1168, Hillat Road from,SR. Q7 to a Dead End 1.2 28 138 L9.1 16 1:35 Dh=ocJk X4-:121, Loop -1'rom iR 1134 to SR 1134 1.9 15 156 89 Q 1941 Old School Road foam SR 1942 to a Dead mad 00 19 .7 A J72 Sbenecer Church Road frcm SR W67 to In-wham Co. SR 1952 1.1 13 120 L79 19 1>6 3riggs Road Ircm 31 1306 to ER .,340 A& 13 135 zo * _;50 Arl :urham Road Tr um SR VC05 to IC 54 2.2 13 1 z! 1711 i100pnH Road from SM 1716 i.o M -7sO 1.2 3 1 Z2 Cde Turaer Road fr:m SR 106 to SR :129 n 6 A !K 23 1175 11 Alker Road from SM J38 to SR .CO 1.5 12 125 1? 2& :555 Miller Road Wm SR i588 to ER 15% 1.5 3 130 A 25 "A No Name Wm SR 1177 to SR =5 1.0 15 --4;at :)z 'day ',at AvaiLab—'- BBL RD (rz CC:' VUSSIONE-25 Action Item, -vo ACTIO-'11, 1TEM TaS'MCC DATE July 6, 1.982 Subject-. subdivision to the state_and R" ubdi-vim Of Bxrr'dey Road -�t FOad On Little River palm ecIdit maintained system. L-De-partire-nt- plarauncr Rub7ia earing x no J Attachment(S)-- a) Letter from Sam ,zones lxifor.rnzatdon Contact*- to Mmager dated 6/24/821 b) Se=dary Road Addition in,,?,-.st3.gaticn rbport Phone NtAzdn--r-- ?UTIRPOSE: Petition fion DoT for approval of the addition of Btaae Y Road and Riverboat Road in the Little River Farms subdivision to the stable—maintained secondary road system. NEM: Addition Of unpaved road to state-maintained swondary 'road system. TWACT.- The Board's decision will be forwarded to the Board of Itansportaticn f their deliberation on accePtmce of the road onto the state-mai ed or system. ntain ,ZCDIMrATJCN: Approval Oki STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B.HUNT,JR Grahamt North Carolina 27253-0766 GOVERNOR WILLIAM R.ROBERSON.JR Jme 24, 1982 OIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SECRETARY Orange County Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson, County Manager Orange County 106 Fast Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Subject. Petition for AddiUm - Bromley Road and Riverboat Road in Little River Farms Subdivision Dear Mr. Thompson: Attached is Form SR-4, $ecmdary Road Addition In- vestigatioa Report, for Bromley Road and Riverboat Road in Little River Farms Subdivision. This is being forwarded to you for review by your Board of Commissioners. Yours very truly, S. U/. Jones DISMICT ENGINIM /jbh Atta. co: Mr. J. W. Watkins 5 7 NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SECONDARY ROAD ADDITION INVESTIGATION REPORT County _T `� _ Co. File No. Date Township LittIp. River. Div. File No. Local Name Daley goad Md F4ygrboat,-AQa Subdivision Namel.,i.ttle Rivsr Farms Length tZi,3, ,O.3o _ Width 361 31) to P -_ Type _,,,•E Condition Fair Is this a subdivision street sub' c to the construction requirements for such streets? -Tua :M-- Recorded O1— •I0 Book 17 and_2 _ Page i�d 11 Is this a subdivision street. "—c to participation paving? Number of homes having entrances into read Other uses having entrances into road omen use road for aoc es Does right-of-way obtained meet present Division of Highways requirement? Dediaat If not, why? Is petition (SR-1) attached? y&a Is the County Commissioners' Approval'(SR-2) attached? If not, why? Does the road meet present minimum Division of Highways construction requirements? If not, state what is needed to olace the road in an acceptable maintenance condition under Remarks and Recommendations. Is a map attached indicating information for reference in locating road by the Planning Department? Yes Cost to place in acceptable maintenance condition: Total Cost $ 0.00 _ Grade, drain, stabilize $ Drainage $ Other Remarks and Recommendations Deets mix�requixements, recommend addition. Reviewed and approved Board of Transportation Member Reviewed and approved atkLns S. H. Janes J Q V SION ENGINEER DISTRICT ENGINEER " .-- (Do not write in this space u "" `� ,e•rm For use of Secondary Roads Dept.) Petition No. •' 7�fuu•,•�� + (Do not write in this space For use of Planning Dept,) Y Form SR-4 (7-77) 5. O?.A:3GE MINTY I30MO 07 CCU:^3'1ISS10t 15':2a kZC C]1 krsn a Item ?.o_- �� ACLIO�: t':Gs.�'r.;C.� I,'L'z°[ ii'.3�'1�Tt,�1C,`.0 Subject: Food Stamp Issuance Social�Service s public Hearing Yes X zrs --~— - n mriticsn Contact- Tom M. Ward Atckunent(s}= Yes Cgpy of Proposed Contract 1 sber: 732-9361 ext. 229 PURPOSE- To present a professional services agreement for the direct mail of Food stamp Coupons: NEED: The County has 1,270 households that are eligible for receiving food stamps. To process each transaction banks charge $1.00 (cost of postage is in addition to this). Were the County to go to a dual approach of inputting case data and having a contractor do check issuance and mailing, cost could be reduced to $.50 per transaction per month, Five contractors were contacted. Two responded. Cost Containment, Inc., gave the lower estimate with a $.50 rate. The Social Services Director and Data Processing Director rude an inspection of the Halifax County Food Stamp Program where Cost Containment, Inc. , pro- vides a similar service. The remaining aspect for implementation-4 CRT's and software--is already budgeted. p Besides lowering the cost per.issuance the automated, system will enable the County to reduce storage and insurance cost and relieve clerical time to do eligibility redesign planned by the State during the coming year. Eligibility redesign is a term that'refers to a State-wide computerization of AFDC and medicaid case and payment information.' RECOMMENDATION(S) Approve attached contract. k SERVICE AGREEMENT COUNTY/CITY THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT entered into as of the __1st day of AugUf1t,�, 1982 > by and between COST CONTAINMENT, INC., a corporation incorporated under the-laws of the State of North Carolina with a place of business in Wake County, North Carolina (Scottish Bank, Post office Box: 1661, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602), hereafter referred to as Contractor, and Aran a , _ County/City a body corporate and politic, of orb County/City, North Carolina __ ( — ), hereafter referred to as County/City shall be valid for 12 months commencing after the effective date hereof unless terminated to this agreement. FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF SERVICE PAYMENTS and the mutual covenants and agreements herein set forth, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREEDt 1. SERVICE PAYMENTS: County/City agrees to pay to Contractor service payments at the.Sgtg of fifty cents ($.50) per transaction per month which includes cost of envelopes. A transaction is the mailing of the correct amount and number of food stamp coupons (hereafter called coupons), correctly addressed and postage prepaid by the Contractor, to a designated client of the County/City, at an address furnished to the Contractor by the County/City. All monthly service payments shall be paid to the Corporate Bank of the Contractor, First National Bank of Smithfield (P. 0. Box 1069, Smithfield, North Carolina 27577). Compensation at the rate set above to represent full and complete compensation for services rendered under the terms of this agreement with total cost to the County/City not to exceed $ 8,400. , unless agreed to by the County for the 12-month period covered by this agreement. Actual cost of postage will be paid upon receipt of bill itemized to the satisfaction of County from the Contracto . In the event the U. S. -Postal Service increases the cost of the Ist class mailing during the contract period, the increased costs of postage (to Contractor) shall be t - borne by the County/City beginning with the month such increase occurs. Page Two SERVICE .AGREEMENT II. SERVICE PROVIDED: Contractor agrees to provide the following service to the County/City: (a) Contractor will correctly mail, by lst class mail., food stamp coupons (hereafter called coupons) to clients designated by the County/City, at the addresses furnished to the Contractor by the County/City. (b) Contractor will, within 24-hours of receipt of the same from the County/City, make any and all changers of the mailing lists to comply with the applicable changes submitted to ensure the correct mailing to clients at changed and corrected addressed. (c) The Contractor will complete and deliver a monthly ENS-250 report and quarterly FNS-259 report to the County/City for certification and forwarding to the State Office. Contractor shall also provide to the County/City the information needed for the County/City to complete the other reports as may be required. (d) In order to deter thefts, Contractor will stagger the dates of mailing of coupons by date and zip code according to instructions from the County/City. (e) Performance of service will be conducted in a manner to ensure confidentiality of information, data, instruments, documents, studies, and reports given to Contractor to use or prepare for the County/City. III. LMILITY. Inasmuch as the County/City is liable to State of N. C. and/or U. S. Deoartmelkt of Agriculture_ _ for any unauthorized coupon issuances or coupon thefts and for any coupon shortages or losses for whatever cause, including, but not limited to, loss due to erroneous mailings, the Contractor agrees that it shall be liable to the County/City in like manner and amount and shall hold the County/City harmless from claims of the parties listed above arising from any such cause; and the Contractor further agrees: Page Three SERVICE AGREEMENT (a) That it will maintain in full force and effect during the term of this contract, or any renewal or extension thereof, such insurance or bond, and in such amount, as the County/City may require to indemnify the County/City against any theft of coupons while they are in the actual or constructive possession of the Contractor, its agents and employees, and against any loss or shortage of coupons or other loss arising out of any act or omission of the Contractor, its agents and employees. (b) That if the County/City suffers any Loss of any shortage or reduction in coupons by reason of any act or omission of the Contractor, its agent or employees, the County/City, at its election, may recover the value of its Josses by requiring that the Contractor pay the amount of 1 such loss or by deducting the amount of such Joss from service payments due the Contractor under this contract or both; but in no event shall the amount recovered by the County/City hereunder exceed its losses. IV.. AUDITS AND PROCEDURES. As required the Contractor will allow on-site reviews, audits, and inspections by County/City, State, or Federal staff and comply with their procedural requirements. Any deviations from rederal or State guidelines and procedures by either Contractor or County/City must have both the State Office and FNS prior approval. V. DEFAULT AND TERMINATIM (a) Upon default by County/City. Contractor and County shall determine and receive from County/City the sum due for services rendered. In the event Contractor shall be required to institute a suit to collect any unpaid service payments due under this service agreement, and obtains a judgement in court, Contractor shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees set by the Court which shall not be more than 19 per cent of the service payments so recovered by the Contractor from County/City. page Four SERVICE AGREEMENT (b) upon default by Contractor, County/City shall be entitled to immediate termination of this agreement and, further, to liquidated damages in an amount equal to the sum of service payments made by County/City to Contractor for the first month of.service rendered under this agreement. County/City, however, is not limited to the amount of liquidated damages if the County/City suffers damages in excess of the amount of liquidated damages determined as herein set forth. In the event County/City shall be required to institute a suit to collect any damages for any amounts due under this agreement, County/City shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees set by the Court which shall not be more than 15 per cent of any amount recovered by County/City from Contractor. (c) Either party may terminate this agreement by giving to the other party hereto a written notice of its intention to terminate this agreement. This agreement shall, be considered terminated upon the date set forth for the termination of the agreement which shall be i not less than 60 days from the service And delivery of the notice. The parties hereto may agree to an earlier date of termination of the agreement. VI. SPECIAL PROVISIONS: (a) it is understood and agreed between the Contractor and the County/City that the payment of compensation specified in this agreement, its continuation or any renewal or extension thereof, is dependent upon and subject to the allocation or appropriation of necessary funds to the County/City by the Federal government and the State of Norih Caro11 na for the purposes set forth in this agreement. (b) County/City may, from time to time, require changes in the scope of the services of the Contractor to be performed under this agreement including but not limited to renewal or extensions as mutually agreed upon by and between the Contractor and the County/City, shall be incorporate in written amendments to this agreement, .i Page Five SERVICE AGREUMBT (c) Neither this agreement nor any part hereof which involves the specialized skill or expertise of the Contractor shall be assigiled, subcontracted, or in any way transferred without the prior approval of the Contract Administrator and the State of North Camlina M (d) 'JlMW M. Ward � _ , authorized County/City official, designated as the Contract Administrator (project coordinator) for the County/City with responsibility for all matters relating to this agreement including but not limited to invoice approval. However, any chap es in the scope of the agreement which will increase, or decrease the Contractor's compensation shall not be effective until they have been approved by the Contract Administrator and documented through a written amendment to this agreement. (e) Contractor shall comply with all provision of Executive Order 11246, entitled "Equal Employment Opportunity", as amended by Executive Order 11375, and as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations _ (41 CFR fart 60). (f) County/City officials, State officials, Contract coordinator, the Federal Grantor Agency, the Comptroller General of the United States, t or any of their duly authorized representatives shall have access to any books, documents, papers and records which are in any way pertinent s to this agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions. Contractor shall maintain all required records for . 3 years after the County/City makes final payments and all pending matters are closed. Contractor assures the County/City that the County/City, with the other officials and agencies mentioned in this Item (f), Section VI, of this agreement, shall have access to any all books, documents, papers, and records of the Contractor for the purpose of audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions. (g) Contractor shall comply with mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the State Energy Conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy policy and Conservation Act (P„L. 94-165). Page Six SERVICE AGREEM�MT VII. AUTHORITY OF COUNTY: The official executing this agreement covenants that he or she has authority to execute this agreement on behalf of the County/City of Orange Count North Carolina and approved the proposal submitted by the Contractor for the services to be rendered as set forth in Section II of this agreement. VIII. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CONFORMITY [WITH LAWS; (a) For all purposes of this agreement, the Contractor shall be deemed an independent contractor, and neither the Contractor nor its agents or employees are or shall be deemed to be agents or employees of the County/City or of the State of North Carolina ; and the Contractor shall hold and save harmless the County/City and the State of North Carolina from the claims of third parties arising out of any act or omission of the Contractor, its agents or employees, In the performance of this agreement. (b) The Contractor shall pay all taxes, assessments, premiums and fees 'and shall file all reports and returns required by law and arising out of its operations under this agreement. (c) The Contractor shall perform its obligations under this agreement in conformity with all applicable laws and regulations, Federal, State, or local. E ' Page Seven SERVICE AGREEMENT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties through their duly authorized representatives, have caused this agreement to be executed in their respective names on the day and year first above written. _._ CHAIRMAN,, HOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR AUTHORIZED COUNTY OFFICIAL Sworn and subscribed to before me this the day of , 1981. NOTARY PUBLIC a+t"�jT E5T COST CONTAINMENT, INC PRESIDENT (Corporate Seal) II ar: {. .4 M Page Eight SERVICE AGREEMENT REVIEW AND APPROVAL This agreement has been reviewed by the Division of Social. Services of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources„far the sole purpose of determining that the agreement does not violate, and will not prevent performance of,.any of the duties afid obligations of Orange County to the State of North Carolina or of the State to the U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, arising under the Food Stamp Program, and for that limited purpose, this agreement is approved. This day of } 19 �i Director Division of Social Services #� North Carolina Department of Human Resources �i. Approved: i3. North Carolina Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General , - O?ANnE COMM Subject: State Clean Water Bond Grant Public Attachment(s): Yes orm�ion Contact- Kenneth R. Thompson [PhOne N=�: 732-8181 ext. 501 PURPOSE. To consider acceptance of a grant to qq toward the non-federal share of construction cost to build a sewer system for Efland Estates Subdivision. NEED: The $42,712 grant was applied for in anticipation of Farmer's Home Funding. Farmer's Home has not yet begun its application process although an income survey and other documents of the application have been submitted. Yet to be worked out are agreements on land purchase with the County School System and cost participation on the part'of County School and the developer of privately owned, undeveloped land. These relate to the County's being able to give assurance to paragraphs J and K of Section 11. � DTuCT: Construction of the project is contingent upon remaining funds (Farmer's Home grant and loan, and any major participants) being approved, Ance I `ptance of this grant must occur 6ef6re July 30, 1982. RECOMMENDATION(S): Accept grant and authorize Chairman to sign. �� COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, DICKERSON, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL&HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW IIOCHURTON51REET HU-5BOROUGH.N C.27278 919-732-2196 919-942-8000 July 6, 1982 CHAPEL Him OFFICE SLITE 2D.FRANKLIN BUILDING 137 E.FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL N.0 27514 919-9294151 ' ALONZO B.COLEMAN,JR STEVEN A..BERN Mr. Richard Whitted, Chairman DONALD R.DICKERSON Mr. Norman Gustaveson ROGER B.BERNHOU GEorFREY E.GLEDHILL. M& Shirley Marshall DOUGLAS HARGRAVE Mr. Norman Walker MARTIN J.BERNHOL2 WILLIAM H.BREEZE JR. Mr. Donald Willhoit act County Board of Commissioners BONNER D.SAWYER Orange County Courthouse 119M,19721 106 Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Watershed District Regulations Dear Commissioners: The proposed regulations pertaining to the proposed watershed protection district include lot size requirements. There are two problems with these regulations as proposed during the public hearing. The first problem is a technical one which can be corrected by a clarifying amendment to the zoning ordinance. The second problem is more substantive in nature. First, the technical problem. Proposed section 6.23.2(a) states thatt. "irrespective of densities allowed by this ordinance, the development of any land or structure within the protected Watershed H District shall require one of the following.- [Lot size requirements follow]:' Section 7.3 of the zoning ordinancep pertaining to planned development districts states,, in pertinent part, as follows: "Where there are conflicts between the special P.D. regulations herein and general zoning, subdivision, or other regulations or requirements, these P.D. regulations shall apply in P.D. Districts...." These two "supremacy" clauses are in conflict. The intention of the board as to which should control must be addressed. As you know the P.D. districts permit greater densities than "straight" zoning districts. The proposed watershed protection amendments restrict development density. The relationship between the two measures must be reconciled. This relationship can be addressed fairly simply and should go to public hearing as soon as possible. The watershed protection amendments can be adopted essentially as presented during the last public hearing with clarifying amendments presented at the next possible public hearing and adopted later this summer. The second problem pertains to proposed section 6.23.2(e) of the watershed protection regulations which states as follows: "These regulations shall apply Only to divisions of land that qualify as major subdivisions under the Orange County Subdivision Regulations." This provision, in MY opinion, should not be adopted as part of the zoning regulations. In the first instance it may exempt altogether planned developments from the watershed protection measures. Not all planned developments "qualify" as subdivisions under the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Second, and perhaps most important, the minor major subdivision distinction in the subdivision regulations is not a substantive one. The distinction is procedural only. That is, minor- , subdivisions, thought to have less of a policy impact on planning in the county are handled by the planning staff. Major subdivisions, on the other hand, with greater policy impact must be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners. The requirements for each, however, have no direct relation to the subdivisions minor or major designation. The Proposed zoning ordinance amendment which would exempt minor subdivisions from watershed Protection requirements makes the distinction more than just one of which governmental agency approves the development. Furthermore, exempting the minor subdivision places reliance on the timing of the subdivision rather than the intensity of the development. Some tracts of land may have already "used-up" their allotment of new lots created by the minor subdivision process. Others may not have used any. The distinction from the point of view of the owner of a large tract which is already a "lot" of a minor subdivision consisting of four lots may not be a legally rational one (the ultimate test for all zoning regulations). A suggested approach to achieve the same overall goal which —does not offend the rational basis test applicable to zoning regulations: is to permit the creation of "XII building lots from 11y,, square feet without requiring watershed protection regardless of the procedural proce�:q used to create the lots. I will be glad to expand on these comments at your July 6th meetin,-) or thereafter at your pleasure. Very truly yours, Geo , r E. Gledhill 19GIf r .......... v STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE FOR STATE GRANT FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS PROJECTS AND WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS PROJECTS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER BOND ACT OF 1977 PART A SECTION I OFFER Legal Name & Address of Applicant Federal Project No. County of Orange 106 East Margaret Lane State Project No. Hillsborough, NO 27273 RC-498 Total Estimated Project Coat 175,770 Estimated Project Coat Eligible for State Participation 170,850 Project Project ct No" TOTAL STATE GRANT OFFERED $ 42,712_____ Statewide County Amount Ama a Allocation Orange $ 42,712 State Grant Offered Payable as Follows: County F.Y. 82 $_42,712 F.Y. MX Allocation A- Description of Project. Construction of approximately 6,230 LF of 8-inch collection sewer and one (l), pump station. Consideration having been given by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission to (a) the application submitted by the applicant In accordance with the Rules and Regulations Governing State Grants for Wastewater'Treatment Works Projects and Wastewater Collection SYS- tems-Projects Tursuant to the North Carolina Clean Water Bond Act of 1977, (b),the public benefits to be derived by the construction of this projeett (c) the relation of the ultimate cost of constructing and maintaining the system to the public interest and to the public necessity for the system. and (d) the adequacy of the provisions made or proposed by the appll- cant for assuring proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the system after completior of the construction thereof, and it having been determined that (1) the applicant is an eligibU unit of government, (2) the project meets the eligibility criteria for State grants, and (3) the project has been approved and certified by the Environmental Management Commission as beinj entitled to priority for State grant funds made available by the Clean Water Bond Act of 1977. The Environmental Management Commission, acting on behalf of the State of North Carolina) hereby offers: To make a state grant to the above named applicant subject to the conditions and aasur"cle included in this document to aid in financing the construction of the project pursuant to the Rules and Regulations Governing State Grants for wastewater Treatment Works Projects and Waste- water Collection Systems Projects. The amount of the State grant will not exceed the appro- priate percentage of the estimated eligible construction cost of the project, as established by the Act or such dollar limitation as established herein', provided, that in the event the actual eligible construction cost of the project, as determined by the Environmental Management Commission upon completion of construction, is less than the estimated eligible construction cost upon which the giant offer Is based, the grant shall be reduced as necessary to conform with the limitations hereinabove cited. In addition, this Offer is made subject to the f OlIcW- EdIt'2MO.' eligible 1. State grant payments Will be limited to 50% Of the Non-Federal share of the P-1 project coot or the amount of the Grant offer, whichever is for lesthe construction of tht s- 2. No grant payments are to be made until and unless a permit proposed wastewater collection system project is tualled. t upon submission and approval of an erosion and sedimentation 3. This offer is cOntingen control plan by the Land Quality Section of the respective field OffiPes of the Department of Natural Resources and Community Davelop"nt- if at an, an or before This Offer mast be accepted, JUE 30 1CM2 - T M EKW CMMSSION FOR THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ENV W Dotes Authorized State Representative A q,"$4 -4 Name and Title; Jo h W. Grimaley, Secretary Ras* u. North Carolina Department 0 ices & Community Development f Natural 0 SECTION L'L - ASSURANCES ................... The Applicant hereby gives assurance to the Environmantal Management Commission that: the Environmental A. The final plans and specifications have or will be approved by Management Commission and the applicant so notified, prior to the project being adveXl�taed or placed on the market for bids. sh performance and B. The construction contract Es) requires the contractor to furssi� fifty percentUM (50%) f which is in an Mount Of not 'ago than payment bands, each 0 ain during the life Of the contract(s) adequate of the contract price, and to maint compensation, public liability and property fire, and extended coverage, workmen's damage insurance. the project, including the lotting of contracts In connection G. The construction Of to of State and local Iowa and tberewi th, conforms to the applicable requirements ordinances. a in the approved plans and specifications or contract(D) which D. Any change or change lteration in the work required by the plans and has made or will make any major a above the latest estimate specifications, or which increases the Cost Of the project 11 be submitted to the approved by the Environmental management Commisolon approval.wa or wi Environmental management Commission for prior s ad representative Of the E. The construction contract Cs) provides that any duly authorized or progress and access to the work whenever it is in preparat State will have see h that t proper facilities for such access and inspection- ile contractor will provide P. The applicant will comptent and adequate engineering supervi- provide and maintain at the construction conforms with sion and inspection Of the project to insure e th the approved plans and specifications' .. - 3 - C. Adequate accounting and fiscal records have been or will be maintained during the construction of the project and these records will he retained and made available for s period of at least two (z) years following completion of the project. H. All funds granted pursuant to the Clean Water Bond Act of 1571 shall be expended solely for carrying out the approved project. I. Any duly authorized representative of the Environmental Management Commission shall have access, for the purpose of audit and examination, to any books, documents, papers and records of the grantee that are pertinent to grants received under the Act; and the grantee shall. submit to the Environmental Management Commission such documents and information as they may requi a in connection with the project. J. The applicant shall demonstrate to the eatisfactian of the Environmental Management Commission its ability to pay the remaining cost of the project. K. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Environmental Management Commission that it has or will have a fee simple or such other estate or interest s to in the site of the project, including neesessary ssd ights- andaaperotion assure undisturbed use and possession for the purposes of construction for the estimated life of the project. L. The declarations, assurances, representations and statements made by the applicant in the application, and all documents, amendments and commmn icationsafiled request the Environmental Management Commission by the applicant fora grant, will be fulfilled. structed to, M: 'The applicant agrees to construct the a application andiplanisband ospecifications final completion i,n accordance with the application approved by the Environmental. Management Commission. SECTION III - ACCEPTANCE 6n'Sehalf of (Legal Name of Applicant) I, the undersigned, being duly authorized to take such action, as evidenced by the attached CERTIFIED COPY OF AUT1ORIZATION BY THE APPLICANT'S GOVERNING BODY, do here-- by accept this Offer and make the assurances contained therein. _ ._ ------- -- -_ �_ `_ --------- Date signature of Representative Nave of Representative (Type or Print) M STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE FOR STATE GRANT FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS PROJECTS AND WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS PROJECTS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER BOND ACT OF 1977 PART A SECTION I OFFER �om-- -'--- Federal Project NO. Legal Name & Address of Applicant County of Orange State Project No. 106 East Margaret Lane WC-498 Hillaborough, NC 27273 Total Estimated Project Cost 0 175,770 Estimated Project Cost Eligible for State Participation 170,850 TOTAL STATE GRANT OFFERED $_,92�712 statewide county Amount Allocation El Orange State Grant Offered Payable as Follows-' County P.X. 82 8 42,712 F.Y. Allocation . ................... Description of Project* Construction of approximately 6,230 LF of 8-inch collection sewer and one (I) pump station. Consideration having been given by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission to (a) the application submitted by the applicant in accordance with the Rules and Regulations Governing State Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works Projects and Wastewater Collection Sys- tems Projects Pursuant to the North Carolina Clean water Bond Act of 1977, (b) the Public benefits to be derived by the construction Of this project, (c) the relation Of the ultimate coat of constructing and maintaining the system to the public Interest and to the public necessity for the system, and (d) the adequacy of the provisions made or proposed by the apPli", operation and maintenance of the system after completion cant for assuring proper and efficient opera applicant is an aligibl of the construction there-of, and it having been determined that (1) the and (3) he eligibility criteria for State grantav unit of government, (2) the project meets t gment Commission as bein the project has been approved and certified by the Environmental Manag entitled to priority for State grant funds made available by the clean Water Bond Act of 1977. The Environmental Management Commission, acting on behalf Of the state of North Carolina, hereby offers; subject Co the conditions and assuranct To make a State grant to the above named applicant to the included In this document to aid in financing the construction of the project Pursuant works Projects and Vast&' Rules and Regulations Governing State Grants for Wastewater Treatment water Collection Systems Projects. The amount of the State grant will not exceed the appro- priate percentage Of the estimated eligible construction coat of the prothat jecin t, as established by the Act or such dollar limitation as established hercin; providedo the event actual eligible construction cost of the project, as determined by the Environmental Managemen Commission upon completion of construction, is less than the estimated eligible construction cost upon which the grant offer is based, the grant shall be reduced an necessary to conform with the limitations herainabove cited, In addition, this Offer is made subject.to thejollcw:,o conditions: to 50% of the Non--Federal share of the eligible 1. State grant payments will be limited chevor is less- project cost or the amount Of the Grant offer, whi a for the construction of tbi 2. No grant payments are to be made until and unless permit isaudi ion an proposed wastewater collection system project is sion and approval e of an eros d sedimentation as of the 3. This offer is contingent Section of the respective field Pffir control plan by the Land Quality See Department of Natural Resources and Community Development' if at all, on or before JUL 30 L082 This offer must be accepted MAMGMW COHOSS10H FOR TMHE Sun 01:,NORTH CAROLINA, ENVIP,,ONMTAL Date: 'r Authorized State Representative h W G I 'try I ctatary rims Sect Development Name and Title' Jo,seph V. Griml 1 Resources 6 Community Devel North Carolina Department of Natura ------------ Sp .CTX0H 11 - ASSURANCES The Applicant hereby gives assurance to the Environmental, Management Commission that; have or will be approved by the Environmental A. The final plans and specifications prior to the project being Management Commission, and the applicant so notified, P ed or placed on'the market for bids. advertised contract(s) requires the contractor to furnish performance and The con than fifty pereentum (50%) bonds, each of which is in an amount Of not leas adequate payment tain during the life Of the costract($) of the contract price, and to main tion, public liability and property fire, and extended coverage, workmen's compensation, damage itlsuYance- including the letting of contracts in connection C. The construction Of the project, able requirements Of State and local laws and therewith, conforms to the applicable ordinances- d specifications Or contract(s) which D. Any change or changes in the approved plans and ans and e major alteration in the work required by the PI has made or will MaV- any oect above the latest estimate the coat of the proj specifications, or which increases Commission was or will be submitted to the approved by the Environmental Management pproval. Environmental Management Commission for Prior a E. The construction contract(s) provides that any duly authorized representative Of the State will have access to the work whenever it is in preparation or progress and that the contractor will provide proper facilities for such access and Jospection. provide and maintain competent and adequate engineering P. The applicant will construction conforms with supervi- sion and inspection Of the project to insure that the conBtru the approved plans and specifications' 3 G, Adequate accounting and fiscal records have been or will be maintained during the construction of the project and these records will be retained and made available for a period of at Least two (2) years following completion of the project. 11. All funds granted pursuant to the Clean Water Bond Act of 1971 shall be expended solely for carrying out the approved project. I. Any duly authorized representative of the Environmental Management Commission shall have access, for the purpose of audit and examination, to any books, documents, papers and records of the grantee that are pertinent to grants received under the Act; and the grantee shall submit to the Environmental Management Commission such documents and information as they %hay require in connection with the project. J. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Environmental Management Commission its ability to pay the remaining cost of the project. K. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Environmental Management Commission that it has or will have a fee simple or such other estate or interest in the site of the project, including necsessary easements and rights-of-way, to assure undisturbed use and possession for the purposes of construction and operation for the estimated Life of the project. L. The declarations, assurances, representations and statements wade by the applicant in the application, and all documents, amendments and communications filed with the Environmental Kanagement Commission by the applicant in support of its request for .a grant, will be fulfilled. M. The applicant agrees to construct the project or cause it to be constructed to final completion n accordance with the application and plans and specifications approved by the Environmental Management Commission. SECTION III ACCEPTANCE on Behalf of (Legal Name of Applicant) __. 1, the undersigned, being duly authorized to take such action, as evidenced by the attached CERTIFIED COPY OF AU11MRIZATION BY THE APPLICANT'S GOVERNING BODY, do here- by accept this offer and wake the assurances contained therein. M �Signature of Representative DatW_.�» _ Name of Representative_ ('Type or Print) NOTICE The attached memorandum was prepared in anticipation of the adoption of the Appropriations Act by the 1981 General Assembly (1982 Regular Session) this week. At 4:30 P.M. on Friday, June 18, 1982, the best information was that it would not be adopted until one day next week. We have elected to place this in your hands in anticipation of its passage; and,should your Board wish/to adopt the resolution before it has knowledge of the passage of the bill , they should feel free to do so. However, If the bill is not enacted, we will advise you so you may take the appropriate action.