Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-05-1990Ilr ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL MONDAY, MARCH 5, 1990 ON ALL ABSTRACTS 7: 30 P.M. AVAILABLE IN THE OLD COUNTY COURTHOUSE CLERK'S OFFICE. HILLSBOROUGH, NC NOTICE TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED HEARING: Audio amplification equipment is available on request. If you need this assistance, please call the County Clerk's Office at 732-8181 or 968-4501. I. BOARD COMMENTS II. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. Matters on the Printed Agenda (We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked. ) B. Matters not on the Printed Agenda PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. V. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) A. Budget Amendment #8 B. Budget Amendment #9 C. Rental Rehab II Grant Project Ordinance D. Health Department Fee Schedule for Community Screening Services Ill VI. RESOLUTIONS/PROCLAMATIONS A. Proclamation of Women's History Month B. Resolution of Appreciation--Steve Yuhasz C. Proclamation of the Month of March, 1990 as Mental Retardation Month in Orange County D. Resolution for Toll-Free Calling VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS IX. REPORTS A. Equal Employment Opportunity Report B. Orange County Slogan C. Public Health Director's Report--Carden's Mobile Home Park X. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA A. Buck Run--Preliminary Plan B. Southern Winds--Preliminary Plan C. Revised Old Courthouse Square Landscaping Plan D. Revision of the Personnel Ordinance E. NCDOT Revised Environmental Impact Assessment for 1-85 Widening and Efland Interchange Improvements F. B. E. Bradsher, Jr.--Partial Width Right-of-Way XI. APPOINTMENTS XII. MINUTES XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION XIV. ADJOURNMENT SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE MARCH 26, 1990: SPECIAL MEETING WITH HILLSBOROUGH TOWN GOVERNMENT. 7:30 P.M. at the Planning and Agriculture Building, 306 Revere Road, Hillsborough, NC 27278 PAGE 1 APPROVED 4/17/90 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING MARCH 5, 1990 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on March 5, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the Old County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. , and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell, Shirley Marshall and Don Willhoit. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. , Assistant County Managers Albert Kittrell and Ellen Liston, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Commission for Women Coordinator Hope Bethea, Personnel Analyst II Karen Boulding, Personnel Analyst I Eleanor Cornish, Planners Gene Bell, Eddie Kirk and Mary Scearbo, Public Works Director Wilbert McAdoo, Health Director Dan Reimer and Personnel Director Addie Turner. NOTE: COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE I. BOARD COMMENTS Chairman Carey made favorable comments about the employee recognition that was held prior to the Board meeting. II. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT Wilbert McAdoo gave a brief report on the outcome of the Landfill Owners Group's Site Selection Committee meeting held last Friday. He reported that one person was selected from each of the seven townships and three AT LARGE members were selected. Commissioner Willhoit reported that the Owners Group has been working on a budget and that there may be an increase in the landfill fee to $21.00 a ton. This extra revenue will be used primarily for future landfill acquisition. III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Item VD - Health Department Fee Schedule for Community Screening Services was deleted. IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS NONE PUBLIC CHARGE Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. read the public charge. V. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as stated below: A. BUDGET AMENDMENT #8 Approve an amendment to the 1989-90 Budget Ordinance as stated below: GENERAL FUND Source - Miscellaneous $ 4,000 Appropriation - General Administration $ 4,000 • PAGE 2 B. BUDGET AMENDMENT #9 Approve amendments to the 1989-90 Budget Ordinance as stated below: GENERAL FUND Source - Transfer from Other Funds $ 380,000 Appropriation - Education $ 380,000 (To budget for allocated school capital discretionary funds.) SCHOOL CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Source - Appropriated Fund Balance $ 380,000 Appropriation -Transfer to General Fund $ 380,000 (To budget for allocated school capital discretionary funds. ) C. RENTAL REHAB II GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE Approve a grant project ordinance for the Rental Rehab II program administered by the Housing and Community Development Department. The Ordinance is stated below: GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE RENTAL REHAB II PROGRAM Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina that pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following grant project ordinance is hereby adopted: Section 1. The project authorized is the Rental Rehab II repair program for rental property owners to be administered by the Orange County Housing and Community Development Department using federal grant funds. Section 2. The officers of this unit are hereby directed to proceed with the grant project within the terms of the grant agreement and the budget contained herein. Section 3. The following revenues are anticipated to be available to complete this project: Intergovernmental Rental Rehab II $50,000 Section 4. The following amounts are appropriated for the project: Rental Rehab II Program $50,000 Section 5. The finance officer is hereby directed to maintain within the Community Development Fund sufficient specific detailed accounting records to provide the grant agreement and federal and state regulations. Section 6. Funds may be advanced from the General Fund for the purpose of making payments as due. Reimbursement requests should be made to the grantor agency in an orderly and timely manner. Section 7. Copies of this grant project ordinance shall be made available to the finance officer for direction in carrying out this project. Section 8. This project ordinance shall be in effect from date of adoption until September 30, 1990. PAGE 3 HEALTH DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE FOR COMMUNITY SCREENING SERVICES ITEM WAS DELETED VOTE; UNANIMOUS VI. RESOLUTIONS/PROCLAMATIONS A. PROCLAMATION OF WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to proclaim the month of March, 1990 as Women's History Month and authorize the Chair to sign. The Proclamation is stated below: THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR WOMEN SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING PROCLAMATION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WHEREAS American women of every race, class, and ethnic background have made historic contributions to the growth and strength of our Nation in countless recorded and unrecorded ways; WHEREAS American women have played and continue to play a critical economic, cultural, and social role in every sphere of the life of the Nation by constituting a significant portion of the labor force working inside and outside of the home; WHEREAS American women have played a unique role throughout the history of the Nation by providing the majority of the volunteer labor force of the Nation; WHEREAS American women are particularly important in the establishment of early charitable, philanthropic, and cultural institutions in our Nation; WHEREAS American women of every race, class, and ethnic background served as early leaders in the forefront of every major progressive social change movement; WHEREAS American women have been leaders, not only in securing their own rights of suffrage and equal opportunity, but also in the abolitionist movement, the emancipation movement, the industrial labor movement, the civil rights movement, and other movements, especially the peace movement, which create a more fair and just society for all; and WHEREAS despite these contributions, the role of American women in history has been consistently overlooked and undervalued, in the literature, teaching and study of American history; NOW, THEREFORE, do we, the Commissioners of Orange County, proclaim the month of March, 1990 as WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH and commend this observance to Orange County citizens. VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall seconded by Chairman Carey to adopt a Resolution of Appreciation for Steve Yuhasz and to authorize the Board to sign. The Resolution is stated below: PAGE 4 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR STEVE F. YUHASZ WHEREAS, Steve Yuhasz has actively served on the Orange County Planning Board since on the June 4, 1984; and WHEREAS, Steve Yuhasz has faithfully served his fellow citizens of Cheeks Township as their representative on this volunteer board charged with assisting the elected Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, he has given of his technical skill and talent to benefit all the citizens of Orange County in judging the merits of potential land development; THEREFORE, the members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners do hereby thank Steve Yuhasz, upon his retirement from the Orange County Planning Board, for the service he performed on their behalf. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. PROCLAMATION FOR MENTAL RETARDATION MONTH Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to proclaim March, 1990 as Mental Retardation Month in Orange County and to authorize the Chair to sign. The proclamation is stated below: COUNTY OF ORANGE PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, mental retardation is a condition which today affects more than six million American children and adults and their families; and WHEREAS, the most effective weapons for alleviation of the serious problems associated with mental retardation are public knowledge and understanding; and WHEREAS, the potential for citizens with mental retardation to function more independently and productively must be fostered; and WHEREAS, during the month of March, 1990, members of national, state and local chapters of the Association for Retarded Citizens are making a special effort to forge vital employment, educational and fundraising campaigns to promote awareness of, and provide for the needs of persons with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities; I, Moses Carey, Chairman to the Orange County Commissioners, do hereby proclaim the month of March, 1990, as MENTAL RETARDATION MONTH in the County of Orange, and urge all citizens to learn more about mental retardation and assist in improving the quality of life of citizens with mental retardation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. RESOLUTION FOR TOLL FREE CALLING Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adopt a resolution in support of the Triangle J Council of Governments plan for toll free calling and to authorize the Chair to sign. The resolution is stated below: PAGE 5 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF TOLL FREE CALLING WHEREAS the Orange County Board of Commissioners represents all of the citizens of Orange County, and WHEREAS the citizens of Orange County have suffered with a network for telephone service which divides and isolates Orange County socially and economically because the telephone districts are so small and the toll-free calling opportunities are so limited, and WHEREAS the six small telephone districts have resulted in Orange County citizens and businesses having to pay long distance rates to call locations which are only a very short distance away, and WHEREAS normal phone calls to county government, County Commissioners, schools, medical facilities, friends and family are too often long distance calls in Orange County, resulting in the highest intra-Triangle long distance toll charges in the Triangle area, and WHEREAS long distance toll charges for calls within Triangle exchanges average $14.71 per month in Hillsborough, $9.18 in Mebane and $10.48 in Chapel Hill, as compared to $5.92 in Durham, $2.46 in Raleigh and $2.11 in Fuquay Varina, and WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners deems it inappropriate for Orange County residents to continue to pay the unreasonable long distance toll charges for calls within the Triangle area, and WHEREAS Orange County and its citizens have been seeking relief for its citizens from this situation from the North Carolina Utilities Commission since 1971, and WHEREAS the current experimental plans are not fully addressing the problem, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS vigorously supports the toll-free calling plan presented to the North Carolina Utilities Commission by the Triangle J Council of Governments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to write a letter to the County's legislators in Raleigh asking for their support of toll free calling and to give them a progress report on the County's efforts and include a copy of the resolution approved above. VOTE: UNANIMOUS IX. REPORTS A. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYY REPORT This item was presented as information. Addie Turner stated that the Board would be updated annually on the status of Equal Employment Opportunity in Orange County With the use of overheads, Ms. Turner gave an overview of the report. Since a lot of the minorities are at the lower end of the salary scale, special emphasis will be placed on moving these employees up to the professional level. Commissioner Willhoit asked that he be provided with historical data comparing todays figures with those in the past for purposes of measuring the progress made. Ms. PAGE 6 Turner feels the County has done very well. John Link stated this information would be provided to the Board. Commissioner Marshall asked about goals for the handicapped. Ms. Turner indicated that a concerted effort would be made this year to gather and tabulate that data. Goals will then be developed. This information will be included in the report for next year. Chairman Carey asked about goals for each County Department. He emphasized the importance of setting goals and having a plan for implementation. B. ORANGE COUNTY SLOGAN Eleanor Cornish, representing PIPR, explained that PIPR selected a slogan to use in promoting the County and which expresses the overall mission of County Government. The slogan "YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY" was selected by the PIPR Committee and will be used in various ways to let the citizens know they count. This will serve as a focus for the Orange County's customer service campaign which will begin in April. There was a consensus of the Board to approve this slogan. C. CARDEN'S MOBILE HOME PARK Dan Reimer explained that after an on-site visit, it was determined that there is no evidence of an "eminent health hazard" . Additional tests were taken this morning to determine whether a "public health nuisance" in terms of GS 130A-19 exists. The results from this testing will be reported at the next meeting. Discussion ensued on the point of discharge and concerns about the length of time this problem has existed. A resolution outlining the County's position on this problem will be presented for approval at the next meeting. X. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA A. BUCK RUN PRELIMINARY PLAN The property is located on the north side of West Lebanon Road in Cheeks Township. It is zoned rural Residential and PW-II. The Land use Plan designation is Rural Residential and Protected Watershed. The property is in the Back Creek Watershed. Twenty (20) lots are proposed out of 97.2 acres. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve this Preliminary Plan as per the resolution which is attached to these minutes on pages VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. SOUTHERN WINDS PRELIMINARY PLAN The Property is located off the east side of NC 86 in Hillsborough Township. The total acreage of the tract is 30 acres and the average lot size proposed is five acres. The property is zoned Agricultural Residential with part of lots 4A and 4B being PW-II. The Land Use Plan designation is Agricultural Residential and partial PW-II. Six lots are proposed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve this Preliminary Plan as per the resolution which is attached to these minutes on pages VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. COURTHOUSE LANDSCAPING John Link updated the Commissioners on the status of the Old Courthouse Square Landscape Plan. He explained that there are four trees that need to be removed. They are dying and present a safety hazard to pedestrians, vehicles, power lines and a potential liability to the County. Duke Power has offered to remove these trees at no cost to the PAGE 7 County. Norma White explained that phase I of this project would consist of replacing the sidewalks that are damaged. Phase II, the sidewalks will be constructed and at the end of that phase, large trees will be planted. Phase III will include continuing the sidewalk construction and the foundation plants presently around the Courthouse will be removed and not replaced. Small trees will be planted. The final phase will be the renovation of the lawn and planting a small amount of ground cover. Wilbert McAdoo explained that the sidewalk will be constructed of flagstone with a concrete base which will cost $26,000. The Board agreed to appropriate $125,000 for the courthouse landscaping in the 1990-95 Capital Improvement Plan. Funds will be solicited for the amenities including 12 benches, 9 street lights and 5 trash cans. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the landscape plans and timetable for the Old Courthouse Square as presented with the removal of the four trees by Duke Power. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. PERSONNEL ORDINANCE REVISIONS The Board heard a recommendation to revise several sections of the Orange County Personnel Ordinance. The revisions reflect the County's sensitivity to work and family issues which face County Employees. These are listed in the agenda abstract. Commissioner Marshall questioned Article I, Section 4.16 definition of immediate family. She stated that boyfriend, girlfriend could be a very close relationship or someone they just met the day before. Commissioners Hartwell and Halkiotis agreed that the language is not adequate. Ms. Turner will review this section and reword this for the Board's consideration. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the revisions as presented except Article I, Section 4.16. VOTE: UNANIMOUS E. NCDOT REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR I-85 WIDENING AND EFLAND INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS Planner Gene Bell stated that on October 2, 1989, NCDOT presented to the County Commissioners revised plans for the Efland interchanges. After several meetings between the Transportation Advisory Subcommittee and DOT and an analysis of the Environmental Impact Assessment for that interchange by the County Engineer, the Planning Board voted to recommend that a higher water quality classification be pursued for Seven Mile Creek and the Upper Eno Watershed. The Planning Board voted unanimously that a higher water quality water classification be pursued for Seven Mile Creek and the Upper Eno Watershed and that DOT requested to implement appropriate best management practices to control runoff from I- 85 into Seven Mile Creek. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to endorse the TAS and Planning Board recommendations and include these and the resolution stated below in a letter to NCDOT. VOTE: UNANIMOUS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has responded to existing and projected traffic volumes on Interstate Highway 85 west of Hillsborough by proposing planned improvements; and WHEREAS, planned improvements involve the construction of four additional traffic lanes and .removal of the overpass over West Ten Road; and WHEREAS, planned improvements will create additional impervious surface in the Seven Mile Creek protected watershed area and limit pedestrian and non-motorized access from Ben Johnston Road to point south of Interstate 85; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners desires a program of cooperative, coordinated, and continuing transportation planning with the State of North Carolina; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners is committed to the protection of existing and future drinking water supplies and to mobility opportunities for its citizens; NOW THEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Commissioners requests that: * The North Carolina Department of Transportation implement appropriate best management practices to control runoff from Interstate 85 into Seven Mile Creek; and * That pedestrian and non-motorized access under Interstate 85 from Ben Johnston Road to West Ten Road be maintained through the use of a culvert or tunnel or similar structure. BE IT RESOLVED, this 5th day of March, 1990. L. PARTIAL WIDTH RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR BENNIE BRADSHER This request is for a reduction in right-of-way from 50 to 25 feet. The proposed minor subdivision is located on the south side of Gibbs Lane off Palmers Grove Road. The applicant is requesting to divide a 4.41 acre lot. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the partial width right-of-way as per the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XI. APPOINTMENTS The following appointments were made by the Board: Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee - Julie A. Brannon Recreation and Parks Advisory Council - Susan Waldrop and Charles H. Burger XII. MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the minutes for the February 5, 1990 Regular Meeting as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XIV. ADJOURNMENT With no further items for Board consideration, Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on March 21, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the old Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No r/_q ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 5, 1990 SUBJECT: Budget Ordinance Amendment #8 DEPARTMENT Budget PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X ATTACHMENTS) INFORMATION CONTACT Budget Proposed Budget Ordinance Office (Extension 490) Amendments TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 PURPOSE: To approve proposed budget ordinance amendments. BACKGROUND: On December 10, 1989, the Board of Commissioners sponsored a dedication ceremony for the Richard E. Whitted Human Services Center. This amendment will transfer sufficient funds to cover the associated expenditures from the Commissioners' Contingency to the General Administration function of the budget. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve amendments to the 1989-90 Budget Ordinance by the proposed amendment. ORANGE COUNTY. PROPOSED 1989-90 BUDGET AMENDMENTS The 1989-90 Orange County Budget Ordinance, as amended, is hereby amended as follows: BEFORE AFTER AMENDMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT GENERAL FUND (1) Source: Miscellaneous $ 478, 146 $ 4, 000 $ 474, 146 Appropriation: General Administration 2,109,212 4, 000 2, 113 , 212 To budget expenditures associated with the dedication of the Richard E. Whitted Human Services Center. BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 8 i ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Ana Item No ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 5, 1990 SUBJECT: Budget Ordinance Amendment #9 DEPARTMENT Budget PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X ATTACHMENT(S) INFORMATION CONTACT Proposed Budget Ordinance Amendment Budget Office, ext 490 TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 PURPOSE: To appropriate school discretionary funds to the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools and the Orange County Schools. BACKGROUND: On February 5, 1990, the Board of Commissioners adopted the 1990-95 Capital Improvement Plan. Included in this plan for 1989- 90 were allocations of school capital discretionary funds for both the Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Orange County school systems. The Chapel Hill-Carrboro system was allocated $230,000 to install water lines that will permit Chapel Hill High and Seawell Elementary to meet Chapel Hill code requirements for fireflow capacity. Orange County Schools were allocated $150,000 for environmental testing and compliance. Discretionary funds will be transferred by this action from the School Capital Reserve Fund to the appropriate school accounts in the General Fund to accomplish the stated project purposes. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve amendments to the 1989-90 Budget Ordinance as indicated in the proposed budget ordinance amendment. ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1989-90 BUDGET AMENDMENTS The 1989-90 Orange County Budget Ordinance, as amended, is hereby amended as follows: BEFORE AFTER AMENDMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT GENERAL FUND (1) Source: Transfers from Other Funds $735,840 $380, 000 $1, 115, 840 Appropriation: Education $16,445,525 $380, 000 $16,825, 525 To budget for allocated school capital discretionary funds. SCHOOL CAPITAL RESERVE FUND (2) Source: Appropriated Fund Balance $735,840 $380, 000 $1, 115, 840 Appropriation: Transfer to General Fund $735,840 $380,000 $1, 115, 840 To budget for allocated school capital discretionary funds. SECTION VI. SCHOOL CAPITAL OUTLAY: There is hereby allocated $750, 000 for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools for recurring capital and $2, 111,200 for long range capital projects. There is hereby allocated $750, 000 for Orange County Schools for recurring capital and $626,000 for long range capital projects. There is hereby allocated from school capital discretionary funds to Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools $400, 000 for asbestos removal and $230,000 for fireflow capacity code compliance at Chapel Hill High School and Seawell Elementary School. There is hereby allocated from school capital discretionary funds to Orange County Schools $313, 100 for asbestos removal and $150, 000 for environmental testing and compliance. BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 9 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No V_ • ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 5, 1990 SUBJECT: Grant Project Ordinance - Rental Rehab II DEPARTMENT Budget PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X ATTACHMENT(8) INFORMATION CONTACT Budget Office, Extension 490 Proposed Grant Project Ordinance TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 PURPOSE: To adopt a grant project ordinance for the Rental Rehab II program administered by the Housing and Community Development Department. BACKGROUND: Last year, the Board of Commissioners agreed to accept a $50,000 federal grant to assist rental property owners rehabilitate their rental property. The program involves property owners applying to Housing and Community Development for federal funds to assist in rental property repairs. Rental property owners must match the federal dollars received on a one for one basis. Upon verification of eligibility, Housing and Community Development secures the services of a qualified contractor, passes through payment for the rental property owner's share of the repair cost, and monitors work in progress. Federal funds are received by the County on a reimbursement basis after project completion. This action will establish a project ordinance through which the Rental Rehab II program will be administered. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve the proposed grant project ordinance for the Rental Rehab II program. 2 GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE RENTAL REHAB II PROGRAM Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina that pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following grant project ordinance is hereby adopted: Section 1. The project authorized is the Rental Rehab II repair program for rental property owners to be administered by the Orange County Housing and Community Development Department using federal grant funds. Section 2. The officers of this unit are hereby directed to proceed with the grant project within the terms of the grant agreement and the budget contained herein. Section 3. The following revenues are anticipated to be available to complete this project: Intergovernmental - Rental Rehab II $50, 000 Section 4. The following amounts are appropriated for the project: Rental Rehab II Program $50,000 Section 5. The finance officer is hereby directed to maintain within the Community Development Fund sufficient specific detailed accounting records to provide the accounting to the grantor agency required by the grant agreement and federal and state regulations. Section 6. Funds may be advanced from the General Fund for the purpose of making payments as due. Reimbursement requests should be made to the grantor agency in an orderly and timely manner. Section 7. Copies of this grant project ordinance shall be made available to the finance officer for direction in carrying out this project. Section 8. This project ordinance shall be in effect from date of adoption until September 30, 1990. Adopted this 5th day of March, 1990. 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. W i1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: 3/05/89 SUBJECT: Proclamation of Women' s History Month DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No Commission for Women ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: . Proclamation Hope Bethea, Coordinator . Mission statement of Women's History Month TELEPHONE NUMBER: committee Hillsborough - 732-8181 . List of March events Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To officially recognize March, 1990 , as Women' s History Month . see attached mission statement BACKGROUND: The sponsoring of this event is one of the Commission' s objectives for 1989/90 . This is a golden opportunity to acknowledge and recognize the contributions women have made. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Please give it due recognition and join us in our celebration, particularly event #2 . (Please refer to events. ) 2 . A 'in Otti,,r x , range County Commission for Women Box 110 Street • Hillsborough, ox 8181 0 North Churton Str a NC2727 8 THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR WOMEN SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING PROCLAMATION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: WHEREAS American women of every race, class, and ethnic background have made historic contributions to the growth and strength of our Nation in countless recorded and unrecorded ways; WHEREAS American women have played and continue to play a critical economic, cultural , and social role in every sphere of the life of the Nation by constituting a significant portion of the labor force working inside and outside of the home; WHEREAS American women have played a unique role throughout the history of the Nation by providing the majority of the volunteer labor force of the Nation; WHEREAS American women were particularly important in the establishment of early charitable, philanthropic, and cultural institutions in our Nation; WHEREAS American women of every race, class, and ethnic background served as early leaders in the forefront of every major progressive social change movement; WHEREAS American women have been leaders, not only in securing their own rights of suffrage and equal opportunity, but also in the abolitionist movement, the emancipation movement, the industrial labor movement, the civil rights movement, and other movements, especially the peace movement, which create a more fair and just society for all ; and Hillsborough 732-8181 • Chapel Hill 967-9251 • Mebane 227-2031 • Durham 688-7331 3 WHEREAS despite these contributions, the role of American women in history has been consistently overlooked and undervalued, in the literature, teaching and study of American history; NOW, THEREFORE, do we, the Commissioners of Orange County, proclaim the month of March, 1990 as WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH and commend this observance to Orange County citizens. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chairman 11.. F' :1 Orange County Commission for Women Box 8181 110 Churton Street • Hillsborough,h N 27278 WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH MARCH 1990 MISSION STATEMENT The purpose of celebrating Women' s History Month is: 1. To heighten public awareness of the contributions women have made and continue to make; 2. To empower women to make informed decisions about matters affecting their lives; 3 . To advocate and support policies and programs that improve the status of women today and in the future. file:whmms90 Hillsborough • Chapel Hill 967-9251 • Mebane 227-2031 • Durham 688-73 ,1 5 range oun Commission for Women.r Box 8181 • 110 North Churton o Street • Hillsborough, NC 27278 WOMEN' S HISTORY MONTH March 1990 Activities and Events in Orange County 1 ) ask the county commissioners to proclaim March as Women's History Month at the Mar. 5th board of commissioners meeting 2 ) jointly sponsor (with other women' s organizations) a reception at the Hillsborough Savings & Loan titled, "For Women Who Serve Women" 3 ) conduct a lunchtime workshop about Women' s History Month for Orange County employees 4) involve the school system through plays and story- tellers 5 ) ask men' s groups to target a March meeting at which they would share a story about an influential woman in their lives 6 ) print and disseminate 2 , 000 March calendars with a "blurb" on a special woman for each day 7 ) involve the media as much as possible Hillsborough 732-8181 • Chapel Hill 967-9251 • Mebane 227-2031 • Durham 688-7331 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. vs B ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 5, 1990 SUBJECT: Resolution of Appreciation DEPARTMENT: Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : Resolution INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Blythe Ext. 505 TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To recognize Steve Yuhasz for his contribution of service to the Orange County Planning Board. BACKGROUND: Steve Yuhasz is retiring from the Planning Board after serving two full terms. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Adopt the Resolution and present it to the recipient the regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners. • RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION for Steve F. Yuhasz WHEREAS, Steve Yuhasz has actively served on the Orange County Planning Board since June 4, 1984; and WHEREAS, Steve Yuhasz has faithfully served his fellow citizens of Cheeks Township as their representative on this volunteer board charged with assisting the elected Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, he has given of his technical skill and talent to benefit all the citizens of Orange County in judging the merits of potential land development; THEREFORE, the members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners do hereby thank Steve Yuhasz, upon his retirement from the Orange County Planning Board, for the service he performed on their behalf. ADOPTED this 5th day of March, 1990. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair Stephen Halkiotis, Vice Chair John Hartwell Shirley Marshall Don Willhoit 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: MARCH 5, 1990 Action Agenda Item # VI-G. SUBJECT: PROCLAMATION OF MARCH, 1990 AS MENTAL RETARDATION MONTH IN ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, EXTENSION 501 PROCLAMATION TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To proclaim March, 1990 as Mental Retardation Month in Orange County. BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors of the Association for Retarded Citizens of Orange County has requested that March be proclaimed Mental Retardation Month to coincide with National recognition. RECOMMENDATION: Proclaim March, 1990 Mental Retardation Month in Orange County and authorize Chair to sign proclamation. 2 COUNTY OF ORANGE PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, mental retardation is a condition which today affects more than six million American children and adults and their families; and WHEREAS, the most effective weapons for alleviation of the serious problems associated with mental retardation are public knowledge and understanding; and WHEREAS, the potential for citizens with mental retardation to function more independently and productively must be fostered; and WHEREAS, during the month of March, 1990 , members of national, state and local chapters of the Association for Retarded Citizens are making a special effort to forge vital employment, educational and fundraising campaigns to promote awareness of, and provide for the needs of persons with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities; I , Moses Carey, Chairman of the Orange County Commissioners, do hereby proclaim the month of March, 1990 , as MENTAL RETARDATION MONTH in the County of Orange, and urge all citizens to learn more about mental retardation and assist in improving the quality of life of citizens with mental retardation. This the day of March, 1990 . MOSES CAREY Chairman, Orange County Commissioners (COUNTY SEAL) 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.____ ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 5, 1990 SUBJECT: Resolution for Toll-Free Calling DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: x ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: 1 ) Draft - Orange County Resolution 2) TJCOG Resolution TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider a resolution in support of the Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) plan for "toll-free calling. " BACKGROUND: On March 12, the TJCOG Telephone Task Force will present its case for toll-free calling before the North Carolina Utilities Commission. Resolutions from member governments will be sought as the Utilities Commission begins its deliberation on toll-free calling. The attached resolution is provided for the Board's consideration. A copy of the TJCOG resolution which was adopted on February 28 is also attached. RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. 2 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF TOLL-FREE CALLING WHEREAS the Orange County Board of Commissioners represents all of the citizens of Orange County, and WHEREAS the citizens of Orange County have suffered with a network for telephone service which divides and isolates Orange County socially and economically because the telephone districts are so small and the toll- free calling opportunities are so limited, and WHEREAS the six small telephone districts have resulted in Orange County citizens and businesses having to pay long distance rates to call locations which are only a very short distance away, and WHEREAS normal phone calls to county government, County Commissioners, schools, medical facilities, friends and family are too often long distance calls in Orange County, resulting in the highest intra- Triangle long distance toll charges in the Triangle area, and WHEREAS long distance toll charges for calls within Triangle exchanges average $14.71 per month in Hillsborough, $9.18 in Mebane and $10 .48 in Chapel Hill , as compared to $5.92 in Durham, $2.46 in Raleigh and $2. 11 in Fuquay Varina, and WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners deems it inappropriate for Orange County residents to continue to pay the unreasonable long distance toll charges for calls within the Triangle area, and WHEREAS Orange County and its citizens have been seeking relief for its citizens from this situation from the North Carolina Utilities Commission since 1971 , and WHEREAS the current experimental plans are not fully addressing the problem, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS vigorously supports the toll-free calling plan presented to the North Carolina Utilities Commission by the Triangle J Council of Governments. Adopted This day of March, 1990. Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Commissioners Attest : Beverly Blythe, Clerk 3 • TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 100 Park Drive, P O. Box 12276 Research Triangle Park,NC 27709 (919) 549-0551 (919) 549-9390 Fax WHEREAS, the Triangle J Council of Governments in August of 1987, following a year of study and meetings, passed a resolution Apex calling for the North Carolina Utilities Commission to implement Broadway a unified metropolitan local telephone service for Durham, Wake, Carrboro and Orange Counties within a year, and to study the feasibility cnpelH,I and means by which the surrounding communities may join this Clayton network, and Durham Four Oaks Fuquay-VannaWHEREAS, the North Carolina Utilities Commission elected to Garner pursue an in depth analysis by the public staff and permitted the Golaston Hillsborough local phone companies to run eighteen-month experimental plans "springs (through 9/90) , and Kenly Knightdale "O Morrisvile WHEREAS, the cost figures from the local phone companies that Pine Level have been analyzed and renegotiated by the public staff appear to Pinbor° be reasonable except in the case of General Telephone of the Ralegti South, and Rolesvdie Sanford Selma WHEREAS, and in recognition of the high cost that would accrue to sder c,ty Durham County three-county,$mtnreld t y (GTE) rate payers for the three-count flat rate,Forest toll free local telephone service, and Wenoe,i Zeou.on NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Triangle J Council of Governments reaffirms its original request to the North Carolina Utilities Commission for two-way, universal LAS for the fifteen exchanges under consideration and asks the Commission to adopt the Public Staff's rate recommendations for the full Triangle J plan, except to set rates for GTE such that GTE subscribers pay no more for service than would their neighbors in exchanges served by other companies. And, if the Commission is unable to set such proper and affordable rates for GTE subscribers, then alternatively, the Council endorses a two phased approach to achieving the goal of toll-free calling for the metropolitan area of the Triangle, PHASE I Effort: 1. Extends RTP/RDU toll free calling throughout the 15 exchanges originally requested to be joined (Wake, Durham, Orange plus Pittsboro, Clayton and Creedmoor) ; 2. Provides county-wide EAS for Wake and Orange (Durham already has this) ; 3. Joins most of Orange Co. to Durham Co. (including Pittsboro and Creedmoor) ; 4. Also joins the same portion of Orange Co. to all of Wake County. A WORLD CLASS REGION Chatham • Durham • Johnston • Lee • Orange • Wake 4 PHASE II will focus on joining hin Durham to County Wake County Creedmoor and Pittsboro exchanges approved by the aunty exchanges, i.e. , Everything not app y Carolina Utilities Commission in Phase I . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Governments requests the North Carolina Utilities Commission to procee speed. implementation with all due sp Rebecca Heron, Chairman 1990 The 28th day of February, 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 5 , 1990 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: Equal Employment Opportunity Report DEPARTMENT: Personnel PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Equal Employment Opportunity Addie Wright Turner Report (under separate cover) Personnel Director TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive the 1990 EEO Report for Orange County. The report outlines the EEO Program and provides a status update. BACKGROUND: The Personnel Department is responsible for keeping EEO information on all County employees and for administering the Equal Employment Opportunity Program. RECOMMENDATION: To receive as information only. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agend Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 5, 1990 SUBJECT: ORANGE COUNTY SLOGA, DEPARTMENT: PIPR PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : NO INFORMATION CONTACT: ELEANOR CORNISH PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hilisborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To provide the Board with a report on the PIPR (Public Information/Public Relations) committee's suggestion for a County slogan. BACKGROUND: With input from county employees, the PIPR Committee has chosen the slogan "YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY" to be used to promote Orange County. The slogan may be used on road signs, on stationery, on brochures, and on other materials produced by the County. In addition, the slogan can serve as a focus for Orange County's customer service campaign which will begin in April. Paraphernalia such as buttons and bumper stickers containing the slogan may be distributed to employees and citizens. RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. .- . ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 5, 1990 SUBJECT: Report of Health Director's site visit to Cardens Mobile Home Park DEPARTMENT: HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: HEALTH DIRECTOR'S OFFICE X 311 Report Daniel B. Reimer TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To report to the Commissioners, the preliminary results of the Health Director's investigation of the health risks associated with the leaking sand filter septic system at Cardens Mobile Home Park. BACKGROUND: The Health Director, his Environmental Health Staff and the County Engineer met representatives of the Division of Environmental Manage- ment at the Cardens Mobile Park on 2/23/90. Previous effluent sample test results were reviewed, effluent from the sand filter and other drain fields was observed, the neighboring property was inspected and the plans for the new packaged treatment plant were also reviewed. No evidence of an "Eminent Health Hazzard", in terms of G.S. 130A-20. could be found. However ackittiona1,_, more definitive tests were ordered on the effluent and the water supplies to determine whether a "Public Health Nuisance", in terms of GS 130A-19., exists. On the basis of these findings, an assessment of appropriate action will be made. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Receive as information bnange County gtieaQth- Tepantment Daniel B.Reimer,MPH, Director 2 , ENVIRONMENTAL'HEALTH DIVISION 6og111t at PERSONAL HEALTH DIVISION ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION , rag DENTAL HEALTH DIVISION P.O.Box 8181,306C Revere Rd. 6r I P.O.Box 8181,300 W.Tryon St. Hillsborough,N.C.27278 , Hillsborough,N.C.27278 HILLSBOROUGH CHAPEL HILL +ert1) sLO,`ea MEBANE DURHAM (919)732-8181 (919)967-9251 (919)227-2032 (919)668-7333 MEMORANDUM TO: JOHN LINK, JR., COUNTY MANAGER FROM: DANIEL B. REIMER, HEALTH DIRECTOR 10"61 DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1990 RE: CARDENS MOBILE HOME PARK • Pursuant to our telephone conversation of February 21, 1990 regarding the Commissioner's request for the Health Director to study the effluent leaving Cardens Mobile Home Park, I wish to report to you the following actions that I have taken: 1. I have conferred with Tony Laws, Paul Thames, Malcomb Blalock, Assistant Chief of the Environmental Health Services Division, Arthur Mouberry, Regional Supervisor in the Division of Environmental Management regarding this current status of action taken at Gardens Mobile Home Park. 2. I have ascertained some of the criteria necessary for me to take action under General Statues 130 A-19. Abatement of Public Health Nuisance. • 3. I have scheduled a site meeting at the Cardens Mobile Park to include Arthur Mouberry, Paul Thames, Tony Laws and myself. At that time; we will inspect the current functioning of the existing treatment plant, sample the effluent, review the test results of previous samples, and look over the plans for the proposed new treatment plant. Following that inspection and review of the evidence I will be in a position to determine whether the conditions will warrant issuing an abatement order. SOUTHERN ORANGE OFFICE: Carr MITI Mall, Suite 225, 100 N.Greensboro St., Carrboro,N.C.27510. (919)942-4168 • 3 John Link, Jr. Page 2 Cardens Mobile Home Park After consultation with the parties mentioned above, there does not seem to be sufficient evidence to take action under GS 130 A-20. Abatement of an Emininent Hazard. Prior to the site visit, I Will be conferring with the Attorney General's office and the county attorney regarding the legal implications of actions I am authorized to take. Please let me know whether these steps are in the direction • that will satisfy the Commissioner's concerns and advise me whether I should consider adopting other measures. • Onange County ` eaQtln Cl epantment Daniel B. Reimer, MPH, Director 4 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION toot? o1 PERSONAL HEALTH DIVISION ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION , rot DENTAL HEALTH DIVISION P.O.Box 8181,306C Revere Rd. b� IIr p P.O.Box 8181,300 W.Tryon St. Hillsborough,N.C.27278 [1:10,M1 S l Hillsborough,N.C.27278 HILLSBOROUGH CHAPEL HILL MEBANE DURHAM (919)732-8181 (919)967-9251 a ato� (919)227-2032 (919)668-7333 MEMORANDUM TO: JOHN LINK, JR. , COUNTY MANAGER CC: TONY LAWS, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIRECTOR PAUL THAMES, COUNTY ENGINEER ALBERT KITTRELL, ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, COUNTY ATTORNEY RICHARD K. ROWE, DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF ENVIR. HEALTH ALBERT MOUBERRY, P.E. ,REGIONAL SUPERVISOR, � LARRY SOUTH, REGIONAL MANAGER, . G�� pI,L FROM: DANIEL B. REIMER, HEALTH DIRECTOR(///' IRECTOR(///'�f ��l�" DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1990 RE: CARDENS MOBILE HOME PARK SITE VISIT OF 2/23/90 On February 23, 1990, at approximately 2 p.m. , Paul Thames, Tony Laws, Ron Holdway and myself met with Authur Mouberry, Regional Supervisor and Larry South, Regional Manager, both of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management. Mr. Mouberry reviewed with, us the previously analyzed samples of effluent from the sand filter at the Cardens Mobile Home Park. Most of these samples were not in compliance with standards for such systems. Therefore Mr. Mouberry has taken decisive action to see that the owner of the park, Mr, Joel Williams, would discontinue discharging unacceptable effluent by installing a new system prior to April 30, 1990. Site preparation for a new package treatment plant was obviously underway and Mr. Mouberry is of the opinion that the owner will complete the project within the deadline. The test results collected so far are not sufficiently detailed to provide evidence of a health risk because they are indicators rather than definitive measures. Therefore I have requested that our Environmental Health Director, Tony Laws, obtain samples both from the drainage ditch and from the pooling of water behind the home of a neighbor by the name of Mr. Stephenson. These samples will be sent to the state laboratory for more definitive determination of pathogens. I have also requested that the quality of the community water supply system of the mobile home park be determined and that samples of the water supply be taken from the systems of any of the neighbors Mall,hbors who grant permission. SOUTHERN ORANGEDFFICE: Carr Mill Suite 225, 100 N.Greensboro St., Carrboro,N.C.27510, (919)942-4168 5 Mr. John Link, Jr. -2- Cardens Mobile Home Park By observation, several of the septic systems of individual mobile homes not attached to the sand filter are malfunctioning. Once the results are available from these efforts, I will be in a position to determine whether a "public health nuisance" exists in terms of GS 130A-19. Attached please find a copy of that general statue for your review. In consultation with County Attorney, Geoffrey Gledhill, it is apparent that, should this provision be invoked, the owner may refuse to comply with the order. The next step would be for the local health director to institute an action in the Superior Court which must be calendared for trail within 60 days after service of the complaint upon the defendant. Please note that the court may order the owner to abate the nuisance or direct the local health director to abate the nuisance. In this case, the cost of abating the nuisance would be borne by the county, recoverable through a lien on the property. Our attention next turned to the plans for the proposed new packaged treatment plant. The Orange County delegation explained our interest in having the new treatment plant effluent diverted approximately 1800 feet east of the property, along Highway 70 to be discharged into Stoney Creek rather than the existing plan, provisionally approved by DEM, to discharge into the existing roadside ditch. Mr. Mouberry replied that under current criteria of DEM, Stoney Creek has no better flow rate than the roadside ditch; therefore DEM is not in a position to require that the owner incur the expense to divert the effluent to Stoney Creek. He added, however, that if the owner requested permission to discharge into Stoney Creek it would be granted by DEM. Mr. Mouberry added that the treated effluent from the new packaged plant should have no health risks to the neighbor- hood. If the required monitoring should show a malfunction, Mr. Mouberry committed himself to taking action to close the Cardens Mobile Home Park. Please accept this report as a preliminary up-date on the request of the County Commissioners that the Health Director investigate and take appropriate action to correct the potential health problem at the Cardens Mobile Home Park. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Tony Laws. 6 Mr. John Link, Jr. -3- Cardens Mobile Home Park Mr. Mouberry added that the treated effluent from the new packaged plant should have no health risks to the neighbor- hood. If the required monitoring should show a malfunction, Mr. Mouberry committed himself to taking action to close the Cardens Mobile Home Park. Please accept this report as a preliminary up-date on the request of the County Commissioners that the Health Director investigate and take appropriate action to correct the potential health problem at the Cardens Mobile Home Park. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Tony Laws. . . ,. ita __...... . , . § 130A-18 I 130A-19 CH. 130A.PUBLIC HEALTH § 130A-21 i .ealth or mental Cross References.-For similar provision, :h are otherwise ma t 130-205. e basis. (1977,c. ! 130A-19. Abatement of public health nuisance. If the Secretary or a local health director determines that a public health nuisance exists,the Secretary or a local health director may issue an order of dards governing Abatement directing the owner,lessee,operator or other person in control of the 4 Al health depart property to take any action necessary to abate the public health nuisance. If t 504, s. 15; 1983, the person refuses to comply with the order, the Secretary or the local health ''.T director may institute an action in the superior court of the county where the c. public health nuisance exists to enforce the order. The action shall be calen- dared for trial within 60 days after service of the complaint upon the defendant. ' The court may order the owner to abate the nuisance or direct the Secretary .s many special or the local health director to abate the nuisance. If the Secretary or the local .5 with the Depart- health director is ordered to abate the nuisance, the Department or the local 'isory committee health department shall have a lien on the property for the costs of the abate- and subsistence meet of the nuisance in the nature of a mechanic's and materialmen's lien as )75,c.281; 1983, provided in Chapter 44A of the General Statutes and the lien may be enforced as provided therein.(1893,c.214,s.22;Rev.,ss.3446,4450; 1911,c.62,ss. 12, ' 13;1913,c. 181,s.3;C.S.,ss. 7071,7072; 1957,c. 1357,s. 1; 1983,c.891,s.2.) igned to attract rain them in the CASE NOTES ■ r practical experi- s.. . 1; 1983, c. 891, County May Not Initiate Action.-As the Use of property by the State may not be ewer to initiate action to abate a public nui- enjoined by the courts as a nuisance where the race is vested in the local health director, a use of the property is in a manner authorized by ' u ges, aunty may not proceed without him. Warren valid legislative authority. Warren County V. ■n p County v. North Carolina, 528 F. Supp. 276 North Carolina, 528 F. Supp. 276 (E.D.N.C. E.D.N.C. 1981), decided under former 1981),decided under former§ 130-20. 1130-20. 't 1;. 1 130A-20. Abatement of an imminent hazard. c: a it of entry upon If the Secretary or a local health director determines that an imminent . ,t the provisions hazard exists, the Secretary or a local health director may, after notice to or a local board of reasonable attempt to notify the owner,enter upon any progeny and take any - tive search and Action necessary to abate the imminent hazard. The Department or the local . However, if an health department shall have a lien on the property for the cost of the abate- gn the premises. sent of the imminent hazard in the nature of a mechanic's and materialmen's lien as provided in Chapter 44A and the lien may be enforced as provided therein.The lien may be defeated by a showing that an imminent hazard did , pot exist at the time the Secretary or the local health director took the action. • '1893,c. 214,s. 22;Rev.,ss. 3446,4450; 1911,c. 62,ss. 12, 13; 1913,c. 181,s. 3;C.S.,ss. 7071, 7072; 1957, c. 1357, s. 1; 1983, c. 891, s. 2.) f 130A-21. Embargo. Le rules adopted (a) The Secretary and a local health director has authority to exercise z, the Secretary embargo authority concerning food or drink pursuant to G.S. 106-125(a), (b) relief,irrespec• and(c)when delegated the authority by the Commissioner of Agriculture. aunty where the (b) If the Secretary or a local health director has probable cause to believe s. 2') that any milk designated as Grade"A"milk is misbranded or does not satisfy the milk sanitation rules adopted pursuant to G.S. 130A-275,the Secretary or a local health director may detain or embargo the milk by affixing a tag to it . 395 f s 4: • 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 5.„_ 1990 Action 4kgenda Item # A SUBJECT: BUCK RUN -- PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: April 19, 1990 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x_No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Extension 348 Application Vicinity Map Agency Comments TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Preliminary Plan Hillsborough - 732-8181 Resolution of Approval Durham - 688-7331 Draft 2/19/90 Planning Board Mebane - 227-2031 Minutes Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for Buck Run. BACKGROUND: The property is located on the north side of West Lebanon Road (SR 1306) in Cheeks Township. It is zoned Rural Residential and PW-II . The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential and Protected Watershed. The property is in the Back Creek Watershed. The total acreage of the tract is 97 .2 acres . Twenty (20) lots are proposed with each lot ranging in size from 40,588 square feet to 1.73 acres. There will be approximately 71 .5 acres remaining which is indicated as farm use. Each lot would be served by individual wells and septic tanks . The proposed road (Daniels Farm Road) is to be public and constructed to State standards . West Lebanon Road is considered a collector in the Comprehensive Plan. The latest traffic count on West Lebanon Road was in 1987 and indicated a count of 800 . The Concept Plan for Buck Run was approved by the Planning Board on October 16, 1989 with the following conditions : 1 . Dedication of additional right-of-way be considered and NCDOT be contacted for information concerning a turn lane. 777711 2 2 . Lots 1, 2, 20 and 21. shall be reconfigured so that all lots have access to Daniels Farm Road. 3 . The road be aligned to intersect with West Lebanon at a 90 degree angle. Agency comments that have been received are attached. The Orange County Health Department has located a suitable area on each lot for a septic tank and drain field. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has indicated that the cul-de-sac right-of-way should be entirely within the subdivision boundaries. They also recommend a 200 ' right turn taper to improve safety at the intersection. The Orange County Erosion Control Officer has indicated the subdivision meets the stormwater management requirements. An erosion control plan must be submitted and approved before construction of the road begins . A 30 ' drainage easement will also be needed through lots 11-14 and possibly lot 15 for runoff purposes . The County Engineer indicated he has no comment on the Preliminary Plan. In their February 19 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan for Buck Run through the attached Resolution of, Approval . RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval per the Planning Board recommendation. PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY) MAJOR S U B D I Y I S I O N ; /E a 3 ORANGE COUNTY DATE: /.2/;P'', / 4 SUBDIVISION NAME: �[' /e/.././L// - LOCATION: _ - ^ , r E` — A o A. -. V OuNER/DEVELOPER: A" / ,r ` ,y - AP. - / A /Z-,4 %. ADDRESS: /e7.67- "9 5 I3f2X € C TELEPHONE N0.: 3/.9 -...5-Gm c3 -.1,,,G_ '73 I'?'k J!a/t/A-- ./V. 0 . Z7S adZ. AGENT/CONTACT: TELEPHONE NO.: A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tax nap , 7 Block Lot(s) <1:9-19 Township (7 ��.E 5 2oning District(s): /7/ Pk/M • Total Number of Acres: _,..a5-_ 7.c1.,__I—e _ _ Phases: _ Total Number of Lots: .t.r7 Average Lot Size: ;4.0 Cen.p nimum Lot Si&, SI.'// 4 • Number/Type of Structures: (existing) (proposed) Lineal Feet in Streets: g /596. •3/S' Acres in Open Space water Supply: Public (specify) Community V Individual wastewater Disposal: Public (specify) Community /- Individual School District: /J Apt//.'_, _/, (1/17 }/ Fire District: `.e./.4 A/D General Land Uses in Area: / Critical Areas: - stream/drainageways flood prone areas watershed (specify) historic sites other (explain) B. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two-hundred feet (1"=200') and no larger than one inch equals twenty feet (1"=2D') and must contain the following information: o; subdivision name NM zoning of tract and adjacent properties a k . iilKil name 8 address of owner(s) N.. building setback lines by notation or typical lo: p r► y<. _. name 8 address of subdivider - --�f:- layo:.•t =�'s-s (if ether than owner) :',Z, location and width o`. existing and proposed LI — ::',„ •<' name of surveyor, engineer, ) �` =• easements (drainage, utilities, road's, etc.) O #: . tat landscape architect or architect, '.: r existing, proposed and adjoining rights-of-way U .:.{•0• address, registration N and seal s. Yi'• including dimensions and street names and state .. _:_•:-•.fit. L iQ (title) Preliminary Plan A� __ ,: road numbers. Lineal fee: of road centerlines and --I 0 .� scale, north arrrow approximate acreage of new scree: gigots-C'-way l+ _.. ,s Gate (including revision dates) < existing and proposed utilities, including type, a 0 township, tax map-block-le: ff :lt * sizes, hyoran:s, valves, manholes • -•! iz :�i: - references existing and proposed curbs, gutters and culverts, sr �G :': 'c Parent Parcel Identification 0 including sizes and grades 3 J J/ p,4 teed book and pager of property° Jam%•••.'•: location and width of alleys, sidewalks, bike Lanes, :: .,s; :c be subdivided f transit systems, and bus steps ✓ '•`'`;!`>'`i boundary described with bearings . . typical street cross-sections and intersection a V% ;. and distances a details including design and width of travelway and d:aL acreage of the tract and j shoulders : ;:Y':=iacreage of lets, including end •:. :• horizontal alignment and general curve data (public _ g excluding area within rights-ef-way roads) • (;_ease cc=:itte .r v- r.e s±ae) w , , . ", tip• 4 a !zf>:✓';::: eontrol corner centerline radius on all proposed streets �. pr000sed lot lines with dimensions >$r permanent features such as puileings, cemeteries, G lot I clock humoers historic lanomerks 'ff pnesing lines adjoining Lot layout names of adjoining property C V topography at ten foot (10) intervals owners. If subdivided, subdivision plat name, plat ", 0 water Oodles, streams, fl000way and ' :::`` Crook Y page numoer, and perimeter lot numbers. ` b CD `,L000alains landscaping and buffer requirements • stream b::ffers . townsnip, corporate and extra-territorial planning Glocation end size of parcels dedicated ?::-< jurisdiction lines which cross the property ':; for public use, recreational use or location and size of lots of restricted oevelopment G ,] reserved in common, with purpose noted MA potential and,notation on plat regarding same • impervious surface oats (if located in ': stormwater ''detention and/or retention sites and c • _m water supply watershed) ' ""'''' undisturbed areas for infiltration purposes (if Jz Jr • U " . i14$ vicinity map showin general location located in water supply 'watershed) of subdivision with streets and roads identified by State road 'numoer and name C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Twenty-five (25) copies of the preliminary plat. 2. One full size copy of an Orange County Tax map (with tax parcels involved clearly marked in pencil). 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer 'is not available, a copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating health Department soils 'analysis approval/oenial for each lot shown thereon. R. Where a' private road is proposed a written statement by the applicant or his/her authorized representative which sets forth the justification for a private road (see Section Iv-6-3-d-1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations). 5. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, prepared in accordance with Section VI of this Ordinance which assure completion and/or maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance. Such documents may include, but not be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement, and articles of incorporation and restrictive :covenants pertaining to a homeowner's association. These documents may be required as necessary as evidence that the ordinance requirements are being met. I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. I understand that a 5105.00 fee (subdivisions of 1-5 10:s), S210.00 fee (subdivisions of 6-9 lots), 5315.00 lee (subdivisions of 1G-25 lots) or a 5:20.00 fee (subdivisions of 26 lots or more) is due at the time of application. A 55.D0 per lot lee is due a: the time the final plat is presented for recordation.• APPLICANT'S .SIGNATURE OdNER'S SIGN:JUnz /a - F- ?-9 DATE LATE . FEES: Amount 170- Date paid 42 - 9 Rece:D1 x • 16 447 SUCK RUN -. APPLICANT: RICHARD H. O +S:.S 5 LUP: RURAL RES. & PROTECTED WATERSHED **.s ZONING: R1 & PW'II 142 I 1 - 1 1 o ■-� DUKE PDv.Ep �—�i. • 0 .E509 I :S60 0 94 1 3 AC _ _._ . i ' ��. 1� Ivy tb 54;.5■• : • • ' ,- . 1;A \pe 11 - 1 \ , • • 9549 1 13 Jp4I.M• t�- �\ • . ......• . \.7 \\ , ..... _--- - .. _..__ _.. s G _ '�1 �� ' .._ .. _...\® o \ _2 r"-. 444A \� • qc.M 0 •� 3.1 4C• �1 1`Gn 454i • -- ;1 —� 1- 2 9.6 8 ,4C. ITT -t;>.{- • -fill 4zs7 9c3T 181.6E- E 1.6 \� 0 J loss ® C� 13p I- :. • GA 1 X\ G? • v� `1 — 1` 1 1� '1 I 'f �_�2.58: 71^Yc 7 �J�' �• \_rr:. F0q 1 E •'?fit (/ I^� wl fir• er .A srAif 6 sr, t . A;KAJ�r STATE, OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham . North Carolina 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN January 8 . 1990 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS, P.E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATO- ORANGE COUNTY Mr . Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough , N . C . 27278 Subject : Buck Run Subdivision off SR 1306 ( Lebanon Road ) - Preliminary Plan Dear Mr . Kirk : This is to advise that the subject preliminary plan has been reviewed by this office . Based upon this review , the proposed horizontal alignment and rights-of-way appear to meet our minimum standards : however . the cul-de-sac right-of-way should be ENTIRELY within the limits of this development ( see attached sheet ) . Per my letter of October 26 . 1989 . a 200 ' right turn taper is recommended to improve safety at this intersection . If you have any questions . please do not hesitate to contact, this office . Yours very truly . �—t J. E . M . Cow .. DISTRICT ENGINEER EMC/SPI /pi attachment An Equal Opportunity/Attirmative Action Employer . . I'. . . 7 : - .. • ..... ,.....:- :• .: CECIL- 1-1; 1SLEY JR ,. •. • 7% ,f3• . . • A - D.8.285 PG.2134 - --,9 f.:,'.-; -'.. •:-•:---•... • ..- ,. • . •,. . . . . • •- • - i : :7 •!•,L.Li. :• •"'-"N•eil - '-.175. -R.:. :•:•Z'• ''-• •'• ''"'-•-'- ' • • . • 'k;" ''''''-; 50 09• '-''-- -- S' -59-47 E 9. i . _ , -,-.._v______... 1 - 1 7 , . 210.13 : 1 - , • 1 1 8 O lir % E ,•1 : I • I I 1 1 • • .- . 1 ok■ ' . 1/I t I ....". Lif ...• . • 1 -•--... 7...: •-,- , : . ... -" • r I V I .- . ..". iip I - . i ID • / • .....=........ 4119 . t‘i,61 ,1 f Crl US -,. 0.,icr • -....--,-- • e‘i — A 0.0 . I .—/ 1 0 I 4'"1 i '.r!.. •' - . " in• - 1 1 . ...• . .... N a' 11,110 i va tr 141:.::-,7- : 0 ....7 xJ) (II, . .._.. ..., g „..; 0 s '.: -• Cl•.I --.1.' 012 : . ...,..• ;v.; Av les: 11.j?1 CI • re) i i rO, 7• • - 4:1-I . ,... ...I- ..--# u)--.. "‘ s A •• , : . CD I .- CD i ..,-..•-.-" Z !I° 0 1 , 4 n I 1 cr : .-'"'". I /I.1627.--"-- . 1.6180 . 1.3842 ,' / 1.3187 , cf 1.\.ks• ..-- cA . Ac. Ac -• /* AC. J \I- ..••• I I ..‘ ....... . . - ii I . C., C... . _ . - • 4") ..•" lip• 4 - •. • _ c. - 7 0 00 210.00 210.00' . ' 130.001 .9 • r . - - ' ... th .- • N 0 5-54-34 W .. • .... • , • -. • • . ' I DANIELS--- F7 _______( PUBLIC )... _,...,.... ..._.______ _ _,._______ ....... .. ..-.•• • -o •• .. . o . ;• • -.•....._....M,.1■1• •••...".'. , .... ye 6110.. .0.9 .9 ' 9, -- -- . -- , ,- 0.00 10.00 150.00' /150.00 .. - „.9-1 50.00 ..... „ -• - " ,,A1" • r• , --- F. .. , - 5- " . • ... •••• - ...i••• . . . ..„, 00.". n ,•• ti 0,..v' Li . J LLI „..64' - , LLI • • to •,....-•*. CD CD Ti. .....""..* . CD 41 ..•• N V. -.. Ni cy 0 •-.• _ • N 0.1 N • N -.. • cm Ccl I i I P I • I #1 I • • gn C 01 C:i in I 0 0 #Or el ...•••• lil . in 0 • 6 . 0 . , 0,. - • 10 - , °12°,,,. 9 ,...- 01 co • cs,• 8.. - 0 v - oic). . , I N 41'1 NI •- - 1 •"*. - "' ..` %7I . V10 . cp ,- CD• CD :. ......• .. _ cID ,-- . .:,:. -- ....:7-.- .,.-_- . :-,, 4r) • ;...--*" . ,. z ..... ,...,: .1;;- .....•..- -. • . . ." --;-: • 0.9512 -- ' .. 0 9650 --- ' 9650 0.9650 , 0 9650 •• ..- . .- ....: r „„e Ns ..- P:: -Ac Ac• • •-... -•-.. -:--- Apr . • Ac...... ..,... ..- • . . 5 ...." . .._ . ... • .,--# . . -•-•• .- . . . • 150.00 - • - -'•"- ..." 150.00' 150.0 150.001 150.004 , __ "b -- ..- . - ...- . • -. CONTROL CORNER ... ...." N 0 . . . • -:. 4 ,._:7,;„4::-;•••^7-,T„,:•.. . • - . • - . . . ..1K-•.".Z.-',-T-_•:•- .i........:.... :•--: .- .. - . • . • - • . • .-4:?:-..Z.:,7-..--.Z.--.7....;... •-"-- ..7T .47.•-.. ..: I" "_-..-.....,:.•.',:,,.7..1:7`...• fe. , LEE :,-;.•,-,--...-:".;:.7 *.:7.,'•?-7'...". •• "t.,... ..•*%., ...• •- , _. -.. • . • 1.. t:.°Z.c• - -..'- • -.....■-. ..... . .. . : . . ' " - '"::- ' ••••.1:-_ -_3.;_tr.;,'...:-•......- '0 -• _ •-. .„-:11-•••:-..; ,:.:.•-..:•."-- --........ ./ _ .... ,:, •1.....--.7.1,7.:Dp...-,tv., •e.•,.' i•7 i '''• . „ -.' .;_•.:"V.•.--. ...1.7'.'.‘,.. ---:':-/e- -,:_. .st..-:: •-•;•,4L27:••••;:-....C.," : :::..:.•,,,.f. -2 .-..,;,,,,-- •pm7...44•ty--tr--,.....c-,-; - .0,--7,-.•674..-;- .,,,,,,,_ 4, ......,:- , , ..--...'` •..% 1..•. -•-••••#Y7 .1. . : . ...- - -,i7.f.xte,-4-,,.. • *0 o., 99.• ea- ,... -:-'••:. - - 4 - •-7 ... ••-••.4:-. • . --- :-.;•".7'ji.."L.,."'.4•••• :-• :.-..-".75-.e.;.',:,_—_-., "::• '''' "-. _ .... • . "..,: f':. 7 -, .• ''- :.'7T".•-.4?"''• ,'•t ea i'_ . ' ' ....:1-....-.1... ,-m.:-.--,--x:r:-.- ..4,:..."-c--f...:: '' '--., .!.......•., ..,'X'.--, ., •-•"4.-r:.. -'•"-4!•,''''..;,. ''-'"7--'''■-.1"--,7 T.t•-• IP ...2.... 4S0 .::- ''-'t "":::.;;.:*... . .. • • •..:.7-4•-•;-`•.•c. "., --: -...'.. . f ' " db54/ ..:: /0 7.- 01.4.. ` -:-• - A) o . ' - Lirn ■ • - r MMW 8 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham . North Carolina 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN October 26 . 19119 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR GEORGE E.WELLS, P.E. SECRETARY TON JAMES E. R STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATO- TARY ORANGE COUNTY Mr . Eddie Kirk Orange , County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough , N . C . 27278 Subject : Concept Plan for Buck Run Subdivision off SR 1306 ( Lebanon Church Road ) Dear Mr . Kirk : This is to respond to questions noted in your letter dated October 20 , 1989 regardi,n,g the subject concept plan . Response is as follows : 1 . The DOT has a recorded sixty (60 ) foot right-of-way along SR 1306 . 2 . Five ( 5 ) feet of additional right-of-way on each side of the road would be required for symmetrical widening and ten ( 10 ) feet would be required for near side widening . Based upon the assumption that there will be a maximum of 28 lots in this subdivision. a left turn lane would not be required. However . it is recommended that a 200 ' right turn taper be constructed due to the curve to the east and the - fast speeds along this stretch . Be advised that if the developer decides to subdivide the remainder of the property into similar size lots . the potential for approximately eighty ( 80 ) 1 . 2 acre lots is possible . This would require further review and possibly a left turn lane . if possible . we recommend obtaining the additional right-of-way for future improvements to SR 1306 . An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer 9 Mr . Eddie Kirk October 26 . 1989 Page Two 3 . Attached . please find a copy of the design standards for turn lanes . Right-of-way should be obtained along the entire property frontage . Existing shoulder past property lines may be capable of handling any additional lengths . 4 . The sight distance at this location is acceptable . We concur with your recommendation that the entrance be re-aligned to 90 degrees . If you have any questions . please do not hesitate to contact this office . Yours very truly , 6.. k1 E . M. C o DISTRICT ENGINEER EMC/SPI/pi attachment • • 10 I I - I 1 I . 1 . • N ii A 9 ! iI I I n in i A . y fY PI . .tea i is j F e r I a II • a 1 - r a .....__ - . • s - ` ~ "I N a I / wrs s.. 3 ' I •rr an- O! 1 • O . 7 I I� / "Aar a ' i :� °vA 1°A w i M AIg . ;PI; x 1� O ■ ' ilk • 'gig G a� I 1 ¢=a I I a g C I^z a ID i * s.e,Ix 9 7 �'_ n u a c:m :tr) Ip = I. 1D fx Iti n I 1, 1 0 1' —9. _e , . I is T I a2 I . .. . M e S Ø ! - - 7 7 / ' a 1 f a 1 c e I l4, a _ 11 m ; P A it . . . / I 1 . . RECOMMENDED TREATMENT FOR TURN LANES • 11 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: Eddie Kirk, Current Planning FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Buck Run Subdivision DATE: January 22, 1990 This subdivision meets the Ordinance requirements for stormwater management by having large lots, retaining a buffer of vegetation around the perimeter of each lot to absorb and filter runoff, and adding limited impervious surfaces to each lot. The amount of disturbance to construct the road will require submission and approval of an erosion control plan before any clearing or grading begins . One point that needs addressing ( if it has not already been pointed out) is the need for a drainage easement through lots 11 - 14 and possibly lot 15 for runoff from the road and lots above. COL:. BERNHOLZ, 12 BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. DRAWER 1529 129 E. TRYON ST. HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 919-732-2196 January 10 , 1990 919-942-8000 FAX 919-732-7997 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SUITE 300,THE CENTER 1506 E.FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514 Eddie Kirk 919.929-7151 Mr. FAX 919-929-3892 Planner ALONZO B. COLEMAN, JR. Orange County Planning Department STEVEN A.BERNHOLZ 306F Revere Road ROGER B. BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 DOUGLAS HARGRAVE G.NICHOLAS HERMAN KIM K.S'TEFFAN Re; Buck Run Subdivision NATHANIEL E.CLEMENT MARILYN E.TOMEI Dear Eddie JOE L. WEBSTER TERRY G.HARN JANET B.DUTTON We received and reviewed a Preliminary Plan and REX T.SAVERY,?R. Restrictive Covenants for Buck Run Subdivision. We Of RD.SAWYER el BON have no comment, on the Preliminary Plan. We have a few (19 D.SAWYER -1972) comments on the Restrictive Covenants . First, why are we reviewing them? Second, in the paragraph beginning with the word "WHEREAS" on the fifth line the word "pass" should be deleted. Third, in Article I of the Restrictive Covenants in the description the subdivision property is described as that property in Plat Book 519 at page 555 . I believe there is no such plat book but according to the Preliminary Plan Mr. Daniels ' property is described in Deed Book 519 at page 555. Probably the person drafting the document intended to leave blanks after the words "Book" and "page" to insert the recording information of the final plat of Buck Run Subdivision. The only other comment we would offer is that what we have seen and reviewed says nothing of the required recreation dedication. We assume, therefore, that the applicant will, make a payment in lieu of dedication. Please advise why we were sent a copy of the Restrictive Covenants for review. Very truly yours , / fl Marilyn E. Tomei MET/lsg • • f.. 1 14 ....rte RESOLUTION #. • - -- OF TEE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date ��February L., 1990 - Name of Subdivision Buck Run. Subdivision Owner/Applicant - - _Richard Daniels • The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Buck Run subdivision - preliminary plat, dated March 15, 1989 and containing 20 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. All roads shall be irrevocably dedicated to the general public and be constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation.• The approval of this resolution authorizes and directs the Orange County Manager to accept for Orange County and on behalf of the public generally, the offer of dedication of Daniels Farm Road. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of Daniels Farm Road shall be without maintenance responsibility. These roads shall be maintained by the owner/applicant until such time as they are accepted for maintenance by the North Carolina Department of Transportation or some other governmental body. Before the Final Plat of any phase of Buck Run can be recorded: A. Sewage Disposal - 1. Each residential lot shall contain as adequate area for septic disposal, and repair area, approved by the Orange County Division of Environmental Health. 2. Disclosure that the septic system location may restrict the size and location of improvements. This disclosure shall be included in a document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The document shall also disclose that information regarding the tentative. location of septic systems is available from the Orange County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health. B. Roads and Access 1. Daniels Farm Road shall be constructed within a 50 foot right-of-way and shall be constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. OR A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure construction of Daniels Farm Road to the _ standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. yn. An est.ma of the construction cost m prepared::� .. ;: must be� by aV 2 certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to the Planning and Inspections Department. The financial guarantee must reflect 110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina. 2. .. A 200' right turn taper lane on West Lebanon Road shall be constructed or secured for construction prior to approval of the Final Plat. 3.'-^ Lots 1 and 20 shall access onto Daniels Farm Road. All lots = shall access onto the new subdivision road. This restriction shall be stated in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. This requirement will require the lot lines to be shifted to allow lot 20 additional access and/or the radii at the intersection may be changed to 10x70 foot sight triangles as allowed by NCDOT. 4. The cul-de-sac right-of-way shall be located entirely within the limits of the subdivision. C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping 1. Landscaping shall be installed or preserved as indicated on the approved landscape plan, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and Inspections Department. OR The applicant shall secure landscape requirement installation and preservation through a letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond. An estimate of the cost for required preservation, plantings and their installation must be provided. The financial guarantee shall reflect 110% of the estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina. 2. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. . 3. A Type A Land Use Buffer shall be provided along West Lebanon Road. The buffer shall be 30 feet in width and provide sufficient vegetation to meet the standards of Section IV-B-8-e of the Subdivision Regulations. Said buffer. shall be so noted on the plat, and described in a document - describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. - . D c A#aiaa _ y _.,._ 2 ...,.... ;, yam: - , ._:-- -- 1� Indicate drainage - -:"• - foot wide easement 15 feet onYea - . a 30 each --. - _ �� side of the drainageway. Locate additional drainage easements as required following a review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan. • E. Parkland 1 . Cash in the amount of $537 . 00 shall be paid to Orange County as payment-in-lieu of parkland dedication. F. Miscellaneous 1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 2 . The following easements shall be shown on the plat: a. A dedicated 50 ' public right-of-way extending from Daniels Farm Road between lots 14 and 15 to the east property line. b. A 30 foot wide drainage easement 15 feet on each side of the drainageway extending through lots 11-14 and possibly. 15. 3. A setback of 40 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of right-of-way of Daniels Farm Road. Side yards shall be a minimum of 20 feet, and rear yards a minimum of 20 feet. These setback requirements shall be stated on the plat, and in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 4. A public right-of-way shall be provided between lots 14 and 15 to allow future access to property east of this subdivision. A deed shall be provided to Orange County to ensure this access. G. Certifications 1. . A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered - _ Land Surveyor shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat. - 2. A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section V-D-6-b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the landowner and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a document describing - development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the _. Final Plat. . 3. The Department of Environmental Health shall certify that each lot contains a suitable area for septic disposal. - -17 �. North Carolina Department f 4. ' The'� of . . �� w that Daniels Farm Road Transportation shall certify has been constructed to State standards or that Construction Plans have been approved. 5.. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. Signature of Applicant Clerk to the Board I, , accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, and acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat. • CO 19 D1aCI The Orange County Erosion Control Officer has indicated the subdivision meets the stormwater management requirements. An erosion control plan must be submitted and approved before construction of the road begins. A 30 ' drainage easement will also be needed through lots 11-14 and possibly lot 15 for runoff purposes. The County Engineer indicated he has no comment on the Preliminary Plan. The Planning Staff recommends that the Preliminary Plan for Buck Run be approved through the Resolution of Approval (an attachment to these minutes on pages . ) Best asked what legal ground NCDOT has to require that the cul-de-sac be located within the subdivision. Yuhasz responded that because of the way the end of the cul-de-sac is drawn, NCDOT may not have thought the property under the right-of-way was going to be public. If the dashed line was indicated as a solid line then the right-of-way would be a part of the subdivision and that should satisfy NCDOT requirements. Best continued that if the stubout is moved to the end of the property line then the two property owners now don't have to worry about --- 1/10 of their property being under pavement when the road is extended. Mr. Daniels, the developer, stated that he had discussed this item with NCDOT and they indicated since it was going to be a private road in the back, the cul-de-sac had to be within the subdivision. Yuhasz responded that the property line could be drawn so that the cul-de-sac was within the development no matter where the cul- de-sac is located. Eddleman state that the way item B4 in the resolution is written, it is appropriate no matter where the cul-de-sac is located. MOTION: Best moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: 9 in favor. (Abrams & Lewis left at 9 :00 p.m. prior to this vote. Cantrell arrived at 9 :00 and did not vote. ) [10 IA 20 � Best reminded the Planning Staff that they had indicated in the discussion that they would call NCDOT for further clarification. (2) Southern Winds (6 Lots - Hillsborough Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. The property is located off the east side of NC 86 in Hillsborough Township. The total acreage of the tract is 30 acres and the average lot size proposed is five acres. The property is zoned Agricultural Residential with part of lots 4A and 4B being PW-II . The Land Use Plan designation is Agricultural Residential and partial PW-II . There are six (6) lots proposed ranging in size from three to seven acres . The developer proposed a "Class A" private road to serve all the lots in the subdivision. This road would be 5200 feet in length from NC 86 . In discussions with the applicant during the concept plan, the Planning Staff recommended that access be obtained from Phelps Road (SR 1551) which is approximately 700 feet from the the northeast corner of the property. However, applicant indicated they had tried and could not obtain this access. The Planning Staff also recommended a stub-out be provided to the northern property line. This would allow for future access from Phelps Road if it becomes available. The Concept Plan for Southern Winds was approved by the Planning Board on November 20, 1989 with one condition: 1. Review and approval of restrictive covenants which prohibit further subdivision and provide for tree protection. The Orange County Health Department astlocated a e suitable area on each lot a septic drain field. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has approved the preliminary plan. The Orange County Erosion Control Officer has indicated the subdivision meets the stormwater management requirements. 1 !_ ORANGE C O U N T Y PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 1990 Action A enda Item # —$ SUBJECT: SOUTHERN WINDS - PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: April 19, 1990 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING, PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x_No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Extension 348 Application Vicinity Map Private Road Justification TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Staff Evaluation of Private Hillsborough -- 732-8181 Road Justification Durham - 688-7331 Agency Comments Mebane - 227-2031 Preliminary Plan Chapel Hill - 967-9251 Resolution of Approval Draft 2/19/90 Planning Board Minutes PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for Southern Winds . BACKGROUND: The property is located off the east side of NC 86 in Hillsborough Township. The total acreage of the tract is 30 acres and the average lot size proposed is five acres . The property is zoned Agricultural Residential with part of lots 4A and 4B being PW-II . The Land Use Plan designation is Agricultural Residential and partial PW-II . There are six ( 6) lots proposed ranging in size from three to seven acres . The developer proposed a "Class A" private road to serve all the lots in the subdivision. This road would be 5200 feet in length from NC 86. In discussions with the applicant during the concept plan, the Planning Staff recommended that access be obtained from Phelps Road (SR 1551) which is approximately 700 feet from the northeast corner of the property. However, the applicant indicated they had tried and could not obtain this access. The Planning Staff also recommended a stub-out be provided to the northern property line. This would allow for future access from Phelps Road if it becomes available. 2 , The Concept Plan for Southern Winds was approved by the Planning Board on November 20, 1989 with one condition: 1 . Review and approval of restrictive covenants which prohibit further subdivision and provide for tree protection. All agency comments received are attached. The Orange County Health Department has located a suitable area on each lot for a septic tank and drain field. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has approved the preliminary plan. The Orange County Erosion Control Officer has indicated the subdivision meets the stormwater management requirements. In their February 19 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the attached Resolution of Approval deleting item B4 . The Planning Board indicated that the extended right-of-way, as recommended by Staff, was not needed. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval per the Planning Board recommendation. MAJOR SUBDIVISION C /ED PULSE TYPE OR PRINT (1NK ONLY) ` ORANGE COUNTY 3 DATE: L,_ �� �� SUBDIVI530N NAME: ��.J•., 2 rVDS LOCATION: nT-c c4 �L ( ) C, 1■p��--a OuNER/DEVELOPER: 0. _ A f. [,rvl.'alo r ADDRESS: 10U YV - L) `,-,) -5 \ TELEPHON' NO.: 2 g.� ,. ( C fi . icy AGENT/CONTACT•. fi. I ti... TELEPHONE NO.: ----)3 2.-.3 g�S 10q i.1 • "-r.z.,,j -5-1.-- A. SUMMARY 1NFORnATION: '� r , / Orange County Tax nap t Block 1j Lot(s) 2 to zu7,26ELGr Township �/ Zoning District(s): AJ i Total Number of Acres: AP r"?--) Phases: Total Number of Lots: (r, , Average Lot Size: .5AC.. Minimum Lot Size A C.--^ Number/Type of Structures: (existing) •---- (proposed) ,-.�n'11n11= 44,-r-l. ` 'C-1 k .D Lineal Feet in Streets: 1)(i 'J.^� Acres in Open Space Ivor) water Supply: Public (specify) Community li.)E.1\ Individual wastewater Disposal: - Public (specify) Corsourlity..77_px 1( Individual School District: Fire District: General Land Uses in Area: -L+I- • _ - -- -_ Critical Areas: stream/drainegeways flood prone areas watershed (specify) historic sites other (explain) E. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two-hundred feet (1"=2D0') and no larger then one inch equals twenty feet (1"=20') and must contain the following information: subdivision name i ?` __J toning of :race and adjacent properties a '`< •`:`r name 8 address of owner(s) v `: { building setback Lines by notation or typical let- ; ti.J name 8 address of subdivider _ :;:: ' layout o-.?r�':;:==•': (if other than owner) location and width Gf existing and proposed y >Yi ti`= name of surveyor, engineer, W. easements (drainage, utilities, roads, etc.) "'`''•'=•' landse.ape architect or architect, existing, proposed end adjoining rights-of-Way y U •> -•.J address, registration : and seal -'s>::: including dimensions and street names and state ti ';i (title) Preliminary Plan road numbers. Lineal feet of road centerlines and ^+ 0 ""'` scale, no.-.:h :;'• =:i approximate acreage of new street rights-ef-way '� >~ sate-(including revision dates) �A 3�:. •existing and proposed utilities, including type, U O v ' �.1:::#: township, tax map-block-lot - " sizes, hydrants, valves, manholes l' n .:. t =ai``'`= references Ilk. ::..'' existing and proposed curbs, gutters and culverts, +Or '` Parer.; Parcel Identification # _ :'->> including sizes and grades V ? ' '-?' geed cook and page R o! property X1:0 location and wiC;n ef.alleys,-sidewalks, bike lanes, 4 O o be suboivioed "-`-`` transit systems, and bus stops _� _ ~..? = boundary aeseriaed with bearings : typical street cross-sections and in:ersecrion U v m.if z" and distances Egg deans including design and width of :ravelway and ?': :>%i total acreage of the tract and : `::< shoulders :rs acreage of Ica including and NA '• hori:ontal alignment and general curve data (public excluding area within rights-GI-way v w. .w roads) • (`,,ease _..-_ `-=ee _reverse s_ce) ' 4 21 , 'centerline racius on all proposed streets cont.-cll. corner ') ' ` P permanent feat... es such as ouiloinCS, cemeteries, �: :i.j/;i�:; proposed lot lints with dimensions i.--- i lot 8 Clock numbers s:,!:. <•historic ianooares -� f ����� ',];: se' .'ng loS layout names cf aojoininy proaerty c; U �T'.i' phasing lints C)• w ✓? : topography at ten foot (10) intervals -i owners. 11 subCivioed, subdivision pia: name, plat --I O Alt water bodies, streams, floodway and book 8 page numoer, and perimeter lot numoers. >.`• - •:: 1lob:plains i i;; landscaping and buffer requirements V▪ 0 . • +� �r : '`:: stream buffers 1-R`• township, corporate and extre-territorial planning G n location and size of parcels dedicated l��, jurisdiction lines which cross the property �.:::.. ...:_: i::;:; menS O `:: for public use, recreational use or < location end size of lots of restricted Develop TO U ,0 ouM reserved in common, with purpose noted '::::.:M: potential and notation on plat regarding same ,e U impervious surface pate (if located in . / stormweter detention and/or retention sites and 0 m R:> water supply watersned) .___,. :' undisturbed areas for infiltration purposes (if t 16 7 AW vicinity map showing general location located in water supply watershed) =x::::. of subdivision with streets and roads . identified by State road numoer and name C. OTTER SUBMITTAL RE©UIREMEfTS 1. Twenty-five (25) copies of the preliminary plat. 2. One full sire copy of an Orange County Tax map (with tax parcels' involved clearly marked in pencil). 3. where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating Health Department soils analysis approval/genial for each lot•shown thereon. L. Where a private road is proposed a written statement by the applicant or his/her authorized representative which sets forth the justification for a private road (see Section IV-8-3-d-1 of the Orange County ' Subdivision Regulations). 5. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, prepared in accordance with Section VI of 'this Ordinance which assure completion and/or maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance. Such documents may induce, but • net be limited to, a private road maintenance'agreement, and articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants pertaining to a homeowner's association. These documents may be required as necessary as evioence that the ordinance requirements are being met. I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. I understand that a 5105.00 fee (suodivisions of 1-5 lets), S210.O0 fee (subdivisions of 6-9 lots), 5315.00 fee (subdivisions of 10-25 lots) or a SL20.D0 fee (subdivisions of 26 lets or more) is due et the time of application. A 55.00 per lot fee is ,due at the time the final plat is presented for recordation. ---'T '-'4 ---1 ) . A At, APPLICAN'T'S SlGNATURE DAR'S SIGNATURE DATE DATE C FEES: Amount 0' Date Paid f a�I-"/ Receipt x li T . 5866 i—5876 - -- - _• \\\ 4 ,,,,m.. NO. r• [ A- R OMITTED a 164 BL.8 OuiTrED. . .. 5• • IN Of P 08 ZB - Ate« N 96B 000• • _ �- 1 rill IsBORo TOWNSHIP _. • . -� • I2A " C « �- /55/SOUTHERN WINDS I -� aye/ ps - ■ _ APPLICANT: DOROTHY SCOGGINS I 1 _ .. LUP: AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL I 1 ` PARTIAL PROTECTED WATERSHED I • ZONING: AR & PWII � 1 i--- 1 • 111 • ,4064 \ 1 N 11 • z 1 re rd.,"prtip ri r • • . .. ..• . 63.97 AC. i :.. .. .. . .. :-.----- . ,, . . .... Nesc- A. ., .... .•.' -'..., ••••• • . .7.:....•?.6.5 oi •es I . iac. _ ,!. •.•., ^...1::•.:::.".,,-.:,..:•...., -:.. :: • Al . • . . . • • ' .y •••• �:ti - FL/ - - 6582 53 AC. `-- • I (:),N ..4.7 .: .7 ; • • X . . • • by p J� �6 y'G \ ' \ °co c" . 1.__/\') ar . w y 0 0 o y�4 , • 4.. 2, t\...ti .1 . - y O" 0 i ' J . 5 .13 AV- 9 �� ,, , ~4\ti • (;:/7 � p� • p ./,1•r Cr =•Q ",) • •ilk C ill y+ `1 G 0 4 ,. ■&Nil i 0 1.9 4., 4-0 •••``'. • : •Pc,:,.... • ,:-.... - * 41 , .4".„4" a • ;� d '' • ,„ bh'cliff do : -ea al "NliirosiTtOri...4.4,:,.-..5.,_,..(::: . i oP4 7 PRIVATE ROAD JUSTIFICATION FOR SOUTHERN WINDS SUBDIVISION Tax Map #4. 1B.26 , 26D, 26E, 26F The following justification for a private road in Southern Winds Subdivision follows the five points on pages 30 , 30a, and 31 of the April 4 , 1988 revisions to the Subdivision Regulations for Orange County , North Carolina. The five points discuss design features to be considered in decisions to allow private roads. General Statement The existing private road will serve 10 lots in the subdi- vision (3 lots in Phase I) averaging 5.0 acres each (Phase II) . The road is approximately 5200 feet long, ending in a cul-de-sac. It will be improved to class A standards. Restrictive subdivi- sion covenants will preclude further subdivision. A perpetual maintenance agreement will assign maintenance responsibilities to existing and proposed subdivision lot owners. 1. Road Preserves Rural Character Southern Winds lies on 50 acres of large hardwoods in a general area of low housing density and agricultural use. a. The average lot size is 5 acres with setbacks larger than what the Orange County subdivision regulations requires. b. Minimal amount of clearing will be done to each lot to maintain as much of the existing hardwoods as possible. Private Road Justification for Southern Winds Subdivision Page 2 c. Any existing scenic areas will be preserved due to large lot sizes. d. Maximum wildlife and botanical species will be maintained by minimal destruction of any existing trees or shrubbery. 2. State Maintenance Due to the length of the existing road and the number of proposed lots , this road does not meet the density requirements established by the North Carolina Department of Transportation for dedication and maintenance. 3. Restrictive Covenants Subdivision covenants will expressly forbid further subdivision. This will maintain the low density character of the subdivision. 4. Recreation/Open Areas Not applicable - payment in lieu of . 5. Other Design Features The average lot size is 5 acres ; thus , minimizing the amount of storm water runoff. 6. Other Factors All lots in the subdivision will become a part of the existing Road Maintenance Agreement. 1 9 STAFF EVALUATION OF PRIVATE ROAD JUSTIFICATION SUBDIVISION: Southern Winds = Major Subdivision Concept Plan DATE: November 8, 1989 The standards contained in the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to public and private roads are listed below. The Planning Staff comment regarding each is provided in italics . IV-B-3-d-1 . Roads - Public roads are generally required in all subdivisions and will be required where it is found that: 1. The subdivision roads, if constructed to State standards, would be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or other State requirement; or (A road must provide ingress and egress for at least two occupied residences per tenth of a mile before it may be accepted by the State for maintenance. The proposed 5200 foot road serves a total of Il lots and three large tracts. ) 2 . The subdivision streets extend existing streets which are public; or (The subdivision street does not extend existing public streets. ) 3. The subdivision roads are part of a development which is located in an area designated as Urban or Transition on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; or (The subdivision is not located in a designated Urban or Transition Area. ) 4. A proposed street is designated as an arterial or collector street on an approved Thoroughfare Plan for a municipality or in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. (The proposed street is not designated as an arterial or collector. ) Provided, however, private roads may be allowed in a 2 ].0 subdivision where, in the judgment of the Planning Board and with the approval of the' Board of County Commissioners , it is found that the nature and location of the subdivision are such that a private road is justified. (The proposed road is presently located in a rural area and passes through several large lots before it gets to the subdivision. ) In determining whether to permit private roads in subdivisions, the following design features will be considered: 1 . The location and design of the subdivision is such that it clearly preserves the rural character of the County through: a. The provision of lot sizes and building setback lines greater than required by ordinance provisions; (The lots range in size from 3 to 7 acres, with an average lot size of 5 acres. The individual lot acreages are all considerably larger than the 40, 000 square feet required in the AR zone. Setbacks indicate they will be larger than ordinance requirements, however, dimensions are not spoken to. ) b. The retention and/or provision of landscaping and use of clustering of dwelling units to screen the view of the subdivision from public roads and/or maintain a wooded or forested character; (The 40 acres is heavily wooded. The private road justification indicates there will be minimal destruction of existing trees. Provisions for tree protection should be included in restrictive covenants. Clustering of dwelling units is not proposed. ) c. The maintenance of scenic views, including vistas of open farmland and/or forested hills and mountains; and/or (Forested areas are proposed to be maintained, thereby maximizing screening and maintaining a scenic view of woodlands. Provisions for tree protection should be included in the restrictive covenants. ) d. The clustering of dwelling units to preserve wildlife, botanical, historic, archaeological and/or recreation sites; (No clustering of units is proposed.) 11 2 . The number, location and/or size of lots to be located in the subdivision are such that, even if constructed to State standards, the streets would not be accepted by the. State for maintenance due to density or other State requirements; (The road as it is presently proposed would not be accepted by the State due to density. ) 3 . Restrictive covenants are proposed which prevent further subdivision of the property and the same shall be made a condition of approval, thus maintaining project density; (Restrictive covenants are proposed which restrict further division of lots. ) 4 . Recreation and/or open space areas, including lands containing significant botanical, wildlife, historic and/or archaeological sites, are to be dedicated and/or preserved through restrictive covenants in amounts greater than required by standards for recreation/open space dedication; and/or (A recreation and/or open space area is not proposed for this subdivision. ) 5. Larger than required stream buffers and lot sizes, and/or other design features are proposed as part of a subdivision to be located in a Protected Watershed as designated on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to reduce the amount of impervious surface and cause infiltration of storm water runoff to prevent the pollution of water supply reservoirs . (Lot sizes average 5 acres, and the subdivision is not in a Protected watershed, except for the northwest corner of lots 4 and 5. ) EVALUATION SUMMARY: Staff finds that the number of lots., size of lots, length of road, location and rural character of the surrounding area justify a private road. 12 ti N STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham . North Carolina 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN January 1 9 . 1990 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR THOMAS J. HARRELSON GEORGE E.WELLS. P.E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR ORANGE COUNTY Mr . Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough , N . C . 27278 Subject : Southern Winds , Phase III off NC 86 Dear Mr . Kirk : This is to advise that the subject preliminary plan has been reviewed and approved by this office . If a driveway permit was not secured for phase I , a permit will be required . If you have any questions , please do not hesitate to contact this office . Yours very truly , 6-4i '-1-)4.43),.,4i E . M . Cowan DISTRICT ENGINEER EMC/SPI /pi • An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer • 13 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: Eddie Kirk, Current Planning FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Southern Winds Subdivision DATE: January 22 , 1990 This subdivision meets the Ordinance requirements for stormwater management by having large lots, retaining a buffer of vegetation around the perimeter of each lot to absorb and filter runoff, and adding limited impervious surfaces to each lot. Erosion control approvals and permits may be required if the road to this subdivision has to be upgraded for subdivision approval . . A 16.14A I It [' SOIL & WATER - 14 1111111111 , CONSF ."< . ^, T ' ON Orange Soil and Water Conservation District °4;. 306 Revere Road • P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 • Phone: 919-732-9361 • Ext. 451 TO: Eddie Kirk, Planner FROM: Gail M. Hughe�;" Soil Conservationist SUBJECT: Southern Winds, Phase III DATE: January 31, 1990 It is difficult to pinpoint the exact location of the subdivision in this wooded area due to the new road and no distinct features of the landscape. According to the Orange County Soil Survey, the soils in the general area of the property are as follows: - Georgeville silt loam (2-6% slope) - Septic tank absorption field -- moderate limitation due to slow percolation Building site development -- slight limitation for dwellings with or without basements - Herndon silt loam (2-6% slope) - Septic tank absorption field -- moderate limitation due to slow percolation Building site development -- slight limitation for dwellings with or without basements Final recommendations for septic tank absorption fields should be determined by the Orange County Environmental Health Department. 6621qt 15 RESOLUTION - OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date February, 1 1990 Name of Subdivision Southern winds Subdivision Owner/Applicant A ois Callemvn The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Southern Winds subdivision preliminary plat, dated December 3, 1989 and containing 6 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. All roads shall be irrevocably dedicated to the general public and be constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The approval of this resolution authorizes and directs the Orange County Manager to accept for Orange County and on behalf of the public generally, the offer of dedication of Split Rail Lane. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of Split Rail Lane shall be without maintenance responsibility. These roads shall be maintained by the owner/applicant until such time as they are accepted for maintenance by the North Carolina Department of Transportation or some other governmental body. Before the Final Plat of any phase of Southern Winds can be recorded: A. Sewage Disposal 1 . Each residential lot shall contain as adequate area for septic disposal, and repair area, approved by the Orange County Division of Environmental Health. 2 . Disclosure that the septic system location may restrict the size and location of improvements . This disclosure shall be included in a document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The document shall also disclose that information regarding the tentative location of septic systems is available from the Orange County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health. B. Roads and Access 1 . Split Rail Lane shall be constructed to Class A private road standards. OR A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure for future improvement/construction of Split Rail Lane to the standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. An estimate of the 2 16 construction cost must be prepared by a certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to the Planning and Inspections Department. The financial guarantee must reflect 110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina. 2 . The private road shall be contained within the right-of-way indicated on the Final Plat. 3. A private Road Maintenance Agreement shall be approved by the County Attorney and recorded with the Final Plat. 4 . A 50 foot right-of-way shall be provided between lots 5A and 513 to allow future access to the subdivision from Phelps Road. Appropriate wording in the documents to be submitted and approved by the County Attorney shall ensure this access . C. Land, Use Suffers and Landscaping .1 . Landscaping shall be installed or preserved as indicated on the preliminary plan dated December 3, 1989 and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and Inspections Department. 2 . Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape plan consistent with the minimum requirements of Section IV-B-8 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. D. Parkland 1 . Cash in the amount of $443. 00 shall be paid to Orange County as payment-in-lieu of parkland dedication. E. Miscellaneous 1 . The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 2 . The following easements shall be shown on the plat: a. A 50 foot right-of-way from the cul-de-sac to the northeast property line. b. Proposed 50 foot private right-of-way on Split Rail Lane. 3 . A setback of 40 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of right-of-way. Side yards shall be a minimum of 20 feet, and rear yards a minimum of 20 feet. These setback A 17 3 requirements shall be stated on the plat, and in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 4 . Receive final approval of easement agreements, restrictive covenants, and private road maintenance agreement documents from the County Attorney. F. Certifications 1 . A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat. 2 . A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance signed by the property owner(s) shall be notarized on the face of the plat. 3. The Department of Environmental Health shall certify that each lot contains a suitable area for septic disposal . Signature of Applicant Clerk to the Board I, , accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, and acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat. CO eiri If 1b 4., . V Best reminded the Planning Staff that they had ti.. indicated in the discussion that they would call NCDOT for further clarification. 0 (2) Southern Winds ( 6 Lots - Hillsborough Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. The property is located off the east side of NC 86 in Hillsborough Township. The total acreage of the tract is 30 acres and the average lot size proposed is five acres. The property is zoned Agricultural Residential with part of lots 4A and 4B being PW-Ii . The Land Use Plan designation is Agricultural Residential and partial PW-II. There are six (6) lots proposed ranging in size from three to seven acres. The developer proposed a "Class A" private road to serve all the lots in the subdivision. This road would be 5200 feet in length from NC 86. In discussions with the applicant during the concept plan, the Planning Staff recommended that access be obtained from Phelps Road (SR 1551) which is approximately 700 feet. from the northeast corner of the property. However, the applicant indicated they had tried and could not obtain this access. The Planning Staff also recommended a stub-out be provided to the northern property line. This would allow for future access from Phelps Road if it becomes available. The Concept Plan for Southern by the Planning Board on November one condition: 1. Review and approval of restrictive covenants which prohibit further subdivision and provide for tree protection. The Orange County Health Department has located a suitable area on each lot for a septic tank and drain field. .. • The North Carolina Department of Transportation has approved the preliminary plan. The Orange County Erosion Control Officer has indicated the subdivision meets the stormwater management requirements. lir 19 cif The Planning Staff recommends that the Preliminary Plan for Southern Winds be approved through the Resolution of Approval (an attachment to these minutes on pages ) . Dorothy Scoggins, representing the applicant, stated that the easement indicated on the tax map extending south from Phelps Road was not an easement but an old road bed. Efforts had been made to obtain this easement but the applicant's request was denied. Best indicated he had voted against the concept plan because he preferred the stubouts be left in the plan. He referred to a copy of the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan and noted the location of this subdivision in relation to that Thoroughfare Plan. He felt that, in order to plan for future traffic concerns, providing an easement for possible future travelway which may connect NC 86 and Phelps Road is a logical step. MOTION: Best moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Jacobs . Yuhasz stated that the same discussion had occurred when the concept plan was presented. He felt the Planning Staff's recommendation ignored the sentiment of the majority of the Board from the previous discussion that it was inappropriate to have a through road at this location. Thus, he would be opposed to this motion. Burklin noted that he could understand the applicant's concerns with through traffic on a Class B road. Best responded that his concern was to plan for future development. Yuhasz stated that he felt an easement would certainly encourage through traffic but would not be of any benefit to the Southern Winds Subdivision. Eddleman noted that he felt lots which range in size from three to seven acres would be purchased with the idea of privacy. He continued that he felt property owners would be opposed to a through road which would destroy that privacy. Cantrell noted that she felt it would be a very pronounced burden on the owners of Lots 5A and 5B to provide such an access. • 20 IL D VOTE: 2 in favor (Jacobs & Best - planning for future development) . 8 opposed. MOTION: Eidenier moved approval of the Resolution for Southern Winds Subdivision with the deletion of B4 and Eta which address the easement between lots 5A and 513. Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: 8 in favor. 2 opposed (Best & Jacobs - reason stated in previous motion) . c. Partial Width Right-of-Way (1) Bennie Bradsher Presentation by Eddie Kirk. The proposed minor subdivision is located on the south side of Gibbs Lane (SR 1564) off Palmers Grove Road (SR 1562) . The applicant is requesting to divide a 4.41 acre lot. The lot frontage on Gibbs Lane is 353 feet and the property is zoned R-1 . A Class C private road about 400' in length is proposed along the western boundary of the property. Both lots would be served by wells and septic tanks. An existing house is located on the southern portion of the property. Reduction of the right-of-way from 50 feet to 25 feet is needed to exclude a line of existing trees from the private road right-of-way. An existing drive extends along the property line between Mr. Bradsher' s property and the property to the west owned by Fred Albert. Mr. Albert has indicated that when he is ready to divide his property he will provide the additional 25 feet required to meet the 50 foot right-of-way requirement. This right-of-way would then extend to the southern property line of Mr. Bradsher's and Mr. Albert' s property. Planning Staff recommends approval of a partial width right-of-way of 25 feet for the B.E. Bradsher, Jr. property. Best expressed the concern that if Mr. Albert is willing to provide the additional 25 feet at a later time, why can't it be done now and avoid the need for a partial width right-of-way. Mr. Bradsher responded that there was a family 1 S ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: MARCH 5, 1990 Action Agenda Item # _ +c. SUBJECT: REVISED OLD COURTHOUSE SQUARE LANDSCAPING PLAN DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: WILBERT MCADOO, EXTENSION 480 SUGGESTED LANDSCAPE PLAN LETTERS FROM HILLSBOROUGH TELEPHONE NUMBERS: TREE BOARD Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To present to the Board of County Commissioners, the revised Old Courthouse Square Landscape Plan for their consideration. BACKGROUND: On December 4, 1989 a report was presented to the Board of County Commissioners on the status of the Old Courthouse Square Landscape Plan. The Board agreed to County appropriation of 125, 000 in the 1990-95 Capital Improvement Plan. We were asked to solicit additional funds from other sources to complete the project. The Old Courthouse Landscape Committee has met with members of other interested groups and considered many suggestions. The revised plan responds to major points stressed by the majority of participants. Please note that Phase I includes the removal of four dying trees along Churton Street. The Hillsborough Tree Board (see attached letters) and management agree that these trees need to be removed, as they present a safety hazard to pedestrians, vehicles, power lines and a potential liability to the County. Phase II of the plan includes replacement of these trees, with an expected completion date of October, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends the approval of the revised Old Courthouse Square Landscape Plan and timetable. 2 A Old Courthouse Square Suggested Landscape Plan Renovation and/or Reconstruction of the Old Courthouse grounds. This project, will be conducted in three phases. PHASE I King Street - During this phase, the following will be accomplished: - Duke Power Company will remove four dying trees along Churton Street . Tree removal March 1990 . *- Collaboration with Duke Power to install , if appropriate, underground utilities and/or stub in street lights. *- Sidewalk demolition and grading will occur as necessary to insure proper drainage, level surface and appropriate base for construction. *- The sidewalk will be replaced with concrete base and flagstone surface. *Work to begin July 1990 at a cost of $26, 000 . Please note Phase I and II will be conducted simultaneously. PHASE II Churton Street - Again, we will take all the preparatory steps as we did in Phase I . Additionally, we will ask that the contractor preserve the existing flagstone for reuse. The useable flagstone will be relaid and new flagstone used to supplement . Six large trees approximately 9 inches in diameter will be planted. Work to be completed October 1990 at a cost of $38, 000 . • 3 PHASE III Margaret Lane and Court Street - The preparatory steps will be taken as in other phases. The flagstone sidewalks fronting these two streets and the three remaining internal sidewalks going in the Courthouse will be reconstructed reusing the suitable flagstone and supplementing with new flagstone. Foundation plantings around the building will be removed. Small trees 6-8 ' , ground cover plants will be installed and the lawn will be renovated. Work to begin July 1991 at a cost of $61 , 000 . Completion date for this Phase is October 1991 . Total cost of the three Phases will be $125, 000 which will utilize all funds appropriated by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Interested Hillsborough citizens have been contacted and have expressed an interest in soliciting funding for the remaining amenities of the landscape plan. Those amenities are: 12 - Benches 4, 800. 9 - Street lights 13 ,500 . 5 - Trash cans 1 , 000 . Approximate cost for amenities: $20 , 000 . 4 5 s o R o ,. 101 E. Orange St eet . t s Onwn of 11sbnrnugll P.O. Box 429 4 ww 01 (919) 732-210,' HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 1EE2 2 2 150 C' AR February 22, 1990 Mr. John Link Orange County Manager 109 Court Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Link: The Hillsborough Tree Board has been monitoring the trees on Churton Street for several years. We have made a decision based on our own observations and advice from foresters and arborist that the street trees on Churton Street west of the Old Courthouse should be removed. These trees are in a serious state of decline and present a real safety hazard to pedestrians, vehicles and power lines. The elm on the corner of King and Churton Street and the large Water Oak are extremely dangerous. We have a copy of the letter sent to you by M. B. Kunselman dated 1/16/90 and are in complete agreement with his recommendations. Sincerely, Minerva Kenyon, Chairman Hillsborough Tree Board f ' Duke Power Company (.919)967-82.31 PO.Box 2000 Chapel Hill,NC 27515 5 =map! DUKE POWER February 28, 1990 . Mr. John Link P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Mr. Link: In the interest of public safety, The Hillsborough Tree Board is considering removal of all or part of the six street trees on the west side of the old courthouse. These trees are on the east side of Churton Street between Margaret Lane and King Street. The Tree Board has inquired if Duke Power would, upon formal request, remove these trees due to their close proximity to our power lines. I have evaluated this request and informed The Hillsborough Tree Board that Duke Power is willing to remove the trees. Sincerely, Phil Ray, Supervisor of Operations -` JP; l& !,9p aaaSW'Co 6 ,. Ttji)sifr State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division of Forest Resources 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, No 6 roll 9 27611 Harry F. Layman James G. Martin, Governor Director William W. Cobey,Jr., Secretary Mr. John Link, County Manager Court Street Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Mr. Link: For the past year and a half I have been working very closely with the Hillsborough Tree Board. During this time I have looked closely at many of the trees along the street rights-of-way in Hillsborough and made recommendations relative to the maintenance and care needed to sustain their livelihood. There are several large trees on Churton Street, near the old Court , are in a seri state decline. Specifically, I recall an elmand wateroak thathave a considerable amount of die-back in the tops . Because of the restricted growing space between the sidewalk and street curb, these trees continue to wild present a hazard to pedestrians l be very expensive to keep these trees pruned properly. I realize the heritage and sentiment involved with these old trees , but I recommend that consideration be given to their removal and the replanting of trees of a species more suitable to is what I have recomm ended to Sincerely, M. B. "Tex" Kunselman Program Director Urban Forestery cc: Minerva Kenyan PD.Box 27687, Raleigh, Nord,Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone 919-733-2162 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 5, 1990 Action Agenda Item # Y- 115 SUBJECT: Revision of the Personnel Ordinance DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes XX No Personnel ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Personnel Ordinance: Article I Addie Wright Turner Article II, sec. 3 .0 Article III, sec. 1. 3, 4. 6 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Article IV, sec. 6. 1, 7.2 Hillsborough - 732-8181 7.3, 14.0 Durham - 688-7331 Article VII Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To revise the following sections of the Orange County Personnel Ordinance as indicated below. BACKGROUND: The relevant sections of the Personnel Ordinance are attached and the new additions are in bold face. Many of the recommended changes reflect the County's sensitivity to work and family issues which face our employees . Amendments are proposed for the following reasons: Article I; This article has been re-edited for clarification and accuracy in meaning. The revised sections are attached, and all of section 4.0 has been re- numbered. Article II, 3.0 The definition of immediate family has been broadened to include persons historically not included in a nuclear family. Like other employers in the RTP area, Orange County is making this change to accommodate the increase in the number of non- traditional families. Article III, 1 . 3 The establishment of a "Flex-time" option in the County will allow Department Heads to be able to respond to employees special needs for alternative work schedules. 2 Article III, 4 .6 In order to insure the efficient operation of County government, many critical positions must remain filled at all times. Due to the competitive employment market in the RTP area, it is often impossible to fill these positions with qualified applicants on a temporary/time-limited basis. This revision will allow management the flexibility of granting leave requests for such key personnel, whip at the same time meeting needs of the organization. Article IV, 6. 1 Sick leave policy amended to allow employees to use sick leave when taking immediate family members to the doctor. For example, under the current policy the employee must use vacation leave to take a sick child to the doctor. Article IV, 7 .2 Currently Orange County retirees may choose to make County-provided health insurance their primary coverage even after becoming eligible for Medicare. The recommended change specifies that once an employee becomes eligible for Medicare then Medicare becomes the primary insurer and the County becomes the secondary insurer. This change, is consistent with cost-effective benefits management practices in North Carolina. In addition, retiree eligibility has been clarified to read that retirees will only b; eligible for County health insurance coverage if Orange County was the last employer they worked for which offered major medical coverage. Article IV, 7 . 3 To include in the Ordinance a brief outline of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) which allows health care coverage to persons who would otherwise loose coverage under a health care plan due to specific events. Article IV, 14 .0 To change the term "paternity leave" to "family leave" and to expand use of this leave to include th, days immediately following the receipt of a child into the home following an adoption. Presently, thi • benefit may be discriminatory in that it is conferrer' only upon male employees. Article VII To replace the current performance evaluation section to reflect changes implemented with the new Work Planning and Performance Review System. RECOMMENDATION: To approve the revisions to the Personnel Ordinance.. 3 ARTICLE I 2.5 Temporary employees are exempt from the following: Article II Section 5, 7, and 8; Article VI; and Article VIII. Temporary employees are also exempt from Article IV Employee Benefits, with the exception of: Worker's Compensation, Civil Leave, Administrative Leave and Social Security. 4.11 Employee Inquiry Card - a card which individuals may file with the Personnel Department requesting to be notified when applications are being accepted for a specific position. 4.13 Flexible Work Schedule - Departments may elect to use a flexible work schedule to consist of a pre-determined schedule of nine consecutive hours between 7:30am and 6:00pm, with one hour for lunch, Monday through Friday. 4.16 Immediate Family - wife, husband, father, mother, daughter, son, grandparent or grandchildren (also included are step, foster, or in-law relationships) boyfriend, girlfriend and those living in the same household. 4.27 Permanent Employee - a person appointed to a position which has been approved by the Board of Commissioners and has the full County benefits package. The employee also has completed a probationary period. 4.30 Probationary Period - a period of time (usually six months) at the beginning of employment of a permanent employee, used to evaluate the employee's suitability for continued permanent employment. 4.32 Reclassification - the reassignment of an existing 4 position from one class to another based on changes in job content such as required knowledge, required skill, difficulty and responsibility of the work performed. 4.33 Recruitment - The process of soliciting the most qualified applicants. 4.36 Temporary Employee - a non-permanent employee appointed to serve in a position for a period of six (6) calendar months or less. 4.37 Time Limited Permanent Employee - a person appointed to serve in a permanent full-time or permanent part-time position for a predetermined period of time. 8.0 PERSONNEL 8. 1 Purpose The purpose of the Personnel Department is to implement the objectives of the personnel program. The Personnel Department provides several program services such as Recruitment and Selection; Classification and Pay; Benefits; Performance Evaluation; Equal Employment Opportunity; Employee Relations; Organizational Development and Employee Development Training; Workforce Planning; and Position Management. Support services provided are maintenance of Employee Records; Position Control; Personnel Policy and Procedures Issuance System; and monitoring of all personnel transactions for compliance with established policies and procedures . 9 .3 Procedure Except as provided in M.C. G.S. Section 153A-98, materials submitted by applicants and materials gathered by the Personnel Department during the application process as part of applications for employment, are not a matter of public record subject to the public disclosure provisions of this procedure. Materials will be added or removed from employee 5 personnel files, only with the approval of the Personnel Director, except as permitted in section 9. 10 of this article. The Personnel Director will prepare and distribute necessary forms and reports including, but not limited to Personnel Action & Payroll Forms; Separation Reports; Employment Applications; Employment Agreement Letters; Employment for Job Postings; New employee Information Sheets, and Work Planning and Performance Review Evaluations. The term employee, as used in this section, includes current and former employees. 9.4 All materials in personnel files now maintained throughout the departments of the County are to be consolidated into one file to be maintained by the Orange Personnel Director. The Orange County Personnel Director is responsible for complying with this procedure and will be the custodian of such personnel records. The Personnel Director is responsible for, and will maintain, all personnel records. 9 .5 The information contained in personnel files that is subject to public disclosure is available for the purpose of inspection, examination and copying only in the Personnel Department during regular business hours pursuant to Orange County policy related to inspection and copying of county records. All personnel files which have been inactive for over five years are maintained at the State Archives in Raleigh. Files can be retrieved by making a request to the Personnel Department. The information subject to public inspection is the following for each employee; name, age, date of original employment or appointment, current position title, current salary, date and amount of most recent salary change, date of the most recent change in position classification, and employee's currently assigned office. 6 ARTICLE II 3.0 LIMITATION OF EMPLOYMENT OF RELATIVES: The employment by Orange County of members of the same immediate family within the same program area or major office agency at the same time is to be avoided. This policy applies to promotion, demotion, transfers, reinstatement and new appointments; permanent or temporary. ARTICLE III 1 .3 Full-time employees normally work five (5) eight (8) hour days per week. Department Heads may elect to establish for his/her employees a flexible work schedule to consist of a pre-determined schedule of nine consecutive hours between 7 :30am and 6:00pm, with one hour lunch break each day, Monday through Friday. The first consideration in establishing a work schedule and in permitting any variation from it is providing adequate staffing to maintain county office hours of 8am to 5pm and the needs of the work unit. Consistent with that need, consideration should also be given to the needs and preferences of the employee. With the approval of the Department Head a schedule will be established for each employee which provides for a 40 hour workweek. 4.6 Upon returning to work., the employee will be reinstated to the previous position (if still available) or any position in the County of similar classification, seniority, and pay. ARTICLE IV 6.1 Sick leave with pay may be granted to an employee for absences due to physical or mental illness or injury which prevents an employee from performing the usual duties. 7 This includes disabilities resulting from pregnancy. Sick leave may also be used for absences due to medical and dental appointments or to care for an ill family member. For the latter purpose, a family member is defined as spouse, parents, and children. 7 .2 An employee who retires from Orange County with ten ( 10) or more years of service, and whose last employer providing major medical coverage was Orange County, will be covered, upon request, by the County's group health insurance plan. When a retiree becomes eligible for Medicare, Medicare will become the primary insurer and the County will become the secondary insurer. The retiree will continue paying premiums at the current rates. An employee with less than ten ( 10) years of service with Orange County may continue coverage on the County's group plan at their own cost for an eighteen (18) month period. 7 .3 Under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, Orange County will continue health care coverage to persons who would otherwise lose coverage under a health care plan due to specific events provided the employee agrees to pay, and pays, the cost of this coverage. The employee is entitled to 18 months of coverage due to termination or reduction of workforce. The spouse or dependent child of an employee is entitled to 36 months of coverage for the following reasons: — death of the covered employee- termination of employee parent/spouse - reduction in employee parent/spouse's working hours - divorce or legal separation - an employee parent/spouse is entitled to Medicare benefits - a dependent is no longer a dependent 4.0 Family Leave 14.1 Three (3) consecutive days of paid family leave may be taken by a full-time or part-time permanent or proba- tionary employee upon the birth of the employee's child. This leave must be taken during the child's first week of life. 14.2 An employee adopting a child will be eligible to take three (3) consecutive days of paid family leave. The employee will be eligible to take this leave after the adoption has been finalized during the first week the child is in the employee's home. 9 ARTICLE VII EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM 1.0 PURPOSE To review job performances of employees in an effort to make managerial decisions regarding all employees and their role with the County. 2.0 POLICY The County Manager will prepare a system for evaluating the work performance of all employees. The current system is known as the Work Planning and Performance Review System. (WPPR) . A performance review system provides a natural approach to discussion between an employee and supervisor in which an open discussion can be held concerning' the employee's strong and weak points, how well they are performing their work and how they can improve their work performance. The supervisor and employee together should plan work objectives for the coming year and the performance level at which they will be accomplished. The performance evaluation may be used in determining salary increments; as a factor in determining order of layoffs; as a basis for training; promotion; transfer or dismissal; and for such other purposes as set forth in these regulations. 3.0 PROCEDURE All permanent employees must be evaluated at the end of six months of service, and at the end of twelve months of service upon original appointment or promotion. Thereafter, each employee should be evaluated on the employee's anniversary date of their original appointment or date of last promotion. 3.1 An employee will not be eligible for a pay raise until the performance evaluation form has been completely processed by the Personnel Department. 3.2 Each employee and supervisor will meet to develop the employee's work plan for the month, quarter, or year. The work plan will include work objectives and performance standards. A performance rating will be assigned to the employee based on work plan performance. Performance ratings will be in one of the • 10 following areas: Outstanding Achievement: Performs at levels which consistently far exceed agreed upon standards in 90% of functional areas. Highly Effective Performance: Performs frequently at levels considerably above agreed upon standards in most functional areas. Obstacles to achieveme.t of objectives are overcome. Competent Performance: Performs in all areas at levels which meet job requirem=nt standards. All minor tasks where performance could have been better are counterbalanced by superior performance in another task such that the overall work objective met expectations. Below Competent Performance: Performance in one or more aree.s does not meet expectations. all planned objectives are met Unsatisfactory Performance: Performance does not meet job requirement standards in most functional areas. Important objectives are not met even wi h close supervision and guidance. Disciplinary action based on j .b performance is initiated. Extended: No rating is given for this employee. An extension of 90 days is necessary in order to determine with accuracy the appropriate performance level. Supervisors must consult with the Personnel Department prio , to granting this rating. Thi= rating should be used sparingly and only in cases when the supervisor is generally unsure of the ratin that should be assigned and tu 11 extension of 90 days would benefit both the County and the employee. The rating should not be used by the supervisor to avoid the responsibility of informing an employee of unsatisfactory performance. 3.3 Performance evaluations will be prepared by the immediate supervisor of each employee and reviewed by the appropriate department head. An employee in a supervisory position who is leaving the position will be required to submit performance evaluation forms on all employees under their supervision who have not been evaluated within the previous six month period. 3.4 The supervisor should hold an annual performance evaluation conference with each employee. If an employee disagrees with any statement in an evaluation, the employee should submit statements or comments of disagreement. Both the employee and supervisor must sign the performance evaluation form. 3.5 Performance evaluation forms are confidential and will be made available only to: the employee evaluated or the employee's assigned representative; supervisor; department head; Personnel Director; County Manager; County Attorney or The Governing Boards. 1 , 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date March 5, 1990 Action Agenda Item # V-E SUBJECT: NCDOT REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) FOR I-85 WIDENING AND EFLAND INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes xNo ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bell -10-19-89 memo from Bell to Link -Summary of 11-7-89 meeting -12-15-89 letter from Stroud -11-21-89 Revised EIA TELEPHONE NUMBERS: -12-19-89 memo from Bell to Link Hillsborough - 732-8181 -1-3-90 memo from Thames to Bell Durham - 688-7331 -1-9-90 Planning Board minutes Mebane - 227-2031 -Map of proposed interchanges Chapel Hill - 967-9251 -Draft resolution PURPOSE: To receive recommendation from Planning Board on the revised EIA. BACKGROUND: On October 2 , 1989 NCDOT officials presented revised plans for the Efland interchanges to the County Commissioners . Reference was made to an EIA done in 1984 in anticipation of I-85 widening. The Transportation Advisory Subcommittee (TAS) met on October 17 and discussed concerns related to transpor- tation improvements in the Efland area and the need for greater coordination with NCDOT. These concerns were expressed in the October 19 memo to the County Manager. This resulted in a meeting of County officials and NCDOT representatives on November 7 . At the meeting, NCDOT officials stated that a revised EIA was being done. County officials requested that a copy of the revised EIA be made available for County comment. At a subsequent meeting of the TAS held on December 13, there was additional discussion on the Efland interchanges, in particular, the proposed elimination of the I-85 overpass over West Ten Road. The TAS requested that pedestrian access under I-85 be maintained as part of the interchange improvements . This was expressed in the December 18 memo from Gene Bell to John Link. The revised EIA was received by the County Manager' s office on December 19 , 1989 . As with the 1984 EIA, „ 2 the revised EIA has resulted in a finding of no significant Impact (FONSI) . The County Engineer has completed his initial review of the revised EIA and his comments are contained in the January 3 memo to Bell. His basic conclusion is that NCDOT has met the letter of the law and that short of getting " . . . the watershed classified as a higher quality water supply. . .it will be difficult to invoke any regulatory requirement for NCDOT to provide any additional environmental study or impact mitigation. ” The Planning Board heard a presentation on the interchanges from Paul Thames, County Engineer, on January 9, 1990. They voted unanimously that a higher water quality classification be pursued for Seven Mile Creek and the Upper Eno Watershed and that NCDOT be requested to implement appropriate best management practices (BMPs) to control runoff from 1-85 into Seven Mile Creek. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends endorsement of the Planning Board and TAS recommendations and inclusion of same in the County response to NCDOT. DK7:3-5FONSI .DOC Jii ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA :7:78 M E M O R A N D U M TO: John Link, County Manager FROM: Gene Bell, Planner III 6/S RE: LIAISON WITH THE N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TrRANSPORTATION DATE: October 19 , 1989 COPIES: Marvin Collins, Planning Director Transportation Advisory Subcommittee (TAS ) At its meeting on Tuesday, October 17, the TAS discussed the issue of County relations with NCDOT. This discussion was prompted by the presentation to the County Commissioners on October 2 concerning the Efland interchange(s ) . Also • related to this was a meeting on September 27 attended by Chris Best, Barry Jacobs, Larry Meisner (transportation plan consultant) , Danny Rogers and Kim Lash of NCDOT, and myself to discuss progress on the Orange County Transportation Plan. ' At that meeting a question about the Efland interchange was raised and Danny's response was the opposite of what NCDOT presented to the Commissioners on October 2. This prompted the TAS to ask, "Who really speaks for NCDOT?" The TAS has asked me to relay the following to you for consideration as future Commissioner agenda items : 1) The appointment of a County representative to serve as formal liaison for all contact with NCDOT. The County Engineer or a Planning Department representative were suggested as possibilities; and 2 ) The appointment of a NCDOT representative to serve as formal liaison for all contact with Orange County. 1 The TAS also requested consideration of the following in regard to the Efland interchange(s) : 1 ) That a copy of the map presented at the Commissioners October 2 meeting be obtained; 2) That a copy of the environmental impact statement referred to at that meeting be obtained from NCDOT; and 3 ) That a public hearing on the proposed interchange modifications be held prior to further action by NCDOT. DK5:TASLIA I.DOC 5 SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION MEETING HELD IN THE COMMISSIONER'S LIBRARY ROOM ON NOVEMBER 7, 1989 FROM 9 : 00 AM - 11 : 00 AM ATTENDANCE Orange County: John Link, County Manager Geoff Gledhill, County Attorney Marvin Collins, Planning Director Paul Thames, County Engineer Barry Jacobs, Planning Board Chair Chris Best, Transportation Advisory Subcommittee Chair Pat Davis, Economic Development Commission - Lindsay Efland, Economic Development Commission Gene Bell, Planner III N.C. Department of Transportation (DOT) : Blake Norwood, Systems Planning Engineer Danny Rogers, Planning Engineer Wilson Stroud, Special Projects Planner Hillsborough: Phillip Whitaker, Town Manager Janet Rigsbee, Planning Director Bill Crowther, Planning Board Chair John Link called the meeting to order at approximately 9 : 10 AM and stated that the purpose was to promote greater coordination on transportation matters among the parties represented. He announced the following topics for discussion: 1 . The status of 1-85 widening and the proposed diamond interchanges at US 70 and 1-85 in Efland and impacts on Seven Mile Creek and economic development; 2 . the status of area thoroughfare plans and the process for adopting and amending them; and 3 . scheduling of thoroughfare plan adoption. Following this, everyone in attendance introduced themselves and stated their reason for attendance. Discussion then proceeded on a topic-by-topic basis . 6 1 . Proposed I-85 Widening 1 Efland Interchanges Danny Rogers asked that Wilson Stroud, the DOT staff person re-evaluating the environmental impact statement (EIS) for 1-85 widening, be allowed to speak first. Stroud stated that the EIS was prepared in the early 1980's and that a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) was approved by the Federal Highway Administration in 1984 . Seven Mile Creek was not proposed as a reservoir at that time and was not addressed in the EIS. In re-evaluating the FONSI he said that while additional impervious surface would be created, pollutant runoff was not expected to be major and no significant impacts on, water quality were foreseen. He did state that control gates in roadside ditches could be considered as a protective measure in the event of a spill. Link asked when the revised EIS would be completed. Stroud said approximately two weeks . Barry Jacobs asked if there would be a comment period. Stroud indicated that a comment period was not normally provided. Link asked if DOT would be receptive to comments from the Planning Board and County Engineer and Stroud responded affirmatively. Chris Best stated that this seemed to be a case of an urban interchange in a rural area and asked how airborne contaminants were accounted for. Stroud said these were not foreseen as a major problem. Link asked Stroud if he could send the revised document to Orange County in two weeks. Stroud said he thought this could be accomplished. Link said if this schedule was adhered to the County could have a response back to DOT by the middle of December. Link then asked when construction was slated to begin on the Efland improvements. Stroud indicated that late 1990 or early 1991 was anticipated as the time for contract letting on the Efland interchanges. In discussing the proposed highway improvements, Lindsay Efland emphasized the importance of not isolating any portions of the Efland Fire Department service area referring to the proposal to close West Ten Road where it is crossed by I-85. Copies of an aerial photo showing the proposed changes were distributed and Blake Norwood assured Efland that Ben Johnson Road would be extended to US 70 to address emergency response concerns . There was additional discussion on the potential impacts from widening I-85 and Link closed by stating he thought control gates should go in regardless of the 1-85 improvements . In summing up discussion on the first topic, Link said he expected to receive the updated EIS in two weeks . The County would then have three weeks in which to review the EIS and forward comments to DOT. The County's comments would be incorporated into the document(s ) DOT would be sending to the federal government. 7 2. The Status of Area Thoroughfare Plans and the Process for Adopting and Amending Them Best asked Rogers to explain the process of thoroughfare plan approval. Rogers stated that DOT would like for each local government to endorse the thoroughfare plan for their areas of jurisdiction. He emphasized that DOT encouraged the participation of everyone involved to attain as much consensus as possible, but stated that it was not required that a county adopt municipal plans. Norwood stated that North Carolina General Statutes require DOT to work directly with municipalities for areas that will urbanize in twenty years . In reference to the Hillsborough Plan he stated that there were some provisions that apparently didn't reflect County opinion. It was his hope that Hillsborough and Orange County could get together and work out their differences . Best asked how DOT uses public input in the thoroughfare planning process and if there would be any changes in the Durham, Chapel Hill, Carrboro (DCHC) Plan before Orange County was asked to make a decision on it. Rogers stated that the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) had requested that before any changes were made in the DCHC Plan, they would like for Orange County to have a public hearing and comment on the plan. Best asked Rogers if public hearing comments were reflected in the plan. Rogers stated that public hearing comments were part of the documentation accompanying the plan. Norwood emphasized that the comments were available for policy boards to review. Best then asked about changing priorities in adopted thoroughfare plans, in particular the changed status of Elizabeth Brady Road in the Hillsborough Plan. Norwood stated that the map is the plan; priorities reflect DOT and town judgement and can change from one year to the next. Best asked if his understanding was correct in that a plan (map) with certain priorities was adopted and then the priorities could be changed. Norwood affirmed this and stated that the annual Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) hearings provided the forum for changes in priorities. Phillip Whitaker stated that priorities were not an "end-all" in one step. The first step may be road widening, the second a new bridge, etc. You have to do what you can with the available funding to get the most value for the money. You are working toward a thoroughfare plan, but you can't get it all at once; the process is incremental. Jacobs asked if Hillsborough had a public hearing process for changing priorities in the case of West Hill Avenue. Whitaker stated that a hearing was not required. He said that DOT informed them that approximately $300, 000 was available and asked for a town recommendation on where it could be spent most effectively in the context of improvements specified in the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan. ' 8 Norwood stated that a public hearing was not required in the case of changing priorities. He said the process of priorities with a city was basically the same as with county commissioners approving paving priorities. A public hearing was required only when amendments to the plan itself were being considered. Link said he thought it would be good if there was more local coordination of funding priorities before the annual TIP hearings. Link then shifted discussion back to Best' s question on the DCHC Plan and consideration of public hearing comments . He asked if his understanding of the process was correct in that once a public hearing was held and comments received, the DOT staff would make recommendations to the State Board of Transportation based on those comments tempered with professional judgement. Norwood stated this was basically the process . Link also asked if copies of comments received at public hearings were available to the State Board. Norwood stated that such comments were made available to the, Board members to consider at their discretion. Discussion then shifted to the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan and Whitaker asked why the County had not adopted it. Jacobs said he knew some of the history on the County' s position and referred to a County Commissioner meeting in Chapel Hill in which there was a discussion on the DCHC and Hillsborough Plans. He said the County was reluctant to adopt these plans until there was a plan for the rural areas and it could be seen how the urban plans fit in and meshed with everything else. He further stated that what he seemed to be hearing now was that, de facto, the County had adopted the Hillsborough Plan and this related back to his previous question on where a County resident got a chance to speak. Lindsay Efland mentioned a hearing/meeting held in the Efland community by DOT to get input on the 1-85 projects and there was no apparent County involvement. He felt that, at least on an informal basis, there had been an attempt at state/local coordination. Marvin Collins said he felt that DOT needed to be more specific in their public notices so citizens could decide whether or not an upcoming hearing was important to them. Norwood agreed and stated that DOT was in the process of developing a public involvement section to address this issue. At this point, Link announced that he would like for Paul Thames, County Engineer, and Gene Bell, Planner III, to serve as liaison on transportation matters for the County. Bill Crowther asked what the process was when a town or county had an adopted thoroughfare plan and a decision was made to change priorities in that plan. Norwood emphasized that priorities were not part of an adopted thoroughfare plan. Jacobs asked what determined the status of priorities. Norwood stated that the TIP was the major vehicle for this . _ Q Jacobs asked about a situation in a town thoroughfare plan where county citizens had problems with it. How would they express their concerns? Gene Bell mentioned that a process of local governments reviewing their TIP requests jointly prior to the annual hearings might lead to better coordination and alleviate some of the problems inherent in the present system. Link summarized the discussion on item 2 by stating that three levels had been discussed: (1) Coordination between state and local jurisdictions (Bell and Thames to serve as Orange County liaison in DOT matters) ; (2 ) coordination between local jurisdictions when there is a proposed change on priorities in the TIP; and (3) the role of the TIP versus an adopted thoroughfare plan in establishing priorities. In addition, Link stated that he felt all future public hearings should be held, as a matter of course, at the court- house or town hall as opposed to other sites such as the high school. 3 . Adoption of Plans Link stated that progress was being made on the County thoroughfare plan. Regarding the DCHC plan he said we want to see how it fits into the Orange County plan and, in particular, want to hear what Chapel Hill has to say. The end of February is currently proposed as the time frame for a public hearing on the Orange County Thoroughfare Plan and possibly consideration of the Hillsborough and DCHC components if all necessary reviews can be accomplished by that time. Whitaker said he was not aware that the County was involved in the thoroughfare planning process. Link said it might be a good idea for him and Whitaker to attend some of the Transportation Advisory Subcommittee (TAS) meetings. Whitaker stated that Hillsborough's position should be well represented in the thoroughfare planning process. Link specified that Whitaker receive a copy of all future TAS agendas . Regarding scheduling of thoroughfare plans, Norwood said that the City of Durham will probably vote on the DCHC plan before the end of this month and that Orange County may wish to comment. Best wrapped up the discussion by stating that it was important to realize that the area covered by the County plan was a small portion of the County compared to the area covered by the DCHC and Hillsborough Plans . • 10 Link closed the meeting by asking Bell to prepare a set of minutes. He (Link) stated that from that point he would undertake a memorandum of confirmation with the other jurisdictions on the points discussed. This would also include a time frame on the EIS/County response and a preliminary estimate of when thoroughfare plans would be going to public hearing. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 AM. DK5: 11-7MTG.DOC r �c �A 4 ]_l. . ,fir ! .. 11 - b� 'EFL 1 P - \ .4,7." -F STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 25201 RALEIGH 27611-5201 JAMES G. MARTIN December 15, 1989 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS, P.E- SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Mr. John M. Link, Jr. Orange County Manager 109 Court Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Link: SUBJECT: Reevaluation of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for 1-85, from West of US 421 in Greensboro to West of I-40 near Hillsborough, Guilford, Alamance, and Orange Counties, Federal Aid Project Numbers I-85-3(66)126 and I-85-3(67)148, State Project Numbers 8.1531901 and 8.1500301, T.I.P. Numbers I-303 and I-304 As you requested during our meeting of November 7, 1989 in Hillsborough, I have enclosed a copy of the above report for your information. Should you have any comments on the project, please send them to the Manager of Planning and Research at the address shown below: Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E. Manager, Planning and Research Branch North Carolina Department of Transportation P. 0. Box 25201 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 In addition, you requested the schedule for improving the section of I-85 in the vicinity of the Efland (SR 1120) and US 70 Connector interchanges in Orange County. The current schedule for improving the 4.7-mile section of I-85 from west of_SR_-1114.-_to east of SR 11444_Secti and calls for right of way _- acquisition to begin in November construction to begin in March of 1992. If you have any questions regarding the project, please -contact me at (919)733-7842. Sincerely, ,J Wi l son Stroud Project Planning Engineer JWS/sdt Enclosure An Gn.„,n.,.,,.,,.„o,,Affir mafivp Ar`inn Gmrinvpr e w 5rA7r o ni„,„.%'2,"..,.,1 L.-.r 1';.;t"r.., �- 2 "?fir. ,,,,..• ....... 4.- ..,......,,,,,.....„:„..,..,. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 25201 RALEIGH 27611-5201 JAMES G. MARTIN DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR November 21, 1989 • ' JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS. P.E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATO`• Mr. Paul L. Lariviere • Acting Division Administrator �i - ' i��'►L:47, Federal Highway Administration ��/z,,�g�; — ,� Post Office Box 26806 "y ""'` Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 A.- Inc DIVIVON f,.:at1r. _ •a Dear Mr. Lariviere: SUBJECT: Reevaluation of FONSI for I-85, from West of US 421 in Greensboro to West of 1-4.0 near Hillsborough, Guilford, Alamance, and Orange Coun- ties , Federal Aid Project Numbers 1-85-3(66)126 and I=85-3(67)148, State Project Numbers 8.1531901 and 8.1500301, T. I. P. Numbers 1-303 • and I-304 . The FONSI for Projects 1-303, 1-304, and I-305 was approved by the FHWA on March 19, 1984. Since that time further studies have been performed, and re- visions to the project are recommended. The attached reevaluation has been conducted to evaluate the recommended revisions in the project, changes in the anticipated impacts, and changes in the affected environment. . This reevaluation covers only Projects 1-303 and 1-304 (I-85 from Greensboro to I-40 near Hillsborough). Project I-305 (I-85 from I-40 near Hillsborough to the Orange-Durham County Line) will be reevaluated under a separate environmental document at a later time. . . Based upon field investigations and review of the FONSI, it is concluded that no major changes in the proposed action, anticipated impacts, or affected environment have occurred. It is the conclusion of the Division of Highways that the approved Finding of No Significant Impact is still valid according to the criteria set forth in 23 CFR Part 771.129. This reevaluation has been coordinated with your staff, and they concur. Sincerely,,/ //// ' . cx.L. J. Ward, P. E. Manager, Planning and Research Branch JWS/plr . Attachment An Equal Opportunity/Attirm2tiv9 Ac:ion Employer • 13 REEVALUATION OF FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT I-85 From West •of US 421 in Greensboro to West of I-40 near Hillsborough Guilford, Alamance, and Orange Counties I-85-3(66)126, 8.1531901, I-303 I-85-3(67)148, 8.1500301, I-304 Prepared by Planning and Research Branch Division of Highways N. C. Department of Transportation • • J. ;Wijison Stroud Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E. Projct Planning Engineer Rural Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head /1-- I -3 031. . Gd Date J. W'rd, P. E. Manager, Planning and Research Branch TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. PROPOSED ACTION A. Project Status R-1 B. Proposed Revisions to Project R-1 1. Eight-lane Widening R-1 2. Widening West of the I-85/US 29 Intersection R-2 3. I-85/US 70 Connector and I-85/SR 1120 Interchanges R-2 C. Proposed Cross Section R-3 D. Cost Estimates R-3 • II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED REVISIONS • A. Traffic Volumes R-4 B. Capacity Analyses R-4 1. Six-Lane Versus Eight-Lane Widening R-4 2. Widening West of the I-85/US 29 Interchange R-5 3. I-85/US 70 Connector and I-85/SR 1120 InterchangesR-5 III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS • A. Right of Way and Relocatees R-6 B. Hydraulics R-7 C. Floodplain/Floodway Impacts R-7 D. Special Permits Required R-7 • E. Traffic Noise R-7 F. Air Quality R-7 G. Water Quality R-8 H. Wetlands R-9 I . Wetland Findings R-9 J. Stream Modification R-10 K. Section 106 Properties R-10 1. Historic/Architectural Resources R-10 2. Archaeological Resources R-10 L. Section 4(f) Properties R-11 M. Farmland R-11 N. Hazardous Wastes R-11 IV. CONCLUSIONS R-12 Tables Table 1 - Cost Estimates R-4 Table 2 - Levels-of-Service R-4 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE Maps and Illustrations Figure 1 - Vicinity Map Figure 2 - US 70 Connector and SR 1120 Interchanges Appendix SHPO Correspondence RA-1 and RA-2 6 I-85 From West of US 421 in Greensboro to West of 1-40 near Hillsborough Guilford, Alamance, and Orange Counties 1-85-3(66)126, 8.1531901, I-303 I-85-3(67)148, 8.1500301 , 1-304 I. PROPOSED ACTION A. Project Status The 1990-1996 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program calls for widening 1-85 from four to eight lanes from the I-85/US 29 intersection in Greensboro to west of I-40 in Orange County under Projects I-303 and 1-304. The segment of I-85 within the limits of Project I-305 (from I-40 near Hillsborough to the Orange-Durham County line) is to remain six-lane widening. Project I-303 begins just west of the I-85/US 421 intersection in Greensboro and ends east of the 1-85/NC 54 intersection in Graham (see Figure 1). Project 1-304 begins at that point and ends east of the I-85/SR 1144 intersection near Efland. Right of way acquisition is underway for both projects. The initial construction contract, Section I-303K, is scheduled to be let in December .of 1989. Section I-303K includes the 2.3-mile segment of I-85 from just east•of the I-85/NC 49 intersection to just east of the I-85/NC 54 intersection near Graham (Alamance, County). • Project I=305 begins at the 1-85/SR 1006 intersection near Hills- borough and ends at the Orange-Durham County line (see Figure 1) . Right of way acquisition and construction for that project are scheduled to begin after Fiscal Year 1996. Due to the recent opening of the new section of I-40 that links with I-85 near Hillsborough (Project 1-9) , traffic volumes along I-85 within the limits of Project 1-305 are lower than volumes within the limits of Projects I-303 and I-304. It is anticipated the six-laning of I-85 proposed in the FONSI will provide an acceptable level-of-service along that project. This reevaluation covers only Projects 1-303 and I-304. Project 1-305 will be reevaluated under a separate' environmental document at a later time. B. Proposed Revisions to Project • 1. Eight-lane Widening .. The FONSI calls for widening I-85 to six lanes. It is now recommended that the segment of I-85 from east of the I-85/McConnell Road (SR 3000) intersection near Greensboro to east of the 1-85/ SR 1144 intersection near Efland (see Figure 1) be widened to eight • R-2 17 rather than six lanes. This widening is recommended to allow - traffic to be accommodated more efficiently and safely. Projected traffic volumes for Projects I-303 and I-304 and capacity analysis results for both six-lane and eight-lane widening are presented in Section II of this report. The six-laning proposed in the FONSI included provisions for future widening of I-85 to eight lanes. The 46-foot median proposed in that report was sufficient to allow for the addition of two lanes (one in each direction) when the need arises. In addition, the EA states that structures and interchanges along the project will be designed to be compatible with any future improvements. The proposed seventh and eighth lanes are to begin between the I-85/McConnell Road (SR 3000) and I-85/Mount Hope Church Road (SR 3045) interchanges east of Greensboro. This western limit of the proposed eight-lane widening is based upon the location of the future I-85 Greensboro Bypass (Project I-2402) . That facility is anticipated to tie into existing I-85 between the McConnell Road and Mount Hope Church Road interchanges. Project I-2402 is scheduled for preparation of an EIS and/or right of way protection in the NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program. The TIP calls for right of way acquisition to begin in Fiscal Year 1994 and construction to begin in Fiscal Year 1996. The proposed eight-laving of I-85 is to end just east of the I-85/SR 1144 .intersection near Efland. The segment of I-85 from • that point to the I-85/SR 1006 intersection east of 1-40 was re- cently improved under Project I-9 (I-40 from I-85 to the Research Triangle Park) . No improvements are to be performed within that segment of I-85. 2. Widening West of the I-85/US 421 Intersection In the FONSI no improvements to I-85 are proposed west of the I-85/US 29 intersection in Greensboro. It is now recommended that a third eastbound lane be added to I-85 between the I-85/Asheboro Street (US 421) and I-85/US 29 interchanges (see Figure 1). This will provide three. eastbound lanes along I-85 throughout Greensboro. This extension of the project will require approximately 0.4 mile of additional widening. It is anticipated no additional richt of way will be required to accommodate this widening. Capacity analysis results for both two and three eastbound lanes in this area are presented in Section II.B. of this report. 3. I-85/US 70 Connector and I-85/SR 1120 Interchanoes In the FONSI it is recommended that the existing I-85/US 70 Connector interchange near Efland be removed. That report calls for realigning the US 70 Connector and extending it westward to tie into SR 1120 just north of the I-85/SR 1120 interchange. The existing I-85/US 70 Connector interchange is only partially directional in that access is provided only from eastbound I-85 to the US 70 Connector and from the US 70 Connector to westbound I-85. R-3 18 It is now recommended that the project be revised to provide a diamond interchange at the US 70 Connector (see Figure 2) . This revision will improve access between Hillsborough and areas west and improve the operation of the I-85/SR 1120 interchange. The new plan also includes upgrading the existing I-85/SR 1120 interchange, as - recommended in the FONSI. Due to the proximity of these two inter- changes, collector-distributor roads are to be constructed on both sides of I-85 to enhance safety. The revised improvements at these two interchanges will require the acquisition of approximately ten acres of right of way in addition to that addressed in the FONSI . The results of capacity analyses comparing the new and old designs are presented in Section II .B. of this report. The diamond interchange now proposed at the US 70 Connector was presented by the Division of Highways at a public meeting held in Hillsborough in August of 1987. The current Hillsborough thorough- fare plan, which was adopted by the Division of Highways in October of 1987, shows a fully directional interchange at that junction and an extension of the US 70 Connector to West Ten Road (SR 1144). south of 1-85 as part of the Hillsborough Western Bypass. The proposed I-85 improvements are in conformance with that thoroughfare plan. Town of Hillsborough officials expressed their support for the proposed fully directional interchange at the I-85/US 70 Connector junction at a meeting held with Division of Highways officials in April of 1989. However, Orange County and Town of Hillsborough officials have expressed concern for potential impacts of the project on the proposed Sevenmile Creek reservoir. The reservoir is to be constructed on the south side of I-85 in the vicinity of the two interchanges. As discussed in Section III .G. of this report, measures will be taken to minimize degradation of raw water supplies throughout the project, and no major water degradation impacts are anticipated. It is recommended that the two main-line bridges at the SR 1144 grade separation east of the US 70 Connector be removed. To provide• continued access to nearby properties, SR 1144 is to be extended on the north side of 1-85 to link with the US 70 Connector (see Figure 2). C. Proposed Cross Section The proposed seventh and eighth lanes are to be constructed within the 46-foot median proposed in the FONSI. Ten-foot paved breakdown lanes are recommended on the inside of the proposed travel -lanes, and ten-foot paved shoulders are recommended on the outside. A concrete median • barrier will be constructed to separate eastbound and westbound traffic. D. Cost Estimates Updated cost estimates for the projects are shown below. These . costs reflect the proposed revisions described above in Section B. R-4 19 Table 1 Cost Estimates Project No. Richt of Way Construction Total I-303 $12,143,000 $ 96,400,000 $108,543,000 I-304 5,182,000 54,800,000 59,982,000 Totals $17,325,000 $151,200,000 $168,525,000 II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED REVISIONS A. Traffic Volumes Projected traffic volumes alon g Project I-303 for the year 1990 range from 41,900 vehicles per day (vpd) east of Burlington to 50,700 vpd west of Burlington. Projected traffic volumes for the year 2010 range from 47,900 vpd near Greensboro to 100,100 vpd west of Burlington. The 2010 projections are based upon the I-85 Greensboro bypass (TIP Project No. 1-2402) being completed and in operation. As noted in Section I.B.1. of this report, Project I-2402 is scheduled to be let to contract in Fiscal Year 1996. Projected traffic volumes along Project I-304 range from 34,900 vpd. east of Efland to 41,900 vpd east of Burlington. Projected traffic volumes for the year 2010 at the above locations are 71,500 vpd and 84,100 vpd, respectively. - B. Capacity Analyses 1. Six-Lane Versus Eight-Lane Widening Capacity analyses were performed to compare the level-of- service at which I-85 would operate assuming both six-lane and eight-lane widening. Six-lane widening was recommended in the FONSI for Projects 1-303 and 304; however, eight-lane widening is now proposed. The results of these analyses for the years 1990 and 2010 are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Levels-of-Service 1990 - 2010 • Project 6 lanes 8 lanes 6 lanes 8 lanes 1-303 D-E C . D-F D-F I-304 C-D B-C F F • R-5 20 Table 2 shows that eight lanes will provide a more acceptable level-of-service during the early stages of the planning period. Although not reflected in Table 2, eight lanes will also provide level-of-service D and E operating conditions rather than level- of-service F operating conditions along more of the project during the later stages of the planning period. For these reasons, eight-lane rather than six-lane widening is recommended. 2. Widening West of the I-85/US 29 Interchange The FONSI calls for six-lane widening beginning just east of the I-85/US 29 interchange in Greensboro. It is now recommended that a third, eastbound lane be added to I-85 for a distance of approxi- mately 0.4 mile from US 421 to US 29. Currently I-85 narrows from three to two lanes in the eastbound direction just west of the I-85/US 421 interchange. Capacity analyses were performed to compare the levels-of- service at which I-85 would operate assuming both two and three eastbound lanes between US 421 and US 29. In the year 1990, two eastbound lanes would operate at level-of-service F, while three lanes. would operate at level-of-service D. In the year 2010, either two or three eastbound lanes would operate at level-of-service F, although three lanes would provide a lower volume/capacity ratio (1.03 versus 1.54) . The proposed three-lane widening will also provide a minimum of six lanes along I-85 throughout Greensboro. For these reasons, it is recommended that constructing a third eastbound lane between US 421 and US 29 be included in the project. 3. I-85/US 70 Connector and I-85/SR 1120 Interchanges The FONSI calls for eliminating the flyover at the I-85/US 70 Connector junction and realigning the US 70 Connector to tie into SR 1120 just north of 1-85. It is now recommended that diamond interchanges be provided at both the I-85/US 70 Connector and I-85/SR 1120 junctions (See Figure 2) . Collector-distributor roads . are to be constructed between the two interchanges due to their proximity (0.6 mile). Capacity analyses were performed to compare operational characteristics of the former and current designs. These analyses are based on the assumption that the SR 1120/US 70 Connector inter- section under the old design and all ramp terminals under both designs would be signalized. Under the old design, the SR 1120/US 70 Connector intersection would operate at level-of-service B in 1990 and at level-of-service C in 2010. The 2010 analysis is based on dual right-turn lanes for northbound SR 1120 vehicles and dual left-turn lanes for westbound US 70 Connector vehicles. The north ramp terminal of the I-85/ SR 1120 interchange would operate at level-of-service B in the year 1990 and at level-of-service D in the year 2010. The 2010 analysis is based on dual turn lanes for four of the six movements at the intersection. • R-6 • 21. Under the new design, traffic demand at the I-85/SR 1120 interchange is expected to be lower due to the proposed I-85/US 70 Connector interchange. The southern I-85/SR 1120 interchange ramp terminal is expected to operate at level-of-service B in both 1990 and 2010 without dual turn lanes for any movement. The northern ramp terminal , which is expected to have lower traffic volumes than the southern terminal , will operate at an equal or higher level- of-service. Therefore, the I-85/SR 1120 interchange is expected to operate at a higher level-of-service under the new design. In addition, potential operational problems related to the proximity of the northern I-85/SR 1120 interchange ramp terminal and the SR 1120/US 70 Connector intersection will be avoided under the new design. As noted above, collector-distributor roads are recommended on both sides of 1-85 between the two interchanges to accommodate weaving traffic. Both collector-distibutors are expected to operate at level-of-service B in 1990 and at level-of-service D in 2010. Mainline (nonweaving) I-85 traffic between the interchanges is expected to operate at levels-of-service B and F in 1990 and 2010, respectively. An alternative treatment of the weaving area is to construct a fifth auxiliary lane between the two interchanges. Although this alternative would be less expensive than the proposed treatment, it would result in poorer operating conditions. For the year 1990, this design would operate at level-of-service E for weaving traffic and at level-of-service C for nonweaving traffic. For the year 2010, it would operate at level-of-service F for both weaving and nonweaving traffic. Therefore, to provide more de- sirable operating conditions for both weaving and nonweaving traf- fic, collector-distributor roads are recommended. III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Right of Way and Relocatees The FONSI calls for acquiring sufficient right of way for a six-lane freeway with a 46-foot median. That report states that the project is to be constructed primarily within the existing right of way and that for the most part, additional right of way will be required only at inter changes and grade separations due to the need for bridge relocations, • ramp and Y-line reconstruction, and removal of ramp-service road connec- tions. It is stated in the FONSI that only small amounts of additional right of way will be acquired between interchanges to accommodate the proposed six-lane widening. The FONSI indicates approximately twelve ' residences and nine businesses will be relocated as a result of Projects • 1-303 and I-304. The 46-foot median proposed in the FONSI is sufficient to contain an additional travel lane and a 10-foot breakdown lane in each direction. Therefore, the proposed eight-lane widening now recommended will not require additional right of way beyond that proposed in the FONSI , and no R-7 22 additional relocatees will result. In addition, the proposed third eastbound lane between the I-85/US 421 and I-85/US 29 interchanges in Greensboro will not require additional right of way. Although the recom- mended revisions in the vicinity of the I-85/US 70 Connector interchange near Efland will require approximately ten acres of additional right of way, no relocations are anticipated for those revisions. B. Hydraulics As noted above, the proposed seventh and eighth lanes are to be constructed within the 46-foot median proposed in the FONSI . Therefore, constructing these additional lanes will not require further extension of drainage culverts and bridges beyond that required for the six-lane widening recommended in the FONSI. Existing culverts and bridges will be extended or replaced, as needed, to accommodate the proposed third eastbound lane near the west project terminal and the proposed diamond interchange at the I-85/US 70 Connector junction. C. Floodplain/Floodway Impacts As stated in the EA, no adverse impacts on floodplain areas are expected to result from the project. D. Special Permits Reouired It is anticipated proposed construction in the vicinity of all stream crossings along the project can be performed under the Department . of the Army Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) (for Minor Road Crossing Fills) and 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26) (for construction Above Headwaters) . An individual Section 404 Permit will not be required. E. Traffic Noise It is anticipated the widening of I-85 to eight rather than six lanes will result in an average increase in traffic noise levels of 0.4 dBA per receptor. This increase is relatively small due to the spreading out of traffic that will occur as result of the construction of addi- tional travel lanes. Studies are currently underway to determine at what locations noise abatement measures are warranted along the project. F. Air Ouality The predicted one-hour carbon monoxide concentration along the project for the year 2010 is 7.8 parts per million for urban/suburban ' areas and 8.8 parts per million for rural areas. These predictions are based upon one-hour background carbon monoxide concentrations of 2.4 parts per million in urban/suburban areas and 1.9 parts per million in rural areas. These predicted carbon monoxide concentrations do not exceed the one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard of 35 parts per million. R-8 23 G. Water Quality Streams within the project limits lie within the Cape Fear River and Neuse River drainage basins. Streams that are crossed by the project or that have perennial or intermittent tributaries that are crossed are listed below. NRCD-DEM water quality classifications (1989) are also shown. Streams listed twice indicate that crossings occur at segments with different water quality classifications. Sevenmile Creek WS III NSW Haw Creek Class C Back Creek Class C NSW Haw River Class C NSW Bowden Branch Class C NSW Alamance Creek Class C NSW Gum Creek Class C NSW Back Creek WS III NSW Little Alamance Creek WS III NSW Rock Creek WS III NSW South Buffalo Creek Class C NSW Mile Run Creek Class C NSW • Class WS III indicates a water supply segment with no categorical restrictions on watershed development or discharges; these streams are suitable for all Class C uses. Class C waters are suitable for• fish and wildlife propagation, secondary recreation, and other uses requiring waters of low quality. The NSW classification indicates nutrient sensi- tive waters requiring limitations on nutrient input. Most of these streams support moderate populations of sunfish, crappie, catfish, suckers, and pickerel . Some streams, such as South Buffalo Creek, are of minimal fishing significance because of severe pollution (Fish, 1968) . Sewer lines are located along several of the larger streams. The North Carolina Department of Transportation will require the contractor to follow erosion and sedimentation control measures during construction. These measures will include the use of berms, dikes, dams, and silt basins, as needed. The erosion and sedimentation control measures will be monitored during construction for proper maintenance. In addition, areas graded during construction will be seeded and mulched as soon as possible to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Orange County and Town of Hillsborough officials have expressed concern for potential impacts of the project on the proposed Sevenmile Creek reservoir, which is to be constructed following completion of the subject I-85 improvements. The reservoir is to be constructed on the south side of I-85 in the vicinity of the I-85/SR 1120 and I-85/US 70 Connector interchanges in Orange County. The reservoir is to be used as a raw water source for the Town of Hillsborough and surrounding areas. I-85 crosses Sevenmile Creek approximately 0.4 mile downstream of the proposed dam; therefore, the project will not cross the reservoir. I-85 does cross minor tributaries that will empty into the reservoir. R-9 24 Potential impacts on the reservoir related to the proposed project are: (1) the runoff of highway pollutants into the reservoir and (2) the potential of hazardous materials reaching the reservoir from accidental highway spills. These impacts will be minimized through the filtering of roadway drainage pollutants by grassed shoulders, ditches, and slopes and other vegetated areas. The Division of Highways will investigate in- stalling guardrail to prevent errant vehicles from entering tributaries to the reservoir. No major water degradation impacts are expected to result from the project. Orange County, in conjunction with the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management, has established an emergency response plan to contain and clean up hazardous material spills. That plan will further minimize potential contamination of the reservoir as a result of hazardous material spills. H. Wetlands At several locations along the project, deposition of fill to accommodate earlier highway construction, in combination with natural . topography, has resulted in the expansion of narrow floodplain wetlands to slightly broader seasonally saturated seepage wetlands. The more extensive wetland areas are associated with Back Creek and the Haw River. These areas are characterized by a canopy of green ash (Fraxinus oenn- sylvanica) , sweet gum (Licuidambar stvraciflua) , boxelder (dicer ne- °undo) , American elm•(U mus americana) , sycamore (Platanusdgn- taiis , and walnut (Jug' 7F-77—Typical understory species include je elweed (Impatiens capensis , poison ivy (Rhus radicans) , and spicebush (Lindera benzoin . Steep drainageways are characterized by well-drained soils. Broader floodplains and depressions are characterized by nearly level , poorly drained silt and sandy loams of the Wehadkee and Worsham series and by Chewacla loams that may contain hydric inclusions. Soils of the Wahadkee and Worsham series are classified as hydric by the USDA-SCS. Approximately 0.93 acre of the above wetlands will be filled as a result of the project. That figure includes approximately 5600 linear feet of stream channels that closely parallel the existing I-85 roadway fill . I . Wetland Findings Executive Order 11990 established a national policy to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts on wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. The project will impact approximately 0.93 acre of bottomland forest. Impacts on wetlands will be minimized by the use of best management practices throughout the project during construction. In addition, the contractor will be required to follow the provisions of the R-10 25• Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan established by the Division of Highways and the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. It has been determined there is no practicable alternative to the proposed new construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use. J. Stream Modification Approximately 5600 linear feet of stream channels that parallel the existing I-85 roadway fill will be piped or rechanneled as part of the project. In many cases these streams link with previously rechanneled or piped water courses in highly developed areas. This rechannelization will be coordinated with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and appro- priate state agencies in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordi- nation Act (16 U.S.C. 662a) . K. Section 106 Properties 1. Historic/Architectural Resources Two historic houses were identified in the EA: (1) the Klotz House, located on the north side of 1-85 off SR 3060 in Guilford County and (2) the Alexander Dickson House, located in the southwest quadrant of the I-85/NC 86 interchange in Orange County. The EA indicates the project will have "no effect" on either property. The only change in the project in the vicinity of the Klotz House is the proposed eight-laning of I-85. As noted earlier, this widening will not require additional right of way. Since the FONSI was completed the Alexander Dickson House has been moved from the above location near I-85 to the historic dis- trict of Hillsborough. The structure is presently being restored and serves a visitors ' center for tours of the historic district. Further consultation has been undertaken with the State His- toric Preservation Officer. The SHPO has concurred that there are no buildings , structures, objects, districts, or sites of historic architectural significance eligible for the National Register located within the area of potential effect of Projects I-303 and 1-304. Correspondence from the SHPO regarding historic archi- tectural resources is included in the Appendix (see page RA-1) . 2. Archaeological Resources The FONSI indicates an archaeological survey of the project area was conducted at the request of the SHPO. As a result of the study, it was found that no important archaeological resources exist within the area of potential environmental impact of Projects 1-303, 1-304, and I-305. R-11 26 The Division of Highways has performed further investigation of archaeological resources due the changes in the project recommended in this report. No important archaeological resources were identi- fied in the vicinity of Projects I-303 and I-304. The SHPO concurs that no additional archaeological survey is required for these projects. Correspondence from the SHPO regarding archaeological resources is included in the, Appendix (see. page RA-2). L. Section 4(f) Properties The recommended improvements proposed under Projects I-303 and I-304 will not involve any parks, recreation areas, or wildlife or waterfowl refuges. In addition, no structures or sites of historic architectural significance and no important archaeological sites are located within the limits of those projects. Therefore,, there will be no impact upon Section 4(f) properties. M. Farmland The project has been coordinated with the office of the State Conservationist of the Soil Conservation Service. The improvements proposed in the FONSI were authorized prior to passage of the Farmland Protection Policy Act. The principal change in the project since the FONSI was approved is the proposed diamond interchange at the I-85/US 70 Connector junction. Collector-distributor roads are to be constructed to link that interchange with the I-85/SR 1120 interchange. Lands taken to accommodate. those changes are not subject to provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act. Furthermore, the area is in a transition stage toward development. The other changes in the project (eight-lane widening from Greensboro to I-40 and construction of a third eastbound lane at the west end of the project) will be performed within existing right of way or within right of way addressed in the FONSI. N. Hazardous Wastes The potential for hazardous waste occurrence along 1-85 between interchanges, where only minor amounts of additional right of way are required, is low. The potential for hazardous waste occurrence is higher at interchanges, where more additional right of way is required and roadside development is heavier. Underground storage tanks have been identified within the proposed right of way at the I-85/NC 119 and I-85/SR 1120 interchanges. Those tanks, and any others located within the proposed right of way, will be emptied and either removed or filled with an inert solid material in accordance with 40 CFR 280.71. Where required under 40 CFR 280.72, assessments will be performed to determine whether a release of the stored substance has occurred. P.-12 27 IV. CONCLUSIONS It is anticipated the proposed revisions to Projects I-303 and I-304 will not result in major adverse impacts on the environment. Approxi- mately ten acres of additional right of way will be required (in the vicinity of the proposed I-85/US 70 Connector interchange) , no additional relocations will result, and 0.93 acre of wetlands will be impacted. No impacts on historic/architectural or archaeological resources are antici- pated. Furthermore, the proposed improvements will enhance safety and increase capacity along the project. JWS/plr • • • • ,. . , 28 ,. p ::i .. 0 " • • '' V ck, '4 , i " V ••" „4.. • .L..tilo-'44.- - ' .." 4.1 -7--, „ ..,!..' •,:. -. ,., --r:----.-71' -1 • • v •••4f,* 6 -.1 1 -Sib-1-. A '1.1.• (4. . 7•7 - '''' ' 4- !I- T' :-Z.Ni 4 1 " • • ; •1t, !..- -)1: 1 :- 7!:7•%.-1 Aall! ! e'• . 4 113 - . i I ;14' i• •■ 11 ' r. . .. I - - ' n."'. - I iiiiiiiimmiiii • . • 4, ;I... : / ,- ' -, ,,,_,...• 2.1411 =VW " • 'If ' i .•,7 ' -, -... %.1 - ...-..! . ,' J\ S " - Ne. r,,,,Aow rio,)"•.. •-..1--c_ et •.-. 1.: .'..z it•; .(--;\••• ib, c' e' - t _; if.. IA). , ,. .,„1".. .......„. - - i 1 t •-, . •‘' ‘• I • .!„,./.! •--- ,, E .' „. 1 -=-1---rt?........4:),./ _. • -f . . -.45 i' • arose -A, ) s ,, - Z' a_ _i .. it ,-+ ,% . ,-- - ,,: . .1 ., t.:. •3 ..s '% ri %•••••7 ' - , - • =- ...i." • ■•: ., c•. I, 5'd ' ',... 1 ' '' -QV;--I-.) • - . 7.., ' 1 . '"li;4. i . E*Qv-, qpri •-• I .'? AiNnoo 3NtIWIlld .gq, , • -19.........? .1 , , . ,1_ --0;i_ ,.,. 6., t - - AiNnoo atioJiino :III ,,i ',-/.:.,:- • ''. t ' r.--Ai' ..2 !••'' 1,' :.t _•." ,,,,Iti;-1 :', '''3-',-tr-•-, I 11 m c,, i '..,, i .t L.• ''',,,-,1441'• -.::: .,. / . .• ---t 7 4'e- ,, ''')• -: --; ft i 1 '.,I 1:$1 t h■- I / ••: '''' 11 F -1 i 't :i . As ,-- --,,,, ,- t - _ 4'4.,'7 ••%•••f'-''''. . 1•1 ' - ..-/ 7.. -■-•j. *?, % - = .:•.., . . -' ---,, .2 i.a?g.. .!,• r-"lz,t_ ,.....,,. 1.6.,,,.... ::, .•„...s.,. . :0..42 :., ...N •.,,k...c.).:2 c i : C- . _......' 6 •-. • .-; LI g --i -, 1'' •••=,;,, .s- •i - •t-71-1.1114?..`,P.--7-T.7.-7---•-jfes...' • ir\‘-.... ' ..-6 \'-y-: ;76. - ._ .•• '-± ; A .4 V. ^ : .'I .1 i r '.;,-').'-': ' 7,› - -=: .1-'"a; 1 " - -, ' ''''.\es-:-. ,18- i , ' 7 ..- 7 fl- ; - i c•••____.!------d-t .I L .. ,Q.- •t-Y ' - . ' , ._e' .. ',:,,,-, i ., - .„,..-- - m 1 ,.., .- i .- - .. .: g,,, 1.• y...) ,: -/-•-• a 7 . ,g.:1,-42-4-t' /1 e... ; • ..• 2,- •6 -1 ',11,, _-gliF.!-.: • ..,..„ , ..., • • . _,,. . _ ..,.. i-,-, , .. '_ 4.. • ..•_. t -.. .1-:ge,'--i .i,7'.,„i :7, : k,•N 2....g I"• 1 '. •-..g /Wig .' ,,n,,,, ,i IA" :-.41.1' :--,:_ •••.. _• 1.'11- t .:,_: •,,r:4fAt •C__,_". ...'". k I 441,,‘7', 74" I" • ---'', 1•2--It - ...:6•!,-2...• ,., - , = i..• f.i.V.` 7.' -,4-,7•11 '.'''Il .• i'•-.:-.` - -i i • ! -4;Aff-:2----..•••.? ' g' 1 .,.56••,4 ....:1_%:..v,.; • F:4 . = ,2. i i:2 -,.:1*.-.,,-4-3 , , !.i .:6 7, i sly- :,... r... • • -. -: .•:' • .•• 1„ ••, c... how? 4• ...:t.:1,i i,7-7 ITt'•• 14,1 • ,.1-. /- --41•-- - 7---.1- "' ! "••• ' -.1" 1 i -: -Rua- -4.,-;.-__..._""- 'I''',..:j. ,.'.. .. ,, 5; ""• • N.... - --• •=. •• I •.7.7.--'77=S- - 1.7? ! ..rt-.." - -•••1.•- ..1.. :. i 2.'"Inr';'i . ,:'-...-i r...4-,44; :7!.,1" :. -..--:. ;•-.._. a '.174, '. , 0,,f, i -.■-•-•-‘6,, :, .. + . rill•, i '''''T I•474-Z■...1 .L• :V 4..- I.I g .1 i .,LIA ....j.o.,Z ."' • .-,-, C-.1 -.. . .-.z. ii L." 9...4t 0',,s-'_ , ? --.. I ri it . • c'erJ .!,--.-!: r- 4-4,-. . . . it ... ,,„. ,. .." g_. 1i 1..,...., -. k' •-_ itrY,' . i 2 =.• 7- ,II7-• ' 4.) %•:,,,r'' 74-:::: I' 1•. : ' 11 S /Is '''' :). z- -'!'' °-•; 3 71 ' g • •• -''-6.; •... llit•- • • T7 1. "- • ' , ••••• " .-•: '-. '• 1.0 AA ' r, 17-. g.- r•••,-• -4'. • 1" ''.. s•sz--11k i ;',42- Er)...tE.F• -I. ,t.l L.i "1 -.rt.: 'lir -€1 1,1-•I = -'...' i -. e", • ., .; ,i ,„a ., f \......, ---. I 1 .i: ■-''''' ' 1 I •• ,..,/,' U • .1..E •-••!-.......• 6... 1 ij 2; ' Al 4 "IT--..,ID,;: , k.„.,:■. 1 ......04riol. - , , ..,. .,... t $ ,1-..._-- - ,E..,ii). ,.I.:} I fr. .:' \ ; L'.3-k I, Jr'. . , . 41.111411114r---, -z.,,, _. 1- . -- 3 ',,,,,,. ,.-4 i„ • 1 " .. ..":' " ..-•-..,A ,.. • , ::5 _ -••••.V..)t;- , ..... \ - ...../ , , >',,...tl ..: k • 4:7 J6• - • -\ I . g,..,,,,:l.r..„r..- kit, '•-•-:\..-...." -rtl'\ ' \ " ./ ', -Si : - 11171-,i' .0 .... ..../-• I == A• ''' .4.- r I ca 0 141 - '-- .,..,..,%, '''‘-‘,` ' ' • - /I s .-= . , , , --11 "'"--,7=-.eg \ -IT- 7 - 1•'-',• iy- I V, ,!=7.,:: , Ve -I 4e•-•" •:'''.i. 8 It / i ..,:" , 0'4 .,,,.. - - . rk,147•••■•'.._.1....- :71 tif 41 ' . /7' . .. . 1. . Is ..,_ . _1_ 1 77: s .41.-4.;.- -'' ' - ,i.-...tA, ...• .,-----,,_ ., .... 4---1 "-pl.," -1,-. c'' , -,..i..„0,,.4 ...,,----, 5\ • - \,.1,---,eiu-- ',1 .Jr- ,.i-.5, 1. . I . - .,,,- , . 1 ru___,.<r::_......--.7--,,,. ,-. 4--- ..., r•- -4.L.1..'F . i ic.4, d ,/,‘ - ... ..\ g..: r, ., ,-=-• - ' : i_ '''''''-...? 1 I...•% 71 ,s. - ••Eir-7*,, i:;.5 ••2 i T".. •-• ' ., '''*.......'" .--7 s- .t7,1-...r...,7, . d VI. :$ \f"'Pel'■ 1 t til ) .1 ,-, ;: I '-': 14'•• .---- . r t r:„.,:•;..,,_, '.; '.. ./e"' •4,' /-I 1 , .11, S'A.--.7...r7---' _-.. -7:----. li .i.:Y•m" - • ' . . ."-''.\ - dr: . .-•-•••• ..4., . 4 - , ...... . 11z.21.00.,.; .... •r ..I 1 • • o i..., .•,. =„. . ... i ' 11. • '-r ..,i - • ---• ..-.-..., -' -' • i .'r..., - d4 .._,, _.... ..4 p. p., . .., , , i,„...., .... ,.. i ''''i ••••• O I x ii• ... 4 z z , r--E . - - 1 B- R4Igilr- .., A -:P14:''.. L7,,■••••1 6, 40116IV 111 ri..17. W.'0". • . - m• - 2 i 4 i r-...1••••.'61r. = I I . i-:,-r-7 .. -•,a ea 0 1 !z Zio tie. • '1110111 ' I t:, .E.*.:= ••I I u, ... 1 I ' e 4 1.••!E •-•= I = .- 1 I Eire= Ot•:0 i C.0 6:.-. •■ E I li 1 v.) '''E 2-z --E•, 111 i-1=47-- ta,.1.1.. ,., _.....„„ , . . irer,,41 11 z Z . 1 1714,0 I; I z 0 1 = 1. wd 0 CC 0 •,1111, Cy:\i = i •1 . 2 ;EI . 41171, r•i'mr 0 I -..‘' __)-.:., '- ,7---4 ,.,,-. 2, ..... ... 4,3 ■ '6,-,-- --41-4 ( H I •g 1 CC CD . Vail I... k • ,, -L•••• -- •XI i.1'4X '',.."...rN7 .. . I 11.>"5-f N.- •1".■ -: r r "'vik. [----r- o - -I a =� Y t r 1 ji/.` r Ai lrl I a%i� -—t:::1. '-...‘' ''j. 4:11,iNnn.0°:31::::i . .-- 7.-1 '':-. - ' :I-..'3 1 :'. 111:72111:1: 1: N.419?):4-i:7*Ilf"'.:S-'.....:\..A:71--::"1....4-1:...1-11211., 1- t -i.e.-A - - i77 a� \: _ 1 e• •.ate - ,. : .,7. ,3.,,.,. "Irzs'.E:i 14 ; :dal ./.... • 3 71 J'...;-'1, L ; ..:- i 1 • 'Y 7 --101' t I. i.---c? Li.: .-.- , / . ,,C(:)( .:-. ,.'\' ti .,,L.,i, q lam �!, ,.r _ 1 ' c -,.ti„( •1 7'' S 'a I •` % - 1 �_ _ • 1,Y_ .. � c'O - _ . a• •\ :iii - • . - . ' ' i o I /__ i �_.rte �•^. 1 9 - •?�,/ c r5 t I ! zi - J�Cl6" _) r I r �J - 1111 — • _ - .E — ! " t :. -(71; .: 1 • --' 8 I ' rt i i I, ! i. _ „lir__s s t $•• -.. a . ....\. -i , .., :iii Ili ! Allft',_ ,i ,,I 44067,,, :A.1MOD 39NYt0 { , A1Nn03 33NYlalY I. - ] - ' `' •1_ s - o W s 1T�, •". •wr \'\ 1 a ;• ,a L 00-11• a 4 .Niiii, . ; a 1.-t F. . ' - e: -- A. i\, ..a • ' -. i -. .1 • 2 •-- , d3...5i.) 'i,t 3.41JA , V.,.... .,_.‘„11...,ARV.."- '"2•'• / IC• ', ,r • Ili '.n5• . -- i_ : \s ` : = l 1 1•_- _+ „ E_ ,� 1 'A `a Li ( F!-1 �. A ,,r� ..1 � —L ..1;1----- _c. O. �` r ;\\E a I ,i,,-i!. .. , 1 _ . Ez\:, . 40,,..._.. IN .: 'WI ., ,'alit '''''!'..``:& iiicp;..;-- -1- - - ,A$ Et '-. ,d, bci b.,/ , -__ . . , . r s-s: --i- '4 i .,++'" - 1{{{za111111 30 APPENDIX • •awt4 - mil• y�.� w PvC'e North Carolina Department of Cultural Resou yes James G.Martin,Governor Division df'Archives'arid.I4istory Parric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price;Jr.,Director August 9, 1989 • MEMORANDUM TO: J. M. Greenhill, Manager Planning and Research Branch Division of Highways Department of Transportation FROM: David Brook, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer SUBJECT: 1-85 from Greensboro to Orange-Durham County line, Guilford, Alamance, and Orange Counties, TIP 1-303, 304, 305, GS 90-0006 Thank you for your letter of August 1, 1989, concerning the above project. We have reviewed the changes to the proposed improvements on 1-85 since the 1984 FONSI. During a meeting between the North Carolina Department of Transportation historian and our environmental review coordinator, it was determined that the proposed changes will have no effect on any historic architectural resources in the area of potential effect of this project. By copy of this letter, we are notifying the Federal Highway Administration of this finding. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions ' concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. • DB:slw • cc: Kenneth Bellamy, Federal Highway Administration B. Church 109 EastJoncs Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 • PA-1 r � 32 North Carolina Department of Cultural,Resources James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price,Jr., Director August 24, 1989 �� n 1g1 g MEMORANDUM TO: J. M. Greenhill, Manager . Planning and Research Branch Division of Highways Department of Transportation - • PROM: David Brook, Deputy State / l ,, '.. . .F`• .; r'�) i.--.:�y Historic Preservation Officer `'" SUBJECT: Section. 106 Consultation, 1-85 Greensboro to Hillsborough, Guilford, Alamance and Orange Counties, TIP No. 1-303, 304, 305, ER 90-7107 - Thank you for your letter of July 24, 1989, concerning the above project. As noted in your letter, after consultation with Thomas Padgett of your staff it was determined that no additional archaeological investigation was warranted for the above project. It is our opinion that the project as currently proposed will have no effect upon significant archaeological resources. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions. concerning the above comments, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. DB:slw cc: Kenneth Bellamy . T. Padgett 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 17611 RA-2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 33 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA 17278 MEMORANDUM TO: JOHN LINK, County Manager FROM: GENE BELL, Planner III G,ff DATE: DECEMBER 18, 1989 RE: BEN JOHNSON ROAD/I-85 CORRIDOR CONCERNS In a recent meeting, the Transportation Advisory Subcommittee (TAS) expressed concerns over the impending closing of West Ten Road where it underpasses Interstate 85 and intersects with Ben Johnson Road. As you may remember, this roadway is scheduled to be barricaded and closed as part of the "Efland Interchange Project" currently being finalized by N.C. DOT. Currently, West Ten Road to its intersection with Ben Johnson Road serves as a north-south connector route under I-85 for cars, pedestrians and cyclists. As such, the TAS has asked that the feasibility of providing a culverted tunnel or similar structure be considered. It is the opinion of the TAS that this section of West Ten Road is one of the few remaining passageways across 1-85 linking the Hillsborough area to points south for non-motorized vehicles. The Department of Transportation will shortly be asking for County comments on the Efland interchange project. The TAS would like to ask that the feasibility of tunnel or culvert - as opposed to closing off the road altogether - receive due consideration. I will be coordinating comments along these lines with Paul Thames as the Environmental Impact Statement comments are packaged for return to DOT. Please contact me if you have questions or concerns . • cc: Paul Thames, County Engineer Marvin Collins, Planning Director Chris Best, Chairman - TAS DK8:WESTBEN.DOC 34 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Gene Bell , Planner III FROM: Paul Thames, County Engineer DATE: January 3, 1990 SUBJECT: Updated Environmental Impact Assessment for widening I-85 at Ef l and As per your request , I am providing a memo based on my review of the above referenced document , which was received in this office as of December 19 , 1989 . The referenced document was generated by the N.C. Department of Transportation as a supplement to the original Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of March 1984 for the widening of I-85 between Greensboro and Durham. The original EIA resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI ) ; the updated EIA has also resulted in a FONSI . In terms of the water quality in Seven Mile Creek, the original and the latest FONSI 's result from several assumptions. The primary assumption is that , because the waters of Seven Mile and the upper Eno basin are classified WS-III ( low quality water supply waters suitable for secondary recreational purposes [fishing, boating, etc. ] ) , little damage or lessening of water quality will result from the construction activities of DOT or from future runoff characteristics of the improved roadway. The secondary assumptions are: 1 ) the Orange County HazMat response team can protect the watershed against highway spills of chemicals; 2) construction phase erosion control measures can adequately protect the watershed against sedimentation during construction; 3 ) the original FONSI anticipated the ultimate development of I-85 as an eight lane roadway with six lanes constructed initially with the remaining two lanes being constructed by widening into the median (the original FONSI was approved by the Federal Highway Administration as required by law, therefore there were no legally significant environmental impacts at the time of the original FONSI and there are no legally significant impacts now) ; 4) grassed shoulders and roadway slopes would catch a majority of surface contaminants that would be carried from the roadway surface by normal rainfall and stormwater runoff events. DOT typically does not consider the environmental impacts of 35 additional development or enhanced development potential along roadways. DOT barely acknowledges that the existence of large areas of paved roadway surface increases the quantity of surface runoff which in turn may increase erosion, flooding and transmission of pollutants; that increased traffic capacity may generate additional traffic which generates increased pollutants resulting from wear on automobile engine, brake and other mechanical parts and from the combustion of hydrocarbon based fuels; or that roadways and roadway expansion may have many other indirect or hidden impacts on the environment . To be fair, however, it must be stated that NCDOT' s primary function is to provide the highest level of service ( fastest and safest flow of traffic) at the least cost for the anticipated or projected traffic volume on any designated route. The rules for environmental protection are formulated and enforced by others and the rules are followed to the letter, if not the spirit , by DOT. DOT has fulfilled its statutory requirements to address potential environmental impacts with the original and the updated FONSI 's. It may be possible to work out some concessions by DOT in regard to watershed protection for the Seven Mile Creek basin, but it may also be necessary to get the watershed classified as a higher quality water supply. As the situation presently exists, it will be difficult to invoke any regulatory requirement for NCDOT to provide any additional environmental study or impact mitigation. PLANNING BOP.RD NHS 1-9-90 26 allow the EDC to complete their Strategic Plan Preliminary Recommendations. Two of the EDC' s subgroups, the Target Advisory Subcommittee and the Infrastructure Subcommittee, are considering issues that will be of primary importance to the County's designated Commercial/Industrial Node in western Orange near Efland. The Public Information Subcommittee is also considering related issues. d. NCDOT Revised Environmental Impact Assessment - 1-85 Widening/Efland Interchange Improvements Presentation by County Engineer, Paul Thames . On October 2, 1989 NCDOT officials presented revised plans for the Efland interchanges to the County Commissioners . Reference was made to an EIA done in 1984, in anticipation of I-85 widening. The Transportation Advisory Subcommittee (TAS) met on October 17 and discussed concerns related to transportation improvements in the Efland area and the need for greater coordination with NCDOT. These concerns were expressed in the October 19 memo to the County Manager. (A copy of that memo an attachment to these minutes on pages . ) This resulted in a meeting of County officials and NCDOT representatives on November 7 . At the meeting, NCDOT officials stated that a revised EIA was being done. County officials requested that a copy of the revised EIA be made available for County comment. The revised EIA was received by the County Manager' s office on December 19, 1989 . As with the 1984 EIA, the revised EIA has resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) . A copy of the memo addressing Thames concerns are an attachment to these minutes on pages The basic conclusion is that NCDOT has met the letter of the law and that short of getting " . . .the watershed classified as a higher quality water supply. . .it will be difficult to invoke any regulatory requirement for NCDOT to provide any additional environmental study or impact mitigation. " Planning Board comments will be incorporated with those of the Administration and submitted to NCDOT as a package. 37 MOTION: Jacobs recommended that the County pursue higher water quality classification for Seven Mile Creek and the Upper Eno Watershed and request that NCDOT install holding ponds and appropriate related mechanisms to control runoff from 1-85 into Seven Mile Creek. Seconded by Yuhasz . VOTE: Unanimous. (Abrams left the meeting at 10 :25 prior to this vote. ) Thames noted that he felt the most effective method would be to go to some Best Management Practices (BMP' s ) . e. City of Mebane 1989 - 2010 Development Plan Presentation by Collins . (A copy of the plan is an attachment to these minutes on pages . ) Collins used maps to review and explain the locations of the proposed areas of the plan. Collins noted understanding for a new thoroughfare that would relieve congestion of the Mebane-Oaks Interchange but suggested that the proposed interchange at Mattress-Factory Road and Third Street is not necessary. Best asked if such a recommendation should be forwarded to Alamance County DOT or the Town of Mebane. Collins responded he felt it should be made to both. He continued that a recommendation could be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners and they could forward it to the Town of Mebane, the Burlington/Alamance County Thoroughfare Planning Group, and the Piedmont Triad Council of Governments . MOTION: Jacobs moved that the Orange County Planning Board has serious concerns regarding an interchange at Mattress-Factory Road particularly since a collector road is being proposed that would address that problem. Seconded by Best. VOTE: Unanimous. f. Population Projections/Utility Service Areas This item to be received as information only. Future meetings will be scheduled with Hillsborough officials and Planning Board as soon as possible. • S - • T ieN •• ` ,$ , �% i ••. ..� 4 • _• Oa% No 4/117-.;% so\ — • • • i/ li H o 4 / // is • I CI) 0 : %4 aft 1 • I `/'• / •I /., i I sr • / / Ni. • • r•,: 1 ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 5, 1990 Action Agenda Item # X--F SUBJECT: B. E. BRADSHER, JR. - PARTIAL WIDTH RIGHT-OF-WAY DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Extension 348 Subdivision Plan Map of Property Tax Map TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Draft 2/19/90 Planning Board Hillsborough - 732-8181 Minutes Durham -- 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider a request by B.E. Bradsher, Jr. for a reduction in right-of-way from 50 feet to 25 feet. BACKGROUND: The proposed minor subdivision is located on the south side of Gibbs Lane (SR 1564) off Palmers Grove Road (SR 1562) . The applicant is requesting to divide a 4.41 acre lot. The lot frontage on Gibbs Lane is 353 feet and the property is zoned R-1 . A Class C private road about 400 ' in length is proposed along the western boundary of the property. Both lots would be served by wells and septic tanks. An existing house is located on the southern portion of the property. Reduction of the right-of-way from 50 feet to 25 feet is needed to exclude a line of existing trees from the private road right-of-way. An existing drive extends along the property line between Mr. Bradsher's property and the property to the west owned by Fred Albert. Mr. Albert has indicated that when he is ready to divide his property he will provide the additional 25 feet required to meet the 50 foot right- of-way requirement. This right-of-way would then extend to the southern property line of Mr. Bradsher's and Mr. Albert's property. The Planning Board recommended approval of the partial width right-of-way in their February 19, 1990 meeting. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval as per the Planning Board recommendation. 2 - --L---.:---.-- 0 44 „lc..• ,.. . ... . 7 1 . . _„..... . . -.. ._, .. ..- ... ...--. . . ...• , ....- , •-. . . . . .. ...._.„ — : › . - . ,.. . . ..., . . . . ... ., .... . . . . . .__. .... ,..,•,..0, .„.. • , ---,. . • , - .',r ‘ ,) . ‘.• ',:. . - "I'N‘k - '., ■ ! -, •,,...\, • ---...N's..N..... •__.__. ... Lprie• . ...-..; \n. _ 1 ;.-i■ "-- .... . \ ..... ...., , . '-''t --"› - . -- - --- •'; ,-4 s \-f...... . r -.. -"k4 ("1 fa N - -- --"-e2----#.•r- /. . _11 "■!.. • . 4-- ir•• . -......_1 I ,21\r% \ `•••,..,.....) - - . b 1 - \\\ . .....,7 „I i ,....,..,. e, Cen 0 w E .. _ . \ ' •••.„,1 .p, ) i _c..)..■ , ? r--- ga - . •-g_.' IL ' c'l -- 1‘.N.VN _, .1.1r va.....".. E. rj.t .......>_..t 1,./-7,1t ,c. ..:I .,•T -----••--- ',its 6 N. gj 1 R.........:. e''-- .._ 'I Y -. ‘4.'lk . ! b ,. , G _ , t .... ._._. _ , .... .,_...„ ,., ...., ..... fi.... - - \ . z-- C • . \ ....,„ D ....... . .. . _ --...,_ it., t... . -41z -3> 7.-. 7.4. (‘-e., -Ir.-. c•Z4/ -7---I° -.. --, k--- . , ...:1. • -...,7• —...... ....1 .. . c,....N.\ ±,:...., ■.." \\ . ... . ' • . 1__ . •.:• ■IIMI■ i - \,d5 3 �1W ., 14 ---- ' --- ti p4- , _' - -3 5-3 rs 4./il vi,,,,„.•. Gi0-( N rd cl, kJ „I ; ; . � . r t,I • -k Q • 4-t. kJ ..-4 1 , 1 iii ■.4 a °' r1 P I , ...c\''( • in D ' t '1 v1-I . `q , I . I rfrrt c c. 2 ix-/c c../c._ • 0 0 O g OMITTED- 28,25A,33,42,61,2A,55,15,53,2, 49 co I I` . 9A,59 at IwW W 11 •moo �rarrrwsE r r \1 ' 3� 16A I_ —— .. --4750 r • \\ 2.51 tAC. 1 a 5.99 1 1 ►-..- 0 • A 3 1 AC•15 �. 17 oats ' 3 AC. 3455 L 1 :� I 10.56 AC. 123 4C. 5A 1 / 5.03 AC 9281 Poo�2O Ig C-7-1) 1 3.39 ±AC•X120 16 I A• 2 G , 0.e2o 0 6.1 AC. _ -� gZ 4956 ZT78 000 �f j 4.74AG \ �--- - 0 0 L. fTI , - P.o;z ••• 1••' i 1,6 228 C If T� �� 1 B CAL.1 • =I 0 e . . hl ° Vili+ :3.2 9. •.41 AC 3.5 AC. 434 A • ,AG �, - " -.5488 24 5 �^ „II. - 4452 3.54 \ 0' a43 AG. 2.523 444. 5 71- C• ,,�,. 334 , p r , ?CJ 0703 2.06 AC: al IA - r�// _L) 0 \ - • ` 23 9801 )0747 N` 16.75 AC. 11406 n• ; AC.CAL. .950.1 II N 380 cow - r 0 , 2511 3.• 8 w 6125 Op069!° I1:. 8 I I 60 '0080 8-,`. 29 0 37 AC.13 222 7 ' f • 1 8 • .CAL.ist -791 _ a, 31 0)'. CI) 1B � � If 5 Q VOTE: 2 in favor (Jacobs & Best - planning for future development) . 8 opposed. MOTION: Eidenier moved approval of the Resolution for Southern Winds Subdivision with the deletion of 84 and Eta which address the easement between lots 5A and 5B. Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: 8 in favor. 2 opposed (Best & Jacobs - reason stated in previous motion) . c. Partial Width Right-of-Way (1) Bennie Bradsher Presentation by Eddie Kirk. The proposed minor subdivision is located on the south side of Gibbs Lane (SR 1564) off Palmers Grove Road (SR 1562) . The applicant is requesting to divide a 4.41 acre lot. The lot frontage on Gibbs Lane is 353 feet and the property is zoned R-1. A Class C private road about 400' in length is proposed along the western boundary of the property. Both lots would be served by wells and septic tanks. An existing house is located on the southern portion of the property. Reduction of the right-of-way from 50 feet to 25 feet is needed to exclude a line of existing trees from the private road right-of-way. An existing drive extends along the property line between Mr. Bradsher's property and the property to the west owned by Fred Albert. Mr. Albert has indicated that when he is ready to divide his property he will provide the additional 25 feet required to meet the 50 foot right-of-way requirement. This right-of-way would then extend to the southern property line of Mr. Bradsher' s and Mr. Albert's property. Planning Staff recommends approval of a partial width right-of-way of 25 feet for the B.E. Bradsher, Jr. property. Best expressed the concern that if Mr. Albert is willing to provide the additional 25 feet at a later time, why can't it be done now and avoid the need for a partial width right-of-way. Mr. Bradsher responded that there was a family ° s � � 6•11) A1 [ problem at issue with Mr. Albert and another relative and he felt he should not be penalized because of that family issue. The partial width right-of-way would only serve the Bradsher property. Mary Scearbo stated that Mr. Albert would not provide the additional 25' needed unless Mr. Bradsher would provide a 25' right-of-way all the way to the back of the property for Mr. Albert' s family member. She continued that the Planning Staff has been working with those involved and this was the solution that would satisfy all parties, yet leave an opening for a future completion of the right-of-way. Yuhasz expressed concern with the county approving a partial width right-of-way to maintain one owner's control over anothers • property. He felt that the 50' right-of-way could be obtained on the property in question and there were no physical constraints to that. Mr. Bradsher responded that if he should build a house on the front lot, a 50' right-of-way would require the removal of shade trees. MOTION: Yuhasz moved to recommend denial of the partial width right-of-way. Seconded by Best. Scearbo noted she had discussed this issue with the adjacent property owner, Mr. Albert. He indicated that at some point he will be recording a 25' right-of-way to provide access for his family member to the back property. Scearbo continued that this could create a 50' and 25 ' adjacent to each other. Mr. Bradsher stated that he had purchased additional property to gain access to a landlocked tract and he was unwilling to provide (give away) a 50' easement to allow another property owner access to a tract that is also landlocked. VOTE: 1 in favor. 9 opposed. MOTION: Best moved to recommend approval of the partial width right-of-way as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hamilton. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed (Yuhasz - felt no evidence had been submitted that physical restraints to the CI W If 7 development of this property required a partial width right-of-way) . AGENDA ITEM #9 : MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (2/26/90) a. Assignment of House/Building Numbers ( 1) Rural Route 2 - Durham (2) Rural Route 5 - Hillsborough b. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ( 1) Article 2 . 3 . 3. 2 —Board of Adjustment Administration (2 ) Article 7 . 14 .4 - Density Bonus for Affordable Housing c. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (1 ) Section III-D-1-b - Planning Department Review Procedures (Major Concept Plans) (2 ) Section IV-B-8-e/g - Schedule of Required Land Use Buffers/Waiver of Buffer Requirements These items have all been presented to the Planning previously. There were no presentations or questions. AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (2/28/90) a. Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Text (1) Section II - Natural Resources (2) Section V - Joint Planning Operating Principles (3) Section VI - Future Land Use - Joint Planning Area (4) Section VII - Implementation Strategies b. Joint Planning Agreement (1) Section 1 .2 - Definitions c. Orange County Comprehensive Plan ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A enda Item No.K' ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 5, 1990 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENT: Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : Under Separate Cover INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Blythe Ext. 505 TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioner's appointed boards and commissions. BACKGROUND: The following recommendations are presented for the Board's consideration: NURSING HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Appoint Mrs. Julie A. Brannon to represent the interests of the Nursing Homes. She will serve a probabionary one-year training period and then be eligible for a three- year term. RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL: Reappoint Susan Waldrop and Charles H. Burger to serve their second three-year terms. RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A enda Item No.�('1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 5, 1990 SUBJECT: MINUTES DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : UNDER SEPARATE COVER INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: February 5, 1990 - Regular Meeting BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the, governing Board has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's proceedings. RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. 4 R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has responded to existing and projected traffic volumes on Interstate Highway 85 west of Hillsborough by proposing planned improvements; and WHEREAS, planned improvements involve the construction of four additional traffic lanes and removal of the overpass over West Ten Road; and WHEREAS, planned improvements will create additional impervious surface in the Seven Mile Creek protected watershed area and limit pedestrian and non-motorized access from Ben Johnston Road to points south of Interstate 85; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners desires a program of cooperative, coordinated, and continuing transportation planning with the State of North Carolina; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners is committed to the protection of existing and future drinking water supplies and to mobility opportunities for its citizens; NOW THEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Commissioners requests that: * The North Carolina Department of Transportation implement appropriate best management practices to control runoff from Interstate 85 into Seven Mile Creek; and * That pedestrian and non-motorized access under Interstate 85 from Ben Johnston Road to West Ten Road be maintained through the use of a culvert or tunnel or similar structure. BE IT RESOLVED, this 5th day of March, 1990. 8 , de . A Moses Carey, Chairm-'/ . Orange County Boar. . Commissioners o 1 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date March 5 1990 Name of Subdivision Buck Run Subdivision Owner/Applicant Richard Daniels The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Buck Run subdivision preliminary plat, dated March 15, 1989 and containing 20 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. -- All roads shall be irrevocably dedicated to the general public and be constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The approval of this resolution authorizes and directs the Orange County Manager to accept for Orange County and on behalf of the public generally, the offer of dedication of Daniels Farm Road. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of Daniels Farm Road shall be without maintenance responsibility. These roads shall be maintained by the owner/applicant until such time as they are accepted for maintenance by the North •Carolina Department of Transportation or some other governmental body. efore the Final Plat of any phase of Buck Run can be recorded: A. Sewage Disposal 1 . Each residential lot shall contain as adequate area for septic disposal, and repair area, approved by the Orange County Division of Environmental Health. 2 . Disclosure that the septic system location may restrict the size and location of improvements. This disclosure shall be included in a document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The document shall also disclose that information regarding the tentative location of septic systems is available from the Orange County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health. B. Roads and Access 1 . Daniels Farm Road shall be constructed within a 50 foot right-of-way and shall be constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. • OR -f A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure construction of Daniels Farm Road to the standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. An estimate of the construction cost must be prepared by a 2 certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to the Planning and Inspections Department. The financial guarantee must reflect 110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina. 2 . A 200' right turn taper lane on West Lebanon Road shall be constructed or secured for construction prior to approval of the Final Plat. 3 . Lots 1 and 20 shall access onto Daniels Farm Road. All lots shall access onto the new subdivision road. This restriction shall be stated in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. This requirement will require the lot lines to be shifted to allow lot 20 additional access and/or the radii at the intersection may be changed to 10x70 foot sight triangles as allowed by NCDOT. 4 . The cul-de-sac right-of-way shall be located entirely within the limits of the subdivision. C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping 1. Landscaping shall be installed or preserved as indicated on the approved landscape plan, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and Inspections Department. OR The applicant shall secure landscape requirement installation and preservation through a letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond. An estimate of the cost for required preservation, plantings and their installation must be provided. The financial guarantee shall reflect 110% of the estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina. 2 . Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 3 . A Type A Land Use Buffer shall be provided along West Lebanon Road. The buffer shall be 30 feet in width and provide sufficient vegetation to meet the standards of Section IV-B-8-e of the Subdivision Regulations. Said buffer shall be so noted on the plat, and described in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. MI D. Drainage . 3 1 . Indicate a 30 foot wide drainage easement 15 feet on each side of the drainageway. Locate additional drainage easements as required following a review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan. E. Parkland 1 . Cash in the amount of $537 . 00 shall be paid to Orange County as payment-in-lieu of parkland dedication. F. Miscellaneous 1 . The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with Section V=D-2 and V-D-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 2 . The following easements shall be shown on the plat: a. A dedicated 50 ' public right-of-way extending from Daniels Farm Road between lots 14 and 15 to the east property line. b. A 30 foot wide drainage easement 15 feet on each side of the drainageway extending through lots 11-14 and possibly 15. 3. A setback of 40 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of right-of-way of Daniels Farm Road. Side yards shall be a minimum of 20 feet, and rear yards a minimum of 20 feet. These setback requirements shall be stated on the plat, and in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 4 . A public right-of-way shall be provided between lots 14 and 15 to allow future access to property east of this subdivision. A deed shall be provided to Orange County to ensure this access . G. Certifications 1 . A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat. 2 . A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section V-D-6-b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the landowner and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 3 . The Department of Environmental Health shall certify that 4 each lot contains a suitable area for septic disposal. 111 4 . The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall certify that Daniels Farm Road has been constructed to State standards or that Construction Plans have been approved. 5 . A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. --/C-Lej631-2 Signature of A plicant ± ` f Cler, to the Boa I, acce t the subdivision approval, a d acknowledge that beach lmust dbeo met tprior oto recordation of the final plat. 1 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date _ March 5 1990 Name of Subdivision Southern Winds Subdivision Owner/Applicant Alois Callemj The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Southern Winds subdivision preliminary plat, dated December 3, 1989 and containing 6 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. A. Sewage Disposal 1 . Each residential lot shall contain as adequate area for septic disposal, and repair area, approved by the Orange County Division of Environmental Health. 2 . Disclosure that the septic system location may restrict the size and location of improvements. This disclosure shall be included in a document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The document shall also disclose that information regarding the tentative location of septic systems is available from the Orange County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health. B. Roads and Access 1 . Split Rail Lane shall be constructed to Class A private road standards. OR A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure for future improvement/construction of Split Rail Lane to the standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. An estimate of the construction cost must be prepared by a certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to the Planning and Inspections--Department. The financial guarantee must reflect 110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina. 2 . The private road shall be contained within the right-of-way indicated on the Final Plat. 3. A private Road Maintenance Agreement shall be approved by the County Attorney and recorded with the Final Plat. 2 C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping 1 . Landscaping shall be installed or preserved as indicated on the preliminary plan dated December 3, 1989 and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and Inspections Department. 2 . Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape plan consistent with the minimum requirements of Section IV-B-8 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. D. Parkland 1 . Cash in the amount of $443 . 00 shall be paid to Orange County as payment-in-lieu of parkland dedication. E. Miscellaneous 1 . The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations . 2 . The following easement shall be shown on the plat: a. Proposed 50 foot private right-of-way on Split Rail Lane. 3 . A setback of 40 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of right-of-way. Side yards shall be a minimum of 20 feet, and rear yards a minimum of 20 feet. These setback requirements shall be stated on the plat, and in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 4 . Receive final approval of easement agreements, restrictive covenants, and private road maintenance agreement documents from the County Attorney. F. Certifications 1. A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat. 2 . A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance signed by the property owner(s) shall be notarized on the face of the plat. 1 r 3 3 . The Department of Environmental Health shall certify that each lot contains a suitable area for septic disposal. - ' „00"/ , Signature:-- Applicant "`∎" � Clerk/ • the Board I' " , accept the above listed conditions of subdivision T::oval, and acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat. ,ICE SUMMARY STATEMENT/OFFER TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY DUE TO THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF WAY AND DAMAGES TO Orange County DATE: /9P-.4.01-4141' (774: C/O John Link, County Manager TO Lessee, if Applicable 109 Court Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 STATE PROJECT NO 8.T500309 COUNTY: Orange _; ?r,i`; FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO I-IR-85-3(140)157 PARCEL NO 18 I.D. #: I-309 E DESCRIPTION: I-85 from West of SR 1114 (Buckhorn Road) to East of SR 1144 (Old NC 10) Dear Property Owner: The following offer of just compensation is based on the fair market value of the property _- and is not less than the approved appraised value for the appropriate legal compensable interest or interests. The approved value disregards any increase or decrease in the fair market value of the property acquired due to influence caused by public knowledge of this project. The offer of just compensation is based on an analysis of market data comparable land sales, and if applicable, building costs in the area of your property. Please retain this form as it contains pertinent income tax information. State Acquires Improvements Value of Part Taken = (Includes Land, Improvements and Appurtenances Considered as Realty) $ 6,695.00 Damages if any to Remainder $ -0_ Benefits if any to Remainder $ -0- Minus TOTAL $ 6,695.00 '''., ':- 1::::::: :: Less Retention Value(s) Item E $ -0- Minus TOTAL (After Retention of Improvements) $ 6,645.00 li The total offer includes all interests other than leases involving Federal Agencies and Tenant owned improvements, (C) Description of the land and effects of the acquisition by easement [ ] and deed [X]: Subject property described in Deed Book 253, page 1427, Orange County Registry, contains approximately 2.1 acres of which .25 acres is being acquired as right of way, leaving 1.85 acres remaining on the right with access to Buckhorn Road. (D) The offer for improvements considered as realty includes payment for the following improvements and appurtenances: None (E) Should you desire to retain the improvements, considered as realty, deductions in the total offer are listed as follows: N/A (F) Should you desire to sell the Department the portion of your property considered to be an uneconomic remnant, as explained to you by the Right of Way Agent, the total offer would be $ N/A I will be available at your convenience to discuss this matter further with you. My telephone number is 919-560-6847, Durham, North Carolina. The original of this form was handed/mailed, if out of state owner, to , on J/- /L , 19 54 Owner was furnished a copy of the Right of Way Brochure/Owner's Letter. (Signed) ie,.le Right of Way Agent . , North Carolina Department of Transportation R. R. Phillips\kw R/W Form 10.211 Revised November 1990 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM of ORANGE COUNTY Addie Wright Turner Personnel Director John Link, Jr. County Manager March, 1990 Hillsborough, North Carolina 1 I EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM I of ORANGE COUNTY I I I I Addie Wright Turner Personnel Director John Link, Jr. County Manager March, 1990 Hillsborough, North Carolina TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface I. NARRATIVE STATEMENT A. 1. EEO/AA Policy Statement 2. Proposal for Sexual Harassment Policy B. Scope of Program C. Responsibility and Accountability D. Program Analysis of Orange County Personnel System E. EEO/AA Goals for 1990 F. Implementation G. Training on Equal Employment Opportunity for Department Heads and Supervisors H. Monitoring and Evaluation II. Dissemination II . STATISTICAL DATA A. Summaries: Orange County Workforce, Orange County Labor Force and Raleigh-Durham MSA Labor Force - B. . Community and Labor Market Statistics (by EEOC Categories ) 1 . Orange County 2. Raleigh-Durham MSA (Orange, Wake, Durham and Franklin counties) C. Current Work Force Statistics 1. Orange County Workforce Analysis County-wide (by EEOC Categories) County-wide (by Salary Grade Designations) 2. Departmental EEOC Statistics (by EEOC Categories) APPENDIX List of Orange County Class Titles included under the EEOC Categories. Ir IrPreface As we enter the last decade of the twentieth century, Orange County Government faces new challenges in the implementation of its EEO/AA program. Our vision is a workforce which is free from all illegal as well as environmental roadblocks to professional growth. We can not claim to recruit and retain the "brightest and the best" without making every effort to secure employee representation from the ranks of women, minorities, older workers, and the handicapped. We must not rest on our laurels. The mere hiring of minorities , women and other protected groups is ineffectual if those hirings are not backed by formal and informal support to keep those individuals progressing up the career ladder. To fail to do so jeopardizes our commitment to excellence. The principles embodied in Equal Employment Opportunity policies are, in a practical sense, tools of sound management rather than impositions of Federal law. Our goal is to foster an environment in Orange County government which assures equal opportunity for al, employees. t / _ ' John7ink Jr. " Co ty Manager 1e Wr. !ht ► rner, Personnel Di •ector 1 1 1 I ii 1 r w w A AI. NARRATIVE STATEMENT i A 1 1 1 0 v i I A. POLICY STATEMENT It is the policy of Orange County to provide equal opportunity in employment for all qualified persons and to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or mental or physical handicap in accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and North Carolina General Statute 126-16. In furtherance of this policy, the Orange County will : 1 . Recruit, hire, train, and promote all persons without regard to race, color, sex , religion, national origin, age, or handicap; 2 . Administer all personnel actions including 1 compensation, benefits , tuition assistance, training, transfers, reductions in force, disciplinary action, and terminations objectively without regard to race, color, religion, sex , national origin, age , or handicap; and 3 . Promote a work environment free from discrimination. • 1 .1 1 1 I I I I 1 I - • C l' PROPOSAL FOR PERSONNEL ORDINANCE REVISION TO ADOPT A SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY (This Proposal Requires Adoption by the County Commissioners) 1 PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines, and to 1 establish that Orange County prohibits all forms of sexual harassment of applicants, employees, and citizens conducting business with county government employees. 1 POLICY I The policy of Orange County is that no employee may engage in conduct that falls under the definition of sexual harassment. The definition of sexual harassment is any unwelcome sexual I advances , requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when 1 ) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual ' s employment; 2 ) submission to I or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions; or 3 ) such conduct has the effect of unreasonably interfering with the individuals I ability to perform work, and/or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. 1 Sexual harassment does not include conduct welcomed by the recipient, or social interactions and relationships entered into freely by County applicants, employees or citizens. 1 COMPLAINT PROCEDURE . Every employee is entitled to work in an environment free of 1 sexual harassment . Any employee, applicant or client who feels he/she has been sexually harassed may file a complaint using the following procedure. I1) Report the alleged misconduct to your immediate supervisor, if he/she is not involved in the complaint, or 2) Report the alleged misconduct to the Department Head, if he/she is not involved in the complaint, or I3 ) Report the alleged misconduct directly to the EEO Officer (Karen Boulding) in the Personnel Department I. of Orange County. Prompt and impartial investigation will be made of all cases I alleging sexual harassment based on facts presented surrounding the misconduct. All information received regarding the alleged incidents of sexual harassment will be treated with privacy and confidentiality. Any interference, coercion, restraint or reprisals towards any person complaining of sexual harassment is prohibited. I 2 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION The Sexual Harassment Policy and Complaint Procedure will be posted on bulletin boards where it is accessible to all employees and citizens. 3 1 B. SCOPE OF PROGRAM The Program covers all staff with the exception of the County Manager, the Sheriff and the Register 9 of Deeds. 1. Plan of Administration The following points illustrate how EEO information is distributed and outlines steps department heads and supervisors should take: . The Personnel Department will disseminate the Equal Employment Opportunity Policy internally (to employes, supervisors , and department heads ) and externally (citizens , vendors, etc. ) . . Department Heads and supervisors will : a . Place federal Equal Employment Opportunity posters in an appropriate place in their work area. b. Attend Equal Employment Opportunity workshops. 2. Statistical Recordkeepinq Requirements Logs reflecting personnel transactions will maintained by the Personnel Department. The logs bwill reflect the applicants ' /employees ' race, sex, and classification. a. Disciplinary Action Log b. Applicants and New Hires Log c. Transfers Log d. Promotions Log e. Terminations Log 11] 3. Employee Grievance Procedures and Communications It is the responsibility of each department head supervisor to ensure that all negative and in accordance with established Personnel policies are procedures. Department Heads and supervisors should make each employee aware of the availability of employee relations counseling with Personnel staff and the confidential nature of such discussions. The Equal Employment Opportunity ff ' Personnel Department is available for consultationhto all department heads, supervisors, and employees. 4 C. RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY County Manager' s Responsibilities The Manager of Orange County is responsible for assuring that hiring, promotion, and all other employment practices and aspects of the employment relationship with employees in Orange County are consistent with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and North Carolina General Statute 126-16. p Supervisor' s Responsibilities Each supervisor plays a crucial role in carrying out the Equal Employment Opportunity Policy as a part of his/her job. The Equal Employment Opportunity duties of supervisors include: p 1 . Assisting in identifying problems and recommending solutions; and 2. Preventing harassment of any employee on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and mental or physical handicap. Personnel Department Responsibilities The Personnel Department of Orange County is responsible for the administration of the Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Program. The EEO Officer for this plan period is Karen Boulding. The duties and responsibilities of the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer include, but are not limited to: . Development and submission of a written EEO Program. The Program will be monitored and evaluated on a semi-annual basis; and updated on an annual basis with publication at the beginning of each calendar year. 11 . General coordination of programs and action steps established in the Program. . Investigation of employee and applicant discrimination complaints and attempting to resolve them. • ▪ Collection, analysis, and publication/dissemination of all statistical data called for in the Program. • . Preparation of the EEO-4 Report (annually) to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 5 N . Assistance to County department heads, supervisors, or other appropriate personnel who need technical advice or administrative support in meeting their responsibilities under applicable equal employment opportunity laws and regulations, and under this Program. . Acting as a liaison with other State and Federal regulatory agencies concerned with Equal Employment I Opportunity. Maintaining ongoing contact with other Equal Employment Opportunity personnel through seminars, workshops, conferences, etc. for continuing 11 education purposes. . Development/identification of new strategies in support of Equal Employment Opportunity. I I I I • I • • • 1 I • 1 6 11 D. PROGRAM ANALYSIS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PERSONNEL SYSTEM 11 Purpose p The purpose of this program analysis is to provide a summary of the Orange County personnel management system as it relates to Equal Employment Opportunity. 1. Recruitment The Personnel Department is responsible for developing recruitment strategies, such as identifying sources, placing ads, screening applicants , and designing advertisements. p . Recruitment Sources Recruitment sources vary -widely. Sources may include newspapers , magazines , the Employment Security Commission, trade periodicals , and walk-in applicants. . Employment Application The employment application form contains only job- related questions . Employment applications are filed in the Personnel Department. Completing an employment application is the only method of applying for an Orange County job vacancy. . Recruitment Materials Recruitment materials are written simply so that all persons may easily understand them. These materials are: (a) Orange County Position Vacancy Report (b) Position Vacancy Notices P X11 . Media Sources Various local newspapers throughout the state e may be used to advertise positions. These media sources include advertisements in minority media. /I 2. Selection and Placement The Personnel Department of Orange County screens all P applicants for vacant position ( s) and provides department heads with a list of top 3-5 applicants based on ranking among all applicants for a position against the minimum PI qualifications. The department head interviews all applicants referred and documents hiring decision and non- hiring decisions with their rationale. 7 j II The Personnel Department is responsible for setting measurable job criteria , screening applications, and structuring interviews and interviewing techniques. 3. Job Structuring and Upward Mobility il 1. Position Classification The Orange County Classification and Pay system will be revised in 1990 . This information will be used for hiring II and promotion decisions. The classification system will be continually updated. II2. Wage and Salary Structures All salary and wage decisions are made without regard to age, sex , race, handicap, national origin , or religion. 3 . Promotion 11 Positions are posted internally for one week. If a position is not filled by internal promotion, then is posted for external recruitment. All applicants I considered based on the minimum requirement of the vacant position. I4. Training The Employee Development Manager has responsibility for I coordinating and developing appropriate in-house training programs for Orange County personnel . The employee' s supervisor has responsibility for determining which employees . will get additional training ( internal and external ) , and Iwhat resources will be used to provide that training. 5. Employee Benefits I The type and extent of benefits are d and are no way etemi by employment status and length of employment, 0 related to race, sex, age, religion, handicap, or national origin. 6. Problem Resolution . Employees have the opportunity to meet informally and confidentially to discuss personal or work-related problems 1 with their supervisor without regard to formal grievance procedures. If the problem is not resolved, the employee may use the Orange County Grievance Procedure. A copy of the Grievance Procedure is provided to each supervisor and is made available, upon request, to employees. 8 , ; , 111 7. Termination Employees separating from Orange County are asked to complete an exit interview and questionnaire. This information is used to assess organizational climate and make relevant recommendations to management. I • I I I I I I I I I p I I I E. EEO COUNTY-WIDE POLICY GOALS FOR 1990 1. Recruitment Recruitment will be conducted on a county-wide basis to develop a workforce that continues to tap the best of the female, minority, and handicapped populations availability in the Triangle area. The EEO Officer will work with each Department Head to develop department-specific goals and timetables. These consultations will be completed no later Ithan March 31 , 1990 . Recruitment will also be conducted through channels that I maximize contact with qualified groups of minorities , females , older adults and handicapped persons. These channels will include such sources as the minority media, presentations to civic groups and churches, placing postings at women centers , senior citizen centers , etc. The county-wide goal will be to increase minority representation in the following categories (based on county- wide statistics located in the statistical-section of this document) : . Professional . Technician . Protective Services . Increase female representation in the following categories: Protective Services . Skilled Craft . Service Maintenance . Identify and remove any barriers to handicapped applicants and assure that reasonable accommodations are made for handicapped applicants who would otherwise be the best qualified candidates for county positions. . Implement an automated applicant tracking system in the Personnel Department to collect data regarding selection and placement in terms of the race, sex, age, and handicap status of applicants. �1 2. Promotion . Begin tracking all promotions and analyze the results in regards to the race, sex, age, and handicap status of all promoted employees. This information will be made available to the County Manager, Assistant County Managers, and department heads on a quarterly basis during 1990. The year- J end report will be a part of the 1991 EEO/AA Report. 10 3. Training Begin tracking training activity for County employees and analyze data in regards to the employees' race, sex, age, and handicap status. • . Implement an automated tracking/reporting system that will allow us to ascertain if female, minority, and handicapped employees are being given equal opportunity to. translate career interests/goals into training needs and are receiving the county management team' s support in an equitable manner. la� 4. Discipline/Grievances . Monitor and evaluate disciplinary actions , grievances and terminations by departments , and analyze data ( for adverse impact) in regards to the race, sex, age and handicap status of the employees involved. 5. Special Departmental Initiatives . Soil and Water . Emphasis will be placed on developing a pool of qualified minority candidates for the next vacant technical position so that at least one minority placement can be made. . Data Processing Personnel will develop a pool of qualified minority candidates in anticipation of future expansion. We will also explore the possibility of having an intern in this department from one of the protected groups. • Tax Assessor Personnel will establish a pool of qualified minority applicants for property appraiser positions for expected vacancies to occur between Fall 1990 and December 1991. The goal is placement of at least one minority in the professional category. . Planning Special emphasis is on the placement of two minority persons, one of which will be in the professional category. We will also explore the possibility of an intern from a protected group for this department. . Sheriff' s Department In an effort to broaden recruitment strategies and tap all segments of the Orange County population, ads will be placed in the local paper to announce openings. This represents a change in this departments current recruiting practices. 11 . Public Works Emphasis will be placed on recruiting females in skilled craft or non-traditional job roles . The goal is to have at least one placement cf a female in one of these categories . . Health Department Personnel will consult with this department to develop a departmental EEO program and goals to address the specific needs of this department. This department will also place emphasis an recruiting minorities in the administrator and professional categories , with a goal of hiring two ( 2 ) minority candidates . ' . Soria]. Service Emphasis is being placed on recruiting minorities in the administrator and professional categories , especially minority males . . Recreation & Parks Emphasis will be placed on hiring at least one minority in the administrator and/or professional category . I I I I fL r [r I II 1 12 F. IMPLEMENTATION All steps in this section should be completed during 1990 . KEY: *Currently in place and ongoing **New initiative RESPONSIBILITY PLAN OF ADMINISTRATION ASSIGNMENT 1 . Internal dissemination of Personnel Department Equal Employment Opportunity Policy. a . Post Federal EEO Posters Supervising in each office* Personnel b. Presentation of Policy at EEO Officer orientation sessions for all new employees* ;v c. Provide an EEO Workshop for EEO Officer all supervisory personnel ** Target date: March, 1991 2 . External dissemination of EEO Policy a. Include "An Equal Opportunity Recruitment Employer" on Position Vacancy Coordinator Report, employment application form, and all advertisements* RESPONSIBILITY STATISTICAL RECORDKEEPING ASSIGNMENT 1. Provide EEO data to management EEO Officer on a semi-annual basis** 2. Monitor and evaluate progress of EEO Officer department heads in reaching 1991 program objectives . ** 3. Review EEO Program, revise when EEO Officer needed and provide technical assistance to department heads in reaching objectives . * 4. Employee .Movement** a . Log personnel transactions Personnel Technician by race sex , and handicap 13 II II (quarterly) Applicants , New Hires, Transfers, Promotions, Terminations, Discipline* IIb. Review logs and prepare semi- EEO Officer annual report citing the II number and percentages of minorities, females and handi- capped involved in each type of II personnel action. 5. Employee Grievance Employee Relations Maintain log by race , sex and Analyst II handicap of all formal employee grievances and prepare annual report citing number and II percentages of minorities and females filing grievances. Submit to EEO Officer** II 6 . Discipline a. Maintain Log by race and sex Personnel Technician of all disciplinary actions. II Log and prepare quarterly reports citing the number and percentage of minorities and 01 females who were disciplined. ** b. Review logs and prepare semi- EEO Officer II annual report citing the number and percentages of minorities and females involved in each IIdisciplinary proceeding. ** 8 . Training II a. Maintain log and submit Department Head semi-annual reports of the race, sex, and classification of 1 employees attending training- related sessions. ** I b. Monitor reports to determine Training Officer progress on goal of providing training opportunities for all employees. Prepares semi- [ I annual reports.** 9. EEO - 4 Report a. Prepare and submit an annual EEO Officer EEO-4 Report to the Equal Employment Opportunity • I �1 Commission* 1 . 1111 14 RESPONSIBILITY RECRUITMENT ASSIGNMENT 1 . Establish and maintain a Recruitment Analyst/ mailing list of recruitment EEO Officer sources that represent minorities, females and the handicapped. * 2. Establish and maintain contacts Recruitment Analyst/ with community groups , leaders , EEO Officer and education professionals which represent minorities , females and handicapped persons. * RESPONSIBILITY SELECTION AND PLACEMENT ASSIGNMENT 1. Review selection tests for Recruitment Analyst/ job- relatedness and impact EEO Officer on target groups. * 2. Monitor the use of minority, Recruitment Analyst/ female and handicapped members EEO Officer on interview boards/Assessment Centers (when used) . * 3. Recommend action to study and EEO Officer implement accommodations for handicapped applicants/employees including: a. Identify architectural barriers* b. Add handicapped statistics to EEO Program next year.** c. Identify miscellaneous non-physical barriers to handicapped applicants/ employees. RESPONSIBILITY PROMOTIONS ASSIGNMENT 1. Review employee movement report EEO Officer as it relates to promotions and monitor activity in regards to race, sex, and handicap. 15 II - I TRAINING RESPONSIBILITY ASSIGNMENT II 1 . Conduct a training needs analysis EEO Officer from the perspective of department heads and supervisors as it relates II to EEO policy implementation. ** 2. Recommend methods of selecting EEO Officer employees for training by II examining current practices and alternatives .** II 3 . Develop and schedule a training EEO Officer module in regards to selection and interviewing for supervisors II as a part of the March EEO workshop.** 4 . Provide ongoing training for new EEO Officer IIsupervisors in the EEO Program and principles. ** IS . Ensure integration of EEO Employee Development principles in all aspects of the Manager County' s Employee Development IIProgram. II RESPONSIBILITY LAYOFFS AND TERMINATIONS ASSIGNMENT 1. Revise exit interview program to EEO Officer/Employee II improve effectiveness for EEO Relations Analyst purposes. ** ilDISCIPLINARY ACTION, EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY IGRIEVANCE PROCEDURES ASSIGNMENT 1. Ensure that any negative personnel Supervisors/ actions are in accordance with Department Heads/ I established Orange County policies All Personnel Dept. and procedures.* Staff 2. Determine means of more effective- ly communicating availability of Officer/EEO Officer/ employee relations counseling.** Department Heads/ ill Supervisors 3. Recommend and communicate guide- Employee Relations lines on confidentiality of Officer/Department Idiscussions with employees. ** Beads/Supervisors ill 16 G. ORIENTATION AND TRAINING ON EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS AND SUPERVISORS The Personnel Department will initiate the implementation of the 1990 Equal Employment Opportunity Program with a Workshop for Department Heads and supervisors. The objectives of this Workshop will be: . To communicate to department heads and supervisors the importance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Program and to detail their involvement in and responsibilities for the program. ▪ To explain the purpose and elements of the program to assure that all understand the implementation philosophy. . To provide information on legal rulings, individual responsibilities , and avenues of available help for . any problems that arise. . To provide opportunities for department heads and supervisors to examine and react to policies, practices , and behaviors that enhance or inhibit equal employment opportunity. . To sensitize department heads and supervisors to racial and sexual stereotypes that hinder equal opportunity. . To make department heads and supervisors aware of the fact that older and handicapped workers can make good employees , and make worthwhile contributions. . To help department heads and supervisors see Equal Employment Opportunity principles as tools of sound management rather than impositions of federal law. . To help foster a climate supportive of equal opportunity for all employees. C. Ongoing Training We will provide ongoing training for all supervisors in regards to Orange County' s EEO/AA Program. In addition, the principles of EEO will be focused on all aspects of management and supervisory training in Orange County. 17 IIH. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 1. Data Collection IOrange County will gather and maintain statistics in regards to minorities, females, and handicapped applicants IIand employees. 2. Evaluation Responsibility II The EEO Officer will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the County' s established goals. The EEO Officer will also provide technical assistance to department II heads in administering the program, by meeting with each Department Head semi-annually; and upon need or request. IIThe EEO Officer will develop and generate the following reports: Report Frequency Distribution Employee Movement Report Semi-annual County Manager , I Analysis by race, sex , age , Assistant County handicap, salary of new Managers, Department hires , promotions , Heads "transfers , and terminations Applicant Flow Report Semi-annual County Manager, ISummary by race, sex , age, Assistant County nd handicap of all applicants Managers, Department for individual job classes Heads " Employee Grievance Report Annual County Manager, Summary by race, sex, age, Assistant County and handicap of all formal Managers , Department IIgrievances filed (excludes Beads employees names ) MRecord of Disciplinary Actions Semi-annual County Manager, Summary by race, sex, age, and Assistant County handicap of all formal Managers , Department Idisciplinary actions filed Heads (excludes employees names ) Training Use Report Annual . County Manager, IISummary of staff training by Assistant County race, sex, job classification, Managers, Department age, and handicap as it relates Beads Itan atuucauon aof lvning funds EEO/AA Program Evaluation Retort Annual County Commissioners, Cumulative summary and analysis County Manager, of data generated from all other Assistant County EEO/AA reports; assessment of Manager, Department progress on goals; recommendations Heads for plan revisions/additions 18 Ii ENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY I. DISSEMINATION OF E4AND PROGRAM This entire 1990 Orange County Equal Employment Opportunity Program Report is available upon request by contacting the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer in the Personnel Department. It will also be distributed to all Orange County Department heads. The Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Statement will U be posted on bulletin boards , made available in all offices , and featured in appropriate publications and orientation sessions. It will be disseminated to all department heads , supervisors , and employees. The Policy Statement will also be communicated externally to organizations, agencies, and community groups , representing the interests of females , minorities and the handicapped. All employment notices and advertisements will reflect that the County of Orange is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. 1! I! I I I I I 19 I I I I I I II. STATISTICAL DATA I I I I I I I I I I I A. SUMMARIES: ORANGE COUNTY WORKFORCE, ORANGE COUNTY LABOR FORCE AND RALEIGH-DURHAM MSA LABOR FORCE 01 I I I I I I 11 I I SUMMARY OF THE ORANGE COUNTY WORKFORCE BY RACE AND SEX ITotal number of Employees 456 100% Total Non-minority 322 71% Total Minority 134 29% Total Females 270 59% Total Males 186 41% II . I 20 I I I SUMMARY OF THE ORANGE COUNTY* LABOR FORCE BY RACE AND SEX ITotal number of Employees 45, 340 100% Total Non-minority 37, 990 84% Total Minority • 7,350 16% 11 Total Females 22,320 49% Total Males 23 , 020 51% *Source: N.C. Employment Security Commission 1980 Census Data i� 21 I I I 01 01 SUMMARY OF THE RALEIGH--DURHAM MSA* LABOR FORCE BY RACE & SEX Total number of Employees - 561,222 100% ITotaal Non-minority 407,531 73% 01 Total Minority 153,691 27% 01 Total Females 290,858 52% Total Males 270,364 48% *Source: N.C. Employment Security Commission 1980 Census Data 0 22 I I B. COMMUNITY AND LABOR MARKET STATISTICS (by EEOC CATEGORIES) I 1 I I I Q II I I S RALEIGH - DURHAM MSA LABOR FORCE BY EEOC CATEGORIES I CAUCASIAN : MINORITY : : ALL RACES I OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS : MALE : FEMALE : MALE :FEMALE: : MALE: FEMALE , , , 11 I Executives/ : 63% : 27% : 6% : 4% : : 69% : 31% Administrators " ' , 46% 39% : 6% : 9% : : 52% : 48% Professionals : : 39% % % �% ° : ' , ' , ' 1 1 1 1 II , , I , II , Technicians : 47% : 34% : 8% : 11% : : 55% : 45% , , , , , , , 1 , , , , , , 11 Protective Service : 67% : 6% : 23% : 4% : : 90% : 10% , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 11 I' ' II Paraprofessional 27% : 49% : 6% : 18% : : 33% : 67% ' : : : Office & Clerical : 16% 65% : 5% : 14% : : 21% : 79% , ; 11 I : I , , I , I , 11 1" , , , , 11 , 0 skilled Craft : 73% : 7% : 17% : 3% : : 90% : 10% ' :' : , , 1 I , , , , 11 I I I , 1 , , , 0 Service-Maintenance 24%24 25% : 25% : 26% : : 52% : 48% % , , ; , : : I Source: N.C. Employment Security Commission 1980 Census Data II 1 24 ORANGE COUNTY LABOR FORCE BY EEOC CATEGORIES CAUCASIAN MINORITY ALL RACES OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS : MALE ; FEMALE : MALE :FEMALE : : MALE ; FEMALE 1 . I ' Executives/ 53% 36% 5% 6% 58% 42% ' : � ' Administrators ' ; ; ' II I 49 Professionals 48% 42% 3 5% : : 51% 49%i ' ' 1 I ' 1 , , I ' 1 ; ; 1 1 Technicians 45% 39% : 4% 6% 53% : 47% I ' , 1 1 Protective Service 65% 13% : 20% I 2% : : 85% : 15% ' ' ' , ; ; , , I -I ' , , II I I Paraprofessional 20% 43% : 7% I 29% : : 27% : 73% Office & Clerical 24% I 64% I 4% 8% 28% : 72% , I ; I ii 1 I I' , II ' , I I I I I Skilled Craft 58% 18% 15% 9% ; ; I 73% 27% ; I I II I I ; I I II II 1 35% 28% 21% 16% 56% : 44% ,IlService-Maintenance 1 350 %° :I ' Source: N.C. Employment Security Commission 1980 Census Data 111 I 23 C. CURRENT WORK FORCE STATISTICS I I 1 U . .... III I II I ril . 1 cr, . , '..--. ik\1111111i I! ! CD I , 1 , , .... .,....- -n-- • H I r• = ra 1 z° i i 1 z . I ._. „ .....: C ,-) . 111 -.1 co i 5 . :: ,.... :..... . ::::::::::::::.1 I . , ; o c-D , to CP ('' 'j 1 f• '1 =i m I C- 7: .-2. n \ ii' d• i=.•. ..; "6: ;::1..ii!; ; ; 1.') C) • ; .;:;:', I ■ ! , 11■.■i lb •-• // ///7/Z4 : . o .91 rb f. I „, .., , .7 mimilmill Pi L-Ti_ 0 0 , 0 ___,(--1 c ,_ 1. ir-L- CD LI , :::.,,::::::.:::::,::::::.:::.:::„..:.:: I . i i En .6- A 1 i i L-1-J I 25 i III .... I I ._ IND CZ •.. ,. C.)) C" CD CD 0 CD 0 C:) 0 I 1 I i i 6-n CD c---) I i 8 , r„ .., , 1 -; ti 0 . c---< / 1 ..n.- Z I n RD v- z I 0 0 in g. n . i I 1 i I - 0 ' . 1 ...., . ..m , , i . , 1 , ■ 0 I ..., . g g 1 r) .ip.- i 1 1 1 i r) 1 1 p I 1 1 i 1 1 L-Li ....,.. 1 1 1 P.) c.— • k-4- ,. CD ,-,.., i . 1 • ; 1 ---.■ - 0 ii 0 •-s I 1 1 1 i eNi .1 1 r•D I- a-..- 0 ''.4 ...j Cl) rb I : 1 I ! " 1 1 C ! 1 tri-j ;* 1 0 C") CD a \V I c-' Er, k \\ I 1 I 1 1 . r•••? I It ::,' ;;FROgdpii:::::;:::;::::::::::Mag0:::;:;;;i:::: :::::-;:::GB;;:: 1 Cn 1 1 i L.T.L'i 11 26 1 I ._ I IICOUNTY-WIDE WORKFORCE ANALYSIS (By Salary Grade Designations) II ' CAUCASIAN MINORITY Salary Grade Males Females Males Females I - 55 7% 130 320 48% 56 1000 , 1 58 38% 30 � 59% ' 1 . 59 500 50% 1 , 60 430 210 13% II ' ' 61 570 I 43% , 1 , , III 62 710 30 26% , I , 1 1 63 , 29% I 50% 70 I 14% 64 16% C 500 250 9% , , 1 I 65 70% : 110 ' 110 8% P66 39% 320 I 140 11% , , , , 67 430 I 320 140 11% 1 , , IIII 68 240 I 480 I 10% ' 18% , , 1 1 1 1 1 69 42% I 290 130 16% 70 540 390 70 1 . 71 I 28% 64% 8% , 1 1 , - 1 1 72 750 250 , , 1 t 1 73 1' 1000 ; , 1 1 , Hi , , , 74 500 250 25% , , , , , 1 , 1 75 1 500 I 500 76 25% 25% 250 25% jIi 77 500 1 I I 250 1 250 I 78 34% 330 33% IR _ I 1 27 COUNTY-WIDE WORKFORCE ANALYSIS (cont' d) I I CAUCASIAN MINORITY Salary Grade Males Females Males Females 79 100 0 , 1 1 , I 80 100% i 81 50% 50% , 1 , , 88 100% I I 1 I 11 !I 11 28 II - IDEPARTMENT EEOC STATISTICS (By EEOC Categories ) I * See Appendix for descriptions of EEOC Categories and Codes. DEPARTMENT ;NO. ; EEOC ; CAUCASIAN ; MINORITY NAME ; EMP ; ; MALE ; FEMALE ; MALE ; FEMALE 1 1 , I I , , I I I , I 1 , , , COMMISSIONERS ; ; 1 ' ; 30% 1 I 1 I 9 1 1 1 1 , 1 70 o I I 3 I I , I I , I 1 , 1 1 , , , I I I I I I I I BOARD OF ; ; 1 ; ; 250 ; ELECTIONS ; ; 6 ; ; 75; ; ; 4 1 1 I I , I I I I I I I I -, I I I I I I SOIL & WATER ; ; 3 I 50% ; 25% ; 6 I , 6, , I ; 25% ; , 1 4 , I , I _ I I I , I 1 , ' 1 1 I I I COUNTY MANAGER ; ; 1 ; 16% ; 16% 17% ; I ; 2 ; 1 7% 1 I I I I 6 ; 6 ; ; 17% ; ; 17% 1 6_' _ ' 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I , , , I I I I I 1 BUDGET ; ; 2 ; 33% ; 34% I I 6 ; ; 33% ; ;....3 I I I 1 , , I , , I 1 , -I , I I , I I I PERSONNEL ; ; 1 ; I 16a 2 ; ; 360 ; ; 16% I I 3 1 I I , 16% I I , I 1 I 6 I ; ; ; 16% 6 I I I I I I I , , I I I I I FINANCE ; 1 1 ; ; 20% I ; 2 I ; ; 20% 3 ; ; 40% ; ; 20% 1 1 5 ,I I I I 1 _ I , I I I.� �I_ , ,• I I I I I I I I PURCHASING AND ; ; 1 ; I 140 ; CENTRAL ; ; 3 1 140 I 14% ; ; I SERVICES ; ;6 I 44% I I O ; ; ; 14% I I O I 7 1 I 1 I , I I ; ; I— `I , I , , I I I , , , J DATA I ; 1 ; 25% ; I ; PROCESSING ; ; 2 I 250; ; ; I 3 ; 25% ; 25% ; ; I 1_4 I I 1 - 1 ; I I I 1 1 , , , ` 1 1 , , , , REGISTER of ; I 1 ; I 7% ; ; I DEEDS I 6 ; 700 ; ; 23% 13:_ _: I I , , 1 , 1 I 29 PI p 0 DEPARTMENT ',NO. EEOC CAUCASIAN ; MINORITY NAME ; EMP CODE ; MALE ; FEMALE MALE : FEMALE I I I I I I I I I I I , Pi . 1 I I LAND RECORDS ; 1 15% O 1 1 O I 1 1 3 1 I 55% I I 01 , I 6 V I 1 % I I 1 I �_5 I I 1 I 7 I 1/1/ I I 1 I I 1 I TAX ASSESSOR : 1 6% ; ; 2 12% ; 7% I I I I 1 O I I 3 1 6 0 1 1 7% , O 1 , 6 ; 6% : 44% ; ; 12% I 1 I 16_ I , I I 1 1 1 I TAX COLLECTOR ; ; 1 ; 140 ; ; :: , z 14% 14% ; 3 : 150 ; 15% 6 ; 14% ; ; 14% 6 I I I I I I I I PLANNING ; 1 ; 4% ; 2 48% ; 23% ; 4% ; 4% I ,) o I 1 I I - , 1 4 O 1 , 6 I O , p I I 9 o I I 1 4 0 ' 2 3 I I 1 I I I I I I ECONOMIC ; ; 1 ; ' 50% ; DEVELOPMENT ; ; 6 ; 50% ; I 2 I 1 - I 1 , I I I• I , -I I I SOCIAL ; ; 1 ; 2% ; 10 ; ; 1% SERVICES ; ; 2 1% ; 25% ; 2% ; 7% I 1 1 1 I I I 1 0 ; ; 5 ; 5% : 23% ; ; 13% 111 '; 6 ; ; 6% ; ; 12% 84 I I I • w I I I' 1 I I I I I I 1 I ' = 9- I I I I 1 1 3 0 I 3 0 I I HEALTH ; ; 2 ; 8% : 27% ; 5% ; 7% I 1 �J , I 3% 1 I I �] O I I I 4 ; 5% ; 2% ; 5 : 6% ; ; 7% JI ; ; 6 ; ; 10 % ; ; 14% 1_ 6 7 1 1 I _.__. I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I , AGRICULTURE ; ; 1 ; ; 10% EXTENSION ; ; 2 ; 20% : 20% ; 10% ; 10% I I 6 ; 20% : ; 10% 1 10 ; I I I I I Ii. — - IIIIIMMINEETT ID E ENT ;NO. ; EEOC CAUCASIAN MINORITY NAME ;EMP ; CODE ' MALE I FEMALE I MALE ' FEMALE , ' ' ' ' '. , , ; ; RECREATION & ' ' 1 13% I PARKS 5 20% 21% 13% ' 6 ' 200 9 ' ' ' ' 7 ' 13% ' ' ' , , ° 1 9 , ' ' ' ' I —, ' , ' ' ' ' AGING ' 1 9% ' 2 ; ; 28% ' ; 9% 3 ; ; 9% 9 5 9% ' 6 ' ' 18% ' 9% I 1_11_1 50% ' COMMISSION for ' ' 1 ' WOMEN ' ' 6 50% ' T 2 �' , ,- , ; , , CHILD SUPPORT ' ' 1 ' 20% ' I ENFORCEMENT 5 2D% ■ 20% 6 1 40• ; ' , , , a 1 , , , , , , i PUBLIC SAFETY ' 1 1 4 ; 68% ' 13% ' 14% ; 4% 71 I ' , , — — ' , , ' ' EMERGENCY ' 1 ' 20 ' ' MANAGEMENT ' ' 2 ' 20 ' I SERVICES . 3 30% 18% 6% 9% ' ' S ' ' 2% ' 2% ; ; 6 ; 13% ' 6% ' 1 6% ' ' 8 2% ' 2% ' ; 1_46_I . , I 1 1 PUBLIC WORKS ' 1 I 2% 2 ; ' 2% ; 6 , , , , 5 g D 1 , ' '7 ' 13% ' ' 10% ' ; 8 ' 200 ' ' 38% ' 10% ' 38 ' ' , , , 1 , 1 , Iii HOUSING & ' ' 1 ' 14 COMMUNITY 2 ' ' 14% ■ % DEVELOPMENT ' 1 3 ' 14% I ' 5 , ; ; 30% I 14% ' ' 6 , ' ; ' 14% 7 I1 31 , APPENDIX I,� I CLASS TITLES BY EEOC OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS Executives (EEOC CODE 1 ) County Manager Assistant County Manager Child Support Enforcement Director Purchasing/Central Services Director Personnel Director - Revenue Director Land Records Manager Tax Supervisor Finance Director Data Processing Manager Aging Director Recreation and Parks Director Housing and Community Development Director Public Works Director Planning Director Emergency Management Services Director Social Services Director II Extension Director Economic Development Director Commission for Women Coordinator Administrative Assistant/Clerk to the Board Election Supervisor Health Director Administrators (EEOC CODE 1) Deputy Clerk to the Board Property Mapper Supervisor Assistant Register of Deeds Assistant Revenue Director Recreation Program Supervisor Assistant Public Works Director Deputy Emergency Management Director Income Maintenance Administrator I , II Social Work Program Administrator I , II Chief Animal Control Officer Local Public Health Administrator Social Work Program Director Public Health Nursing Director I Environmental Health Supervisor II Professionals (EEOC CODE 2) Senior Center/Office Manager Information and Referral/Office Manager RSVP Coordinator Personnel Analyst I , II Management Analyst Administrative Officer Accountant Assistant Tax Collector Property Mapper I , II Business/Personal Property Appraiser Real Property Appraiser Budget and Management Analyst Tax Systems Coordinator Assistant Tax Supervisor Deputy Finance Officer Revaluation Supervisor Systems Analyst Transportation Supervisor Case Management Coordinator Senior Citizens Coordinator Code Enforcement Officer I , II Erosion Control Inspector Planner I , II , III Soil Conservationist Code Enforcement Supervisor Erosion Control Officer Communications Supervisor Emergency Medical Services Supervisor Flight Communications Supervisor Medical Communications Supervisor Income Maintenance Supervisor I , II , III Social Worker I , II , III Human Services Coordinator I , II , III Social Work Supervisor I , II , III Social Work Clinical Specialist Human Services Program Specialist Assistant Agriculture Extension Agent Social Services Nurse Associate Agriculture Extension Agent Dental Assistant Supervisor Nutritionist II Public Health Educator I , II Soil Scientist I Environmental Health Supervisor I , Public Health Social Worker Community Disease Control Specialist I Public Health Nurse I , II Public Health Nurse/Patient Educator Public Health Nurse Supervisor I Home Economist Day Care Coordinator Physician Extender Environmental Health Specialist Soil Scientist Rehabilitation Specialist Technicians (EEOC CODE 3) Financial Analyst Emergency Medical Technician *Basic *Intermediate *Paramedic Dispatcher Technician District Conservation Technician Housing Technician Medical Lab Technician Community Health Technician Purchasing Technician Personnel Technician Accounting Technician I Revenue Technician Tax Appraisal Technician Operator/Programmer CAT Courier CAT Dispatcher Clerk Planning Technician Protective Service Workers (EEOC CODE 4 ) Deputy Sheriff I Deputy Sheriff II Chief Deputy Sheriff Captain Investigator Jailer Paraprofessionals (EEOC CODE 5 ) Income Maintenance Caseworker I , II , III Cook Supervisor Housing Counselor Flight Dispatcher Dispatcher Flight Dispatcher Shift Leader Communications Shift Leader Flight Paramedic Flight Paramedic Shift Leader Paramedic Shift Leader Income Maintenance Investigator I , II Animal Control Officer Solid Waste Collection Manager Community Health Assistant Dental Assistant Medical Records Assistant Deputy Supervisor Board of Elections Child Support Enforcement Officer Building and Grounds Supervisor Recreation Facilities Supervisor RSVP Program Assistant Community Health Assistant Community Social Services Assistant Office and Clerical (EEOC CODE 6 ) Central Services Clerk Clerk Receptionist III Clerk Typist III , IV Inspections Clerk Secretary IV, Administrative Secretary V Accounts Clerk III, IV Tax Clerk I , II Land Records Entry Operator Proofreading/Data Entry Clerk Data Entry Operator I Deputy Register of Deeds I , II , III Administrative Assistant Administrative Assistant I Land Records Coordinator Skilled Craft (EEOC CODE 7) Auto Mechanic I Auto Mechanic Helper Auto Mechanic Supervisor Maintenance Mechanic I , II , III Service Maintenance (EEOC CODE 8 ) Custodian Cook Solid Waste Collector