Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 08-01-1983
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING I August 1 , 1983 Monday, 7:30 P.MI COMMISSIONERS' ROOM Orange County Courthouse Hillsborough, NCI A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1 . Matters on the printed agenda 2. Matters not on the printed agenda C. MINUTES May 17, 1983; May 23, 1983; June 1 - 2, 1983 D. REPORTS 1 . Jordan-NeLe Task Forces - Chair 2. Annual NACo Conference - Board Members E. BOARD DECISIONS 1. Modification of Special Use Permit/Midwu Airport - Continuation of Public Heari to receive Planning Board s recomendation 2. James Rae Freeland Rezoning: R-1 to R-5 3. Clyde H. Bowden - Preliminary Plat 4. Addition of Joppa Oaks Subdivision Roads to State Maintained Secondary Roads System 5. Cedar Grove Multipurpose Center Lease Agreements 6: Animal Control Vehicle Purchase - State Contract 7. Property Disposal Procedure 8. Consortium1Contract and Resolution - Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) 9. Appointments to Private Industry Council - Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) 10. Street Improvements Contract: Northern FairVieW - change order 11 . Protection of Telephone Cable: Northern Fairview 12. Landfill Reclamation Contract Award 13. Water, Sewer and Reservoir Feasibility Study Agreement 14. Noise Ordilance - Second Reading 15. Cable TV - request from Alert Cable 16. Ad Hoc School Capital Task Force 17. Project Ordinance Amendment 18. Budget Amendment . 19. Budget Amendment - AUGUST 1 , 1983 INDEX , _• _--...--------.----..—_____ AGENDA ITEM - ABSTRACT PAGE PAGES E-1 Spedial Use Permit/Midway Airport 001 001-067 E-2 Rezoning - James Rae Freeland 068 068-083 E-3 Clyde H. Bowden-Preliminary Plat 084 084-086 E-4 Addition of Joppa Oaks subdivision 087 087-091 E-5 Cedar Grove Multipurpose Center Lease 092 092-094 E-6 Animal Control Vehicle 095 095- E-7 Property Disposal Procedure 096 096-097 E-8 Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) 098 098-118 E-9 Appointments - PIC 119 11 -125 E-10 Street Improvements Contract 126 126 E-11 Protection of Telephone Cable 127 127 E-12 Landfill Reclamation Contract Award 128 128 E-13 Water/Sewer Extension & Reservoir _ 129 129-136 E-14 Noise Ordinance - 2nd reading 137 137 E-15 Cable TV 138 138-140 E-16 Ad Koc School Capital Task Force 141 141 E-17 Project Ordinance Amendment 142 142-143 E-18 Budget Amendment 144 144-145 E-19 Budget Amendment 146 146-148 -, =, got 1 MINUTES � ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4/ . [�� U~ m0\' AUGUST 1, 1983 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on August l, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners' Room, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Commissioners present: Richard Whitted, Chair and Commissioners Ben Lloyd, Shirley Marshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit. A. BOARD cCMmo0Ta Richard E. Whitted deleted Ell-Protection of Telephone Cable and 812-Lauu- tilI Reclamation Contract Award and the May 23, 1983 Minutes from the Ageoda. Added: Efland sewer line. At Attorney Gledhill's suggestion, u15-oable T.V. , was placed last on the agenda and was to be discussed in Executive session. Commissioner Lloyd expressed concerns about Boards, Commissions and Committee appointments. Don Willhoit requested of the Board, and it was agreed, that Orange Enterprises meet with the Board at the August 16, 1903 meeting. B. 2IDIJIKE comma l, mattexe on the Printed Agenda John Northen requested to speak to o-1 2. 0attmro_oDI on tbe Printed Agenda None C. MINUTES Shirley Marshall moved, Don willbnit seconded approval of May 17, 1983 minutes. Ayes: 5. D. BEMUS_ 1. Jozduo=Nanse Task Forces Commissioner Whitted reported on and described the Jordan-Neuse Task- Force and its two subcommittees formed by Secretary mcimsloy on which he serves. The Environmental Management Commission (EMC) will hold a Public Hearing on August 9, 1982 and the record will remain open for 30 days for public onmmeut, The EMC expects to act on a proposal by the end of the year that would control or reduce the amount of phosphorous entering the reservoirs. 2. Annual N8ccl cnoference: Commissioner Willboit served on the NACO taxation Steering Committee that met on Saturday morning, July 16, 1983. He reported that the larger part of the meeting was devoted to revenue sharing. The Steering Committee recommended continuation of the current NACO policy on revenue sharing and opposed any governmental change on the distribution of the money. Commissioner willboit attended other sessions on physical stress, innovative financing and computers in local government. Commissioner Marshall stated that NACO is a large lobbying organization. She attended an affiliate meeting on "Aging Administration". Most of the discussion was about reauthorization of the Older Americans Act. Title III-B and Title III-C, which are portions of the Older Americans Act, may be combined with one allocation. The two programs are separate at the present time now in Orange County with JOCCA administering one portion and The Department on Aging administering the other. Commissioner Marshall further stated that she attended a session on the New Jobs Acts. Commissioner Whitted attended a session in forcing County and State partnerships in Human Services Role of the State Association in the County. This session was chaired by an attorney from Mississippi who travels the country suing State and Federal governments on behalf of local government in 2 examples of success they had with the State Association of County Commissioners taking the lead. Commissioner Whitted attended sessions on Children Services and Economic Development and received some good ideas on what the Economic Development Commission can do. Former Vice-President Mondale addressed the convention on Sunday night; Martin Feldstein, Chairman of the President's Economic Advisory Committee spoke on Monday morning; Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Transportation spoke on Tuesday morning and Sandra Smolsy, NACO President also spoke on Tuesday morning. Commissioner Wbitted said the sessions were very timely, productive and worthwhile. E. BOARD oMISI0F8 1. Madj.figatIDo- of Special oze-EkriritzMdsbeZY_8irg»rtzEola±iouatino of Public Hearing to receive Planning Board's Recommendation Susan Smith made the presentation. A request to delete or modify four (4) conditions placed on the approval of the Class A Special Use Permit granted to Buck Mountain Development for a general aviation airport was received. The developer is requesting approval of a 3800' runway with 500' safety-overrun on the south end and a 700' safety overrun on the north end. In addition, they request that condition 03 be modified to include a 1000` long approach-departure zone. The applicant has provided a specific list of uses which might take place in the Free Base Operator and maintenance hangers which are for the maintenance of aircraft and operation of the airport. Condition #3 which the developers requested to have deleted is the requirement for a fire access road from the airport property and Teer Road. The limit placed on training flights in Condition 47 is also requested to be deleted. At attorney Gledhill's cecommeudatiou" the Board accepted the Minutes of the Planning Board as their recommendation as follows: It has been the County's policy not to take a direct interest in the development of airport facilities either through specific regulations such as airport hazard zoning or through construction of a public facility. It has assumed the role of "permitting authority" establishing through the special use permit procedure necessary safeguards to secure the public health, safety and welfare. The Board needs to carefully review the evidence submitted to determine if an identifiable health,the airport as proposed represents , oafety and welfare problem and if the conditions imposed on the special use permit, as approved, address the problem. Buck Mountain Development Corporation submits that deletion or modification of the conditions would not remove the safeguards necessary to secure the public health, safety and welfare. The Board should consider this matter to determine if deletion or modification of the conditions impose significant and identifiable threats to the public health, safety and welfare and, if so, whether the conditions imposed represent reasonable solutions which satisfy the specific standards that must be met for issuance of the permit. The Planning Board made the following recommendations on July 18, 1983: (a) That the request of the applicant be denied and that the applicant be required to have control of the entire approach zone at each end of the runway, namely 5000 feet measured from a point 200 feet from the end of the runway. This zone is to be 500 feet wide at the point closest to the runway and is to flare to a width of 2000 feet at the end of the zone as shown in the diagram included with the original permit. The Planning Board further recommends strongly that the applicant be rpouired to aocuize by purchase or by easement the triangular piece of the 485 3 clear zone which encroaches on the land of Mr. E.J. crawfozd, A shift in the axis of the runway might be possible to avoid this triangular piece of land, but in that case a new drawing of the airport runway should be submitted to the Planning Board to determine whether other problems might be produced by such shift. The motion carried by a 6:2 vote. (b) The Planning Board considered a motion on denial of the request to delete Condition #7 regarding a 50% limit on training operations. The motion ended in a tie vote 4:4. (c) The Planning Board recommends that the applicant's request for deletion of the requirement for the access road to Teer Road be denied. It has been stated clearly and convincingly by the Chief of the Orange Grove Fire Company that the access road is necessary for the fire company to be able to respond with minimum delay^ to fires at the airport. Therefore, this access road or an equivalent one to Meadowcrest Road should be required. The vote was unanimous. (d) The Planning Board recommends that the applicant's request for permission to have accessory uses at the airport be specifically limited to the following uses which are clearly accessory to the primary function of the airport: lounge, maintenance shop, pilot ready room, flight training area, parts sales and service, radio sales and service, plan room, restrooms, vending machine area, locker rooms, aircraft sales offices, offices for airport manager and staff. The Planning Board recommends that the following services be specifically denied: concession area, car rental office, exhibition area, ticket sales and information for sports and cultural events, real estate welcome area, branch banking area, standard holdover area, hospitality zonm. The Planning Department staff concurs with recommendations (c) and (d) . The Planning Staff recommends a modification of Condition #7 to stipulate that flight training operations (takeoff/landing) are limited to a number per month equal to three (3) times the average number of aircraft based at the airport during a given month. The constant is derived from the 3-6 flights/month for based aircraft typical for Horace Williams Airport and projected in Midway Airport traffic generation data and assumes that one-half of the maximum expected flights per month per based aircraft will be of a training operation type. This would mean that flight training operations would be limited as follows, according to the proposed phasing: Phase %rzlnio8 Vperatiux • *°- z 87 361 522 z� 96 288 576 93 279 558 Total 276 828 1,656 The actual number of flight training operations would vary though depending on the number of based aircraft. The Planning staff also recommends that Condition #2, approach-departure zone, be modified to reflect the need to control naturally occurring obstacles in the zone and be reduced to 2000 feet in length, beginning 200 feet beyond the ends of the runway, based on the possible intrusion of a 100 foot tree into 49C 4 approach-departure surface would be controlled by Section 8.8.17 Radio-and Television Transmitting and Receiving Towers, and Elevated Water Storage Tanks (Class B Special Use) of the Zoning Ordinance. The 100 foot tree height is suggested based on evidence presented at the public hearing that loblolly, long leaf and short leaf pines, typical of tall trees in this area, will generally reach a maximum height of 100 feet. Duke University School of Forestry staff is in agreement with this information noting that it assumes trees of 80-100 years of age and good site cooditiouo, Richard E. Whitted swore in Planning Board Chairman Logan Irvin who amplified Planning Board recommendations and answered questions on the projected length of the free zone. Richard E. Whitted adjourned Public Hearing. Commissioner Walker moved and Commissioner Lloyd seconded the motion that the applicant be required to have a 3800 foot runway and provide a 1200 foot clear zone at either end of the runway. VOTE: Ayes, 3; Noes, 2 (Whitted and Marshall) Commissioner Walker moved and Commissioner Lloyd seconded the motion to delete the requirement of 50% training flight limit. VOTE: Ayes, 2; Noes, 3 (Whitted, willboit and Marshall) . Commissioner Willhoit moved and Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion that the applicant be required to provide access to Peer Road for fire protection purposes utilizing Meadowcrest Road or one of the alternative roads as shown on the map displayed by the Planning Staff and on file in the Planning oepectmeot, VOTE: Unanimous. Commissioner Walker moved and Commissioner Lloyd seconded the Planning Board recommendation that the applicant be allowed to have the following accessory uses: lounge, maintenance shop, pilot ready room, flight training area, parts sales and service, aircraft radio sales and service, flight plan room, restrooms, vending machine area, locker rooms, aircraft sales offices, and a concession acea offices for airport manager and staff, o . vnro; Ayes, 3; Noes, 2 (Whitted and Marshall) . 2. This xap Freeland mpzooin_:'_'-�=J—tp--B�� : Marvin Collins made presentation. After discussion and questions centering on density, buffers and recreation space, Commissioner milIboii moved to refer this zoning back to the Planning Board to consider further the traffic pattern and recreation space. Commissioner Whitted moved the motion out of order for a rezoning. Commissioner Walker moved, Commissioner Marshall seconded approval of rezoning 35.11 acres of land owned by James Rae Freeland from R-1 to R-5. Ayes 5. 3. ayibe_11,-Bowslao_-z-Ir_elimduaLy_-Elat : Commissioner Walker moved, Commissioner Lloyd seconded approval of the Preliminary Plan for the property of Clyde H. Bowden, Phase III. VOTE: Ayes 5. After a break, Commissioner Whitted rearranged the Agenda, providing that after E-4, the Board would consider E-8, n-9 and E-20. 4. &ddi±ioo-_uf---JoPAD__Dak.S--',Subdivision Roads _to State_-ELaizluuined Secondary Roads System : Commissioner Whitted moved, Commissioner Walker seconded approval of the petition from North Carolina Department of Trans- portation for approval of the addition of Lonnie Drive, Jaspers Lane and Luther Drive in Joppa Oaks subdivision to the state-maintained Secondary Road System. VOTE: Ayes 5, 8, Consortium Cunti_@v± aod_ResnIntioo - _jab Tra' " ' o~ ^' »' ' °_ALt (JrPA) : Bill Purcell and Beverly Whitehead were available to answer ""aq+i""A' Commissioner Whitted and Ken Thompson had been authorized by the 5 Board to negotiate a consortium agreement for JTPA. Commissioner Whitted moved and Commissioner Walker seconded the approval of the contract with the counties of Durham and Chatham and the City of Durham to form the Central Piedmont Employment and Training Service Delivery Area (SDA) to carry out the purposes of the Job Training Partnership Act, planning and operation of an employment and training program within the SDA, subject to approval by the County Attorney, and authorizing the chair to sign the resolution which designates one of its members as "Chief Elected Official" and vesting in this member signatory authority. Ayes 5. 9. 8ppoiojmento tp-ErlYinx__Izu]D_Ztzy-Couocil - Job_ n±kixing Partnership Act (JTPA) The Board discussed nominations submitted by organizations within the County and the appointment of five (5) Orange County representatives to a Council to set policy fo and oversee employment and training programs established under the Federal Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) . Two appointments from the private sector, one from vocational rehabilitation agencies and from each school system. Commissioner Marshall moved, Commissioner Whitted seconded the appointment of Ed Caldwell for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools, oan Lunsford for the Orange County Schools and Michael Robb from vocational rehabilitation. VOTE: Ayes 5. Much dissatisfaction and frustration was expressed on the private sector appointments and the general make up of the PIC leaving an inadequate representation of community organizations and unbalanced representation of citizens. Commissioner Whitted moved appointment of Mildred Council; Commissioner Marshall moved appointment of Debbie Davis and Commissioner Lloyd moved appointment of Mike Kirby. Mildred Council and Debbie Davis were appointed with Mike Kirby as alternate if Debbie Davis was not accepted. 3 votes Council; 3 votes Davis, 2 votes Kirby. E.20. Efleod-ZgWur Lin The Town of Hillsborough has informed the County that the proposed agreement (see pages ___ for copy of proposed agreement) was not auceptabIo. The town thought the secondary agreement with the school board would be cancelled. The Town would contribute up to u27,000 and additional labor and equipment costs should be reimbursed by the County or the Board of Education; the County will recover its costs from $200.00 tap on fees. Among the items of lengthy discussion, Commissioner Whitted stated that Assistant Manager Laws should inform Superintendent Dan Lunsford that the county would appropriate money to reset the tank as an interim measure so that the school might open. 5. C2dAz__GIzoue__11111t.i.PuzPxxaP Center /'eDsa Mzeenentsu. Commissioner Marshall moved, and Commissioner Whitted seconded approval for renewing leases with Wake Opportunities, Inc. and Joint Orange Community Action Agency, Inc., (JOCCA) for use of space at Cedar Grove Multipurpose Center and to amend the existing lease with Cedar Grove Day Care Center to include the following modifications: 1) . Kitgbeu_L_Iiuiog-Doom Privileges: These documents would allow all tenants use of the kitchen area, but under regulations and schedules establish- ed by the County. 2) . Cuuoty_-aqeot; To avoid confusion as to whom the tenants should contact in matters relating to the Center, the Director of Recreation and Parks or his designee has been named the County's agent. 3) . 52»Aze-FoPlage; The new leases reflect changes in space allocation that have occurred over the past year. 4> . Termioa±iDo-Dnte: The lease renewal agreements will run until June 492 6 on September 30, 1983. The complete documents are available for review in the Clerk to the Board of Commissioner's office. All documents have been signed by the heads of the respective agencies involved. Vote: Unanimous. 6. 2uojznml_-Ccntzo] Vphicle-_J1.1zLbasB__-_-Stxtm-Cozdz'actv Commissioner Walker moved, Commissioner Lloyd seconded approval to purchase the 1964 animal control vehicle through State of North Carolina Purchasing and Contract procedures. Vote: Unanimous. 7. Property oi5I0aa] Procedure: Mark Rees, Director of Purchasing and Central Services presented a resolution authorizing him to dispose of personal property, with the exception of vehicles valued at less than five hundred dollars, ($500.00) . Commissioner Whitted requested further clarification on the procedure and criteria 5or setting the value of property. 10. Btreet Impuuovcnnnt.5--l�urtrmc±.:__vpzthero-_Fulzviex-Cbwgp Ozda.r: Commissioner Whitted moved, Commissioner Walker seconded approval of a change order for the Community Development Street zmpcovemeota, During street improvement activities, four unforseen construction items were added to the contract - (1) connection of residential water drain line to street drainage system, (2) installation of additional driveway pipes, (3) connection of two concrete driveways to new paved street, and (4) regrading of shoulders and side ditches as a result of power pole relocations. All changes were reviewed and approved by The John McAdams Company, consulting engineers. Total cost of change order s580,00. Vote: Unanimous. 11. Deleted 12, Deleted 13, Water. Sewer '.aod storIy___�.gzasunentl' Commissioner Lloyd moved, Commissioner Whitted seconded approval of the agreement with The John R. McAdams Company for a water/sewer extension and reservoir development study of Cheeks Township contingent upon an okay from Geoff Gledhill that the agreement is in good order, Vote: Unanimous. 14. ° ' - w e-=_SmzoosL-Rexuling: Commissioner Walker moved, and Commissioner Whitted seconded the approval of the Noise Ordinance to become effective on August 15, 1983. VOTE: Unanimous. 16. Ad Boo-_Bchool--CDP.itmI-_Need.s-Taab-_Fozeel, County Manager, Ken Thompson, presented for consideration the creation of a task force to examine the capital needs of The Orange County and Chapel Hill/carcb*co School system and recommend financial needs. Further clarification on the number of people on this task force and the time frame to work out these needs will be presented at the August 16, 1983 meeting. 17. ' ° ' ' v ~' "- "co_aoaszdmadL' (See page for a copy of this Ordinance) Commissioner Walker moved, commimoonez Lloyd seconded approval of the 1980-81 Project Ordinance amendment to close out the fiscal year 1980 Community Development Block Grant per BUD request. Vote: Unanimous. 18. Budget Awmodmont` Commissioner Marshall moved, Commissioner Whitted seconded approval of the following budget amendment to budget the Orange County Housing Authority for the remainder of the calendar year 1983: Housing Authority: Appropriation: Section 8 o500,000 Moderate Rehab 170,000 a coe: Section 8 Grant 500'000 Moderate Rehab Grant 170,000 4.q:: 7 Vote: Unanimous. 19. EmagaL_LmandraPni-_:. Commissioner Walker moved, Commissioner Lloyd seconded approval of the budget amendment as follows for additional funds to purchase a used wrecker to be used by the motor pool. Capital Projects Fund: Appropriation: Capital $(1,500) Source: Transfer To/From General Fund (1,500) General Fund: Appropriation: Public Works 1,500 Source: Transfer from Capital Projects Fund 1,500 Vote: Unanimous 15. Sabi T.V County Manager Thompson presented for consideration of the Board a request from Alert Cable TV for amendment of its preexisting permitted use franchise to allow it to extend its services beyond that prescribed. Commissioner Wilihoit indicated that the County does have the authority to grant franchises for cable TV. It was the consensus of the Board that standards be developed for the County to follow when awarding franchises. At a minimum the standards will be the same as those adopted two years ago. With no further business to come before the Board, by consensus, the meeting was adjourned. Richard E. Whitted, Chair APPROVED 4/17/84 .:,-„;',4- •.,,..- ..o::.,....- --41v,7'. .,:.:::,-".'':'''-,L-^.^:''''':'.'■':'":''.i.4' '".1;t.r,;::14.2,1.VI,V,: ;'6.4.4te."i'.ki-81**4i:;1'\''Lii:::7C.''''CI'' ;■-;:te1/4::-7,`=:,;: , : -1'17--1.'':';'"':•tv1-';.M';j*:•g ‘''' 4''''-..-740,D",\-43-r't-..".--,\Ty:,r:: ':2,-,'::,,7.. .-:?..1 -,:.---. ---X7-...oe t,..,.,.:.:IE:i .c.,,;i: -'-'''''''-''77'':-- - .-7,1),.• qc.--;t-'9:. -.'.7:t..T.;'.:.71='...104.' 1:...;";,-;.'. ".•,`I'r. r•. LILL_ 1" ..7.7:1..t*'; A:74.7::''':' ,F--Af-i:1,!;41.%7..,77-:-L.pii.,::' :,:■;`7q..,4, ... i," • .7:..;:1,.;',.:i •. : ...'N.,•_:.,. ',' ' • -.:.-,"4-gf ,'' ' PLANNING BOARD' ' Act.lizzi ' r Itemao.i: JE ACTiON AGEM ril::,1 reSTP\-Cr 111:XING EWEZ Adjiu.S.1_11989 - . . . , . . . . Subject: Modification of Class A, Special Use Permit for a Genera/ Aviation Airport for Buck Mountain Development Company I . . ___-_ [ Public Hearing: yes 1 [ ElEt?att,717,5n.t: Plannibg . _...... . . • Attachment(s): SUP Modification Request; Lbcatiou—r-- M4ii:5/23/83 4:6/27/.83,,O.R... MiAutes;7/18/83 ?re. InfOnvat.ion. Contact: Susan. Smith ' • Minute S; DiScushiokhandbut i)O-Sented by irvir ; , AssOe;;=:10/15/82 , Ph "Ntnber: 7-32-814 Ext. 349 zc' /1-47:8,3-1 =fram-Vel-oquin. Letter tq Fted Hazard;11/h/g3 Ltt. to Ricbaid. Whi'tted; _5/23/a.3. Istt-.,Lttom ',Oeoffrey Oledhill; , _ . . ... .- . -., ... Michrak Air".Port Traffice-hei.'htion , . . • PURPOSE: To consideriapp-tovaLlof a request to delete or. mOdify.„Jour (k.) - _ conditions placed on the approval of the Class A Special Use Permit granted to Buck Mountain Development for a general aviation airport. I , NEED: The September 7, 1982 approval of the proposed Midway Airport by the' Board of 1 Commissioners contained four (4) conditions which Buck Mountain Development would like, t6 have deleted or modified. The letter, dated 1-28-83, from Mr. John Northen, attorney for the developers, contains the response of the applicant tolthe conditions imposed on the approval of the Special Use Permit. Four of the conditions were the subject of the public hearing. The developer is requesting approval of a,3800' runway with'500' safetyoverrun on.the south end and a 700' safety overrun on the north end. In addition, they request that condition #2 be modified to include a 1000' long approach-departure zone. The applicant has provided a specific list of uses which might take place in the Free Base Ope:Itator and maintenance hangars and which they state are for the maintenance" of aircraft and operation of the airport. Condition #3 which the developers wish to have deleted is the requirement for a fire access road from the airport property and Teer Road. The limit placed on training flights in Condition #7 is also requested to be deleted. ' I . I I I . , ?ACT; The requested change to Condition #2 will probably require that Orange County change its poition concerning development of general aviation airports. Up' to this point; Orange County's role has been that of a perthitting agency; reviewing and approving plans for the development of public/private airports. The County has not attempted to assist such developments through "hazard' zoning to control noise, structure height, etc. , nor has it attempted the acquisition oil development- of a public airport. It has provided a review function rather than intervening directly in such a development. One implicatioin of modifying Condition #2 might be to increase pressure on the County to assume a more active role in airport development or in providing protection to and protection from an airport. Specifically, a reduction in the approach-departure zone would leave the County with two alternatives: . „ _ „ ; .: 7.-5,, .rr,f-'1,!"._ ,.i,::f.'`.'l.t.: , :,: 4:: ' ;':' ' ''''.--:`::';'. : 7: !,*;!,;.,-,..-„,..- --..-%.; ', --Y,-:-_ -"A''':: :.!: •.- ',:- ......'1- - ''. * ;-- . --, _.,- oi -‘-.a......-7.i.-47;:':- .7 - - .-,-.:.‘,'--• .,..• .•,-,- The develoier has provided 4 list of possible uses within the F.B.O. and maintenance hangars in a letter dated April 14, 1983. Some of --- - these uses appear to be accessory uses to the operation of an airport, other uses lappear to go beyond the usual definition of an accessory use. Subsequently, for the June 27, 1983 continuation'of the public hearing, the applicaiat proVided a typical hangar-accessory use layout plan. No square footage of area devoted to each use has been provided; although the I estimated total square footage is 16,000 square feet. Referenced uses include lounges,planrobmi „flight training area, parts department, maintenancelshop , radio repair and sales, shop area, restrooms, vending machine area, locker rooms, aircraft sales offices and waiting rooms. Deletion of the fire access road requirement would result in an increased response time for fire protection services. The approved Special Use Permit specified as a condition that a fire access be constructed from Teer Road. ■F,d. Johnson, Volunteer Fire Co. Chief, at the May 23, 1983 public hearing, suggested an alternative access through Meadowcrest Subdivision. The public hearing was continued on June 27, 1983 to receive comments from the applicant regarding obtaining easements through Meadow crest Subdivision. At the June 21, 2983.public hearing John Northen, attorney, indicated no easements through Meadowzrest had yet been obtained and asked the Board to allow these easements to subsequently be obtained as a condition 4f the Special Use Permit. Rowever, should these easements be unobtainable, the applicant wanted the original request to delete the fire access condition to remain. The necessity of such access was, however, greater When I-the original proposal contained the airpark, offices and warehouse facilities. Deletion of the 50% limitation on flight training may inarease the number of "touch and go” passes made to practice landing maneuvers. If this condition is removed there could be an increase in the amount of noise generated by the airport and an increase in the perceived nuisance of the noise. Thereimay also be an increase in the crash potential associated with training flights. 3COMMENDATION: It has been the Copir,Wspolicy not to take a direct interest'in the developme of airport facilities either through specific regulations such as airport hazard zoning or through construction of a public facility. It has assumed the role of "permitting authority", establishing through the special use permit procedure nee( safeguards to secure the public helth, safety and welfare. 1 The Board needs to carefully review the evidence submitted to determine if the airport as proPosed represents an identifiable health, safety and welfare problem and if the conditions imposed on the special use permit, as approved, address the problem. Buck Mountain Development Corporation submits that deletion or modificat of the conditions would not remove the safeguards necessary to secure the public health, safety and welfare. The Board should consider this matter to determine if deletion or modification of the conditions imposed pose significant and identifiab threats to the public health, safety and welfare, and, if so, whether the conditiol imposed represent reasonable solutions Which satisfy the specific standards that must be met for issuance of the permit. The Planning Board made the following recommendations on Jilly 18, 1983: (a) lbat the requestlof the applicant be denied and that the applicant be required to have control of the entire approach zone at each end of the runway, namely 5000 feet measured from a point 200 feet from the end of the runway. This zone is to be 500 feet wide at the point closest to the runway and is to flare to a width of 2000 feet at the end of the zone as shown in the diagram included with the original permit. 1 RI ., (c) The Planning Board recommends that the applicant' s request 1 deletion of the requirement for the access road to Teer Road be denjedL It has been stated clearly and convincingly by the Chief of the Orange Grove Fire Company that the access road is necessary for the fire company to be able to respond with minimum delay to fires at the airport. Therefore , this access road or an equivalent one to Meadowcrest Road should be required I The vote was unanimous . I (d) The Planning Board recommends that the applicant 's request for petaisSion to have accessory uses at the airport be specifically limited to the following uses which are clearly accessory to J the pri r ary function of the airport: lounge maintenance shop pilot ready room flight training area parts sales and service radio sales and service plan room restrooms vending machine area I locker rooms aircraft sales offices offices for airport manager and staff The Planning Board recommends that theifollowing services be specifically denied: I I concession area 1 car rental office exhibition area 1 ticket sales and information for sports and cultural events real estate welcome area branch banking area stranded holdover area hospitality room The Planning Department staff concurs with recommendations (c) and (d) . The Planning Staff recommends a modification of Condition #7 to stipulate that flight training operations (takeoff/landing) are limited to a number per month equal to three (3) times the average number of aircraft based at the airport during a given month. The constant is derived from the 3-6 flights/month/based aircraft typical for Horace Williams Airport and projected in Midway Airport traffic generation data and assumes that one- half of the maximum expected flights per month per based aircraft will be of a training operation type. ! This would1 mean that flight training operations would be limited as follows, according to the proposed phasing: Phase Based Aircraft Training Operations T°tal...2EPE2i2112. 1 87 261 522 II 96 288 576 III I 93 279 558 ,A4 - • • , - • • z,•a"- -4" - ' -" , - • 2. ', 3. 4. MINUTES 5. MAY 23, 1983 6. 7. The Orangle County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, 8. May 23, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. in the Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, 9. Hillsborough, North Carolina. 30. Commissioners present: Richard E. Whitted, Chair, Commissioners Ben Lloyd, 11. Shirley Marshall , Norman Walker and Don Willhoit. 12. Commissioners Whitted announced that this was a Joint Public Hearing with the 13. Orange County Planning Board. He also announced that the Chair of the Planning 14, Board, Logan Irvin, would conduct the Public Hearing, as usual. 15. Planning Bhard members present: Logan Irvin, David Shanklin, John Kizer, 16. Frank Pearson, George Allison, Nancy Laszlo, Tom Bacon, Sharlene Pilkey, Alice 17. Gordon, and Carl Walters. 18. Planning Board member absent: John Wilson. 19. D-1 SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION REQUESI FROM MIDWAY AIRPORT DEVELOPERS 200 Mr. Rick Cannity, Planning Staff, made the presentation on behalf of the 21. Planning Department. Mr. Cannity gave the location and description of the proposed 22. Midway Airport and said that Airports should be Special Use Projects. He further 23. stated there are two major alternative methods local government may employ to 214.. regulate general ;aviation airports: Airport Zoning or Special Use Permits. In 25. applying zoning to areas around a proposed airport, local government attempts to 26. control the types of land use that develop around the facility and especially 27. within the approatch surfaces of the runways. The ordinances also usually control 28. the height of objects that may be constructed or grown within the approach surface. 29. Zoning to controllland use and heights of objects is usually applied in conjunction 30. with public airpolLts. These facilities are ones which are constructed by a 31. governmental agency with some level of Federal funding through the F.A.A. The agency 32. rharn0,4 `,. .. ,7 . .. b . . ,. 4..._. r y�q.. ti' ,nz: v -47:.;.n r't,.wr;;��'.•.b;�.••'k1?:"r i' +,t:.ri^.�r�F-+:.ie�..'�'A..:'-:.T..r.1 ..i,L; '�.w+- ry�• S"•i ' (� e� '' b,�de .�`44- 6.`_' ta�' ice: .J�.ir- ' � �2� ��• *tR r„r/Lt ' te}r �'-..K •-�e 7t -rM . _ '7'�4, a - . 3. i i 4. 1. It appeared Orange County was not in a position to participate financially in a public airport. 5. 1 6, 2. The County did not plan to restrict the development:potential of property owners adjacent to any p y 7. y proposed private airport. 8. 3. Given the above, the construction of a general aviation airport would be a private venture, for the direct profit of the developers. It 9. would .be the responsibility of the developers to meet the requirements for a special use permit and any imposed conditions applied at approval. 10. 11. Mr. Canni y goes on to say one of the important distinctions in the discussion 12. of Midway Airport is the difference between a public and private airport. The FM 13. does not require that private airports meet the standards they have developed for 14. public airports however, Orange County has chosen to require that developers of su 15. airport facilities meet FAA standards. 16. On September 7, 1982, the Orange County Board of Commissioners found that Buck 17. Mountain Development had met the minimum requirements for the issuance of a Class A 18. Special Use Permit, however the Board also felt that several additional conditions 19. should also be imposed in the approval to assure that the development would protect 20, the public health, safety and general welfare. 21. . One of the conditions was: The applicant shall own or control the height of 22. objects in the area at each end of the runway which is known as the approach-departu 23, zone. The appro ch-departure zone begins 200' from the end of the runway and rises 24. at a 20:1 slope to a height of 250' at a distance of 5000'. The zone is 5000' in 25. width at its beginning and 2000' in width at its end. The easement rights negotiate! 26. with each property owner must specify that the developer can control the heights of 27. objects within the approach-departure zone. All easement agreements and other 28. evidence of ownership of the approach-departure zone shall be in form and content 29. approved by the County Attorney. 30. In addition to not being able to quantify the amount of motor vehicle traffic 31. associated with the related uses proposed for the airport, the request to remove the --- .x..57.,--.a AS :7441P: . '''''''-;7.--"'7;:ir 74f- U. :-; 1_,-1,. .g..S-F.':';'-- '.-';'.-6;ti."'";- '7-z:,"7:"'".;',"-w•4-5Wr- ,,, - ' --A:'%;-- ::qic::'-'.',.'; ., -1-1...„,'-, - ..... :::,.r4,,:.,:ir:s.1-4:-;', :is- ',:::,,,.:7if0. 1-,-.]_;- ...., g.;-,,.*:.1.,.:(7-7-: ','=-,,i:,-;:t. ,•:i7: 7-.;`.4-z--72YW'':.';':''.:..+;,s.V4:..,.,-::.-•Ff-,,.-.! ::-,,,o. '7 '.:•.: 2' — n 3. 1 1 4. In conclpsion Mr. Cannity stated that the Planning Staff feels that the S. conditions as they exist, have not changed and therefore staff does not feel it I 6, is necessary Ito modify, amend or delete any of the conditions imposed on the I 7- approval of le Special Use Permit. ' 8. John Kizer, Planning Board Member, asked if the approach-departure zone shoul i 9. be a 34:1 slope or 20:1 slope? He added that Bruce Matthews of the North Carolina 10. Department of liranspoitation, DiVision of Aviation recommends a 20:1 slope. 11. Rick Cannity stated the Planning Staff will check the FM Standards regarding 12. the 34:1 slope mentioned in Harold Robinson's letter dated March 5, 1982.. 13. John Kizer asked how the traffic to the airport would compare to the number 01 1 1)4., operations at the airport? 1 15, Rick Cannity responded, saying the Planning Staff used nationally developed 16, standards in determining traffic to the airport and also information from Bruce 17, Matthews. 18. John North. n, Attorney for developers, said the runway could be shortened by 19. shifting it. He stated that the affected landowners had been contacted for 1 20, discussion of the rights-of-way needed to construct the airport. He continued 2.1. saying FM says we meet their requirements and the County has the power to impose 22. height restrictions through the Airport district, and that it is More reasonable I 23. for the County to control state designated zone. He further stated they have studio 224.. the possibility of fire access road(s) by comparing the original airport proposal 25. to the current airport proposal. 26. Alice Gordbn, Planning Board Member, asked if easements were required for 27, approach-departdre zones? Could developers "get it" (obtain the easements) and 28, what efforts travel been made to obtain the easements? 29. John Northenl responded, saying letters were sent to each property owner along I 1 30. with a copy of the diagram of affected property asking the landowners to contact 31. him to discuss the rights-of-way needed. 1 . Ai. I 3. 4- Alice Gordon asked Mr. Northen if the developers would be willing to use 5. Horace Willi* Airport as a guide for their uses? 6. John Northen responded, saying they do not have that information. Out of the 7. uses that are listed, those listed first are clearly accessory. 8. Alice Gordon asked if they would be small buildings? 9. John Northen: responded, they would be enclosed on the hangars. 10. Alice Gordon: What is the total square footage of the structures? 11. Commission' er Willhoit asked where would they he located? 12, John North len: On the map, FB0 and maintenance hangars. 13. Comnrissior)ler Willhoit asked if the structures were in the third phase? i 14. He added that normally there is an indication of what structure for what use.. 15. John Northen: It will be developed as needed by phase for operation of 16, airport close to Highway 54 first. 17. Alice Gordon: Would you be able to tell which uses, which phase, and what 18. footage for usJ? 19. John Northen: Could do it and submit it - but not off the top of my head. 20. Alice Gordon asked Marvin Collins, Planning Director, if there was any 21. information froin Horace Williams? 22. Marvin Collins: Rick Cannity contacted Horace Williams regarding the proposed 23. uses.and that most of the uses proposed correspond with those at Horace Williams. 214.. Alice Gordoln. indicated she had reviewd accessory uses located at the Horace 25. Williams facility and noted there was a combined pilot ready room/lounge, Carolina 26. Flying Service, maintenance area, vending machine concession area, toilets and 27. training area. There were no large maintenance areas, radio area, concession or 28. courtesy office. 29. John Kizer asked how far are the road entrances from the runway (primary surfac 30. John Northen responded, approximately 550 feet. 31. John Kizer asked if there will be one office for each tenant? ' L ' .. �;3``,. i :.z. v.�• 'e'rr �Y Ie � = .l r 4 .� ��42r' "rl�PLZ ; Y. r F e� ,' �� i�; . � sn�v : -� �'r � + i -.F -.^ :`1 ,� L7rxn; .. , i ti ,.,—.., � , .:4 7.3. -,-L t _ :: ti, - = z...; 2 o 30 4° Logan Irvin asked if inexperienced pilots need safety precautions? 5. John Northen: Yes, designed safely. 6° Logan Irvin : In Harold Robinsons's letter dated March 5, 1982, to Jim Polatt: 7• he recommended a 34:1 slope for the approach zone. He also asked what is the 8• distance from end of the runway. Logan Iry In : What is the distance from the end of the I runway to a pine tree 10• growing at a he i ght of 150' within the approach-departure zone. 11° John Northlen accepted the commonly referenced 20:1 slope for the approach 12. departure zone. 13. Logan Irvin continued his questioning of Northen asking him to make use of 14.• the submitted data to determine the area into which a tree might intrude. 15° Northers responded that the intrusions point would depend on the terrain at 16, the site. 17° Irvin continued asking how the developer would propose to control natural 18. obstructions intruding into the approach-departure zone. 19. Northen responded that the developer had F proposed in the submitted modification 20„ request the area that could be controlled. He added that the FM and DOT indicated 21• that the proposal met their criteria. 22. John Drake indicated their were long range consequences for the future of �3• airport proposal� in Orange County. The Assistant of Airport. Planning read 24. a prepared statem lent which was contained in the Board of Commissioners packet. 25. He indicated that the AHEC program would not move a substantial number of miles e 26. from Horace Williams and added that the Planning Department had misled the 27., Board of Commissioners. He continued that there was no comparable airport 28• with similar restrictions as proposed here and that, though listed in the 29• FAA circular, the il suggested approach-departure, zone was not a practice and 30. that merely natural obstructions were limited. With regard to the access road, 31'• Drake indicated ohtainina the rnart ton,.lrJ , - . _ 2. 3. 4- John Kizer asked where Drake resided specifically inquiring if he lived in S. the approach-departure zone. Drake responded he did not live in the zone. 6. Jule Andresen, representative of Citizens for Better Airport Planning, 7. clarified thatIUNC has indicated it would transfer operations if an alternative 8. airport was proposed within reasonable commuting distance and given that the long , 9. range planning,report for the University says that the University would feel 10. obligated to re move operations from Horace Williams if an alternative airport was 11. built. He cited the Chancellor's letter regarding removal of operations if a 12. suitable airport was built by 1989. She added that Horace Williams Airport was 13. zoned non-confring in 1975 and that the schools were located there with the 14. understanding that the airport would soon be closed. She noted that she had full 15. confidence in the Board to .keep development away from rural areas,. Andresen also 16. expressed concern that actions on this proposal may set a precedent for later 17. airport proposals, continuing that if the County insists on these requirement 18. being met then the County should decide to fund a public airport. 19. Ed Johnson, president of Orange County Volunteer Fire Company, reviewed comment 20. made at the February, 1982 public hearing and in the June 24, 1982 letter on the 21. revised airport proposal. Johnson addressed access concerns for fire protection, 22. noting that the 'Teer Road access would cut the department's response time in half. 23. He cited his letter of May 11 , 1983, which followed a telephone call from Peloquin 24. Associates and al letter from Rick Cannity, noting that he had not received any 25, further information on the access requirement and reserved the right to comment 26, at a later date On changes proposed. He displayed a map showing possible access 27. roads from the fire station to the site, noting that the leer Road access would 28. reduce the distance from 4.3 miles to 2.7 miles. He also suggested an alternative 29. route through Meadowcrest development. He explained that the Cane Creek area was 30. all within an insurance rated district and within one tax district and , conse- 31. quently, had low ,rates. He continued that the department was receiving 3-4 more 44V. -1" r ato (A 3. 1 Mr. Johnson continued to address the proposal but as a private citizen. He 5. noted the goals and objectives in the adopted Land Use Plan which were proposed 6. and approved b; the Bingham Township Advisory Council. He particularly stressed 7. the need to preserve the agricultural and rural character of Bingham Township. 8. He inquired if the minutes of the last public hearing could be included in 9. these proceedings. 10. Commissionler Whitted responded they could not as they were not germane to the 31. proposal. 12. Geoffrey Gledhill : An application for modification incorporates all materials 13.- previously submitted as evidence and that if it is considered applicable to the 14. discussion it can be considered evidence. 15. Ed Johnsonkndicated he had consulted a tree book on the average heights of 16. trees common tokhe area. Although he did not survey actual tree heights around 17, the site, the terrain slopes downward off the southern end and is flat and wooded 18. at the northern end. He displayed a drawing showing the relationship between 19. the height of a tree and the approach departure slope. Given a 100' tall tree, 20. Johnson maintained the area out 2000' must be controlled for the height of objects. 21. Johnson cited the letter from the Manager to Bruce Matthews dated February 19, 22. 1982, stating "objective. . if public takeover is necessary . . . federal funds 23. for the purpose.L He also cited a January 26, 1982 letter from Bruce Matthews 24. regarding requirements in which he advises the more stringent requirements in case 25, of federal funding or a conversion to instrument approach. He also cited the 26. March 5, 1982 letter from Howard Robinson. 27. Johnson continued citing a letter from George Warren, FAA Airport District 28. Office, Georgia, dated December 11 , 1981 in which Warren indicates that the plans 29, submitted were agreeable but that the comments expire in 1982 if the airport has 30. not been constructed by that time. A letter from Leon Harrison dated November 20, 32 . 19Rn, -wo-,V.:z;,;ggZsatr.ft-t*x.-44;-A • .Fire;,-54,1145*,t--,14: e7f:- - • *4'...4:4' ':'•`‘.'""- . ""; gPAtt..a• _ sv 4%1-, t,01, .r" • '7 : - ! 2 • 0 1 1 3. Gordon asked if fire services can be provided at an adequate level via 5. NC 54 and if le road miles involved exceed four miles. 6. Ed Johnson: No, the department could send one tanker and call for mutual 7. aid. If Teer load access can be used it permits the dispatch of more than one 8. piece of equipMent and mutual aid as well. 9. Alice Gordon inquired if the request for fire access cannot be granted must 10. the request for modification be denied. Rick Cannity responded that the Board 11. of Commissioners must decide if the information supplied indicates that adequate 12. fire protection, is available. Gordon asked Johnson if the fire access recommended 13 was necessary for the permit to be granted.. Johnson replied that it was a matter 114.. of the degree of protection desired and that the Teer Road Access would provide 15. better protection. 16. Commissioner Willhoit inquired about the Meadowcrest access. Johnson 17. indicated it would come off of Teer Road and extend 1/10 of a mile. 18. ComMissioner Whitted asked if it was an all weather road. Johnson did not 19. know. 20. CommissionOr Willhoit indicated based on the evidence, a fire access longer 21. than four miles 'might not enjoy a lower rating for fire insurance. 22. Ed Johnson indicated that Horace Williams does not allow touch and go 23. landings for safety and noise reasons and that there also was a risk of accidents 24. with these operations, especially with a shortened runway. 25. Commissione I r Willhoit asked if any additional equipment would be needed if 26. the only fire access was via NC 54. Ed Johnson indicated probably yes, but 27, he would have to check with the Board of Directors. He also indicated that 28. the Department had already negotiated with the developer regarding water avail- 29. ability. He continued indicating that two small ponds are used for water purposes 30, for fire protectiion. 31. Maurice Henkplc nv-mnri. , ' 4. W,642,;f".•.e•Fy4,,‘L*,',f" A:40 "as,- " P.W:154‘ ■IY11---,r1; ;•„:-.;'fr. :7:' ' •:" :•'7451::.'' • ' 2. - 012 3. 4. Dan Edelman, Court resident, reviewed a display indicating the intrusion of 5. a tree into the 20:1 slope of the approach-departure zone. He felt the 6. approach-departure zone could be reduced only to a minimum 2200 feet which 7. would allow for a tree height of 110 feet. Edelman also noted that the actual 8. conditions of the site revealed a wall of trees at the north end of the proposed 9. runway in which a tree 65 feet in height intruded the approach-departure surface 10. for 15 feet. 1 11. Joseph Suggs, resident of Bingham Township, discussed the alignment of the 12. runway with prevailing winds. He presented information from the Greensboro 13. airport which indicated a 6.3-9.2 miles per hour NE/SW wind. He cautioned 1 14„. that the smaller the airplape„the more affected it was by wind, especially 15. crosswind. Suggs displayed a Wind Vector diagram, indicating that the most 16. desirable alignment was 95% with the most wind coverage and the least cross- 17, wind component. Suggs inquired if wind velocity and crosswind component had 18. been determined for the site. 19. Stanley Bennett, resident of Chapel Hill Township, felt that the 5000 foot 20. runway at a 20:1 angle was the most safe specified angle of approach. He also 21, felt that failure of the airport due to economic limitations was very real. 22. Pat Crawford, citizen of Bingham Township, felt a 2000 foot approach-departure 23. slope was preferred and would allow control of naturally growing objects. 24. Crawford indicated that the condition on the Special Use Permit and the 25. special use permit requirement itself placed the burden of minimizing conflicting 26. land uses on the applicant, rather than on an airport district or the exercise 27„ of eminent domain by the County. She referenced documentation which indicated 28. that the approached were critical areas deserving maximum protection and safety. 29. She noted that the proposal had the potential to be five times larger than 30. Horace Williams b6ed on projected aircraft. She also felt the County had 31. the duty to redu4 inherent conflicts and to not deny thp - =4- . 2 • 2. qi 773,-; Noel Grati! Brown expressed concern regarding traffic conditions along NC 54. • Planning Board member Gordon asked what traffic conditions concerned her and Brown 6. responded traffic coming west from Alamance County. 7. Barbara Pqge, representative of the Orange County Democratic Party, read a 8. resolution approved by the Party on April 30, 1983, expressing opposition to the 9• modification of the conditions imposed on the Special Use Permit. 10. Ray Kirby,' citizen of Bingham Township, asked if runoff controls had been 11. addressed and expressed d concern with the impact on the value of the adjacent lands.. 12. Roger Smith asked if the Horace Williams problem justifies the removal of 13. the conditions raced on the Midway Airport Special Use Permit and answered his 14.. own question with a negative response. 15. John Northen, attorney, indicated that the developer would provide information 1 16. on the proposed accessory uses and the possible fire access through Meadowcrest. 17. Commissioner Whitted indicated that the additional information and evidence 1,8. would be received at a continuation of the public hearing at a later date. 19. Pat Crawfor Id, Bingham Township resident, asked if the additional evidence 20. would be availab le for public comment. 21. Whitted answered affirmatively and indicated that the continuation of the 22, public hearing would be on June 27, 1983. 23. Commissioner Lloyd moved approval of the continuation on June 27, 1983, and 24. Commissioner Whitted seconded the motion. Motion carried. 25. 26, 27. 28. 29, 30. 31. 01 4 ,• JOINT PUBLIC BEARING June 27, 1983 D r 14 BOARD OF comy COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Kizer, Frank Pearson, Sharlene Pilkey, Dr. ALL N1EERS PRESENT Logan Irvin, Tan Bacon (late), NancrLaszlo (late), Carl Walters (arrived after considera- tion of Midway Airport) AGENDA TIEM D: Rezoning James Ray Freeland Due to the Lack of a Planing Board quart= consideration of the item was delayed until other Board members arrived. AGENDA TIMM E. Modificatiaa of a Class A Special Use Permit - Midday Airport (Continuation of Public Hearing) John Northern, attorney for the developer, presented information on the location of the maintenance hangars and the proposed uses to be contained within. Northern indicat the possibility of a fire access road through Meadowcrest and Headwater Subdivisions to substitute for the Teer Road fire access road, but added that the easements have not been obtained. Northern continued that if easements through Meadowcrest could not be obtained, the applicant would like the request to delete the condition regarding a fire access off Terr Road to stand. Northern noted that no evidence could be presented at this time regarding legal right-of-wa3 CommdIssioner Witted responded that the evidence could not be accepted after the close of the public hearing. Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney, indicated the Board could impose a cotidition that the required easements be obtained. Northern responded that the applicant would try to obtain the easement, but,if unobtainable, desired the request to delete the condition re- garding flre access to be considered. Planning Board member Pilkey inquired about the width of the right-of- way and if the travelway of the alternate fire access through Meadow- crestiis paved. Planning Department staff responded Vend unpaved. Pilkey inquired what property owners would be involved. Northern questit the accuracy of displayed ar.roqq prin.'• 1,4- Zr-AN .-"7•Irfs 1:24I1LPtta Kizer questioned the impact of accessory uses and indicated the Planning Board did not have copies of the hangar accessory uses Oiagram to speak to. Kizer asked the size of the proposed han- gars. Susan Smith of the Planning Staff indicated the approxi- tate overall size of the hangar is 16,000 square feet. Kizer agcedhour many hangars would be located on the site. Northern responded three (3) hangars. Kizer inquired if the second_floor would contain aimi1Ar uses. Northern answered possibly, but that the issue was the type of uses, not their location. Kizer asked if a branch banking facility was included. Northern respon- ded if the Board of Commissioners considered it an accessory use. Kizer felt the accessory use issue was critical as there is a big difference between a use incidental to an airport and a Ilarge use not usually associated with a small airport. There were no audience comments. Chair Uhitted asked if the Board wished to adjourn the public hearin until August 1, 1983 to receive the Planning Board recommendation. NOTION; drinissioner moved adjournment, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd. The vote was in favor 5:0. The Board continued the regular meeting. Following a break at 8 40 and the arrival 'of Carl Walters, the necessary Planning Board member to make a quorum, the Board reconvened the Joint Public Hearing to discuss Agenda Item D Rezoning - James Rae Freeland. Marvin Collins, Planning Director,made the following presentation: Mr. James Rae Freeland is requesting that the zoning be changed an 35.11 acres of property located south of 1-85 on the west side of N.C. Highway 86. The property is shown as a portion of lot 4 on Tax Map 45 - Hillsborough Township. The present zoning is Rural Residential (R-1) which would allow one (1) resider tial dwelling unit per acre. The requested zoning is High Intensity Residential (R-5) which would allow un t five (5) dwelling units per acre with a minimum lot size recuirement of 7.)500 square feet. Development of the tract at such densities could result in as many as 163 lot Property to the north is zoned R-1 Residential and contains scattered _. . all .. The Land Use Plan designation for the property was changed on March 7, 1983 f3 20-Year Transition and Rural Residential to 10-Year Transition. The change was ma in conjunction with a rezoning request for an R-4 designation on an adjacent 10=a= tract to the south presently called Wildwood Phase I. The intent of the R-5 district is to provide locations for high intensity resi dential developme 7 t and supporting recreational, community, service or educational uses in areas where the full range of urban services are available. It is further intended that the R-5 district be used to promote economically- mixed housing and to contribute to the provision of a range of housing types for lo; income households. The Zoning Ordinance states that this district will usually be applied where ti following conditions exist: (1) The area s designated by the adopted Land Use Plan as a Transition Area wtich can Ireasonably be annexed by a municipality in the ensuing 10-20 years. ! ' (2) Water and sewer lines should exist at the site or r114-9:*\"r'r T installatiOn as part of the development process. L---7 .-- r (3) Vehicular access must consist of direct access to a street classified as either arterial or collector as designated by the adopted Land Use !,- Plan. (4) The full range of urban services exist or are proposed at the time Of the development including fire, police, recreation, education, commercial and ; cultural.activities_ As indicated previously, the property in question has been designated as 10- ' Year Transition on the Land Use Plan by action of the County Commissioners in march. 1 CiA 1 Tr?) trig f■_..er L4 , .• -0,A Water and sewer lines are being extended to serve the property as part of the development of an adjacent 10-acre tract to the south. These lines would be connec to Town of Hillsborough water and sewer systems. Police and fire protection would be provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Depaitment and theL Orange Rural Fire. District respectively. One auestion to be resolved is the ability of the existing school system to provide adequate educational space for new children. A redistricting plan for the elementary schools has been completed and Grady-Brown Elementary appears capable of handling aoproximately 30 additional students. Stanback Middle School has one (1) vacant class (25 pupils) , but Stanford Jr. sigh and Orange Sr. High are already at capacity. Development of the property in question at R-5 densities cm/d result in as many as 163 new students (1 student per lot) . If apportioned to each school, Grady-Brown Elementary, Stanford Jr. Right and OZange Sr. High would re. ire sub- division of larger classrooms into smaller onesor, more likely, additi / class- room trailers. One additional factor which comes into play on this reauest is the LIT/ or Land Use Intensity System. This system applies to all Planned bevel° nt and all other projects located in R5, R-8 and R-13 zoning districts. It applies in the latter situationsbecause of the high-density nature of such projects and sets standards for open space, recreation, liveability, and building spacing. Prel " "- nary indications are that the requested rezoning and subspm”=„4. rrrr 0.18 Jolii McAdams, iionsulting developt made a presentation on the ove Tr0-21.. 0 - lot and reviewed sewer and water services to the area from the Town of Rilldbarough's system. Commissioner Wilihoit asked ifapump station was required McAdams -responded that two pump stations TAEre involved,one on site,and one north of the site with a force main requiv to connect onto the existing Hillsborough system. He con- timed that the expected construction completion date is mid-July. Cammixierallhoit noted the County helped to purchase the existing line on US 70A partly as justifir!Arion for attracting future industry. Commissioner Willhoit asked if the buffer was missing along N.C. 86. McAdams responded he was observing aldwood Phase I. WUThoit asked if abetter buffer was planned for Phase II. McAdams responded he contemplated a similar buffer. Commissioner. Willhoit inquired, about access to N.C. 86. McAdams responded access would be through Taldwood Phases I and II and no lots would access directly onto N.C. 86. CammissionerWillhoit inquired about recreational facilitie Marvin Collins, Planning Director, responded, such facilitia were required in an R.-5 zoning. Planning Board member Sharlene Pilkey asked ham), many tax- payers would indirectly fund project, but not benefit from the water and sewer lines. McAdams responded the Town woulc recognize sewer revenues far in excess to address "fairness' issue. He noted the Town of Hillsborough was supplying the labor and the developer the materials as part of the ne- gotiated agreement. He continued that the Town wanted a line sized far in excess of that needed to serve the develop unit and wanted to avoid a payback agreement to the develop by sharing the costs up front. He noted there was a 12" water line which would enable the Taown to create a loop syst with Joppa Oaks. Planning Board member Irvin expressed concern with the high density proposed and asked what preparaticoswere being mag, for star:water management. McAdams responded these measures had not yet been designed. • 019 ir1 frn 47- t - Planning Board member Pilkey inquired if the houses in the R-5 rezcxiing would contain the same footage as those in Wildwood Phase Land inquired if a road through the section would Connect NC 86 and Old NC 86 making two access roads onto NC 86. McAdams responded the houses would be 950 square feet and that a connecting road was not under his client's control. He added they had not yet considered if they would oppose extending the access roads to the property line. Pilkey clarified therm-would be two acs roads onto NC 86. McAdams rasped affirmatively. Hazel Lansford resideat of the area, expressed concerns about increasing urbanization., the tax base, devaluation of property, high taxes, neighborhood protection and loss of the area's identity. She noted other area residents in the audience. She *Untied expressing concerns about school redistricting and traffic, noting this was a high risk area and suggesting the in- stallment of traffic lights. Mrs. Lansford continaed explaining she was satisfied with well water, but did not want to be forced to pay for a water availability charge. She did not express opposition to sewer services. Lansford continued expressing con- derns about "dumping", lack of greenboxes, traffic to site behind eXisting hams and her inability to obtain access via the purchase of 2/10 of an acre from her neighbor which would result in her n‘ighbor's lot being too small. era were no further ccnunnts fran the audience. The public hearing was adjourned. 1 • "-;; - *, • 020 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18; 1983 (PARTIAL MINUTES) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. Irvin, Sharlene Pilkey, Nancy Laszlo, Carl Walters, Frank Pearson, David Shanklin, George Allison, Alice Gordon STAFF PRESENT: Susan Smith, Marvin Collins , Joanna Bradshaw Agenda Item:RECOMMENDATION ON THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO MIDWAY AIRPORT SPECIAL USE PEI Dr. Irvilla indicated that he had prepared a paper for distribution to the' Boar( summarizing the issues on the Midway Airport modifications proposal . Dr. Irvi entered he paper into proceedings of the meeting. and read the first two pages to the Board members I. The Problem of the Approach-Departure Zone: Buck Mountain Development Co., in a letter to Commissioner Whitted dated January 28, 1983, has requested that the requiremeAt regarding the approach-departure zone specified in the special use permit granted October 5, 1982 be shortened to 1000 feet measured from each end of the runway or at least to nbt more than 1500 feet. The Orange County Zoning Ordinance in section 8.8.8.2 sets the follo4ing specific standards for granting special use permits for airports: a) All F.A.A. and State regulations are met as a condition of approval of the Special Use Permit. b) The site and its operation will not adversely affect existing adjacent land uses. c) Land sufficient to provide approach zones and overrun areas is owned or controlled by the applicant. d) Adequate land area is provided for all of the proposed uses, buildings, and storage areas. e) SCreening of buildings, storage and maintenance areas ij provided from adjacent residential land. f) Letters from appropriate fire and rescue agencies that protective services can be provided at an adequate level. g) Access shall be directly onto a State maintained road. h) Compatible land uses are located in the final approach arleas of the airport. Of the' above list, items (a) and (c) are Pertinent to the question lof the approach-departure zone. The fact that items (a) and (c) are listed separately (with another item intervening) clearly indicateS.that these items should be considered separately and that item (c) is not simply a sub-item under (a) . With resnect r 4,,, , . . "4 1- • :7/ :-;;?;":';- • 7r."7 4'r . , • Ai-7. Bruce Matthews, Airport Development Specialist of the NC. 021 Departmentlof Transportation, in a letter to Mr. Pollaty dated June 30, 1982, stated that developers should be required only to own or control the land lying under the Clear Zone portion of the Approach-Departure Zone (Exhibit B) . However, Mr.Matthews' earlier testimony in the form of a letter to Mr. Fred Luce, dated January 26, 1982 (Exhibit C) isin conflict with some portions of Mr. Matthews' letter. of June 30, 1982, In his letter of January 26, Mr: Matthews stated "We wish to emphasize that neither Federal nor State regulations require a private airport to meet F.A.A. design standards. However, failure to meet such standards could have an adverse effect on funding should the airport become publicly owned in the future. It could also adversely affect the potential for an instrument approach procedure, Which would probably be desirable early in the life of this airport. Onejlitemwhich is not shown on the plan is the approach zones for the runway. There would probably have to be some land interest J for areas within about 2000' of each end of the runway so that trees, powerlines, nd other obstructions could be removed, if necessary. " Thus, in this earlier letter Mr. Matthews states that an approach zone of about 2000 feet would have to be controlled by the airport owners whereas in ailater letter he changes his position and states that the developers would only have to control the clear zone (which would be 1200 feet from the end of the runway by F.A.A. standards (at a 20:1 slope), or 1100 feet by State standards. A letter from Mr. Willard C. Flentl, Jr., Director of the Division of Aviation of the N.C. Dept. of TransportItion, dated July 1 , 1982, (Exhibit D) seems to throw some light on the reasoning of the D.O.T officials. Mr. Plentl states: "We are Particularly concerned that the County may be going far beyond FAA standard in its requirements for private airports. As Bruce Matthews pointed out in his letter of June 28, FAA requires ownership or control of only the Cp.ear zone: Any controls beyond the clear zone normally takes the form of a height restriction zoning ordinance. Such an ordi- nance is clearly beyond the ability of a private citizen and should be a County responsibility.". Thus, the D.O.T seems to be taking the position thatIthe total approach zone should be controlled, but the airport develloper should be required to control only the clear zone while the County should assume the responsibility for controlling the remainder of the approach zone through some form of airport zoning to restrict the height of trees, etc. in the flight path. This raises serious legal 'problems of whether the County can or should put severe restrictions on the property of adjoining landowners for the benefit of the airport devellopers. It is one matter for the County to control airport approach zones through airport zoning when the airport is owned by the County, but is is quite a different (and highly questionable) legal matter for the County to apply zoning controls on the approach zones for a privately owned airport. This would be a case of a gomernmental body "taking" property of one landowner for the benefit of another. It is doubtful whether the County could, or would wish to, get involved in this type of legal quagmire. It is precisely for this reason that our Zoning Ordinance specifically included item (c) in the list of requirements for an airport, viz, that "land sufficient to provide approach zones and overrun areas is owned or controlled h., f-h. , • veiling winds is particularly important from the standpoint of airport safety. Dr. 6./ggs entered into the official minutes of the hearing sections of an F.A.A. Ibulletin on airport design which particularly stressed the importance of orienting the runway to minimize cross-wind components. Dr. Suggs further, presented evidence that the proposed Midway airport is poorly located from the standpoint of cross-winds and would have a runway which would have cross-winds during approximately 90 % of the year. The F.A.A. bulletin also stressesIthat the cross-wind factor is particularly important when light aircraft will be used. The aircraft which would be used at the Midway airport are of the light type. Furthermore, in questioning Mr. Northern, attorney for Buck Mountain Development Co., admitted that the flight training contemp4ted for the Midway airport would include the training of inexperienced pilots. Under these circumstances, namely the training of inexperienced pilots under conditions where the runway is subjected to cross-winds, it would be particularly important for the airport to have control of the entire approach zone as recommended by the F.A.A.. If the County doesn't wish to become involved in controlling the approach zone through zoning, then the alternative is to require the develloper to comply with section 8.8.8.2.c of our present zoning ordinance. With respect to the question of the applicant's request for shortening thel required length of the runway, the Planning Board recommends to he Board of County Commissioners the following actions in the order of preference: 1 . That the request of the applicant be denied and that the applicat be required to have control of the entire approach zone at each end of the runway, namely 5000 feet measured from a point 200 feet from the end of the runway. This zone is to be 500 feet wide at the point closest to the runway and is to flare to a width of 2Q00 feet at the end of the zone as shown in the diagramiincluded with the original permit. 2. That the request of the applicant be denied and that the applicant be required to own or have control of an approach zone 3000 feet in length starting at a point 200 feet from the end of each runway and that the approach zone should be 500 feet wide at the p oint of beginning and have the same flare angles as those in the diagram in the original special use permit. This approach zone would permit planes to clear a 150 foot high tree at the end of the zone. It should be noted that testimony was presented at the publii.c hearing that trees of 150 feet in height are possible in this state. 3. That the request of the applicant be denied and that the applicant. be required to have control of,or to own,land lying under the clear zone as defined by the F.A.A. design standards and as recommended in the letter of Mr. Howard M. Robinson, Chief, N.C. Section of the F.A.A. in a letter to Mr. James Pollaty dated March 5, 11982. In this letter Mr. Robinson recommended a slope of 34:1 . 1This would require a clear zone length of 1700 feet in length measured from a point 200 feet from the end of the runway, namely altotal of 1900 feet from the end of the runway. If this clear zone is obtained (through purchase of the land or through eaqprm.111- 1 ...,.. • , .-,,..:-.,.; . . ,z;,; _-;,l'!..:,,,".1c4;:z.,;.',,,4q.,.„'', ,,,,,:;,. ;., :-,;z..,, c,-,.;:.A'',41,7-:','1;".:-:1-• 1-:',1-14;-,, ;;'1".;':;41 .■ ::::,r:w.D.ii',,,:....-,„.. . ',,-,:‘: ,, ,,.--::'qr-,,=,.-:.'.!'-q.::.,=,,';"'' '.'-'ia.ii.''• 1' ..: :.i:- :'.:`:' ' , : 1 , .;"'t: ::: :'-'i . . . __ - '.... • . ,:',;.,,.,-;:,..r. ,. .. . . .,,. . . With any of the three recommendations listed above the Planning 02 Board further recommends strongly that the applicant be required ., to acquire t;iy purchase or by easement the triangular piece of the clear 'zone which encroaches on the land of Mr. E.J. Crawford. A shift in the axis of the runway might be possible to avoid this triangular piece of land, but in that case a new drawing of the airport runway should be submitted to the Planning Board to determine whether other problems might be produced by such shift. With respect to the other requests of the applicant for changes in the stipulations and requirements of the special use permit, the Planning Board recommends the following: I _ II. The Planning Board recommends that the request for removal, of the restrictions on the number of training flights be denied. As I stated above, the proposed Midway Airport will have a strong cross- wind component during a large part of the year. This will add to the danger of accidents which already is inherent in training flight4Also, the training flights add greatly to the noise which will haste a serious impact upon the citizens living near the airport. III. The Planning Board recommends that the applicant's request for de1.4tion of the requirement for the access road to Tear Road be deni j d. It has been stated clearly and convincingly by the Chief oil the Orange Grove Fire Company that the access road is 'necessary for the fire company to be able to respond with minimum delay to fires at the airport. Therefore, this access road , . or an equivalent one0eadowcrest Road should be required. lkl'' IV. The Planning Board recommends that the applicant's request 4 • for permission to have accessory uses at the airport be limited ,1 to the following uses which are clearly accessory to the , primary function of an airport: radio sales (aircraft-type of radio), radio service, aircraft sales, aircraft service, and a coin-operated snack bar. We recommend that the following servicesIbe specifically denied: branch banking, real estate 1 office, sales of amusement and sporting tickets, an employee- operated restaurant or snack bar, and unlimited office space. _ _....- _-- H ' In connection with the legal question of whether the Orange County zoning ordinance can include an item or stipulation such as section - 8.8.8.2.c which is more restrictive than State or Federal require- . merits, we have been advised by Mr.. Richard Ducker of the U.N.C. Institute of Government that it is permissible for local zoning ordinances to be more restrictive than corresponding State or Federal regulations provided that it can be shown that the loCal, ordinance is not unreasonable. If the Board ;sf County Commissioners believes that section 8.8.8.2.c should not be applied in the case of Midway Airport, then a "cleaner" way to proceed would be to ammend the ordinance to delete item . ___.... ...,,.................„•••••11.!..1,_.1111.111, 7c ree.,--•pc.....r.P.' Ic.`-'t 4., -,I. ,::•7 it,••'U.Z•L:3.4.1:•t"` .,••••••,'-,t`....3':%.,":L.k...1.r,..' '' '■..-i".,t`'....4:;',4(17r,T .■7T-'..T '1 kkr:Vi•'; ','kW'Z'+`'',W,"',''''r;141`,111,‘.1',1C" -: ,i,' ,-.„---Wci-i:14te-k:,-..-.="-7.-.Y.4.•.;,--h :-.--i--7-er. :---, 74--. .:::!--41,11t24.4. 47:1!:-:■:, ''?-7:r'.!--',:"",:.4,, `'.-' -',..c--11P.,:14-F-;:',').-!...; '.- - --".:,-,,,,..---4 .''-,I.,-;:,..--,,v--_,A-e.„,,,r.;o.- - e.., ,i7.;.4.,-!-,--,IL.„7,,,..--,, -7,, : ; .,:. --,.;,;14,-,- -;--, :!--;: .:.--r.: . ',,_-.;...-d-Ary1;;,.."--:,/,:,..-.:,,--.- :P'-..i... .-' ', .. .! ..::-.',...:s- :7't---. ' . '.. 't L.:';,..:. ;014.-(Sr-;:g.NI: ,...-e. 7•1.7, . .:11,•77,:12 .,'.7,...,7p;.!:1;.:■•=-• ' ',..' -!?' 71;7 ..7.:,.,- ..i.:i:,..L:4 '',7' ' ' •":,,..•:."77d,....77::••:=:.7:'' ••''A...*.4:- . '''' • ,'':".1.- '''' 7 ' ' ‘,' 7;:''.',:'....t't.r. ';,'7.74 7.7'A.--... '' it,,Z`a• '.."'-',-,'"': • ':' • . ,' • 1 ., .-'•', ''''' :L',' ,.;',.i....• ';'■Y . ' . •Ir'.1.%:77.;:- ':•.i••• • ..7 2'::•F!': '2. :..•,% •, ..:- . ., ' - • 7^ : ■ .OF:U.. '--e-..,'-'1•1:,'"‘.". ... oF 1-HANSI-JUR I ik I 1(.11\1 A TI DMINISTRAON . .;:-... ........,. ...,,,,,,,,,,I.N. AIRPOPaS DISTRICT 01.YIGE .--... ., - ,i• ..?4,0,t-,--`,76,-.- . ..% t ,I,":.•i;V.•".‘ -•-'''ZItl.• 1568 Wi11aagium2Drive, Suite C ..,...- ..k. -.fr...., - College Park, GA 30337-1599 5 1982 '`' ---- i 4--.. -,-; • II-' ia V) i %0 43 rl' 1 • • - . LD . Mr. Jim Polatty " [1:--xiti 6:It it.. . rc I, Planning Director . ,.-----------..- Orange County 1 106 East Margaret Lane . Hillsborough, Ndrth Carolina 27278 - , Dear Mr. Polattyl: • . ., . Reference is made to your letter of March 2, 1982, regarding the layout plan for iiiidway Airport and Aispark. We have reviewed the layout plan as you requested. Since there is no requirement that private airports be developed to meet FM standards, we would not want our comments to have an adverse affect on. the develppment of a private airport. The FAA standards are, of course, available for reference if a private developer desires to .. "")recc:Sult, his facility to met appropriate standards. The only requirement FAA b a s' regarding privately owned airports is that a Notice of Proposed Construction be filed with the FAA. This has been accouplished by the proponent. The result of the airspace determination is 'shown on the enclosed letter of December 11, 1980. The recently planned 1400-foot extension for a total of 5000 feet i received a similar airport determination. The use of FM deign standards is required when the airport is being constructed;with federal aid. Similarly, if an airport is constructed with private funds and future plans include converting it to a publicly-owned facility, with the intent of obtaining future federal aid, it would be desirable to plan and construct it in accordance with FM standards. If a proponent should ask our • recommendations fdr development of a privately aimed airport, we .. .. would recomrend that the FM standards be utilized. Our couments on the plan are as follows: - 1 1. We agree with can-cents made by Mr. Bruce Matthews of the State of North Carolina in his letter of January 26, 1982. We would reccumend that current standards for runway separation, etc. , be applied if possible. 1. 2. The report indlcates FAA approved of the development, however, . . this only relates to airspace affects as shown in enclosed letter, 1 „,,r . .z. -; ,v,-,4-,,,t,..,..,,,,, ,.....• .4 -. ' v..:..-^ • ',... ,...-,, . , , . ”,- ,,,,,.so-"' ,t4-",.,,L,,,.,q.,4...-^*i t%,--, '4 - ''''''.074:r.1-=,;'," ' - L'i7-h;r4'("1.-'?",1*" "*77t4r7';$:'•7,... : .Ps' i'l---7'..14.:;:i,,'1--,L 17-c: i''. , .''''' ? : ! ' - -.'',1--"..."4^:-.2z "'"rtgli.• ,...,..-A,,,...' J . --"..:•.* a• ',,", '..';,,-V.■ .., i . ......,,.... 0 ..i . 1_ 7.- Ei 1 /I ( VIL to i - 0 ' .. 1 iLL 1.) 2 3. We reccmnend that the underground fuel farm be located in an area array from the r,unr,-ay. The tanks themselves would, of course, create no problem since they are -und.-wound, however, trucks parked in the area while refljeljzig the tanks could create a safety problem. , 4. We would re6omnend that an alternative location be planned for the access road! to the ail-park development. The present proposal indicates the road " i -4.iately adjacent to the runway end. In - , addition, 'adequal te -..---':-'_ ':• -' . - should be given to providing proper --.7; clear zones to Provide for unobstructed approaches. We would ( recommend that a 34:1 slope be planned. All. roads should be at least 15 feet beneath the 34:1 slope. i st......—:, . , - We hope that the above comments are of assistance, to you ..... _ - Sincerely - - Howard M. Robinson .- . Chief, North Carolina Section , Enclosure . . . . z-0 1 : - ....., r'-,...-.4. , .. . .. -- ,-- - • - — - . . . A•' ,a': _ JS6 '�_ 0 tti4} / .h�.'.�Z,'• �_ � Kn_1... : 4.N .'•" •, - •s•at:.+ . . ' " . ^; Y - ."),.! 4 '1'-4- .4.,Z!tR4;5V tc%744cr• '«« sicti'S 'L. J y tIZ-7,4'.' `` ,'- ' 1447. ' '; j 33 I',-', 4- 1. +t:.r_.:. ".'T =5. -,;:t !'uw;l" rALP- r • 's4f 01. t, " r �- e+A Al- ` - ti`, Fi: :M«id ".'I; e ,.4 v t .!,,VI!: _ t•: c. ,.r: '....;14L:A!':-, y j, 7,,,r Z , •? r -•,),..,,';:.i.1,W1'.f,?..0,.- 1 14:4d'ilcrk,... ,-,•-t.)•.g.'.:,"` .•'7,.. : -, 7)...r,f,'s---C'r-.•'-i• ,' , ;•', ,",-r, ."‘, t. -i.s.N-: ies',14.-...\,,,•,.; $'k,- ‘.:1' ' .' - -;`1,:.'4 • ,• I'''.\,; ' 4:2:1 ‘,435-td:^.:':: : 1•.-• -• `;-- ..,.‘''. 'ti, .7' - ' •,,z,:7t, 741 ,,,' -?t;'":i.--4 'Pi:- •'.? .., , ' 7;, .'t ' '' .'','•;:iV;•--:1 "..: '- ' . ' ' • ' • O• •-',. 7 ,"' '."-W-- '4'.4. ■ '.' - ,.,t 'i,!'t.r 71.1%0 r F -- .,;‘, 1,*'■18 t •- 2'I')''e.'1.1 — _ ,k•.•. 04.4.411iillaiiiMa P . _ __ ___ . _. _ _ _ ___ _ - - .. _. ..:„.- ,. , • ' -. , . EY0i4- Mr. Jim Polatty . . . June 29, 1982 Page 2 1 ' With respect to obstructions in general we call your attention to Part 77,J121 (c) of the Federal Air Regulations (cony enclosee which- states: _ • "the stand in this subpart apply to the effect of con- strnctidn or alteration proposals upon an airport if, at the ti mel of filing notice . . . (1) (the airport is) avail- able for public use and is listed in the Airport Directory. . ,, • . . _ -: 7,' After reviewing these regulations, it is my opinion that - 1 1. The requlrements for approach zone control and or- ship are mandatory only for airports receiving federal aid funds. I 2. Even ,for airports for which compliance s mandatory, the requirements extend only to the outer end of the clea-r zone as defined in 152.9 (b) . I . . _ . • 1. 3. The requirement for reporting and review is applicabl,- k, only 1pn new construction or substantial alteration, at the time of the construction. In conclusion, it appears that if Midway Airport were a federal aid airport, it would be required by statute to concern itself only with obstructions in the clear zone. It would, the-re=ore, seem appropriate for Orange County to only require Midway Airpor to have sufficient land interest in the areas defined as "clear zone" . If I may be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, • nit atck..............., Bruce E. Matthews Airport DevelOpment Specialist : BEM/by r• **, *. 7 &- . 'ieZT-0/;•:. •••• .....^• Iiriligag , 4 04 r‘ C•! 4:,Orcnt p b &"4 - . - e' •.47c1........cot7 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • P.O. BOX 25201 RALEIGH 27611 JAMES B. Huta,JR, DIVISION OF AVIATIO GOVERNOR (9191 7332491 - January 26, 1982 WILLIAM R. RoBE.R5011,JR. SECRETARY Mr. Fred Luce Orange County Planning Department 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NCI 27278 Ref: Review of Proposed Midway Airport Plan Dear Fred: Per your request,I we have reviewed the plan for the proposed Midway Airport with respect to FAA design criteria. The attached table shows the most important . design difference . As you can see , the airport as currently proposed comes closer to meeting the utility criteria, although its runway length would place it in the transport category. We wish to emphasize that neither federal nor state regulations require a private airport to meet FAA design standards. However, failure to meet such standards could have an adverse effect on funding should the airport become publicy owned in the future. It could also adversely affect the potential for an instrument approach procedure, which would probably be desirable early in the life of this airport. One item which is not shown on the plan is the approach zones for the runway. There would probably hare to be some land interest for areas within about 2,000 ' of each end of the runway so that trees, powerlines and other obstructions could be removed , if necessary. If we can orn-cr;r1- : -=--,1_ ff A- 41 it WF li i V1,�r AIRI Wii PM, 01 . "IF HIM Al $11.W13 LA -;I 4ill! i "r';'.A-Tr• :, ..:,7":7:'I7'..Tolle**4%:r---,''r •-t-4■44;1; '••4‘..5-4--- 4'ro'',;-- ■-.'gi`.--4.,..: 1W; '••:''' -,-, - r:,"., • ''', --'• - I.--` ' •••-""'4,1",' E 'I. -IE-•"•' .. `'i .4:.V.;..r;t.'l : '1: 11.4•145*,•Zt.'141.3.in'ilW, -ipt.•'-i.:;' ',.';‘' I;Ii4r ;;L:1',: -' !••"4•' '0;-!' “' IcrrM.,!*!.."'.1>?4,1,:,„ , •' :,!.. -I' :-. ' .4''=4*ITe '7-.;i-L7: - F•ct-rl*W‘45; '''' '"- F. .cl•Oti. . ',-'‘)*(' '!'7,-;••%; "f•-°Nik' It:I't ;LT- .f'- -- -",,i': ,'•- ' •:''' , ; : ',".5;1,;' '.'t,:::v • `'-'' -4.•,'15!,,-7 ' y" = ':' • ,-,;:i'-,41r-rciA.,r .,„.2z.::`!te., .. . - : :, ,. - : ,'• ,• • -;,-,-,.. :-1. :',4!:,,,4,?? • ; ' .1.'.,:':-1,4,,t4 • 1 1 , . 1 ..- . 1 11:3■11 k. \ 1 - I:Pi) i \I • -* L rA - ..-:•'.1": .,. ....... _ . . ''. • ' `Jc-- k).4,.." • ' - - .',:.:' 1 % 'c • , D ., - •*4-:; ,F4;_t-. C 03 •,--4,......,.... .................__ v STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 25201 ---- - -- - '----RA Li E i GH 27611 1./ JAMES B. HUNT,JR. DiviSioN OF AV1J GOVERNOR ' . - : -(9191 733.24-9 ' July 1, 1982 WILLIAM R. ROBERSON,JR. SECRETARY . . - . , - 1- Mr. Jim Polatty Orange CountylPlanning DePt. . 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsbprough, iN. C. 27278 - 1 — . Deer Mr. Polatty: i It is our understanding that Orange County intends to require developers ofiprivately owned airports in the County to own or control all of the land lying under the FAA-defined "approach .E - zone" . We believe that such a requirement is unreasonable and w...- unfair to thelprivate citizen who is using his own funds to . ' - provide vital air transportation access for the County. We are particUlarly concerned that the County may be going far beyond FAA sta.ndards in its requirements for private airports . As Bruce Matthews pointed out in his letter of June 28 , FAA requires ownership or control of only the clear zone. Any t controls beyond the clear zone normally takes the form of a height restrietiori zoning ordinance. Such an ordinance is \ clearly beyond the ability of a private citizen and should be a County respCmsibility. [ . - We recognize that Orange County shares our goals of the maximum possible operational safety for North Carolina' s airports, both public and private. We encourage the County to develop a cooperative piogram- with private airport owners to ensure safe facilities. Such a program would require the owner' s control of land underlying the clear zone , while a county zoning ord4nance would provide protection against hazardous objects being erected or allowed to grow beyond the clear zone. 1 - Wm --f-1... ,,,,...,A . ..,., ,......- -,- .1..... 4...,”*1 -....- -,-.3 -- ,! --L_ - ' ..' x,,:.t`.,:e�'.''';>.. ^1?-n,;•::C..�.._: ' ...'.; : =,,.«:�:: ` 8 yn - evA•', ..W• • rp'%CLi.b g' ' 445,tye7.:::.'&:"it.R;::.1-41.v`v d,,,—I,"'i, rr. klil. , «fta.,. dc.0"4:,40..Ff..;. _ ..tic',;..r�Er: . :.LA,.a':�.' -t,,.I,7 gr... '.n`= �''v ''R':.k. :. ..N, ; r.- �.t. J. ,t;',. ' E • >F ,:7,1....%:':cif.;,.:t•"i y ' - a r =r y. -1•ul ry,i 5q , � '40'410144 f. : •7 2S)1x„ '"' il ."i , TY''ti , •'v.;•!�! ` YF. ,_. ''',: ,i11, . ''.' i r _ c ,1 ! '" M1vils- k■^ 41 4 .,,. r 'L L ' `h;:i• ' h 1`1`,.:!r.; j� :,I,l t.li4'i •"w 0,- ut1.1y 1t 1982 . ,'i r� '�Sw 2 ` r ;s:; 4: . Ex/ili L L r . -. x. .i OS . We appreciate �theinterest of the Orange County Pi 'n ng? t w.4.ix using the resources © the Division o Aviation an �s a . t �Z. we may be of further assistance pease ,et us know. . i .,. • Sincerely, -• • ii:// f j 1 WI/lard G. Plentl i J-♦ r •b .., • ^ _ . . .... irec� or _ . . cc: Hr. Fred Haze d Mr. Howard Robinson 1 u I . 1 . i _ i ,....,..,......,.&,,-. -•-:, ,-..',44-"*"'''' • . , , .,.• ..., ••- ••. . _,_,,.....t .: ''',' ''''''4"•=i.r,,,,_,.t#3.•, , .. •;-:.., 4, ,,,,. .:;.'7 ,?7,44,,4fii-*'"Ii.„',:,.,. .:2; ? ,:o.-f.., f,•,,,(4,:,, ,•■:0,,:,.J',...,..± ...;,.k.,:...*:4F45,,,,, ,,,--"rt4.,rtny,."..,,,•-7.,....t,■••* ';',.••••• ',.;:•--......;;;;A.,-„,•...' '..''.•_-.','".:,,.......,, ..'14.4-4rfik„,..,. 1.,:,,t..0...,,,.,: i!..,,,,... ..-.:: 470', ..• ..'; ' ' :'•.. ':',...1'.';'\:r.R..7?2,'..'-: '''..:."-.',. ....‘,'.):'.' •!'...' ••"'',..:.;•;,'".'....1..?!'-', ,. ': ' '• ).!-... ....',.'t_„..L.\-4,.,:;41"..h. ,•vg.! ,, ,:;%;;'. '*'"',' ''..'.T''' :::;.'....' ':' .'... ......?.44''',:h-Pft. '.i'.7.1•=v".'"-'..1:.'.....!'*"" 27,i.' .:""' :' .' .' Z"." ,-..'7.•'' : .. '' ''i',‘7-'2°P''';rckl.'nf'Zil'iv■It": ./Z-1..`:,-1-',.',.•,,- 1 . ;::: '''' '''. ', -...• ,....‘ -";•,:.- . .!, .,-.- y.4:.y... ' . ; 1 _.. I _ 4/11/781 Al, -1.. U/ ..j0U-41.13 La-it ,11,:,,■,...44,'• . , I: I E,rhiti-t- E Appendb . ..„...,..4.,,..;„,...4.- .te0 *1A?%40 APPENDIX 6. RUNWAY CLEAR ZONE DlivIENSIONS . 03 11' .."' .&...40§.aq ' -....... •-, ....,„,_,.. _ . a,F.Ii-eA)q • 2 _________„. 475." 4.. L1 y .1.-- 1 i( •ri : I , . . Arch . -1- "."----"--4"----... ...---'"----- ,....----- _ A .o. Primary Surface ....------ - ---- :,c., Runwa,y ".`"*"•-- ,- Runway W V . 1-. 1 Clear 3 2 Zo V 1 w ne a 1 Zone It , w f ,.....„ L._ 2 3 -""---.-....„.....,_.......„.............„...... Approach Surface 1.: I I . .sv. API-9OA:E1-7M " C I OTaR EYD ...------"' ...r . - Approach Sloe . "i:•'- Runway 4. 1 Runway' . .4 - •01 Clear Zone a; r!... .. . ., ,i:. .. ... - . ..... . .. . ., .. ....._... .. _ . .... .... _ .... . . .._..._....... . _ ■ 011•01SIONS (r-zer) RAT szT r L 1--- L ; V T---T, 1---„, -T--- ; BA CZ FIARE .." i 5 . 7ip?; TYPE 110! APPROACE 1 CTEER 1 ; 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 i SLOPE 1 }PEA RATIO, . t V ; 1.0001 5,000 1 250 1 L50 1 1,250 : 20:1 1 8.035 .1:1 (:::::) •..,. 10 71. ,.. . 11 . 1 . __r_, __ , . 8.05 V 1.0004 5,000 o 250 s 1:50 o 1,2 0 y 20:1 i e, 2 1 v i 1 N.P. 1,C00; 5,000 4_ .11 500 ! 650 1 1,250 4 201 a 11.200_ .07511 . 1,000: 5,000 1 500 1 BOO 1 2,000 ' 20:1 t 14.922 .15:1 ' I Sg 1 1 000; _..5 000 1 500 1 800 4 2 000 t 20:1 1 14 4, .1 :1 3 N.P. 1 i P.P. t s 6 1,0001 5,000 : 500 f 800 : 2,000 : 20:1 I 16.522 .15:1 1 0001 000 ; 00 1 700 1 1 00 1 • , 1 V 1,0001 5,000 ! _500 ! 700 tL, 1,500i 20:1 1 1 . .1:1 k •51 V o 1000' 000 CO 4._ _mj ,51x) : 20:1 I 13.77 1 .1t1 ..:" N.P. + 1 00: 10 000 1 CO s 1 010 1 DO 1 L:1 1 29.L6 1' .1 :1 'fiv- ..;,.: v 1 6 --,-- 1 14000! 5,000 ! 1,000 1 1,10D ! 1.521 1 20:1 ' 2L.10< 1 'M.P. 3/14 ' 1. 00 10,000 1 1,000 1 1,510 1 14,000 1 34:1 1 2,8.978 1 .15:1 ____ _i_______ 6 1 v . 1 00o, 1000 : 1,000 1 1,100 ! 1.<00 I 20:1 i 214.105 7 1 i P 2,500: 50,000 ' 1.000 1. 1 <0 ' 16 000 ' <0:1,1:0:1 I, 8.0114 ' .1471 4:r'r, a< ----------------- t 8' J' 3/44. 1 1„7001 10.000 1 500 1 1,010 : 00 VA I :1 I 20.116 t .15:1 N.P. 1/L+ 1,700[ 10,000 i 500 i 1,010 ! 3,500 ! /h:1 : 29.1,65,J .15:1 ...T.4.4' 1 N.?. 3/4+ 1 1,7001 10.000 1. 1,000 1. 1,!25 : 3,500 ; 3L:1 I 0,1221,12,1,,11,_ ,B.p. 1/k 1,700. 10,000 1 1,000 , 1,520 : . 11,000 1 314:1 - f L8.976 , 450: ...,, N.P. 3/L+ i 1,700 10,000 i 1,000 i 1,1,25 i 3,500 1 314:1 , h7.320 :.12 :1 1 P 2 00 0 000 1 1 000 : 1 7<0 1 36 000 1 0:1 0:1 1 8.,4114 1 .1 :1 LP' 34 , 1i700610.000 ! 1,00D 6 1.510 I /4. 000 1 1.1:1 I 118..78 ! .15:1 IN.p. 3/14 , 1,700 /0,000 1 1,000 1 1,510 1 L.000 i 311:1 ' h8.978 1 .15:1 4c .4.i... 1.7001 10.000 I 1,000 a 1,510 ' L,000 I 3/1:1 L8.978 i .15:1* '-1 11*P'lfi! 1...;-- • k"..t, 1 o g ' 2,500 i 50 000 1 1,000 1 1750 ; 16 000 . 0:1 0:1 1 78.014 1 .1 :1 •:41,, 13 2 s 2,500; 50.000 1 1.000 1 1;750 - 1 16,000 : 50:1/60:1 1 78.9114 : .15:1 1 ,--_-- .. 1 1 P 2,500; 50.000 1 1,000 ' 1.750 1 16,000 ; 50:1/140:1. ; 78.9114 1 .15:1 ._ . .. .. ABBREVIATIMS USED IN THE Aaorz CSART -...y. V 1 = Visual approach N.P. 3/14 ..= Non-precision approach with visibility LP.1 .. Non-precislon approach minimum:a 4D low as 3/4-cale N.Po 3/14+ = Non.fprecivion approach with visibility P .4 Prenisp inoi,.......,r .........---,, AA±:,•., 4*tesp ; 7 ¶ *ia,54-74,16-3; ,777; Dr. Irvin noted he was suggesting a,series of motions to be sent to the Board of Commissioners. Smithlindicated that the staff concern regarding the approach-departure zone is the control of natural obstacles in the zone, adding that the Zoning Ordinance addresses the control of man-made obstacles which may intrude the approach-departure zone. Shank/in felt the control of obstacles was the developer's concern and could be addressed by shifting the touchdown point on the runway. Pearson inquired how much distance : was required to land an airplane. Shanklin responded that a plane could be landed in less that 2,000 feet. Pilkeyl asked if a small jet could land in that distance. Collins indicated that the conditions of the Special Use Permit precluded jets landing at the airport. Shanklin :continued that heavier engines can displace a threshholc halfway down the runway. Smith cited the March 17, 1983 letter from the FAA indicating a concern for the control of naturally occurring obstacles as the purpose of the approach- departure area. Shanklin indicated that this is a problem for the airport operatOr and noted that a naturally occurring obstacle becomes a "controllling obstacle" which determines the floor of the approach. For every foot of tree intruding into the approach-departure surface,the minimum for the approach floor goes up 100 feet for an instrument approach. Gordon asked a procedural question about whether the Board had to go through the findings of fact for a recommendation on the modifications. Irvin responded yes, Gordon indicated she understood that for the specific requiretbents, but wondered about the general standards. Irvin responded that ifIthese were pertinent to the decision then they would have to be discussed. Gordon felt this was a critical, point regarding specific standard (c) for a general aviation airport. She specifically asked if Orange County can be more strict than the FAA standards, Irvin responded that this issue was addressed in the last paragraph of page four of the paper regarding Richard Ducker's comments. GordonEeked how they should deal with a condition approved which may or may not be a "mistake", Irvin responded that a "mistake" would suggest a condition was too restrictive and action would have to be taken to modify the condition., He noted that the ordinance calls for a 5000 foot approachldeparture zone. Lee Mehler, Peloquin Associates, disagreed saying that the ordinance does not require a 5000 foot zone. He also added that it was not cut and dry whether a) and (c) were separate items, He stated that the State regulations do not require a 5000 foot zone. Irvin responded that this was a County requiremtt. Mehler again stated the ordinance does nni- cn,a;,;;- cnnn r Dr L.., • Tc.(•L.'"-r, . i.,K•Sh.Crarq.: , k• _10 •rar • ' 4"i" 'W.,- • ';:t•,, ,nt,• 57-*WP •2?X',e,W•• • *:-:‘,":'•ir.O. • •••• •L 4 •_ _ •". ,• • 44;" •'1•11124;C:.,` • •• , .f-k?”.,_:-.r.''.'4-'1:,;;';■•;ft • +1r; • ' 034 Mehler noted that no area on the east coast controls the amount of area requiredlby the County. Gordon responded that generally the additional area is controlled by zoning in those cases. Irvin noted that RDU area is zoned', Mehler felt RDU was an entirely different situation. Irvin responded that the County does not want to control the area through zoning. Mehler noted that the County had identified and discussed other locations for a proposed airport and asked if any site could meet the proposed regulations, adding that he did not think it was possible. Irvin responded that it was possible. Pearson noted that the area in question was approximately three miles. 1 Walters indicated that his area was once considered for a airport site, but that he was concerned about the compensation of the landowners for beingiOluded in an airport hazard zone. Mehler said that the presence of the airport had not devalued land around Horace Williams and that there would not be a disruption of the farming operationS,if an airport was located in an agricultural area. Fred Hazai-d, developer, indicated he was one of fourteen recognized commercial investment brokers in North Carolina. He stated that land values in a circle around any airport are enhanced and exceed values without the airport's presen He continued that airports:;of this type do not detract from land values and that it was impossible to control 5000 feet. He added that this type of operation!would bring in money from development. Gordon re4onded that Hazard's statement addressed a different land use than residential when citing a rise in land values. Shanklin and Hazard respondedIthat the fastest growing developments are the luxury residential areas associated with private airstrips. Irvin focused the Board on the issue at hand, stressing the control through easement required. MOTION: Shanklin Moved that the approach— departure zone be reduced to 1500 feet as suggested in the January 28, 1983 letter from Northen. Irvin stated that the Board ought to require the clear zone as defined in the letter-1 from Robinson regarding the failure of the private venture and the availability of federal. funding. He noted that the clear zone is measured al distance of 200 feet from the end of the runway which would require a 'distance of 1700 feet-measured 200 feet from the end of the runway. Shanklin modified his motion to 1700 feet. Irvin noted the total would be 1900 feet of the 200 foot clear zone was included. Irvin reviewed the clear zone diagram in the handout. 1 L , . _ • • " • • . . - • " : : ;.• "1. • 03 Allison felt the Board needed to be concerned with the implications regarding federal funds. Irvin noted the various testimony given regarding frequent failure of private airports and public takeover. Allison felt there was a discrepancy in the distance required given the state milimum. Gordon responded that the FAA specified 1900 feet and the state 1100 feet. ShanklinInoted the 34:1 ratio was extremely conservative. Irvin cited the FAA Bulletin as Exhibit E in the handout. Pearson felt that the County should not anticipate problems and discuss public takeover until a problem arises. Shanklin felt the County should also build a County-Owned airport. Irvin fellt that the concern should be with safety and encroachment of the airport. Mehler commented that this would be the safest airport. Irvin felt that the airport was poorly oriented. Hazard expressed concern that the testimony was from the Greensboro Airport and may not be applicable. Irvin stressed that the Board could not consider evidence beyond th publichearing evidence, and that the testimony of Mr. Suggs was keasonable based on the opinion of the meterologist at the airport. He also noted that the evidence was not challenged. Shanklin iindicated that a crosswind component is not airplane specific. He noted that there is a difference between crosswind versus a crosswind exceeding l the crosswind component of a specific airplane. He noted that the crosswind component was a design factor for an airplane. Allison asked if an analysis of the area was done. Irvin responded that the Greensboro meterologist collected data for Horace Williams, RDU and Greensbor and that the meterologist felt that the data collected at GreenshorO was applicable. MODIFIED MOTION: Shanklin Moved that the area to be controlled by 1500 beginning at the end of the 200' clear zone as specified in the January 28, 1983 letter, for a total of 1700' . Pearson seconded the motion. Irvin exkessed concerns about later federal funding. VOTE: - Motion failed. In favor: Pearson , Shanklin. Opposed: . Pilkey, Irvin, Allison, Laszlo, Walters, Gordon, MOTION: Gordon moled suggested motion #1 in the handout. Pilkey seconded the motion. Al 1ân 1.-.1=c=rr.A -- 1 , • • .• ••• •. - ......... ., • , • - p • ' : : • " - : i+7 031 Gordon 4keE :if the Board would care to send a back-up motion to the Board of Commth.-ssioners. Shanklin suggested that all four motions, including his be sent to the Board. Pearson felt no additional recommendaric== should be sent. Smith indicated that the Board would see all the ao...)zions as part of the agenda abstract submittal and the Planning Boa..7-3 minutes. MOTION ADDITION: Gordon indicated that the last paragraph on page three should also be included as part of the motion. She requested that the record reflect its inclusion. The Board concurred, The Board discussed the request to delete the limit on training flights at the airpo=t. MOTION: Gordon moved denial of the request to delete condition #7 regarding training' flights. Pilkey seconded the motion. Shanklin expressed concern about the means to assure that the limit has not been exceeded. Irvin suggested that the operations be logged as fligh training operations. Shanklin noted it would be difficult to obtain accurate figures on theiloperations at the-airport. Smith noted that the Horace Williams manager had indicated the number of flight training operations monthly at the airport. I Laszlo indicated that the safer the design features at the airport, the less concerned she was regarding training operations. Allison Felt that the restriction of the approach-departure zone requirement addressed the primary safety concern. Smith asked for a reasonable alternative to the proposed 50% limit. Shanklin suggested that the limit be couched in terms of the maximum number o daylight operations permitted. Smith indicated that no one was sure of the number of operations likely at the airport to set a cap. VOTE: The motion ended in a tie vote. In favor: Pilkey, Walters, Irvin, Gordon. Opposed:i PearsDP,, Shanklin, Laszlo, Allison. Each Board member indicated his/her reason for the vote given. Laszlo felt that the condition should not stipulate the type of operation, but just stipulate the number of flights permitted. Shanklin felt the limit should be based on alspeeified number per based aircraft. Smith asked if Shanklin • felt these operations could be logged. Shanklin answered yes the airport operator could log the number. Smith asked if the airport operator would set the Limit on the number of flight training operations permitted for all the airport activities. Shanklin responded he would prefer no cap on the number of training operations, but, if a cap was desired, then he preferred that it be based on the number of flights. Laszlo added that her primary concern was safety and that that was addressed by the required approach- ... . , . , , N,.....14:V: .'"?....r,p11::'7:" •;,,',-,%•%.V,Tri.y476:40r.•.,Ytt 0,9:.:,,e.,,pilt,.71,11z..k.....Vtar : !, ..,f4.10,ice. ,t: ,' 7':' .„1.,; • ,i-.';''' % . .'.:':-?-t-,."71 ,:- , : --. .?r,:wt,-cr+•4,44.4.1:.k::;77,;.,,..41.7 i'iL--.'.==,"..-'.4,:, ,,v, ;A. ;,: ,i,... z.;..: ,„ ,1 ,'!"...T.I. T;...X..,.7: ,74,r,_ ..,.... ".% '0, '',', 'i':•377. . . .. 03 The Board discussed the condition regarding the fire access road. Smith indicated that the alternative suggested through Meadowcrest subdivision was acceptable. MOTION: Pilkey moved that the request to delete condition #3 be denied for the 1 reasons stated in paragraph four of the handout. She added that the condition allow for an access road through either Teer Road or Meadowcrest subdivision. Laszlo seconded the motion, . I , 1 Smith indicated that the developer had no more information to add regarding the obtaining of easements through the Meadowcrest subdivision. VOTE: UnanimouS. 1 The Board discussed the condition regarding the accessory uses at the airport, I Gordon asked staff to specify what uses were proposed. Smith directed the Board to the uses specified on the diagram of a typical hangar. Mehler indi- cated that the diagram was intended to suggest the location and space allocate 1. to uses within the three hangars, but that the uses specified in the letter of April 114, 1983 from Peloquin Associates were what the developer wished to be included. He stressed that the diagram indicates only the space to be utilied for the uses. Smith indicated that the staff understood that only the uses specified on the diagram were to be considered. Mehler felt therie was a misunderstanding by staff. Gordon ndI ted that at issue was what uses would specifically be allowed. MOTION: Gordon moved that the following uses specifically be granted in the condition for apprdval: lounges, pilot ready room, flight training area, parts sales and service, restrooms, vending machine area, locker rooms, aircraft sales offices, offices for airport manager and staff and radio sales and service. She continued that the following uses should specifically be deleted: concession area, car rental, unlimited office space and all items listed under (p) in the letter from Peloquin Associates. Shanklin felt all the uses specified in the letter were normal accessory uses. Mehler noted the developer had submitted the information requested by Rick Cannlity which included the uses expected to be included and the space allocated to the uses. I Laszlo felt a car rental service was reasonableoas was a snack bar. She emphasized,, however, that she did not want a commercial venture which would attract people instead of just servicing those normally using the airport. I Gordon f e, t the Board needed to define accessory use. Smith responded that /1. an FAA ciFcular on accessory uses specified those included in the diagram as appropriate, but did not include the others in the written list. '2 - • ■ C •4- ;• : 41, It c e - •• . , . 03, Shanklin noted that the intended use is aviation with the normal uses accessory to the airport facility. Gordon felt additional, non-accessory uses should be left for subsequent approval. Laszlo felt that the area allocated was minimal and posed no real concern. Pilkey expressed concerns about loopholes in the approval. Smith again stated that the uses specified on the diagram were normal accessoryluses. Laszlo asked if there were uses listed that were not included On the diagram. Smith answered no. Shanklin indicated he was familiar with the circular on accessory uses land that those specified on the diagram were appropriate. Gordon felt the uses should be limited to those specified and that any other req7eSted use should be considered a modification of the special use permit. Smith asked if the specified uses included a plan room. 1 MODIFIED Gordon modified the motion to include reference to a plan room as a MOTION: normalaccessory use. Laszlo seconded the motion. VOTE: The motion carried. In favor: Pearson, Pilkey, Irvin, Gordon, Laszlo, Allison, Walters. Opposed: Shanklin. Shanklin indicated his opposition was based on the absence from the list of a use Which would provide hot meals to the facility users. -----'1"..11111111.111=1111111■E I .. 1 J.,--,,f-ct:-.77' , :.7'1-7'.'.,'.4,.: *v."47.-'-':.;.=-;,;;-''72.7.:f4'q'1,4;4"-V:11:1-.Zi•F',-.--,77--- - ,::.:4-:'''1.': ,''''• •:'•.'.':!:;■••':'''.0''''.''''■.....—...'7':',,. m.7.1I.'.."'''''''""";,..:114;.i.P.,„_3;:.0 '1 '-'. "'''''' 11.7-:.-4''':;=:''.. "'---7 •1.-•,— %,"-'''sr-', ..7.7,7:1.7t,',."'.' "z" ' .-"-":'-''''.-s " — ''''''''''' ;•-.7"'''"- v 7.:,';`e!■,":•7•707. ""*:',:.7Ci .f.:,'7" ',. '', . -.:ei..::: ,:, •,,.; .1:43 1 ..—, 4 , , - - . • . . , . . .. 1 . 1 : . , . . . 1 i 1 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO ORANGE: COUNTY COMMISSION= OR RECIOMT FOR HOOLFICATION OF SPECIAL USE Pram= .... notice is hereby given the Board'of Adjustment and the Zoning Officer of ariPpealt iron the ruling of the Zoning Officer on the Which ordered that • :-------7—day of • d 1 . 1 ' Modification of , or I request/a Special Use Permit as provided for in Section for Midway Airnort, owned b B , .., . . v• p...-:-.. COMVEM.V. piremises located - In /3 ....am Township RI:hwe. 54 West I , la ._-_-... ■ . ... 5;11i premises being within the area of jursidiction of a Zoning Ordinance for Orange .., I Bingham ,f , , fCounty as applied totEcoodbdEdxsmArEemsTownships, adapted by the Orange Comity 1 I Bolard of Commissioners. Title for this proyerti is in the name of _ . 1 1 ( . • Buck Mountain Deielopment'dmat;;. ..-.1 - . . The grounds for this appeal are as follows: !. • . .1 . ' • - ' See attached materleis, especially Paragraphs.2, 3, 4, and 7 of letter -1 . dated January 28, 1983. Applicant incorporates by reference all materials previously submitted and entered into evidence, and adds:VRevised site plan; Ravised aerial, photo; ..- ..1Statement—from Pel..uin AssociatewuLetter from B .ce. v, ..,_ .. -. ....-''' •: • - er fiErjohn A. Harshen dated. Jan. 28, 1983; Letter from Rick n......tty dated October 5, 1982. Applicant also requests that all time restrictions be exteedekes tpflPrr—Simut—tr.i=OLLs: ' rrom on this application. te 7/4 --C;. .57;;? „. • r Da i SUCK "I • ,, R , ' M •PMENT CO. By 6 S 7natuce .; --- -at t 42 Herb Holland Company 910-Airport Road '4 Address .--...- ! Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 . , . ---- If title to above mentioned property is not in the name of the applicant and appeal is on behalf of such property, attach a letter from the owner signifying his approvm: " Appeal must be a000mpanied by a small scale vicinity map, showing exact location of ..' of property with respect to existing streets, street numbers and size of iots„nature 'of!adjacent property uses, and other important features, within and contiguous,,t0 the property. The names of the owners of all lots within 300 feet in all directions Er:6 the property will be shown. • ................+.w.oyitaWNarINNIIIIIIIIIIIPIMMOMM, ... « - . i . ,.,.. . : -..4■1:"7.1.2.}...:...Z.Z,77p.,:..,:e.:,;:a..,f..$..M.,71,,,:;....t.,..4, .Vi..-.,,i!...,a,,,,...1.-A.1 1...!.:-... •• . ,',r7'..'e,..7"..." - 4.."?,'.774,-jSta.7.1A4S,:lijr=gm,,;.•„......r,„.7t,Z,I...1:7,14•7:.:,:',.-'4„."....Z4,,t4...,.0.rr‘....r,V;;;L:r:.■,,.^,-.4 :.,, :::e .;;;;,..4,,:.Z,,.;t2;: -.2,...T.,,,.r..».or=0,.., I'.. .-- - -:*:`,":`..7,1-'.r.":"="4!",tn.t''':!'-^•,-,...,'T:rtel,41".)::-.",":P;.k..-F,C,`,""Tr.:1;•":.7,c4'‘'N7T:rit'..;L.'^.:':7':' .4,' : .."z::::.....v4.4-"'Irz.:7,1:'`:'-.." ' '''7"1 :. -, "'-`.. - ' 2:=...'„ .: :- .... ... ■ J . • J 1 „ • I I i It., .. „ ..... c 1 ! . a to tFo• / ,,... 1.•• . i . ....-: 1 al 1 . %., • „...... sa Sa , 1 '1/4,...,0r k ; g 44), 1,4 ,,,, ' ,,,:' BEG tjA011.. 1 et a 4?,w ■ . , , „,..„,„ .... g i It :, tiv i e E - PRO-licas -,-i-;. "... I , a ii 1... fis HOMY • '-'1"5' i 1<1 AIRPORT • .--...' `' I er% 0 I 0 t. "...4n1.4 '...■ 1 i . ,..4 a r j i ■ f I 1 -'\ . , PROPOSED MIDWAY AIRPORT Scale I"-4--40001 i cz. -.• • - - STATEMENT DELIVERED BY DR. LOGAN IRVIN', PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN, , AT THE PLANNING BOARD'S JULY 18, 1983 MEETING RE: MIDWAY AIRPORT 04 I. The Problem of the Approach-Departure Zone: Buck Mpuntain Development Co., in a letter to Commissioner Whitted dated January 28, 1983, has requested that the requirement regarding the approach-departure zone specified in the special use permit granted October 5, 1982 be shortened to 1000 feet measured from each end of the runway or at least to not more than 1500 feet. The orange County Zoning Ordinance in section 8.8.8.2 sets the following specific standards for granting special, use permits for airports: a) All F.A.A. and State regulations are met as a condition of approval of the Special Use Permit. b) le site and its operation will not adversely affect existing adjacent land uses. c) Land sufficient to provide approach zones and overrun arpas is owned or controlled by the applicant. d) Adequate land area is provided for all of the proposed uses, buildings, and storage areas. e) Screening of buildings, storage and maintenance areas islprovided from adjacent residential land. f) Letters from appropriate fire and rescue agencies that protective services can be provided at an adequate level. g) Access shall be directly onto a State maintained road. h) Compatible land uses are located in the final approach areas of the airport. Of the Iabove list, items (a) and (c) are pertinent to the question of the approach-departure zone. The fact that items (a) and (CI) are listed separately (with another item intervening) clearly inpicatesthat these items should be considered separately and that item (c) is not simply a sub-item under (a) . With respect to item (a), a letter, dated March 5, 1982, from Mr. Howard M. FRobinson, Chief, North Carolina Section of the F.A.A. , states that there is no requirement uir that airports be construced to F.A.A. Standards unless the construction is supported by Federal fuhds. However, Mr. Robinson states "If a proponent should askiour recommendations for development of a privately owned airpOrt, we would recommend that F.A.A. standards be utilized. r-- I n addition, adequate attention should be given to providing proper clear zones to provide for unobstructed approaches We would recommend that a 34:1 slope be planned. " (Exhibit A) Mr. Bruce ilatthews, Airport Development Specialist of the N.C. Departmentlof Transportation, in a letter to Mr. Pollaty dated June 30, 182, stated that developers should be required only to own or Control the land lying under the Clear Zone portion of the ADDliclArh—n=,.-4..--_ 0' procedure, which would probably be desirable early in the life of this airport. Ox item is not shown on the plan is the approach zones for the runway. There would probably have to be some land interest for areas wlthin about 2000' of each end of the runway so that trees, powerlines, and other obstructions could be removed, if necessary. " Thus, in this earlier letter Mr. Matthews states that an approach zone of about 200b feet would have to be controlled by the airport owners —.- whereas in al' later letter he changes his position and states that the developers would only have to control the clear zone (which would be 1200 feet from the end of the runway by F.A.A. standards (at a 20:1 slope) , or TO feet by State standards. A letter from Mr. Willard G. Plentl, Jr. , Director of the Division of Aviation of the N.C. Dept. of Transportation, dated ally 1 , 1982, (Exhibit D) seems to throw some light on the reasoning of the D.0.T officials. Mr. Plentl states: "We are particularly concerned that the County may be going far beyond FAA standards in its requirements for private airports. As Bruce Matthews pointed out in his letter of June 28, FAA requires ownership or control of only the clear zone: Any controls beyond the clear zone normally takes the form of a height restriction zoning ordinance. Such an ordi- nance is clearly beyond the ability of a private citizen and should be a County responsibility." Thus, the D.O.T seems to be taking the position that the total approach zone should be controlled, but the airport develpoper should be required to control only the clear zone while the County should assume the responsibility for controlling the remainder of the approach zone through some form of airport zoning to restrict the height of trees, etc. in the flight path. This raises serious legal' problems of whether the County can or should put severe restrictions on the property of adjoining landowners for the benefit of the airport devellopers. It is one matter for the County to control airport approach zones through airport zoning when the airport is owned by the County, but is is quite a different (and highly questionable) legal matter for the County to apply zoning controls on the approach zones for a privately owned airport. This would be a case of a gmzernmehtal body "taking" Iproperty of one landowner for the benefit of another. it is doubtful whether the County could, or would wish to, get involved in this type of legal quagmire. It is precisely for this reason that our Zoning Ordinance specifically included item (c) in the list of requirements for an airport, viz. that "land sufficient to provide approach zones and overrun areas is owned or controlled by the applicant". In connection with the question of the approach-departure zones 1 another matter should be considered, namely the matter of safety of the airport both from! the standpoint of the users of the airport as well as the safety of the ci*zens living near the airport. Testimony was presented at the public hearing on May 23,1983 by Dr. Joseph Suggs that the F.A.A. considers that thr location of airport runways with respect to the pre- vailing winds is particularly important from the standpoint of airport safety. Dr. Suggslentered into the official minutes of the hearing sections 1 of an F.A.A. bulletin on airport design whir.h - 2 04a pilots. Under these circumstances, namely the training of inexperienced pilots under conditions where the runway is subjected to cross-winds, it would be particularly important for the airport to have control of the entire approach zone as recommended by the F.A.A.. If the County doesn't wish to become involved in controlling the approach zone through zoning, then the alternative is to require the develloper to comply with section 8.8.8.2.c of our present zoning ordinance. With respect to the question of the applicant's request for shortening the required length of the runway, the Planning Board recommends to the Board of County Commissioners the following actions in the order of preference: 1 . That die request of the applicant be denied and that the applicant be required to have control of the entire approach zone at each end of the runway, namely 5000 feet measured from a point 200 feet from the end of the runway. This zone is to be 500 feet wide at the point closest to the runway and is to flare to a width of 2000 feet at the end of the zone as shown in the diagram included with the original permit. 2. That the request of the applicant be denied and that the applicant be required to own or have control of an approach zone 3000 feet in length starting at a point 200 feet from the end of each runway and that the approach zone should be 500 feet wide at the 'Joint of beginning and have the same flare angles as those in the diagram in the original special use permit. This approach zone would permit planes to clear a 150 foot high tree at the end of the zone. It should be noted that testimony was presented at the public hearing that trees of 150 feet in height are possible in this /state. 3. That the request of the applicant be denied and that the applicant be required to have control of,or to own,land lying under the clear zone as defined by the F.A.A. design standards and as recommended in the letter of Mr. Howard M. Robinson, Chief, N.C. Section of the F.A.A. in a letter to Mr. James Pollaty dated March 5, 11982. In this letter Mr. Robinson recommended a slope of 34:1 . This would require a clear zone length of 1700 feet in length measured from a point 200 feet from the end of the runway, namely altotal of 1900 feet from the end of the runway. If this clear zone is obtained (through purchase of the land or through easement4) then the airport would be eligible for applying for federal funds if it should become necessary in the future for the County to assume responsibility for the airport. Note, the dimensios of the clear zone are given in exhibit E which is taken frcm the appendix of the F.A.A. bulletin. " 04 With respect to the other requests of the applicant for changes in the stipulations and requirements of the special use permit, the Planning Board recommends the following: II. The Planning Board recommends that the request for removal of the restrictions on the number of .training flights be denied. As stated above, the proposed Midway Airport will have a strong crosa.7.6. wind component during a large part of the year. This will add to the danger of accidents which already is inherent in training flights. Also, the training flights add greatly to the noise which will have a serious impact upon the citizens living near the airport. III. The Planning Board recommends that the applicant's request for deletion of the requirement for the access road to Teer Road be denied. . It has been stated clearly and convincingly by the Chief of the Orange Grove Fire Company that the access road is necessary for the fire company to be able to respond with minimum delay to fires at the airport. Therefore, this access road or an eq ivalent onMeadowcrest Road should be required. 1E-O" IV. The planning Board recommends that the applicant's request for permission to have accessory uses at the airport be limited to the f6llowing uses which are clearly accessory to the primary function of an airport: radio sales (aircraft-type of radio) , radio service, aircraft sales, aircraft service, and a coin-operated snack bar. We recommend that the following services 'be specifically denied: branch banking, real estate office, sales of amusement and sporting tickets, an employee- operatedlrestaurant or snack bar, and unlimited office space. In connection with the legal question of whether the Orange County zoning ordinalnce can include an item or stipulation such as section 8.8.8.2.c which is more restrictive than State or Federal require- ments, we have been advised by mr. Richard Ducker of the U.N.C. Institute of Government that it is permissible for local zoning ordinances to be more restrictive than corresponding State or Federal regulations provided that it can be shown that the local ordinance is not unreasonable. If the Board of County Commissioners believes that section 8.8.8.2.c should not be applied in the case of Midway Airport, then a "cleaner" way to proceeld would be to ammend the ordinance to delete item 8.8.8.2.c and then act on the Midway request. However, this also raises a question, namely should an ordinance be amended specifically to apply to a particular case? , 1 045 0F THANW'Utrl A I tUN ,/I ADMINISTRATION AIRPOPaS DISTRICT OFFICE .. ._ . ._oo. 1568 WillinemmaDrive, Suite C „t., 4_• -.,,,s y „„_....A.0.-. College Park, GA 30337-1599 - . 5, 1982 1 c2 ‘ V la "visTao.,, 0 — ! . . . Mr. Jim Polatty Polatty L 4.--)(a L ' i f 4. " , Planning Directoi. Orange County ---.. 106 East Margaret Lale Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Polatty: Reference is mad to your letter of March 2, 1982, regarding the Layout plan for Midway Airport and Airpark. We have reviewed [the layout plan as you requested. Since there is no requirement that private airports be developed to meet FAA standards, we would not want our comments to have an adverse affect on the develppmeni of a private airport. The FAA standards are, of , coLse, available for reference if a private developer desires to ' ".""e4W7s -1-4e his facility to meet appropriate standards. The only requirement FM has regarding privately owned airports is that a Notice of Proposed Construction be filed with the FAA. This has been accomplished1by the proponent. The result of the airspace determination is Shown on the enclosed letter of December 11, 1980. The recently planned 1400-foot extension for a total of 5000 feet (II ] received a simila4 airport determination. The use of FAA deslign standards is required when the airport is being constructed faith federal aid. Similarly, if an airport is constructed with private funds and future plans include converting it to a publicly-aaned facility, with the intent of obtaining future federal aid, it would be desirable to plan and construct it in ; ; accordance with FAA standards. If a proponent should ask our recommendations for development of a privately owned airport, we would recommend that the FAA standards be utilized. Our comments on the plan are as follows: 1 1. We agree with comets made by Mr. Bruce Mat-thews of the State of North Carolina in his letter of January 26, 1982. We would recommend that curralt standards for runway separation, etc. , be applied if possibld. 2. The report indicates FAA approved of the development, however, this only relates to airspace affects as he in enclosed letter, I ---■•■•••=140d 046 . .. . .. _ H - ... gr4W / 2 ,t ?--- h.::: E.VP1,4%; I- h.. ( ) 3. We recommenid that the underground fuel farm be located in an area away from the rpnway. The tanks themselves would, of course, create no problem since they are underground, however, trucks parked in the area while refueling the tanks could create a safety problem. I .... 4. We would re le ommad that an alternative location be planned for —!-- ' the access road to the airpark development. The present proposal •. indicates the road,,,it.p.e• .tely adjacent to the runway end. In (.1-7,r /1 Pc , r addition, adequate ----. ,— ...77- should be given to providing proper clear zones to provide for unobstructed approaches. We upuld recommend that a 34:1 slope be planned. All roads should be at least 15 feet beneath the 34:1 slope. We hope that the above comments are of assistance to you. . • . ,. . . .. , . • . - Sincerely, _ - - - . - Howard M. Robinson Chief, North Carolina Section Enclosure ? . - ,.. ' . : . , ... . . . 047 .., .......„, , .• , , ..: / " . • - . .. 1 IS I ' 'r . L - - . _ E4 c _ ....,„... ....:.,_ .... , . -,........„- • STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ...... ;,,. . . ., . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 25201 . - . . JAMES B.HUNT,JFi. RALEIGH 27611 OwISION OF AVIA' GOVERN0F1 . . MS) 7:33-2491 I - June 29, 1982 . -, NIWAM R. ROBERSON,JR. SECRETARY - - .- , . .• . _. . 1 - . . . . . Mr. Jim Polatty 4 . ...s.c.*,. Orange CountyPlanning Dept. 106 E. Margaret Lane - - -_ Hillsboroguh, 1NC 27278 Dear Mr. Polatty: ' - .--- -7 7 In reference to our telephone conversation of June 25 , I have discussed wit . FAA their requirements for ownership or control of the apProaCh surfaces for runways . FAA advises that their guidance relative to ownership is contained in Part 152. 9 and 152. 11 of the Federal Air Regulations (copy enclosed) . The . :::) . _ . pertinent parts of these regulations are: , . 1 152. 9 (A) "I Whenever finds are allocated . . . the Sponsor must own, acquire , or agree to acquire, runway clear zones. " (B) "1. • . a runway clear zone is an area at ground level that begins at each end of the primary surface . . . and extends with the width of the - approach surface . . . to terminate directly . . . where the slope reaches a height of 50 feet above the •runway end or 50 feet above the terrain. . . " I . . 152.-11(A) 1;1n projects involving grants-in-aid . . . a _ ponsor must own, acquire , or agree to acquire 1 property interest in clear zone areas . . . t, - 1 , (B) On new airports , the Sponsor must own, acquire, or agree to acquire . . . runway clear zone _ 1 areas . . . n I , . . . 11 O48 _„ .. .. ... _ _ . .., . . . ... . . .. . --,:.•' ;" -4-- ,.-1-,•_:7; .i.'. Mr. Jim Pollatty . . June 29, 19182 Page 2 1 . , . With respect to obstructions in general we call your tntj to Part 7741 Cc) :pf the Federal Air Regulations (Copy which- state •... It I.. the : ' o . " e standards in this submart apply to the effect of con- struction or alteration proposals upon an airport if, at the ti ma of filing notice • • . (1) (the airport is) avail- able for public Use and is listed in the Airport . . _ .. __ •• • ..., After reviewing these regulations, it is my .opinion ! 1. The, requirements for amproach zone control and owner- ' ship are mandatory only , for airports receiving federal aid ZU.nds. . . . _ , 2. Even for airports for which compliance is mandatory, the recuirements extend only to the outer end of the clear !zon as defined in 152. 9 (b) . ! - -......_ 3. The requirement for reporting and review is amplicable I= only on new construction or substantial alteration, at the! time of the construction. In conclusion!, it ammears that if Midway Airport were a fede,-al aid airport, it would be recuired by statute to concern itself only with obstructions in the clear zone . It would, therefore, seem appropriate for Orange County to only require Midway Airport to have suffiCient land interest in the areas defined as zone" . • If I may be of farther assistance , please let me know. Sincerely, _ . a (- I A t..t. 4.• C.. Pri teh.,, ;__L . , Bruce E. MatthLws 1 Airport Development Specialist • BEM/by 04 tr- e/f c;I t:Xit 1hp • STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 25201 JAMES B.HUNT.JR RALEIGH 27611 DIVISION OF AVIATIO GOVERNOT1 (919) 733-2491 January 26, 1932 WILLIAM R.ROBERSON,JR. SECRETARY Mr. Fred Luce Orange County Planning Department 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Ref: Review of Proposed Midway Airport Plan Dear Fred: Per your request, we hive reviewed the plan for the proposed Midway Airport with respect to FAA design criteria. The attached table shows the most important . design differences. As you can see , the airport as - currently proposed comes closer to meeting the utility criteria, although its runway length would place it in the transport category. We wish to emphasize that neither federal nor state regulations require a private airport to meet FAA design standards. However, failure to meet such standards could have an adverse effect on funding should: the airport become publicy owned in the future. It could also adversely affect the potential for an instrument approach procedure , which Would probably be desirable early in the life of this airport. One item which is not shown on the plan is the approach zones for the runway. There would probably hae to be some land interest for areas within about 2 , 000 ' of each end of the runway so that trees, powerlines , and other obstructions could be removed , if necessary. If we can ni-n1.7.4A- ;!• •S 3 ii 3 [ - Ft-s r" `;,. S' ��' ';'F''Y S'. :•i '1 n,` s: .€ i'.,. '6€ e=.` rX '?s' ; :x ..,• € .tf / 3Fr {E �. '} 1 ; ,��t .+.. ♦ .�€ 1 €•;!' , i• �'•.Yr: [•S .s!`{.tl./� -•t: ,( ^�€t •!.4y,yy�r.�_ !s I:•ta.€(.,7€ f r, r 1�' (((, 4 .:fi•.L.,i ::«a' .>E' .�t.x[ }yE� .-€[ f.t,' .a ..,. .f i .�yy:,, �,. j.• .!,•.,.S't� '�€. .f i} •r ia' t .1..�-Rf,r.-.a.!•'s } �- h• ..F!':S�'yy aL.. �'.t. �rtL, to - .4., .3 a'4 a•'� Y � !r �a f .1 , .r L -A-•" I' 7 tC. t tl „-� '$ t;'r. �Sk it AL t[p;: t !FFf'• €• 's.• :t ,€. :'t' .' .x,ss,a..'! •(( {iii}"-.f. .a ±�}k'1..7 ``� .Ifs. ,�'€,.t'%« U •! .! .'1 �r ��� y1+ •l u•,€-33" ..�• ;1; 'i' .h r;• 1 'I3t -#. � t}. _.!' =�31�! 4 �.. �4L. y .�.<'•�' .�-l.• �� �".iu :'rt .r1 r t..3.••rs Vii: .S,1� ) •�2� .T]� ....•�7: •.f•"`- ': •��.r.t r,�{ {.t! .1 4�•y . . -rya i?,. ,F•t" :�{s{r .t.T -s .s7. ..s .�.•�;'�� .r- �:.,;r r�! ;_ I'�' .r s e fs: •3'l �a 3; 7. � ,,.It �lF '>r[ ,��r�L ;t•�;' ..Y�f t .� j �� �7�.•.,�.-1` �' r�� •�t.s,1- .€ .r. S ,Y• f•3 i.y, 1_G rr�i: .a:J:,{• .Nryi. t r, •a,+ t .L .l'�. .F r�l 'f•rr'1 4. .l1, .t t •:t li sr..�.i Islr'G�• •�;.r s 2.�...� 'sr s { �. r S-,N .,•i y,. [_f•4 x,.i�'3},.1F'rd• x?`F,s , 1;t :•tars'i .�1. 'yp 1.}, a!r.,+�! F A�`''s's•7# 1.i#tit i2 �. i;r(i• ,.�•�:f:l.q€.. d a.yf «7 .!.'�:^'�� �'tl'€� >��. r�;°�• .r;. .et 1�yy •i. 7�a- 4<. �.F,t� :t i Sh r'€.,:'.r }.is�• •r .i 1 3s, '';S F ,f ,,. r t '' t•y r I �. tS; � - 1. 7.I:.r I.ny r• y.# L' ii SF t'? k.r #!{ '!'' t€[,' p} € 's u€ 7 t {r t, r 'i;r•T...11,r..rs•,Fr-€:'y.1:�r,:'�--U''€��-EI{ s 7� t�� .i.Y, s .y. a{'If•'' Y�l }t�€s.,'�i.:t•€n.. .}��'�'��'�',�� ���•. .{.6 .-.,`r�f.,��r '.•�� ,€ ( I}� ..I�.� l.«�s. E!6* - xi. ,r.E�� •.�#i ,Ii[ : i.s�:1 �.l�`-�*j;�'. rn '.�. +c �:is ;7 ..a�. '�''.FL,�!•17::.�,��t`'i •s�, S�sr t., .}�.::F•'}_';,. J1S ,�rt:,}�a!• r�: �.fs. r,r,s� :{l < °�s.'��c. .[� Ia •�:d `i� ,.�. � :k �`�. �r,�'�'. ,T ;:d �.t:.,�it-=��•sd;, iE•4''P'f 't�t', <:� � `'P�.., .�',r.;} ,:`t�L•�,i�_� € �:�i�',.. �'1. .r• r: r.�r�1?». t_t ,s pN'�>�F;r`�t�;;° „t.l,�T,r;k:, ,�T ..1 ''�? r.S�•; .�IY't �,.,�. .x�l .t�t, r .�: k..t,7'Y} t, .y e!.�€.,x�,z• -��':t .,a rt.{1. ,«I` lr-r€:,:r, ,. 15JrF;k� y1 F1Gr�i" .,�? y.r i. a.. k �•qa }...9 r :1.:sT ,y.hr, hWy !. -Is;.t f� s, +r x.+�lt . .;t�_{,s.;*••. °3 }. .,r� nt{h.J„s ,t•�;'�' r� 1:1.tf 1��� .t•1-rL:�,F,,}'#�. -1, 'F s..,y t}r I J�1„r: '1� ' .,P '7 _ .�):�i•. ( j(yi 'tt` Y- i€s r. ti i.."' ,� }�� �'�-�?:, t'ti�'•r-.aT'„•�: n<:��-q� ,ts- sP-�:'� pq,,4i�s3 :E.., Fr'r�.l '�!.-ll e��i�l?•�;r �•: +�°.�i': �'f{.il. =� �L'� t[: ��G. re`:�.C.�r:-r,,. ��<4�.•.?`�{� .y �•t1 C. t[`it 'L'�.�.yci �:.1`€i itt ii-A+,�€ -~�I:�;�:="9.,• .�;F.�, :�'iF :�: :� �� } ,t:l�: •�F�t. ,�€, �;F F '�' t�'6 , ,r.r�^.••t:!'r''s'?Tt3€ T9r."?'•;.1�?�..y j.iT•?�'€-E''ftr �t�7 t € 1. f; " 1 R "r ,e i Ir I h 1 s �� _:, �k i s•:,� �2 r.� '3- - Isj i � .:�: •.i �'.i`.�}{'� ;bra ':�,v,it�. #�i'•i� :.� 4,(}.,�[.,T.rt.s a r•, �.�1.�;.1,'=r�' 0.. ?p. r3 <•ir'• t f i, �t P r 1 y t i.d- F- S i•i�„,r 3T�,.,�. t!` s"� .�''' 1. ``s'-f fx �I �.Iw.4t;�,y i,�' 5 -$rJ r1".P:iit�� ✓♦•{; '� •� si}. :�ts,t .� -y :�•��:q,,'�: :� � t`��..�' 7: r`'I r ` 4 !'.r[+�+ s:�.iL. ti !�. j, f,�'-�. ;fr., .,4, Lr }i.�, ,t 1,4yS t. .l;s.X t �-t� '�`��� >r ?' '�?�.1' Ir. .r�3';:v-•f.:.• orl 'F' 1r i s�/��� x s�€?[• r !'-f r C,-l) � d7 F l.i.•�}�t. `�� tilr��,r; !Y{.. ,i l'r i„G., �r:�• f s�;, .S�Y •{ Z rit�' a� z[r fl �+s{S''���'+'i.,i.:!--.:J.��,j3:',�� �� f=�r�:ti?Y )-rr{?:�•� �? "" ♦ A `."' Yu'li ••5S.,11,1} ;'y'S .';Si�Y^d `?• 7 1.) �- I-r` n�S �; _t j•. 1`)lrsl�.,C k7-S,,} ,c.y 1,x.5,;;, r- '! t t' "+ 4 i�i''~!.s5- ,a•?. t.'t��tyis{: 's Iii'aYy E@ :'[ iS'7'[. a?��(Xs �.�:4:#<'•,s'!=y�lr�Ti d �`(-�Tt�:si'.fr,� ,tti:.-Fi-sF f��6?.: `:t`'� 1.�'.Sr �t! �;&rar .'F.{.�}�ri�`�#kr,={. .lf jr ..t �•{,2 .C.1. � ��rl.f.,:3k' 4r{� +-1:P r."Y, _�rl;t,€A.. E' .Ze i�r.i �.Jl, Q: F l 'Y'!'I;� t i- e,�•i 1 j��1 s- if ict €r �/� 1, >yy' k. ,s ti€.... P yr: S:€• t; , ',C•• r „a .t ,{�tt'. t-��•',rsa;t € .� .� � r.}.`-S 1t �, r,,t's. .�. ;[ �.c -'f•y<'•� �- '� r r € �iJ:r� r* l.i., t•t.i: ,�. � tom' f,.�j> � ,t: r r �1€ L,€ ,•}:# r t°f�4� t€, -cra ).� ,,s' s. 'r'- ,t'.-v_>.ff__ ,:I t[[{.r 't ri e �'- �.: ' r $ 'e t#• t`�€. �. �• '� 3t .7t�••�,' r ,•fa:�. •�f .�C;#S- 1r< r- 4? li Y ft' },:fL l• 4'�' i:??,�� �..fi.'.�`,cs .+a 1 i... !- ,.,[:§lr� 1-r. �. �`, '!. `.i�'..ti,4. .f. � Ii'� :Lr �. ��3.�,-�,�ii�.:� tt f _ �,�;M t+ �,•�}•h ti''jj[F.. ! €s��;'.r!��7•L i r.�a t�,t.<,�i�.s,s..�.;�;�s j"j''`�t_T?1i.;,�€r'4(.t�.:��i 6..,,,1#rst.-f;•,j-it��tr_a s;.,'.y.Yi=�••„�•srf,.-;«t 2;�.,€E 4.j..�§��Ml s r 4�.s.d't t�t,t.3�[•t'€sf t•}.i.S� i 4 a'$j�(t i^e E{�'s-•i r�"k.�"l r ti�t• r�,n'r 1�.:•�',Iir��,,tr,,1i..j s,,.`y'4�eu 1�1 r�r - -3,]'�,:::.}��."Fi�.[.'�v�y°-!./!Y,s r�{ss,.a�.��.�r xv€1!k:!.�m lar rl 4•°'Ls rt r�•1€-!?€.>}rS I s 1'4•�.}.�Z;.�t h:.}t.j�a P R.-,��"i`.a^.t�'�.�aF.'..1�t l.Y',`t;a.��S€'4rjt.3.r°f'f s 7 i 7.�`'t4xr€••'_I�,,r.,��,[,•�.. .�•'•.�'s jT;1e rr r� �tg.lrt i 4�.�r € �':'�.{, 3 •1 •. ; - r '# f,'a'(` f ,• .'i .{ 7.i't. �x'1. 'V,�C'S •;1 �F: 1 4 1fti9. �s'a''r, < r r �y'F` a .1'? {y:.. t-`3 t7'€ i''s: !��• 7#:r ie's 4--i. 3LI�il. .r -r:� •C.1;.4 I .iI t> .F' .•'"S.•'..'t2:.5;:�, €_}'} r:`.€; '}�". 1 ::: '€.:f•G 'tri[y tit' kt i_ ''?'s G '1''�:T`?�t�+�� ,,'tr � ,#.. "! [sit# },r..,' d'.�t.,r�� eWr' t- €�'r t '� {' ;M-} €��,.Y�,.t';iti. {•i-r. '`!•,r�#!:��-iA ;4�tiFtl.r` r :l'if r,� €'' • :r r u f �'�' r �' 4I }t.�'7't•,f,t� Stli c��' s• ,€Y yi �. ss .r'R. ��� \3. •t� � �s'i!!'R7C d' ,irl� S, �-33 J� �'{L ,r�'tt{.�sfi�(ra.,y s �h { >�t�} 3 tAi:( {31.� �.S,I 'r -.:4A.. „i. { t ��i F4t!.•:.-if} a f r tF-: f tS:��i'•.Ul �'f:EF 1}_I •i� { �s. E AFY. �i �'•�•r._-'; 'Y:7€:�rr�€}�l't�!I45.i•J' ,Y,�'!t};I{! 14ii e r i, i. } E�'.''�'-•(�F'.:i.' �,��Sf'y :,,�•'. - � $,.'�11,.i•L�'i ��irl�`;��11�:?L?= ;#;rst.��:d`•���:,f1ia•��'�rt rA'���:3T�:;''�r.3�f��( 'f`° • ez • • s 's t : 1• •• 1• �. •_ r s 1 11 : • .! ffi t 1 • 1 1 1 r ! 11 of 1 i t • 1 �� 1 A 1 • • r • • • i • e • [' t r ♦ 1 • 111 s _ : t1 tr 111 • i1t it •- r till t 11 1^ • • s • a t 11 • 11 1 1 1 t r r _ 1 • r • rr--s 1 t• • - • t . t 1 r- i • 1 _ f- r 1• • t f • t s • • • u 05. cf _ • . _ • • STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 25201 - ----RALE;Gad 27611 - - - f JAMES B. HUNT,JR. OlvIS1ON OP AV1 GOVERNOR - - ; • (919) 7-33-24s July 1 , 1982 WILLIAM R. ROBERSON,JR. SECRETARY Mr. Jim Polatty Orange CountylPlanning DePt. 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Mr. Polatty: It is our understanding that Orange County intends to require developers of 1privately owned airports in the County to own or control all of the land lying under the FAA-defined "approach zone" . We believe that such a requirement is unreasonable and unfair to the private citizen who is using his own funds to provide vital ' air transportation access for the County. 1 We are particularly concerned, that the County may be going far beyond FAA st4ndards in its requirements for Private airports . As Bruce Matthews pointed out in his letter of June 28 , FAA requires ownership or control of only the clear zone. Any /- controls beyond the clear zone normally takes the form of a height restriCtion zoning ordinance. Such an ordinance is k clearly beyond the. ability of a private citizen and should be ) a County responsibility. We recognize that Orange County shares our goals of the maximum possible operational safety for North Carblina' s airports, both public and private. We encourage the County tp develop a cooperative pograrrr with private airport owners to ensure safe facilities . Such a program would require the owner' s control of land underlying the clear zone, while a county zoning ordinance would provide protection against hazardous objects being erected or allowed to grow beyond the clear zone. TV7 .„ - _ _ m r I , 052 v_ _ __. ._ .r „.fj Polatty ,\ - - -- ... .. July 1 , 1982 \ ':'. .. �� ki Page 2 EX/ikt-L i t-e-0 e47«'-;"'"1.may t�} We appreciate the .... ... �. � .4 in appreciate interest of the Orange Count the resources of t lanai n. i a in w 'using .! the Division os. 3 ' 3.-a4."‘- ,: be of x then assistance, of let o lease let us on t .s raa Sincerely. R/ 44(01/ .41/1 . . Willard G. nt1,I 1 e Jr. ,r , r.Z Director cc; , T Mr. Fred Hazard _ Mr. Howard Rosins on " 0114.*1111 WAY • I I. � • . , Ci 5,3 i - 7,7"'"::.:',*-:::%41:.•:',..:,1-3■:"-.:4",-ttfent, •„72"-"f,...-Z,-r,',...':;.;,"-.,:....:,-:;: iN„ezi,„ ,,,:„,,,,..:4.-", :.,,i7. ,,,,T...13,: '-..i.,;,'....:'.''11,‘...':,,,:r...,-,": ,',;'',::••.'•--7:',."..:;',.'''..'',, -"•' •--. ' ...:-.•-•n' ..';',.."•':-.."-•?,';•771:::1-.1":-:.-.7....:::: .:',..:1.-,,'.."...,e:fe..574.„V",.1.41.c?..1:1",i7,4,-,;,..= 4.• -;.17.1%..f.:F4. -.;..:.5 ":.,'S-''''';'...,..??;'.%•!:1:_:.;:".':t:" "..-*, -..i.:. "7.,.:- .::',.:1.1,,....::-.4:,;, :,..;-.r,t,-W.i.i.,::47;4'," --?::.--;"..y.'V'',","41:-:fr•r4..SSik,,t:::5;37C::.,..r..;"„itt 1 ..,,,A.., . 1,-;:;.-f-',4C,......r.:-.;.:"-• '.7....i..„,":•, :-.,2=-' .;-;.;-•-• L.•,:.,. •••....,-., ..--.-4....,...:,„;..it...v..1—;;.;.„-,?..7:44.7.7.,-,.... .37,:47,:..... .-tp,.=-"Tk...s.,:;,-.... .••:=..---..:,---.' " =•:•'",---•,- •,•••-7-rt,5,..14-'•=2:- .'',„•.'''...--,•--,---'• :- '2-..:, • •"--'.'•..--""••=-,-.7''•,*:'.-377,..;•,-.P,„;-.2:,,,..-',.. .r.-.-::1,".•I'iz,•:,...!..;•ri..,.:;-1;sze..fr.,....,:-.. .-.-....-7:-';-•:-..,„--:•!==.:TA;;FF'sz-,;-.v.., .1 _..,:r..,,•1,,..:•-'_,.-:.,:,.,r..s..7.;.- -,-.-„.::::.:.4:,•••=:,...4:„.2,,.;:.,.. ....4-, ..,.... • -',......„-• •;-,-.:.--..•.:',;,..,,,-.....:,7*,•;47,7•Ztrz-1277--:_••..'i:r'::„..4?•,*--.F7.1 2,7'!!:-w,4•••-....:.-i.:. .....,44...-:1T.,-„FJ..Z"..., ...41...'4.d*-•-z.....---r'?•7:--i==r-'4'''.: :- '•;.'I,"'-*-,"2„..,"'::4 ,-,..'•••. .''. ..-....;':-';'i•`.....::-."•=f'r"•.,:e---:`,;"-Ii-•;-'.--••7:..J r.f..._=•••y-••• •••4.,35.•%1..,;,•;,:-.,...-=„....7•:,•.,-.5-.4.;• - ..; ,,,.... . ..-. .••••...7,„,..... ..z„--.. -r-,....E.,.......Y..„..===.:....41,,,,•:...-:-..,.,4--.-:.P.,:r..,.....7•:-.7.-- -...• -,,,,..:.•:•••=• -...,-......- -I:ri-C7: 7-:'''= `);-''.:-:;';"2:14•47...Z:".;71'.......L.2.".7-:■:=1:4;'..::••..,'";;...F,..:::-.z.:-,..F':4;:::::::::.: .7.,,,t;.t.:::•;:.E.v.,----..zz.--i,\-=‘.....-.,...:rb,„•...t-7..'",„4,...4...-t.,,,,2 ,, = -.....-..-.?....-...,..--4.7-- -.4.,-7.7-4t4,.••,--:- f .....r::,:h:..., ,„•,:,',6,:.,,,„,.......•:.-,,•,;.•..,.,,..•:•.,..-.....,-•rs-,r,-= its-.--:=7:1•:.-•"-*. .,'1,-.7+-...-.4.•,.....;--,..r.','-'4"-I-Atat-o•--,.-...,••.....L...:•*-=2:•re..,-..---•- ---%•*-, .- . • -4 v .r..r..-,:.;,•---"7:-..,.....4.,-.=,,••=:.-4.4.4..z.i.*:•,:-..w..:......r....«.:'7.:•"----1'':•••=':gfre';'-'1=4•-•*2-'''-,...':"="'s-..,....... .-"'"=.-4...-'7,WrAt.,yog ---'4-.'" Y"-^-='.-•'4.'Jc4 a „,-,.. 4......,,,. ..-.2„,,,i...„......„....,-.,„• ...4.,..,..,,I.„.,....,..-,..,..,...„.1.,....-.....,-......,:-„,,....,.....,,ft...,4,-.7e,,..:t.... . , .,-.,:f.......,== ,''':,,. .4'...." *' . , ' 1 - ilgi:.;ik..: ..44.,:;■:,7,-j="4:4' --':,7:14.1•""g,'*_. .-.........."'"--***='■+,4.1E,0:'-' '.- •,-'-'" "'""'" .-tz' , :eb...--M--, .s-- 7' r--,...-.,... ........ ;'.... " ••'...... nit.....1.7.. ` • • -. •... , . . -..,.....-1- ';. -.-k :•"5,"... --.- -- ..-:?'-'"-- ,...,...... ,.„.......(-4 .......,,,,,,, ,,,„ ...,,,,,.....,,„ „,.,„,%.,7y%,,,,:z....„,..,,,...11.=:i.,,e.r4... ., 4.-.4-'.• -,•.i..........,A,43:-•-?=•r.4... --..,'7. .1 r., ..-21g • .•• •:.-.1■2A-,7".."." Pf".1.413.E4S,S".;•-..V4"--,1,...,--4- " -74r..WrX44..,"- :..,. .'" • 01,1".‘.. ,,5c. •."•`•...r.,.:-•2....7.-r..:.--- • ',4 •'.-1. ...;,,F;-:r •' '• • '',1‘,...,•4. . .74 a'="..cri-,- ---•&,•": "-I' '''r•.kteo..-•,44-•"'A.-*Z".•sr..."•-•*--.c...'-•'•'.r.'"''':t3*r 7 ,-;' -.,.. .:,-;',....".M...t-4Y.A1''*';F":". ..177,7.: 1,7"-. 4 gi.;':-:"• :,t'ilil›:.:F i.t i.f:.‘k,''v.:-,,,'".,,:.4t/c4;.`:4*-41,1$;1 ite - -.e4'7*"''.'.. E''''1:' ''''''" .`" haVnortlicarialinatIr-ftr'i peloqllr ..'..' ".'" ...": iie'thate.it:.''''":::53:r77..,..,1-';;;.CiPaPI4• '''' uimasso poa, „-,,,,,,,,H:F:-..;:::-:,i,,,, .•, ,„,-..-, -;4.'17 ce:.:17.t.,:,,,,I.47 -..' '"..,..*:,i4i:e.; .. ....i.,:-, _.,...:-t-;....:r...:0.;.-...i..,.j; r...i.• .,...... ..:,shrveport.Iousiarta-e„-;....k2 ... .!.... *:-..„,..... .....k-,- ...,--: .,.v.,.......,_,,it-7.....ri.7... ..r.,,.r.,,,:.; ,-„ ..-......-, ,,,.,' z. ., •-.., -......%:....----7...,:. .,-.,,,,......,,,,,, ,-. ......cr,4-,-,..----:-.,„„,.., . - .. . 7. ...■.•-.r.n.717..::-,--7•:..•.,:.•,-.... ' ..,,,,.,,,,,,:i.:_',,,...„r':..,1 ]'; ....7.■,.fl!ilr.4 ... , '.*Vr1,.....1' '1'..''..'. .'41,7,10.4: ' r4. ...0...a'::'.V'.'' .....''.....■••. ' ''..' 7. ""' .' ■-.'-i14:..'..,.. • ..._ .r '..-:.'--;'. .."ft;''. •'" ,,,, , ,.'•IttFr4:.7.7 . .:24X," 11,57:11,.',Ntr,loC.,CY,,,....,.:Z.:::.;.'-',-!..,'Ir..; !:: ''''.' ... '' :44,11P.;.7 aronneetuna-- Yet,.....?.;-planneex..:.1.-.4:„,6,‘:-. .desisnibtacu,:•-e„......,,;.,-,....-,.;:.-,.,--:-•,. . 1..z.,..7 -. • -.. ..er''t'',e4,,e,...7.-...i•-•.;:.-,..--4,0t.:-..:42.-,•;,'1','-.---,--,,-..-.L.........--,• .-"•,.: ::,..'.....:;.:-.'.....-::.. .:•.. _—. :,:•:.,- ..: ....2.^=. . .• ,. - z. ,,...,....,,;.7.,:=,•4 . .souts4 bee/74a, chapel hat:nrotheartifeart: ZeST4;:••:,-:--....:,.:4..'..1:•=, '''-:"'",•"7::-•:...-......:'• -7 ':".-: 1919)9:23-7161i. „;..,.....-....., .,: -'''...*:. ':..;''.,':.:'... 1.:,ZZ*;* ..5..1,S....4;;:.5.,..44441:4'.4.4.4.4fiel'.■1*..4.''''.‘*.''0..'."'''"'L'T.::'. %:1':'.7:".--.;-:•!t.: ... .:' -•'•. -:',..,,, ....,. • • -it-, .?•,s •.: .-, '”, •''• •-_'.`:..:,-,•:•::1--.•_:•••••••.••-,..,„*_,. ..:.r.,1•4•44.&',ii,:.=1-or i April%tre;:.1983..... • .-,,-.7: ,-..:•... -•, ' : ' ',..:, ..: '•.•-,,-,,..e;; ,ee.; !„ -..„.. ....-..74%,,:-..:,..,,,4:-._7,4,7%-..,,,,,,,.. .;,,,x,..,,,,,=.,c,,,,e.:. ,..,.„-..,,,,,,..;,,, -... . -...,.,„•_. :-. ..-.. . .::e.,,•:. .- .-,:• -...r''' " '. -,-p..... 'r•..', -1.,; Adtfiticarsat..,.14aflaritsation,:-Itecpsested..fort,Proposed Midway An-Feet Project .: ;.e..f..,t,e,..J., •.:Freee..et'fF'-....::"•::--•....v.--,,,,v,....:•,-.--1,14,:z.-4.,,,.. ..-•-V■,:,■-,'"'''...,''' ','"'''-".-4.-4:....'..--.. ,.. • ,- ..,--.. —,--,.;."."'...=. .4. •••44.-,---.7"-4- F'7'..;.5.::::-•:.-v-.T*Ere,5,1 ..•.„-.?:,,,.....,• t...Zillie:runway has baert shifted Slightly to allow all obstacle free zones , hand dear zones as per.slate gtaidelines to• be contained within owned ,.......,-, ''.--;0•:;%-.•-• ' 1".easily centrulled land,.except for the small wedge.in Earnest •••:-.r,,-i_•,,,,,...-. 1 r"ItY:' r ‘:..Crawfbrti!s property..:'The:ruinvaY has been shortened to 3800 feet -..,t--e'-....-e.,• •Ir.- • . 1 .. .,Jong to,aCcornixiate this, with I0-foil overrun safety areas remaining . ..::-"'• '''':' ., :at the request of the developers. . ,. ,:....1.: • • . .':1';••• .- ' eee. .,f. ' .•' t,:,. .' .-.. ,.....7,..*\:;,•1: ,,;..,,,:la:.•,!t;;;...,' --... .,,. .F.•r'Zf•I'.`:"...-.! ...:.1/4;•,''. • 2.;..7:.The obstacle free zone:from•FAA 'Advisory Circular on Utility Airports ' •-&..........; • :,..15- f..the following: ., Approach'OFZ:. "begins... 200 feet from the;runway approach ... • threshold and extends 200 feet beyond the last light unit in _.. the approach lighting system.' . . Runway OM: "extends 200 feet beyond each end of the run- • ...,".=..,. • ..'•:7.7.....= way and its width is....250 feet. . I- The clear zone-from State of North Carolina guidelines begins '100 feet beyond the end of the runway and is 200 feet wide at that point and extends to 300 feet wide at 1000 feet. 4. The T-hangars are typical modular units for aircraft storage and accompanying storage and upkeep facilities. ■ . 5. The FBO and Maintenance hangars are for maintenance of aircraft and operations of the airport. Spaces in these buildings will include the following.: . a. Large maintenance area for 2-3 aircraft ' b. Parts sales and service c. Radio sales and service d. Pilot ready room e. bounge f. Concession area g. Office for aircraft manager and staff h. Courtesy offices for tenants and transients I i. Car rental office (accompanying parking) ■ j. Aircraft sales office ,. I . i , . . , . . 054 ... .. .... i r- I -z•-,-;.;....,...-:=4---,_,•,-.;:,i,•;4•:.:. ...z.,-.•••,:..:...,,,...-,-.,•,_•<,,.•.:. ,-;.......„--...---.....,•-•-•--:,--— • ...-• •••-—..-•-• — — . •• • •--..:---.,---,7,4--...;•- it.,-,..,„-17:-....."........•...•--?„. r-' ••••••.•--:71-.•:::-,...--",........nr.r.irr::.-.."...n..:Z.!-.7.,,i.:.:::•4-Z-.....F..."..:,.•;;,......:,4.:.::,..I.::.f....14.7-,.... ...,,,;',4-:-..„,.‘:;-....;...77... .tri.,,,,,,.....,:.„7..t. '''''-"`"".'",--'-......- ..^"' ‘.....,.. ',.." " /•-•'....• -" - ..' ...,--..-..,, :....::.-''',..- *•»';4'..•*7:..:.r,„,,,e'•-•-•.'.., .1'1.'":--`,.:....,......-.4."..;'••---;1:::.:.X..,''''-..':',.:,..-.".- s..• 4.*.-,..;...!:,.r-,t.:71:-.;15.VP.-.•1. ...._-••"....'1.-74-,',-,, •.1...,'..:' .-- 1.4 '-.`,..:::.•*;;;..!`'‘,••..i1.-:..,;;;••-..;-.4.r.-.*::.c.-;:,%:•:-.I•;•,'-e,"1-';.-.0•••*.-...,,--'-1,....---4.4...'.:',!:. ,;....1.T.,...r..,...:.--L....:.... 1 ,...:•„_•-•.-0.:;A:::',"-re-'?....--,1-1'..;1•-• ,z .. ;,,-%.,"'':...-.... ':1....."•-':-••••1"...,.';11'...,`i...C•.:t.:7:4,.---f1,4;7.:1-2,1-'1 :-.1...'::',•T'S ;Ict:4'1"-°:":=7-7.04;::4.,:,- ;;:. •:-4', .,..0•••,-.7-1-,,,,...-f1...V;;. ... • ,-••---• ;. :..-.. -•t•.:'• c- c. -,.......,;-. %...•...4.: „-•• .- '....=Lt..,..,7*,..,.......-172,.. .....;,,--,..,---7::•,,,7-.,,...:-:,-,,:”.•,......--f,.-= -....t,... •::.'.....-:=Z:...7"...,:::-",..---..:.5_,.- ......- It:',..".... -, '''..•..,'.":::—..•.•%,:., ....1...,-..;..1"-• 1,41.-77,^C.,=.^. -,..:si.:.:.:,.;:•!..,",-..:,.':•.:',..1.,-,:...1....;•,;:-4,e,_.':.1..C,,,.:..-tst-,::: .I.,:, I --..,-,-.-`•• ...--..,......----- ---,--4 •-.:.-,--.• -,-.-.: . - .........:-..-,,.•....,-....,...--,-,-........,-..-7,arar,...."1-...,-. -.''.•.7.-:..- .- -.,•.•,, .•.',. ',"''',..-.•-,..:2.t"-14:•4"-.1..--,.., "..-", .-.7.'--'7,,:..z... • ' .1.,,:t..•...."-. '.....;-,„:-..,••.1........___-, ......-1:, ,.......„..tell.-te.'4,.,:.;•L.,r,....f.r.:„.41-..... .c.,I.T,-4.-,,--,....,;....., 4.....5. . .1 L,. ..i.,,-.;,_"4-„,":,,,,-,............nt.:.-.". .,.. .47.:"*. ....., ..,-...•.,-, :...`,."- .."-- ..!;.....-..,..,FI...'':c.."-.;.:;.'',:r....,:-.•'--..--.4..,,,Zu: -."'1",‘","..,""........Sr..,.17".;.... -....^44'74÷7 ,Z1,.t.eV.:11V . 7, ''.':•"«...S.....'.... 4.1';%'''.t7:414 ::'11:-*"'"'LLqFs'.7t''-'*4^,•C,t4-1.-r^'F ,::"4•'''' '',::'_ "tp5:' ''J.:Z_,,,,,, ..,...... ;‘,..1.1,,,,, ^,..a,,,,,.:■.: .: :I I J ,-...„....±.'.7..4...„...1,-.,..,1.g„-,-.1,..,:".i'.7...tV.„.„.:,,Gb,,,0=,o_4..--F,,r.•.,,../7,-: ., . -•,....f,d..i..s..,.r-.,.:=.fr.,.•__::.,..g:0::.t4,,,*4.::.;....,._,-§..,,,0.:..,.:„!..,,,,.-,.„;,.,:,:•.4,„.•,,,,,::,-7•-,...7,' 'r,r,,,•.._..,.'.•.1-7••.•-"r.1..,..4:_`........,....,.,..... V,,-----t,'.;'1,,-•.•••',.•'7-4,,5„17..•.•.-•*..-.."...%......:.•.0+::,.4`.....:.,V..1r7c4 1' .,' --A.1-,1,1,1,.1,.C....,AC■..•.K.;.:.z.0..."....-4.,.:,-'-. 1''-,rti..z.,-. 1s-.F : A " W ,L "- 0 . 1 .—"=' % ? " 0 4: " 4 e11 ,--.. 1- . ... .--" 1 7';';',t.7 19-m 4.-7;;;:zt:::-.•,•;::;;;;;;1.i$7-',„ti..-c.P.!....:.•:472;':••'lii:n.:;:.:.:'70-4f.,,,:i.--44-4,1‘. ''-' - • ..--1.'4z.•....,• .„tie4ip.A.,„;.4i . 4-4.44.,-4.,.. 1 .t.,..._ „,,m......_..„ • .,„.....„7,..,. •,•___,,ze,,...,...,7.--...--.--.7,...,1:0,,:,...;41-k. .;,. ,,,.-V...),;.= .. . ....t1.4..."' ... .1..... . ,-.... 6......ad,,,..4,4- 4r.:4iy-,4„mr-?.....a-'7A'.-;,,T- t7..t -Pr"-.4.' * ..A-7,f-i..t;;.-4,,,k.-1 , ' -1.1." ...".7,-. .,-• pc9':"-:'--111, PIP i '..".71,t:‘SiFili.,,,,,-,.. ,..„'' *.):•-Tz.7,,....,.11;;;-„Z,047,,, -457,x..L7..-:".ft.t,r,-.V....•;24:- '',' -:* ,'#.,'--..rtzez,;"?.-Acit,44,ti.-:,,,,,.!-,t...„_,-A".14„,'41::Iii::::.,„,.-.:42::7/41,21q-t• 1 -.'"n:rUO-Pal-;;1- 4•,;4. .c't",-7-7;-:- .=■- --;4,k„,i;'' ..,... ...7 ..,,..........`,.'..,,• 40.r..'.-3 :,'''.. '-1:4,4.':-.•,.*41.;:i:-.1,:-. 1-7r,.-•!;.;;Z:.„fiNKT:=3.1.,•csti.k""•11.-1V-W.7:: •''.:5:...'•'...11''''.?t;,..'t.tttl. ,n .*'4, f,. .e-{4,• .4...,..••-*-' t'• :., 7' .s.'..tixo--..44. '"•.:.fi.:LAI,jLtt'":114, ... .i :. 11.Ae.''t":-•:,-:-.70.-4,74-1.... .g 4 '''-''' ''.. -'er"- *;■- '' ':tt -t4rt * "":.'''4P'''''.'* *'',....en"'%*'"'f4*J''':'.J1k)"''''S3-:--P7::-.'- :..4“.7. •..:::.:....:,t,:.: -•--v.a.. • - 4-,,, ,,.• .• irt,„,, ... ...- , •Th.,,,,,,ASo... 0,0,..0.4.. .".• ..'",ftV .•..,- .,71';'k.--.•'..,..."' -. '',1" • X•,..e:..._.1,r+1.. ..7...., ....41-^76-..., , _..,tr Mc'''. .!...74.1...... ...... .-:"'-.7_^.' •,..,,,,f ."...r',r,I. '........,,,-.--;,,,r..1.....:'..,■Z ••••••..t.F.,"-...7.1‘,1 '-..4.::'::!■■',71P%7r4',...77.`. .". - • " • •'. -*' .L "..-M1'..•' 4" 'V. .0.4 .. :...:44.4T.,..,.. i".:::......1;,;Y7■7-.: '..C::-■■■::.,4,74.7'. .:,i'■k',Z,..,'IX'..'.:t:!,FAPrig1"IthO9834tF"ic.,r:',,L.,..A7:,:;;:.4.7+:3:. 4.,,...4414;%.:'7.54!: ',1,7:'-V"';':,'''.';;7;,:•''..? .. ,.' ''. '",',.'.",..4-• ..;:::; :.11-761,74'f,7; ..*.::■'.;-....P:..".".:*.71.744"t Addititinal;Informatiorr`,....'iNA—., 1,. ..`..W4t:-:,.7'.-",'*ii.'37-:-...:i..--:,..''.,'..:•i.:e.-S ':::-L.:' .1 -,: .-.-..".:-;:.• ....... .... .::,:..f.s....Pagtt tort)'i'»;1'7:.P. , ,143t="04 L..1"1"."- ---- "-,'S.7.4.',7.v.?:.wY,-.2':!-:--..-.. .!---.-A..: .--1,. .--7 .. :-,,,. ...,_, .. . ..,,-,,..,•-. "r.,- , -, '7 i.''.-'.:.";-7',4'''..1,•4%rOtit^.1.7.'.4,' ..... 41,g-f, "".- , .. .V...,X."0*1•71.r),;.:!-'1>4="rt' -:`,',.i."..r::::* •".r; Ir.'.-.;.!;''' ' ''".* .7...1''.1°'°'' :.i!.. ‘,7...;r-'141;•:.: .7,,,..-4,,,,. ........,24 ...r.o. .. .:.•5,4.i,4,.....;,7?„......„..,..r.7..-;,,,,,;..,..r.„-,.-: ..:-...,..t, ......•.•„•-,..: . t .E. ; ,. : ...,•:....LT,t.,,0 ',...:‘,.......t.'1.4-.4%;...7•2•,-. •Th.......,---.7.,..,:".4. :',.'-"V;;-::-•4 47:-...,.;'.•.,.vi..,:cf;..".■.. .......:•.:,...'..,,........:,„ -:•..-....•-•.• .... _ .: , „,_ ... ,e.;.•,.•.,,,,,,,,,--,... •' :;:-,.....,:•;;;;;;;;;;*t,-t--..,..Z.`,..411,42-P4i: ....,„•a ,-■.,a;:Zle't.. .V. % :..%:•":1::;:.:-...,-.. '''.,./CY ir.g...."•:. . " '' -: '."." "*""""Ze."'-'4a•W -i''• !..,:-.-*?.:''''r"4.:-*:",--.`r.7. 4.1"Li.Filet trallUSICS-OffiCe,t-..''''.,.'..:::-.:.....,,,,."....•.- '',-..,7.,..:.;..s.., ..c.:.:..,:',-,-;,,,*;"-,' ... :,.•'-',•''. .-, ,,.•.. ,,:t17,:v .; ,.'.•'.:, • . '4,7'....-:;,Z.71./1.4"'-,,..- .";\...4... ,,' ,•;...:.;-',".".11'),;■•,..-•.4-,tt,. echartic:training area„. ;..-..;.-.„.,....4:4-7.4.-- ...:-,7,.....:,F„,„::::.:-: •.;-' ,•.;-..4.--'-:,, •.::-,.- '.;,-.-1,-.741 ''!---;..-.....,--,..:„..:.:.-:-..-,!,.,,,,..„,...,n.,,,,...„,•..., • ..:,........,...,,,,,,.. ,,,„:....; ...,-......i- .,•• ..... ,...: : .,.• .!..::- :IT:, - :-;,..v.r.• ...., 1 r''•;.: ,,'....";7. -..'''..1....-e..r7*.4:Ini.g'Six:Frage .aresk. :. -,,w-,,c-s. ;-:;-:,0.....44.-......,--,.-i.. ,..- ',"t -041,..t...". • 't •..:..,,...,;:t...",./.;„,,,,•.r."*.: ..... .t?,f13.-..Tailetts,',F!‘"...1‘...z..''-.1 :::..ttiz 7-....4:1"ir.'1".1.,7X:r:.-at4.-7' "" ±:,..4rAnr''''':-.7:-'4"..';',...Vilr.if4:1"4L.4::.;. -......s.,..-70000:-Inftwatation/Weicome Office''' ':''---:;----....:.' . •,..,,, ,....;.', .-...:::';'.: ,.+:.,,' - - ..,i..x;.„i,-----1, ,.;.1, .. -..•' "...' .1p,:-Miscellaneous space for the following future. uses:. ' . L --.:1 *::,,..,-,; ..1.7 - •:. F..,..:1-.'...-.-::•'',:: .--. ,... ,.. • • ..., — „..; .-,,,,t'*:,,. . .1, . - -,•- T- . ?.. '.',,-,f,':-...;1'.'.Exhibltion area -...,....• ....-,,,.,!..;....,„,„ , .,7L .."`,.."-,:.; :,. ',.., ..! L''Ticket sales and-information for sports and cultural events Real,Lestate•welcome area . --- • • . -; •'- -, '.'-:.'• Branch banking area . • ..., ■• . *.7:. :, '., ..:" "..•-: Stranded holdover area , ......, Hospitality room ': .. ,--„,,:,J:.t•.,, . -..- .....,... • ;,0. , ., ...." . • ..;..7,: t• 1 ... .',:--0.: ' . ,. -" . • ,. . . . • • . . • , , .. .. •: - • • , . , . . . . . • • • . . . . , .., . _ • a i ! .. 1 . . I ' 0 I 0 0 • I I i 0 55 • •''+'' %`�jf'" 'n�'.:•�TSF''- .;P_ • Ccmbet! 5, 1982 Buds Mountain Development Company • cfo Mr. Fred Hazard, Agent 910 Airport Road Chapel-Hill, North Carolina 27514 Dear Mr. Hazer* On September 7, 1982 the Orange County Board of Commissioners considered your request for a Class A special use permit for a general aviation airport. The Board approved the application finding that the applicant had met its burden of establishing by competent, material and substantial evidence the existence of the facts and conditions which the County Zoning Or requires for approval of a general aviation: airport provided special conditions contained in this letter and which will become part of the special use permit are met by the applicant. In nunnery, the evidence supporting the action taken by the Board on this application is as follows: 1. Special use. permit sought for property located in area Township off Highway 54 West. The property and surroundueg agricultural-residential land use category. A rural neighborhood activity node (BH-I) is within one quarter mile of the sight. The land use plan does not address cirectiy the appropriate location far an airport The Orange County Airport Feasibility Study- evaluates this pro posed airport sight along with a large number at other potential sites. The site proposed in this application compares en well to other sites Idtified in this study according to the evaluation • criteria set forth in the study. The site is away from current or proposed residential development, close to Chapel HBl/Carrboro and has good access along Highway 54. It has disadvantages in that it is located within one mile of the proposed Cane Creek Watershed. Evidence at the hearing of development pressure which could • accompany the development of this airport is seen as a negative factor in this agricultural-residential region. ► 2. Article 5 and Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance provide lI dimensional requirements and the application of dimensional requirements. Evidence presented at the public hearing indicates these requirements have been met. • f ' 3. The Orange County Health Department has approved an area (Cr septic tank installation near phase I of the development. Phases II and III are to be serviced through the central disposal� : +sip system • . . 05€ , ; .,, r .....„,,.....,.;_,,,,......... .,..,„,...,..„.„,...,•,...,.„.:,:t.,.,...,,,,,„„..„_.::.,..,,•,...,,.,....,,,„_........,,,...,.,,,z, „...„„„. ...„...„,........, '..,;,- ....r.,•...,,.., ...-.:r: -• .:- .-....:7".-..,....7 ^'•" ..:.-. .•.z.......'-..^7^7.•.•".2:-..,,.. .......--A..,4"..."--a;-,7,--- •47...-7•_.'v 4.;..-4'...-:-... .":: 4.••*".-' "Z.1"...,-,•_,:*^t......7.z.7.....-,:,.:....,",.,..:,................., •,',...--,, •'..'• ■',..',.:.....•' ..''''''''':•• ',...;,...Z1.*46"r-::::':-.7,,-;7.":". ...,-.7...-te-..".?.....:--41:r4p.-',".7-,.." ,. 1 ' ' "'''' ''';^;.'"''',"''v: Z.,'* ":...7'',....V.--'4:;',4.;'_,*." .. *- ;-; -77-''!•".1.--!'.''-,*-L,-...2...,:-.,,',7,,.,.4,,,.,::'..._::.7.,i...,,.....:..,..",,....r_z,g.,:_z..7,-,4 ,.4".?„,.,.! , -..,..,-- -,, ----...,-. ....--, .i. :-.—.- ,.,-.:,;-;...-,..-•-'.-,:-..---'7;,,4.."-:.: -..1c..1,....".....-4.--4..-z..•..7...'!4..:,-.-4(t...-'2.- -.1.w4c.....::-i-voto-ti.4-• ' ., i ': -.-..1,'."."-:2:;:,-.7.,-...,.%-',7,1-:-1-,=-..t•ir .,...-...,'';'"-..',...Z.,-:-.'.:.--..7- ".....-..:7.4.:.,.. -....,.. .:--.,..„%e....:. :..4,,,:,...1:::-.-.;:.:ti,,,,-.:...1,i717,*.w.,-atat.,-.7,,c1.7... ------;,,:rs„..' ..,...,..,,,-- ,,'..-- i.,....,:-..;;;: .^.77;.,..."'•'-',..4.-,V",;•.:".r ..7.:,:l.17.4.1.,„".-..x......67.,.*.i.",...,...•..ujiii.tk:-_ ,-7.-...W,p7.---...t4... .4:" - ;.... •"... "-",:"..2 7:".".I'V,..:.t,!...,...z.,:...-".',..: .".. *:*• .-. •7',:,..,;.. ,-,,,-,..z.-:,;':',„,i...,..,;,$•-,11.-,-.,,,..111.,,:e....... • e.V.....-a..5.,' ,-,....:-.,,,t-.- , v$4....•'......r-X,.:= '•sr-•.::.:.7.V...7;• ...........-: ...:-..T.,•,....,„.;.....-7...fE..-.....;:t... 4.. .t.:-.... ..ria'.61_.„,,,,,yr-.1"4 7"-•.;..,-tr--',,,,_„,1' .-•".- r,-",, .„,-• - 1 1 :,;" :...MP0.1:7.7.:7:4;-.-:.,_::=,:g.;:i.:-. 7.:;-.::: '...-:-•;'-'7.-z'-':;41:::;:t'....:;"- t-zf„.--.•:.--..jV..»...',%;t3 ';',?r,47.3,;:4:i:411i421'.0.,7''''' ..F::.'41-ieA-'"*;?-=''' '""7"---.,.' -Z7lar-t- ::-,_*--N-Te:.:'i:',.‘. 1 ...:•-•7,-',;.. i.&si';.r.,44,c„,:mrsti„,::74..;i1*,Ziai.a.,- ..,&;:,,,„.-,,,r;;„:s'.,,z:'k',J,„.F...d:,,..irii.. ..;..i... jisz',;f;. -...ii-,, „,.. ..,„*.ta-1,,,,:, ..F.t.....t.4.:,::,,..v.r.:,...:,-,w4.-....r..,.;:i ) .- t ,Fek44*-L, ,.4.4,,tiii.V.:.. 14: 5,4,: 4`Te.1.tir.1':, ,..34:• Aillti..i,-:-7,1_,--. 7„,",7,--. 3-^,::'4.."' t,t..At;;74- -.,o'-r,g-,.4::-Z173.Z.'3.7,,5A ! .--..!.?1;-..X`. ...,,.. .1.. 01,.."%F5V.,,,Xeieyk0:1:::?.... .z.,-.-7.:-'.."-.:...-=';',.'friri ," '",-'7.4 .'..":•.«.•'"el,:#. •-. -- -ri../.., ::-,,- ...7,,-,:.-1:,,...v!..-7'2-' .:",tl..! 1 z::"..„- ,...;fr:r.-,-.:::7:1--t:: ::... ••*.'::-.:- !::'r' ':7:'":': ,,..-:',:11.15 ,-!,,::**.W,' 4.7a-...,,,,.•,,,...- zm, ',74.,:„..-rz.4,,s,."!,7,, -4.ifje : „.te,,,--.,.' 7„':,,',,,,x,;,,`..„...1,,.r.,,,,,,..e..-„......‘,,.:7-'.,;i-.e'''''-.',"-;.,::-• ,:r4..:^,, .'''. : 7 '',--.,'', ..-szot,P- • .. 4...i.Vgr.,e, -. '•.: .t■AvW,t4r,..1'7-.'':;,•:=4'';%:"'''''' • ''•-"`- -*.:..7;■Pt."....7.41: ''''t via,CW'.", . - ..-t7,-11.,w.:4-..,-.... 47.7,.....:-Eftu-:.1,7,..,--, -.,•-1--, -' :- . .. .1.:7A-r,-.....-.:..*.z.--.. • . rt....1"'Z''''''.-,,,' '''''IV,■'1"...'75t."*.%'''''''"' '''' — . , , iii.4.24%...,„ ..., .. ''... ,......-Ogli. .... 4 ;er•,00.4 l' ..2.^.14..I4'..,:.4S'',-1`.•',....”:71.;::.''::" -,.-'.2 ' .' 7 ... ' r • rr r:,.:-;'.:7«,V74.11'rr '•,' ... .. ,.. -fez= It..,-.._:.-..-:..A..., ,,,;j:•., i:t.,,..,„ , :.....,.;,,,;2 :.-..'-,4., ,:........ Cr3.''..-...:,1,,;;',.,...:,;"A5.:*h .,--.`:: ='.?!..*,..Fre". :7.51..:".4..:;"-::".?..''". "-----' ''''..:, ■ : winch has. net yet.received approitti. Solid waste disposal will be • ' --.,,.7.;: sillaritited-by a-private hauler. ' Tbe.airport will be served by . -....': decentralized wells. . ,..-,::...,,. .;,.,:,,,:,,.: ,, , .; :,..,a .. . ' '- -, ''', ..%" - 4.• ,:—.- A..-;if,,:7er7,::,!"...,' --.:- • - ; - .. - • ' . ,7- ,ie.:-.44':.'"="4"•-`.-•....--—', .,-e...',...-- . . • : 'ff; 7: t.:.--Paine protectica will, be provided tri the Orange County *erdrs Department- Twentrinur hour seentity will be provided by a security/maintenance vehicle with radio capability to augment the _ .. . Sheriff's police protection- This plan, has been approved by the Orange County SherifL. .., ..,,, . ,.. . . ' . ".`&..: Resole squad pm:teeth:az will be provided by the Orange Comte ma. , .. G. Fire protection wilt be provided by the Orange Grove Volunteer nri Company. The Board of Dir' wears of the Fire Company . have indicated they can provide fire proteetion to the airport so long as the special condition contained herein are met by the applicant. All other information required by- Article I& of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and including that required in Section 8.8.8.1 was provided by the applicant at the public hearing. 1 , 1, Documentation from the North Cardine Department of . Transportation Indicating that all FAA and State repletion governing general aviation airports will be satisfied by the applicant were presented at the public hearing. a and .....,._ 8. The airport it operated as shown on the site plan and - • stated in the narrative and according to the imposed conditions herein should not adversely affect adjacent existing land uses. There was evidence presented at the public hearing indicating that adjacent land ' uses could be,adversely affected. The Board found however that if operated as indicated and according to and in compliance with the special conditions that these adverse effects would be minimal. il 9. Provided the applicant can obtain control of the height of structures as detailed in the special conditions contained herein, the applicant has demonstrated that it owns or controls land sufficient to provide approach zones and overrun areas. The site plan and narrative 1 India' tte that adequate lend area is provided for all of the proposed , uses, buildings and storage areas provided the applicant can obtain control of the height of structures as detailed in the special conditions. . . , 10. Site plan and narrative indicate appropriate screening of buildings, storage and maintenance areas and provided the screening requirements contained in the special conditions are met. 11. There is a secured access easement to Highway S4. The access road will be built to Department of Transportation standards and dedicated to the public. .. t , . . . • _ 06 .. -• ; .., i .,„ U . - ..„1.i........„.......... ...„.„,......,....,.....,•••„;„:„.„.„......„.........„......,..:„.....r:.qt.'...r,...,.-..:1•:'...,,,.•_,.e..... ...... .a...,,21„,,,,,,,,,,,._...,,,,,..,„,,,,_4_,,,,..„..„3,,,,,,,:,...„,,,..4_,......:,.. 1 ;5 '''.....-...4,Z.--+....F-•.,''77'7 -.--,.r. :r.:0",4. at..: '' ..,'..,':-....,. "....„ .4:.01...":;....,...""7_,Y,../...":"....".,:•'.4;-.1:..';7...X.',..."7.(:5•LY'''!..',,lii...--f,,,,'"7,'4. ,,,. .".:,,,';,' ,„,:tr.: ..., ..:*':.%;•...4'......; •• ,,,,.-,.1...:/...... '..,,..,' .....r..-".-'''',.2.r'......7...-. --4.2*."7.*.r... -.4.1-..rOn...1-17. 1."...4 -. ..:Arlr."^"ki.,„ , ••• ....„-..;„:",..,;;•;z::-..1,vi.:7-....,1,• .,. -: ,,''.—...z.••••••.4.‘,.4-...t.d,*;,,... ..,...:17.-‘7.7.11:•...,..,.%,,.......--,+•ti pew;,,,-i•o.-... r.,-.^f,..- ,--.1`.. i.-,.i•-1,1-4. . 11A..,,e........,-•,.;, •.... _. .- _•,-• ,........t•_„, -• , „4.•„....-'-,,,,,:_.„.•,„ ....:,-,,..,:.';,,„,..?4t... .;..,.%-t.:::::- ,-^4.3.4%.,....Z.■7te"Z"-.."'""..": b ...t...,4i.4...,1••=r,X ....n...,,' — ,.... ......,-.c. ... -..... --- .t W-,..1.„.-..c.-f---„tr-....,, ''' ---.-.•it,-.1z........,...v, 7.:PPY r... ;-"k=,--. ....- -..:..'....,.".".•-..: :** ..:. ",`.6:•`..'",:••.r.z. ': --,:t..-, ___...-•' -:.." W.,.. ;:r.ZtrS.„4,,,.." ',.. ..•`"'"'fr-W,`'-:-...r.4",.. :'...17"P."Zir.":::-.X...t.;.:..,.^-.*::::..1:7•A„t:',":.--.7.-...-7::::•:...%,:41.1 .„,'-.,:,,S,.. , F.fr'z'rJ--`'1-e S--=„1,74.1-.7,1;:•,--4=4',...;%-r.kor..A.,,,,. ,, -...',. ., ....- a ---,,:-.,--5y,::-..-!--t-„t_,-=,......z.4.,,....-- ,,,,--,,-a.....-.z..,4. .i.,4-.,...- - -, •":--.--.....,------.±“,,-.1-,.....,-.7.-,.....-1.4..-r-4,-„,f,..,t,:::-., ,,.......,..--. :-.4. " -.„.-.;;;;;;;;,.1,:,•.; .:.-.4.:•C.,,-„,...-•," .1„1_,.1.,tr.......-......,,„..... .. .s.,,,z,„,...•; ,, :„.0 ■.. ..r....„1„.p.,;... , , --fii,,-......z•..••,":"ari•-.r. ......,-1.. :;:.: . 11,...;;.---,,,,,,,r,... 1•!., .z.t40.4?...”-,,-A., ,..„--, •;,...:‘,e. .s• :.-. .:z_.--.7„r^... ,..... .,11,..,-4,..........„;,..1,...:;p7 4,,,,•ii.,4 ,,,,,Lki„...v.,;.7...b,' .• ....p,„..,.,,,,Ily,4...Ss'Crol' ". 70`..."'"1.../*-... /407 i 1 -* .......:Zi -..,. ."...,....' ' -....,,,.**^..r,..,...- ,r:1 - 4 *"..^.."■--:••■•r-,..t.'"7'.•-:.. . A..',, ''''1,., 2,,rvir,,-:',.,.'_,..1..';..... :' +• -.1 ''' '1.`•i"-si•tt-'-'-'":'''-=-..----..'-4-*--.71;.... .*:,..".-14-?-z.-,- ---,--- „. ...-,;.'• ,-.'•-r•- ..- Y,3. - r -- -3 -•.:,---•••--,"4:;-17;.,.. . •-,`"..V-1-.-,,.., r.g.. . ,..Dt7.7.. -:,,,, ,.. " _ - 1.,:la-t -L,,::. 7 , :-.--..xy.-1—...u.„„„1 --,., -•,..= r ..e. -.- , -„-vt--„A.,„,„ „i„,-.1 --, tt-s,-,,.....,-:•• - ., - • - -. , -,.t.. , : ---A1-t.;.:,.:--4:.',- - er t.,,e......,t-t . •-0'....-‘5.-:-T• sNi.-•,,,,,,t- 1-......e.: '41";=.4-_, .. 1'..04.2.4.4fAr.:7 ..„ z-It... 1.it.... -..--ft--- - --.....vztrzkvii-c-,::::.*.F,-7' •: ,,-:-.::-....; ,. __*, .,:,-;,p-F.,..k.:4,- ,,,......;:...-41,-,::::T,i,- -.... .. ITX;Z^14,41"2 .47Ce,t V$4:1 .1 -Ci ,r -P:-.?"'7:'..'-`-.7".•'(--174- ", '" -: .. - - , .,' ...... ...,-. . , .7 :....,'Sf,•,.. • ',2;(...*,,. 4;,1---17?20,54-.f:=7 1S---:-:":. - 7 ;.4p.;',12;;:..,-;The Ordinance requires that compatible land uses be • '--,Rent ed iir-the final approach' tweets, of the airport. The evidence • presented- at the bearing 'indicates that the land use- !bested in the final approach areas for the airport will be compatible with an airport of this ze and scope provided the applicant can central the height of 1 st:ructures t the degree set forth in the special coritlition . • -7* The following are the imposed earications required of the .. applicant for approval of this-special use permib : L. The shall be no jet aircraft permitted at the facility and the Airport Facility Directory- published by the U.S. Department of Commerce (N.O.S.) shalt specify that jet aircraft are not permitted at the facility. The applicant/owner shall be responsible for notifying the U.S. Department of Commerce of this restriction and shall demonstrate compliance with this condition. 2.. The applicant shalt own or control the height of objects in an area at e„acht end of the runway which is known as the approach-departare eerie. The dimensions of this zone are shown in the diagram below. The approactr-departure zone begins 200' from the end of the runway and rises at a 20:I slope to a height of 2501 at a - distance of 5000'. The zone is 500' in width at its beginning and 2000' In width at its end. The easement rights negotiated with each property owner must specify that the developer can control the heights of objects within the approach-departure zone. All easement waits and other evidence of ownership the awn:net...departure zone shalt be in form and content approved by the County Attorney. i< 5000' I I i i I . I I . • "Tr i 1 . =ant • ' 7.0 APPTmAar r==1 0 rEPARTORE SOO* ti 1 1 1 i 1 I 1 if 200# 1 I • 1 l - 3. The final site plan and narrative of the project incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project are incorporated herein and made part of the Special Use Permit. A copy of the final site plan and narrative are • to be maintained on file with the Orange County Planning Department Only those commercial uses' specified in the project narrative and on the site plan, including but not necessarily limited to the sale of fuel for aircraft, maintenance service and flight training classes, will be permitted at the airport facility. All improvements as indicated shall "be constructed according to the constructtaa schedule set up in the final site plan and narrative. 4. The following fire protection measures shall be provided by the applicant (1) construction of a fire access road to the property from Teer Road; (2) a 24 hour/day vehicle tar security, fire fighting and maintenance purposes. The vehicle'will be outfitted with master keys, radio system, turn-out gear, portable fire extinguisher, Lire fighting ting foam airpack. Satisfaction of these requirements Company Cod by the Chief of the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Com be ea�c)ff and the County Manager; (3) three ponds 'npeble of supplying 30,000 gallons of water over a two hour period. The water level of each pond shall be maintained at a level sufficient to supply 30,000 gallons of water over a two hour period by the mestruction of wells and the necessary hardware which would be activated when the water level drops below the required level. Drafting stations shall be Ioeated and constructed to the specifications of the Fire Company with all-weather access provided. The ponds shall be constructed in the following locations and according to the following timetable: pond number one shall be located 600 feet north of the phase one F.8.0. Hanger and shall be '. completed when phase one construction begins. Pond number two shall be located 600 feet north of the phase two maintenance hanger and shall be completed when phase two construction begins. Pond number three shall be located 400 feet northeast of the phase three maintenance hanger and shall be completed when phase three eonstruction-begireg Access to Midway Airport ;shell be provided periodically to the Fire Company and its successors in fire rotection responsibility for training exercises; (4) two hundred gallons of 5% AFFF foam shall be provided to the Fire Company, a portion (determined by the Fire Company) to•be kept on the trucks of the Fire Company and the remaining stored in the airport maintenance hangers and made available to the Fire Company at all times. An additional 20 gallons of 6% AFFP foam shall be provided to Fire Company annually for training purposes. Two foam nozzles and educators,, one for a 1-I/2° line and one for a 2-1/2" line shall be provided to Fire Company; (5) two portable 50 pound dry chemical fire extinguishers shall be provided and maintained in each of the three phases of the Airport. One shall be located in the fueling area, the ` tr `' =timr..,x77!O':',it.: - "'-f='^sti';:`•ia r.-� - :i.'.- ,r..r��.;�Ltw..::-„r, .ff. . I other stationed in the T-hanger area of each phase; (6) a contribution to Fire Company in an amount not to exceed 510,000 to enable•Fire Company to purchase a water pump to be moimtgd either on a Fire Company trailer or truck. This amount is payable on demand upon the ` issuance to applicant of any building permit (7) the following safe features st be adhered-to by applicant: (a) We T-hangers must es contain no open-flame heaters; (b) no loading or unloading or storage of fuel shall be permitted in any hanger area; (c) the requirements of (a) and (b) shall be prominently displayed in all hanger areas and incorporated into an Airport Operating Manual which manual shall be made available to all airport users; (d) all FAA safety requirements 4 pertaining. to construction and operation of a public,airport the size of Midway shall be adhered icy (8) a communication system between the Midway F.B.C. control roam and Fire Company shall be installed by 1. applicant. ■ 5. The following construction schedule shall be adhered-to { by the applicant: Construction of the runway shall begin within one year of final approval of the Special Use Permit and all construction j on the runway shall be completed one year after construction begins. i All construction detailed in phase one of the site plan and project narrative will be completed ninety (90) days after;completion of the runway. Phase two will be initiated within sir months after the start of eonstruction of phase one and be completed within two years of . .. initiation. Phase three will be completed within two yearn of completion of phase two. 6. The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall past with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond c r letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of construction of 1 ail public improvements, including, to, grading, clearing chiding but not limited and stabilization of all areas in public streets and the erection of i street signs, fire ponds and fire fighting equipment, plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the bang of fully executed construction i contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Speccal Use Permit. Security fcr construction of the iimprovements in this project may be released according to the phasing in the project. Specifically, as improvements are t completed in each phase, that phase and a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security. instruments may • be renegotiated based on the unconstructed portion of the [ improvements. _ 7. Flight training operations shall not exceed 50% of the total operations for the facility. 8: Al! necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone, sewer and water) installation, servicing and hookups to the 1 development shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. __ 060 1 rti' .. n .-4 _:eii ''J�i1;-';,?•47�•-r-wy.�•,� ".-!..7%'7,,;':,.i ��ry ,.' v?,'_..`.7-7,-'i- e-t ,5.4• - ,,t7,..,=7-1.77 .�`+ 'f.:+i. ;J• 1. f f 1 I. 1 9_ All plans for drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation control shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County. The project shall. at all times meet the requirements of the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 10. Dense evergreen screening shall be provided for any buildings that are not at least 500' from the property lines of the facility. These lines are the outside perimeter of the property described In the following conveyances Deed Book )9S, Page 527 and ' Deed Book 126, Page 30, Orange County Registry. This screening . material shall be of sufficient size to provide a 6' hedge within 3 years of planting. Also acceptable as a screening material is a 6' birm or a solid wood fence. L Any lighting of the runway or other karts of the airport nary for safety or convenience shall be of a design and so located and screened so as not to create a >i mice to adjoining property owners, 12. All public improvements shall be maintained in perpetuity. All doennients sOecifying responsliality for maintenance of the approved public improvements shall be approved by the Orange County Attorney. .'4...464-4..--A-r..74;. ' _-. . Rick Carntity, . Acting Planning Director - Orange County Planning Department use t 'ce Lee Mehler A, , P.A .' John � Kenneth Thompson Richard Gledhill E. Athitted 1 _ E • _ 061. i •r :y _,.i't.��4.r:%n�;iM��4•i1 i:...x.x'w'±�.= ma_;,y,a:�^. a•=.ice_- i�s` _r"er:c•�.:.._,",,. «:'r�a-r"� z:{,• �o-':..x_--3w.; .. ' ...... r ..`� ; - �:' r.T ..._ ; �:z,.:.. � " �::, : ,�c..v; PYrM �;J=:• ,:s ~ ". . .'r5 r r` _ '!. •:,- - r. ."r • .-:".°,;` ^.•.r;} ^•i« .:_ tti„:-S .:le' . • . " -+ r ` _ '? .?e : q • .; , ,; 1s• ",LT;"" ^,,-_:�._•.v."a`,r..'.w. + ;T7„.: ,1M- �-^'?}*•.,�. s.• .ry., » .y.. "�:: 7^;..f-:".. z i - �• ^+1T, , , :c'::- = •µ' '"•.• . St''��i-,;:...7...:.1^f'-::::y.. ;. n- . c• aK;c.�7..,y.„3; . •n-W»^a�' .°:;, ,.•.F n ...::. '- _ :..: .;.: • : �... , ; r.. :,�„ ; C..,- -:ry„"” � ,y;jy,T».. . ,.-'.. , ' '`...-ti.: '.” ,: ?41. „ ; : • 1 ' t', . w _-z:»%w2' .- ^L. r ---,,n. "S-r- ,.,., . 0 F. •a.. -m,41S "-.�.a"z.,'4;}'«' • p _ ;_y �� r'... i"'."• '`.:I,7 4 •,-;;,w4;A : - "+,»"� , 7'cy5`-?:4.—+ .:17t �S C : 4�-¢ �, s• n„ + ' t --4n `i m :-.7+ � w . 'Swig'. ud�t:y..r :r�.�x• ifs-<.,..'.;:r.r„a.~* = ^M . ,_".4.117-"4-44,..„..,--.‘„_.,- t • xa :, :':+ Wi =54a � „-r=+vd Na�y - OF �, Y L4'?^': :`t i ."11...":"........,1,`"".'w _ v.. .t•..' °"^r'y.r^ ricer., ?", • �:.s.,;• shay;ri'""?`T..., r-.-4..=-.».-, y._ t•Y-.:,l+a"'%-.»"f"" -':,�I;,;1.�t ,Y •' i i�M t .M kL re»ak ri «k; r�a' c, �' 's� e" L L:- xHr:'.'`°s"''J.. ��•• .,r,'$ '.:4( it i •-.• R-... ��e„a. .y:C. '"-`"1.4. ;'..:?1 .,„_r.:;?'.. • S �•':sT� .,,,3^CC it 4% ,;C ;•��).:i:::_"r"i»`y i. 4h. ..- jj ry, _ � • r� .e;+;r � +rAy r"""• .ITT!lAKKL.4@L .. _ .:..,.,�+: •�'•M-rw-.. ^".r�l':ia:4?mom Mir, �.. *J7 ' t.l. �. , Jtiiex A..:Vurnin " :-:` ”. .x' ',;4 ',,;-;f ' _ .P.Ck BOX.'.sst J 3.- us unit <.. ...-"�'...v;%:.t'6-.7,i,.b. :-. ' - 49191 9424tS6 Cl. 1:l Flf SAGWF,LL.JR .:.,t'.•. ::..:=--. -:. .• t� tin%97,404 CNA kS' H.T141aALT - 'i.r:_, ,1,,--`• xat'y X28, 1983 Mr Kichm a hitted, ai-iMma.a.Y .. - - Orange Count Cammissianees - Orange County Coart Souse - Airtshorongh,. NC 27278 - ..... - rlsr Midway Airport Back Mountain Development Co. Deer sr.,ghi.tted: By letter dated October 5, 1982, the Orange County Pl'Ar'tog Depa.rtsent notified us of the specific conditions which will become a part of a Special Use Permit for Midway Airport. Upon receipt of this letter, we reviewed the conditions with the members of the Buck. Mountain Development Company, and made inquiries to the adjacent land owners concerning the availability of over-flight easements as required by these cauatiana. At this point, and for the reasons .. sat forth below, we now formally petition the Orange County . Coundsntone s to reconsider the conditions set forth in the letter dated October 5, 1982, in connection with the Midway Airport Special Use Pexnit, and modify certain of those conditions as indicated . below: •• 1. The first imposed condition provides that jet aircraft . are not permitted at the facility, and that the owners shall notify t the Department of Commence of this restriction. This condition is gly in accord with our application, and we have no objection Co o it. 2. The second condition requires us to owti or control the t - height of objects in the approach-departure zone as sketched in the letter, which begins 200 feet from the end of the runway, and extends a distance of 5,000 feet, fanning to a width of"2,000 feet. We have contacted the owners of all the property located, within the approach-departure zone as indicated on both ends of the runway, and I with very few exceptions have' been refused such easements by the j property owners. In order to meet this condition, we would have to I have the voluntary Consent of the owners of the property, giving us 4 written, recordable easement or right-of-way to cone onto their ' property and limit the height of any objects thereon, whether the objects be natural or man-made. Without the consent and approval of the landowners, we are completely unable to comply with this provision, through no fault of our awn, and we do not have the power of eminent domain to force such compliance. - ,. os4 "ti"ryn«y?': ;"`^;4_..-wv,'�`•�'y.i'%q»;ti.. _ .s.:,"'....`G :+t<'t.• »;;r!'"-nY ..,;^r•.•"v..-.•:nom•a«^: .<�'1'.""''1'�'�'i1•iT •,•f'+N. yTM ••�. � _ ff-.. ::.?:.:fi��' '."'c "-��"ynti+.ti�±"•.T=�, ,_�t''• is w._�_ .tp v• -�,'' i j�•r- .5....w.,:r..�Sa �.,..+r+.+.a ..'•v'x :.l. -:fix r t '«!3r:'s,..•�•-Y�; •","u-_r_v:.m•"e+...a;'^>r-: av •' •Y �:� _ • '.y- •kr" ".'.i.*y— ..•.'.•n• "`_;...'':.•.._'=.--r''�,.•: :..,—+. •r`!.4;�•,;`'r'-==-Y.' i, :'tii 1 c 06� • • sT T.-TST!.wad_ «�::r.:4 J, + i• �__ P ;i.... - - ,..� _ :_r_ , :s: ,hi ”"i^,-t • :�}= Ss .?.a - ' ! F Mr. Richard Qhitted Page 3 • 7T. The seventh condition limits flight training operations to 50X of total operations for the facility, would be extremely difficult for the developer to verify or enforce, and appears to us to be an undue restriction on the operations of the airport. We ask that this condition be deleted in its entirety, so that the airport may be tied for flight training as the demand may mist. • S. The remaining conditions, (Numbers 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12) all appear to be acceptable and reasonable as drafted. Please place this matter on as a Petition on the nest regularly scheduled meeting of the County Commissioners, so that ve may as the Commissioners to reconsider these particular items as conditions on the final draft of the Special Use Permit. Thank you for your attention in this regard. Sincerely. • John A. Nort3en JAN:b. I, cc: Buck Mountain Development Company Peloquin Associates Geoffrey E. Gledhill Rick Cannity, Orange County Planning Department Ben Lloyd Shirley Marshall - Borman Qalker Donald.Aillhoit ' E ' t 1 i I 064 COLEMAN, BERNHGLZ, DICKERSON, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL& HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 110 CHURTON STREET HILLSBOROUGH.N.C. 27278 919.732.21% 9I9-942.8000 Cwt FILL OR OE RIM z),FRANKLIN BUILDING 137 FRANKLIN 5iR::� CONFIDENTIAL CmApe.HW_tLC Z7S14 919.923715i ALoreo 8.cotsuarr,j May 23, 1983 MI/Er/A,BERNMoc2 DONALD R DICKERsoN ROGER BEFMR4012_GEOFFREY E Richard u. Mr. Richard Et K'hitted, Chairman DOICL+s HARGRAVE Mr- Ben 1.4oyd .L W a Ms. Shirley Marshall Mr: Norman Walker Of BON Aa S Mr. Donald W7lhait nkrt 1972/ Orange County° Board of Commissioners Orange County Courthouse 106 Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Members of the Board: This letter is intended to aid you in consideration and deliberation of the Buck Mountain Development Company request for a modification of its special use permit. Section 8.8,8.2 of the zoning ordinance lists specific standards that must be met by the applicant before a permit may be issued, and in the _context of a modificatjonL before it can be .zr8rttad. Those that concern me and that are the subject of this letter are: a) All FAA and State regulations are met as a condition of approval b) The site and its operation will not adversely affect existing adjacent land uses. c) Land sufficient to provide approach zones and overrun areas is owned or controlled by the applicant. Subsections a) and c) because of the nature and application of state and federal standards must be reviewed together. All of the evidence produced at the public hearing on the application for the airport special use permit was to the„ effect that, with respect to control of approach zones and overrun areas, FAA and North Cuoi.jha revuirPrr ents do not ozo beyond what has be tatted rhP Waco rt r zone. In the case of an airport with a runway the size of that proposed for Midway, the clear zone iq _ I 1 0Gb i EII • I , regulations. Therefore, ownership and control of this.area cannot tle_a standard tinder the Count's reo re ents. � � The State, likewise, does not require control or ownership of the approach surface. The C9vnfiv's a renient whicti makes state and federal standards its own, cannot exceed or be less than those standards. Since state and federal standards do not impose control~-or ownership ;reou_ire, s -cif. sport owne .bcvond-the &ear zone, this too sets the standard for the- subsection (e) r sufficient! to provide approach zones and overrun areas is aownedaor controlled by the applicant." This is so.b_ecAuse the County ordinance contains no other. (other than state or federal) standard for providing approach zones and overrun areas. -subsection ,(b) presents a slightly� y �diff Vent cuestian with respect to the 8 pproach/departure zone requirements previously imposed by the County. The evidence on the effect Midway Airport will have on existing asiiaeent Lang_ uses during the previous public hearing was mixed. Presumably this, along with the specific health safety anti welfare concern presented by the location of public schools and residential subdivisions, in the approach/departure zone of the Horace Williams Airport, were the legal basis of the requirement that Buck Mountain control all of ,the approach surface. ©n this point, 1 i would caution the Board to carefully review again all of the evidence from the prior hearing and all of -the OTQence from this hearing to be sure cna`t,,,,dantrotung rnis- area, Keeping iir mind that it is three dimensional 1 and at die ena ox use clear zone has a bottom of 50 feet above the terrain rising to 250 feet at the end of the approach surface solves the "affecting existing adjacent land "uses" problem posed. The questions to answer in this regard are_l) does the. proposed airport as_acesenLtu by„ Ze applicant with co,icra. _oc c.1. 1: zone only adversely of ect existing adjacent land uses, If j t aces nor- no furf1e`r"inquiry on this point is necessary, If it does, 2) does_reauiring control or ownership or ttte aaor©a, zCZn,e or—some C?a3t of it cure the problem' roblem? If it does, '"impose such _control with, a special condition. If i�does nor, do not. With resoect ,-to specific _health,; safety and welfare ',ncerns, onl this point the burden or proof snitts to those opoosest to the apprication. The questions are I) does the airport. aG:Proposed, with its owners controlling the area known as the clear zone only, pose an identifiable threat to the hpealttt. sa el,,g.. anri_w 1fAre? 2) If so,! does requirgsg control or ownership this threat? � it' fne tieeltn. sareLg�,anrt w aoc�ro$ch surface cure -. x elhze fire. threatened in an icentiriabie way by the airport as originally proposed and in the modification proposal, then the ©ermit cttni11,4 IN co .4.,..:_..r _.... , 06b ttrreet. .c,sn be cured by the imposition of a, special c edition. The previous decision cif-The Board suggests that an identifiable threat WEIS determined to exist and that control by the airport owners of the approach one cured the three t. Because of the definition of the approach surface, Le.,--its shape and dimensions in all three directions, and because of. the possibility, that the very inquiry made by the Board was misunderstood, I urge yotr to study the evidence carefully to be certain it proves the airport as -prnnosed Doses an identifiable heelth, safety and welfare probI in and to be certain that contrfll.bv. Vie owner ni _the approach' zone cured the t; .ena, Very truly yours, O—ai . - GIedhill GEG/jac cc: Mr. Marvin Collins ► Dr..,Logan Irving, f, the Planning :•1•ard Mr. Ken Thompson , . . 06.1 Appendix A MIDWAY AIRPORT - TRAFFIC GENERATION 1 Hangared plan' s Phase one= 87 units r = 87 units total Phase two= 90 units I- 6 units = 183 units total _ . Phase three= 87 units 4* 6 units = 275 units total From Horace illiams Airport records = range of 150 flights/month to 300 flights/month including based, transient, and training aircraft for 50 based aircraft.. 1 From Talbot Cox and Associates (Wilmington N.C., Columbia S.C.) General !aviation airport consultants Rule of thumb standards: 2.3 occupants per landing/takeoff 1.3, vehicles per landing/takeoff I 15 hours of operation/dayverage From Department of Transportation: 54 has 5000 trips per day i Phase one _ I. 87 atrcraft = 261 to 522 flights/month 1 ...... divide by 30 days = 8.7 to 17.4 flights/day ! average 15 hours per day (7a.m. to 10 p.m.) = .58 to 1. 16 flights/hc time 1 .3 vehicles/landing = .75 to 1.5 vehicles/hour times 15 hours per day = 11.25 to 22. 5 vehicles/day Phase two . 183 aircraft = 549 to 1098 flights/month divide by 30 days = 18.3 to 36.6 flights/day average 15 hours per day = 1 .22 to 2.44 flights /hour 1 times 1 .3 vehicles/landing = 1.59 to 3. 17 vehicles/hour times 15 hours per day = 23. 85 to 47.55 vehicles/day Phase three 1 276 aircraft = 828 to 1636 flights/month --•-••••■1141 • : • : 7". 57! • CYD,ANCE: •t'" •'•• 71_• - - ' 71;-4P-' 11414'7- '16ARD. or COMMISSIONERS " • , • It= E .„. icrica 2-;.togalk ITEN ? T1 '-Cr Mat- .-TTNT,G DATE August i, 1983 Subject: Rezoning Request - Z71-83 James Rae Freeland LDeTt • ._ • • _77_ yes rianning - - r-- r,‘ -.En..fozzation. Cont...P..eLt Marvin Collins - 21,ttaci-Maa,..ki . Staf Report; (919) 732-6181 EXT. 346- Applicatibn; Map Numbe.r: PURPOSE: To receive Planning Doare recommendation On the propose cl zoning chaise for 35.4' acres of property from R-1 to R-5- requested by James Rae..:FreeIand. NEED: The property is located in Hillsborough Township and is shown as a portion of Lot on Tax Map 415'., It is located on the west side of N.C. Highway 86 south of Interstate .851 and the Southern Railroad. An R-5 zoning classification would allow the development of a Subdivision with a minimum of 7.500 sq. ft. single-family lot; Water and dewr, servicei6 being provided by-way-of connection to Town of Hillsbor, systems. Fire protection would be 'provided to the site by the Orange-Rural Fire District. -Law- enforbeMent service would be provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. IMPACT: The property is located in a 10-Year Transition Area as designated by a Land Use Plan amendment' approved March 7, 1983. The request complies with the application criteria for 0-5 zoning district designation. The WI or Land Use Intensity System would apply to the development, providing more detailed information and requirements concerning recreation, residential, liveability and open space through the subdivision approval process. Potential impacts to be mitigated include increased traffic on N.C. 86 and increased student population in the Orange County School Systpm ! _ . • 069 ORAilsTGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Trrur•SBOROUGH - NORTH CAROLINA (1 27278 ce"' ar It. (.... -7_ TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: MARVIN E. COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: July 15, 1983 RE: Z-I-83 JAMES RAY FREELAND (REZONING REQUEST) GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: James Ray Freeland P.O. Box 113 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Location: West side of N.C. Highway 86 south of Interstate 85 and the Southern Railroad Requested Action: Rezone from R-,41 Residential to R-5 Residential Ta.--- Purpose: To enable residential development on ?,500 sq.ft. lots in order to provide less expensive single-family homes . Lot Size: 35.11 acres or 1,529,391.6 sq.ft. Existing Land Use: Vacant, wooded tract. Surrounding Land Use North - Single-family homes and R-1 district; Storage and 'Zoning: warehouse, concrete company, door/window sales and EC-5 district; and gas station, restaurant ' and convenience store and CC-3 district. South - Single-family subdivision (under development) . and R-4 district; Contractor's office and day care center and EC-5 district; and proposed electric power company office and maintenance site and PD-'OI district. East - Single-family development and R-2 district. • West - Vacant land and R-1 district. Land Use Plan: The Ladd Use Plan was amended on March 7, 1983 to change the designation of the subject property from 20-Year Transition and Rural Residential to 1n-v ,- T,..,,.....:o.Z ..— Ammo. ■ 1 1 0 7 0 . .=.__,.......... . _ _ -_ 4.. Applicable Regulations: Listed below is a comparison of uses permitted in 4.' the R-1 and R-5 Residential districts. "f" indicates „.... ‘.... a use permitted by right. "A" indicates a specific use permit is required from the Planning Board/Board of Commissioners. "B" indicates a special use permi is required from the Board of Adjustment. "0" indic the use is not permitted. -...r. COMPARISON OF PERMITTED USES * - Use by right 0 - Not permitted A - Class A Special Use B - Class B Special Use PERMITTED USES R-1 R-5 Day nursery, day care, private kindergarten B B Dwelling; singleTfamily * * , Dwelling; two-family ' * ft Dwelling; multii4e-family 0 * Dwelling; mobilelhome * ft Family care home * * Group dare facility B B Residential hotel (fraternities, etc.) 0 A Rooming house 0 Temporary mobile home B B Tourist home i 1 0 * * Accessory uses * * Airport, general aviation A 0 Botanical gardens * ft Buildings, portal:4e B B Bus passenger shelter * ft Cemetery B B ' Church * * Community center B B Extraction of earth products A A Governmental - piptective services * ft Landfall (2 acres or more) A 0 Landfill (Less than 2 acres) B 0 Parks, public and non-profit * Public utility stations/substations A A Radio/TV towers 1 B B Schools ! * * Transmission lines B B Universities * 0 Governmental facilities * * -*Tdatgar/SivizAr. rolml, 071 Other applicable regulations are as follows: Or- DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ' R-1 R-5 Lot area/dwelling unit 40,000 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. Lot width 130 ft. 50 ft. Front yard 4o ft. 20 ft. Side/rear yards 20 ft. 10 ft. Building height 25 ft. 25 ft. SITE DEVELOPMENT - COMPARATIVEANALYSIS To give some indication of the impact of development of the 35.11 acre tract, the density standards of the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and. R-5 zoning districts were applied to determine the maxi number of housing units which could, be placed on the site. Standards for estimating traffic generation, water consumption, sewage flow and school student p4ulation were then applied to ascertain the effect of the project on thoroughfares, public utility systems and schools. These calculation are shown on the accompanying table and discussed in the "Application Criteria" section. APPLICATION CRITERIA. • • The R-5 zoning district is one of three (3) districts designated as "high intensity residential districts". The purpose of such dustricts is to provide locations for high intensity re4dential development and supporting recreational, community, L- service or educational uses in areas where the full ranee of urban services are available. Section 4.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the district designation will be applied where the following conditions exist: ! 1. Designated by the adopted Land Use Plan as a Transition Area which can reasonable be annexed by a municipality in the ensnine 10-20 years. Staff Comment: AS indicated previously, the Land Use Plan was amended on March [T, .1983 to change the designation of the subject property to 10-Year Transition. Given the pattern of existing development within ti* area, it is reasonable to assume that annexation of the property by the Town of Hillsborough would occur within 10-20 years. 2. Water andisewer lines should, exist at site or be assured of installation as part of the development process. • Staff Comment: Water and sewer lines are being extended to serve the property as part ok the development of Phase I-Wildwood Subdivision. Immediatelvater service can be provided by-way-of the extension of a 6-inch main from Jonpa Oaks Subdivision through Phase I of Wildwm,-.A Subdivic4g„ MV 4- B-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 35.11 acres 35.11 acres 35.11 acres 35.11 acres 33.95.-acres(2) 3.90 acres 5,20 acres 7.41 acres •ea (?�l•1%) 'x.72 acres 6.65 acres (1#.8%) (21.1%j (22.0%) !(19.6%) t f 31.21 acres 29,91 acres 27.70 acres 27.39 acres 27.30 acres 409004 sq. ft. 20,000-sq -ft. '15,0000 sq. ft. 3.0,0134 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. /Acre) 0 97 UNITS 31F 55 $1} 119 15$ 1.85 2.28 5- 7 9.72 9,72 n 301 AM 9.72 Duelling{�F) 1#00 gpd X00 777 ADT 1,1.56 ADT 1,536 ADT lovr 13,600 gpd 26 000 gpd 400 gpd 400 gpd 400 gpd 'opulatiW 27 52 gpd 32,006 gpd 47,600 gpd 63,200 gpd �. 13 26 32 95 1226 47 68 4 9 11 16 21 9 11 16 '21 8 10 16 21 wired NIA, N/A N/A N/A 1 .16 acres(2) Based on percentages taken from subdivisions of comparable lob size. Land area available after deduction, of land required for recreational use by LUI- Land Use Intensity System, garicopa County Trip Generation Study y john McAdams Company ?.8 Persons/household 80% of households with school age children U Distribution - 50%-Elementary; . .. 17% Middle, Jr. High and Sr. High) y: Q 07t: . . two 18p gpm pumps with an effective capacity of 129,600 gpa capable of serving 324 households. Effluent will be pumped I:1 by-wayi-of a 6-inch force main to another pump station located at Wilmore Electronics. The effluent will then be pumped by- may-oqa 4-inch force main to the Town of Hillsborough waste treatmlit plant. The effective capacity of the Wilmore pump station is 132,000 gpd, utilizing two-five horsepower motors rated at 92 gpd. each. The pump station currently.handles TOO gpd.. The addition of WildwOod Subdivision, Phase I (10,409 gpd) and. Phase (63,200- gpd) would utilize 56% of the pump station's capacity. 3. Vehicular access must consist of direct access to a street certifiled either arterial or collector as designated by the adopted Land Use Plan. 1 Staff Comment: N.C. Highway 86 has been classified as an arterial street in the Orange Coanty Land Use Plan. :Direct access Ito this facility is available from the properLf in question. Arterials are thoroughfares that provide the best service (shortest travel times) to and from important employment, shopping, educational and population centers. They are characterized by realtively high travel speeds with minimum interference to through traffic. Because of the importance of N.C.. Highway as an arterial or "traffic mover", care must be taken to protect this function. In 19811 traffic volumes along this route had reached 4,500 vehicles per day. Given the capacity of the route (9,500 vehicles per day) this means that an excess capacity of approxithately 5,000 vehicles per day remains. Completion of Wildwood-Phase I will result in an additional. 253 trips per day. This is based on anaverage trip rate of 9.72 trips per day for medium-density single-family 'dwellings. The addition of 158 units under the requested rezoning would add an additional 1,536 vehicles per day. These two developments alone would utilize 36% of the remaining carrying capacity of N.C. Highway 86. The developer has also indicated a desire to develop an additional 29.7 acres at R-8 densities (8 units/acre). Such a development could generate as many as 1,180 vehicular trips per day (29.T acres x 8 units/acre.x 4.97 trips/condomiaum). The addition of this project to Phases I and II would utilize 59% of J4he remaining capacity; and increase traffic volumes from 4,500 to 7.469 vehicles per day. Because of the impact created by the development of this traro- 074 a. Widen to full ½ width of a 4-lane traveiway and utilize as 2-land road with center turn lane. b. Add acceleration and deceleration lanes with travel lanes 200 feet long and, tapers 495 feet long. c. Add. tapers 495 feet long only. k. The full range of urban services exist .or are proposed at the time of the development including fire, police, recreation, etucation, mammercils1 and cultural activities. Fire Protection: Fire protection for the property in question would be provided through the Orange Rural Fire District (Hillsborough Fire Department) . The fire stateion is located approximately 2.34 miles from the site. Response time in the event of a fire would be approximately 4-5 minutes. Facilities available to serve rural areas include a 500 gpm pumper, a 750 gpumper, a 1,250 gallon tanker, a 3,700 gallon tanker, a, "quick attack" 450 gpm pumper, and a mobile air supply van. Police protection: Law enforcement protection would be provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. The site falls within. Patrol Area 10 Which is patrolled on a 24-hour basis (3 shifts-one deputy per car)J, Recreation: The Land Use Intensity System which is applicable to R-5 Residential developments requires the provision of 1.16 acres of recreation area. This space must be approximately improved for the common relcreatiopnl use of residents of the development.. The space may be either publicly or privately owned. In the former situation, opportunities exist for dedication of the space to Orange County. Development of an adjacent tract at R-8 densities could result in additional. land area for recreational use which, if combined with that area required in Phase II-Wildwood, could provide a neighborhood facility to serve a much larger area. If privately owned, provision should be mane for the improvement of the space and its continued maintenance through a homeowner's. association. Existing recreation facilities and programs are available to serve the future residents of the development. These arelproVided by the Orange County Recreation Department. Educationl pm • Development of the property in question will have an impact in terms of the ability of the school system to provide adequate educational space for neii children. A redistricting plan for the elementari schools has been completed and. Grady A. Brown Elementary appears capable of handling approximately 30 additional students. Stanback Middle School has one (1) vacant class (25 pupils) , but Stanford Jr. High and. Orange Sr. Tio.11 0Th Commercial/cultural facilities: The site is located approximately 774 miles from the central business district of Hillsborough and approxtely 1.9 miles from commercial development extending along N.C. Highway 86. Businesses within these two areas as well as existing and future commercial development at the 1-85 and. N.C. 86 interchange can serve the shopping needs of future area residents. A wide array of cultural activities are available in Hillsborough, Chapel Rill and. Durham; many offered through university-sponsored programs! RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning for the following reasons: 1. The 'request is in accord with the criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance for application of the R-5 Residential district. 2. A/thoughIthe impacts of a development at R-5 standards are greater, similar impacts -would occur at a lower density sudh as R-4. Higher residential densities should also occur close to activity nodes such as that designated for the I-85/N.C. 86 interchange with lower densitieS further removed from the node. Ar-- 3. Approval of an R-5 zoning classification initiates the LUI or Land Use System. The system requires the provision of 1.16 acres of recreation space, a requirement which would not apply at a lower density classification. The LUI System also provides more detailed information, via the subdivision approval process, regarding open space, residential floor area, liveability area, etc. 4. Additiorl improvements such as those necessary for N.C. Highway 86 traffic flow may be secured through the subdivision approval process. . 07t, r ...."*".di co, ..4-....,,, • i'.' ....: \ ..,\.\? ,.,... ,..„.-...---: ......- . - .. w" K ~= t: 7S 13"82 AC.I CUTf " " -.t T r Al ..rte' Y ` W t i e ar~ t t i =r. -'ei� ".,../06.' +Ik 1 'E r �96• A 117AC . IAC [o8 106 :� ,�- t . . liiiiii,. . :,2 ,. 1.97AC. ` -Fi95 GA[ - ,_ a- _ „. . . :.7- .t --;-:::.:i it 198 • a= w 43'' ..... :.; 2; 1 AC.CAL. -.. `""`�,' a'r 0701 -.. '.i"1.,w L .,•1 ,''' 6''''A• i.A;,..2633 1 -wt 4', `( j•#' ^=4 i}: ice) Ii i, t 1 i I ;';. } # +.1.. ♦44 �- •4,04A( `` SEE j j i�1AP 454 I r• ►♦ ►r'r�'..,w 4b,„, 1� ''s :. :"' . AIOPP=.1©ASS` r �*4;A►1i ,,,E`� 0fir,4 410414..' .., A ,,g ... .s t t� r f✓a aa�rS,j ,! °**r ' 4,4(N. -..-+:4417.47.,,, .,-.e. to,./41,t,,,,Vr.1, :31..f..;- , i tut' ' it:- 41+4 ir*I r+7,.4*. I 4',SO"' Ast-,*.:,. i 1 . ,, "::::-.r,4,41,.. 410* ... ir4tAr #4).17,-;.: 3,4.3a 0 i I l'''.- ,e 7%. it. 44-.47# irte'' m I 17 AC. - I1'�r+ : �� -- 31r I I .1.4::- ril _84 AC.---- I n •,..,f. .i�• / ( .�(/� 7:....41' f.:7" isU�_,,,,�.r^'.• I 1 '�� tea` ,�'! f ��/'° / Y",;f Ira, -� 0/5 -f 1 `` ,E i� ,,/ j.•: . ...- ~~ �a i _., ... . S :w M �-'4.,- ..:4- .._' ._, SSG.3t 5 1 Mai 4 . 0•09-19 45J _' :. x=' 1 i '` I f(JCPP4 41 3.78 AC. 1 Sew?t , 0. _ I } 7.7SAC. l .. .. 9568 ` .... ,.... ®6464 �...,...... _.. , -,-, ......,...„,...,... ._ .,...r-- .....-00,....-...;.%. .............:,.%%.*:,c, ,,:.:.:......:...,..... ..--:-....*... -7::.i.:'.4".i-.r...:.%'..:".".- •:..-„•.-:4,„4:,,,-4,.--4•".""•:-.0" ..V.;••••_:,-r•,.•;.,. .:.A"....=••••A•r:•,. ......c,V..."..:X...:. ..••••••••.•4,.......... ..........,•"... - to .,,,,-...,:•er.:::*:7"'"'"."-"NIIII6 _._..:::›41:,., .* ' ''81814iMM'••■•:*: :•.'"Zt.:5•4•••C• ■•••..1.1.,-....:Yee•s.V.:-....• "1--................47...!...0...4'''•,e.e-... ...**3.....-:•ft:7,..L......a .4........../.....0•." .1....401.....%.:......,...... :..,.......s.......y..M ;K,0-; „,•-r.,, •.........,,,-...4....-,;... • .1.44,:$**i...,...:.e.-....,:-.,....-.1....z.........Z. ..w......Wv• ,„...0.,:„..............7........_••••••••••• .^..•......:,,M.•..4.,., .....*^1,{._ :•*,k:„... ...,,. .t.".:14 •:4..;,...,,..:._•-.,;:":47-.11.'.,..,.,1••;-•,•: ••77,•-:::;•,... , -•;„..-1-2,,,c4t"-•,,_,.....44,4T,V-_,.,0„..* *k•••0.:::::.re,....„....t,AcKve"-:.:, ;77:r•-%;:::::: :-:. .■%.4.1iN -' '''' .....:::" s'.: ''''''' ''.",-...-.. '-'2.:.-" s:1-c."- -."- ---1-S":,-- s .,...-1-..,s.. " .-Z,...-- -$A.1:z: ' "„......-:',.:l : --;--,.:: - . .-.-- . -.7.7..;; --.-A.,.. As:,*,.*:.%•:Miti,:sii,....:A.3:,:, 1 ,. ..*.t.,'''Fti, ...:,'..':' .........-„:...t:s.74,-...,....;:tz7::.?-`,,-.. .,-.,..-t,..-e4A-v-zfq.;, t'......•-:, •-:.... ....k,.., 41:::$::::::.*:;3.5.*FAttikx;,..,:iiiii:.:::::,*;:: isth.raoct:17,4:4,4_ ,• ...-:: ..::.;k-41---z-.:4:.44., :... -.,--'..:::-.,;:,..:.-:',:=-='---7.i.-4:;-,1."•:-1)-74-'•"..4- 41, -. f3:01: "".. :=: *:::V:k.k..0:i - :*.:pKz..*; .xt.....--,, ,..,.., 3.-,,.: 1 1,.,,T7...-::—.472.ektt:."- :„..4., .3.4-iz.. ..- ...-,:zie:i.„,;;; ,,.....0.:ii.... ...*_„:::,•::..a.*:;.,ii:,%...izt,, . ::::::::.....*::?,:.::: ..,-,..,,:::7-po,:„.. ,..,440tm,,",. ...-7 ,...4.-......z.-,. .-....v;•.;,,,-.,',,.zr:,,t -- - 7 -1.a.,- ...,..:,:::,......:......::: 0 <;:::.;.,As....4.,,,,,.2„," .:,..*,...,:„..k.,.:.: ige- „„...-..,-,; - ./..,„...w„• . .e...---..,,,....--.,..,..a...._________„,..r..-_1--, ---..... ....-..-..,,....-...-..-4.-,.. ...$:.......:.:,...4......,...v.;:km.w,xm...,,,..im ---•.- ....... $ . ......-4,7--. ..4.2,:-...r— - --....,., :=.1.-."...-.s.„,,_.--..------......--1r.......„,......1%.:**..,:,x,:x:w.7,-;.:.:.%=;kK.:.:.:.:01,:::_.......:.:.:.:.,:41.::.%;,,,,:w.,,x.:: -....,,......_......., . ... . ....,...„........ .., , „..-.--..... ..,...-....L...„..... •••■-....._..."- ....• S...."-A.,••••V...............:4...............S...M.X.N:.:,,wsw..„.:0„.. ... ' . . '.''..."".' '14i _* .• .7;:.....•-..T.,.. -..„...-.* ..."-..--v--,—.1.N.....,,L,..... ...----.7.,,,.'5,.....,:e.v."."".............-....N...v..vo-*,*:---.---.---....-.,wee............m.:.. ...........,-.-..........%.:. ...14`...1-,..7.,7%,1„. 41:7....t6---........7.- '.. ., „. .:,.,:..,....f.i.,..,.'„,...,..:- ,ilc '.....4_44..e...,e.::--44.4...„s,r,„..?•'"'...-- ,„..—....--,r,,,,c.:F.,.„1„....3/40:41.41„,,,-1 (4._ t,, ,.,..--.■ 71.-....2-,:. ...,,,, •• ,.:.... .p••*1.,,,:-...-*...-*.,,,,,.. .r...., :,..,... ,,,,,,..,...„.,.-... 47----,47,,-...^-,..t ..*'''''.4 .."..C..... ..,......W.e.... ......,......„.....s.4.,....o.......,„ ....x. „ ,,.•....,,,,,„. .:.f.,-..,..:-.;,..:::..3.%.,,,....„• ,...,s,' .F.-,•••••-•.--,•.,......c.,- -,Tt."4,•• • • ' "P ' -,-•.".•;:.:. ri"..2•• •Jr.lr.......,,,s•••,•:.4.0.k.•••••••••,,WX.X.,*%••••:,-•;,•••••••.X..."•-•.s.,,,c.........a.....,:+A.y,. .. .„...• 4-...,...,: :-. . ;4...'''-----e'''.'""41%-...' ''''''''' "'4....'.',..-%":*••:.5.5.5.5'5.5.5.5.5.5.At"..15.5.:.......k5....5....4..•.:. • q.:,......iro.v...... -.."-r..... 7-we....,,,..,...-....,‘ ..-7--"."'"4""*.... . t7e: ':':':'="'.s,'-'7.:::;t.:;t ..:soc-..... --" •."-^4."'"1.7"4-''''''' '''''''"*"•" ' -'''-'• "r.."% ' ."'' .V.1::::"PWA":"A':;‘)*::::::::::.e-Z):.<:"C*:"4,..::•..., -.. ^-- -- '-'!-',''''7.,.;_:'--,4C-,-7. ".-'6-7...-,1).- ---'1••:"- .,..-"'"-**- .•••••-•--.....•a.... ......w.....%)...................".......=,,,:„.„ ,ff..,.-...;:„...„.....,,..„,,,,......,-. ?.. •. .,.,..,..f....t.7.1t., ,- _,'''''•"". — "••••*v.v.'''.*'*"'• ••.:-...,V.t:-:•:•{".:::::.7,::::::K::::■:;i:.:44:4v.:::.,:. ... „..:,..: ....„..",,,,,""•,,:z.,„.••7".....-....:-,:$'.ft•••••■ •••••0•7;!..•••••••-••••••:.."-A• -•"-',.•-•_,I,\4•-:".'7.1.-415-•" ."7";;40,""="-•••-• ,•••••:•:•:••:•:•:":.:•:•:•••••:•.•••••••.*:::::::::::::::::.:..X...wAp.•;.:.:;:.:.:•::.:::.4, "•••7'''''-''.31--•••;+•••4.'",'-‘ •••••X•V"'>2••• •••:•3c;:a..t•e••••77'047/P',... •z...r.. ..., "1.7e.L..,,,,S.,-4,44.rr...e. ..... :".....X.:••■•.:.•":".....:•:•.".•••:••=, ........x.X.,.:.4., - . '.( 1 "'A.'''. '5-..'::': -;..'; ';C-9.'"...r 7:....*"-`_42'.--:'----3,-- .L.1-4-7.. "---1.:61.‘"4312*2€214"...,nt,•,,,Iiminn.mr__. ..:**•.**: : =:::;::::.•:::::$7,t- •:•.*:::`,::14,:::,:•:::::::: t.154"..,..N;• 'C'•,,,,,•!'.2S.1.,%":*t4"..."AkZ,.•:4`;1..."5r..4,-...: ••.' '""•-';k.. ,..,.„.-7(-1,1,PYARH.,.... ,Vi.. .tf.4 .7.. . W":::..1:.:^:0:•:,•:•:•:":•*.•:::::.,74::;K,A1::::.:••,:..,:t,•;,:::;.: 4.4:..a"'"•• •.;,,,-;:r•C,0,,•,,'.,.',.1.,„*>•''../. -.......--...."3:::".•74...;:.-14.•?.. .7, ,,x,:.• ...„....f..A•Mit.,••4t.1..e.....::•••:.:••:"..X.X.:•:••:•:•••••7432074,•fai.• :f.:K...::::;:;::::.•". Jz'4".•-•7"‘•-: " 1.""t Kr:;•■•4.;:""' ...p1.*Aw..- :--`7.: 44.•"•;,4,•4•2:4.,...,;.;.,4-2-3' -Z--...--=1.--k--3---• •• ••:•:...3,:.:•:•::••:.x.x.•••:,:-:.:.•:•.•,>:•,:..-.. .3.:,-::::7...„,:"e:; ..:3.•*- 4 ,is.";.•:::,,,4:: --•:3-- ;-:•-•...t." 4 4 •X•:.**e'?„ ,g..:•E.....,--ret-?.2..:.;17--z-•...,:e....:::-...t.-.....,......•..-...:1-..- : .. ,......17,..... .. ...v...... o.%•......'k-7...-.Z..: 'Si,'':`,***"•:•,'-•.,0•:;:01-,.Z4M4W,,,... -.........i.,-.. .,77.vi..."*".;•:".",.....1.7.4..„,z4e..-.w.ka. ..-.,. .,..•••••••'•,-• _ .. . . ......,„0.. .yrk :::,,,.,.,,,c,„.......... -5 .....• ,...,:,..,,•.:0;.. .c...::0:04-_, 04,, ...„.4.,...,:-.-ir. .:•,02,,-.(47-*--t- -......... ...0.-. .............:•••••-••••:.x...-:.X• ....•:".,:' ''''''''"....:.• _1„,„,,,s ,••:".>".$7.2.***0:::: -.:-,".. --4,-ep,...,...,:., .-r"..-3;,. ....,,,,,....:,....„,„.... .... -.•; s•-7 ".0*. .,.... .riO,R,. ,... :.'::::.§74.-t-4!&11.. ....TAG,-'„,- . ..:.:.......x.:.;:.:::: .....+.1..:.0.1,:x.:.:. ::.: of.J.4 *,..., -.,...:-...:. 11-11- .-*44.1.7,.. kV "r4 '*.-v2:1 :1;•••?"4-1.•":42. •-t*........'1.t. --..Z...-,4-...-. ........,*_•r.*__,,,,,,,,,,, ....:.......,.... .k......:.z.z........... *- •,..+.4.4. 4, \.•}. ,7/1'...'. .' ' '..": r"."-^.. .",;41•7-," ';'"i'd'''..r''' ,'....C•_'•-•%*-."'r" ...., --''' .4e.4....-•-:. ,. f".:•:-k•Z:tt.•:"..ti..0:7,4,S,C*.:::,SX.:•:,' ". - .•••••_ ,, ' •' 7....V...7":•*"t•^•"7"- ___a•;;;44 .,,_,-..,...`°..- ..... .... -'-7',, I5r06.*:'••••"'X''''."*:.:*:."*W".'"."......w.. :".4:::;:•:-.Y.::::',$,V::::::::::••::%:•:::::::: A „... ,. ,,...,. ..4. , ---, - -. .---,, - ----- ,--,- ---- ----- ......-...„i.k.....-...._:-.„.,,.:„-..::.:.,„,.,,._.,,„„.._:., .:.:::.:::.„:...„....„ .. ...:...:.:„:.: ...,..„..„„,...„,,....„., ..,....,..,,,,.,„,..:„.„..:„..,...-,-,.„....,,,..;, . ..•..- . ..... „.„_,::„.„,:::::: : :::::: " , -., 'Ct. ; '.•:''6'. ....:....i.-'.'-........1.7 ...I.,..---1--I,,:.. . "7- .-- .-AVPCMWT-..sareilah.,."VagM__Vits_ .%`:":":":":::-:..t:"*.,. „.. ,.,..: :::::•• „::::::::1.-. ....,-,:".. ..,:s?T.,-*;t:Ir.Z.W":".•: ::::!k:i.,:::.". -'•••"4--*7'".- ‘'..*• °. ..irt...4,.* * -. '",(4:45Mar"" It.." -140406.E42922fraz..".".•••""'"".:...,........,..„:,..i,::•"*.4., 4" * ,,,4• .......:-.-x, 4....1.,:,,,,?::: ,.,...,,;.141,,,.sii.„.., ...„....m.,..„..„..„....,_._,..,...._,,,______ ........, •1041.4.....,..L.MariEEk024.... ••• .,.............,;,;:i.:„..::: ,.,,.'--•••-•-.,...••:.:,.,..z.40,.„.."Yr>„t„,,,,,,wy.fc-..-ei, .11,,17-.?..%.4c..Z.z...,...-a...r.„..-""*.„••-" .,,,-..----. -j'!"- .1$2t=2880K...t...."..••• ›;....... i.:::-..;;;;;," 3:::::: „.i• .•;.: 2,-i.,.."iit'''",--. ."---...,_-- •'::•-•'-c...... *.,..-4",ek.- . -,",,-"P0`,-*--- --4-----,.."1.74,••,, , "'"..-;" .. ---.-.....-....-......,..,.....-.......".... ....:.‹,..:7,... •..:.;,..,. ....x.x.:...,.."::: ..zy,,,•,..- .•.....„:".47,...,-.•v,"4......„. .,„....,•-•.v..,:.-*A--:--*:• , .„.,:e'ogess........--, ---... .......... ... - - - •••-......................,„ 0.--•:-,.‘. ••-.* .•••••%••••.:,,F.A *.!•••,;•---. ,--- .,..1„,,,..c,u,.,.:, .,.,„,„ .. . ___ ,,,.„.,-„,,,_-__ ,,,,.,...mirwroz, -......---„,v.v.:.--,-........"-%••,.. ..",.....1.,•.."•••••••••- :*-.,;'... " -4":"...."•:.% --„,..,,,.......-..,1,.. %%,.,..... . • .... % .,..!,75.743,. ..-"„ ,..0...,„,-.i.,•:••=.......-------.... .Th.""`,,l."---'- .,S2". "-101 Wilialk.• .. - w.• -- •-"".Z. NZMIKSMUM5t....::••••••:::04::.•,:•,. .4:•:•::::.:...*:•,. -:...:•-•-:=-••••-'-A-•;":4'..', ;-.z.---:._,..."4.-ac:2 - , -tti...;7,--r ,"■.1'4,-...."::, ', ',",1111111.11.,76t. -nevx.:-:-:.:•:..::;-,...:::::::::•*•:oq..,:. :::"•••,-,„_. •:-: T.7-1. "4,--.4--•••&uk..,...-...--74^;„....-:,.--•-- - ,..r.',-, p. ...-.7.----,..3•••i•-?!....., ' r.."- ......iiis,...o...„.- ....„..--+L----... ..„ .*:::::::::•:0.:-:•.x..z....:. -4 0,...-4„...:-.....51_,,'1...... 7,.,tr.,„7,.,..-tzLi.....-:.-.i.,.. p .-2..,.:,.'.'.'\..-....,...........,,....,. ...,..--,,,,..... ..e.-4. _ ,,•ox.:...:„.,4„..:x.;..4,1,:::-,:•;:.. ,L....4 4.....,..1::.,712rx, ,, i -,.... .,...7..,. ...r.„.,4,„_.-4-irt,••• ,, ...,,,,t,-. 3sesasaseasty„,‘,,-v- --....- "..-..vr,- Zoox:',f•-•7:V:',.:•:t:*:::•z•.• 7'• :...1 .-"14:4-•-•.■..4.4P-14441E,...Z...3- 4-,:::,,,•••:..- 412.•••••••-• ,47- 4:••,-44,• .,;74/1,==inlifTr, . .,,-..,....i.0,44,......2..,:S:•,,. '•..•••••:.x.............; • ••;•••;ps:1•••;••• .. ,,.•f. ''...T.„-••••••'"•"="1""`".2.-'1••■•••■•_i_7•%-•-•t•tr•-•.• 7"•••;1••••••ff",•`-• '' 1,7,"••••W.. "?.?•••••.1"1111,111411.18 "".,„,. . IK.,:....%.,-...... •...,.... r:Lx.4.,...x..., „.,'•,•;••••^r ••••■••••..&4:.774r74,Z,•:."•••S•"irt••• •••••rirP,'"-:::.•.774,:s.,‹.01 •'•••••:•••••,P"-.4.1 .. ••l•rr.?' •it..,.7.1; -...•••,.", •.1111. ••. ••••36Doe.....•••::::,, •:-•;.....n.• , ...,..„--g;•47; ,,,,;;•./=..t-i:,. .-,..•":-..‹,=.,--lr•-•• •,re...c1....-;= -•,--- --itir...,:;-..- ''.tkv.•• - ,St.• #4,_!' '.-^117:-.c.-',41-. 0.1-1 •.:..v:;•,,,„..... •••••• ...., - •0 ,•,',',••.:-..; ,,....-.:,..t:--,..--......,.. ..7....,-- ....e.:.......r.*-7, -•.....,- •-•"...•-•,...«.•2 W., .k.•Z. ■ '',S.C.-' .....'"' - -;',-AL,,, ,,.. ....,,;,,,,,„.,,,,,,i,..., --;,4e:,-mc..A,,,?:-....:4-7.7„--s-41...-*-.-. 4"..-4-z-,--trt,v,,,,.. ...-.....,„1:, . '•"..••.AN* 4 •;%::... .%.-t .•-,... ...0-'61'-Z4Z ''! ....'11::'...AZI5';%.,- -%s.'•5...‘ .C.5 ..".'"d'''.9•P'!. ..,..:i''7,•-:'4.•41..-7--,•"":4-•-•-,t-XV,•r.''c,•;-"*-A ' V..44,'-•^4.°4,0-04-e-- t"•• .thi.lt..-.,,„.o.,, . .-.,„, .. ....:...c.,.., ,z,...ri-,?..,,.,..,-... .....z.••_,:h.,-4...1. ...„, .-•;,....••• •-•;,1.1, -....-...,-...-., -' „ ;.. ,.'- -.•.-- •3,...-,...1 s...--, ..1„.. ..,..... • .,-:;,v.•••„1,.,,, - . •..,,I..,s7.; o 0:1 .,,:.4,•.2t-,!4.,-;;;,:: --.--..--,74-.:3-0,...•- - -,-,„—„•,,,,,,,„,......"4.-,, •-.r.,,... ,,, ,to, ,,• . ,,,..... a.-41 ...,r,..c0,0,...-i,...•-.-.• *- .:.„ .. $.• ' :...f,:;' %,.... •■••• .'..'.77,;or.,.''..4.-0.: .,...1":.:, .... ...,...z44:•■••-"it:."?..4,--Z.1"...... -fo-tl!,- 7.••••:••-- --..... •••444:1 rt.... •t"-, .f4YVEir•,,,,,,i4 .•'•••••,..,4•61•"r"'-• ' ..• ' •',.:-, .: •• ,'''''''' ,••••* V. •••1'.•••be,',", .2e,:,:::, ..„ ,e.., ..,..,-4. ....,,,.....-- -...,,,,,,,,,, . .....,,,..4.*1,14t,ipk4 "" "t "r.,Z74,1i4rerr ..r..,..-"• •••••-• •• ' /y7 s" ,.,rif' ';',',r. r 7.' •”`.."..y.: '''',:•••14',.••:?•••• •,A, '''•••-7.;•,*1'. •••,74•••7•.;..-7-.1:::-.•*:VG-12,". r•••;:kr*"=•11,:.N....-:-"ca'irVVrikl.PARN.47,•"Vi•7•744.1Nrt. "-3.*"•?*4-*S. •7...e....,r7%.,..'" '.g.i'''." 2.•;`•''' ''' •-''' ".71".. "vi"?'•g■''Z•i;"■ :.",.,.,...,,,.•-i.-_,,,,..,...-_,.. 74..„--4.4,.. .... ...-..-... ,A, ,, ,,,I.,,t,„al,,,t.,,,,Ailiv...;_w...:4.;‘,; .-T*,.1.....,.. ,.+•;,4•''*-.1•• /7 ':i'''..,. .•"'.••;3:3-.•' i.:,VM:.,.••;,.. -.: , -1,.m.4,,, ,.:: ....:1. 3:.•,, ,:-.,to--„,:•p.:., ,..5 •:,,t1.1-.,r.;.,....i.n,,,„...-•. , •,..,..„,..,AP.17:, ••%•••!,to,A7•744:''''' -•A`t,T!'iit,:o.,SW.7.-.14 i.• ••••:—.,..1.7e"'41.,••,<I•;),: .,1 '• °•••;;;;:`,7 rt,,,, .:.1. • ..1,:1,. 1:•::.:IP:•'','', ...Y., t",it,V7.1., k*:::...n..1.,..r. 04.••••:;y.. "'"•;•4":,•= -gL.' •.4r"•.'•"' '""r1g . ••••-t,. r...,...."- r. '-.-",••• rt.•. ". 4 A'. •"o•f."•,4'• it.",,,•?•=4.•:1'!---.17c - -71- :.• -..,.,".‘"'":7",-0 to,r '..;.:. -,•:• ..,11,;,--. ;'a...,:,.;... -4,4 4, J.•-• - "•••::.**. pl....pi z. ...i. w-o•-• *..•':,*-,..--- -,..-:,•- ••!1,.-A-1.-..--."-. *:..,.:,-.-- -,• ..,-• r .", ...A.- .. '. .- - 2'4 4,-,,,•..4,,.:',--.;. - ..1".: '• •0''" " •7;•.• '.• ,i ''',0••44., •••a.4. • '"..t•:.,. 'r••••• Z"..0-,......,F-4.1."••;:".t.,,,,,......it.-:- -'''rag..r.:•,,_'..•-', ,,:7,7, , t(..:, .LNOI,14:,v ..,.'''' , -.....' ..,:r.45*-1.%7 "*,--1,-,,,,,"",.,..?.', " '."' **''' •:.4•c....,r . •■•:. ,..-...,:q-N• --..-- i, Ti.. 7. 7 •., .: - mg...)..:i..11 .V.V. • • ..,,,,*.•••11;fr -...40• .• .;•...*•,. k.'•,,-*If;;':-'13, *.-••.; '...•.% '• '.A...7..a.T.Syf:,$a-t•-•.; 4'.'".,r, . -2—, -r.1,L,-,7 ,,., ;.„ 1 t.„...;: ,- ,,_ , .7:i-4.....„,„.47,,,,, .,.,....... 440****etra • ;.,,1 „.,..i.,..„L.. ..1744,ft 4.,:„. i,. F - : ','"!+,.',:'•-•,74ta•rc,-.1;e.it.r. ..,..i..i. • N.•.%.,' -'3-;,,,;',:.cl 4-1..'a.-.13 . - ?. 1--Er' .., .,. ,Ip .....-_-,,.„.,..... , .. ,. ‘:...... .. .....-„,......,..,., ... 1,#1, S.'-'''.• . • ,Vga,,,VE .•"' 0. .. .• f....•v,.. 1.• •,;, ..,...4 1.... P•••••., .- ."4"-'" '4. N''•••••"S•sr!er.7"..ft r .yetil ....• ,,..tytr••,:*,...1.4"-•••••" ,'S• ••••!7;,•- '7 •y •-....:••• :-;.-*„ - ....„ •,-„:„,„ wi,, 4.3.4-47,0:.••. 41%.,:.:7.7••• ;''',I wets.: ..,• ,...../.4%. CI.,•,,...7S ,',.. V.„ pe,/••••,..41 Otre- 7.-_-......4-'-.,7:;',4'.4,, ,..„.•,...1 , , '.: v .:.,,,__"t,m,„,..• . d -:,...,.$,*; • ..4„ -''':""$•& - •q•4.*.• ...4„,,„, •,• ..„ ,..,, ,.14 "11,7-1.4---k. ::•:.t971.....'',,i".."-:• 4' •-•r4ea ..ktitt,.. "- ..... ...",.-4':;- .0t '•e%,' •" "'-- ',"" •.".'T-..'"•:" --■r•';; 4!..";'!"•t "'"..:.:7,";. ' ?1 ,:?tic'fit',;:i' ...,,'4'.'lit ItlIff:. :4•1:0i:41:1"*- P,• 7AIr"•-e";,•7.,..."•••4rAu.....:,,"•-,Z4...‹....: 7,,;.14, tAaly. '.ii.,;', N'i:k',04:,,,,,„ ..• .,,,,,,-. ''':, ..,, '••fi..";• '',.%.!:" ...,"....,. ....... ,.. • ,.at.,tm j214.•••,-.4•••'..1-1:„*".4.7444..,, .,.... ... r,701., ik&-.07.4.7,\,,,..;'7*.44..:.' 41•Air•es: -.•-':"''M-,,,:... ...r"er..,•+! ' ,*•1••',,Y1A3r.'.• '.3.5•irr:f,• "P- " •.."...•,F#•,'" .W.`...ii. "`",• '440.,,k,k4c...,;..7•:".'4,,••■--.'....4 n'te's•-•••••TPArs;.,- . ' 1...wa.4•4 ..e....w,' •••?:.,,,E4,4.4 w..-.40-,,,-14 86 :. ... 4.,,,: ....,,... .-z.,.74...,,,,,,,„,:: ,,,,,,„......„.....,„,. 1...... .....q..i.,:tvk...44,,,,.,1-4.,....,,,,.tp,v,- ,,,;. t..-,: ,,,,,,,, ,- ,,..12.,,,,i1,4,%.„, , .. .-,-... ,....---„.."••,-.‘,..,...•_...:'.„7,,,r,.,,......... .*.7.1-,. ..-A '.r ''' 'I■...... .....q000,*:417;611.0:6 ,','3:',;.,.,..,,..,.;?.. '.•.t4`,. -,6 i.e.`7..•f77:1-..".....r...v ....1-.. ...• 1,,t:,•,.:•,,..,. -- -, HQrmcn Young Area Study EXISIING LAND USE PLAN•3* .... Pr.:**...,.., • Q..... \ LEGEND: , Z:l'I 11.1r URBAN .......,, 5 10 YEAR TRANSITION ....„0-., .... 7---::"113:MCULTMIL RES1DEN11AL „,,,ril-,•-..-% . --r- .. ).zi-1 Pueuc INTEST 1 - : - . c.C.Clie i /ir/Ci7 ar 2000 1 10:01.6: 20 YEAR TRANSMON i COMMERCIAL TRANSTION NODE „....ii,......, 11111111W---eit.„-„, . 1 0#r*ff'41:411 RURAL RESIDEAMAL 0 net& •5,............. ___, \, 1 - . '• . . ,-. O76 _ . , 1 -N///1"'"....,,,,,-/ 7"*" -,..„:„..„:„., ...,.. .....,..„..„:„....„.„.. --'.-------„N lir tt,t1 ,----"•'.•,:,-.:----,:, ..:-....---..,..:::3 ,_ F4 i= I .'—......‹....5.__17C ocit,e, LeND r's 0 :c., • a i' lle‘,,,,,. .."'''''*:,,,;;44.— *i N.l• ... th.v...-",....,,, -..., .... WO' C13 s • 1 a I g 1 4.• •,•;,g4.$,:: ::::::',,,,A.:0.,.•-(....!..,, ....!.. r_ ,„ si .....=....... I N4P 86 .4.:-::•=:::i4g i.i.:... i.............*-.. ..:,.. ei, .......,.... . , ,.. ,. . = ,...„, ... ii ..„, ,....46, „..../.,,,. +1,4■Aidig, el 44.* - 'www•I•er• I" Iii71 /.2:. ii io• CA i I '-'0,...',,t..1k„tt low" -E$`1V • • k ■•,.. I . ,c,?..".i.:,!:. •„..,?:.t,,,:^j.p 9 4...... „,,... -•..- ....^:Ns*"47:::;:l . 4• -...., . • ., ... . i .:* r'', . ' ■TtO ' ' II i •;tL."'"'' "PI; ': ,..”. thls .1 1 lish. : ,.,-...e.a '. •',"X‘f. 0.,•04,......- .... .„, ... . ..,..ov..tt. \#. 10•4...... V " :6 %••...40:,. .w.,,,N:* . 4 L.,......:Kr: . it.'0.,.ss,:rX."4:.t.....-..F....,... r-.:::::!‘":5",:,* .:'::::::;,•::;;;Z:.;;.;:.Q.,,,::;t:,..y.r„.4 .:-.-::•:*4n•: .;-:::;:;:-sy..s^:!-,N:z:::',4 kr,..". ....\...j '.10 IS f '.4%.,... . -.,..2::::.........„- . , Sb.,,,,,,........1.......• I". .,.... A. • it- . . •" I . / 4.** t / 7 l eY • .• 6,.• . • 0 V 1 \ '..; .4*"*".1 t."40"*4•1•4 I% '4140 ,,,•.- :6 1 . •,..iti it ( •• . 1 • • • • • i so... .. . rwrorbv, . r rt .7 tbrele7 I e, . I • . • *' ,:k" i. or- g , : 1 . ,)...• „, , .., , 1, -1.07,;;;, \•••• ,.., , \\Itic i 2•714. # ; .....-- I 10111111 . or*0 rers,.........0 t ip. ■ ... II 1.4 141111161111114)111P 4.11.217 -i- : • C 3 , 0,-,:-• t 4A. PAROPIIRTY IlAttiii:NI. k..... N -• 1 11 \.•"%sj: *CI a i%• %rill .1,6 , \••... i '%••■*7•:•■&V re.. .?".4di•+.0•Nsft` :•■,,,..Lh..4". .r ..1.,....-. .. ''''"-. ,F. '..aii &r:•.;.7... i I t t \Ns% : 1 i . . 86 - --7......,•47,4.:.--.,....- is% ,,,...,:-:...,.. ., ...., . , . \,/ 1......c.- . .,.. i i - . stu dy ..,1 ,.., . UTILITIES ., I Logendt ". viittbilor • -- FORCE MAIN SEWER , -- GRAVITY SEWER, ; Scale•: finch r2000' 1 . 0 SEWER PUMP STATION , i. P122W/ 3 i . , • i El SEWER TREATMENT PLANT 1 0 *CO' 200Ce Inn& \ ........0 WA-MP MA I hi 3M X* Xl� M Bus 70 TO Of 5tyDY a to........... Your Area Stud 'RANSPORTATION ATE -HIGHWAY MINOR 080 - • THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS • 100 HAYES BUILDING,GLEN LENNOX CENTER,CHAPEL HILL r-° BOX BOX 2896,CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROUNA 27514 (919)967-7079 May 20, 1983 . STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION ORANM COUNTY, NORTH 1CAROLINA WILDWOOD DEVELOPMENT,. HIGHWAY NC 86 @ 1-85 Application is hereby made to rezone from Rural District to R-5, 35.11acre tract of land adjacedt of NC 86 at 1-85 in Hillsborough Township, Orange County. The followin g materials are presented in support of thislapplica- tion, as required by Section 20.3.2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. a. A map of the area prepared for rezoning is attached. • b. Legal description of the area proposed for rezoning is attached. C. The error in the Zoning Ordinance is as follows; F,- The Wildwood tract has good vehicular access, with NC 86 adjoining the east edge, and the NC 86/1-85 interchange being at the northeast Corner of the tract. The property should be zoned for higher and better usage than Rural District because it is located at a traffic mode and because higher density (and thus lower cost) housing is needed, and this land is well suited from the standpoint of transportation, utilities, and proximity to Hillsborough. d. The changing conditions; Hillsborough water and sewer have been extended onto the site, as part of the development of the southernmost 10 acres of Wildwood. The capaci- ties of the water and sewer extensions far exceeds the needs for the ultimate development of Wildwood, even utilizing the rezoning requested •herein. e. 'Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan The site is locatep in an area which, in the Comprehensive Plan; is designated "107year transition" for urban use; thus high-density residential, use islcomnAl-irom 0 8 1 • APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION DATE May 20, 1983 4r- ..te Honorable Board of County Commissioners Orange County, North Carolina COMMISSIONERS: The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Number 45 Block number • Lot number 4 , Shown on the accompanying plat, which is presently in a Rural District be rezoned to R-5 for the following reasons: R-5: To enable residential development on Z,500 SF lots, thus making less expensive single-family homes feasible. 421"- ■••••••••••••■••■■•■•■■••■■■••••■ * Signed: Address: Post Office Box 113 o 1.4 JAMES RAE FREELAND Hillsborough, NC 27278 082 _ . 1 - REZONING REQUEST'CHECKLIST OWNER'S NAME: 'James Rae Freeland ADDRESS: Post Office Box 113, Hillsborough, NC 27278 CURRENT ZONING: Rural District TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES: 35.11 CURRENT LAND USE: Vacant TYPE OF REZONING REQUESTED: R-5 PROPOSED LAND USE: Residential TAX MAP NO. 45 BLOCK NO. NUMBER OF LOTS 4 PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY: Public X Community Individual PROPOSED SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public X Community Individual Septic Tank ACCESS ONTO STATE ROAD NC 86 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNT ON SR gr- DESCRIBE CRITICAL AREAS: Flood Prone Areas None 1••••■■••••••■■■k Poorly Drained Areas None Streams ______- Other Sensitive Areas None DESCRIBE LAND USES: General Area 4 Sin.le Family Res. Adjacent Parcels of Land I-85, Central Carolina Farmer 083 W/LDWOOD DEVELOPMENT NC 86 at 1-85, Orange County, NC %lay 6, 1983 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY BEING SUBMITTED FOR REZONING TO Rr5. Beginning at a point on the western right-of-way of NC 86. The northeast corner of Wildwood Section I, thence along and with the northern line of Section I N62° 47' 24"W 390-12' , thence WEST 340.27 to a point thence along a new line N 01° 34' Sl"E 700.00' thence N 10° 18' 25" W 1086.13' , thence 568°11' 49" E 848.601' thence 5000- 31' 39"E 399.00' thence 76° 43' 21"E 275.00' , thense 290.01 along the acre of a simple curve to the right, said area having a rediuslof 225.00' and a chord bearing of N 200 19' 14" W and chord distance of 270.35' , thence N 82° 50' 02" E 190.00'. Thence S 100 33' 56"E 1545.23', thence S 89° 06' 28" W 550.78. Thence S 28° 07' 55" W 51.40' to the Beginning, containing 40.22 acres. :-4.• -,, ;. Nt"- 7'er's.! . • • " '084: oaxzE: COUNTY BOARD OF Ca-2117SSIONE-R5 Action. Item t-lo E-3 ACEION P,GENDA rrEN ragrpsicr M=-TG DATE 8/1/83 . Subject; Property of Clyde H. Bowden Phase III _ x y-es Flanning •1 F • • C.ontact.t 1 Marvin Collins AftJach'ilent.(SO : Checklist pg. lilt° : al Tax Map pg. 2 131Kna Nur.,ber: 73 -8181 EXT. 346 , KIPOSE: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for the property of Clyde H. Bowden Phase III . NEED: The property in question is located in Chapel Hill Township off SR 1946 (Bowden Road ; It is part of Lot 25of Tax Map 117 and is bordered by residential development in Phase I & II and undeveloped land to the west. The'tract'isIdesignated as airal Residential in the Land!-Use Plan and is located in the University Lake Watershed. • I There are four (4) -lots proposed. Three of the lots are 2.00 acres each, while the foUrth lot is 2.64 acres. The property is zoned R-1 (Residential-1) . The present road (Winningham Road) has been constructed to North Carolina Department of Transportation Standards but has not been accepted for maintenance. This can be accomplished when the density requirement has been met. The tract is located iri the area served by the Eli Whitney Fire Department on a volunteer basis. This Fire Department is located in Alamance County on SR 1005 (Old Greensboro Road). IMPACT: This propert y! is located in the University Lake Watershed, however, development of these 4 lots with two acre lot size qauld have minimal impact. vvF,x S.V1Y I,IIiiI,ICLI�"1; Phase III Property-of Clyde H. Borden OWNER OR DEVELOPER x 3 a Chapel Hill N. Co 275111 L TAX MAP 117 BLOCK LOT P/O 25 ENGINEER Freehold Land Surveys .vision-, Total` number of lots o be developdd- in l bases, Total number of acres 8.0 is at present _ -- or-proposed-Single- amnF- ouees—SGHpp DISTRICT--ChaYe -' --mm c(name) Community -- Individual X SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public dk X Community ad # Road Standard. Public X or Private Class A , B. C eas such as streams ( ) , hood prone areas ( ), Historic Sites ( }, ether ( ) , Explain: sral area Residential. (Date)_ 6 8-83 Approved ( X ) Recommended Changes ( ) 'IVED (Date) 7-5-83 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED} Date i Health Department 6-27---83 Vernon Ferry Burns Erosion Control. Officer viewed by D?em yer -20- 3 Department of Transportation Other Preliminary Action by the Planning Board Recommended approval U18183 Preliminary Action by the Board of Commissioners Date) DPI}roved by the Health Department y alth Department approval are combined or listed properly on the plat e Agreement submitted (where applicable). Approved ve been provided for; completed, bond, Letter of credit, cash. Date roval (where applicable) an all plans & specifications. Date :Lions Received " Rpproval on plat the Planning Board Q 00 Cr 086 ........____ .... N .• . . I <--,1-- co AC ., ' C> '„ 1,,, 3 4 bit 1.,,' :----- \-----k4.... • '5 cr) .---- ,A : j, .. 6.0 4..p I 0 -7--- •74111%isti, _."'"' 1.1, 0 •8798 . --...„--.-- /946 e4 4 1 Z 2 AC, ---77-- , !.I. . ■ PC ) \5:1 N.. .....,, 0 Q. L.I.J \.. , . I 1 cn i I )--... SEE MP. II Ei(CLYDE ovi D 1 I Cm i I,"1 PH. 1) , .. ..„..-----., 1 4534z i --..i. • les cz'. ---„,. . _ 1.— ,..cn •-.:■:,--7 . i \ . qr 'z.- i S. 7 4 8 ....+. --. , a 83,12 AC. if I t , :': •' / J I 1 A 4.94 I . ! . 111111t / . 8547 /• I /E,E, MAP I 1171 1 i / ' tGR AMMAN A ..NIL - 7424 - I ii 1 SEC.2.1 ■ - 1 i 41 0 1 4 1 , / / 63.2 AC, 11 ii: / ' . C) I 1 . -,, I.II 1 A INI N .,, i v. CI.O• LANE "' 2-85 48• if ` 41784 '6:, , ..... •,,,, iz . \ \ . •....- .--- 9427 \ Na9,--■ 33 3 n \.\\ 1.6 / 75 \ ..<„ ...------- ''' • `'.% 244—AC. 7 / PH 2 -0- • qr ' , , . ,-------------- . ..i,27336 • .' 4, 7./ 2.84i 9551 , 239 A / 7 • 1 2,169 , A / 1 0 AC. 6 (24 C) 40E053 ..., . 5083 r, 0E436 AC 2-53 AC. / V e 12,25 AC CAL 4 . I'DS/ ------------\5,0 5 ACL \ • , ...."---. g 7:eR147.-' ' ' . „ I. 'r-n1:644R4 O87 CRANC-E-: CO'CI4'T:4 EOARD OF co:. 11SSIONr.-7.2S Action. Item tb../E74414 ACTICig A.CalZTIN IT1 APSTRACT TI DATE August 1 1983 Subj4.ct: Addition of Lonnie Drive,Jaspers Lane and Luther Drive in Joppa Oaks Subdivision to the State-maintained road system , - - [ Planning Public Hearing: yes inriimaetimil Contact: Attadhamt(s) :(a) Letter from am Jones Susan Smith to Manager dated 7/1/83; (b) Secondary Road Ettme Mmter: 732-8181 EXT. 349 Addition 'InvestigatiOn Report PURPOSE: To consider petition from NC DOT for approval of the addition of Lonnie Drive, Jaspers Lane and Luther Drive in Joppa Oaks subdivision to the state- maintained Secondary Road System. NEED: Addition of unpaved roads to the state-maintained Secondary Road System. I DIPACT: The Board sIdecision will be forwarded to the N.C. Board of Transportation for their deliberation on acceptance of the road to the state-maintained Secondary Road System! Acceptance of the roads will extend state maintenance in the subdivision from Workman Road (SR 1882) and Luther Drive (SR 1883) throughout the subdivision. 83 • ,,,, , . .0" 4 d 4•-% 114:7 '-'4v STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT.JR. GOVERNOR Graham, North Carolina 27253-0766 OlVtSION OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM R. ROBERSON,JR July 1, 1983 SECRETARY Orange County Mr. Kenna; R. Thompson, County Manager Orange County 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsboro4h, NOrth Carolina 27278 Subject: 1Fetitionsfor Addition - Lonnie Drive, Jaspers Lane, land Luther Drive in Joppa Oaks Subdivision I Dear Mr. Thompson: I Attached is Form SR-4, Secondary Road Addition In- vestigatioi Report, for Lonnie Drive, Jaspers Lane, and Luther Drive in Joppa Oaks Subdivision. I This is being forwarded to you for review by your Board of Cpmndssioners. Yours very truly, . s., . Jones DISTRICT ENGINEER /jhb Atta. cc: .Mr. JJ W. Watkins Pci „,. NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SECONDARY ROAD ADDITION INVESTIGATION REPORT _. County Oran e Co. File No. Date __________________ Township Efilislsnouil Div. File No. Local NameLonnieverjaspers Lane,Luther Drive Subdivision Name Joppa Oaks Length0.811 0. 18 0.04 Width 38 D to_D Type E Condition G6od . Is this a subdivisio street subject to the construction requirements for such streets? yes. . RecordedSee AttachmeftokSee AttachmeRage See Attachment Is this a subdivision street subject to participation paving? ye Number of homes having entrances into road 86 Other uses having entrances into road —_----- _ Does right-of-way obtained meet present -- -------- ,Highways yes If not, whY? Is petition (SR-1 attached? ' ' Is the County Commissioners ' Approval SR-2) attached? If not, why? Does the roadTeTETitJITminimum Division of Highways constructionreotents? If not, state what is needed to place the road in an acceptablTeiTiTtr---- condition under Remarks and Recommendations. Is a map attached indicating information for reference in locating road by the Planning Department? Cost to place in acceptable maintenance condition: Total Cost $ 0.00 Grade, drain, stabilize $ , Drainage $ , Remarks and Recommendations Meets ii re.uirements. Recommend addition. Reviewed and approved Board of Transportation Member Reviewed and approved s H. Jo es DIVISION ENGINEER DISTRICT ENGINEER (Do not write in this space - For use of SecondEry Roads Dept. ) / O9( SECTION II Consists of 0.25 mile of Lonnie Drive between Workman Road and Jaspers Lane and also 0.04 mile of the east side of Luther Drive extending from Jaspers Lane to a point 200 feet north of 'Jaspers Lane. Recorded January 7, 1974 - Book 22 - Page 122 SECTION III Consists of Jaspers Lane which is 0. 13 mile in length and bet- ween Lonnie Drive and the road in front of the Few property, and also 400 feet of the west side of Lonnie Drive, south of Jaspers Lane. Recorded April 26, 1974 - Book 23 - Page 10 SECTION IV Consists Of 530 feet of the east side of Lonnie Drive as measured from the intersection with Jaspers Lane and then on both sides of Lonnie Drive from this point to a point 1,214. 12 feet in length. Recorded September 17, 1975 - Book 24 - Page 123 SECTION V Consists of 1,337.75 feet of Lonnie Drive between where Section IV ends and extending north to where presently the State main- tenance begins. Recorded September 30, 1975 - Book 24 - Page 153 as i S laif •'7 ilia WO 19 -- —fist ��,y R9 .}ks 'to frl4 f+c�T 1 ow / ffer y� ■� Add IT'I p nJ N Al fLaM {rV,{F4: ,56 Fa}t ,it 5 7-,i crez 1-7, alas a e 7 ltt lilt \�' a 1 0 uu faa: ENLARGED MUNICIPAL AND SUBURBAN AREAS .a: ite ORANGE COUNTY,� fp4CSp O f�! VIP f .,irF litr eo NORTH CAROLINA 3 � 4taa _Fiat.ry yd" 're PREPARED BY Tfl£ ?, Iul Lilt NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OFT NSPE?RTATiC3N DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS—PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH a auxr as IN£OOPERAMN Wlrff THE roeasF U.S.DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION C rn . . • . , ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CO Action Agend • MMESSIONEOS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT a Item No14E" 5 I DEETT. NG DATE__Augus t 1, 1983 . Subject: Lease Agreements for Cedar Grove Multipurpose Center De.= • t: • 4. ' 4 : -ntral Services I Public Hearing: ' yes , no A - t S : Yes, new lease Information Contact: Mark H. Rees wording. • Purchasing & Central Services Phone Number: ext 498 POTECSE: 1) To consider renewing leases with Wake Opportunities, Inc. and Joint Orange Coulmunity Action Agency, Inc. (JOCCA) for use of space at -Cedar Grove Multipurpose Center. . 2) To consider amending the existing lease with Cedar Grove Day Care Center for use of space at the Cedar Grove Multipurpose Center. NEED: The leases with Wake Opportunities and JOCCA expired on December 31, 1983 and need tO be renewed with certain modifications. These modifications also need to beiincorporated into the existing lease with Cedar Grove Day Care Center. The modifications are as follows: 1) Kitchen & Dining Room Privileges. These documents would allow all tenants use of the kitchen area, but under regulations and schedules established by the County, (see attached for exact wording). 2) County Agent. To avoid confusion as to whom the tenants should contact in matters relating to the Center, the Director of Recreation and Parks or his designee has been named the County's agent (see attached for exact wording). 3) Square Footage. The new leases reflect changes in space allocation that have occured over the past year. 4) Termination Date. The lease nenewal agreements will run until June ,30, 1984. The lease for Cedar Grove Day Care Center will come up for renewal on Sept. 30, 1983. The complete documents are available for review at the Clerk to the Board of Commissioner's office. All documents have bepn signed by the heads of the respective agencies involved. IMPACT: • The County will continue with its existing policy of requiring written agreements with its tenants and the modifications incorporated in the leases should produce a better working relationship between all parties involved. RECOMMENDATION: Approve l lease documents. • - PAGES AND TO GRANT LICENSES TO ENTER THE. LEASED PREMISES AT ANY REASONABLE TIME AFTER HAVING GIVING THE TENANT NOTICES OF ITS INTENT TO SO ENTER (A) TO EXAMINE THE LEASED PREMISES, (B) TO MAKE ALTERATIONS AND REPAIRS TO THEI LEASED PREMISES OR TO THE BUILUING ( INCLUDING THE "RIGHT, DURING THE PROGRESS OF SUCH ALTERATIONS OR 'REPAIRS, TU KEEP AND STORE wITrlIN THE LEASED PREMISES ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS, TOULS ,AND EQUIPMENT) , (C) FOR ANY PURPOSE WHICH THE LESSOR MAY DEEM NECESSARY FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDING, OR (D) TO ExHIBIT THE LEASED PREMISES TO APPLICANTS. NO SUCH ENTRY SHALL IN ANY MANNER AFFECT THE OBLIGATIONS AND CONVENANTS OF THIS LEASE. . (8) USE AND OCCUPANCY : TENANT AGREES THAT THE LEASED PREMISES WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE HEREINBEFORE SET OUT IN THIS LEASE, THAT NO UNLAWFUL USE OF THE LEASED PREMISES WILL BE MADE, THAT NO SIGN, NAME, LEGEND, NOTICE OR ADVERTISEMENT OF ' ANY KIND WILL BE FIXED, PAINTED OR DISPLAYED ON ANY PART OF THE BUILDING, EXCEPT THAT THE NAME AND BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF1 THE TENANT MAY BE PAINTED WITH APPROPRIATE LETTERING APPROVED BY THE LESSOR ON THE DOOR OR DOORS TO THE SPACE LEASED BY THE TENANT OR AS OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY THE LESSOR; AND UPON THE TERMINATION OF THIS LEASE, TENANT WILL VACATE AND SURRENDER POSSESSION OF THE LEASED1 PREMISES TU THE LESSOR IN AS GOOD CONDITION AS THE LEASED PREMISE'S wERE AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS LEASE, ORDINARY wEAR AND TEAR ExPEC,TED. THE LESSOR RESERVES THE RIGHT TO USE THE LEASED PREMISES FOR AN REASONABLE PuRPOSE, AS LONG AS THE USE OF SUCH PREMISES DOSE Nol UNDULY AFFECT 'THE OPERATION OF THE TENANT. THE LESSOR SHALL BE THE FINAL ARBITOR OF HETHER THE PROPOSED USE by THE LESSOR UNDULY AFFECT: THE OPERATION OF THE TENANT. THE LESSO R AGREES TO ALLOW THE TENANT TO HAVE USE OF THE KITCHEt • ND DINING ROOM FACILITIES LOCATED IN THE PREMISES ON AN AS NEEDEI BASIS. THE TENANT AGREES TO PROPERLY CLEAN THE KITCHEN AND DINING AREA EQUIPMENT, AFTER EACH USE. IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE TENANT 1HA1 SECTION 9. INSURANCE, AND SECTION 10, INDEMNITY, OF THIS LEASE SHALL ALSO APPLY TO THE USE OF THE KITCHEN. THE LESSOR RESERVES THE RIGH1 TO SCHEDULE AND/OR REGULATE THE USE OF THE KITCHEN FACILITIES IN SUCt A WAY TO INSURE EQUITABLE AND PROPER USE OF THE FACILITIES BY AN' PARTY AUTORIZED BY THE LESSOR TU USE SUCH FACILITIES, INCLUDING THE TENANT. FUTHERMORE, THE LESSOR MAY REVOKE THE TENANT ' S RIGHT TO USE THE KITCHEN AND DINING FACILITIES AT ANY TIME AFTER THIRTY (30 ) DAB WRITTEN NOTICE. (9) INSURANCE IF, BECAUSE OF ANYTHING DONE, CAUSED TO BE DONE, PERMITTED Dl OMMITED BY THE TENANT, THE PREMIUM RATE FOR ANY KIND OF INSURANCI AFFECTING THE BUILDING SHALL BE RAISED, THE TENANT AGREES' THAT THI AMOUNT OF THE INCREASE IN PREMIUM WHICH THE LESSOR SHALL BE THEREH OBLIGATED TO OAY FOR SUCH INSURANCE SHALL BE PAID BY JHE TENANT TO TM, LESSOR ON DE4ND, AND rHAT IF THE LESSOR SHALL DEMAND IHAT THE TENAN . . 1 1 PAGE 7 / 1 // ( 15) LESSOR' S REPRESENTATIVE // 1 \ THE LESsOR ' S REPRESENTATIVE FOR ALL MATTERS CONCERNING THIS LEASE / AND/OR THE USE1OF THE PREMISES SHALL BE THE ORANGE COUNTY DIRECTOR OF \„...,,,.....RECREATION AND PARKS Or HIS/HER DESIGNEE. 1 (16) QUIET ENJOYMENT 1_ I THE LES5OR; AGREES THAT THE TENANT ON PAYING THE STIPULATED RZ AND KEEPING AIND PERFORMING THE AGREEMENT AND CONVENANTS HEREIN CONTAINED, SHALL HOLn AND ENJOY THE LEASED PREMISES FOR THE TERM AFORESAID, SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO THE TERMS OF THIS LEASE. 1 '( 17) wAIVER THE WAIVER BY LESSOR OF ANY BREACH OF ANY COVENANT OR AGREEMENT HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE A WAIVER OF SUCH COVENANT OR AGREEMENT OR ANY SUBSEQUENT BREACH OF THE SAME OR ANY OTHER COVENANT OR .AGREEMENT HEREIN CONTAINED. THE SUBSEQUENT ACCEPTANCE OF RENT HEREUNDER1BY LESSOR SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE A WAIVER OF ANY PRECEDING BREACH BY TENANT OF ANY COVENANT OR AGREEMENT OF THIS LEASE OTHER THAN THEIFAILURE OF THE TENANT TO PAY TO THE PARTICULAR RENTAL SO ACCEPTED, REGARDLESS OF LESSOR ' S KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH PRECEDING BREACH AT THE TIME OF ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH RENT. (18) INTEGRATION CLAUSE 1 ANY STIRULAITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS, PROMISES OR AGREEMENTS, ORAL OR WRITTEN 0, MAD 1E PRIOR TO OR CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THIS AGREEMENT SHALL HAVE NO LEGAL OR EQUITABLE CONSEQUENCES, AND THE ONLY AGREEMENT MADE AND BINDING ON THE PARTIES IS CONTAINED HEREIN AND IT IS THE COMPLETE AND TOTAL INTEGRATION OF THE INTENT AND UNDERSTANDING OF I LESSOR AND TENANT . I IN WITNESS1WEREOF, THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE DULY EXECUTED THIS I LEASE AGREEMENT AS OF THE DAY AND YEAR FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN. I , LESSOR: ORANGE OUNTY BY : RICHARD E. INOTTED, CHAIRMAN ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: TENANT: JOINT ORANGE CHATHAM COMMUNITY ACTION : • • ORTDA • n4 A4 78,4. - . - - MANGE OCZ.Z4717. D OF COM.a.SSIOi'M'S 09= Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEX sasTakcr In 11:11 4. 73 DATE August 1, 1983 Sujec : Purchase of Animal Control Vehicle through State Contract Procedures Purchasin: & Central Services ] Public Hearing: ves x no • Att=hmant(s) : 1.iformxtian Contact: Mark Rees Phntle e.r: x 498 alt-Pose: To consider purchasing the 1984 animal control vehicle through State of North Carolina Purchasing and contract procedures. :,- :7eed: In order to be part of the State of North Carolina bidding process, the County must respond with a written commitment to the state by August 15, 1983. Impact: By purchasing through State contract, the County could save a considerable amount of money. For example, the animal control truck the County purchased locally last year cost $7,361.61; a comparable vehicle bought through the state would have cost 6,468. 11. Funds for this vehicle have been appropriated in the FY83-84 Health Department budget. ORANGE COUNTY 0 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No.47 /177EING DATE Au:us t 1 1'8 ___ Subject: Property Disposal Procedure no I DepRrtment: Purchasing &. Central Services J Public Hearing: yeS Attachment(s) : Information Contact:Mark H. Rees, Purchasing Services 1) Proposed Resolution & Central Sery 2) Enabling Legislation Phone N ext 498 umber: PURPOSE: To consider adopting a resolution authorizing the Director of Purchasing & Central Services to dispose of personal property with the exception to vehicles, valued at less then five hundred dollars ($500.00). NEED: The County for the past two years has disposed of surplus property through public auctiOn. While there are advantages to this method, there have also been instances where if a negotiated offer or a trade had been arranged the County may have received more value for its property. Since many of these transactions involve small amounts of money, the existing procedures which require advertise- ment and Boald of Commissioners approval before a sale is completed can tend to generate costs higher then the value of the item being disposed of. IMPACT: The adoption of the proposed resolution should result in the elemination of most of the red tape associated with disposal of personal property and at the same time increase revenues from such disposals. _ _ *. - "'" • • " . : r';';4*,IL ,_ • !Ir0:,41„7,,P '7:• f., 7 , .;;;'74 j ' —1>7;Trs;7?'!. „ 7k311,-'4,11 ,7i, . •C •"1:;' . .,7■••■;-•1••,' 7■"" .0h„ ••. • • • 1. "!" "' „.. . •. RESOLUTION WHEREAS: The General Assembly of North Carolina has enacted a law entitled n an act to provide simplified procedures for disposal by city counties and sanitary districts of personal property with minimal value” in the 1983 session.' WHEREAS: : This law allows County Commissioners to adopt regulations prescrib- ing procedures for disposing of personal property valued at less than five hundred dollars ($500.00) for any one item or group of items in substi- tution of the requirements found in North Carolina General Statute 160A-266. WHEREAS: Orange County from time to time may find it advantageous and efficient to trade items of minimal value toward the purchase of a new piece of equip• ment or to sell an item to a private buyer at a fair market value rather then sell th e! article at public auction. WHEREAS: : The existing procedures requiring public advertising and Board of Commissioner's approval before such a sale could be made may be more costly then the value of the disposed items warrent. NOWTHEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby authorize the Director of Purchasing & Central Services to declare surplus any personal property valued less than five hundred dollars ($500.00) for any one iem or group of items , to set its fair market value and to convey title to the property for the County. The only exception to this authorizationIshall be motorized vehicles. FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Director of Purchasing & Central Services shall, on the first day of February, report in writing to the Board of Commissioners on any property disposed of under such authorizaiton from July 1 through December 31 of the previous year, and shall on the first day of August report in writing to the Board of Commissioners on any property dis- posed of under such authorization from January 1 througn June 30 for that year. The written report shall generally describe the property sold or exchanged, to wham it was sold, or with whom exchanged, and the amount of money or other considerationlreceived for each sale or exchange since the last such report was submittedi ORANGE COUNTY ( BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AMNDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No.4•8 MEETING DATE August 1 1983 Subject: Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) rDepartment: Cnnnty Managpr 1 I Public Hearing: yes - Attachment(gT: Information Contact: Yes Orange County Manager's Office Phone Number: 732-8181 ext. 501 PURPOSE: 1. For the Board to consider entering into a contract with the counties of Durham and Chatham and the City of Durham to form the Central Piedmont Employment and Training Service Delivery Area (SDA) to carryout the purpoSes of the Job Training Partnership Act: planning and operation of an employment and training program within the SDA. 2. For the Board to consider passing a resolution designating one of its members as "Chief Elected Official" and vesting in this member signatory authority. NEED: 1. On June 6, 1983, the Board authorized the County Manager and the Chair to negotiate an agreement with Durham and Chatham Counties and the City of Durham for the purpose of establishing an SDA under the JTPA. The attached contract is the result of these negotiations . 2. The Sate of North Carolina has requested that each unit of local govern- ment involved in a JTPA consortium designate, by resolution, one of its electeld officials as "Chief Elected Official" for the purpose of repre- senting his or her respective Board in the consortium. IMPACT: 1. The Contract stipulates among other things that: a) the administrative unit for the SDA shall be the City of Durham , which shall administer the employment and training programs on ' behalf of the member jurisdictions. b) Iall money transmitted to the administrative unit by the State, ! except for that required for reasonable administrative costs , - ! shall be expended in and for the benefit of the citizens of each county. c) a Private Industry Council (PIC) shall be created for the purpose of setting policy and overseeing employment and training programs administered within the SDA. d) the contract shall run for one year. 2. The resolution authorizes the "Chief Elected Official" to sign, initially, the attached State and Service Delivery Area Memorandum of Agreement and the Agreement between the Private Industry Council/Chief Elected Officials as well as any flifur= J J . . ' ■ ■ 0! ■ NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM COUNTY THIS CONTRACT, made, and entered into this the clay of 1 ■, 1983 , by and between COUNTY OF DURHAM (hereafter 1 "Durham County" ) , COUNTY OF CHATHAM (hereafter "Chatham County") , and COUNTY OF ORANGE (hereafter "Orange County") , said counties bei referred to collectively hereafter as the "Counties" , and CITY OF DURHAM, a Tunicipal corporation (hereafter "City") ; WITNESSET H: WHEREAS, the United States Congress has enacted the Job Training Partnership Act (hereafter "the Act") in order to provide job training and employment opportunities for economically disadvan- taged and unemployed persons; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Act, the Governor of the State of North Carolina is authorized to make financial assistance available tlo Service Delivery Areas for the purpose of carrying out all or a substantial part of an employment and training program; and WHEREAS, the Act provides for the combination of units of local government in multi-jurisdictional agreements for the purpose of forming consortia to carry out employment and training services on a multi-jurisdictional basis; and WHEREAS, it has been found by the Boards of County Commis- sioners of the Counties and by the City Council of the City that ■ the area Consisting of the Counties, said area containing a popu- lation of 263,259 consists of a labor market area broader than the single jurisdiction of any of the parties to this Agreement under the Act, th*” said labor market area consists primarily of the City '---7 '7' - •• - . . • i ! 100 and the Co i nties and that said area constitutes an economically integratedlgeographical area within which workers may readily change I jobs without changing their place of residence, and that said Count: and City should form a consortium for the purpose of planning and operating In employment and training program in the multi-jurisdic- tional area herein defined; and WHEREAS, it is the intent and purpose of the parties to this 1 1 agreement that a multi-jurisdictional Job Training Partnership Act Program (hireafter "the Program" ) be established and that the area to be serv8id by the consortium hereby created be designated as a Service Delivery Area for the purposes of receiving monies, imple- menting thI Program, and otherwise complying with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal and State regulations; and 1 WHEREAS, there exist within the Counties municipalities (in addition to the City) which, though not parties to this consortium, shall derive benefit from the Program by virtue of said Counties ' participatibn herein; and I WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement are fully authorized to I contract with each other and with the State of North Carolina for the purpose of carrying out the Program, such authority having been certified by the chief legal officers of the parties hereto by letters attached to this document and made a part hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual obliga- 1 tions, benefits and detriments incurred by each party of this Con- tract, and pursuant further to the provisions of Article 20 of Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1 -2- I 101 1. Purpose It is the purpose of this Contract to establish a consor- tium to plan and operate the Program in Chatham, Durham, and Orange Counties and, fctr- the purpose of carrying out the Program, to con- 1 tract with the State of North Carolina and provide the employment and training services under the provisions of the Act. 2. Designation and Authority of Governmental Administrative Unit The City is hereby designated as the Governmental Adminis- trative Unit (hereafter "administrative unit") for the multi-juris- dictional area herein defined for all purposes under the Act. The City, as the administrative unit, is hereby authorized, on behalf of the consortium created herein, to enter into contracts; to re- ceive and expend, funds; to employ personnel; to organize and train staff, including participants under the Act for the purposes of administering the Program; to develop procedures for program planning, operation, assessment and fiscal management; to evaluate program per- formance and determine the need to reallocate resources; and. (with the prtlar approv I of the Chairmen or Boarat of County Commis- sioners of the Claunties) to modify any grant agreement with the State of North Carolina. The City shall have full authority to act on be- half of the consortium created herein in all matters not specifically reserved hereunder to the consortium and not otherwise inconsistent with this ContraCt or applicable State or Federal law or regulations. The City shall pi'epare quarterly program reports and an annual per- formance report and shall submit such reports to the Counties and the City. 3. Statutor Authorit, -3- 1 This Contract is made pursuant to Chapters 153A and 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes and the Charter of the City. 4 . MJ:lti-Jurisdictional Area Defined Fci1 r purposes of this Contract, the multi-jurisdictional area to whilch services of the Program shall apply, shall be the area within, the territorial limits of the Counties. 5. Rights Reserved to Consortium The consortium reserves the right to evaluate the Program 1 in accordance with the Employment and Training Plan and schedule which will be submitted by the City, as administrative unit, to the State of North Carolina and in accordance with such plan as approved by the Governor. The consortium further reserves the right to re- program funds. Any grant agreement made by the consortium shall be executed for the parties by the Chairmen of the BOards of County Commissioners of the Counties and by the City Manager of the City (as provided in the Charter of the City) . The signatures of said Chairmen and City Manager upon any plan of services or document 1 directing a eallocation of funds shall constitute approval of such plan or real ocation of funds by the consortium pursuant to the reservation f rights provided in this section . Provided, however, amendments to the grant agreement which are required by the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development and amendments which are of a technical nature may be made by the City as administrative unit without the approval of the consortium. The City will notify the Counties of any such amendments. 6. AllOcation of Funds All Loney, except reasonable administrative costs, which -4- 1 10 is transmitted to the City as administrative unit by the State of North Carolina according to formuli based upon the demographics Of the Counti4s shall be expended in and/or for the benefit of the citizens of each County. Administrative costs shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the total allocation for each County in the consortium. 7. Accountability of Consortium The parties hereto, constituting the consortium created hereunder, Shall be jointly and severally accountable for all funds received by the consortium pursuant to the Act to the extent per- mitted by law. 8 . Private Industr Council Created There is hereby created a Private Industry Council (here- ' after "Coundil") . The purpose of the Council is to encourage pri- vate sector participation in the Program. The Council shall consist of twenty-three (23) members. The Chairmen of the Boards of County Commissioners of the Counties shall appoint the members of the Counci allocated to' their respective Counties as follows: Chatham County - four (4) members; Durham County - seven (7) members; and Orange Count five (5) members. The Mayor of the City shall appoint seven (7) members. 1 Twelve (12) the members of the Council shall be persons who are owners, chief executives or chief operating officers of pri- 1 vate for-profit employers and major non-governmental employers, such 1 as health and educational institutions or other executives of such employers whj have substantial management or policy responsibility (hereafter "private sector representatives") . -5- 1O4 Tie remaining members shall be representatives of .-Kiiica- tional agencies (representative of all educational agencies in the Counties) , organized labor, rehabilitation agencies, community- based organizations, economic development agencies, and the Employ- ment Security Commission of North Carolina . In order to provide staggered terms for members of the Council and to insure the representation prescribed by this section initial appointments shall be made according to the schedule of length pf terms contained in Attachment A and initial and subse- quent appointments shall be made according to the schedule of repre- sentation iI Attachment A. Attachment A is part of this Contract. In addition to the foregoing requirements, the following requirements apply to the appointment of members to the Council: a. Private sector representatives shall be selected from among individuals nominated by general purpose business organizations (i.e. organiza- tions which admit to membership any for-profit business operating in the Counties) after con- sulting with, and receiving recommendations from other business organizations in the Counties; b. The number of nominees referred to in para- . graph A. above shall be at least l50 Z; of the number of persons to be appointed; c . At least one-half of the private sector repre- sentatives shall be from businesses which employ less than 500 persons; -6- 10 d.1 Minority business representation shall fairly reflect the amount of minority business in the business community; e. Appointments shall fairly reflect the commer- cial and industrial make up of the area; f. Education representatives shall be selected from from among individual nominated by local educa- tional agencies, vocational education institu- tions , institutions of higher education, or general organizations of such agencies or insti- tutions, and by private or proprietary schools or general organizations of such schools, in the Counties; g. The remaining members shall be selected from individuals recommended by interested organi- zations: in the case of labor representatives, individuals shall be appointed from among per- sons recommended by State and local labor or- ganizations or business trades councils. Each member of the Council shall serve a term of one (1) year provided, however, initial appointments shall be for the terms shown on Attachment A. Members shall serve until their successors are appointed. Any vacancy in the membership of the Council shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment. Any member may be removed for cause. The members of the Council shall elect a Chairman annually. The Chairman must be a private sector representative. -7- • 10 9. Duties of the Private Industry Council The Council shall have such duties as shall be prescribed in a memorandum of understanding which shall be agreed upon by the Council and the consortium and which shall be consistent with the Act and regulations incident thereto. 10. Technical Staff for the Private Industry Council The administrative unit shall provide professional, tech- nical, and clerical staff to serve the Council. 1 11. Duration of Agreement This Agreement shall be for a period of one year from 1983, through , 1984 . 12 . Financing of Program It is anticipated that the funding necessary to implement this Contract, including the payment for technical staff services provided in Section 10 hereof, shall be derived from Federal monies received through State grants and other Congressional appropria- tions incident to the Act and amendments thereto. In the event. that it becomes necessary for the parties hereto to appropriate 1 additional funds for the purpose of implementing this Contract, each of the parties will appropriate its pro rata share according to the amount allocated by the State of North Carolina for that County from State and Federal funds received by the Consortium under this Con- tract. Provided, however, in the event any party to this Contract shall give written notice of termination as provided by Section 15 herein, the obligation of appropriating additional funds as set forth in this Section shall terminate upon the giving of such written notice. -8- mmirmillMMM 10 13. Real Property Any real property acquired pursuant to this Contract shall 1 be held by and title vested in the City. Such property shall be 1 held for the benefit of the parties hereto. 1 1 14. AMendments This Contract may be amended at any time upon the consent of all of the parties hereto in writing. 15. Termination of Contract This ContraCt may be terminated at any time upon two hundrf seventy (270) days prior written notice by any party hereto. 16. Names and Addresses of Parties 1 • The correct names and addresses of the parties hereto are as follows:, Name Address Hz. E4 Swindell, Manager Durham County Durham County Judicial Build Durham, N. C. 27701 Mr. William Coleman, Manager Chatham County P. 0. Box 87 Pittsboro, N. C. 27312 Mr. Ken Thompson, Manager Orange County 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Mr. Or,i1le W. Powell, Manager 101 City Hall Plaza Durham, N. C. 27701 1 COUNTY OF DURHAM ATTEST: By Chairman of the Board of Commissioners Clerk -9- ....• 1 0 COUNTY OF CHATHAM ATTEST: By Chairman of the Board of Commissioners Clerk • COUNTY OF ORANGE ATTEST: By Chairman of the Board of Commissioners Clerk CITY OF DURHAM ATTEST: By City Manager City Clerk NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM COUNTY This i to certify that on this day personally came before me with whom I am personally acguainte who, being by me duly sworn, says that is the Chairman of the Board of Commissiorieis - County of Durham and that he, said is the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners f6T- the County of Durham, a body politic and corporate, described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he knows the common seal of said County of Durham; that the seal affixed to said instrument is said common seal; that the name ofIthe County of Durham was subscribed thereto by the said Chairman ofIthe Board of Commissioners for the County of Durham and that the said Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Durham and said Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the Count' of Durham subscribed their names thereto and said common seal was affixed, all by order of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Durham, and that said instrument is the act and deed of said Count of Durham. Witness my hand and notarial seal, this the day of , 198 Notary Public My commission expires : -10- - . s . 109 NORTH CAROLINA - CHATHAM COUNTY This iJs to certify that on this day personally came before me with whom I am personally acquainte who, beinTlay me duly sworn, says that is the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Chatham and that he, said is the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners or the County of Chatham, a bod politic and corporate, described in and which executed the foregoing instrument;1 that he knows the common seal of said County of Chatham; that the se41 affixed to said instrument is said common seal; that the name of the County of Chatham was subscribed thereto by the said Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Chatham and that the said Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Chatham and said Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the Coun of Chatham subscribed their names thereto and said common seal was affixed, alL by order of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Chatham, 1 and that said instrument is the act and deed of said Cou of Chatham. 1 Witness my hand and notarial seal, this the day of , 198 Notary Public My commission expires: NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY This is to certify that on this day personally came before me with whom I am personally acquaintec who, being •y me duly sworn, says that is the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for the County of --- Orange and that he, said is the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, a body politic and Icorporate, described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he knows the common seal of said County of Orange; that the seal affixed to said instrument is said common seal; that the name of the County of Orange was subscribed thereto by the said Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange and that the said Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange and said Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange subscribed their names thereto and said common seal was affixed, all by order of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, and that said instrument is the act and deed of said Count of Orange. -11- 110 Witnes my hand and notarial seal, this the day of I , 198 . Notary Public My commission expires: NORTH CARO INA DURHAM COUNTY This is to certify that on this day personally came before me , with whom I am personally acquainted, who bei by me duly Isworn, says that Orville W. Powell is the City Manager, and that he/she, the said , is the City Clerk the City ol Durham, the municipal corporation named within and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he/she knows the common seal said corporation; that the sea/ affixed to said instrument is said common seal; that the name of the corporation was subscribed thereto by the said City Manager and that the said City Manager and said Cit Clerk subscribed their names thereto and said common seal was affixe all by order- of the City Council of the City of Durham and that said instrument is the act and deed of said corporation. Witness my hand and notarial seal, this the clay of 19 Notary Public My commission expires : -12- , . . . •.- • RESOLUTION NAMING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS THE CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIAL FOR THE COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT RESOLUTIO N WHEREAS , 1THE United States Congress enacted the Job Training Partnership Act in order to provide job training and employment oppor- tunities for economically disadvantaged and unemployed persons ; and WHEREASOunder the Act units of local government are encouraged to form consoWa to carry out employment and training services ; and WHEREAS , Ithe Board of County Commissioners of Orange County at its meeting on the day of , 1983 passed a resolu- to enter into a consortium with the City of Durham and the Counties of Chatham and Durham for the purposes of implementing the Job Training Partnership Act; and WHEREAS , the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County acting on the authority of said resolution has executed a consortium contract with said other units of local government; and WHEREAS , the State of North Carolina has requested that each unit of local government involved in a Job Training Partnership Act consortium name one of its elected officials as its "Chief Elected Official " for the purposes of the program and that such "Chief Elected Official " have signatory authority, including the authority to sign the consortium agreement and make representations on which the Private Industry Council and the administrative entity of the Service Delivery Area and the State ean rely; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County by virtue of his office is hereby named as the "Chief Elected Official " for the stated purposes of the Job Training Partnership Act. 1 . . _ , . : ; STATE AND SERVICE DELIVERY AREA MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ARIICLE I: Acceptance of Service Delivery Area De.AgEltio!i_ The signators to this agreement acknowledge that the Governor has deignated the City of Durham and the Counties of Chatham, Durham and Orange (Local Governmental Unit(S) as the Central Piedmont Employment & Trainji —.— Service Delivery Area, hereinafter referred to as the SDA, in accord- ancle with his authority under the Job Training Partnership Act , 97-300, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and hereby accept such designation. ARTICLE II : Assurances by the SDA As the designated Chief Elected Official authorized to represent the units(s) of local government within this SDA, I assure and certify that: A. We will comply with the requirements of the Act and regulations promulgated thereunder, all other applicable Federal Regulations, the Statutes of the State of North, Carolina, written directives, guidelines, and instructions of the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Employment and Training. B. We will appoint a Private Industry Council in accordance with applicable provisions of Section 102 of the Act. C. We will enter into an agreement with the Private Industry Council in accordance with Section 103 of the Act. D. We will approve and submit, jointly with the Private industry Council, the Job Training Plan for this SDA. E. The Unit(s) of Local Government in this SDA (in accordance with its consortium agreement, if the SDA is composed of a consortium of Units of Local Government) accept joint and several liability for all activities carried out under the Act and all, funds received under the Act. • ARTICLE III: Assurances by the State On behalf of the Governor of the State of North Carolina, the Division of Employment and Training assures and certifies that: A. We will comply with the requirements of the Act and appropriate rules and regulations and with the amended Wagner-Peyser Act and appropriate rules and regulations. !:. • . • - : • I ' ALI 1 B. We will, certify the Private Industry Council, if it meets the requirements of Section 102 of the Act. C. We will provide to the SDA the Governor's annual. Statement 1 of goals and objectives for job training and placement programs to assist the SDA in preparing its plan, as required in Section 104 of the Act. D. We will approve the Job Training Plan, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 104 and 105 of the Act. E. We will issue planning instructions and other technical assistance materials to assist the SDA in carrying out its role under the Act. F. We will disburse funds consistent with the grant agreement in a timely manner , and provide for the audit of the grant recipient/administrative entity, as required in Section 104 of the Act . ARTICLE IV: Signatures: In witness whereof, the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Employment and Training, and the Chief Elected Official mutually agree to abide by the terms and Conditions enumerated herein. Authorized Chief Elected Official, Chatham County Date Signature Authorized Chief Elected OffiCial, City of Durham Date Signature Authorized Chief Elected Official, Durham County Date Signature Authorized Chief Elected Official, Orange County Date Signature Director, Division of Employment and Training Date Signature . . . . . • - DRAFT' 7/20/83 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL/CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIALS AGREEMENT This Agreement , made on the day of , 1983 by and between the Chief Elected Officials , who are the authorized representa tives of the units of general local government with the Central Pied- (Name of mont Emslo ment and Trainine Service Delivery Area , and the Central SDA Piedmont Employment and Training. Private Industry Council , ( hereinaftel (Name of COuncilT referred to ai the Council ) ; and 1 WHEREAS , the United States Congress has established the Job Traini Partnership Act (JTPA ) and charged the State of North Carolina with the establishment of local Service Delivery Areas (SDAs ) ; and WHEREAS, Central Piedmont Employment and Training has been desig- nated as the local Service Delivery Area for the units of general local government within the confines of its boundaries : and WHEREAS , JTPA establishes the Private Industry Council and the Chief Elected Officials as local partners in the implementation of JTPA; and WHEREAS , TPA requires the Council and the Chief Elected Officials to define the cope of their partnership by means of an Agreement ; and WHEREAS , the Council has resolved to permit the Chairman to exe- cute this agreement , NOW, THEREFORE IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED : I . Procedure for the Develoiment. of asJob Training Plan A. The Central Piedmont Em• lo merit and Training Office shall develop a Job Training Plan pursuant to the Act which must be approved by the Council and the Chief Elected Officials prior to its joint submission to the Governor as described in the Act. B . The rocedure for development of the Job Training Plan is as follows : 1 . Appropriate Council committees (as designated by the Council ) shall advise the staff of the Central Piedmont Employment and Training Office regarding the content of the plan ; 2 . The aforementioned staff shall develop the plan in response to the advice , policies , and directions set by the Council and its committees ; 3 . The Council will review, amend , and approve the plan as developed by the staff; 4. The Chief Elected Officials will review and approve the plan ; or 5. Refer the plan with attendant comments back to the Council for further consideration ; and 6. Upon approval by the Chief Elected Officials and the Council , the work plan will be submitted to the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Developmebt , Division of Employment and Training . II . Selection of the Grant Recipient The City of Durham shall be the grant recipient pursuant to Section 1 3(b) ( 1 ) (B ) of the Act . The grant recipient shall be responsible for : r , A. The receipt and disbursement of funds . 1.1 4 i B. Providing adequate accounting procedures and controls to assure compliance with good and adequate accounting principle in compliance with State and Federal laws and regulations . C . Providing for audits of the books and records in compliance with State and Federal laws and regulations. III . Selection of the Administrative Entity The City of Durham shall be _the entity to administer the Job Training1Plan pursuant to Section 103 b T Q ( ) ( ) ( ) of the Act. In accordance with Section 141 (1 ) of the Act , the administrative e entity shall be responsible for: 1 . the disbursal of funds ; 2. the eligibility of those enrolled in the programs ; 3. taking action against its subcontractors , subgrantees , and other recipients to eliminate abuses in the programs tlhey are carrying out; and 4 . pjreventing any misuse of funds by subrecipients . Other specific functions and responsibilities shall include: 1 . providing the services outlined in Paragraph I above through its Central Piedmond Employment and Training Office; and 2. the hiring and training of staff who shall become regular members of the City ' s staff in accordance with all rules , I regulations , and laws affecting such employment. IV . Oversight The Council shall be responsible for exercising independent oversight Of activities under the local Job Training Plan in partnership with the units of local government in the Service Delivery Area . Such oversight shall be in accordance with procedures established by the Council . V . Slecial Provisions It is understood that the following provisions will be implemen- ted provided that sufficient funds are available for their imple- mentation: A. The units of general local government will have input into the size , composition , and selection of staff. B . Job training offices for participant eligibility determina- tion , counselling , job referral and job placement will be located in each county in the SDA. C. The Council will negotiate with the Triangle J Council of Goverhments to provide , under an annual contract , economic develOpment analyses to assist and augment the information sources and program planning of the Council . It is alsO understood that any funds received because of superior performance and/or the reprogramming of funds will be shared by each county on a pro rata basis . VI . Terms of Agreement This agrement shall be in effect until modified or terminated by any inky to it. The Division of Employment & Training shall be notified immediately if this agreement is modified or terminated . APPROVED: Private Industrly—CTITTEir------ Authorized Chief Elected Chairman Official , Chatham County Authorized Chief Elected ----- I Official , City of Durham .. . ,,,,, . ' - ',,,, ..,':, :7W4P.14■;':;!' ' 7.' , .. 7"Ftf '.4',7.- , , ::.4. ,,- .01 . 11 • Authorized -Chief Elected Official , Durham County KiTEFFIFid Chief Elected Official , Orange County 1 11 1 1 aggregate population of 200,000 or more which serves a substantial part of a labor market area; and (iii) any concentrated employment program grantee for a rural area which served as a prime sponsor under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act." SeCtion 101(a) (4) (A) E of Private Indus Council "There shall, be a private industry --‘0-1.-ITC-i."--1-", '-very service delivery area .. . . Each council shall consist of -- (1) representatives. of the private sector, who shall constitute a majority of the membership .• .; and (2) representatives of educational agencies ... , organized labor, rehabilitation agencies, corm-unity-based organizations, economic development agencies and the pUblic employment service." Section 102(a) VOTE: Private sector representatives will be selected from nominations made by business organizations. "... never possible, at least one-half of such business and industry representatives shall be representatives of small business, including minority business." Section 102(c) (1) (A) NOTE: For this purpose, small business means private for-profit enterprises with fewer than 500 employees. "Education re presentatives on the council shall be selected fram.among individnals nominated by local education agencies .. .." Section 102(c) (2) "The remaining members of the council shall be selected from individuals recommended by interested organizations ... ." Section 102(c) (3) 1 ' NOTE: This provides art opportunity for women's organizations, carraunity-based organizations, and other parties who are interested in having womPen's interests represented to recommend candidates. the Private industry Council "It shall be the responsibility of the private industry council to provide policy guidance for, and exercise oversight with respect to, activities under the job training plan for its.setvice delivery area in partnership with the unit or units of general local government within its service delivery area." Section 103(a) "The council in accordance with an agreement or agreements with the appropriate chief elected official or officials . . . , shall -- (A) determine procedures for the development of the job training plan, which may provide for the preparation of all or any part of the plan (i) by the council, (ii) by any unit of general local government in the service delivery area, or by an agency thereof, or by such other methods or institutions as may be provided in such agreement; and (B) select as a grant recipient and entity to administer the job training plan (which may be separate entities) , (i) the council, (ii) a unit of general local government in its service delivery area or an agency thereof, (iii) alnonprofit private organization or corporation, or (iv) any other agreed upon entity or entities." Section 103(b) (1) NOTE: The functions of the private industry council are key to the way funds are expended, programs developed, and participants selected and served. Therefore, representation on this council provides an important means for women's groups to influence employment and training programs. Job Training Plan "No funds appropriated for any fiscal year may be provided to 411 any service deliVery area under this Act except pursuant to a job training plan - 5 - for two program years . ..." 'Section 104(a) [Among the elements to be included : each job training plan are: identification of the entity or entities which wil: administer the program and the grant recipient; description of services to be provided, including estimated duration and training cost per participant; procedures for identifying and selecting participants; performance goals; procedures for selecting service providers which take into account past performance in "job training or related activities."] NOTE: The conference report states: "The Conferees expect that [labor market and demographic] analyses will be used as a basis for planning." The conferees go on to say: ": is a responsibility of the PIC and local elected officials to ensure that the needs of all parts of the service delivery area are addressed equitably." Review and Approval of Plan "Not less than 120 days before the beginning of the first of the two program years covered by the job training plan -- (A) the proposed plan or summary thereof shall be published; and (B) such plan shall be made available for review and comment to -- (i) each house of the State legislature for appropriate referral, (ii) appropriate local educational and other public agencies in the service delivery area, and (iii) labor organizatior in the area which represent employees having the skills in which training is proposed; and (C) such plan shall be reasonably available to the' general public through such means as public hearings and local news facilities." Section 105(a) (1) "The Governor Shill approve the job training plan or modification thereof unless.. ." the Governor finds deficiencies in audits, performance standards, capacity to administer funds, adequate safeguards for funds, or compliance with provisions of the act or regulations.] Section 105(b) (1) NOTE: The conferees noted that the limited authority of the Governors to disapprove plans was intended to fix policymaking responsibility at the local level, under the contra of the partnership between chief elected officials and the private sector. "It is the intent of the Conferees that decisions concerning local priorities in relation to such issues as participant mix, training strategies, service deliverers, etc., remain solely within the purview of'local decision- makers, as long as such decisions do not violate the provisions of the Act." Performance Standards "The Congress recognizes that jab training is an investment in human capital and not an expense. ... The basic return on Lhe investment is to be measured by the increased employment and earnings of participants and the reductions in welfare dependency." Section 106(a) [The Act provides that the Secretary of Labor will develop separate performance standards for adult and for youth programs under title II, for dislocated workers programs under title III, and for programs serving special populations under title IV. The Governor of each State may, within limits, prescribe variations in the ' performance standards established by the Secretary.] Selection of Service Providers "The primary consideration in selecting agencies Or organizations to deliver services . .. shall be the effectiveness .. . in delivering comparable or related services based on demonstrated performance, in terms of the likelihood of meeting performance goals, cost, quality of training, and characteristics of participants. In complying with this subsection, proper consideration shall be given to community-based organizations as service providers." Section 107(a) NOTE: The conference report indicates that "these provisions are not intended to preclude the selection of new service providers." - 6 - Time Line for JTPA Implementation As Provided for in the Act October 13, 1982 -- Job Training Partnership Act signed by President 1 December 12, 1982 -- Regulations on establishment of State job 181 (f) (5) training coordinating councils and designation of service delivery areas must be published for comment in Federal Register. (20 days prior to January 1, 1983, date for publication of final regulations.) December 15, 19,82 --- Regulations on establishment of private industry 181 (f) (5) councils must be published, in Federal Register. (30 days prior to January 15, 1983 date for publication of final regulations.) January 1, 1983 -- Publication in the Federal Register of final 181 (f) (1) regulations on establishing State job training coordinating councils and designation of service delivery areas. January 15, 1983 -- Publication in Federal. Register of final 181 (f) regulations on establishment of private industry councils. February 13, 1983 -- Regulations on all aspects of programs under • 181 (f) (511) title II must be published for comment in the Federal Register. (30 days prior to March 15, 1983, date for publication of final regulations.) March 15, 1983 -- Publication in Federal Registei of final regulations 181 (f) (3) on all aspects of Title II programs. April 13, 1983 -- Establishment of initial performance standards. 106 (c) (6 months after enactment of the act.) August 31, 1983 -- Job training plan for program period 10/83 through 181 (j) (1) 6/84 must be submitted to Governor. October 1, 1983 -- All other regulations for programs must take 181 (j) (1) effect by this date. January 31, 1981 -- Secretary will prescribe performance standards for 106 (d) (1) the first program year. Note: According to preliminary estimates by the Employment and Training Admir+tration, U.S. Department of Labor, publication in the Federal Register will occur prior to the date required by law in 411 most cases. - 15 - cpoes.t.c.0 ru`i+ y'• '`'r,: ,W,•-.• ` YVr4 :: °� Pi} f ? 5n� °n' �� 1� d4pf ii a i # [ L s <. . w4! x{.:. I .e13,-'7V4 1 F,I''h'�,,,, c ..iq •44 r.•f,71r 'l�✓ 5i '.r"ft �.'Ya.^,`:i r {.d�. 5 �, Cry�, Jai t»�•x�i}, ,< rw q r ° '1..*_ 5�t-:7•"Yd„"3. ':�i�'�t•` .•i v'H • 123 • .;.•y•wt - 1:'•.1 r ♦4'- 'i'4 _. :+—mow ... .Ti... � t:. .. . . I ............. mow. ..u...w,�r � .��� U.S. Department of Labor 9 Posta .e and Office of the Secretary d Fees Paid Women's Bureau U.S. Department of Labor Washington, D.C. 20210 Third Class Mail ZOO Official Business Lab-441 Penally for private use, $300 3 • •t s +Y I I w ',' '':'1„..,,A,c. •'`.>,4;,fiA.31;:g..,..t:,.......,.'w.f.!;:_-!, ,,,,-,:,.„. *1..,;:l.:-.4,k,t.„:,,.:1-`,,i1r..,„,g, ,%`71.P.44*....:',-ei,4.,'"?..y.0,64,',A.,,,t,v,; -.1.4,1,1,5-g. , ,,,.r..-,4,4, ',$,,,kf64,ik'iy=:. i,,vii-ti:. 1. ',•310, ...-i'; ',...-.,', :i'.: -oiro'!'"-i'''':z,4:-',3/4`-;%'6,43f1,T, :ii'•',,,V,:iti,,..- ',.,,;:f9i',r'.; 4!'-, - :,w,,,, -.' ''@:: .-;::::„;4:,.;,:i:,„,;.,',,,i,:„:, ;i:i-.1-0',,:., : :;,;:::z.;!:. ' 4le ;':', .:' ,;',,p'r,r', :,."' ', :`..`,1..,1:‘:„,.,;,,,:,..:,::-.;fo- - •-.••,4' • ,; :. , •.,-' '-Jf,":". - 'f' :7:.•..,'?','''' . . : . .-'•. • 124 ,,, ...4,,,.....,,,............,:. „ i •.;,....i„........ ;„4,.. 44,i,.„.. iiii„.. .,,,,,,i4 .4";.,,i,„...,..........,..,_,....,,,,:„....„.„4„.....„ : ..... ,.,.: ,, NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS BY COUNTY BY MONTH County May April March Feb. Jan. Dec. Total Aver ( Chatham 1 , 120 1 ,230 1 ,340 1 ,410 1 ,340 1 , 180 7 ,620 1 ,27( Durham 4, 040 4 ,090 4 , 520 4,540 4,450 4 ,440 26,080 4 , 34; Orange 1 ,720 1 ,490 1 , 630 1 ,830 1 ,770 1 ,830 10,270 1 ,71 ; Total 6,g-86 6 ,810 7 ,490 7 ,780 ' 7 ,'560 7 ,450 43 ,970 7 ,32! Percentage, of Unemployed by County in Area Chatham: 1 ,270 7 ,329 . 17 . 3% Durham: 4,34? i. 7 ,329 = 59. 3% Orange : 1 ,712 : 7 ,329 . 23. 3% Total 99. 9% Membershi.p. hy County, of PIC with a total of 23 members: Chatham: 23 x 17% . 3 . 9 = 4 Durham: 23 x 59% . 13. 5 = 14 Orange: 23 x 23% = 5. 2 = 5 Total 23 ...,-....--... 2f4r"'' idVt, P!t- -**. .7,1 ."11. •.‘r " 125 ATTACHMENT A PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Governmental Representing Length of Unit Term Chatham County Private Sector 1 Private Sector 2 Community Based Organizations 1 Education (Chatham County Schools ) 2 Durham City Private Sector 1 Private Sector 2 Private Sector 1 Private Sector 2 Employment Security Commission 1 Education ( Durham Technical Institute 2 Education (Durham City Schools ) 1 Durham County Private Sector 2 Private Sector 1 Private Sector 2 Private Sector 1 Organized Labor 2 Economic Development. Agencies 1 Education (Durham County Schools ) 2 Orange County Private Sector 1 Private Sector 2 Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies 1 Education (Orange County Schools ) 2 Education (Chapel Hill /Carrboro Schools) 1 ATTACHMENT A PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Governmental Representing Length of Unit Term Chatham County Private Sector 1 Private Sector 2 Community Based Organizations 1 Education (Chatham County Schools) 2 Durham City Private Sector 1 Private Sector 2 Private Sector 1 Private Sector 2 Employment Security Commission 1 Education ( Durham Technical Institute 2 Education ( Durham City Schools ) 1 Durham County Private Sector 2 Private Sector 1 Private Sector 2 Private Sector Organized Labor 2 Economic Development Agencies 1 Education (Durham County Schools ) 2 Orange County Private Sector 1 Private Sector 2 Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies 1 Education (Orange County Schools ) 2 Education (Chapel Hill /Carrboro Schools ) 1 1. 19 ORANGE COUNITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item ND.E5 MEETING DATE Acirmst 1 , 1.4p3 Subject: Appointments - Private Industry Council (JTPA) Depart:rent: , 1 Public Hearing: _ yes no I Attachnent(s) : Information Contact: Yes Orange County Manager's Office Phone Number: 732-8181 ext, 501 PURPOSE: For the Board to consider nominations submitted by organizations within the County and to appoint five (5) Orange County representatives to a Council to set policy for and oversee employment and training programs established under the Federal Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) . Two appointments from the private sector, one from vocational rehabilitation agencies and from each school system. NEED: There must be a private industry council (PIC) for every-service delivery area established under the JTPA. Under the consortium agreement Orange County will participate in a service delivery area comprised of itself, Chatham and Durham Counties and the City of Durharn. Fifty-one percent of the membership of the PIC will be comprised of representatives from small business (private-for profit enterprises with fewer than 500 employees). The remaining forty-nine percent will be comprised of representatives from traininVeducation organizations and other interested organizatOns. IMPACT: itttiorouIj Chamber of Commerce Visit ; fork pillsborouglj Ct,artereb e`oebenteen jOunbreb 5f'iftp-fine 122-a bouflj Cljukton gotreet Vbone 732-8156 Fitl5borougb, ,Jortfj Carolina 27278 I. Dn. Jo4eph Gatewood - Loca.E: Dentist 4.ince 1976, Board o6 D.inecton4 UNC;DentaZ Atumn.i A64ocia ti,on, Ct in,i,ca . Faculty Member UNC Sr hoot of DenLatny. 2. Atv.cn Oakley - A44.44tance Manager NCNB, Graduate (INC, Schoo£ Votu4teen - Taught Conaumen Credit at Change High and Stansond Jn. 1 High Schoot, PubLco,ity Cha.inman H4bonough Hog Day Comm., Sum e'E. Aaa.r a.tan t Manager Duke Pak Foot. (ion Dunham City Rea. Dept.) 3. Mike Kirby - Manager FCX ion pa.a.t three yea/L4, Graduate of North Carolina State Univ¢r.4.cty, Vice Pne4ident t(JJ26bonough Chamber of Commerce. 4. James teliiarod - A64.i.6.tant Satea Manager oc Lacep:ehd Chevon.Cet, B;A.j H�.a,tony - Eton CoUt.ege and UNC, Regi,a.tened Repke4entative New iyonk and Amen,ican Stock Exchange and Chicago Boand o6 Trade, Memb;en os HiJL6bonough Me#hvdi6.t Church. 5. Joe iCrew6 - (Iona and Manager o f Hittabonough MaDonaed'a, Chain.man tU.. Abonough Hog Day, Attended ODU, VA., Member Dania Boone A44on, Refined Capt. 20 $144, VA Army National Guard. • The Greater Chapel Hill-Carrboro 12, AP C arin a ee or -b corr.)I rnezce 104 S.ESTES DR./P.O.BOX 2897/CHAPEL HILL,N.C.27514(919)967-7075 July 22, 1983 Mr. Richard Whitted, Chairman - Orange County board of Commissioners 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Richard: Thank yOu for our letter of July 13, 1983 concerning the Job Training Partriprship Act (JTPA) . We are supportive of this new federalism initiative to address the problems of the displaced worker, the disadvantaged adult, and the unemployed youth in our community. With respeCt to the proposed twenty-three member PIC covering Chatham, Durham and Orange CoUnties and the City of Durham, we are glad to submit for the County 's consideration two business owners in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area. In addition, I would gladly serve on this PIC as a representative of the business community in general. Our two nominees are: Maury D. Klein 929-4260 MDK, Inc. 929-8420 Post Office Box 2831 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Mr. Klein is president of a model train manufacturing company, employing approximately 18 people. His firm is located at Dobson's crossroads in. Orange County. . I Mildred Council 942-5837 - Dip's Cou#try Kitchen 405 W. Rosemary Street Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Mrs. Council , a minority business owner, has been active in the Chamber's Youth Employment Program which is a private sector program partially supported by public grant monies. Her restaurant is well known for good homestyle cooking. ,. ,, ", _ - % • Mr. Richard Whitted Page Two July 22, 1983 , i If you should need further biographical information on these two employers, please let me know: Si cerely, t/W Leonard P. .e an., Nes 4 Executive Vice President LPV/as 1 ! Orange County • . Commission For Women 131 Court Street Hillsborough:732-8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Chapel Hill:967-9251 Mebane: 227-2431 Ems. Durham: 688-733 , To: Richard Whitted Chairman, Orange County Commissioners From: Dana Baldwin Chairperson, Commission for Women Re: Job Training Partnership Act Date: July 20, 1983 Orange County Commission for Women wishes to recommend the following people for membership on the Private Industry Council of the Job Training Partnership Act. If you need jdditional information please contact me or Verla Insko. 1. Evelyn Poole-Kober Resident of Orange County for about 108 Ucconeechee Street three years. Currently employed by Hillsborough, North Carolina Environmental Protection Agency. Past working experience includes:. Press Assistant to U.S. Senator Edward W. Br Press Secretary/Legislative Assistant U.S Representative John B. Breckinri.c 2. Virginia Weisz (Jenny) Resident of Orange County for about fc 320 Glendale Drive years. Currently employed as an attox Chapel Hill, North Carolina in Chapel Hill. 3. Judy McNeil Resident of Orange County for about ei . 224 East Corbin Street years. Currently employed as an Educe- Hillsborough, North Carolina Research Consultant. 4, Debbie Davis A 13 year resident of Orange County, M Route-4, Box 270 Davis is occupation Coordinator for Hillsborough, North Carolina Piedmont Technical College. She worke several years as Industrial Engineer a Cone Mills in Hillsborough and at Durham Drapery Company. She has a deg business administration from UNC-CH. .•-•• ;IV 1:.4111 1441 Zr . . • 4"ortr„.;coixip STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION JAMES B. HUNT JR_ CLAUDE A. MYE CHAPEL HILL 27514 GOVERNOR DIRECTOR SARAH T. MORROW. M.D.. MP.H. CARR MILL MALL SECRETARY MAIL: P. 0. BOX 58.1 TELEPFIONE:987-221 July 25, 1983 Mr. Richard E. Whitted, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North. Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Wh4ted: Thank you for the opportunity to nominate a Vocational Rehabilitation representative to the Private Industry Council of the Orange, Chatham, Durham consortium to implement the Job Training Partnership Act programs. I have discussed this nomination with my State Deputy Director, Mr. Bob Philbeck, and my Regional Director, Mr. Larry Holland. All of us agreeithat this council will be of such importance that I, being the area manager, should seek a position on this council . I am, thus, Submitting to you a recent resume for this purpose. If other information is needed, please let me know. Sincerely, - 411kMichael Robb, Unit Manager 'el Hill Unit Office JMR/esd Enclosure JOSEPH MICHAEL ROBB CAREER OBJECTIVE To obtain increasingly higher management positions in the field of Rehabilitation and/or Human Resource Management. RELATED EXPERIENCE Unit Manager, North Carolina Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services. Responsibilities include the management of all aspects of a multi-county district of a public service agency. - Budget preparations, implementation, and fiscal responsibility for a 1.2 million dollar operation. - Goal planning, directing, and evaluation of both district and individual programs. - All personnel functions including hiring and dismissal ; staff development, evaluation, and requesting of pay raises. - Public relations and development of Third-Party Operations with such organizations as the University of North Carolina, North Carolina Memorial Hospital , and various counties, school systems, and medical groups. - Supervision of all services provided to handicapped clients by 12 professional and 7 support personnel in accordance with accepted rehabilitation practices and within the policies of the agency and the state and federal governments. November, 1978 to September, 1979 - Lumberton, N.C. September, 1979 to Present - Chapel Hill , N.C. Rehabilitation Counselor, North Carolina Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services. Responsibilities included: - Development and implementation of programs of services to the physically disabled and epileptic populations. - Provision of services to individual clients including assessments of handicaps, rehabilitation planning, implementation of selected services , individual counseling, and job placement services. - Responsible for expenditure of up to $125,000.00 for client services. October, 1974 to November, 1978 -• Raleigh, N.C. EDUCATION Master of Science in Rehabilitation Psychology, Appalachian State University. 1977 Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill . 1973 Advanced Training in Management, North Carolina State University 1982.-83 and Georgia State University 1980. Presently working towards a Master of Science in Management, North Carolina State University. SPECIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS Have met district production goals during all five years as a manager while maintaining one of the highest production per program and lowest cost per case ratings in the state. Implemented many innovations in services especially in the areas of industry based rehabilitation and program management. Elected to Presidency of the North Carolina Rehabilitation Association in 1981. References furnished upon request. E,00 range sffounig dnnI couiry cfr 20D EAST KING STREET 9oRatstx HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT (919) 732-8126 July 22, 1983 Mr. Richard Whitted, Chairman Orange County B6ard of Commissioners Courthouse Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Whitted: Re: JTPA Board Nomination At the July 18, 1983, meeting of the Orange County Board of Education the Board chose to nominate we for the Board of the new Job Training Partnership Program. As you will recall, I have expressed an interest in this program earlier. If the Board of Commissioners deem it appropriate, I will be glad to serve in this capacity. Sincerely, 40111P// tan G. L isford Superintendent DGL:ha cc: Mr. Max M. Kennedy, Board Chairman Ai To Board Merlebers From: Rob Addelson /e4 Subject: Appcilintments to the Private Industry Council ( PIC) Pursluant to JTPA Date : July 2 , 1983 This memo is intended to supplement the agenda abstract E-9 for the meeting of August 1 , 1983: Appointments to the PIC. Nomina- tions have been solicited from the two school systems , the Hills- borough and Chapel Hill -Carrboro Chambers of Commerce and the N.C . Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services . To date , written responses hav- been received from all but the Chapel Hill -Carrboro School System. These responses are attached. A verbal response has been received from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School System. Its nom- inee is Mr. Edwin Caldwell , Jr. Attachments ORANGE COUNTY 126 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item NoE ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE August 1 . 1983 Subject: Street Improv ments Contract—Change Order De.artment: Communit Develooment Public Hearing: yes X no I Attachments) : Information Contact: Albert Kittrell Phone Number: 732-8181 Ext. 425 Purpose: To consider approving a change order in conjunction with Community Development Street Improvements Contract. During street improvement activities, four unforseen con- struction items were added to the contract—(l ) connection of residential water drain line to street drainage system, (2) installation of additional driveway pipes, (3) con- nection of two concrete driveways to new paved street, and (4) regrading of shoulders and side ditches as a result of power pole relocations. All changes were reviewed and approved by The John McAdams Company, consulting engineers . Total cost of change order $560.00. Impact: All street improvement activities have been completed. The minimal amount of the change order will not impact street • A 0' .4 "7 •,• •• - .„., • .1r " • tt,.t q';•••r• ••• ' 4 ORANGE'.COUNTY', •: - 4.0 . . ' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.Ell ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE August I, 1983 Subject:. Protection of Telephone Cable 1Department: Community Development 1 Public Hearing: yes X no 1 MAttachfriTT--- Information Contact: Albert Kittrell Phone Number: 732-8181 Ext. 425 Purpose: To consider protecting Southern Bell 's underground telephone cable. Street improvement activities encroached on Southern Bell 's utility easement. Need: Southern Bell has a long distant underground telephone cable that runs through the Northern Fairview Community Development Area. The John McAdams Company, consulting engineers, inad- vertently omitted an easementowned_by Southern Bell from street improvement plans and specifications. After a substantial amount of street improvements had been completed, Southern Bell notified the Community Development Department and The John McAdams Company that street improvement activities were encroaching on their utility easement. Southern Bell is demanding that the underground telephone cable is protected. The specific area in question is brain Street. The cable runs along the shoulder of the street. The new paved street was not constructed over the cable. Southern Bell would like to do the work themselves and invoice the County based on time and materials. They have given an estimate of $2,600.00 to $3,200.00. The John McAdams Company believes their easement gives them the right to require that this work be done. The McAdams Company suggests the County ' arrange to have Southern Bell 'perform the work. Impact: This is a cost that should have been identified and included in the original contract amount. The $3,200.00 estimated , cost will hAv. � �� ORANGE COUNTY u � �� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No ! ' ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT . , MEETING DATE August l ^ 1983 _ .L Subject: Landfill waclamation Contract Award } ' De"artment: C0mmunit } Public Hearing' . / yes x vv__ i 'Information Contact: Albert Kittrell | Ext.Phone Number: 732-8181 Ext 425 ` /ward landfill reclamation contract (clearing, grading, creek Purpose: channelization and seeding) for Northern Fairview Neighborhood p��� ` ' On August 1 , 1983 a bid opening was conducted by The John ' McAdams Company, consulting engineers and Community Development e nt | Department. The McAdams Company has tabulated all bids. Mr. McAdams will present the bid results to the Board. . ImpdCt: Award of contract will facilitate the timely implementation ' of this community development program activity. ;;- • • • ORANGE COMP/ 11. 1 BOARD OF crumssiomus Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT 'tau ND.E 23 MEETING IIMEAurult_l , 1W11 SUbject: Water/SeWer Extension and Reservoir Development • raiiE-EgTE: County Kamiger I Public Hearing: - 176----sy _.:no I Attachrrent(s) r—T Information Contact: Yes Orange County Manager's Office • Phone Number: 732-8181 ext. 501 PURPOSE: For the Board to approve an agreement with the John R. McAdams Company for a Water/Sewer Extension and Reservoir Development Study of Cheeks Township. • NEED: At its July 5, 1983 meeting the Board awarded a contract to the John R. McAdams Company to undertake a Water/Sewer Extension and Reservoir Development Study of Cheeks Township. ImPACT: The agreement calls for a payment to the John R. McAdams Company of $20,000 for a Cheeks Township Water and Sewer Extension Feasibility Study and an Upper Eno Reservoir Development Feasibility Study. The contract is attached. : • '' • 13( _ 1 NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY 1 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the County o Orange, North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the John R. McAdailis Company, Inc. , hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant". I WITNESSETH: I. The Consultant, for and in consideration of the covenants hereinafter set forth and the compensation to be paid to the Consultant as hereinafter spealfied, agrees to conduct engineering studies and prepare reports for i Orange County Board of Commissioners on Cheeks Township Water and Sewer Extension Feasibility, and Upper Eno Reservoir Development Feasibility. T conduct these studies and prepare these reports the Consultant shall inclu but n4 necessarily be limited to, the following elements: 1 A. Cheeks Township Water and Sewer Extension Feasibility SEWER 1 (1) A study of the present and projected population and residential ,- commercial and industrial land uses of the study area to determine initial and future sewage flows. (2) Preparation of preliminary layouts of collector sewers , pump stat I and force mains to serve the study area. 1 (3) Complete analysis of the effect that the new sewers and sewage fir will have on the Town of Hillsborough's existing collection system and wastewater treatment facilities. (4) Preparation of preliminary layouts of improvements that will be rorminnA in .64 4 , 131 _ 1 1(5) Development of design criteria for future expansion of the Town Hillsborough's sewage collection system. (6) Development of preliminary cost estimates for improvements to th existing sewage collection system and new sewers recommended in report, as well as long term maintenance and operating expenses. (7) Development of a suggested "priority of construction" list for recommended improvements to the existing collection system and future expansions of the system. 0) Recommendations for methods of financing the construction of the proposed improvements, including tap-on charges, special assessme and special service tax districts and what would be the projected ' per month sewer rates (cost per 1 ,000 gallons) for the customer. WATER (1) A study of the present and projected population and land uses of ! study area to determine initial and future water requirements for 1 residential , commercial and industrial use, and for fire protectic purposes. (d) Preparation of preliminary layouts of major transmission lines to serve the study area. (3) Analysis of the effect that new transmission lines and water deman requirements will have on the existing Town of Hillsborough and Orange-Alamance Water Authority water systems, including the water 1 treatment plants of each. (4) Preparation of preliminary layouts of improvements that will be required in the existing Water distribution systems of Hillsborouni , . 132 _ . (5) Development of design criteria for future expansion of Hillsboro' . water distribution system as well as that of the Orange-Alamance 1 Water Authority. (6) Development of preliminary cost estimates for improvements to the existing water distribution systems and new services provided in report, as well as long-term maintenance and operating expenses. (7) Development of a suggested "priority of construction" list for recommended improvements to the existing water distribution syste I and future expansion of the system. ( 3) Recommendations for methods of financing construction of the pro- posed improvements, including tap-on charges, special assessments and special service tax districts and what would be the projected per month water rates (cost per 1 ,000 gallons) for the customer. B. Upper Eno Reservoir Development Feasibility Study ()) A study of the present and projected population of the Northern 1 1 Orange County area to determine initial and future water require- ! ments for residential, commercial and industrial consumption, and for fire protection purposes. 1 (2) A study of the Upper Eno Watershed, including the gathering, from 1 existing sources, of a description of the land use features, his- toric structures and sites , geology, soils, climatology, socio- economic characteristics , water and biologic resources , and point and non-pent sources of pollution. (3) Identification of potential reservoir sites in the Upper Eno Water shed, including the proposed Seven Mile Creek Reservoir and the pr ..,.., . . .. _ . ... , [ I . . . 7: , .iii.9...r,,,::...7, ... .'V.:A?j'7,;,,:.'1,7"--7,..,!: ;, .,.7••• '. )■;. ' - 1,:i$;:,, . . .... . .4.gi - ... • '- 113j • —_..—..._ .. .... ,.,—_. k9.] lin% I Evaluation of the construction feasibility of each reservoir sit I from the standpoint of topographic, geologic and soils constrain ,-, (5) Preparation of preliminary construction layouts for each feasible . , reservoir site, including identification of land area needed for I water storage, amount of land clearance and number of relocation! necessary for development and reservoir design criteria, 1 "(6) Evaluation of ability of each reservoir alone or in combination i I satisfy anticipated water demand, evaluation of relationship betty reservoir development and water and/or sewer line improvements pr posed in Section A, and discussion of integration of reservoirs i 1 county-wide water supply picture. (1,7) Preparation of preliminary cost estimates for construction of i reservoirs, including land acquisitions, construction, and operat , 1 and maintenance costs. I (3) Determine which reservoir should be developed and, if a combinatil i . ! . i of reservoir projects permits the best cost/benefit, the report mi I provide a "priority of construction" list for reservoirs in order I meet anticipated long-term water requirements. 1 (9) Recommendations for methods of financing reservoir development. i (10) Recommendations for protecting water quality in reservoirs upon I construction. . , 1 II. . The Consultant agrees that the scope of work, the methodology and the resul I ing reports will conform to its proposal to the County dated May 23, 1983, pursuaint to the Request for Proposal from the County dated April 22, 1983, i copy of which proposal and Request for Proposal is attached hereto and ) • 134 If a4 of the following additional services are ordered in writing by the County there shall be a supplemental agreement in writing between the Cour 1 and the Consulting Engineer concerning the rates of pay and the estimated time and cost executed prior to the commencement of such work. Such addi- tiondl work, if required, may include the following: 11. Prepare complete construction plans and specifications and provid - I sufficient documents required for competitive bidding of any proj g. Work closely with the appropriate regulatory agencies and assist I securing approval of plans and specifications in an expeditious . manner. 18. Provide assistance in advertising for bids, receiving bids , and recommending award of contracts. 4. Schedule and conduct pre-construction conferences. 5. Performance of laboratory tests and any specialized soils testing, hydraulic evaluations or other studies which are deemed necessary. Although the cost of such tests and/or studies shall be borne by t County, prior written approval shall be secured before such specia tests or studies are performed. 51. Performance of any miscellaneous design work not specifically I covered in planned project improvements. 71i. Preparation of any special documents or maps including but not limited to those necessary for filing purposes or those which may required as related to water rights. 8. Preparing to serve or servihg as an expert witness in connection w 1 any public hearing, arbiration proceeding, legal prbceeding, or wa ' 4 130. 71. Performing any other services , when and as deemed necessary by th County for the orderly progress of project improvements. 12: Assist with final inspection and with receipt of regulatory permi IV. The Consultant agrees to begin this study within fourteen (14) days of the date this AGREEMENT is executed by the County or as soon thereafter is mjtually agreeable to the County and the Consultant, and will complete I studY, with reasonable dispatch but not later than four (4) months from the date of commencement: V. Upon completion of the engineering reports, the Consultant will submit twenty (20) copies of the preliminary drafts of the reports to the County review and approval. After the County has approved the reports , the Consu tant Will prepare a final draft of the reports and furnish fifty (50) cool, of it to the County. I. The County agrees to pay the Consultant twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) follows: A. On a monthly basis as work progresses B. All invoices for engineering services will be due within thirty (• days of receipt by the County. Each invoice will be accompanied 1 project reports indicating what work has been completed to date ol 1 1 the projects. • II. The County will have the right to terminate the contract or any task being performed by the Consultant at any time by written notice, if the County fi that it is inadvisable or impossible to continue the execution of the projc in which case the Consultant shall be paid for all services performed and actual expenses incurred up to the date of termination. As a condition of '• 133 1 JOHN R. MCADAMS CO., INC. 1 John R. McAdams ORANGE COUNTY 1 Richard E. Whitted, Chair , I Orange County Board of Commissioners Attest: , Sharon Allison, Acting Clerk tolthe Board of Orange County Co missioners 1 1 13' ORANGE COUNTY I BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item N3.&14' MEETING DATE A n Subject: Noise Ordinance Depa.rtment: County Manager 1 Public Hearing: • _ ye's + no Atte,chrrent s Information Contact: Yes Orange County flanager's Office Phone Number: 732-8181 ext.. 501 PURPOSE: For the Board to adopt, on second reading, an ordinance to regulate noise in Orange County. NEED: Numerous citizens have requested that the County adopt a Noise Ordinance to control amplified sound when it creates a disturbance in adjoining neighborhoods. On July 5L 1983, the Board approved a first readinn of the proposed ordinance. A second reading is required for the Ordinance to become law. IMPACT: The Ordinance establishes permissible levels of sound which cannot be exceeded unless a permit is obtained from the County. Certain activities are specified in the Ordinance as being exempt from the permissible levels of sound. Enforcement of the Ordinance will be the responsibility of the Sheriff's Department: The Sheriff has concurred in the measures specified. The Ordinance will bprmmp affori-itio ri., ir mmemommummIMMUMM It: ._ . , • . . ,-* .136 BOARD OF OaMMISSIONIERS Action Agenda ACTION AMIDA IT ABSTRACT Item No.r is DEWING DATE August 1,...,1983 tg, ,., Subject: Cable TV Dprtment: County 'anager _..... I Public Hearing: yes , x no 1 , 1 Attachment s t : 1 Information Contact: - - Yes 1 Orange County Manager's Office Phone Number: 732-8181 ext 501 I PURPOSE: For the Board to consider a request by Alert Cable TV for amendment of its Pre-Existing Permitted Use Franchise. I 1 I - NEED: The County has received two letters from Alert Cable TV requesting an amend- ment to its current franchise to allow it to extend its services beyond that prescribed in its Pre-Existing Permitted Use Franchise. There is a need to formally respond to this request. 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 i I 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 • MEMORANDUM TO: Board Members FROM: Rob Ad elson DATE: July 27, 1983 RE: Cable TV Though the attached was written earlier this year it is still relevant to the issue of the amendment of Alert's cable tv franchise. It is included here for your information. Attachment _ CdLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, DICKERSON, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL& HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 110 CHURTON STREET HILLSBOROUGH,N.C.2727 919-732.2196 919-942-E000 CONFIDENTIAL CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SUITE 20,FR.NNKLIN BUILDING 137 E.FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL,N C 37514 IVI a y 16, 1983 919 929,715: ALONZO B.COLEMAN JR STEVEN A.BERNHOLZ DONALD R DICKF.RSON - ROGER B.BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E GLEDHILL Mr. Richard Whitted, Chairman DOUGLAS HARGRAVE Mr. N'orman Gustaveson BERNHOI2 WILLIAM H BREEZE JR Mr. Ben Lloyd c .nwt Ms. Shirley Marshall o BONNER D SAWYER Mr. Nbrman Walker. 119u2 19721 Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County Courthouse 106 Margaret Lane Hillsb6rough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Cable Television Extension Request Dear Members of the Board: This letter is intended to supplement the agenda abstract regarding the eligibility of Robinswood, Rangewood, Stoneybrook and CounCiilville to receive cable television service. Village Cable' of Orange County, Inc. was franchised on Febraury 25, 1981 to serve the unincorporated areas of Orange County. Its franchise includes a requirement that service be extended to any dwelling unit located in an area that meets the density criterion of thirty homes per mile or new plant construction. Alert Cable Television of North Carolina, Inc. was f4anchised on May 12, 1982 to provide cable television service to the homes connected to and served by it in the unincorporated areas of the County on November 24, 1980. Alert's proposal to serve the entire County submitted on October 10, 1980, which proposal was not accepted by the County, provides for a service extension policy to include those areas of Orange County where there exist thirty-live homes per mile of cable plant construction necessary to serve the area. Therefore, both the franchise of Village and the proposal of Alert speak in terms of homes per mile of cable or new plant construction. I have determined through independent inquiry that this is the standard in the cable television industry. Road miles are not used. In fact, industry-wide, according to the Cable Television Information Council, cable miles usually connect more homes than road miles because of the use of power easements that save cable connecting neighborhoods- In that same regards it is also a standard in the industry to run cable on both sides of a road and to count all the cable when underground construction is required.- Much has been said about the legalities of the County's actions in the past and in the future regarding the request for cable television service by residents of the communities listed above. Lawsuits have been threatened and sabers have been rattling. Some time has past since the intial franchise process- The rationale behind some of the decisions may need recounting- as to those members of the Bard present then and may need to be detailed for new Board members. Three important legal issues were taken into consideration during the County's franchising process. First, Article I, Sec. 32 of the North Carolina Constitution provides that "no person or set of personis is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community but in consideration of public services.' Article I, Sec 34 provides that "perpetuties and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free state and shall not be allowed." These two constitutional provisions have been interpreted by the North Carolina courts to generally prohibit a county from awarding an exclusive franchise. This prohibition, however, does not mean that more than one cable television franchise must be granted. The case of Cable Vision Of Winston Salem vs. City of Winston Salem, 3 N.C. App. 252, 164 S.E4d 737, (1968), makes that clear. Cable Vision of Winston Salem sued the City of Winston Salem contending it was entitled to a cable television franchise. The City had previously sought applications for cable television operators and, as a result of that application process; had awarded franchises to cable television companies other than Diable Vision of Winston Salem. The Court of Appeals made clear that the franchise award process was legislative and that nothing in the 11aw requires the City of Winston Salem to issue or not issue franchises to anyone. The process was described as being "entirely discretionary." Second, a case arising out of the cable television award process in the City of Boulder, Colorado was making its way through the federal court system at the time Orange County was involved in the franchise award process. Subsequent to the County's award of a nonexclusive franchise to Village, the Supreme Court held, in the Boulder, Colorado case, that counties are not immune from attack under the federal antitrust laws. Communications Co. vs. City_of Boulder, . US. , 70 L.Ed.2d 810 (1982). in a more recent case involving a claim of a violation of the- antitrust laws in a cable television franchise award process, the United States Court of Appeals for the 1Fifth Circuit held that territorial market division of the City of Houston by the applicants for cable television franchises constituted a violation of the antitrust laws. Affiliated Capita) Corporation vs. City of iflouston, 700 F.2d 226 (5th Cir. 1983). Orange County did not encourage cooperation between the cable companies competing for its territory. Orange County went out of its way to discourage territorial division because to do otherwise is unlawful. Furthermore, Orange County, during the franchise award process and since has scrupulously avoided involvement in any market division of the County among- competing or would-be competing cable companies and has instead watciaed as a very competitive posture developed and continues between the cable companies interested in serving Orange County. There is no market division in the County's present franchising. Village Cable is franchised to serve all of Orange County. Alert is autho sized to serve a very limited portion of the County, but for a reason unrelated to territorial market division. Third, Alert was operating within the unincorporated areas of Oriange County prior to the County's involvement in franchising,. Once the Board decided to award a franchise to Village pursuant to its proposal for all of the County and to not award a franchise to Alert pursuant to its proposal, the question arose as to what to do about Alert's then existence in the County. It was the decision of the Board to permit Alert to continue to operate its present plant and equipment and to continue to serve homes that it had served. Essentially, Alert was "grandfathered--in" with respect to its existing operations when Village received a franchise to serve the entire County. This decision was based both on a notion of fairness and due process considerations. Next permit me to review the history of the franchise awards in the County. Orange County adopted its Cable Television System Ordinance on December 3, 1979. That ordinance established a procedure for granting franchises. Pursuant to that procedure applications for franchises were sought. A request for proposals containing detailed standards was provided to all the prospective cable operators who inquired. Two applications were received by the County. One from Village, the other from Alert. The County appoinited a Cable Television Advisory Committee charged with responsibility for recommending a request for proposals, for reviewing any applications and for making recommendations to the Board regarding any applications received. Pursuant to that process the Board approved a request for proposals which in the narrative section stresses the importance of coverage and extension policies in the award process. The County's goal was to provide cable television service, to all of the unincorporated areas of the County at a reasonable cost. The coverage and extension portion of each proposal was therefore deemed extremely important. I have enclosed a copy of the recommendation of the Citizens Advisory Committee including a tenative calendar for any franchise awarded and a copy of the narrative portion of the adopted request for proposals. Thereafter the Citizens Advisory Committee submitted its recommendation to the 41.11111. ....■■■•1111110•01. f , . on .. . I Board and the reasons for its recommendation that the Board award a franchise to Village. Finally, the Board awarded a franchise to Village Cabl4 to serve the unincorporated areas of the County and a franchise to Alert to serve those areas of the County that it had previously serveld. A copy of the recommendations from the Cable Television Advisiory Committee regarding the franchise award are also enclosed for yOiir information. It was the opinion of the Board as reflected in . its decision that the committment by Village to construct 160 miles of cable plant to be completed within eighteen months of the franchise award together with its extension policy of thirty homes per mile of new plant construction, twenty petitioners per mile. of new plant construction or less than twenty petitioners per mile of new plant construction with cost-sharing by the petitioners was superior to Alerts committment of no guarantee of plant construction in the first eighteen months, an extension policy of serving areas with thirty-five homes per mile of new plant construction or serving those areas where there I are seventeen petitioners per new plant construction with no specific cost sharing proposal where there are less than seventeen petitioners per mile. Other technical reasons were cited for awarding a franchise to Village and not awarding a franchise to Alert.. .Subsequent to the franchise award process Alert has made no offer to provide cable television on the same basis as the franchise to Village requires it to do. The County, to date, has not sought such an offering, having no indication from Alert that, it is willing to provide cable television on that basis. In this regard there is a provision in the franchise granted Village as follows: HI. Non-exclusive. The right herein granted to construct and operate a cable television system and service shall be non-exclusive, and Orange County reserves the right to grant similar franchises to any person or persons at any period during the present franchise or any extension thereof. it is mY opinion that this provision authorizes the County to now or at any other time award a franchise similar to the one awarded Village to any number of qualified applicants. Based on the proposal submitted by Alert in 1980, it is, in all likelihood, a qualified applicaint. The issue in this regard is the award of a similar franchise. Should the County award a franchise to another cable company that is not similar to the one awarded Village it may jeopardize its ability to enforce its franchise to Village and may subject itself to liability for damages to Village because of an unsimilar award. Another franchise awarded would not, however, have to be id .ntical to the one existing with Village. 11 is my opinion that c2. as a minimum the following must be contained in a franchise awarded: 1. The extension policy should be identical. The grantee of a competing franchise in the unincorporated areas of the County must be required to provide 160 miles of trunk cable within eighteen months of the franchise. In the case of Alert, it is my opinion that the trunk cable already serving the unincorporated areas of the County could be counted in this requirement provided that cable has the ability to handle the system that would be required. 2. Prices competitive with those presently existing. 3. "Two-way" capability activated within a reasonable period of time. 4. A state of the art system capable of providing a minimum of thirty-five channel capacity activated in a reasonable period of time (one year to eighteen months after the franchise award). 5. Bonding, construction and insurance requirements identical to those in effect for the franchise with Village. 6. Local origination programming comparable to that offered by Village. This list may not be complete. I recommend that should the County be inclined to make such an offering to Alert and others that the requirements of its franchise to Village, particularly in the techni+1 aspects, be reviewed by a person or persons familiar with the technicalities of cable television and the recommendations of such a person or persons be taken into consideration. The Orange County Cable Television System Ordinance provides, in Sec. IV(a), the procedure for granting a franchise. Whenever it is deemed necessary by the Board to seek proposals for franchises it "shall first publish a notice seeking applications for franchises in a newspaper of general circulation throughout the United States and in a newspaper of general circulation throughout Orange County!" There are additional requirements contained in Sec. IV and other sections of the Cable Television System Ordinance which must be followed. In addition the request for proposals envisioned by the ordinance should contain the specific requirements necessary to insure that another franchise, if awarded, is similar to the existing franchise. I hope all of this is helpful. Decisions in the past have been very carefully made and with due consideration to the requirements of the cable television franchising process, the laws of the Sltate of North Carolina, the United States and the Constitutions of both the State of North Carolina and the United States. It is very clear to me that the procedures followed by the County and decisions made by it can be defended. Competition was the goal of the County. It was intense in the award process. If competition in the ,marict continues to be the goal, as I believe it should, it must be fair competition, with each competitor required to meet the same minimum standards. A decision to grant a franchise to Alert to serve beyond its pr -existing permitted use franchise area on some basis other than one which is "similar" to the franchise awarded Village may not be defensible, however attractive from a political point of view. Very truly yours, Alf; CT: ..".15- ffrey D Gledhill GEGn c • Cc: Ken Thompson . _ 7749.u".-17 CABLE ,„,... . '.7vA April 21 , 1983 Board of Commissioners County of Orange Hillsborough, 1INC 27278 Gentlemen: Alert Cable TV of North Carolina would like to exercise the right reserved in the letter of acceptance dated January 15, 19a2, to allow Alert Cable TV to ask the Orange County Board of Commis- sioners to grant an amendment to limited franchise granted Alert Cable TV. We are requesting that the ordinance granting a pre'- existing permitted use franchise to Alert Cable TV of NC, Inc. be amended to allOw Alert Cable TV of NC, Inc. to extend facilities into other areas of Orange County. Attached hereto is a map defining the area to be served by the proposed extension. Thank you for your early consideration of this request, as we would like to complete construction and have service to this area by August11, 1983. With Kindest Re• -r•s, gryir Edwin R. Pettis Vice President ERP/aj Enclosure F) r r 1., r r- •-• 11". SMITH MOORE SMITH SCHELL Se HUNTER vr— ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT I.,Aw - GREENsDoRO.NORTH CAROLINA BEVERLY C.MOORE THOMAS S.STOKES M=NEILL SMITH ROBER-i,A.WICKER JULIUS OSMITH,ra GERARD H.DAVIDSON.JR.. BYNUM M.HUNTER FRANK SIZEMORE.= JULIUS C.SmITM 11889.4 BRAXTON SCHELL KENNETH C.DAY STEPHEN P.MILLIKIN E.GARRETT WALKER JOHN J,DORTCH JAMES I.GALE RICHMOND BERNHARDT.JR. H.MILES FOTO= NAIL.ING ADDRESS CHARLES E MELVIN,JR. STEPHEN W.EARP P.o.BOx BIBB?' HERBERT 0.DAVIS JERI L WHiTFIELO GREENSBORO JACK W.FLOYO wiLuAmIL.roume NORTH CAROLINA DORIS R.BRAY JO ANN it mARLL= LARRY B.SITTON THOMAS C.WATKINS TELCPmoNE MARTIN N.ERWIN DOUGLAS WILLIAM EY,JR. 12 July 1983 •sisb 3784450 RICHARD HI ELLIS ALAN WILLIAM DUNCAN TELEGOPIER HAROLD N.EIYNUM CAROLEIW.FEE <Bo%37B.,BBsa DAVID M MOORE,0 PETER J.CovoNGTON WILLIAM P.AYCOCK 1:1 MAUREEN J.DEP4AREST 07FICE_S MICHAEL R.ABEL HENRY N,BETTENDORF soo NCNB BuILD;NG rR.EN AvEN SEN Ir.TENNte,c cAPOL;NE HUDSON 4-1kHC' A +4E,L,),•"',A,^) P`w. ^ Geoffrey E. Gledhill, Esquire Coleman, Bernholz, Dickerson, Bernholz, Gledhill & Hargrave 110 Chur4m Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: ' Alert Cable TV of North Carolina Franchise Dear Mr. Gledhill: We are writing to you at the request of Alert Cable TV of North Carolina, Inc . AS ycpu may recall , on 21 April 1983 Mr. Edwin R Pettis, Vice President of Alert, wrote to the Do al7d of Commissioners of OrangelCounty concerning Alert 's request for an amendment to its limited Orange County franchise. For your convenience, another copy of the 21 April letter is enclosed. To date, Alert haslreceived no response to its letter and, as far as we can determine, no consideration of its request. Obviously, this is almatter of importance which should not go unattended. Please advise us as to when Alert might expect the Board's reply and consideration. We would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, SMITH MOORE SMITH SCHELL & HUN 4k , • Richard W. Ellis RWE:jav Enclosure cc: Mr. Ewin R. Pettis Mr. Milton Lewis ORANGE =wry 1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGFIIDA ITEM AB,STRACP Item No.E16 MEEITNG DATE August 1 , 1983 Subject: Creation of Ad Hoc School Capital Task Force 1 repartment; Cdunty lama er I Public Hearing: • yes X no I Attachment rif61—nration Contact: None Orange County Manager's Office Phone Number: 732.-8181 ext. 501 PUF:POSE: To create a task force to examine the capital needs of the Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro School System and to recommend ways to financially meet these needs. tem: Each school system has identified and submitted needs to the Commissioners that far exceeds the -County's annual financial contribution to each system. Therefore, the task force is charged with the following duties: a. Identify, review and evaluate the capital needs of both school systems. b. Study alternative sources of funding with specific objectives in short and long range terms. c. Determine a plan of improvement given different funding levels. d. Prepare a timetable for improvements given the various levels of fun'di ng. The task fol rce will submit a report to the Commissioners by January 31 , 1984. Members of the task force will be appointed at the August 16, 1983 Commissioner! Meeting. IMPACT: Will enable the County to address the capital needs of the schools systematicall RECOMMENDATION(S) : - - ORANGE COUNIT 1 BOARD OF COMISSIONEFS Action Agenda ACTION AGEADA. ITEM ABSTRACT Item No.E17 METING DATE August 1, 1983 Subject: Project Ordinance Amendment Departmnt: Finance 1 Public Hearing:------7§E77 no Attachrrent s Inforffetion Contact: Yes Donna Clayton Phone Number: 732-8181, ext 495 PURPOSE: To consider proposed Project ordinance amendment. NEED: • Community Development: To close-1put Fiscal Year 1980 Community Development Block Grant per HUD request. IMPACT: CommunJty Development: None. "1" -144' - n):1-:,itql- " ".....t;7■5fr \1;17.1-4 • 74;="4".. 143 ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1980-81 PROJECT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The 1980 - 81IProject Ordinance of-Orange County as adopted on December 31, 1980, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows: FUND - ITEM INCREASE/(DECREASE) Community Development 111 Administration - Personnel $ (8,218.) - Operations - Equipment (2,617.) Rehabilitation 7 Personnel - Operations ( 109.) Acquisition of Real Property 10,835. Private Property ( 72.) NPD (11,804.) Publit: Facility Improvements 11„985. Approved this day of 1983. ." •■ • t:X.11.11;:ri 1 4 BOARD OF COMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGKIDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item NoL 19 METING DATE August 1, 1983 Subject: Budget Amendment Depart-rent: Finance 1 Public Hearing: yes X_ po:1 Attachnent(s) : Information Contact: Yes Donna Clayton Phone Number:_ 732-8181, ext 495 PURP(SE: To consider proposed budget amendment. NEED: Housing Authority: 1) To budget OrangeCounty Housing Authority Ju15r. 1 through December 31, 1983. 1 IMPACT: Housing AuthOrity: 1) To fund the Housing Authority for remainder of calendar year, 1983. , - 2, 14 _ . ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1983-84 BUDGET AMENDMENT The 1983-81 Budget Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on June 27, 1983, and subSequently amended is hereby amended as follows: Housing Authority: Appropriation: SectilOn 8 $500,000. Moderate Rehab 170,000. Source: Section 8 Grant $500,000. Moderate Rehab Grant 170,000. To budget Orange County Rousing Authority for the remainder of the calendar year, 1983. " Aegir4":41147 "4: 40, - - " •'' ORANGE COUNTY' 14 1 BOAMI OF CONDITSSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGED . ITEM ABSTRACT Item Noi M ?ME. *(G DATELugus12...1983 Subject: Budget Amendment LDepar tment: Finance Public Hearing: yes Attachments : ' Information Contact: Yes I Donna Clayton Phone Number: 732-8181, ext 495 • * PURPOSE: Consideration of proposed budget amendment. TOM?: General Fund: t2c. To budget for additional funds needed for the purchase of used wrecker to be used by motor pool. County Capital Projects Fund: To transfer funds to general fund for the purchase of a used wrecker for county motori pool use. IMPACT: General Fund: To make fund available from undesignated garage equipment fund in the Cap- ital ImproveMents Project for purchase of wrecker. " "4#" . • ("q-' '7.14r• - ., • ' " "°^' # : .`s • 4- *i.tikb!* -14 rh, tV".4',37,k701 , •'; v+4 144';- .?'.44%,' r." „* 2 or orter0;„ 1.47 I ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED COUNTY CAPITAL PROJECTS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The CapitallPrbjects Ordinance of Orange County as adopted, and sub- sequently amended is hereby amended as follows: Capital Projects Fund: Appropriation: Capital $ (1,500.) Source: Transfer To/From General Fund $ (1,500.) To transfer funds to the General Fund to be used for the purchase of a wrecker for county motor pool use. Approved this day of , 1983. I - • 4 ) ,r‘ 4"., • 41.4 111 • •^ 4. 4 """, . r %-x g 24,41, .4 AI , • tt14,Z414," •;44,- " . - , „ 4•-" t'..1„, 7,Fr•Vt ym.„ S.• 4: ,TiM • ' ■ 148 ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1983 - 84 BUDGET AMENDMENT The 1983 - 84 Budget Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on June 27, 1983, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows: General Fund: Appropriation: Public Work $ 1,500. Source: Transfer from Capital. Projects Fund $ 1,500. To budget for purchase of wrecker for county motor pool use. Approved this day of , 1983.