HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-02-1990 1
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 2, 1990
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on April 2, 1990 at
7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., Vice-Chair Stephen Halkiotis,
Commissioners John Hartwell, Shirley Marshall and Don Willhoit.
ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Ellen
Liston, Senior Citizen Coordinator Myra Austin, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker,
Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Personnel Analyst I
Eleanor C. Green, Purchasing and Central Services Director Pam Jones, and Planning
Technician Beth McIver.
I. BOARD COMMENTS
Commissioner Marshall announced that Governor Martin has proclaimed this week as
Public Health Week. The County is celebrating this in various ways. The public is invited
to a reception this Friday from 4-6 at the Health Building.
Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to a resolution approved by the Board on
Carden's Mobile Home Park. Mr. Stevenson is extremely thankful for the support shown by
the County to resolve this longterm problem.
Commissioner Hartwell expressed a concern about a report in the Chapel Hill
Newspaper on a meeting held between the Chamber of Commerce and EDC. County Manager John
Link reported that specific ideas were expressed on how the Chamber might be more involved
in economic development activity. Those kinds of activities included greater involvement
in supporting tourism, and greater support in certain elements of small business
development. His impression was that the Chambers were going to be prepared to speak
specifically to what they would want to be doing and the amount of funding they might want
to carry out those functions. He encouraged the EDO to be receptive to the proposals from
the two chambers as it relates to tourism, helping with small business development and
helping with recruitment by hosting the contacts as they come into the County and being
responsive to present businessmen or potential candidates coming in.
II. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
NONE
III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Add to the agenda a resolution for Earth Day 1990
IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA
Chairman Carey announced that those who have indicated a desire to speak to
an item on the printed agenda will be recognized at the appropriate time.
# O 1 6
B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA
Mr. Wayne P. Hoffman, owner of Elite Auto Body Shop, stated he would li]°
to build an addition to his shop. The problem was created in 1981 when zoning was
originally applied in Bingham Township. His shop was not put where it is actually located.
The lot was drawn incorrectly on the Zoning Atlas. He illustrated this with plats of the
area.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell seconded by Commissioner Marshall
to schedule a special public hearing for May 1, 1990 to consider a zoning atlas amendment
to correct the zoning atlas and the problem as identified by Mr. Hoffman.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
PUBLIC CHARGE
Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. read the public charge.
V. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA
Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to
approve the items on the Consent Agenda as listed below:
A. RENCHER STREET CDBG MATCHING FUNDS
To adopt the grant project ordinance amendment and the budget ordinance
amendment as stated below:
GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - 1988
Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners that pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159
of the General Statutes of North Carolina the ordinance adopting the "Community Development
Block Grant - 1988" is hereby amended as follows:
Section 1. Section 3 of the above mentioned ordinance is amended to read as follows:
Community Development Grant $ 600,000
Program Income 300
Transfer from General Fund 85,000_
$ 685,300
Section 2. Section 4 of the above mentioned ordinance is amended to read as follows:
Acquisition $ 3,000
Street Improvements 99,925
Sewer Improvements 182,688
Water Improvements 64,718
Clearance Activities 1,700
Rehabilitation of Privately
Owned Dwellings 185,128
Administration 81,388
Sewer Improvements-Local Option 66.753
$ 685,300
Section 3. Section 8 of the above mentioned ordinance is added to read as follows:
# 017
This ordinance shall be in effect from date of adoption until June 30, 1991.
Adopted this 2nd day of April, 1990.
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:
Approp Fund Balance $ 739,722 $ 85,000 $ 824,722
Appropriation:
Transfer to other Funds $1,492,210 $ 85,000 $1,577,210
To budget for required County matching funds for the Rencher Street CDBG Project.
BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 12
B. ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRACT/SECTION 8 CERTIFICATE PROGRAM
To adopt a resolution as stated below authorizing the Chair to sign the
Annual Contributions Contract for the Section 8, Existing Certificate Program on behalf of
`the County.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION
OF AN ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRACT
Whereas, the Orange County Housing Authority (herein called the "PHA") proposes to enter
into an Annual Contributions Contract (herein called the "Contract") with the United States
of America, Department of Housing and Urban Development (herein called the "Government") .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the PHA as follows: .
Section 1. The Contract, numbered Contract No. A-2903, is hereby approved and
accepted both as to form and substance and the Chair of Board of Commissioners is hereby
authorized and directed to execute said Contract in triplicate on behalf of the PHA, and
the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is hereby authorized and directed to impress and
attest the official seal of the PHA on each such counterpart and to forward said executed
counterparts to the Government together with such other documents evidencing the approval
and authorizing the execution thereof as may be required by the Government.
Section 2. The County Manager is hereby authorized to file with the Government from
time to time, as monies are required, requisitions together with the necessary supporting
document, for payment under the Contract.
Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
C. EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT APPLICATION
To authorize submission of an Emergency Shelter Grant Application for
additional funds to assist families and individuals who are homeless primarily due to their
economic circumstances and to authorize the Chair to sign this application.
# 01R -
D. HEALTH DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE FOR COMMUNITY SCREENING SERVICES
To approve the fees as stated below to be charged to companies and
organizations requesting health department community screening services through the heal:.
promotion and adult health programs.
Proposed Fee Schedule for Community Screenings
The Orange County Health Department provides health promotion consultation and
screening services to Orange County businesses, churches and other groups. The following
fee schedule has been developed by (1) surveying other counties who offer similar services
to their community businesses and organizations, and (2) by assessing the cost of supplies
for the service.
Health Risk Appraisal $10.00
Includes computer printout and interpretation.
Cholesterol (Reflotron) $ 5.00
This fee has already been approved.
Blood Pressure $1.00
This fee has already been approved.
Hematocrit $ 3.00
This fee has already been approved.
Guaiac (occult blood in stools) $ 4.00
This includes 3 packet kit and follow-up if abnormal.
Blood Glucose $ 3.60"
This includes interpretation and educational material.
Immunizations: Adult Tetanus/Diphtheria $ 1.00
Available to 10 or more in a group. ' per person
Health Promotion Education - Classes $30.00/hr.
This includes lectures, clinic, workshops in the following areas:
Smoking Cessation Stress Management
Nutrition Information Weight,Management
Fitness Etc.
Cooking classes would require an additional cost for ingredients.
Consultant Services 1st hour free;
thereafter, $10.00/hr.
E. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION
To approve the amendment as stated below to the Zoning Ordinance to
reference that the Board of Adjustment meeting is subject to the Open Meetings Law.
All meetings of the Board shall be conducted in compliance with the North Carolina
Open Meetings Law, North Carolina General Statutes G.S. 143.318.9 et seq. The Board shall
give public notice of its meetings also as provided in the Open Meetings Law. Notice shall
be given to Board of Adjustment members as provided in the Rules of Procedure adopted by
the Board.
# 0 1
F. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL AIRPORT REPORT CLOSEOUT OF PROJECT
To accept the final report regarding the airport proposed in Orange County
and to authorize the Purchasing and Central Services Director to file the necessary
paperwork to close out the project. A copy of this report is in the Commissioners'
Library.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
VI. RESOLUTIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
A. PROCLAMATION OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT WEEK
Motion was made by Chairman Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to
proclaim April 23-27, 1990 as Orange County Government Week and endorse the planned
activities as outlined in the agenda abstract. The proclamation is stated below:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners and the National
Association of County Commissioners have urged citizens across the state to learn
more about the county government's role in lives and to be more involved as
county citizens' and
WHEREAS, Orange County government has served the citizens of the county since 1752 and we
are responsible for a growing number of services which have direct impact of
local citizens; and
WHEREAS, the elected and appointed officials in county government take great pride in
serving the citizens of the County and in being directly involved in shaping the
future; and
WHEREAS, in Orange County the volunteer spirit is still alive and well and the volunteers
serve as our partners in progress; and
WHEREAS, through their volunteer involvement, citizens learn more about community needs
and resources and serve as communications links to the entire community.
NOW, THEREFORE, we the Board of Commissioners do hereby proclaim the week of April 23
through April 27, 1990, as Orange County Government Week, and reaffirm our
support and appreciation of the valuable contributions of Volunteers in the
County. And, further urge all citizens to become more familiar with county
government.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
B. PROCLAMATION FOR SENIOR GAMES
Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell
to proclaim the week of April 23, 1990 as Orange County Senior Games Events Days. The
proclamation is stated below:
PROCLAMATION
Whereas, According to recent population figures, there are almost 14,000 persons over 55
years of age in Orange County; and,
020
Whereas, Orange County is concerned about the health, fitness, and social well-being of: °
its older population; and,
Whereas, Orange County Senior Games provides a special opportunity for older adults to
grow positively in the areas of health, fitness, and social well-being; and, .
Whereas, Orange County would like to encourage local business and resident support and
participation from county residents age 55 and older;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
declares April 23-28, 1990, as Orange County Senior Games Events Days and
encourages citizens age 55 and over to participate.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
C. RESOLUTION FOR EARTH DAY 1990
Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Marshall
to adopt the resolution endorsing April 22 as Earth Day 1990 and designating April 15-22,
1990 as Earth Week. The Resolution is stated below:
ORANGE COUNTY EARTH DAY 1990 RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Human activities are seriously compromising the earth's ability to sustain life as
a result of environmental threats, such as global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain,
increasing human and pet populations, declining soil fertility, extinction of species, air
pollution, water pollution, and earth pollution,; and
WHEREAS, Citizens and community leaders are now recognizing environmental protection and'.. ,:. , '
resource conservation to be essential prerequisites to sustained prosperity and
environmental well-being for all living things; and
WHEREAS, Cities and counties have many critical environmental responsibilities, including
land-use management, management of transportation systems, solid and liquid waste
management, protection of water resources, and much more; and
WHEREAS, Almost twenty years ago, millions,.of Americans joined together on Earth Day to
express an unprecedented concern for the environment, and their collective action resulted
in the passage of the first significant legislation to protect our air, our water, and the
lands around us; and
WHEREAS, Citizens and their governments must strongly commit themselves to act to meet the
global environmental challenges without delay, and stand together in cities, counties,
towns and villages around the world for a week of collective action to declare our shared
resolve for the future;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS _
Endorses April 22 as Earth Day 1990, and declares that April 15-22, 1990 shall be set aside
for public activities promoting preservation of the global environment.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
X. ITEMS FOR DECISION-REGULAR AGENDA
Chairman Carey stated that any new information brought forth at this meeting will
# 0 2 1
be referred to the appropriate group for a recommendation that will be considered by the
Board of Commissioners at a later time.
A. PUBLIC HEARING DATE - TRANSPORTATION/THOROUGHFARE PLANS
Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Chairman Carey to
approve holding a public hearing on May 16, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom on
Phase I components of the Transportation Plan.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
B. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS _ JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN AND JOINT PLANNING
AGREEMENT
Planning Director Marvin Collins stated that this item relates to the
University Lake Watershed protection measures and involves proposed amendments to the Joint
Planning Area Land Use Plan and the Joint Planning Agreement. These proposals were
presented to public hearing on February 28, 1990. The recommended amendments include
incorporating into the Joint Planning Land Use Plan descriptions of the basic strategies
for protecting the University Lake Watershed as recommended by Camp Dresser and McKee in
their study. Two options are identified. The recommended strategy is one of five-acre
minimum lot size zoning. The other amendment includes a Land Use Plan overlay category
entitled the University Lake Watershed Area and sets forth development patterns and
standards based on the recommended options. The third amendment involves the County's
water and sewer extension policy and includes refinements contemplated by the Joint
Planning Area jurisdictions. The final amendment involves the agreement itself and deletes
the reference to an overlay district entitled "Water Quality Critical Area" and substitutes
in its place the new designation "University Lake Watershed Area." Collins reviewed the
.'`,comments on the proposed amendments from the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Carrboro
Board of Aldermen. The revisions and additions are listed in the agenda abstract.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Bill Burch presented for the Board's consideration a recommendation for permanent
protection of University Lake Watershed and wildlife. The main emphasis was the purchase
of open land in the watershed area with a surcharge from OWASA customers. The entire
presentation is in the permanent agenda file.
Mr. Duncan spoke against the proposed restrictions which do not allow sewer lines or
water extensions in the University Lake Watershed for existing lots. He stated that the
federal grant for septic lines is unrestricted and that previous agreements to allow sewer
connections are not being honored. He asked that the proposal be amended to allow sewer
and water connections and to honor previous commitments.
Marvin Poythress spoke about the five United Churches of Christ. They are attempting
to build low cost housing. There are seventy acres in Chestnut Oaks that have already been
surveyed for the Habitat for Humanity. He requested that the County give them a variance
or exception to allow a one-acre minimum lot size for affordable housing. Chairman Carey
stated that the County is aware of this situation and will work to resolve it.
Commissioner Halkiotis suggested forming a citizens group to study the
possible sources of funding to buy and protect the land that is in the development area of
the University lake Watershed. He suggested that those who live and own land in the
University Lake Watershed and those who pay for OWASA water form a group and meet to
discuss the situation.
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell
to approve the Administration's recommendation as stated below and authorize the Chair to
sign a Joint Planning Agreement which contains these amendments and to refer the proposals
made by Commissioner Willhoit to the Intergovernmental Work Group for further discussion.
•
# 022
The Thirteen Point Agreement will be referred to as the Thirteen Point Recommendation from
hence forward. The text of the amendments is listed below: -�
A. Amend Section II Natural Environment by rewriting the subsection
entitled "B Water Resources" to read as follows:
Residents of southeast Orange County obtain water from two sources: groundwater (wells) or
reservoirs. However, the most reliable source of water for urban use is a reservoir.
Until recently, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the surrounding areas relied exclusively on
University Lake. That source was recognized as inadequate as a long-term water source, and
Cane Creek reservoir west of the Joint Planning Areas has been constructed and is now
operational. The two reservoirs should provide a raw water supply adequate for the next 20
years. In addition, the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan has
identified possible future reservoir sites to the north of Chapel Hill.
The link between land use planning and water resources in the Joint Planning Area lies in
protecting water quality by limiting development in University Lake watershed. In 1988,
the Orange Water and Sewer Authority commissioned a study to develop a range of options for
protecting the University Lake watershed. The consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and Mckee
(CDM), nationally recognized experts in watershed evaluation, completed the study in March,
1989. Because the consultants did not find improving water quality to be a practical
objective, they recommend preventing significant future water quality deterioration in
University Lake as a primary goal.
The CDM report presented two fundamental ways of meeting the University Lake water quality
goal. ,Nonstructural management practices, such as controlling land use through local
zoning and subdivision regulations, could reduce the pollution generated from future ,; ,
development by controlling the amount and location of impervious surfaces and other
pollution-causing activities. Structural practices, such as stormwater detention ponds, ''
would not reduce the amount of pollution generated but prevent substantial portions of it
from reaching University Lake by trapping pollutants near their point of origin.
The report recommended nonstructural methods as the preferred approach to watershed
protection. Basic elements of the proposed nonstructural plan included large lot (five-
acre) residential zoning, limits on impervious surfaces, and the preservation of stream
buffers along streams. The advantages of the nonstructural approach included the lower
amount of pollution generated and its reduced risk of entering the lake,, the elimination of
construction and maintenance costs for stormwater devices, and the ability to provide
wastewater disposal through individual septic systems rather than risky community
wastewater systems.
The CDM report did find that the water quality goal could be achieved through adopted land
use plans and regulations (two-acre zoning) and the construction of a significant number of
stormwater detention ponds. While the approach would provide for continued growth in the
watershed, the high public and private costs associated with a system of 72 larger regional
detention ponds or an indeterminate number of smaller individual-development-detention
ponds and intensive on-going maintenance requirements were noted as disadvantages. In
addition, there would be no way to convert back to a nonstructural control strategy if a
structural program resulted in unsatisfactory watershed protection.
B. Amend Section V Joint Planning Operating Principles by deleting' the following wording.
from the subsection entitled "Initial List of Principles - University Lake Watershed":
C. Amend Section V Joint Planning. Operating Principles by deleting the table which
# O2
identifies the Joint Planning Area Land use Plan Categories and substituting the following:
JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN CATEGORIES
Major Land Use Plan
Class Subclass Category
Resource Protection
Public-Private Open Space
Suburban Residential
Transition Urban Residential
TRANSITION Transition I Office-Institutional
Transition II Future UNC Development
Retail Trade
Light Industrial
Disposal Use
University Lake Watershed
Resource Protection
RURAL Public-Private Open Space
Rural Buffer Agricultural
CONSERVATION Rural Residential
Retail Trade
Extractive Use
(The proposed amendment deletes a category entitled "Water Quality Critical Area" and
substitutes "University Lake Watershed Area" in its place. )
D. Amend Section V Joint Planning Operating Principles by rewriting the last sentence of
the subsection "Rural Buffer and Conservation" to read as follows:
The Rural Buffer consists of the following Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan categories:
Rural Residential,; Agricultural; Public-Private Open Space; Resource Conservation;
Extractive Use; and the overlay category designated University Lake Watershed Area.
In addition, the subsection "Water Quality Critical Area" is deleted and, in its place, the
following new subsection is substituted:
UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED AREA
The University Lake Watershed Area includes all lands which drain into the University lake
reservoir. Based on a preferred watershed protection strategy of land use controls as
recommended by Camp, Dresser and McKee in the University Lake Watershed Study, only low-
density residential uses are permitted. A minimum lot size of five (5) acres and a maximum
density of one (1). unit per five (5) acres is required for any development. Cluster
subdivisions with lot sizes of not less than one (1) acre are also allowed as well as the
creation of a limited number (5) of two-acre lots.
E. Amend Section VI Future Land Use - Joint Planning Area by rewriting the first paragraph
of the subsection "The Rural Buffer Area" to read as follows:
Seven categories of Rural Buffer land use have been depicted on the Land use Plan. These
/categories include Resource Protection Areas, Public-Private Open Space Areas, Agricultural
Areas, Rural Residential Areas, Retail Trade Areas, Extractive Uses, and the overlay
# 02. 4
category designated University Lake Watershed Area.
In addition, the subsection "Water Quality Critical Area" is deleted and, in its place,
following new subsection is substituted:
UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED AREA
The University Lake Watershed Area includes all lands which drain into the University Lake
reservoir. Based on a preferred watershed protection strategy of land use controls as
recommended by Camp, Dresser and McKee in the University Lake Watershed Study, only low-
density residential uses are permitted. A minimum lot size of five (5) acres and a maximum
density of one (1) unit per five (5) acres is required for any development. Cluster
subdivisions with lot sizes of not less than one (1) acre are also allowed as well as the
creation of a limited number (5) of two-acre lots.
A final change to Section VI innvolved the subsection "Rural Residential" and redrafting
the third papagraph to read as follows:
To the west of Carrboro, Rural Residential development is also expected in University Lake
watershed. However, only low-density residential uses are anticipated. For this reason,
residential development will continue to rely on wells and septic tanks for water supply
and sewage disposal.
F. Amend Section VII Overview of Implementation Strategies by rewriting the last paragraph
of the subsection "Sewer and Water Extension Policy" to read as follows:
The Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) is the provider of water and sewer in the
Joint Planning Area. OWASA policy is to extend water and sewer in accordance with the '
adopted policies of the applicable local governments. Current Orange County policy is to
approve water and sewer extensions generally only to recognized Transition Areas, and,
outside of Transition Areas, to approve extensions of water or sewer systems only to
provide service to an essential public service, such as a school, or to remedy a public
health emergency, such as a failing septic tank or failing package treatment plant.
Refinements to this policy have been recommended as part of Joint Planning Area
implementation strategies. Under consideration currently is a temporary prohibition on ,
public water extensions in University Lake watershed until a study can be undertaken of the
advisability of extending such service. Furthermore, either an out-right prohibition or a
temporary prohibition on public sewer extensions appears likely, excepting sewer service
extensions to remedy a public health emergency. If a temporary prohibition is adopted, the
provision of sewer service in the watershed would be reconsidered following a study
regarding the advisability of such, extensions.
The amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement is as follows:
1. Amend the definition of "Rural Buffer" in Section 1.2 Definitions• by deleting the
reference to the "overlay district designated Water Quality Critical Area" and substituting
"overlay district designated University Lake Watershed Area".
The Administration further recommends that the Board of Commissioners authorize the Chair
to sign a Joint Planning Agreement containing the amendments referenced above. The revised
Agreement will then be forwarded to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for
consideration. A final recommendation is that- the following proposals of Commissioner
Willhoit and the Planning Board be pursued through the Intergovernmental Watershed Work
# 025
Group:
1. Committing to the public acquisition of land and/or the purchase of development
rights to reduce future pollutant loading potential;
2. Providing tax incentives for "environmental easements" patterned after
agricultural use-value assessments;
3. Determining the location of the majority of two-acre and smaller lots and the use
of structural BMP's in sub-basins serving existing small lot subdivisions; i.e.,
East Prices Creek (Heritage Hills) and West Prices Creek (Chatham County); and
4. Proceeding with the review and implementation of the 13-point recommendation.
As part of 14 above, consideration should also be given to lot size averaging alternatives
and impervious surface ratio modifications.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell
to request OWASA to include funds in their 1990-91 and subsequent budgets for acquisition
of land.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis
to request OWASA to include in their 1990-91 budget funds for an engineering study for
watershed protection measures for Cane Creek Reservoir.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
C. PROPOSED AMENDMENT - ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chairman Carey to
approve the proposed amendment per the Planning Board recommendation. A copy of this
amendment may be found in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.
A substitute motion to add the University Lake Watershed as an Orange County
Land Use Plan category with a one sentence definition to say "Land that drains into the
University Lake Reservoir" was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall.
VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: UNANIMOUS.
A substitute motion to table the Land Use Plan Category Description for
Water Quality Critical area was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by
Chairman Carey.
VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: UNANIMOUS.
VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION: UNANIMOUS
D. 2.1-90 UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED (ULWL DISTRICT
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chairman Carey to
approve the rezoning.of approximately 15,385 acres from the current classification of
Protected Watershed II and Water Quality Critical Area to a new zoning district
classification, the University Lake Watershed District.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
E. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS - ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
Marvin Collins explained that the proposed amendments would implement the
strategies for watershed protection identified in the Final Report - University, Lake
— Watershed Study dated March, 1989, and the basic strategies identified in the proposed 13-
point agreement prepared by the joint Watershed Work Group and dated October, 1989. Two
6
options were presented at public hearing. Option #1, which is the recommended option is
based on the land use control strategy recommended by CDM, the consultants who prepared +"'--•
University Lake Watershed Study, and the Joint Watershed Work Group. The most basic
provisions of this option include a minimum lot size requirement of five (5) acres and a
maximum density of one (1) unit per five (5) acres for any development. Cluster
subdivisions with lot sizes of not less than one (1) acre are also allowed as well as the
creation of a limited number (5) of two-acre lots. As an alternative to the latter
provision, the number of new two-acre lots which can be created may be limited to two (2)
in order to maintain higher water quality levels. Development standards for impervious
surface coverage; stream buffers; placement of streets, driveways, and buildings; and water
supply/sewage disposal facilities are also proposed.
The CDM study recommends a four percent (4%) impervious surface limitation for five-acre
lots, while the proposed 13-Point Agreement of the Watershed Work Group included a four
percent (4%) limit for five acre lots, six percent (6%) for two to five-acre lots, and
twelve percent (12%) for lots smaller than two acres. In addition to the Work Group
proposal, a more workable six percent (6%) ratio has been proposed by the Orange County
Planning Department for five acre lots. To account for lots larger than five acres,
existing lots of less than five acres, and the limited number of two-acre lots which may be
created, a sliding scale of impervious surface ratios is proposed, ranging from four
percent (4%) for six-acre lots to fifteen percent (15%) for half-acre lots.
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chairman Carey to
approve the staff's recommendation. Commissioner Hartwell offered an amendment to the
motion to table action on the amendments as presented to Article 4.2.27 and Article 4.2.28,
seconded by Chairman Carey.
•
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT: UNANIMOUS.
Commissioner Hartwell offered to amend section 6.25.5.4 by deleting "or
closer than twenty (20) feet to the nearest edge of". This amendment failed for lack of a
second. '
VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION: UNANIMOUS.
THE AMENDMENTS APPROVED BY THIS MOTION ARE LISTED BELOW
C. Amend Article 4.2.30 Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District by renumbering the
Article to 4.2.31. (This amendment provides space for a new Article 4.2.30 establishing
the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. )
D. Amend Article 4 by adding a new Article 4.2.30 University Lake Watershed (ULW) District
to read as follows:
a. Intent -
The purpose of the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District is to prevent
significant future water quality deterioration in University Lake, a reservoir
supplying drinking water to the people of southeastern Orange County. Based on a
study entitled Final Report - University Lake Watershed Study and dated March,
1989, the lake already exhibits some water quality deterioration. Unless
additional protective actions are taken, University Lake is vulnerable to
additional pollution from eutrophication (nutrient enrichment), toxicants, and , ..
sedimentation. --
•
PACE Zki
The intent of the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District is to apply a set of
ti regulations involving land use management practices which protect the watershed by
reducing the pollution generated by future development. Since a major source of
toxicants and nutrients are impervious surfaces. such as roads, roof tops, and
driveways, land use management practices involving minimum lot size and imperious
surface restrictions control the amount and location of such surfaces.
b. Application Criteria
The University Lake Watershed (ULW) district is established as a district which
overlays other zoning districts established in this ordinance. The new use of any
land or any new structure within the ULW district shall comply with those
regulations applicable to the underlying zoning districts as well as the
requirements of the ULW district. Where the regulations of the ULW district
differ from those of the underlying districts or from other development standards
contained in this ordinance, the more restrictive shall apply.
1. This district will be applied to all land located within the University Lake
Watershed as designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
E. Amend Article 6.15.2 Interim Development Standards Approved by rewriting subsection a
to read as follows:
a. University Lake Watershed
1. Area Affected - these standards shall apply to the University Lake Watershed.
2. Nature and Duration of Standards The following interim development
standards shall apply:
a) Community alternative treatment and disposal systems as well as public
water and sewer service will not be permitted in the University Lake
watershed except to-address a public health,emergency.as.determined by-
the Orange County Health Department.
b) By April 30,' 1991, .studies will be conducted to determine the - -- -
advisability of making public water and sewer services available within
the watershed. In addition, a pilot program for monitoring and
inspecting alternative treatment and disposal- systems as_ cperated by
the Orange County Health Department will be- vevaluated to determine the
advisability of permitting such systems in the watershed.
c) Following receipt and review of the above mentioned studies, a decision
will be made regarding the use of alternative treatment and disposal
systems and the advisability of public water and sewer services in the
watershed.
H. Amend Article 6.25 Extra Requirements for the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC)
District by renumbering the Article to 6.26
G. Amend Article 6 by adding a new Article 6.25 Development Standards for the University
-;ake Watershed ,(ULW) District to read as follows:
PAGE 2 to 8
6.25 Development Standards for the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District
Within the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District, significant water
quality deterioration may be prevented by land use controls which reduce the.
pollution from future development. For this reason, the new use of any land
or any new structure within the ULW district shall comply with the following
development standards:
6.25.1 Minimum Lot Size Regulated
The minimum required lot size for any use in the University Lake Watershed
(ULW) District shall be five (5) acres except as may be permitted in Article
6.25.2 or Article 6.25.3. In addition, no residential development shall
exceed a density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres except as may
be permitted in Article 6.25.2.
6.25.2 Existing Lots of Record
a. Existing lots of record as of October 2, 1989 can be subdivided to
create up to five (5) 'lots of not less than two (2) acres in size;
provided, however, the remaining land shall be developed with a minimum
lot size of at least five (5) acres for each lot and at a density not to
exceed one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres of land area.
b. Existing lots of record as of October 1, 1989 that are less than five
(5) acres in size and which cannot be further subdivided can be
developed by the owner at the current lot size.
6.25.3 Cluster Alternative
Cluster developments are permitted, provided the minimum lot size for each
lot in the development is not less than one (1) acre, and the overall -
density of the development, including the land area saved by lot size
reductions, does not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres.
All land area saved by lot size reductions shall be_reserved as permanent
open space. If cluster open space `is -not dedicated 'for public`use- it'shall
be subject to approved arrangements sufficient to assure its maintenance and
preservation. Such arrangements may include, but not -be..limited to, the
conveyance of the open space to a local or regional land conservancy or a
homeowners association, provided the subdivider shall record a declaration - -
of covenants and restrictions which prohibits further subdivision of the
open space as well'as its use for development purposes. '
If needed to control pollution loadings resulting from the runoff from
impervious surfaces in a cluster development, on-site wet detention basins
or ponds may be required. Where required, the design of such facilities
shall be based on the criteria set forth in the Final Report = University
Lake Water Study dated March, 1989. Provision shall also be made for the
public inspection and maintenance of such facilities.
6.25.4 Impervious Surface Regulated
An impervious surface is a surface composed of any material which impedes or _, _
PAGE.2.
prevents the natural infiltration of water into the soil. Impervious
surfaces shall include both paved and unpaved surfaces, including, but not
limited to, streets and parking areas, driveways, sidewalks, patios, and
structures which cover the land.
In order to promote the infiltration of stormwater runoff into the soil and
to minimize direct and immediate runoff into streams and University Lake
reservoir, impervious surface ratios shall be required as provided in the
Table of Impervious Surface Ratios for University Lake Watershed - Section
6.25.4
Impervious surface calculations for an individual lot shall be cumulative,
including the original construction and any subsequent additions thereto.
The calculation of impervious surface coverage for an individual lot shall
also include one-half of the street surface on which the lot fronts or
abuts; provided, however, the impervious surface calculation will not
include the surface of any street existing on April 2, 1990 unless the
street is upgraded to a greater width. In such cases, only the additional
width shall be included in calculating the impervious surface coverage.
It is the intent of this section that the impervious surface limitations
specified herein shall apply to the entire tract to be developed.
Therefore, if the subdivision involves the creation of any street or other
impervious surface outside the boundaries of the lots so created, then the
total impervious surface allocation may be determined as follows:
a. The total area of permissible impervious surface for the entire
subdivision shall be calculated, applying the percentage limitations set
forth in Table 6.25.4.
b. From the total area calculated pursuant to a. above, there shall be
subtracted the impervious surface area within streets and other areas
outside of the individual lot boundaries.
c. Following the calculation set forth.in-b. -above, the remaining -- -. -
permissible impervious surface shall be allocated equally to each lot-by - - .
the subdivider or as may be approved by the Zoning Officer. The
allocation shall be indicated on a separate document recorded together
with the final subdivision plat.
For conventional siubdivisions _to be. developed-in accordance with the provisions of Article 6.25.1 and cluster subdivision to be developed in
accordance with the provisions of Article 6.25.3 an impervious surface
limitation of four percent (4%) (or six percent (6%)) shall apply to the
entire tract to be developed. For an existing lot of record to be developed
in accordance with the provisions of Article 6.25.2b, the full range of
impervious surface ratios specified in Table 6.25.4 is applicable.
6.25.5 Stream Buffers Required
The effective use of buffer zones along streams can increase the overall
factor of safety associated with a watershed protection plan. By preventing
development from encroaching on steams, buffer zones can help minimize
stream channel erosion downstream of development. If properly situated and
PAGE2t a
kept in undisturbed natural vegetation, buffer zones will receive sheetflow
runoff; i.e. , runoff which flows slowly in a spread out pattern rather than
being concentrated in a Swale, from adjoining development and achieve
reductions in pollution discharges.
Within the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District, an area of land or
buffer zone along perennial and intermittent streams shall be required to
remain in its natural state, unless the area is subject to serious erosion,
in which case an erosion resistant vegetative cover shall be established and
maintained. Perennial streams are those streams shown in solid blue on the
USGS quadrangle maps for Orange County. Intermittent streams are those
streams shown by broken blue lines on the same maps.
6.25.5.1 Calculation of Buffer Zone Width
Width; i.e. , distance from the stream bank to the edge of the buffer, is a
critical factor in determining the effectiveness of a buffer zone. An
equally important determinant in pollutant removal in a buffer zone is
travel time; i.e. , the greater the time allowed for runoff to travel through
a buffer, the greater the opportunities for pollutant removal through
sedimentation, filtration, absorption, and seepage into the soil profile.
Monitoring studies of highway runoff have shown that pollutant removal in
grass swales is at a maximum after a 15-minute travel time. Based on this
standard, Table 6.25.5 was derived to provide a sliding scale for buffer
zone widths based on slope and vegetative cover.
TABLE 6.25.5 REQUIRED BUFFER.ZONE WIDTHS
ALONG PERENNIAL AND INTERMITTENT STREAMS
IN UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED
TYPE OF GROUNDCOVER
SLOPE GRASS (FT) WOODS (FT)
2% TO 4.9% 100 50
5% TO 6.9% 150 100
7% TO 9.9% 150 100
10% TO 14.9% 200 100
15% OR GREATER 250 150
The required stream buffer zone shall start at the stream bank and be
measured away from the stream for a distance depending upon the slope and
the vegetative cover near the stream. The slope shall be calculated by
measuring a distance of 250 feet from the stream bank, determining the rise
in elevation in that distance, and dividing the rise in elevation by the
distance of 250 feet. Based on the resulting slope calculation and the type
of vegetative cover near the stream, the applicable buffer zone width may be
determined from Table 6.25.5. Slope shall be determined from the USGS
quadrangle maps for Orange County, by on-site measurements or by special
survey by a registered engineer or surveyor. i..
PACE2 s
The required stream buffer zone shall not be limited to one calculation but
shall be based on calculations made at points where topographical and ground
cover conditions change based on an analysis of the site.
In addition to the buffer zone resulting from the above calculations, a
stream buffer shall include any portion of a floodplain as defined in the
Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, by special survey by a
registered engineer or surveyor or by alluvial soils as designated in the
Orange County Soils Survey.
6.25.5.2 Buffer Zones Included As Part Of Minimum Lot Size
Stream buffer zones can be used as part of the required lot area or lot size
established as part of these development standards.
6.25.5.3 Existing Vegetation in Buffer Zones
Existing forested areas and other vegetation in a healthy condition cannot
be removed from or disturbed in a stream buffer zone. Diseased and/or dead
vegetation may be removed and replaced with vegetation resulting a
comparable stormwater runoff velocity and quantity.
6.25.5.4 Permitted Uses Within Buffer Zones
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Article, no impervious surface
shall be located in or closed than twenty (20) feet to the nearest edge of a
designated buffer zone, except that the Zoning Officer may authorize the
crossing of a designated buffer zone and the presence of impervious surface
therein by or for:
a. A public or private street where the crossing is perpendicular. to the
stream and is justified in that: .
1. Without such a crossing, over fifty percent (50%) of the land area
would be without access and therefore undevelopable; or -
2. It allows a design that would clearly result in less damage to the
watershed than would result if the property were developed without
such a crossing.
b. Above ground and buried utility lines for the distribution of
electricity, gas, telephone, and cable television service where:
1. It is practicably unavoidable if the subject property and
adjoining property are to be served or potentially served by a
public service, and an alternate design would result in greater
damage to the watershed; and
2. The system, as a whole, emphasizes placement outside designated
buffer zones; and
3. To the extent practical, the direction of the line crossing is
perpendicular to the stream.
PAGE 26F
6.25.6 Placement of Streets, Driveways. and Buildings
Streets, driveways, and buildings or other impervious structures shall be
located, to the extent reasonably possible, so as to take full advantage of `:: :
the absorption capacity of the soils on which they are to be situated and to ...,..
avoid the following environmentally sensitive areas:
a. Stream buffer zones as required by Article 6.25.5 above;
b. Floodplains as defined in the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance, by special survey by a registered engineer or surveyor or by
alluvial soils as designated in the Orange County Soils Survey and which are
not part of a required stream buffer zone;
c. Wetland areas as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
d. Land with slopes greater than fifteen percent (15%) ; and
e. Natural areas as identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and
Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, N.C.
To avoid the creation of lots that will be difficult to build upon in a
manner that complies with the standards set forth in this Article, the
preliminary plat for the subdivision of land shall show proposed building
envelopes and approximate driveway locations for all lots within such
subdivisions. Thereafter, no zoning compliance permit may be issued for the
construction of buildings or driveways outside the areas so designated on
the preliminary plat unless the Zoning Officer makes a written finding that "' y14')
the proposed location complies with the provisions of this Article.
6.25.7 Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Facilities Required
Every principal use and every lot within a subdivision shall be served by a
water supply and sewage disposal system that is adequate to accommodate the
needs of such use or subdivision lot and that complies with all applicable -
regulations of the Orange County Health Department.
Notwithstanding the above provisions, water supply and sewage treatment
systems shall be limited to individual wells and on-site septic systems or
individual on-site alternative .disposal systems. The use of community
alternative wastewater disposal systems_and_public water and sewer_.service
is restricted as specified in Article 6.15.2.a of this Ordinance. No new
septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located within a
designated stream buffer zone or within one hundred (100) feet of a
perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS quadrangle maps for
Orange County, whichever is the greater distance.
F. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS - ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall
to approve the staff's recommendation as stated below:
a. University Lake Watershed
PAGE2G G
1. Area Affected - These standards shall apply to the University Lake
Watershed.
2. Nature and Duration of Standards - The following interim
development standards shall apply:
a) Community alternative treatment and disposal systems as well
as public water and sewer service will not be permitted in
the University Lake watershed except to address a public
health emergency as determined by the Orange County Health
Department.
b) By April 30, 1991, studies will be conducted to determine the
advisability of making public water and sewer services
available within the watershed. In addition, a pilot program
for monitoring and inspecting alternative treatment and
disposal systems as operated by the Orange County Health
Department will be evaluated to determine the advisability of
permitting such systems in the watershed.
c) Following receipt and review of the above mentioned studies,
a decision will be made regarding the use of alternative
treatment and disposal systems and the availability of public
water and sewer services in the watershed.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY SUPERVISION REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE
UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION STRATEGIES
Listed below are proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. If
adopted, the amendments would supplement proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments to implement
strategies for watershed protection- identified in the Final Report -University Lake _
Watershed Study dated March, .1989, -and -the basic strategies identified in the proposed 13-
point agreement prepared by the Joint Watershed Work Group and dated October, 1989. For a _ -. .-
complete understanding of the proposals, reference should also -be made to the proposed
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed amendments are being presented at a special'public hearing on February 28,
1990. The proposals involve amendments to Orange County's Subdivision Regulations and
require only the approval of the Board of Commissioners. Upon completion of the public
hearing, and following receipt of the Planning Board's recommendation, the Board of
Commissioners may adopt Option #1, Option #2 or some combination of the two.
The specific wording proposed for various sections of the Subdivision Regulations is listed
below.
1. Amend Section IV-B-10 Cluster Developments by adding a new subsection g) to Section
IV-B-10-b to read as follows:
g) Cluster developments in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District shall comply
with the development standards as set forth in Article 6.25 of the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance.
PAGE Z K
2. Amend Section IV-B-10 Cluster Developments by rewriting the introductory paragraph of
Section IV-B-10-c to read as follows:
*rte
For lots created as part of a cluster development, minimum lot area, lot width, and
setback requirements as specified in Article 4.1.2 of the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance may be reduced as set forth below. For lots created as part of a cluster
development in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District, the minimum lot size may
be reduced as specified in Article 6.25 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Amend Section V-C Preliminary Plat by rewriting subsection V-C-6 as follows:
V-C-6 Floodway and Watershed Data ,
The boundaries for both the floodway and floodway fringe areas shall be
designated and labeled on the plat as required by the Orange County Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance.
For subdivisions located within a water supply watershed of regional and/or
local importance, the following information shall be designated and labeled
on the plat:
(a) Impervious surface data as required by Articles 6.23, 6.24, and/or 6.25
of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance;
(b) Stream buffers as required by Section IV-B-9-b of this Ordinance or
Articles 6.23, 6.24, and/or 6.25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance;
and
(c) Stormwater detention and/or retention sites and undisturbed areas for
infiltration purposes as required by Section IV-B-9-c this Ordinance,
the Orange County Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance or
Articles 6.23, 6.24, and/or 6.25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
4. Amend Section V-D Final Plat by rewriting subsection V-D-5-d as follows:
V-D-5-d Floodway and Watershed Data
The boundaries for both the floodway and floodway fringe areas shall be
designated and labeled on the plat as required by the Orange County Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance.
For subdivisions located within a water supply watershed of regional and/or.
local importance, the following information shall be designated or
referenced on the Final Plat:
(a) Impervious surface data as required by Article 6.23, 6.24, and/or 6.25
of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance shall be provided in a separate
document to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The Deed
Book and Page reference of the document shall be noted on the Final
Plat.
(b) Stream buffers as required by Section IV-B-9-b of this Ordinance or
Articles 6.23, 6.24, and/or 6.25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
shall be noted on the Final Plat. Development restrictions within the
PAGE Z.41
buffer shall be specified in a separate document to be recorded -
concurrently with the Final Plat. The Deed Book and Page reference
shall be noted on the Final Plat.
(c) Stormwater detention and/or retention sites and undisturbed areas for
infiltration purposes as required by Section IV-B-9-c of this Ordinance
and/or Articles 6.23, 6.24, and/or 6.25 of the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance shall be labeled on the Final Plat. Any restrictions or
requirements associated with the detention/retention sites shall be
specified in a separate document to be recorded concurrently with the
Final Plat. The Deed Book and Page reference shall be noted on the
Final Plat.
GL SCRAP TIRE DISPOSAL FEE
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell
to approve the resolution as stated below authorizing scrap tire disposal fee and
authorizing the Chair to sign said resolution:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SCRAP TIRE DISPOSAL FEE
A Resolution authorizing the Landfill Owners Group through the Chapel Hill Town
Manager to assess a scrap tire disposal fee of $1 per tire that allows the Orange Regional
Landfill to fully comply with the provisions of the North Carolina Scrap tire Disposal Act.
WHEREAS, the County of Orange supports the provisions of the North Carolina Scrap Tire
Disposal Act; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Landfill Owners Group to collect and dispose of scrap
tires in an environmentally sound fashion;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that the
:ind£ill Owners Group through the Chapel Hill Town Manager is authorized to implement the
--:,crap tire disposal fee of $1 per tire and to begin collection of fees upon proper notice
to the citizens of Orange County.
XI. APPOINTMENTS - Tabled
• HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - Forest E. Walton
XII. MINUTES - None
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
With no further items for consideration, Chairman Carey adjourned the meeting.
The next regular meeting will be held on April 17, 1990 at 7:30 in the courtroom of the old
Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
1 . I_ y
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL
MONDAY, APRIL 2 , 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. Rencher Street CDBG Matching Funds
B. Annual Contributions Contract/Section 8
Certificate Program
C. Emergency Shelter Grant Application
D. Health Department Fee Schedule for Community
Screening Services
E. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment--Board
of Adjustment Administration
F. Acceptance of Final Airport Report--Closeout of
Project
VI. RESOLUTIONS/PROCLAMATXONS.
A. Proclamation of County Government Week
B. Proclamation for Senior Games
VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
IX. REPORTS
X. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA
A. Adoption of Watershed Regulations
B. Public Hearing Date--Transportation/Thoroughfare
Plans
C. Proposed Amendments--Joint Planning Area Land
Use Plan and Joint Planning Agreement
D. Proposed Amendment--Orange County Comprehensive
Plan
E. Z-1-90 University Lake Watershed (ULW) District
F. Proposed Amendments--Orange County Zoning
Ordinance
G. Proposed Amendments--Orange County Subdivision
Regulations
H. Scrap Tire Disposal Fee
XI. APPOINTMENTS
XII. MINUTES - None
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
(*) Indicates items that need immediate attention.
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1
Action A enda
Item No WA
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 2, 1990
SUBJECT: Rencher Street CDBG Matching Funds
DEPARTMENT Budget PUBLIC HEARING YES NO _X_
ATTACHMENT(S) INFORMATION CONTACT
Proposed Budget Ordinance Amendment #12 Rod Visser, ext 492
Proposed Grant Project Ordinance TELEPHONE NUMBER
Amendment Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Mebane 227-2031
Durham 688-7331
PURPOSE: To budget County matching funds of $85, 000 required under the
terms of the 1988 Community Development Block Grant for the
Rencher Street Project.
BACKGROUND: In August 1988, Orange County was awarded $600,000 in
Community Development Block Grant Funds for the Rencher
Street community. The grant agreement, funding approval,
and signatory form and certification were approved on
September 20, 1988. The proposed budget ordinance
amendment will appropriate fund balance from the General
Fund and transfer it to the Community Development Fund.
The proposed grant project ordinance amendment will
appropriate these transferred funds for Sewer Improvements
included in the Rencher Street Project.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : Adopt the proposed grant project ordinance
amendment and the proposed budget ordinance
amendment.
r .
2
GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - 1988
Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners that pursuant to Section
13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina the
ordinance adopting the "Community Development Block Grant -1988" is
hereby amended as follows:
Section 1. Section 3 of the above mentioned ordinance is amended to
read as follows:
Community Development Grant $ 600,000
Program Income 300
Transfer from General Fund 85,000
$ 685,300
Section 2 . Section 4 of the above mentioned ordinance is amended to
read as follows:
Acquisition $ 3,000
Street Improvements 99,925
Sewer Improvements 182,688
Water Improvements 64,718
Clearance Activities 1,700
Rehabilitation of Privately
Owned Dwellings 185,128
Administration 81, 388
Sewer Improvements-Local Option 66,753
$ 685, 300
Section 3 . Section 8 of the above mentioned ordinance is added to
read as follows:
This ordinance shall be in effect from date of adoption
until June 30, 1991.
Adopted this 2d day of April, 1990.
3
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:
Approp Fund Balance $ 739,722 $ 85,000 $ 824,722
Appropriation:
Transfer to Other Funds $1,492,210 $ 85, 000 $1,577,210
To budget for required County matching funds for the Rencher
Street CDBG Project.
BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 12
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No.V-EV
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 2 , 1990
SUBJECT: Annual Contributions Contract/Section 8 Certificate Program
DEPARTMENT: Housing/Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: x
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes
HUD Resolution
Annual Contributions Contract TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To adopt a resolution authorizing execution of a Annual
Contributions Contract for the Section 8 Existing
Certificate Program.
BACKGROUND: The County presently administers the Section 8 Existing
Certificate Program for 388 families in Orange County.
Authority to administer this program is provided through
an agreement with HUD known as an Annual Contributions
Contract (ACC) and allows the County to provide housing
assistance payments to eligible participants according to
HUD regulations.
Our present ACC expires July, 1991 , however, the term of
the ACC is being extended to August 1992, thereby, giving
the County an additional year of contract/budget authority.
The total budget authority for the term ending August 1992
is $1 , 571 , 572 . In order to accept this extended term, it is
necessary to execute another ACC with HUD.
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
Adopt the resolution authorizing the Chair to sign the
Annual Contributions Contract for the Section 8 Existing
Certificate Program on behalf of the County.
2
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION
•
OF 'AN ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRACT
Whereas, the Orange County Housing Authority
(herein called the "PHA") proposes to enter into an Annual Contributions
Contract (herein called the "Contract") with the United States of
America, Department of Housing and Urban Development (herein called
the "Government").
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the PHA as follows:
Section 1. The Contract, numbered Contract No. A-2903
is hereby approved and accepted both as to form and substance and
thechair of Bd. of Commissioners is hereby authorized and directed
(Title of Officer)
to execute said Contract in triplicate on behalf of the PHA, and the
C1er-k to the Bd of Commissioners is hereby authorized and directed to
' (Title of Officer)
impress and attest the official seal of the PHA on each such
counterpart and to forward said executed counterparts to the
Government together with such other documents evidencing the
approval and authorizing the execution thereof as may be required by the
Government.
Section 2. The County Manager is hereby authorized
(Title of Officer)
to file with the Government from time to time, as monies are
required, requisitions together with the necessary supporting
document, for payment under the Contract.
Section 3. This Resolutiob shall take effect immediately.
3
ACC Part l Numbers A--2903 - E
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
SECTION 8 EXISTING
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRACT
PA_ RT 1
for
HOUSING CERTIFICATE PROGRAM
1.1. DEFINITIONS.
A. ACC.
As used in Part 1 of this CACC, "ACC" means the Annual
Contributions Contract for each project.
As used in Part 11 of this CACC, "ACC" means the CACC.
B. Budget Authority. The maximum aggregate amount which may be
paid by HUD for each project in the Program over the duration of
the CACC. Budget Authority is reserved by HUD from amounts
authorized and Congress.
budget authority for projects
Federal Fiscal Year 1988 and later years.)
C. CACC. Consolidated Annual Contributions Contract.
D. Contract Authority._ The amount of contract authority for each
project is listed in Exhibit I or Exhibit II of this CACC Part 1
(subject to reduction in accordance with section 1.4.D and section
2.9 of this CACC).
E. Cost Amendment. An amendment to the CACC which provides
additional contract or budget authority to cover increased Program
Expenditures to maintain the Program at the number of units
originally approved by HUD.
F. Fiscal Year. The PHA Fiscal Year.
ACC Part I: Page 1 of 6 pages
HUD 52520 B (August 1988)
G. HUD. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
H. Maximum Annual Contribution Commitment_ See section 1.4.C.1.b.
of this CACC.
1. PHA. Public Housing Agency.
J. Program. The PHA's Housing Certificate Program under the CACC.
K. Program Receipts. Amounts paid by HUD to the PHA for the
Housing Certificate Program, and any other amounts received by
the PHA in connection with the Program.
L. Program Expenditures. Amounts which may be charged against
Program Receipts in accordance with the CACC and HUD
requirements.
M. Project. A funding increment for the Program. (The project may
be for additional units or for a cost amendment. )
1.2. HOUSING CERTIFICATE PROGRAM.
A. Projects in Program.
1. List of Projects. The Projects in the Program are listed In
Exhibit 1 and Exhibit II of this CACC Part I.
2. Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 fists projects funded with amounts
appropriated before Federal Fiscal Year 1988.
3. Exhibit II. Exhibit II lists projects funded with amounts
appropriated in Federal Fiscal Year 1988 and later years:
B. Number of Units (by number of bedrooms). To the maximum
extent feasible, the PHA shall enter into contracts for housing
assistance payments for units under the Program In accordance
with the unit distribution stated in this section. No substantial
deviation, as determined by HUD, from this unit distribution is
allowed without prior HUD approval.
Number of bedrooms Number of Units,
0 1
1 f5
2 219
3 91
4 12
Total 388
ACC Part It Page 2 of 8 pages
HUD 52520 B (August 19B8)
. 5
C. PHA Fiscal Year.
1. The first fiscal year for the Program shall begin
on October 18, 1976 (Enter the
effective date for the first project listed in Exhibit I of
Part I of the CACC. If this date is not entered before the
CACC is signed by the PHA, the date may be entered
subsequently by HUD, upon written notice by HUD to the
PHA. ) The first Fiscal Year for the Program shall end on
the last day of the PHA Fiscal Year which ends not less
than 12 months, or more than 23 months, after this date.
2. Thereafter, the fiscal year for the Program shall be the 12
month period ending June 30 of each
calendar year. (Enter the day and month used as the Fiscal
Year ending date for other Section 8 assistance
administered by the PHA under an Annual Contributions
Contract with HUD. )
1.3. TERM.
A. Exhibit I Projects. For all Projects listed in Exhibit 1, the term of
the CACC shall end on August 1, 1992
(Insert last date of CACC term for all Exhibit 1 projects. If this
date is not entered before the CACC is signed by the PHA, the
date may be entered subsequently by HUD, upon written notice by
HUD to the PHA. )
B. Exhibit 11 Projects. For each project listed in Exhibit Ili _ ..
1. Exhibit 11 states the first date and last date of the ACC
term for the project.
2. The first date of the ACC term for the project shall be the
first day of the month when HUD signs the CACC which
adds the project to the Program, or another date as
determined by HUD.
3. If the first or last date of the ACC term for the project is
not entered before the CACC is signed by the PHA, the
date may be entered subsequently by HUD, upon written
notice by HUD to the PHA.
4. HUD may revise Exhibit II at any time, upon written notice
by HUD to the PHA (a) to add a cost amendment project,
or (b) to `remove a project for which the ACC term has
expired.
ACC Part 1: Page 3 of 6 pages
HUD 52520 B (August 1986)
6
1.4 ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION.
A. Payment._ HUD shall pay the PHA annual contributions for the
Program in accordance with HUD regulations and requirements.
B. Amount and Purpose of HUD Payments.
1. The annual contribution for the Program shall be the
amount approved by HUD for each Fiscal Year to cover:
a. The amount of housing assistance payments by the
PHA.
b. The amount of PHA fees for Program administration.
2. The amount of the HUD annual contribution may be
reduced, as determined by HUD, by the amount of Program
Receipts (such as interest income) other than the HUD
annual contribution.
C. Maximum Payments for Program.
1. Annual Limit on Payments for Program.
a. Except for payments from the CACC reserve
account as provided in section 1.4.E of this CACC,
the HUD annual contribution for the program
under section 1.4.B during the Fiscal Year shall
not be more than the Maximum Annual Contribution
Commitment for the Program.
b. The Maximum Annual Contribution Commitment
for the Program for each PHA Fiscal Year shall be
equal to the sum of the contract authority amounts
reserved by HUD for the projects in the Program.
The amount of contract authority reserved for each
project in the Program is stated in Exhibits 1 and
11 of this CACC Part 1 (subject to reduction in
accordance with section 1.4.D and section 2.3 of
this CACC). If the first Fiscal Year for the
Program is more than 12 months, the Maximum Annual
Contribution Commitment for the Program for the
first Fiscal Tear may be adjusted in an amount as
determined by HUD by the addition of the pro rata
amount applicable to the period in excess of 12
months.
ACC Part is Page 4 of 6 pages
HUD 52520 B (August 1988)
2. Limit on Total Payments for Program. The sum of HUD
payments under section 1.4.B for the Program over the
duration of the CACC (including any payments from the
CACC reserve account as provided in section 1.4.E) shall
not be more than the sum of the budget authority amounts
reserved by HUD for the projects in the Program from
amounts authorized and appropriated by the Congress.
D. Reduction of Amount Payable. HUD may reduce the amount
payable by HUD for any project or for the Program, and may
reduce the amount of the contract authority or budget authority
for any project, by giving the PHA written notice of reduction in
accordance with section 2.3 of this CACC. The notice by HUD
may include a revision of Exhibits I or it to state the reduction in
the amount of contract authority or budget authority for a project.
E. CACC Reserve Account. A CACC reserve account shall be
established and maintained by HUD, in an amount as determined by
HUD consistent with its responsibilities under section 8(c)(6) of the
V.S. Housing Act of 1937. The CACC reserve account may be used
by HUD for payment of any portion of the payment approved by
HUD under section 1.4.8 for the Fiscal Year.
F. Separate ACC. HUD's commitment to make payments for each
project listed in Exhibit 11 shall constitute a separate ACC.
1.5 CACC.
A. The CACC consists of this CACC Part 1 (including Exhibits l and
11) and the form ACC Part 11 prescribed by HUD for the Housing
Certificate Program and Housing Voucher Program, designated as
form HUD 52520 E, and dated June 1985. These documents
constitute the whole CACC for the Program.
ACC Part 1: Page 5 of 6 pages
HUD 52520 B (August i968)
8
B. This CACC supersedes any previous Annual Contributions Contract
for the projects or Program. Matters relating to operation of the
projects or Program under a previous Annual Contributions Contract
shall be governed by this CACC.
Signatures:
PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY
ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
Name of PHA
By
Signature Date signed
Print or type name and official title of signatory
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
By
Signature Date signed
Print or type name and official title of signatory
ACC Part 1: Page 6 of 8 pages
HUD 52520 B (August 1988)
_ r
9
ACC Part I Number: A-2903 - E
EXHIBIT I
Projects Appropriated Before Federal Fiscal Year 1988
PROJECT ACC LIST CONTRACT PROJECT ACC
NUMBER NUMBER AUTHORITY EFFECTIVE DATE
NC19-E104-003 A-77-248 $ 92,376.00 05/19/77
NC19-E104-004 A-77-517 452,436.00 09/15/77
NC19-E104_006 A-81-679 121,140.00 06/30/81
NC19-E104-007 A-84-0676 66,960.00 09/17/84
NC19-E104-008 A-85-0289 94,512.00 04/09/85
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Date signed
Exhibit is Page 1 of 1 pages
HUD 52520 8 (August 1988)
10
•
ACC Part 1 Number: A-2903 - E
EXHIBIT II
Projects Appropriated in Federal Fiscal Year 1988 and Later Years
Abbreviation: CA = Contract authority. BA = Budget authority.
PROJECT CA BA OF
LAST
TERM OF TERM DNSTRI-
NUMBER BUTION
NC19-E104-001 $304,284.00 $4,565,412.00 10/18/76 10/17/91 OBR 1
1BR - 52
2BR - 56
3BR - 17
Total 126
• NC19-E104-901 $372,074.00 $ 744,148.00 09/01/89 06/30/91 NA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Date signed
Exhibit II:. Page 1 of 1 pages
HUD 52520 S (August 1988)
... 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No._
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 2 , 1990
SUBJECT: Emergency Shelter Grant Application
DEPARTMENT: Housing/Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: x
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes
Grant Application
TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To authorize the execution of an Emergency Shelter Grant
Application.
BACKGROUND: The N.C. Department of Economic and Community Development
(ECD) has announced the availability of additional
Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESGP) funds. The purpose
of this program is to assist families and individuals who
are homeless primarily due to their economic circumstances .
These grants will be awarded to local governments to help
improve the quality and availability of emergency shelters
and services for the homeless in their communities. Since
1987 , the County has been awarded a total of $38 , 935 in
ESGP funds. These funds were directed to the Inter-Faith
Council for the operation of their Community Shelter .
Again, the Housing and Community Development Department is
proposing submission of an ESGP application with Inter-
Faith Council acting as subrecipient . Inter-Faith Council
has agreed to provide the matching resources necessary.
This application will request $37 , 500 to be used for
operations and services at the IFC shelter . The deadline
date for submission is April 10 , 1990 . County staff have
met with representatives of Inter-Faith Council to discuss
and prepare the proposed application. The application has
been forwarded to the appropriate County officials for
review and comment .
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
Authorize submission of an Emergency Shelter Grant
Application and authorize the Chair to sign the Application
on behalf of the County.
2 - `..
EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM
APPLICATION SUMMARY FORM
1. APPLICANT
a. Name of local government: County of Orange
b. Address: p.0. Box 8181
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
c. County: Orange
d. Local Government Contact Person: Tara L. Fikes
Address: p.0. Box 8181
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
Telephone: (919)732-8181
2. SHELTER (SUBRECIPIENT)
a. Name of shelter: Inter-Faith Council Community Shelter
b. Address: 100 W. Rosemary Street
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514
c. Subrecipient Contact Person: Chris Moran
Telephone: (919)967-0643
d. Is subrecipient a domestic violence shelter? Yes No X
3. ADMINISTERING AGENCY
a. Name of administering agency: County of Orange
b. Contact person and phone number: Tara L. Fikes (919)732-8181
4. GRANT REQUEST
- Operations/Services funds requested $ 37,500
TOTAL $ 37,500
5. If the local government certifications are to be submitted at a later date than the
application due date, please indicate that date: N/A
6. CERTIFICATION
To the best of my knowledge and belief, data in this application is true and correct.
The document has been duly authorized by the governing body of the applicant and the
applicant will comply with the attached certifications if the assistance is approved.
a. Typed Name and Title of Chief Elected Official of local government
applicant:
Moses Carey, Jr.
Chair, Board of Commissioners
b. Signature c. Date
ESGP X1101 (Revised 3/90)
3
EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM
COMMUNITY NEEDS AND RESOURCES FORM
Name of Applicant County. of Orange
(Local Government)
1. Describe the current and future needs of homeless people in your community
for emergency shelter and other services.
The homeless population of this community needs many transitional housing resources
to enable them to seek appropriate services such as medical, mental health, substance
abuses, employment, legal, housing, job training, child care and life skill training.
After receiving appropriate counseling and services, occupants will be assisted in
establishing permanent living arrangements. These needs are expected to remain the same
in the future.
2. What is the approximate number of homeless persons in your community/service
area?
During 1989, 7837 units of service (one night per guest equals one unit of service)
were provided for 354 guests. The total number of guests increased with 73 more
persons served in 1989 than in 1988. According to a report of the Chapel Hill Task
Force on the Homeless, there are as many as 50 homeless persons in Orange County at
any given time. The local community action agency, JOCCA, has indicated that there
are as many as 100 homeless persons in Orange County at any given time.
3. Please define the community/service area used in answering question 2 above.
Orange County is the community service area which includes all incorporated
towns within Orange County.
4. What programs and services are available to the homeless in your community
(including those provided by government, private nonprofit agencies and other
organizations)?
The Inter-Faith Council provides the only overnight shelter for homeless persons
in Orange County. However, many other agencies provide temporary assistance to
persons needing clothing, money and short-term assistance. The Agencies include
Orange Congregations in Mission, Joint Orange Chatham Community Action Agency and
the local Department of Social Services. Many other churches and small community
services groups also provide meals at various holidays during the year.
ESGP #102 (Revised 3/90)
4
4
EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAMS
LOCAL.GOVERNi1ENT CERTIFICATION FORM
The Applicant, county of Orange , certifies that:
(Name of Local Government)
(a) The matching supplemental funds required by the regulations at 24 CFR
576.71 will be provided. A description of the sources and amounts of
such supplemental funding is provided in this application.
(b) It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant, and to execute to
the proposed program.
(c) Its governing body has duly adopted or passed as an official act a
resolution, motion or similar action authorizing the filing of the
application, including all understandings and assurances contained
therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the
official representative of the applicant to act in connection with the
application and to provide such additional information as may be
required.
(d) Its chief elected official or other officer of the applicant approved
by ECD:
(1) Consents to assume the status of the "responsible Federal
Official" as that term is used in Section 102 of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) , and other provisions of Federal
law, as specified at 24 CFR 58.5, which furthers the purpose of NEPA.
(2) Is authorized and consents on behalf of the applicant and himself
to accept the jurisdiction of the Federal courts for the purpose
of enforcement of his responsibilities as such an official.
(3) Consents to review and comment on all Environmental Impact
Statements prepared for Federal projects which may have an impact
on the applicant's/recipient's ESGP Program.
(4) Consents to perform all coordination functions required under 24
CFR 58 and 40 CFR 1500-1508.
(e) Its ESGP program will be conducted and administered in conformity with
Public Law 90-284, and that it will affirmatively further fair housing.
(f) It will comply with and ensure that designated subrecipients of ESGP
grants will comply with and ensure that designated subrecipients of
ESGP grants will comply with all provisions of 4 NCAC 19Q of the North
Carolina Administrative Code, entitled Emergency Shelter Grants Program,
and all applicable federal and state laws, regulations, rules and Executive
Orders.
ESGP #104-1 (Revised 3/90)
5
(g) It will give ECD, HUD and the Comptroller General, through any
authorized representatives, access to and the right to examine all
records, books, papers of documents related to the ESGP grant, and
require subrecipients to provide the same access to and the right to
examine its records, books, papers or documents related to the ESGP
grant.
(h) It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees or subrecipients'
employees from using positions for a purpose that is or gives the
appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain for
themselves or others, particularly those who may have family,
business or other ties.
(i) It will minimize displacement of persons as a result of activities
assisted with ESGP funds.
(j) It will assure that the recipient and project sponsor conducting activities,
funded in whole or in part with McKinney Act funds, will assist the homeless
population in this jurisdiction, will administer, in good faith, a policy
designed to ensure that the assisted homeless facility is free from the
illegal use, possession, or distribution of drugs or alcohol by its
beneficiaries.
Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
Board of Commissioners
Name and Title of Chief Elected
Official
Signature
Date
ESGP #104-2 (Revised 3/90)
6
ESGP Round 5 Application Check List •
Name of Local Government (applicant): County of Orange
Name of Subrecipient: Inter-Faith Council Community Shelter
X 1. Do you have one original and one copy of the following
forms for each Shelter?
X a. Application Summary Form
X b. Community Needs Form
X c. One six page Operations/Services Activities Form
x d. Certification Form
_IL 2. Is the original application signed in ink by the local government
Chief Elected Officer on the Applications Summary Form and on the
Certification Form? (Signature must match typed name)
X 3. Are all questions of the application package answered completely?
X 4. Will all application materials be received by the Division of
Community Assistance on April 10, 1990, or be postmarked by this date?
. N/A 5. If applicable, will both the Certification Form, ESGP #104 and the
signature on the Application Summary Form, ESGP #101 be received or
postmarked on or before May 24, 1990?
Signature Date
Local Government Contact Person
(Should be same as on Application Summary Form)
7
EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM
OPERATIONS/SERVICES ACTIVITIES FORM
A separate form should be filled out for each subrecipient. See pages 1 to 3 of
the Application Guidelines for discussion of eligible activities, ineligible
activities and federal restrictions. Directions for filling out this form are
found on pages 8 and 9 of the guidelines.
A. Name of Applicant: County of Orange (Local Government)
B. Name of Shelter: Inter-Faith Council Community Shelter
C. Name of Organization: Inter-Faith Council
1 . What is the overnight lodging capacity of your shelter now? 56 Persons
2. Amount requested for Operations $ _37,500
3. For what kind of operating costs are ESGP funds to be used? Mark checks beside
all applicable activities on page 112-2.
4 . Amount requested for Services $ N/A
5. What kind of essential services are to be performed with ESGP funds? Mark checks
beside all applicable activities on page 112-3.
6. How long has your organization been providing assistance to the homeless?
5 Years 3 Months
7. Is the shelter to be assisted with ESGP funds currently occupied by the
subrecipient agency? xL Yes No
8. Is your shelter a soup kitchen, day shelter, or other non-lodging facility?
Yes X No
ESGP #112-1 (3/90)
8
Operations/Services Activities Form (2 of 6)
Examples of Eligible Operations Activities
- Rent (including pre-payment)
- Utilities: (including pre-payment)
Electric, telephone, gas, oil, water & sewer, heating
- Routine Maintenance
- Purchase of Kitchen equipment and supplies:
- Refrigerators - Ice Machine
- Freezers - Microwaves
- Serving Carts - Coffee Maker
- Stove/Ranges - Dishwasher
- Electric Can Openers - Hand Mixers
- Steam Tables -- Food Trays
- Cups, Plates, and Paper towels - Utensils
- Purchase of Household Equipment and Supplies; circle all that apply:
mops, brooms, buckets, cleaning supplies, tools, vacuum, washer and
dryers, light bulbs, dumpster lawn mowers, yard tools, bathroom
essentials, first aid supplies, dehumidifiers, and day care supplies.
- Purchase of Furniture and other Appliances:
- Beds/cots (linens) - Telephone answering services
- Portable heaters - Exhaust fans
- V.C.R. - Intercom
X T.V. -- Crib, playpen
- Pay for Services:
X Insurance of facility - Garbage pickup
- Pest Extermination x Janitorial services
- Fumigation
X Other:
- Insulating Materials
- Recharged fire extinguishers
-- Repaired hot water heater
112-2
9
Operations/Services Activities Form (Page 3 of 6)
Examples of Eligible Services Activities
- Purchase/Provision of food
- Transportation costs (including gas, vehicle maintenance;
excluding vehicle purchase, staff time
to drive it)
- Health and Medical Services
- Mental Health Services
- Substance Abuse Services
- Employment Referrals/Counseling
- Housing Referrals
- Life Skills Training
- Legal Services
- Job Training
- Contract with Soup Kitchen
- Child Care
- Bus Passes to Homeless
- Homeless Prevention (See Notice)
- Short term subsides to help defray rent and utility arrearages for
families faced with eviction or termination of utility services.
- Security deposits or first month's rent to enable a homeless family to move
into their own apartment.
Other:
0006
112-3
to
Operations/Services Activities Form (Page 4 of 6)
9. How many different persons use the shelter per day, on average?
Peak Season 40 Persons Off-Peak Season 20 Persons
10. Estimate the number of persons who use the shelter or services each day
during peak and off-peak seasons of shelter operation.
Peak Season Off-Peak Season
Lodging: 40 Persons Lodging: 20 Persons
Served Meals: 100 Persons Served Meals: 100 Persons
Provision of Services: Persons Provision of Services: _ Persons
Referral for Services: 25-30 Persons Referral of Services: lQ-15 Persons
Other (Specify ) : Persons Other (Specify Z ) : Persons
Medical Services
Day Shelter
11. Describe the types and circumstances of your average clients.
See attached report.
12. Estimate and briefly explain the impact of ESGP-assisted Operations and
Services funds on the shelter's assistance to the homeless. Please include
persons served and level of service provided where possible.
ESGP funds have supported the renovation of the new kitchen/shelter facility due to
open May, 1, 1990. Additionally, these funds have purchased needed equipment for
the kitchen and shelter, provided clothing, medical care, as well as assisted
individuals in leaving the shelter to permanent residences.
13. How many months of the year is your facility now open? 12 Months
How many days of the week? 7 Days
How many hours per day? -Tr- Hours
24 hours beginning 5/1/90
14. If ESGP funds will enable you to increase the time your shelter is open,
please explain.
The shelter has plans to expand hours to 24 hours a day in the newly renovated
facility beginning May 1, 1990. ESGP funds will help support increased operational
and maintenance costs required for this exnansion.
15. List the sources of funding and resources In your present budget and
their amounts.
Local Government $ 30,000
Volunteer Time 143,940
Federal/State Funds sn,00n
In-Kind Contributions 108,000
Private Contributions ?9,000
Institutional Contributions
Other (Specify inve gients ) 61000
TOTAL $ 366,940
ESGP #112-4 (3/90)
11
Operations/Services Activities Form (Page 5 of 6)
16. What assurances do you have that the resources cited in Question 15 will
continue to be available? Briefly describe. (See federal requirements for
continued operation of assisted shelters 24 CFR 576.73)
The Inter-Faith Council has been in existence for approximately twenty-six .
years and has continuously provided service to low income citizens of this
community. Private contributions and donations as well as local government
support has steadily increased over the past years and is anticipated to continue.
17. Indicate the source and dollar value of federally required matching
resources that must be available during the period of the grant.
(approximately May 10 - November 6, 1990). Matching resources may include
the value of any donated material or building, the value of any lease on a
building, staff salaries, and volunteers' time and services (determined
at $5 per hour) as they directly relate to carrying out proposed activities.
Refer to page 8 of the Application Guidelines for the federal requirements
for matching resources.
Local Government Funds 5 5Q,0Q0
Staff Salaries 511 nnn
Volunteer Time 194.onn
Donated Material ,non
Donated Buildings 30,000
Other (Specify _)
TOTAL $ 297,000
18. Will all ESGP funds your organization receive be expended within 180 days
of the date ESGP funds are available to your local government? How?
Yes X No
If not, when
All operation expenses outlined are scheduled to occur during the prescribed
180 day period.
19. Is the shelter organization a primarily religious organization?
(See 24 CFR 576.21) Yes No X
20. How will the shelter comply with the federal restrictions on the use of ESGP
funds by primarily religious organizations?
N/A
21. What is the street address of the building to be assisted?
100 W. Rosemary Street, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514
ESGP #112-5 (Revised 3/90)
12
Operations/Services Activities Form (Page 6 of 6)
22. Row will the shelter meet the federal requirement for publicizing the
nondiscriminatory operation of the shelter (See 24 CFA 576.79)?
SEE BELOW
23. If ESGP funds will be used for homeless prevention, please explain.
ESGP funds will be used for homeless prevention through the services
category for rent/utility assistance to prevent eviction.
22. All shelter activities are presently publicized through all local
community non-profit agencies, the Inter-Faith Council newsletter, and
all local government departments. Additionally, the local newsletter,
media as well as the Public Television Station at Chapel Hill (WUNC)
has been willing to advertise and promote shelter activities for
Inter-Faith Council. These methods will ensure that the entire community
is aware of the availability of the Community Shelter services in a non-
discriminatory basis.
ESGP 0112-6
13
I,
IFC Shelter Report
January 1, 1989 - December 31, 1989
To: Shelter Steering Committee
From: Mike Frawley
Re: Shelter report for 1989 (year-end report)
354 guests were provided 7,837 units of service (1 night per guest is 1 unit of service). Of the 354
guests, 244 had never stayed in the Shelter before. During 1988, 281 guests were provided 8,215
units of service. The decrease in number of units of service from 1988 to 1989 is due to the re-
duction in bed capacity that occurred with our move to temporary facilities on Aug. 11, 1989.
Sex Race Number # of ffi of
- Origin Guests nights
Female • Black 25
White 28 Carrboro 24 973
Hispanic 0 Chapel Hill 102 3798
Oriental 1 Orange County 19 382
Native Amer. 1 North Carolina 113 1749
Out of state 84 890
Male Black 126 Undocumented 12 45
White 136
Hispanic 22
Oriental 0
Native Amer. 2
Undocumented 13
Referring Agency # Cause for Homelessness #
IFC 164 Substance abuse/Alcoholism 47
Police (outside CH-C) 4 Mental illness 35
Other Shelters 5 Evicted 39
Police Social Worker/ Family problems 29
Carrboro Police 24 Transient 44
NCMH 19 New arrival seeking work 75
Friend / Shelter Guest 40 Released prisoner/Probation 9
Relative 9 Lost Job 5
Dept. of Social Services 2 Physically disabled/mental
OPC Mental Health Center 4 retardation 5
Probation Officer 4 Dependent child of shelter
Bus Station 3 guest 16
Veterans Hospital 1 Came to area for treatment
Street 33 facility 15
AA/Detox 2 Transportation problems 5
Congregation 5 Other or undocumented 30
Other Agency 17 -
Undocumented 18
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1
�
,, Action Agenda
Item No. V- D
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 2, 1990
SUBJECT: Health Department Fee Schedule for
Community Screening Service
DEPARTMENT: HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
HEALTH DIRECTOR'S OFFICE X 311
Proposed fee schedule and background
information. TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE:
To establish fees to be charged to company's and organizations requesting health
department community screening services through the health promotion and adult
health programs.
BACKGROUND:
The health promotion and the adult health programs of the Orange County Health
Department are called upon to provide screening and educational services in the
community similar to the services offered to county employees through our health
promotion program, "Health Yourself". Such screening programs have already
occurred in both school systems, several churches, one private company and a
number of health fairs. In each case, the sponsoring organization agreed to
cover the costs that were not planned in the health department budget.
Because the supply and other expendable materials necessary for these screenings
have not been budgeted, the attached service fees have been established to cover
the cost. Fee structures from other departments are attached to demonstrate that
these fees are compatible with other, similar programs. These fees were approved
by the Orange County Board of Health at its' regular meeting on September 28,
1989. The feasibility of providing this service to non-profit agencies without a
fee was considered. However, the service is not mandated and funds have not been
budgeted for this purpose. Therefore the fees must be universally applied.
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
Approve the proposed fees.
•
p-ge 2
Proposed Fee Schedule for Community Screenings
The Orange County Health Department provides health
promotion consultation and screening services to Orange
County businesses , churches and other groups . The following
fee schedule has been developed by (1) surveying other
counties who offer similar services to their community
businesses and organizations , and ( 2) 'by assessing the cost
of supplies for the service .
Health Risk Appraisal $10 . 00
Includes computer printout and interpretation .
Cholesterol ( Reflotron) $ 5 . 00
This fee has already been approved .
Blood Pressure $ 13 . 00
This fee has already been approv-ed .
Hematocrit , . . $ 3 . 00
This fee has already been approved .
Guaiac (occult blood in stools) $ 4 . 00
This includes 3 packet kit and follow-up if abnormal .
Blood Glucose $ 3 . 00
This included interpretation and educational material .
Immunizations : Adult Tetanus/Diphtheria $ 1 . 00
Available to 10 or more in a group . per person
Health Promotion Education - Classes $30 . 00/hr .
This includes lectures , clinic , workshops in
the following areas :
Smoking Cessation Stress Management
Nutrition Information Weight Management
Fitness Etc .
Cooking classes would require an additional cost for
ingredients .
Consultant Services 1st hour free ;
thereafter , $10 . 00/hr .
•
Page 3
FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
HEC" KLENBURG COUNTY - Pr ram: '
eu ationa '
Wellness Screening: Health Risk A
height/weight, and cholesterol . This aincludes oad private
Pressure,
follow-up session. . . .
. . . " " • • • • • • • • • .#12.00/Person
Fitness Screening: Strength testin g' flexibility (Sit-and-
Reach) height/Weight , blood
test (Step Test ) . . . . . . . . . . . . pressure, and cardiovascular
• . .#12.00/Person
Cholesterol Screening. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .# 6.00/Person
Immunization: Adult Tetanus-Diphtheria. . . , • ,
$ 1 .00/Person
Health Promotion Workshops. . . , . . •
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .#60.00/hour
CRAVEN COUNTY - Pr am: Back t
Basics'
Wellness Screening Package: Health Risk A
Cholesterol , Blood Pressure, height/weightsal ,
interpretation. . . . . . . . private
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .;15.00/person
Cholesterol . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 5.00/Person
Health Promotion Education
Classes on nutrition, smoking cessation, stress
management, etc. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .# 1 .50/Person/class
Weight Management Course. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
($8.00 refunded if participant attends allOclasses)on
Healthy Cooking (6 classes, 2 hour @) . . . . . . . .
Smoking Cessation $15.00/person(4 classes) . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .# 5.50/Person
mEM.
page 4
CARBARRDS COONTY _ pr ra*- "Lea into Life"
Comprehensive wellness packet includes, HRA,
Cholesterol
blood pressure, height/weight, hemoglobin, glucose
hemocult , individual follow-up. (Cost is based on
100 people and includes developing interventions
with company)
Cholesterol , blood pressure, HRA, follow-up consultatio0n.
(Cost is for individuals)
"Reach for Bea th"
GUILFORD COUNTY - Pr ram:
Health Risk Appraisal and interpretation
$10.00/person
$
5.00/person
Cholesterol. ►
$ .50/person
Blood Pressure
1 .00/person
Hemocult
1 .00/person
Glucose
ALAWANCH COUNTY - pr am: Wellness Watch: 19 8-1989 ees
Health Risk Appraisal and interpretation
00.'00/person
Cholesterol , Blood Pressure
$ 3.00/person
$ 3.00/person
Guaiac (3 packets)
2.00/person
(sugar)
$10.00/hour
Consultation/professional Service each staff member
•
page S
Costs * for medical supplies and educational material :
Cholesterol:
Guaiac_
Lancet $ .06
lool wipe .01 1 complete kit ( includes
Reflotron 1 .25 3 slides, 3 sticks, and
gauze .02 test $ 3.30
gloves (2) .20 literature sheet
bandaid .03 $ 3.50
literature .50
$ 2.07
HMatocrit:, O_riaal04:
Lancet $ -.96 Sterilized Cup $ . 14
gauze .02 Multi-st ix-7
cottonballs .01 .22
bandaid .03 gloves (2)
2 crit tub's .04 $ .56
gloves (2)
•
$ .36
Blood Glue: Blood Pressure:
Lancet $ • p6
gauze .02 literature (varies)
cottonball .01
Chem-Strip BG .46
bandaid .03
gloves (2) .20
literature 0 Adul# :
$ .98 serum free
syring .13
literature ?
$. 13 .
*price for one test/shot.
1
� ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 2,- 1990
Action Agenda
Item # V- E
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
(SECTION 2 .3 . 3 .2 - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
Extension 348
County Attorney Letter
Proposed Amendment
2/26/90 Draft Public
Hearing Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
3/19/90 Draft Planning Hillsborough - 732-8181
Board Minutes Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance to reference that the Board of Adjustment
meeting is subject to the Open Meetings Law.
BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment provides a reference to the
portion of the General Statutes pertaining to Open
Meeting Laws (G.S. 143-318.9 et seq) . This portion of
the General Statutes includes the purposes for which a
public body may hold an executive session and exclude
the public.
The amendment to Section 2 .3 .3.2 was presented at
public hearing on February 26, 1990. No citizen
comments were received at that time.
The Planning Board recommended approval of the
proposed amendment to Section 2 . 3. 3.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance in their March 19, 1990 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval as per the
Planning Board recommendation.
COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ.
BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE RECEIVED NOV s MB
2
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P.O. DRAWER 1529
129 E. TRYON ST.
HILLSBOROUGH. NC 27278
919-732-2196 November 2, 1989
919-929-8000
FAX 919-732-7997
CHAPEL HILL OFFICE
SUITE 300,THE CENTER Kr Marvin Collins
1506 E. FRANKLIN STREET
CHAPEL HILL.NC 27514 Director
919.9294151 Oran a County Plannin De artment
FAX 919-929-7E92
3O6 ' Revere Road g p
SCE ZOAE.COLEMAN.H .. Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
ROGER B. BERNHOLZ
GEOFFREY E_GLEDHILL Re: Board of Adjustment Procedures
DOUGLAS HARGRAVE
G. NICHOLAS HERMAN
KIM K.STEFFAN Dear Marvin:
NATHANIEL E. CLEMENT
MARILYN E.TOMEI
JOEL WEBSTER • g While reviewing the Zoning Ordinance and Board
TERRY G. HARK g
JANET B. DUTTON of Adjustment procedures I noticed references in both
REX T.SAVERY,JR. to the meetings of the Board of Adjustment being open
Of counsel to the public. A more accurate statement should be
BONIER D.1SSAWYER that the meetings are subject to the Open Meetings Law
with a citation to the Open Meetings Law. There is at
least one other typographical error in Section 2. 3. 3.2
of the Zoning Ordinance.
I recommend that Section 2.3.3.2 be rewritten as
' follows with a corresponding change to the Board of
• Adjustment Procedures:
2.3.3.2 All meetings of the Board shall be
conducted in compliance with the North
Carolina Open Meetings Law, North
Carolina General Statutes §143--319 .9
.. et seq. The Board shall give public
notice of its meetings also as
provided .in the Open Meetings Law.
Notice shall be given to Board of . .
_ Adjustment members as provided in the. . ..
--- -= _ Rules of Procedure adopted by the
Board. -
g •
Adjustment can omake it clear that the Board of - =
- - This- chap a will` _-
into executive session for
appropriate purposes. Enclosed is a copy- of
- pertinent provisions of the Open Meetings Law for your 77.7 information. Note particularly the public notice _. _ _ ... ..
requirements which must be carefully followed.- - --
Very `--uly yours,
e_ xfre E Gledhill
GEG/lsg
Enclosure
3
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
REFERENCE: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION
SECTION 2 .3.3 .2
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
x_ Other: County Attorney
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle _x^Low
Comment:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 26, 1989
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT:
To amend Section 2 . 3.3 .2 of the Zoning Ordinance to
reference that the Board of Adjustment meeting is
subject to the Open Meetings Law.
IMPACTS/ISSUES:
The proposed amendment provides a reference to the
portion of the General Statutes pertaining to Open
Meeting Laws (G.S. 143-318. 9 et seq) . This portion of
the General Statutes includes the purposes for which a
public body may hold an executive session and exclude
the public.
- The proposed amendment reflects an existing state law,
and is not a substantive change to the Ordinance, It
will, however, provide for a specific reference to the
General Statutes in the event that the appropriateness - -
or legality of an executive session is questioned.
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: -
T— --- 2 .3.3.2 All meetings of the Board shall be opt to the
public and the Board shall be given as required by
Chapter 143 Article 33-C of the North Carolina
_ Statutes G.S. 143 318. 11ET.SEQ. , as amended. _
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: - -.
2.3 . 3 .2 All meetings of the Board shall be conducted in
compliance with the North Carolina Open Meetings
4
Law, North
Carolina General Statutes G.S. 143. 318.9
et seq. The Board shall give public notice of its
meetings also as provided in the Open Meetings Law.
Notice shall be given to Board of Adjustment
members as provided in the Rules of Procedure
adopted by the Board.
******************************
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: 12/20/89
The Ordinance Review Committee recommended approval and
commented that the amendment only makes provisions of State
statutes more clear, and does not inc
lude any substantive
change.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
3 �� � . r ►
E 5
:////// _ wJj :2 . . . .�. �;�.
1 returning westward along US 70 E. , south on Lawrence Road and west on Old US 70 E. to Old
2 NC 86 (Churton Street). Included in Route 5 are Joppa Oaks, Byrdsville, Strayhorn Hills,
3 Colonial Hills Mobile HOme Park, Colonial Hills Subdivision and Piney Grove and Valley
4 Forge Roads. Route 2_ Durham encompasses an area beginning at the Durham County-line on
5 Ebenezer Church Road, south along Pleasant Green Road to US 70, and includes the following
6 subdivisions: Country Lane Estates, Pleasant Green Estates, Meadow Estates;-Brigadoon;
7 and Meadows of Eno. The following roads are also included: Knight Drive, Deerwood Lane,
8 Cole Mill Road, Jones Homestead Road, Cabe Ford Road, Willett Road, Laurel Ridge Road,
9 Linden Road, and US 70 from Linden Road east to the Durham County Line.
10
11 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD, OR
12 CITIZENS. -. - _. .
--- --
13 .
14 A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to
15 approve the house and building numbers for Rural Route 2, Durham and Rural Route 5,
16 Hillsborough, followed by notifications of the Hillsborough Postmaster, the Durham
17 Postmaster and the N.C. Department of Transportation, as required by G. S. 153A-240.
18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
19
20 2. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
21
22� a. Article 2.3.3.2 Board of Adjustment Administration
23 This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was
24 presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
25 reference that the Board of Adjustment meeting is subject to the Open Meetings Law. The
26 proposed amendment provides a reference to the portion of the General Statutes pertaining
27 to Open Meeting Laws (H.S. 143-318.9 et seq). This portion of the General Statues
28 includes the purposes for which a public body may hold an executive session and exclude
29 the public.
30
31 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING BOARD
32 OR CITIZENS.
33
34 b. Article 7. 14.4 Density Bonus for Affordable Housing
35 This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was
36 presented to receive citizen comment on a proposal to provide incentives for the
37 development of housing affordable to low and moderate income families. The Report of the
38 Low-Moderate Income Housing Task Force, completed September, 1987, included a
39 recommendation to amend the Zoning Ordinance to increase incentives for new construction
40 of low and moderate-income housing. The proposed amendment provides such an incentive
41 by offering a density increase when affordable housing opportunities are created by a
42 developer. The density bonus provisions apply only to Planned Developments located
43 outside of a protected watershed, and could be applied in one of several ways:
44 1) A density increase of up to 25% if a percentage of the units or lots are sold or rented
45 to low or moderate income households.
46 2) A density increase of up to 25% if off-site land area is donated to Orange County for
z7 future development of an equivalent number of affordable units.
48 3) A 50% density increase if all of the lots/units are reserved for qualifying households.
49
50 Occupancy would be restricted by a contractual agreement with the Orange County Department
51 of housing and Community Development, and should be binding for at least 15 years.
52
6
1 . Access to lots 2 and 4 shall be restricted to
the new subdivision road.
2 . Obtain approval and record the plat of the
minor subdivision submitted for the Wayne
Jordan property east of lot 6, or include
that parcel in the preliminary plan for the
major subdivision.
3 . Dedication of recreation/open space to Orange
County including a 30-foot pedestrian access
easement from the cul-de-sac to the
dedication.
4. Record the plat for recombination and
division of the adjacent 10-acre tract which
was approved on 1/24/90.
T—)
M Q
AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (2/26/90)
a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
(1) Article 2 . 3 .3 .2 -
Board of Adjustment Administration
No presentation was required.
(A copy of the abstract information an
attachment to these minutes on page . )
(2) Article 7 . 14.4 -
Density Bonus for Affordable Housing
(To be considered at 4/10/90 Long-Range Mtg)
b. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments
( 1) Section IV-B-8-e/g -
Schedule of Required Land Use Buffers/
Waiver of Buffer Requirements
No presentation was required.
(A copy of the abstract information an
attachment to these minutes on page • )
(2) Section III-D-1-b -
Planning Department Review Procedures
(Major Concept Plans)
D
111 7
Presentation by Emily Crudup.
This proposal would provide adequate time for
staff review of major subdivision Concept
Plans .
The Subdivision Regulations require that
Concept Plans for Major Subdivisions be
presented to the Planning Board within 45
days of acceptance of the application. This
time limit does not always allow sufficient
time for staff review and preparation of a
report to the Planning Board.
The proposal presented at public hearing on
February 26 included a minimum time period of
30 days between project submittal and its
presentation to the Planning Board.
The Board of Commissioners as well as several
citizens were opposed to amendments which
would increase time involved in processing
major subdivisions.
To address these concerns, the Planning Staff
proposes that the amendment be modified to
require that the Planning Department complete
its review of the Concept Plan within 21
days after it is accepted. The
recommendation to the Planning Board would be
presented at the first regularly scheduled
Planning Board meeting after the 21 days.
The effect of the proposal would be to move
the application deadline back by four days.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
proposed amendment.
Crudup continued that most applicants meet
with the Planning Staff prior to submitting
concept plans . This contact usually provides
the applicant with any additional information
needed for a concept plan to be accepted.
Best expressed concern that the proposal
presented at public hearing was thirty days
rather than twenty-one which would require
another public hearing. Collins responded
that since this proposal was less restrictive
than the one presented at public hearing
another hearing would not be required.
Best continued expressing concern that the
8
D
Planning Staff would have less time to review
and consider the concept plans. Crudup
responded that previously Planning Board
action was included in the time frame so this
could actually give the Planning Staff more
review time than before.
Collins noted that with abstracts being
revised until final agenda preparation, he
felt the time frame proposed by the Planning
Staff to be sufficient.
Best noted that the Board of Commissioners
was concerned that plans be expedited and not
be held up unnecessarily. He continued that
he was concerned that sufficient time be
allotted so that plans would be complete and
important items not be missing when the
concept plans are submitted to the Planning
Board. He felt this would not be a help to
the applicant/developer.
MOTION: Best moved approval of Agenda Items 10 a(1 ) ,
Zoning Ordinance Article 2 . 3 . 3 .2 - Board of
Adjustment Administration, 10 b( l) , Suubdivision
Regulations Section IV-B-8-e/g
Required Land Use Buffers/Waiver of Buffer
Requirements, and 10 b(2) , Subdivision
Regulations Section III-D-1-b Planning Department
Review Procedures (Major Concept Plans) as
recommended by the Planning Staff . Seconded by
Reid.
VOTE: Unanimous .
AGENDA ITEM #11: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (2/28/90)
a. Special Meeting - March 28, 1990
ORANGE COUNTY 9
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 19, 1990
Action Agenda
Item #_ 10-a -
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
(SECTION 2 . 3 . 3 .2 - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING
Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
County Attorney Letter Extension 348
Proposed Amendment
2/26/90 Draft Public
Hearing Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance to reference that the Board of Adjustment
meeting is subject to the Open Meetings Law.
BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment provides a reference to the
portion of the General Statutes pertaining to Open
Meeting Laws (G.S. 143-318. 9 et seq) . This portion of
the General Statutes includes the purposes for which a
public body may hold an executive session and exclude
the public.
The amendment to Section 2 . 3. 3.2 was presented at
public hearing on February 26, 1990. No citizen
comments were received at that time.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed
amendment to Section 2 .3 .3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
10
ORANGE C O U N T Y
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 19 , 1990 Action Agenda
Item # 10-b-(
SUBJECT: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS - SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
(SECTION IV-B-8-e-3 SCHEDULE OF REQUIRED LAND USE BUFFERS
SECTION IV-B-8-g WAIVER OF LAND USE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup
Extension 574
Proposed Amendment
1/26/90 Letter from Town of
Chapel Hill TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
2/26/90 Draft Public Hearing Hillsborough - 732-8181
Minutes Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to Section IV-B-8 of
the Subdivision Regulations, Landscaping and Buffer
Requirements.
BACKGROUND: Two amendments are proposed for rSection
nlIV-B-8 of the
Subdivision Regulations. The
interpre-
tation of the Schedule of Required Land Use Buffers as
it applies to subdivisions in the unzoned townships .
The second amendment to Section IV-B-8 will clarify
the purpose of the buffer waiver provisions and extend
the scope of IV-B-8-g to include waivers for other
landscape requirements contained in the Subdivision
Regulations.
The amendments to Section IV-B-8 were presented at
public hearing on February 26, 1990 . No citizen
comments were received at that time.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval proposed
amendments to Section IV-B-8 of the
Regulations .
NMI
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. N44:7
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 2 , 1990
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL AIRPORT REPORT/CLOSE OUT OF PROJECT
DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING/CENTRAL SRVS. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: XX
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Jones
REPORT ( under separate cover ) ext 498
Telephone Number-
Hillsborough -732-8181
Chapel Hill -967-9251
Mebane -227-2031
Durham -688-7331
PURPOSE: To accept the final report regarding the airport proposed in
Orange County and to authorize Purchasing Director to close
out the project with the State of North Carolina.
BACKGROUND: In late 1988 the Board of Commissioners authorized a
feasibility study of siting a new general aviation airport in Orange
County. In May, 1989 the Board determined there was no such
appropriate site and the process was halted.
The engineering firm of Wilbur Smith Associates provided services
associated with the potential siting. It is required that the Board
accept their final report in order that the paperwork can be filed with
the NC DOT-Aviation and the project closed out .
RECOMMENDATION: Accept final report ; and authorize the Purchasing and
Central Services Director to file the necessary paperwork to close out
the project .
O R A N G E C O U N T Y l
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 2, 1990
Action Agenda
Item # _A
SUBJECT: County Government Week
DEPARTMENT: Personnel PUBLIC HEARING: Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Addie Wright Turner
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
PURPOSE: To proclaim April 23-27, 1990 as Orange County Government
Week and endorse activities to be held throughout the week.
BACKGROUND: The National Association of County Commissioners and the
North Carolina Association of County Commissioners
strongly encourage local municipalities to celebrate
county government week in an effort to educate citizens
about county government. Many special educational
activities, as well as a Volunteer Appreciation reception
will take place during this week.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Proclamation and Endorse Planned Activities.
2
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners and
the National Association of County Commissioners have urges
citizens across the state to learn more about county
government' s role in our lives and to be more involved as
county citizens' and
WHEREAS, Orange County government has served the citizens of the
county since 1752 and we are responsible for a growing
number of services which have direct impact on local
citizens; and
WHEREAS, the elected and appointed officials in county government
take great pride in serving the citizens of the County and
in being directly involved in shaping the future; and
WHEREAS, in Orange County the volunteer spirit is still alive and
well and the volunteers serve as our partners in progress;
and
WHEREAS, through their volunteer involvement, citizens learn more
about community needs and resources and serve as
communications links to the entire community.
NOW, THEREFORE, we the Board of Commissioners do hereby proclaim the
week of April 23 through April 27 , 1990 , as Orange County
Government Week, and reaffirm our support and appreciatio
of the valuable contributions of Volunteers in the County.
And, further urge all citizens to become more familiar wish
county government.
This the 2nd day of April , 1990.
By:
Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. VI-8
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 2, 1990
SUBJECT:
Proclamation for Senior Games
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes xx No
Recreation & Parks
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Copy of Senior Games Proclamation Wilma K. Tinney
TELEPHONE NUMBER: Ext. 2669
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane -- 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE:
To request that the Orange County Board of Commissioners proclaim the week of
April 23-28, 1990, as Orange County Senior Games Events Days, and encourage
citizens over the age of 55 to participate in the Games.
BACKGROUND:
Orange County Senior Games is a year-round wellness program for persons age 55 and
older, sponsored by: Orange County Recreation & Parks, Orange County Department on
Aging, Chapel Hill Parks & Recreation, and Carrboro Recreation & Parks. The program
is funded through these agencies, donations from the community, and participant fees.
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
Approve as presented.
2
PROCLAMATION
Whereas, According to recent population figures, there are almost 14,000
persons over 55 years 'of age in Orange County; and,
Whereas, Orange County is concerned about the health, fitness, and social
well-being of its older adult population; and,
Whereas, Orange County Senior Games provides a special opportunity for older
adults to grow positively in the areas of health, fitness, and social
well-being; and ,
Whereas, Orange County would like to encourage local business and resident
support and participation from county residents age 55 and older;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the Orange County Board of
Commissioners declares April 23-28, 1990, as Orange County Senior
Games Events Days and encourages citizens age 55 and over to
participate.
Moses Carey, Chair
Date
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date April 2, 1990
Action A enda
Item #
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING DATE - TRANSPORTATION/THOROUGHFARE PLANS
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x,No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bell
- Minutes of 1-6-90 Goal Setting
Retreat
- Draft 5-16-90 Public Hearing TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Schedule Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider setting a date for a public hearing on
Phase I components of the Transportation Plan.
BACKGROUND: The Transportation Advisory Subcommittee (TAS) has
been working with staff and the consulting firm of
Kimley-Horn for the past year to produce Phase I of
the Transportation Element of the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan. Phase I components include:
- County-Specific Road Classification System
- Collector/Subcollector Road System
- Private Road Standards and Policy
- Review Article 13 (Traffic Impact Study) of the
Zoning Ordinance
In addition to the above, the TAS has also been
reviewing the Hillsborough and Durham-Chapel Hill-
Carrboro (DCHC) Thoroughfare Plans, neither of which
have been endorsed or adopted by Orange County. The
Hillsborough Plan has been adopted by the Town and
State Board of Transportation and the Carrboro
component of DCHC has likewise been adopted. Chapel
Hill will be having at least one more public hearing
(probably sometime in May) before taking final action.
2-
At the County Commissioners annual goal planning
retreat on January 6, 1990, early April was identified
as the preferred time for a special public hearing on
the above items (see attached minutes) .
Upon reviewing all items to be considered, the TAS
determined that late April was the earliest all items
could be readied for public hearing. A schedule of
activities leading to a special public hearing on
April 30 was developed, but it was subsequently
learned that this would conflict with the Public
Private Partnership Conference.
The TAS feels that a meeting on May 29, a scheduled
quarterly public hearing date, would allow more time
for citizen/advisory board comment. However, a number
of proposals, including Rural Character strategies,
ordinance simplification, a revised environmental
impact ordinance, and house numbering assignments, may
be considered at the May 29 meeting. Thus, the number
of issues to be considered may result in a lengthy,
complex hearing. A special public hearing date
during the second or third week of May may be
preferred. Attached for the Board's consideration is
a proposed schedule of activities leading to a May 16
public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
DK10:5-16PH.DOC
1-6-90 BOCC Goal Setting Retreat 3
The RCS will go to the Planning Board before going to the Board of
Commissioners. It will go to public hearing in May.
Chair Carey stated that regarding the authority to purchase development
rights -- the County needs to develop a plan to move ahead with farmland preservation.
The purchase of development rights is one defined way of doing that. A clearly
definable way would need to be created to finance these purchases.
GOAL: development of a plan to use that authority for the purpose of purchasing
development rights for farmland preservation.
Commissioner Willhoit asked if there is anything in the Rural Character
Study regarding transfer development rights for preserving land. It would be premature
to talk about purchase of development rights if we are going to endorse transfer of
development rights. It is expensive to purchase development rights.
Chair Carey stated that these impact on one another. We have the authority
for one but not for the other. There is a great difference in cost but there would
compliment each other. We ought to include TDR in our rural character recommendations.
We may not get the authority to pursue a TDR program. We need to define PDR and develop
the program and then go out for a bond issue in later years. We need to let the public
tell us if this is something they will invest in.
Planning Board member Chris Best spoke as a member of the subcommittee for
the Transportation Advisory Committee. They have been working one year on Phase I of
the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. The Private Road Standards are
ready but they tie in with the watershed and the Rural Character Study. We will hold
off until we get more information on the recommendations from the RCS and the watershed
standards that will be implemented permanently. The Transportation impact analysis is
ready to go forward. They are also working on a County Road Classification System and a
collector - sub-collector system. This will have direct impact on areas in the
watershed and the RB area. The committee would like to take this Phase I to public
hearing along with the thoroughfare plans for Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro and
Hillsborough and Orange County.
Chair Carey indicated that the final recommendations would need to be
considered in the thoroughfare plan. That plan has not been brought back to the Board.
The report was received from DOT and we need to get public response.
Commissioner Willhoit noted that the County needs to call for a
modification of the plan before having a public hearing. Our conclusion is that DOT is
not responsive to the public hearings that have been held, the EDC, watershed protection
etc. These need to be considered on a regional basis.
Commissioner Halkiotis stated we need to take the initiative and go
forward. He asked John Link for an update. We have received a map of the interchange
and the county engineer and the planning department has been reviewing it. It is
scheduled to go to the Planning Board and then to the B/C the second meeting in
February.
Paul Thames noted that there were no changes made in the plan.
Betty Eidenier sited a situation in which a culvert would be used to access
- 4 .
a recreational area.
Chris Best stated that if the County took the lead and had another public
hearing on all three plans including the interchange at Efland and the freeway, they
could talk about how it ties in. DOT is anxious for the County to approve the County's
Thoroughfare Plan.
Commissioner Willhoit asked that the planning staff outline what they feel
it should be in terms of the freeway and our development goals of Land use Planning
goals for Little River and the Rural Buffer.
Commissioner Hartwell stated that the plan now shows that Ben Johnston Road
would go all the way to four-lane highway 70 and the passageway under 85 would be
closed. Both these are different from what the Hillsborough plan was. DOT said that if
the duct was put under 85 on the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan that they would assure
us that it would remain there. He proposed Ben Johnston out to 70 saying it was the one
good piece of highway in the whole planning area. Commissioner Hartwell does not agree
with either one of these changes., We may need to point out to DOT that the proposal
does not conform to the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan. DOT indicated they could make
modifications without going back to public hearing.
Chris Best suggested having a public hearing and sending the comments to
DOT.
Commissioner Willhoit noted that the Board knows what they don't like about
the DOT proposal. He asked how long it would take staff to develop a document to show
what they do like about the document.
Marvin Collins noted that the public hearing on the watershed would be
February 26. He suggested a special public hearing between February and May.
Chair Carey indicated a special public hearing in early April would be
desired.
John Link stated he would make a recommendation on what to include in that
public hearing and report back to the Board in March.
Barry Jacobs emphasized that in the RCS the travel time and traffic volume
issues were being considered. They will look at the notion of a hamlet with the idea to
encourage office-institutional so to reduce travel time and have less of an impact on
the surrounding community. They will consider the impact of minor subdivisions.
Chris Best stated they are working on developing a buildout on all roads
and also the travel time to the main roads. The committee has finished phase I and
would like to move ahead to Phase II which will involve rail and bikeways as well as
take the data we have gathered on the road classification study and determine where
buildout may occur and also consider the issue of scenic highways. The data has been
collected and it will need to be brought together to be used as a guide for all our
ordinances. The money for Phase II did not get approved last year but the committee is
ready to move ahead with Phase II.
Chair Carey indicated a decision will be made on whether to include money
in the next budget for this work.
rr�
5
GOA - COMPLETE REVIEW OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (NCDOT) THOROUGHFARE PLANS.
TIrCTAaiZ
To present Thoroughfare Plans at late march public hearing.
PLAN OF ACTION
A. Work with Durham/Chapel Hill/Carrboro, Orange County and Hillsborough staff Ongoing
to reach a consensus on a combined thoroughfare plan.
B. Transportation Advisory Committee review resulting thoroughfare plan and make January -
recommendations February 1990
C. Planning Board review and make recommendations with input from EDC and Township February 19, 1990
Advisory Councils.
D. Report to Board of County Commissioners by Planning Board and EDC. Set a hearing March 5, 1990
date.
E. Present recommendations at public hearing with input from citizens, municipalities
March 1990
and NCDOT.
ff
i
DRAFT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - PHASE I
May 16 Public Hearing
1 . Wed. , March 14 - TAS meeting to discuss Orange County, DCHC, and
Hillsborough thoroughfare plans .
2 . Mon. , March 19 - Oral report to Planning Board on 3-14 meeting.
3. Mon. , April 2 - County Commissioners approve public hearing
notice.
4. Wed. , April 4 -- TAS meeting with County Attorney and Erosion
Control Officer to finalize discussion on private
roads.
5. Thu. , April 5 - Hillsborough Planning Board review/
recommendations .
6. Wed. , April 11 - TAC review/recommendations .
7 . Thu. , April 12 - Economic Development Commission review/
recommendations.
8. Mon. , April 16 - Preliminary Planning Board review.
9 . Tue. , April 17 - TAC review/recommendations .
10. Wed. , April 18 - TAC review/recommendations .
11 . Tue. , April 24 - TAC review/recommendations .
12 . Wed. , April 25 - TAC review/recommendations .
13 . Fri. , April 27 - Hearing notice to newspapers .
14 . Wed. , May 2 - Publish hearing notice (first time) .
15 . Wed. , May 2 - TAC review/recommendations .
16 . Thu. , May 3 - TAC review/recommendations .
17 . Wed. , May 9 - Publish hearing notice (second time) .
18. Wed. , May 16 - Conduct Public Hearing.
19 . Wed. , June 6 - TAS recommendation to Planning Board.
20. Mon. , June 18 - Planning Board recommendation.
21. Mon. , August 6 - Decision by County Commissioners .
DK10:5-16SCH.DOC
.may. 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: A2ril 2 , 1990
Action Agenda
Item # )( -S
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments - Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan
- Joint Planning Agreement
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X_No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Amendments Planning Director - Extension 346
Draft 3/28/90 Planning Board
Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Chapel Hill 3/26/90 Resolutions Hillsborough - 732-8181
Carrboro 3/27/90 Resolution Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
NOTE: PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
AND EVIDENCE RECEIVED AFTER
THE HEARING ARE INCLUDED AS A
SEPARATE ENCLOSURE.
PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to the Joint Planning
Area Land Use Plan/Text and Agreement. The proposed
amendments are being made to implement, in part,
recommended strategies for the protection of University
Lake Watershed.
The proposals were presented at public hearing on
February 28, 1990.
BACKGROUND: In 1988, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority
commissioned a study to develop a range of options for
protecting the University Lake watershed. The
consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) ,
nationally recognized experts in watershed evaluation,
completed the study in March, 1989 .
Following the release of the Final Report, the
governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and
Carrboro adopted resolutions, requesting that the Joint
Chatham-Orange Work Group review the study and provide
recommended strategies for its implementation.
In October, 1989, the Work Group completed a proposed
13-point agreement on University Lake watershed
protection.
To implement the recommended strategies for watershed
protection, the Work Group directed staff to identify
2 ,1•
needed changes to the Joint Planning Area Land Use
Plan/Text and Agreement. The following amendments are
proposed:
•
1 . A proposed amendment which incorporates
descriptions of the basic strategies for protecting
University Lake watershed as recommended by Camp,
Dresser and McKee.
Two options are presented for consideration. Option
#1 is based on the land use control strategy
recommended by CDM and the Joint Watershed Work
Group. The basic provision of Option #1 includes a
minimum lot size requirement of five (5) acres and
a maximum density of one ( 1 ) unit per five (5)
acres for any development.
Option #2 is based on the structural best
management practice approach recommended by CDM.
It includes a minimum lot size of two (2 ) acres and
a maximum density of one ( 1) unit per two (2 )
acres. In addition, on-site stormwater detention
basins or ponds are recommended to trap pollutants
on the site rather than allowing them to travel
through drainage tributaries to the University Lake
reservoir.
2 . A proposed amendment providing for a new land use
plan overlay category - the University Lake
Watershed Area - and alternative development
patterns based on the recommended options contained
in the University Lake Watershed Study.
3. A proposed amendment to reflect current County
water and sewer extension policies and identify
refinements being contemplated by the Joint
Planning Area jurisdictions .
4. A proposed amendment to provide consistency between
the wording of the Joint Planning Area Land Use
Plan Text and Agreement by deleting the reference
to the "overlay district designated Water Quality
Critical Area" and substituting "overlay district
designated University Lake Watershed Area" .
A full description of the proposed changes is included
in the attached information.
On March 26, 1990, the Chapel Hill Town Council adopted
two resolutions approving the proposed amendments with
revisions/additions . The changes are for the purpose of
incorporating provisions of the 13-point agreement in
the Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan and
include: 1 . The requirement for a minimum of 5 acres
•
per dwelling unit, with up to 5 2-acre lots (or
• equivalent overall density) allowed in parcels
which were recorded as of October 2, 1989, and
allowing development of lots less than 5 acres
which were recorded as of October 2, 1989;
2 . Impervious surface limits of 4% for 5-acre lots and
cluster developments, and 6% for 2-acre lots; and
3 . Prohibitions on extension of public water and sewer
service and on new community alternative wastewater
systems; studies are to be completed by April, 1991
on whether to allow public water service extension
and whether to allow community alternative systems
outside the most critical area of the watershed.
On March 27, 1990, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen
adopted a resolution approving the proposed amendments
but with a provision to incorporate the 13-point
agreement into the Joint Planning Agreement, including
a sliding scale to accommodate the lower impervious
surface restrictions .
Neither of the revisions or additions to the Joint
Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan approved by the
municipalities were advertised or presented for
consideration at the February 28, 1990 public hearing.
At a special meeting on March 28, 1990, the Planning
Board, by a vote of 7 to 4, approved a recommendation
that the issues of impervious surface and lot size
averaging as well as the means of addressing equity
concerns (such as the purchase of land and/or
development rights) be presented again at public
hearing before all three jurisdictions. Until such time
as this is accomplished, the Commissioners are urged
not to adopt any standards regarding impervious surface
• or lot size as part of the Joint Planning Agreement or
Land Use Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the approval of the
proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use
Plan and Agreement as presented at public hearing with
the following variation of Option #1 :
University Lake Watershed Area
The University Lake Watershed Area includes all lands
which drain into the University Lake reservoir. Based
on a preferred watershed protection strategy of land
use controls as recommended by Camp, Dresser and McKee
in the University Lake Watershed Study, only low-
density residential uses are permitted. A minimum lot
size of five (5) acres and a maximum density of one ( 1)
4 •
unit per five (5) acres is required for any
development. Cluster subdivisions with lot sizes of
•
not less than one ( 1) acre are also allowed as well as
the creation of a limited number (5) of two-acre lots.
Option #2 is not preferred, since it would result in a
proliferation of on-site (and possibly regional) wet
water detention ponds which are expensive to build and
maintain.
The Administration further recommends that the Board of
Commissioners authorize the Chair to sign a Joint
Planning Agreement containing the amendments referenced
above. The revised Agreement will then be forwarded to
the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for
consideration. A final recommendation is that the
following proposals of Commissioner Willhoit and the
Planning Board be pursued through the Intergovernmental
Watershed Work Group:
1 . Committing to the public acquisition of land
and/or the purchase of development rights to reduce
future pollutant loading potential;
2 . Providing tax incentives for "environmental
easements" patterned after agricultural use-value
assessments;
3 . Determining the location of the majority of two- •
acre and smaller lots and the use of structural
BMP's in sub-basins serving existing small lot
subdivisions; i.e. , East Prices Creek (Heritage
Hills) and West Prices Creek (Chatham County) ; and
4 . Proceeding with the review and implementation of
the 13-point agreement.
As part of #4 above, consideration should also be given
to lot size averaging alternatives and impervious
surface ratio modifications .
•
5
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN
• AND JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT
Listed below are proposed amendments to the Orange County/Chapel
Hill/Carrboro Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Text. If adopted,
the amendments would implement, in part, the strategies for watershed
protection identified in the Final Report =University Lake Watershed
Study dated March, 1989, and the basic strategies identified in the
proposed 13-point agreement prepared by the Joint Watershed Work Group
and dated October, 1989.
Two options are presented for consideration. Option 11 is based on the
land use control strategy recommended by Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM) ,
the consultants who prepared the University Lake Watershed Study, and
the Joint Watershed Work Group. The basic provisions of Option #1
include a minimum lot size requirement of five (5) acres and a maximum
density of one (1) unit per five (5) acres for any development.
Cluster subdivisions with lot sizes of not less than one (1) acre are
also allowed as well as the creation of a limited number (5) of two-
acre lots.
Option #2 is based on the structural best management practice approach
recommended by CDM. Option #2 includes a minimum lot size of two (2)
acres and a maximum density of one (1) unit per two (2) acres. In
addition, on-site stormwater detention basins or ponds are recommended
to trap pollutants on the site rather than allowing them to travel
through drainage tributaries to the University Lake reservoir.
• Both Option #1 and Option #2 are being presented at a special public
hearing on February 28, 1990. The presentation of the proposed
amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Text, and Joint
Planning Agreement will be made to the Orange County Board of
Commissioners and Planning Board, and the governing boards of the Towns
of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Following the presentation and receipt of
public comment, the public hearing will continue but involve only
the Board of Commissioners and consideration of proposed amendments to
the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Atlas (Map) , Zoning
Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations.
Because the proposals involve amendments to Joint Planning Area Land
Use Plan and Text, they require the approval of the Orange County Board
of Commissioners and the governing boards of the Towns of Chapel Hill
and Carrboro. Upon completion of the public hearing, and following
receipt of the decisions of the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and
the Orange County Planning Board's recommendation, the Board of
Commissioners may adopt Option #1, Option #2 or some combination of the
two. Under the provisions of the Joint Planning Agreement, however, the
concurring vote of all three jurisdictions is required for approval.
The specific wording proposed for various sections of the Joint
Planning Area Land Use Plan Text is listed below. Explanatory comments
appear after the proposals in [italics] .
• The proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan map
6
would delete the land use category "Water Quality Critical Area"
adjacent to University Lake. In its place, the entirety of the
watershed in Orange County's planning and zoning jurisdiction would be
•
denoted.
A. Amend Section II Natural Environment by rewriting the subsection
entitled "B. Water Resources" to read as follows :
Residents of southeast Orange County obtain water from two
sources: groundwater (wells) or reservoirs . However, the most
reliable source of water for urban use is a reservoir. Until
recently, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the surrounding areas relied
exclusively on University Lake. That source was recognized as
inadequate as a long-term water source, and Cane Creek reservoir
west of the Joint Planning Area has been constructed and is now
operational . The two reservoirs should provide a raw water supply
adequate for the next 20 years . In addition, the Land Use Element
of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan has identified possible
future reservoir sites to the north of Chapel Hill .
The link between land use planning and water resources in the
Joint Planning Area lies in protecting water quality by limiting
development in University Lake watershed. In 1988, the Orange
Water and Sewer Authority commissioned a study to develop a range
of options for protecting the University Lake watershed. The
consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) , nationally
recognized experts in watershed evaluation, completed the study in
March, 1989 . Because the consultants did not find improving water
quality to be a practical objective, they recommended preventing
significant future water quality deterioration in University Lake
as a primary goal.
The CDM report presented two fundamental ways of meeting the
University Lake water quality goal. Nonstructural management
practices, such as controlling land use through local zoning and
subdivision regulations, could reduce the pollution generated from
future development by controlling the amount and location of
impervious surfaces and other pollution-causing activities .
Structural practices, such as stormwater detention ponds, would
not reduce the amount of pollution generated but prevent
substantial portions of it from reaching University Lake by
trapping pollutants near their point of origin.
The report recommended nonstructural methods as the preferred
approach to watershed protection. Basic elements of the proposed
nonstructural plan included large lot (five-acre) residential
zoning, limits on impervious surfaces, and the preservation of
stream buffers along streams . The advantages of the nonstructural
approach included the lower amount of pollution generated and its
reduced risk of entering the lake, the elimination of construction
and maintenance costs for stormwater devices, and the ability to
provide wastewater disposal through individual septic systems
rather than risky community wastewater systems .
•
7
The CDM report did find that the water quality goal could be
• achieved through adopted land use plans and regulations (two-acre
zoning) and the construction of a significant number of stormwater
detention ponds . While the approach would provide for continued
growth in the watershed, the high public and private costs
associated with a system of 72 larger regional detention ponds or
an indeterminant number of smaller individual-development-
detention ponds and intensive on-going maintenance requirements
were noted as disadvantages . In addition, there would be no way to
convert back to a nonstructural control strategy if a structural
program resulted in unsatisfactory watershed protection.
[The proposed amendment incorporates descriptions of the basic
strategies for protecting University Lake watershed as recommended
by Camp, Dresser and McKee into the Joint Planning Area Land Use
Plan. ]
B. Amend Section V Joint Planning Operatinc Principles by deleting
the following wording from the subsection entitled "Initial List
of Principles - University Lake Watershed" :
NOTE: The Town of Carrboro supports low-density development in the
watershed but proposes that it be accomplished through cluster
development served by central water and sewer.
[The existing wording is inconsistent with proposed restrictions
regarding public water and sewer extensions into the watershed. ]
• C. Amend Section V Joint Planning Operating Principles by deleting
the table which identifies the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan
Categories and substituting the following:
JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN CATEGORIES
Major Land Use Plan
Class Subclass Category
Resource Protection
Public-Private Open Space
Suburban Residential
Transition Urban Residential
TRANSITION Transition I Office-Institutional
Transition II Future UNC Development
Retail Trade
Light Industrial
Disposal Use
University Lake Watershed
Resource Protection
RURAL Public-Private Open Space
Rural Buffer Agricultural
CONSERVATION Rural Residential
Retail Trade
Extractive Use
i►
[The proposed amendment deletes a category entitled "Water Quality
Critical Area" and substitutes "University Lake Watershed Area in
its place. ]
D. Amend Section V Joint Planning Operating Principles by rewriting
the last sentence of the subsection "Rural Buffer and
Conservation" to read as follows :
The Rural Buffer consists of the following Joint Planning Area
Land Use Plan categories : Rural Residential; Agricultural; Public-
Private Open Space; Resource Conservation; Extractive Use; and the
overlay category designated University Lake Watershed Area.
In addition, the subsection "Water Quality Critical Area" is
deleted and, in its place, the following new subsection is
substituted:
OPTION #1
The University Lake Watershed Area includes all lands which drain
into the University Lake reservoir. Based on a preferred watershed
protection strategy of land use controls as recommended by Camp,
C441, Dresser and McKee in the University Lake Watershed Study, only
low-density residential uses are permitted at densities not to
exceed one dwelling unit per five acres of land.
OPTION #2
The University Lake Watershed Area includes all lands which drain •
into the University Lake reservoir. Based on a watershed
protection strategy of structural controls as recommended by Camp,
Dresser and McKee in the University Lake Watershed Study, only
low-density residential uses are permitted at densities not to
exceed one dwelling unit per two acres of land. A series of
regional and/or on-site, stormwater detention ponds is associated
with such development to trap pollutants and prevent their
deposition in the reservoir.
[The proposed amendments provide for a new land use plan overlay
category - the University Lake Watershed Area - and alternative
development patterns based on the recommended options contained in
the University Lake Watershed Study. ]
E. Amend Section VI Future Land Use - Joint Planning Area by
rewriting the first paragraph of the subsection "The Rural Buffer
Area" to read as follows:
Seven categories of Rural Buffer land use have been depicted on
the Land Use Plan. These categories include Resource Protection
Areas, Public-Private Open Space Areas, Agricultural Areas, Rural
Residential Areas, Retail Trade Areas, Extractive Uses, and the
overlay category designated University Lake Watershed Area.
In addition, the subsection "Water Quality Critical Area" is
•
.1
0
deleted and, in its place, the following new subsection is
substituted:
OPTION f1
University Lake Watershed Area
jyqThe University Lake Watershed Area includes all lands which drain
into the University Lake reservoir. Based on a preferred watershed
protection strategy of land use controls as recommended by Camp,
Dresser and McKee in the University Lake Watershed Study, only
low-density residential uses are permitted at densities not to
exceed one dwelling unit per five acres of land.
OPTION 12
University Lake Watershed Area
The University Lake Watershed Area includes all lands which drain
into the University Lake reservoir. Based on a watershed
protection strategy of structural controls as recommended by Camp,
Dresser and McKee in the University Lake Watershed Study, only
low-density residential uses are permitted at densities not to
exceed one dwelling unit per two acres of land. A series of
regional and/or on-site stormwater detention ponds is associated
with such development to trap pollutants and prevent their
deposition in the reservoir.
illA final change recommended for Section VI involves the subsection
"Rural Residential" and redrafting the third paragraph to read as
follows:
OPTION #1
To the west of Carrboro, Rural Residential development is also
expected in University Lake watershed. However, only low-density
residential uses developed at densities
a gro& tom--are anticipated. For this reason,
residential development will continue to rely on wells and septic
tanks for water supply and sewage disposal.
OPTION #2
To the west of Carrboro, Rural Residential development is also
expected in University Lake watershed. However, only low-density
residential uses developed at densities of one dwelling unit per
two acres of land or greater are anticipated. For this reason,
residential development will continue to rely on wells and septic
tanks for water supply and sewage disposal purposes. Associated
with such development will be a system of regional and/or on-site
stormwater detention ponds for watershed protection purposes .
II (The proposed amendments are generally identical to those
recommended under amendment "D" and provide for a new land use
10
plan overlay category - the University Lake Watershed Area - and
alternative development patterns based on the recommended options
contained in the University Lake Watershed Study. ]
•
F. Amend Section VII Overview of Implementation Strategies by
rewriting the last paragraph of the subsection "Sewer and Water
Extension Policy" to read as follows:
The Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) is the provider of
water and sewer in the Joint Planning Area. OWASA policy is to
extend water and sewer in accordance with the adopted policies of
the applicable local governments . Current Orange County policy is
to approve water and sewer extensions generally only to recognized
Transition Areas, and, outside of Transition Areas, to approve
extensions of water or sewer systems only to provide service to an
essential public service, such as a school, or to remedy a public
health emergency, such as a failing septic tank or failing package
treatment plant.
Refinements to this policy have been recommended as part of Joint
Planning Area implementation strategies. Under consideration
currently is a temporary prohibition on public water extensions in
University Lake watershed until a study can be undertaken of the
advisability of extending such service. Furthermore, either an
out-right prohibition or a temporary prohibition on public sewer
extensions appears likely, excepting sewer service extensions to
remedy a public health emergency. If a temporary prohibition is
adopted, the provision of sewer service in the watershed would be
reconsidered following a study regarding the advisability of such •
extensions.
[The proposed amendment is provided to reflect current County
policy and identify refinements being contemplated by the Joint
Planning Area jurisdictions. ]
The proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement is as follows:
1 . Amend the definition of "Rural Buffer" in Section 1 .2 Definitions
by deleting the reference to the "overlay district designated
Water Quality Critical Area" and substituting "overlay district
designated University Lake Watershed Area" .
[The proposed amendment provides consistency between the proposed
wording of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan Text as described
above and the Joint Planning Agreement. ]
•
D
12 W II . 11
0 D R A F T
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 28, 1990
MEMBERS PRESENT: Betty Eidenier (Chair) , Chris Best, Virginia Boland,
Clint Burklin, Carol Cantrell, Dan Eddleman, Jean
Hamilton, Barry Jacobs, Mike Lewis, Larry Reid, Bill
Waddell .
MEMBERS ABSENT: Pegge Abrams .
STAFF PRESENT: Marvin Collins, Mary Scearbo, Joanna Bradshaw.
GUESTS : Commissioner Don Willhoit; Roy Williford, Carrboro
Planning Director; Chris Berndt, Chapel Hill
Planning Staff; Ed Holland, OWASA Staff .
CHAIR COMMENTS: Eidenier asked that Planning Board members voice
their concerns and thoughts regarding the
information contained in the agenda materials as
a means of focusing the discussion.
Boland stated that she is concerned for the long
time homeowners in the watershed whose intent was to
either pass the property on to heirs or rely on it
for retirement purposes .
Hamilton expressed concern about compensating the
landowners and the increase/decrease in land values .
Best expressed concern for protecting the
environment, an effort which would require sacrifice
on the part of all county citizens . With that
sacrifice, there must be a fair method of
compensation, but the main issue is still protection
of the environment for future generations .
Jacobs stated that his view was one of balancing of
two sides, the equity issue for those who live in
the watershed but will not directly benefit from
improved water quality and the protection of the
environment. He continued that the method of
dealing with impervious surface is one way to reach
a compromise. He felt the Planning Staff ' s
proposals provide enough flexibility for a property
owner to build on his/her property and still not
• destroy other values . He continued that a fund
should be established to purchase lands which the
County wants to provide for environmental protection
but address equity issues and open space concerns .
Burklin noted his concern for the protection of a
resource, a responsibility which should be shared by
all of those benefiting from the protection of that
resource. He felt the charge to the Planning Board
is to recommend a workable program with some
creative solutions .
Lewis read a prepared statement which is included as
a part of these minutes on pages
Waddell noted the concern of fairness and finding a
balance. He recognized the concern for a clean
water supply but also understood the concern of the
homeowners in Chapel Hill and Bingham Townships . He
expressed hope that the Board not forget that a
measure of democracy is the extent to which the
rights of a minority are protected against the
desires of the majority. He felt that the work
being done with the University Lake watershed sets a
countywide precedent.
Waddell continued, expressing hope that the steps
taken would provide workable solutions . From the
models used to provide imperious surface
information, he indicated concern about the number •
of cases that would be presented to the Board of
Adjustment for solution.
Eddleman expressed concern with the number of
statements made that the real issue is one of
environmental protection. He noted that
this was a given, and the real issue of "who pays"
must not be misplaced. He felt the question of
equity is a serious one. He continued that funds to
purchase lands should be provided by all
municipalities involved. He noted concern with how
the County would deal with a 60% non-compliance
rate.
Cantrell expressed concern that no long-term plans
have been made for extending water and sewer service
into the County other than on an emergency basis .
She noted that Lane Kendig had indicated that land
use and lot sizes could be controlled more equitably
with the provision of water and sewer.
Cantrell continued that provisions must be made to
purchase land and expressed concern with the
apparent unwillingness of the municipalities to
participate in such purchases.
•
If
ova 13
Reid stated his concerns would be much the same as
• citizens in the area and having to make sacrifices
for the benefit of others . He indicated he was
opposed to any action being taken without some
economical relief being provided for those property
owners.
Eidenier noted a comment from the public hearing
that changing the term "Water Quality Critical Area"
to "Watershed" would not be as effective. The word
"critical" is more easily understood.
AGENDA ITEM #4a. Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Text
#4b. Joint Planning Agreement
Marvin Collins presented the proposed amendments for
the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and the Joint
Planning Agreement. (A copy of the abstract with
proposed amendments and resolutions from the Chapel
Hill Town Council and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen
is included as an attachment to these minutes on
pages . )
Both Chapel Hill and Carrboro recommended approval
of the proposed amendments to the Joint Planning
Area Land Use Plan and the Joint Planning Agreement
as presented at public hearing with additions .
• The resolutions approved by the Chapel Hill Town
Council adds, to the Agreement and Land Use Plan,
the basic strategies contained in the 13-point
agreement, including the following:
* requirement for a a minimum of 5 acres per
dwelling unit, with up to 5 2-acre lots (or
equivalent overall density) allowed in parcels
which were recorded as of October 2 , 1989 , and
allowing development of lots less than 5 acres
which were recorded as of October 2 , 1989 .
* impervious surface limits of 4% for 5-acre lots
and cluster developments, and 6% for 2-acre lots,
and
* prohibition on extension of public water and
sewer service and on new community alternative
wastewater systems; studies are to be completed by
April, 1991 on whether to allow public water
service extension and whether to allow community
alternative systems outside the most critical area
of the watershed.
• Collins stated that his concern as well as
that of the County Attorney is that the proposed
E2 Q [1; 1r
,4
additions were not included in the text that was
presented at public hearing. Two options are
available to the Planning Board. One is to approve
the decision of the Town of Chapel Hill and include
similar wording. The other option is to stay
strictly with what was advertised and presented at
public hearing. If the Board of County
Commissioners decides on the second option, then it
would be forwarded to the Chapel Hill .
Collins continued that the Town of Carrboro, in its
resolution, made the following addition:
Amend the Joint Planning Agreement to
incorporate the 13-point agreement, and to
provide for a sliding scale which accommodates
the impervious surface restrictions contained in
the 13-Point Agreement.
Roy Williford, Planning Director for Carrboro,.
indicated the intent is to incorporate the 13-Point
Agreement within the Joint Planning Agreement, in
its entirety, at this time.
Collins responded that he has the same concern he
expressed with the Town of Chapel Hill ' s resolution,
that more is being asked for than was advertised and
presented at public hearing. The options for the
Planning Board are the same as with the resolution •
from Chapel Hill .
Burklin asked about the items which were not
presented at public hearing. Collins responded that
the impervious surface ratio standards were of
particular concern.
Jacobs noted that impervious surface ratios were
discussed by citizens at the public hearing.
Collins responded that they were discussed but were
not advertised nor presented at the public hearing
as part of proposed amendments to the Joint
Planning Agreement or Land Use Plan.
Lewis noted that none of the landowners concerns
have been addressed and questioned support the
amendments until such time as the concerns are
addressed. Lewis continued that he could not
support the amendments until this was done.
MOTION: Lewis moved that the Planning Board recommend to the
Board of Commissioners that they do nothing in the
watershed until something concrete is done
to address the financial concerns of the landowners .
Seconded by Boland.
•
ID 13 n If 15
Boland asked how many landowners are on the
• watershed work group. Collins responded that there
are no landowners on the work group. It is
comprised of elected representatives of the two
municipalities and the County. Boland responded she
felt this was unfair representation.
Burklin asked about the rate of development Collins
expected within the next six months in the
watershed. Collins responded that the rate of
growth over the last eighteen months has been very
low. During 1988, there were 40-50 building permits
issued in the watershed. In 1989 , the number of
permits declined by half . The decline follows the
trend occurring throughout the County.
Jacobs noted that the Planning Board could make a
specific recommendation addressing the equity issue
as well as impervious surface ratios . Jacobs also
noted that the concept of lot size averaging was no
longer included as part of the Planning Staff
recommendation.
:ENDED MOTION: Recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that
they not accept the proposed amendments to the Joint
Planning Area Land Use Plan and Joint Planning
Agreement but extend the interim standards until the
• equity issue has been addressed.
ATE: 4 in favor (Boland, Lewis, Reid, Waddell) .
7 opposed (Eidenier, Cantrell, Jacobs, Hamilton,
Eddleman, Burklin) .
;ENDA ITEM #4e: Orange County Zoning Ordinance
Best suggested that the Board discuss minimum lot
size standards and lot size averaging. Other issues
for discussion should be the planned extension of
water and sewer, and the equity issue.
Collins asked that the Board remember that the
discussion must be in the context of the Joint
Planning Area Agreement and the Joint Planning Area
Land Use Plan.
Collins referred to a proposal from Commissioner Don
Willhoit. The proposal represents an alternative way
of trying to address the concerns of the
municipalities and balancing those with the Staff
recommendations . He asked Commissioner Willhoit
if he wished to comment on the proposal before
having the discussion proposed by Best. (A copy of
the proposal and recommendations is an attachment to
• these minutes on pages . )
y IT
16
district was proposed with a higher level of
protection.
VOTE: Unanimous . •
AGENDA ITEM #4a. Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Text
#4b. Joint Planning Agreement
MOTION: Jacobs moved to recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners that the issues of impervious surface
and lot size averaging, and the means of addressing
equity concerns such as purchase of land and/or
development rights in the watershed be presented
again at public hearing before all three
jurisdictions . Until such time, Jacobs recommended
that the Commissioners not adopt any standards
regarding impervious surface or lot size as part of
the Joint Planning Agreement or Land Use Plan.
Seconded by Best.
Collins indicated he felt the Board should approve
the proposals as presented at public hearing. He
cited the Board' s approval of a resolution which
included a provision to proceed with the review and
implementation of the 13-point agreement. By
addressing the 13-point agreement at another public
hearing, the issues and concerns that had just been
identified could be dealt with then. Collins added
that the proposals as presented at the February 28
public hearing were the most basic strategies
involving lot sizes and did not address specific
standards such as impervious surface ratios .
Best indicated that the municipalities needed to
address the equity issues before any amendments were
made to the Joint Planning Agreement or Land Use
Plan.
Collins suggested that the concerns involving the
equity issues as well as the entire 13-point
agreement could be dealt with in a manner similar to
the first 13-point agreement between the three
jurisdictions. That agreement was not part of the
text of the Joint Planning Agreement but simply an
appendix to it. The current 13-point agreement could
be considered at a public hearing, then incorporated
as a new appendix to Joint Planning Agreement.
Best indicated that the concerns should be dealt with now before any
amendments to the Joint Planning Agreement are made.
To do otherwise would result in a piecemeal handling
of the issues .
Eddleman indicated that the proposed amendments to
IL [ill 11
the Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan were
pretty bland statements . If a "message" is desired,
the action taken on the ordinance amendments
represents more of a message than holding up the
approval of these amendments . The message is that
the municipalities did not go far enough in helping
to protect the watershed. If they want a higher
level of protection, they need to contribute more.
Jacobs indicated that he wanted to see more progress
toward a middle ground by the municipalities before
he was ready to approve the Joint Planning items .
Collins indicated that the 13-point agreement had
been adopted by the municipalities and that document
addressed some of the concerns of the Planning
Board, including the establishment of a Watershed
Protection Fund. He noted that the Commissioners had
also set as a 1990 objective the preparation of a
purchase of development rights program.
Chris Berndt of the Chapel Hill Planning Department
indicated that the Town Council's resolution
specifically included a request that OWASA establish
a Watershed Protection Fund.
VOTE: 7 in favor.
4 opposed (Jacobs, Reid, Burklin, Eddleman) .
Meeting adjourned 10 : 35 p.m.
1p
n ir
0
UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTIO N •
At the March 8 , :990 meeting of the Chatham-Orange Wo=k Group,
the group failed to achieve a •consensus for modification of tne
impervious surface provisions ' in the :3-point agreement . The
Orange County Planning Director , Marvin Collins , nas proposed
changing the impervious surface limit from 4% to 6%G for 5-acre
lots and a sliding scale for lots smaller than 5 acres .
Ideas discussed at the March 8 meeting included :
a . Reduction in the number of 2-acre lots permitted under point
number 5 . a.
2 . Public acquisition of land or development rights sufficient
to result in equivalent protection:
3 . Use of impervious coefficient somewhere between 0 and 1 . 0 to
recognize that gravel driveways are not as impervious as
' roof tops or paved roads .
4 . Use 4:o figure for new developments , 5% for existing lots .
TEE DEBATE
Those in favor modifying the impervious surface limit arcued
that , according to Mr . Collins ' calculations , the number of non-
conforming lots would be unacceptably high (approx. 40%) . Those
opposed to modification argued that the CDM recommendations were
aimed at minimizing f::rtner pollutant loading of the Lake and
that the :3-paint agreement already included compromises that
were less stringent that recommended by CDm.
CDM SHORT-COMINGS
The CDM report recommended that impervious surfaces be limited to
4t if the non-structural utilized.ral approached were utilized. They failed
y
to take into account ,di _iculties this approached would encounter
. • _ dealing witn that portion of the watershed in Chatham County
and with existing roads and lots smaller .pan. 5 acres .
RECONCILIATION
The d:_ ference between the 1.3-point agreement and tne Orange
County staff proposals is not as sign:f:cant as has been thought
if a distinction :s made between average ' _mperv:ousness and the •
fed for ndiv_dua' lots . Mr . Collins ' calculations
..�al_i::um permit .. � -
indicate that , for an assortment of 5-acre lots , approxtmately
98% compliance can be achieved by use of an impervious surface
maximum of 6% •der lot and that the average for the assortment
4Y . Thus , the inte^ of the _3-point agreement
would be about us it -t ,
was to limt t impervious surface to an average of 4% , the two
proposals are equivalent .
I -
la
..
The difference for 2-acre acts is greater , b:.` not� by much. Mr.
Collins ' calculations indicate that the _=pervious surface for an
assortment of 2-acre lots would be approximately 7% it a naxi=u
of 12% was applied to individual lots . The :3-point agreement
called far 6%. Again if the 6% in the 13-point agreement is to
be interpreted as an average, it is close to that computed to
result from the application of a :2% maximum for individual lots .
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. For April 2 , 1990
r . Consider that the basic recommendations of the :3-point
agreement and the Orange County planning staff are ecuiv-
alent in that the 13-point figures refer to averages and the
star_ reccm»endat:ons refer to individual Pots .
2 . modify the formula for the number of 2-acre lots. t::at
can be created to one that specifies the number of lots and
permits averaging. For example, from a 20-acre tract , allow
creation of 7 2 . 86-acre lots as an alternative to 2 5-acre
lots plus 5 2-acre lots.
3 . Adopt a sliding scale of average and maxim.:m _=pervious
. surface requirements for acts smaller than 5 acres (averages
only to apply to new subdivisions) .
E. Beyond April 2 , :990
1 . Com»i t to public accuisit:on of land to reduce future
pollutant loading potential
2. Provide tax incentives for "environmental easements "
patterned after agricultural use-value assessments .
3 . Determine location of majority of 2-acre and swalaer
lots and. use structural BYPs in subbasins serving existing
small lot subdivisions , e.c. , East Price ' s Creek (=eritace
Hills) and West •Price ' s Creek (Chatham County) .
4 . Proceed with review and paewen tatio n of 13-poi._ .
acree»en t .
Don Will_^_o.t - -
3/26/90
VLC326
( ( ) 20
ci "_ -.Le-1.- ai...4....?e ge au.4,-eic.,4
s 084 zja,(-14, - .
,d-e-24:6(1,-e--/-tA--*--4e- .t. ,...e,As.,,,,s c . •
A.,_,J
v L%c, � cuz'°c‘--1,-47 c...qt.. .4.,..-iv-).-,_. ii.,,-,..„-
^ ......"._
lam• ,A,,,e / J • i Qom- 4-k4_ , yi
,
1
- . / ♦ ��1 __ .... - _/f «
v A -^ I 1
4/1-0-44-1A-E-1. /L.'Y `
_____ .. U14-4-4-4 eAl`-e_ GI-A-c— in u_a_44.,„:0-„, 4 06, 9g...4._
Lei - 7--e-)-4
• fria_./e . y_z_i_ ,g6L,22e4._._. )
,...,-Yzde,),_5, ceL.
I • .d-'zZ 444 ,,,,,,,,,_ vd__R_y /- / /- g )4/_.r.:,_
bv-/...0 6-1.,vx. ,,,6„....e,e vie_.,..,_ ,„,....f_ 0,-4, tw....e.„..,,,,..,: a4c2-el4,242
-.-. �� ./l-�i •• c-e. Gig - , _ . .
�
- -`r" '' - . =.�,� �_ .. , i. - _ =- ----
.-
.,
7 r ter. __41
.______. ,,, .L's, ‘L- 4--f. _ - ---._ . 1 d..,_________ ..
-7 /
, ,./L-1,•- rt/14"-14- 4 __ ..7 . Z-_cp."-dot-4-161- ____%712-__ . __4(-4--4. -- _
L4moo. , _ G S --12 6-c...n�..o. --�.�--- -
______-_.._.__. ~- it-1 . #)74•44-- a th-G�. g-4•'t/Lt
.! .-C . �l`fie �i�.e-cA4 tl ._`-E-�-6 _
______ttrI4p. _k _9‘±
cx/lc"(ya...e.: da.A......e Ug-14...1.--e,e7.4 elf7A-il /4--e‘,4
u� .4,6 a,„_.,,(
C>Ve-0“44-71"' -Z-e- IC*,2J-42-44,Nr4-1-4.(-4-4-. 4g-- t..#4.1 ._4)-7.-4
-.. _ . _ ..deZA5L-e;Xe21447 . P2-/2.4:4 CLe<i - 216 .
_ d'� _. ___ .� ._ C. - - -"(Le 621ged-'64.4-c--- Z Ch.e4'n- A/=i-C‹
ca..,,,a_z-7,....0__ C./.24A-...4.----4...4,1zz__._ azzA4_ ‘7.4---..--24.Le. 1,4r4 _ (.4,--ly. 14-1-e—c . ._
7
YZe....:.., . 1v 4l_
7)274 I 311,.c.....144-4,(4e-,' )44e-C 1:-/-e-■ (2A---C-41--/- -; ''
,
21
+ rho ".� , I 1.4 P.1 a`4
• Vice. /1,24,47.2, g,., ..,4---,..g a.....,..." #44 ,h--„,e,
, ..i
G244 aze Y7(2 ' " 1,0-1-0 z,v---4,Yf LA, 54 r.....,„ viz..tz :5--
,ze,,,, : , cz / Y-44ki,g.,f4,Ae.v. .,(.4,,:. ;144--J-e... r-e--e-reLe. '51`-r-e--, .
:� _. 51.1 -1/11C W-4-: 4,--4%_ ,AA; .V.4.4: Ge'-'1.9 ///44-1/?
� � u
- _.
/ f/-0 A
_ / / "
._-___-----.._ �._. ���_.- ' j KM--. J✓`.--` .44_,�/jam/� ..-rev i ��I��
L.. . _ . . .17,2±._. Vga-7_4. k-t-r-Leee.._ /V-11'.4.,___ ;. _ ,CAN,_ _ -.tee. ,,Z .U,. __..
________ ______./1.4)-2■4,1L_02_,0 A.1> 53,5',.- .;" _ . 53i Lt.‘2.44e .,_ . . ____ _ ....____
___________ 0.27E-_-E.4_44A-Q--;_t___ a.4e__ ._. .0,,-e'77c-,. e...4-4.?_ i' • i. '_—_______
' 54._/^ __g_ .-_-________ . fif-4.7v.77-LAi_ ;244, . - - .
J G . _-. _ _-- ,/,-.26,...,.,z__ 4
Ali--4- ZitiZet _. let/-214-A5-4;___1:Attl_. _94_ _ -/'. i_ _ ._ __,___
tile _ZZP-ezieez_ Z-z.: ./_X ./Zrie,t , ,,,,l' 7_ 5'4' ,,,- -:---,/_-. . __.(4_- -e..- ____
ke-r-,0”-)-e- / 1-Zeds.4. ._ i_21_x23k,p9,4_0__ ___._
L - _ _._ _ - - _.v.. - ,--Cam _ ___ji,z64.______ _______"224,,, - _..1.6„;___ ai,,,,--, t,,,--4,kyi.2„..i„,_jr_427;,.__Lt _5„4. .. ._.;_/: ___ _
_, ., _ ...,,,4_,_s- ; _, //__, __
, _ ,......,
6e/!..,er_de,,,-,4 cz/L, /7,__, • 4--,,,e_ #L,---„___ __
,y,_,
, — , . , (,,,;. .
______2:/(dz_ ZU-4.---_ft_'-' ,4- 64,-.;;)__ ____r__ /-tei _....6..-_,_ t-b.P__ as71)74-e--Z-__-,__
CZ-Ad ..e,!:-'__ A-/-4-S-1-4,-k--4-- ,, l.. Ts. 1
---
/71Z-4._ --- _ - . - --._.... ._ ---
• al 544.?rfk , ,4/-46-/W.23:14 , -7-)t2.-,-2>7
� vvv -),,044..e,:_e >4_ .47,..X.41,-.A e,ogze....44.1..4
i
---- + 22
1 1-44.AlletrrAiA-r-,67 j (.(../J/1/).L.i---74 ,c-Aiti17,1 /W-L4-- -
1 YbLi'-f(a'14-CI`j-6e pLe-e-ca--./.4,r);\ rv,-ext/Lit_e_.,e, 'id.--z,z-pli z->e_te, 0
- " WL uKtee , __ /4N,1 c - °A_
- u P 4 h ca. %/,
.... 6tiU✓�. C /„4/K !•c'`� , s .e , a,t.-z- ' f
--.
-- - , 9 ,c..4-4,A.... "y.. c.,./ ce.,4i _ i ) 2. Q-L( �.
‘-- _ _._ . &ter / ,co 1 .: tcr_.‘-,-c__-
__- -. ... .. w A-r4.1 M. ' • _. L4--,-et-c . G, _ •--e- ,� -- -
7. i44, 1.4A-A-ee.v 4 /44,4.-14-4_ 1 %,.-A- 6t4,-4-4.. j"-eic.A.A.-W.--PL. ,2--67-e-t-
-- .___. a■o-ege ,57--0-- detyt...a-c4 . /4,_ g ,i4-:,_ =.4,2_e&-._,- _._ ._
'i - - V' '4_ c7 -ai.t, L)aut.."- -4.4e,e ,‘,,,, 1,t,-, ‘,1-6_,.„ese _ _
%,.. _._. ,4,ti.H.A, .2
?,0.__ �? - 4-- -- - -- - _ //,saw a .o.
__a.__ , A-e..- - o s .
__ _. _ .,3.3,47)___LA-44zL,5 _ td:-e-.g-.4e._0)..,e7 4,-,A-4._ 4 ce-1-0--_ ex-f--- 4-2/.-h--1- AI-
__ 1/rsk r _5 _ .ter __4c)..c.vt/L.12,t_c _..4_..1."..._ ,,...s.._
utlz_ _______ Art ,-; s21,2__ :,- it-A_ - - __ _ _ • _ _ _____ ____
i ,L.,,,,e,,, .
t ' citriAlt.ci.h-A___ _ . (/ _ .e _/ f___W.,__
.4.,,,m,„ ! _ /'_- �- _ _ _ _J4_j....„_,,4- _ __- ._ -. . ___
u78,4__ ‘0'4, , e,s___/.2___A,,1,4; ,../0_ ,,,..._. _ __ .
ez,.., 2,ize Se- a..,44...../_ ,.,._._ ,,,,,,,,,_ ,,..,_ „A.,,,,,,<;.,_ __ ,_ 11,-t----e_
-- ----- a-4-- ----e-hz:e41,-54, -.{.,;_i -c;-._.__ ca-4-f.4.-._ ‘a.L_____*.-..
_ . . i _ ) -z-/7.4-i-e4 `
____ ____M.FL-_,-e4124.. .X.4 A;__ ae.- A.,e-f..2.4--epre.A.V__ g-P- fe-2A■7:‘-c,
_ ___ _ - 91‘f-4-1./L_1.1._.._ -___Az•-e-...7_4....-.. #4".--t-e-v L. ..:44/....47--_ Ci4e-(e- __
4/ s.2 .- ,144- //:_e z_.- '. // N-� -'` cam. ------
. ______ ___: a'1W6e 9-7-1-7 511-, / ail-e-W-24;42) bi_te-A-' eXi`-'-Z■
94 _ • riJ7, -1,51,1L4.-- Jv Ws/`—>1;: 1•46
. _
� ... d tr�-zr/� : J ay Lil
7 r
23
• lit .6e 1,411-se-
.0e-4 4J(,e1A'A
zti,c
‘Z76 -17pk-P- "/
• 441,-t U(1/1111 al-e■t, /21-45-E-2- &L-4a---0-el 96-1.4.4) Aze_ee
..516
Yg.e_
dz7. 21<e_4 _
1',6 " 2"--(164Lif?
We-t
• - _
tea_ 25_
5/1-1--?:c■y710 .-
-
V97 -0
—p f_r_e_ebt-2/
POst-It'"brand tax transmittal memo 7671 It/ea ow*
•+�. y P 4
co.
Dept. _ i Arip -Ls AGENDA * 9
Fa.
73e2 - 5eal 44 A Fax ((a7 4,5/40f - revised
410
RRMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Julie Andresen and Alan Rimer
SUBJECT: Joint Planning amendments regarding protection of University
Lake watershed and water quality
DATE: March 26, 1990
As a follow-up to the Joint Planning public hearing on February 28, we
want to report to you on subsequent discussions by the Chatham-Orange
work Group regarding University Lake watershed matters.
•
BACKGROUND
Present Joint Planning Agreement
The present Agreement of November, 1987, provides that the portion of
University Lake watershed in Orange County' s planning jurisdiction
(about 80% of the watershed) , is part of the Rural Buffer established
in the Joint Planning land use plan and defined in the Agreement.
The Rural Buffer is defined as:
"That portion of the Joint Planning Area designated on the Joint
Planning Land Use Plan as Rural Residential, Agricultural, Pub-
lic/Private Open Space, Resource Conservation, Extractive/Disposal use
and the overlay district designated Water Quality Critical Area. This
area is further defined as being a low-density area consisting of
single-family homes situated on large lots having a minimum size of
two ( 2) acres. The Rural Buffer is further defined as land which,
although adjacent to and urban or Transition area, is rural in charac-
ter and which will remain rural, contain low-density residential uses
and not require urban services (public utilities and other town
services) ."
Camp Dresser and McKee study
In March, 1989, the consulting firm of Camp Dresser and McKee complet-
ed a study of University Lake Watershed for the Orange Water and Sewer
Authority.
The consulting engineers recommended land use and development controls
as preferable to use of stormwater detention ponds for protecting the
water quality of University Lake. The engineers recommended a 5-acre
minimum lot size with a 4% limit on impervious surfaces such as roads
and buildings, Camp Dresser and McKee also evaluated as acceptable an
alternative of cluster development with an overall density of 3 . 3
acres per dwelling unit and including the 4% impervious surface limit
and other controls.
25
Camp Dresser and McKee stated in the report that " . . .to be effective
at managing future nonpoint pollution impacts, the 5-acre lot require-
ment must be accompanied by a 4% impervious surface.ceilin9" and that
"It is important to emphasize that a 4% imperviousness ceilin is an
important component of a 5-acre lot development restriction. This is
because a greater level of imperviousness on a 5-acre residential lot
would produce higher nonpoint pollution loadings and Could reduce
water quality benefit to the point where a land use control strategy
is not at least as effective as a structural BMP strategy" [emphasis
is in original text] .
Structural BMP strategy refers to detention ponds.
Orange-Chatham Work Group discussions
In October, a work group including representatives of Carrboro, Chapel
Hill and Orange County governing boards proposed a 13-point agreement
for protecting the University Lake watershed and water quality of the
reservoir. A copy of the proposed agreement is attached with a report
to the Council from our October 23 meeting, when the Council generally
endorsed the proposed agreement.
Key points of the work group' s proposal include:
A basic strategy of requiring 5 acres per dwelling unit, limiting
impervious surface to 4% and use of individual septic systems.
• Allowing lots under 5 acres which were recorded before October 2, 1989
to be developed with impervious surface limits of 6% for lots of
between 2 and 5 acres, and 12% for lots less than 2 acres.
Allowing up to 5 2-acre lots in parcels recorded as of October 2,
1989, with the 6% limit on impervious surface.
Not allowing alternative community wastewater systems in the critical
area of the watershed, and not allowing such systems in the remainder
of the watershed before April 30, 1991. The joint planning
jurisdictions would study whether to expand the critical area.
Not allowing public sewer service in the watershed except to address a
public health hazard or upon agreement of the joint planning
jurisdictions.
Studying whether to allow public water service in the watershed, with
a study and report from OWASA requested to be complete by April 30,
1991.
Studying possible use of transferable development rights for watershed
protection purposes, and reviewing the Joint Planning Agreement to see
how the watershed protection agreement could be incorporated.
Consideration by Orange County
In October, 1989, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted
interim regulations for development in University Lake watershed.
These regulations were adopted for the period through April 2, 1990.
26
t
In addition to Joint Planning amendments, the County is considering
amendments in County zoning and subdivision regulations for University
Lake watershed.
we understand that the County Planning Board may discuss University
Lake watershed matters on March 28th.
DISCUSSION
Impervious surface limits
In recent weeks, the work group has discussed the County staff ' s
recommendation for a sliding scale of impervious surface limits
including 6% for 5-acre lots and 12% for two-acre lots. The County
staff developed this proposal after questions about flexibility for
property owners were raised in a public hearing by the County in
November. The hearing was on revisions to the County' s interim
watershed standards for University Lake watershed.
The County staff 's proposed imperviousness limits are less protective
than those recommended by the work group last fall. OWASA staff has
analyzed the County proposal and projected its effect on University
Lake water quality.
When combined with other proposed modifications to the Camp Dresser
McKee recommendation, the proposed County impervious surface limits
would contribute to a 36%, estimated degradation compared to present III
water quality in the lake.
The Chatham-Orange work Group's proposal in October included
imperviousness limits of 4% for lots of 5 or more acres, 6% for 2 acre
lots and 12% for existing lots less than 2 acres. On the basis of the
Camp Dresser McKee model for projecting water quality from allowable
development patterns, OWASA staff has estimated that the October, 1989
work group proposal would mean a 28% degradation from present water
quality.
Camp, Dresser McKee estimated its own recommendations would mean a 17%
degradation in water quality.
We believe that development of lots in subdivisions in the future
should be subject to the impervious surface limits recommended by Camp
Dresser and McKee, or alternatively, as proposed by the work group in
October. We believe that future development can be designed with the
impervious surface limits in mind, and that there is greater
flexibility in designing future development than in the case of
existing recorded lots.
Amendments to the Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan
The County staff has proposed amending the Joint Planning Agreement to
refer to University Lake watershed area rather than water quality
critical area in the definition of Rural Buffer. The present Water
Quality critical Area includes areas immediately around the Lake and
tributary streams and creeks.
27
We recommend that the Council support adding a clarifying statement to
define the University Lake Watershed Area as including:
* a primary requirement for a minimum of 5 acres per dwelling unit,
with up to S 2-acre lots (or an equivalent overall density) allowed in
parcels which were recorded as of October 2, 1989, and allowing
development of lots less than 5 acres which were recorded as of
October 2 , 1989 .
* impervious surface limits of 4% for 5-acre lots and cluster
developments, and 6% for 2-acre lots, and
* prohibition of extending public sewer service into the watershed
except to address a public health hazard or upon agreement by all
joint planning jurisdictions; not permitting community alternative
wastewater systems, with a study to be completed by April, 1991 on
whether to allow such systems outside the most critical area of the
watershed; and with restriction of public water service pending study
and a report to be completed by April, 1991.
The Joint Planning Land Use Plan amendments as drafted by the County
staff for the February 28 public hearing include options of either 5
acres per dwelling unit or 2 acres per unit with stormwater detention
ponds. The amendments as drafted for the public hearing are included
on the attached pages numbered 11 through 18 from the public hearing
agenda materials.
We recommend the 5-acre per unit option with clarification that
impervious surface limits are to include 4% for 5 acre lots and 6% for
2-acre lots.
Regarding wastewater disposal, the County staff's draft amendments
state that policies on restricting public water and sewer service are
under consideration pending studies. We recommend the amendments set
forth the restrictions on public water and sewer service as policies
to be in effect. The question of whether to extend public water
service would be studied as proposed by the work group in October.
CONCLUSION
Attached are resolutions regarding changes in the Joint Planning
Agreement and Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan.
Resolution 17 would approve an amendment in the Joint Planning Agree-
ment to define a University Lake Watershed Area in place of the
University Lake Water Quality Critical Area now referred to in the
Joint Planning Agreement.
Resolution 18 would approve Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan changes
including the primary requirement for 5 acres per dwelling unit and
0 restrictions on impervious surface and on public water and sewer
service as discussed above.
2P
A RESOLUTION REGARDING AMENDMENT OF THE JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT AMONG •
ORANGE COUNTY AND THE TOWNS OF CHAPEL HILL AND CARRBORO (University
Lake Watershed District) ( 90-3-26/R-17)
WHEREAS, representatives of local governments have discussed since the
spring of .1989 how to implement recommendations of Camp Dresser and
McKee for protecting the watershed and thereby the water quality of
University Lake; and
WHEREAS, on October 13 , 1989, representatives of governing boards of
Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill proposed a
13-point agreement regarding University Lake watershed; and
WHEREAS, , the proposed 13-point agreement r included
dwelling is
ldedg ro but provisions for with
primary strategy of requiring 5 acres per
allowance for a limited number of 2-acre lots and for development of
lots recorded as of October 2, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the proposed 13-point agreement includes a request that OWASA
develop a watershed protection fund for purposes such as acquiring
rights in particularly sensitive land;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of chapel Hill
that the Council approves amendment of the Joint Planning Agreement
among Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro as
follows:
Amend the definition of "Rural Buffer" in Section 1.2 Definitions by 0
revising the definition of "Rural Buffer" by deleting the reference to
"overlay district designated Water Quality critical Area" and
substituting "overlay district designated "University Lake Watershed
Area" and to define the University Lake Watershed Area as including
* requirement for a minimum of 5 acres per dwelling unit, with up to 5
2-acre lots (or equivalent overall density) allowed in parcels which
were recorded as of October 2, 1989, and allowing development of lots
less than 5 acres which were recorded as of October 2, 1989.
* impervious surface limits of 4% for 5-acre lots and cluster
developments, and 6% for 2-acre lots, and
* prohibitions on extension of public water and sewer service and on
new community alternative wastewater systems; studies are to be
completed by April, 1991 on whether to allow public water service
extension and whether to allow community alternative systems outside
the most critical area of the watershed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to
execute an amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement on behalf of the
Town of Chapel Hill to incorporate the provisions described above.
This the 26th day of March, 1990.
_ r
29
• A RESOLUTION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE
PLAN AND MAP (University Lake watershed) ( 90-3-26/R-18)
WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Area includes the portion of University
Lake watershed which is within Orange County's planning and zoning
jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Plan and Map for the Joint Planning Area set
forth bases for development regulations; and
WHEREAS, the parties to the Joint Planning Agreement have discussed
how to implement recommendations of a study of the University Lake
watershed by the firm of Camp Dresser and McKee; and held a public
hearing on February 28, 1990 on these matters;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill
that the Council hereby approves amendments to the Joint Planning Area
Land Use Plan and Map as follows:
A. Amend section II , Natural Environment by rewriting Subsection B,
water Resources as described in (A) in portions of the attached pages
numbered 14 and 15 from the February 28, 1990 public hearing agenda
materials.
B. Amend Section V Joint Planning Operating Principles as described in
(B) on the attached page 15 from the February 28, 1990 public hearing
0 materials.
C. Amend Section V Joint Planning Operating Principles as described in
(C) on the attached pages 15 and 16 in the February 28, 1990 public
hearing materials.
D. Amend Section V Joint Planning Operating Principles by:
rewriting the last sentence of the subsection "Rural Buffer and
Conservation" as described in (D) on the attached page 16 of the
February 28, 1990 public hearing materials; and
deleting the subsection Water Quality Critical Area and substituting a
new subsection as follows:
The University Lake watershed Area includes all lands which drain into
the University Lake reservoir. Based on a preferred watershed
protection strategy of land use controls as recommended by Camp
Dresser and McKee in the University Lake Watershed Study, only
low-density residential uses are permitted at densities not to exceed
one unit per five acres of land, with a limited number of 2-acre lots,
and with impervious surface limits including 4% for 5 acre lots and 6%
for 2-acre lots.
S
10
i T
E. Amend section VI Future Land Use ~ Join Rural Planning Area
Area"ewriting
the first paragraph of the subsection 1990 ID
as described in (E) on the attached page 16 of the February 28,
public hearing materials, and replacing the subsection "Water Quality
Critical Area" with the following new subsection:
University Lake Watershed Area
The University Lake watershed Area includes all lands which drain into
University Lake reservoir. Based on a preferred watershed protection
strategy of land use controls as recommended by Camp Dresser and McKee
in the university Lake Watershed Study, only low density residential
uses are permitted at densities not to exceed one dwelling unit per
ith
five acres of Ali with a limited its including 4number or 5 acre 2-acre
lo lots n6% wfor
impervious surface
2-acre lots.
Rewrite the third paragraph of the subsection "Rural Residential" to
read as follows:
To the west of Carrboro, Rural Residential development is also
expected in University Lake watershed. However, only low-density
residential uses developed at densities of one dwelling unit per five
or more acres of land (with a limited number of 2-acre lots) are
anticipated. For this reason, residential development will ontinueato
rely on wells and septic tanks for water supply
OWASA will be requested to conduct a study of the advisability of
making public water services available within the watershed, and will
be asked April to report to the joint planning jurisdictions by
1991 on its findings and recommendations. Public sewer will not be
extended into the University w�llr�oenteplanning jurisdictions.
F.health hazard or upon agreement by
F. Amend Section VII Overview of the Implementation Strategies by
rewriting the last paragraph of th
Extension Policy" to read as follows:
The Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) is the provider of water
and sewer in the Joint Planning Area. OWASA policy is to be guided by
the land management plans approved by the governmental units in the
area the Authority serves. Public sewer services will not be extended
into University Lake watershed except to address a public
health
hazard or upon agreement by all joint planning 3 of making
OWASA is requested to conduct a study of the advisability _
public water services available joint planning jurisdictions watershed,grd�
and is asked to report t
30,, 1991 on its findings and recommendations.
to
HE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the C P nning Agreement authorizes
on behalf ofrthe
execute amendments to the Joint
Town of Chapel Hill to incorporate the provisions described above.
This the 26th day of March, 1990.
•
31
arrboro ,4.
•
March 28 , 1990
Mr. John Link
Orange County Manager
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
Dear John:
The Carrboro Hoard of Aldermen at its meeting on Tuesday, March 27 ,
1990, adopted the attached resolution regarding the proposed
amendments to the Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan.
If we can provide additional information in this regard, please let
me know.
110 Sincerely,
. n7'�`'�`�
Robert W. Morgan
Town Manager
RWM/scw
cc: Sonna Loewenthal
Enclosure
0
32
arrb 1'
The following resolution was introduced by Alderman Jay Bryan and
duly seconded by Alderman Jacquelyn Gist.
A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
THE JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT AND LAND USE PLAN
Resolution No. 40/89-90
WHEREAS, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority commissioned the
consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) to study and
develop a range of options for protecting the quality of water
supplied to University Lake by its watershed area;
WHEREAS, the governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill,
and Carrboro adopted resolutions requesting that the Joint
Orange-Chatham Work Group review the report completed by CDM in
March of 1989;
WHEREAS, the Orange-Chatham Work Group recommended a 13- Point
Agreement for University Lake Watershed protection, dated October
13, 1989, which proposed an agreed upon watershed protection
strategy;
WHEREAS, the governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill,
and Carrboro endorsed the October 13, 1989 agreement, as proposed
by the Orange-Chatham Work Group;
WHEREAS, the governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill ,
and Carrboro jointly held a public hearing on February 28 , 1990 on
amendments to he Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan Text, to the
Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan Map, and to the Joint Planning
Agreement supporting the, October 13, 1989 Agreement proposed by the
Orange-Chatham Work Group; and
WHEREAS, the planning directors of Orange County, Chapel Hill ,
and Carrboro recommended approval of the proposed amendments with
Option 41 as the recommended land use control strategy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN
THAT;
Section 1. The amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use
Plan/Text with Option #1 as presented on February 28 , 1990 (Pages
14-18) , be adopted.
•
4
13
V
Section 2. The Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan Map amendment
• deleting the land use category "Water Quality Critical Area" and
designating in its place "University Lake Watershed" for the
entirety of the watershed in Orange County 's planning and zoning
jurisdiction be adopted, subject to a change that accurately shows
as excluded from such area the existing corporate limits of the
Town of Carrboro as well as the Town 's extraterritorial planning
area.
Section 3. The Joint Planning Agreement amendment which amends
the definition of "Rural Buffer" in Section 1.2 Definitions by
deleting the reference to the "overlay district designated Water
Quality Critical Area" and substituting "overlay district
designated University Lake Watershed Area" be adopted.
Section 4. Amend the Joint Planning Agreement to incorporate
the 13-Point Agreement, and to provide for a sliding scale which
accommodates the impervious surface restrictions contained in the
13-Point Agreement.
Section 5. This resolution shall become effective upon
adoption.
The foregoing resolution, having been submitted to a vote, received
the following vote and was duly adopted this 27th day of March,
1990:
• AYES: Randy Marshall , Tom Gurganus , Eleanor Kinnaird, Frances
Shetley, Jacquelyn Gist, Jay Bryan
NOES: Hilliard Caldwell
ABSENT/EXCUSED: None
I, Sarah C. Williamson, Town Clerk of the Town of Carrboro, North
Carolina, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Carrboro Board of
Aldermen at its meeting held on Tuesday, March 27eot ��, 4a4,s
c.,.5.
Town;Clerk =;�
, •M / -
w
'fd,f0∎::Aif:5i6'•t6,
411
•
1
ORANGE C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 2L 1990
Action Agenda��
Item # �XC
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment - Orange County Comprehensive Plan
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Location Map Planning Director - Extension 346
Descriptive Narrative
Draft 3/28/90 Planning Board TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Minutes Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
NOTE: PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES Mebane - 227-2031
AND EVIDENCE RECEIVED AFTER Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
THE HEARING ARE INCLUDED AS A
SEPARATE ENCLOSURE.
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Land Use
Element of The Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed amendment is being made to implement, in part,
recommended strategies for the protection of University
Lake Watershed.
The proposal was presented at the February 28, 1990
public hearing.
BACKGROUND: In 1988, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority
commissioned a study to develop a range of options for
protecting the University Lake watershed. The
consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) ,
nationally recognized experts in watershed evaluation,
completed the study in March, 1989 .
Following the release of the Final Report, the
governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and
Carrboro adopted resolutions, requesting that the Joint
Chatham-Orange Work Group review the study and provide
recommended strategies for its implementation.
In October, 1989, the Work Group completed a proposed
13-point agreement on University Lake watershed
protection.
To implement the recommended strategies for watershed
protection, the Work Group directed staff to identify
needed changes to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan.
Only one change was found to be necessary - amend the
1
2
Land Use Element Map by deleting the current "Water
Quality Critical Area" surrounding University Lake (see
attached map) . The amendment would leave the entire
watershed designated as a "Water Supply Watershed" on
the Land Use Element Map, providing consistency with
the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Atlas.
At a special meeting on March 28, 1990, the Planning
Board, by unanimous vote, recommended approval of the
proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the
proposed amendment per the Planning Board
recommendation.
�1 I
voK- �i FARM ;w
417• 4 `,`ti` OA+RYIi r
•
Jo b .. .I !vender ;400-S
r ,
~~� t .. p C • ;. °ter„a 4 `
4, ....N..c.r ' Wq 1-7.-,,
Cp' 6 : I _ `1 nos
�•• *iv at 3 0 [[[_ 2- w rim' 4 illill .44 100011.*IIP.-1#-d7-0141AW
is Aim
•
Cy r.W.j%
C\ V Si%0:10,11irillIP•00..1.10._-... VIII
..:\r---....-.1%..: NI 4*, ob• 16 S
1r e. ........._... .. eA. -t* I'D lc= -AIN
at ,,i,,,,,,... „,.. 0
/ , , . . 4.. , .... „741-1/4.--' . 4cit,,,k74,4,1%43,11.P.:-. -,'"°.:. ..0
... ,
.. ?i, -N..—...„.■,..,.
i . / 6
y, .y. 12. \
y 0E0
etA° ir,„„.. _.,,,Nilk, ._ ,„„.. ,,,,,,
,,. > 92 1 ow
, I. 4k ;b1 - ITO. le
. litip,...V11,/,,sk-
rid,. ...CLUB w i. to use►
Ir
•
lb
IA Cfgel f r.-1-1'21.....--..*. 4
t. -\ \..,..t \
sows .
1 Q STtMSPEIKI/ (.
2008 11,, Ro. ° �,ti ":44 , -.0'':
1 AA _ ..4,..- 9.70,,:‘,..,R0. q t_� f"r ,_ ` 1
c ! M QO v bt taq ••
ar ` os
"Alb!"Atiee ?s,-- ssil -4' '.
�~ L i''• C yr .- -.. AP"I- 0r ,� It N . .4111 1
-_ ti -
4 I-
/� '
t . i it t��M! 4 w I. / _9 : r av C�
ii>��2_ v i
•�m, arer tr try a pe HiJis=p
INID
�7li t�q /i
LEGEND
11111 11111111 Watershed Boundary Water Quality Critical Area
UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED
4
* 3,3 LAND USE PLAN CATEGORIES *Amended 8/1/89
One of the fundamental methods used to achieve the stated Goals and �.
Policies of the Land Use Element is the design and application of a
land classification system. Each category of the land classification
system is designed to accommodate certain uses throughout the County to
achieve a desired pattern of development. Land in the County was
classified into these categories according to the public policies
expressed in the Land Use Element, the set of locational criteria
defining the appropriateness of the physical environmental context and
the projected population change and resulting land requirements in the
County.
The land use categories contained in the Orange County Land Use Element
are based on five basic categories which have been refined into a more
detailed classification system to meet the specific needs of the
County. These categories are presented below:
BASIC CATEGORY ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN CATEGORIES
DEVELOPED Urban Existing Urban Activity Node
Proposed Urban Activity Node
TRANSITION 10-Year Transition 20-Year Transition
Commercial Transition Activity Node
Commercial-Industrial Transition
Activity Node
COMMUNITY Rural Community Activity Node
RURAL Rural Buffer Rural Residential
Agricultural-Residential
Rural Neighborhood Activity Node
Rural Industrial Activity Node
Agricultural Areas
CONSERVATION Public Interest Area
r> Water Supply Watershed
Water Quality Critical Area
Resource Protection Areas
Amended 4/2/84 8/1/89
A description of each land use plan category is contained on the
following pages.
5
LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS
URBAN. Land that is within the corporate limits of a town and,
therefore, under the jurisdiction of the Land Use Plan for the Town.
EXISTING URBAN ACTIVITY NODE. Land corresponding to "activity centers"
designated by the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and similarly
identified for the Towns of Hillsborough and Mebane.
PROPOSED URBAN ACTIVITY NODE. Land corresponding to proposed "activity
centers" designated by the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
10-YEAR TRANSITION. Land located in areas that are in the process of
changing from rural to urban, that are suitable for urban-type
densities and should be provided with public utilities and services
within the first 10-year phase of the Plan.
20-YEAR TRANSITION. Land located in areas that are in the process of
changing from rural to urban, that are suitable for urban-type
densities and should be provided with public utilities and services
within the second 10-year phase of the Plan.
COMMERCIAL TRANSITION ACTIVITY NODE. Land focused on designated road
intersections within either a 10-year or 20-year transition area that
is appropriate for retail and other commercial uses .
COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION ACTIVITY NODE. Land focused on
designated road intersections within either a 10-year or 20-year
transition area that is appropriate for retail and other commercial
uses and/or manufacturing and other industrial uses .
RURAL COMMUNITY ACTIVITY NODE. Land focused on designated road
intersections which serves as a nodal crossroads for the surrounding
rural community and is an appropriate location for any of the following
uses: church, fire station, small post office, school, or other similar
institutional uses and one or more commercial uses .
RURAL BUFFER. Land adjacent to an Urban or Transition area which is
rural in character and which should remain rural, contain very
low-density residential uses and not require urban services during the
plan period.
RURAL RESIDENTIAL. Land in the rural areas of the County which is
appropriate for low intensity and low-density residential development
and which would not be dependent on urban services during the plan
period.
AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL. Land in the rural areas where the prevailing
land use activities are related to the land (agriculture, forestry) and
which is an appropriate location for the continuation of these uses.
RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVITY NODE. Land focused on designated road
intersections within a Rural Residential or Agricultural-Residential
area that is appropriate for small-scale commercial uses characteristic
of "Mom and Pop" convenience stores and gas stations.
6
RURAL INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY NODE. Land focused on designated road
intersections within a Rural Residential or Agricultural-Residential
area that is appropriate for small scale industrial uses which do not
require urban-type services.
EXTRACTIVE USE. Land designated to encompass operations designed
primarily for the mining and quarrying of those substances which are
legally removable from the ground and substrata.
AGRICULTURAL AREAS. Land which is actively being used for farming and
forestry purposes and which qualify for or are listed for, use value
taxation purposes.
PUBLIC INTEREST AREA. Land which contains public or quasi-public uses
such as publicly owned land, research forests or known archaeological
or historical sites .
WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED. Land draining to existing reservoirs which
serve as public water supplies for the County, or to potential
reservoir sites which have been designated for protection against
threats to the water quality of future water supplies .
0 WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREA. Land draining directly to existing or
future water supply impoundments by overland flow and interflow, called
shorelands, and draining into the main channels of trunk streams
emptying into the impoundments, called non-basin drainage areas .
RESERVOIR. Land which contains the necessary attributes for the
placement of a water supply impoundment to supply an adequate quality
of water for public purposes.
RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS. Land which contains identifiable or
potential natural resources . This includes wetlands along drainage
tributaries, and steep slope areas ( 15% or greater) . These areas form
the basis for a parks and open space system which provides the
framework within which other land uses are situated.
Historic And cultural. No evaluation.
7
co) PLAN CATEGORY: WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREA
Amended
4/2/84
,hand Slone. No evaluation. *
liydrolocy. Located in areas which drain directly to a water supply
impoundment by overland flow and interflow or which drain directly to
the main channel of trunk stream feeding the impoundment.
Flora and Fauna. No evaluation.
Soil Conditions. No evaluation.
Public Services/Utilities. Located in areas which are characterized by
low-density residential and minimal non-residential development.
Transportation System. No evaluation.
Enemy Use. No evaluation.
Existing Land Use. Located in areas which are characterized by a low
density residential and minimal non-residential development.
Agriculture And Forestry. No evaluation.
Population Density. Located in areas with low population densities.
Historic and culture . No evaluation.
*No evaluation - means this item is not a criteria for the application
of the Plan Category.
A:\A:SEC-3-5.DOC
D ° a 7
D 8 V .
recommendation with Alternative #2 (attachment to
these minutes) . Seconded by Best.
Collins asked if the Board preferred Alternative #2
as presented at public hearing to the revised
version on page 49 of the agenda.
• Jacobs asked if the revision reflected a longer time
frame than, April 1991 .
Collins responded it did, since the studies of the
advisability of extending public water and sewer,
and permitting the use of alternative systems would
be completed by April 1991 . Following the receipt
of the studies, the three jurisdictions must have
time to review the proposals and make a decision.
Any prohibition of such services/systems would not
be lifted until a decision by all three
jurisdictions to do so.
Jacobs asked if Collins preferred the revision on
page 49 . Colndnhise otiondt�eaccept theobevisdionated
he would ame
Accepted by Best.
VOTE: 9 in favor.
2 opposed (Lewis, Waddell) .
0 AGENDA ITEM #4c. Orange County Comprehensive Plan
#4d. Orange County Zoning Atlas
MOTION: Jacobs moved approval of the Planning Staff ' s
recommendation. Seconded by Best.
Best asked if Eidenier still had concerns about the
deletion of the "Critical Area" . Eidenier responded
that if some land is going to be bought which is
more critical than other, there should be a way to
defining it.
Best continued, asking the reason for deleting the
word "Critical" . Collins responded that the CDM
report indicated the watershed as a whole should be
considered as a critical area, so one zoning
district was proposed with a higher level of
protection.
VOTE: Unanimous .
AGENDA ITEM #4a. Plan and Text
4b. Joint Planning Agreement
MOTION: Jacobs moved to recommend to the Board of County
1
{
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 2, 1990
Action Agenda
�
Item # ,
SUBJECT: Z-1-90 University Lake Watershed (ULW) District
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Location Map Planning Director - Extension 346
Draft 3/28/90 Planning Board
Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
NOTE: PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES Durham - 688-7331
AND EVIDENCE RECEIVED AFTER Mebane - 227-2031
THE HEARING ARE INCLUDED AS A Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
SEPARATE ENCLOSURE.
PURPOSE: To consider the proposed rezoning of approximately
15, 385 acres from Protected Watershed II (PW-II ) and
Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) to a proposed new
zoning district classification, the University Lake
Watershed (ULW) District.
The proposal was presented at public hearing on
February 28, 1990 .
BACKGROUND: In 1988, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority
commissioned a study to develop a range of options for
protecting the University Lake watershed. The
consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) ,
nationally recognized experts in watershed evaluation,
completed the study in March, 1989 .
Following the release of the Final Report, the
governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and
Carrboro adopted resolutions, requesting that the Joint
Chatham-Orange Work Group review the study and provide
recommended strategies for its implementation.
In October, 1989, the Work Group completed a proposed
13-point agreement on University Lake watershed
protection.
While a specific zoning designation was not recommended
by the Work Group, it is the intent of the University
Lake Watershed (ULW) District is to apply a set of
development standards which would protect the watershed
by preventing pollution generated by future development
2
from reaching University Lake. It is the development
standards which the Work Group addressed during its
deliberations. The standards are to be considered as a
separate agenda item - see proposed Zoning Ordinance
text amendments .
The proposed ULW district would overlay other zoning
districts established by the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance. Specifically, the existing overlay zoning
districts (PW-II and WQCA) would be removed and the new
ULW district would be applied. The underlying zoning
district designation of Rural Buffer (RB) would remain
unchanged. The ULW zoning district designation would
apply to all land located in University Lake Watershed
within Orange County' s jurisdiction (see attached map) .
An overlay approach is proposed to provide consistency
with that used for other watersheds in Orange County
and with the Rural Buffer concepts embodied in the
Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement.
At a special meeting on March 28, 1990, the Planning
Board, by unanimous vote, recommended approval of the
proposed amendment to the Zoning Atlas .
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the
proposed amendment to the Zoning Atlas per the Planning
Board recommendation.
UNIVSITY LAKE WATERS=
' 3
* W— t =:.
"'` P CTED(WATERSHED
' 0 ER , AY 6 I= TRICT (Existing)
y.:�"fX'. ,::6t>. 4s..1. /may.
. Sep','..:3,...:.
40
rd• -*�
y�:yF,:YtA'i ,.'f,.:ifj`Fi Y�.S' rrW... `.fie` ,::: , 1
•
;,,�.y'sa ;:; .�s ' 4C SCRoCIR _
\ .S\illik.\\J\
r..' C1ITfiKy
; :..
. R of"ig ::";.. .""'T:'.,,..: •.R,•d e:.'..� [.
,".:':' 71" M�Y�P' ' P
trey
4. i*\
� •� �� is
tie:. -- «�": _... %']ri/... /
J
i c
ti f
,M- .v=µµ~'.'Vv,:
P
may' �� 6
'w! all
fi
1
N 1
xd r, __.nom.«..•. - --- - �� 4+ i •_____ .__ NI
"
...„
4 I
f �
t3 41111t.. ...TWO C.~ —__ Y k"w' Z I'n :m :% •:Y.:m,: P : K.:w a
= M,-;w ) W - ER QUALITY
_.:w; . 1 ITICAL AREA
ULW
UNIYERSITY
• - `_ , w < . 0 ERLAY DISTRICT (Existing)
WATERSHED 0 -• r � - _
DISTRICT (Prop "-`. - "'._.•
• RB -- RURAL BUFFER
UNDERLYING DISTRICT (Existing)
Ga 7 4
recommendation with Alternative #2 (attachment to
these minutes) . Seconded by Best.
Collins asked if the Board preferred Alternative #2
as presented at public hearing to the revised
version on page 49 of the agenda.
Jacobs asked if the revision reflected a longer time
frame than April 1991 .
Collins responded it did, since the studies of the
advisability of extending public water and sewer,
and permitting the use of alternative systems would
be completed by April 1991 . Following the receipt
of the studies, the three jurisdictions must have
time to review the proposals and make a decision.
Any prohibition of such services/systems would not
be lifted until a decision by all three
jurisdictions to do so.
Jacobs asked if Collins preferred the revision on
page 49 . Collins responded yes, and Jacobs indicated
he would amend his motion to accept the revision.
Accepted by Best.
VOTE: 9 in favor.
2 opposed (Lewis, Waddell) .
11> AGENDA ITEM #4c. Orange County Comprehensive Plan
#4d. Orange County Zoning Atlas
MOTION: Jacobs moved approval of the Planning Staff' s
recommendation. Seconded by Best.
Best asked if Eidenier still had concerns about the
deletion of the "Critical Area" . Eidenier responded
that if some land is going to be bought which is
more critical than other, there should be a way to
defining it.
Best continued, asking the reason for deleting the
word "Critical" . Collins responded that the CDM
report indicated the watershed as a whole should be
considered as a critical area, so one zoning
district was proposed with a higher level of
protection.
VOTE: Unanimous .
AGENDA ITEM #4a. Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Text
#4b. Joint Planning Agreement
MOTION: Jacobs moved to recommend to the Board of County
‘Ii■
Mrr
1
0 ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 2, 1990
Action Agenda
Item # )(-E
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments - Orange County Zoning Ordinance
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Amendments Planning Director - Extension 346
Draft 3/28/90 Planning Board
Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Draft 3/26/90 Willhoit Proposal Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
NOTE: PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES Mebane - 227-2031
AND EVIDENCE RECEIVED AFTER Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
THE HEARING ARE INCLUDED AS A
SEPARATE ENCLOSURE.
PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments are being
made to implement, in part, recommended strategies for
the protection of University Lake Watershed.
The proposals were presented at public hearing on
February 28, 1990.
BACKGROUND: In 1988, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority
commissioned a study to develop a range of options for
protecting the University Lake watershed. The
consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) ,
nationally recognized experts in watershed evaluation,
completed the study in March, 1989 .
Following the release of the Final Report, the
governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and
Carrboro adopted resolutions, requesting that the Joint
Chatham-Orange Work Group review the study and provide
recommended strategies for its implementation.
In October, 1989, the Work Group completed a proposed
13-point agreement on University Lake watershed
protection.
To implement the recommended strategies for watershed
protection, the Work Group directed staff to identify
needed changes to existing development regulations .
Two options are presented for consideration.
a
-wJ
2 •
Option 11 is based on the land use control strategy
recommended by CDM and the Joint Watershed Work Group.
The most basic provisions of Option #1 include a
minimum lot size requirement of five (5) acres and a
maximum density of one ( 1) unit per five (5) acres for
any development. Cluster subdivisions with lot sizes
of not less than one ( 1) acre are also allowed as well
as the creation of a limited number (5) of two-acre
lots. As an alternative to the latter provision, the
number of new two-acre lots which can be created may be
limited to two (2) in order to maintain higher water
quality levels. Development standards for impervious
surface coverage; stream buffers; placement of streets,
driveways, and buildings; and water supply/sewage
disposal facilities are also proposed.
The CDM study recommended a four percent (4%)
impervious surface limitation for five-acre lots, while
the proposed 13-point, agreement of the watershedeWorke
Group included a four percent (4%) limit
elVespercentpercent
(12%)$for for
lotstwo
smallerfive-acre lots,
two
twelve percent acres .
tw
A more workable six percent ( 6%) ratio has been
for
proposed by the Orange
five-acre lots . To account for
acres, existing lots of less than five acres, and the
limited number of two-acre lots which may be created, a 4,
sliding scale of impervious surface ratios is proposed,
ranging from four percent (4%) for six-acre lots to
fifteen percent ( 15%) for half-acre lots .
Option 12 is based on the structural best management
practice approach recommended by CDM. The provisions of
Option #2 are similar to Option #1 except that a
minimum lot size of two (2) acres and a maximum density
of one (1) unit per two (2 ) acres is allowed. A twelve
percent (12%) impervious surface limitation has been
proposed by the Orange County Planning Department for
two-acre lots in lieu of the six percent (6%) limit
recommended by CDM. In the case of the Orange County
Planning Department proposal, the same sliding scale
for lots larger than or smaller than two acres as
proposed above would be applicable. Rather than
providing for regional stormwater detention ponds as
recommended by CDM, Option #2 would require the
provision of on-site facilities to trap pollutants .
A full description of the proposed changes is included
in the attached information.
At the February 28 public hearing, the Planning
Director recommended approval of the proposed
amendments, including Option #1 with a 5-acre minimum
3
lot size requirement and a sliding scale of impervious
surface ratios (4% for 6-acre lots to 15% for one-half
acre lots) .
OWASA endorsed the 13-point agreement, including lower
impervious surface ratios of 4% for 5-acre lots, 6% for
2-acre lots, and 12% for 1-acre lots. The basis for
OWASA's position is that the 13-point agreement will
increase total impervious coverage in the watershed to
7 . 1% and predicted chlorophyll to 24.5 ug/1. Under the
higher impervious surface standards recommended by the
Planning Director, impervious coverage would be 7 .4%
and predicted chlorophyll would be 26.2 ug/1.
Information provided by OWASA at the public hearing
indicated that higher impervious surface ratios could
be permitted if the number of 2-acre lots which could
be created was reduced from 5 to 2 . The same
percentages of impervious coverage and predicted
chlorophyll would result as predicted under the 13-
point agreement. Subsequent to the public hearing,
OWASA staff also suggested the possibility of applying
the impervious surface ratios contained in the 13-point
agreement to newly created lots and applying the County
staff proposal to existing lots.
CDM indicated that the margin of error in its
predictions ranged from 10-15% . Using the higher
percentage, the amount of impervious coverage resulting
from its 5-acre, 4% scenario would be 7 .25% and
predicted chlorophyll would be 25. 76 ug/1 .
Dr. Alice Gordon recommended that consideration be
given to the purchase of 800-900 acres of critical
lands in the watershed. The purchase of such lands
would offset the higher impervious surface standards
recommended by the Planning Director, reducing the
impervious coverage from 7 .4% to 7 . 1% .
At a special meeting on March 28, 1990, the Planning
Director recommended that the Planning Board approve
the proposed amendments, including the following:
1 . Approval of Option #1 (five-acre zoning strategy) ;
and
2. Approval of the sliding scale of impervious surface
ratios, ranging from four percent (4%) for six-acre
lots to fifteen percent ( 15%) for half-acre lots.
In conjunction with the above, the Planning Director
recommended that a study be undertaken to determine the
actual amount of land which must be purchased (taken
out of development) to reduce the projected impervious
4
coverage in the watershed from 7 .4% to 7 . 1% . The study
should also seek to identify methods of financing the
purchase and the most critical land areas for
acquisition.
The following revisions to proposed ordinance wording
were also recommended for approval:
1 . Amend the proposed Article 6.25 . 7 to read as
follows :
Every principal use and every lot within a
subdivision shall be served by a water supply and
sewage disposal system that is adequate to
accommodate the needs of such use or subdivision
lot and that complies with all applicable
regulations of the Orange County Health Department.
Notwithstanding the above provisions, water supply
and sewage treatment systems shall be limited to
individual wells and on-site septic systems or
individual on-site alternative disposal systems .
"On-site" shall mean that no system will be
permitted where effluent disposal occurs on a
separate lot from the source of wastewater
generation. The use of community alternative
wastewater disposal systems and public water and
sewer service is restricted as specified in Article
6 . 15 .2 .a. of this Ordinance.
No new septic tanks and their nitrification fields
shall be located within a designated stream buffer
zone or within one hundred ( 100) feet of a
perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the
USGS quadrangle maps for Orange County, whichever
is the greater distance.
2 . Amend the proposed Article 6. 15.2 to read as
follows:
a. University Lake Watershed
1 . Area Affected - These standards shall
apply to the University Lake Watershed.
2 . Nature and Duration of Standards - The
following interim development standards
shall apply:
a) Community alternative treatment and
disposal systems as
water and sewer service will not be
permitted in the University Lake
watershed except to address a p ubli-
5
health emergency as determined by
• the Orange County Health Department.
b) By April 30, 1991, studies will be
conducted to determine the
advisability of making public water
and sewer services available within
the watershed. In addition, a pilot
program for monitoring and
inspecting alternative treatment and
disposal systems as operated by the
Orange County Health Department will
be evaluated to determine the
advisability of permitting such
systems in the watershed.
c) Following receipt and review of the
above mentioned studies, a decision
will be made regarding the use of
alternative treatment and disposal
systems and the availability of
public water and sewer services in
the watershed.
The Planning Board, by a vote of 8 to 3, recommended
approval of the amendments as proposed by the Planning
Director with the following changes and additions :
40 1 . Revision of the sliding scale of impervious surface
ratios to allow 4% coverage for seven-acre lots
instead of six-acre lots as proposed by the
Planning Director.
2 . Inclusion of a 0 . 62 runoff coefficient for gravel
driveways; i.e. , 62% of a gravel driveway would be
considered as impervious in calculating allowable
impervious coverage.
3 . Permit an average lot size of five or more acres
for any development, including cluster
subdivisions, rather than relying on a minimum
required lot size of five acres. For developments
which provide up to five two-acre lots, permit lot
size averaging as well.
As part of the same action, the Planning Board approved
a resolution urging implementation of the proposals of
Commissioner Willhoit as outlined below:
1 . Committing to the public acquisition of land
and/or the purchase of development rights to reduce
future pollutant loading potential;
• 2 . Providing tax incentives for "environmental
6
easements" patterned after agricultural use-value •
assessments;.
3. Determining the location of the majority of two-
acre acre and smaller lots and the use of structural
BMP's in sub-basins serving existing small lot
subdivisions; i.e. , East Prices Creek (Heritage
Hills) and West Prices Creek (Chatham County) ; and
4. Proceeding with the review and implementation of
the 13-point agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the
amendments as proposed by the Planning Director but
with the following revision as recommended by the
Planning Board:
1 . Revision of the sliding scale of impervious surface
ratios to allow 4% coverage for seven-acre lots
instead of six-acre lots as proposed by the
Planning Director.
The Administration also supports the resolution adopted
by the Planning Board and recommends that the proposals
therein be pursued through the Intergovernmental
Watershed Work Group.
The Administration recognizes that lot size and
4110
impervious surface averaging as well as the use of
runoff coefficients provides flexibility. However, the
impact of such proposals on the watershed has not been
fully determined. Until such impacts are evaluated, the
Administration believes that the basic strategy
recommended by the Planning Director provides an
approach assuring compliance and ease of
administration.
411
gg ir\i If 7
Boland asked how many landowners are on the
watershed work group. Collins responded that there
are no landowners on the work group. It is
comprised of elected representatives of the two
municipalities and the County. Boland responded she
felt this was unfair representation.
Burklin asked about the rate of development Collins
expected within the next six months in the
watershed. Collins responded that the rate of
growth over the last eighteen months has been very
low. During 1988 , there were 40-50 building permits
issued in the watershed. In 1989, the number of
permits declined by half . The decline follows the
trend occurring throughout the County.
Jacobs noted that the Planning Board could make a
specific recommendation addressing the equity issue
as well as impervious surface ratios . Jacobs also
no
o
noted that the concept of lot size averaging
longer included as part of the Planning
recommendation.
AMENDED MOTION: Recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that
they not accept the proposed amendments to the Joint
Planning Area Land Use Plan and Joint Planning
Agreement but extend the interim standards until the
equity issue has been addressed.
VOTE: 4 in favor (Boland, Lewis, Reid, Waddell) .
7 opposed (Eidenier, Cantrell, Jacobs, Hamilton,
Eddleman, Burklin) .
AGENDA ITEM #4e: Orange County Zoning Ordinance
Best suggested that the Board discuss minimum lot
size standards and lot size averaging. Other issues
for discussion should be the planned extension of
water and sewer, and the equity issue.
Collins asked that the Board remember that the
discussion must be in the context of the Joint
Planning Area Agreement and the Joint Planning Area
Land Use Plan.
Collins referred to a proposal from Commissioner Don
Willhoit. The proposal represents an alternative way
of trying to address the concerns of the
municipalities and balancing those with the Staff
recommendations. He asked Commissioner Willhoit
if he wished to comment on the proposal before
having the discussion proposed by Best. (A copy of
the proposal and recommendations is an attachment to
these minutes on pages • )
n n
U Ju U1
•
Commissioner Willhoit stated that his proposal was
an attempt to address the equity issue without•
ill
The difference for 2-acre lots is greater, but not by much. Mr .
Collins ' calculations indicate that the impervious surface for an
assortment of 2-acre lots would be approximately 7% if a maximum
of 12% was applied to individual lots . The 13-point . agreement
called fdr 6%. Again if the 6% in the 13-point agreement is to
be interpreted as an average, • it is close to that computed to
result from the application of a 12% maximum for individual lots .
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. For April 2 , 1990
1 . Consider that the basic recommendations of the 13-point
agreement and the Orange County planning staff are equiv-
alent in that the 13-point figures refer to averages and the
staff recommendations refer to individual lots .
2 . Modify the formula for the number of 2-acre lots that
can be created to one that specifies the number of lots and
permits averaging. For example, from a 20-acre tract , allow
creation of 7 2 . 66-acre lots as an alternative to 2 5-acre
lots plus 5 2-acre lots.
3 . Adopt a sliding scale of average and maximum impervious
surface requirements for lots smaller than 5 acres (averages
H only to apply to new subdivisions) .
B. • Beyond April 2 , 1990
1 . Commit to public acquisition of land to reduce future
pollutant loading potential ,
2 . Proviee tax incentives for "environmental easements "
patterned after agricultural use-value assessments .
3 . • Determine location of majority of 2-acre and smaller
lots and use structural BY.Ps in subbasins serving existing
small lot subdivisions , e.g. , East Price ' s Creek (Heritage
:ills) and West Price ' s Creek (Chatham County) . .
4 . Proceed with review and implementation of 13-point
agreement .
Don Willh_oit • -
3/26/90
j •
• ,
:
• W
I .
01 w QQmMMO I 00MO W N .Ommm
ON4 WmONMnkoNcOM NMManmrNcoMm0.
01
omm..Mmmnm0100*•.NNNMMMa44t ad1171f11f1nIfiV1n117m W W m W W W W m Wmmrr
mvam
S.. 0 m• S. i NNP�11"1P+1 i 1+IP7r]ad ? tS.t•daC4 .4! .“4 C .1:“:“4: 44 .4. 7 •C .? ad.Tadad
rna 1
nmr+OM0 .+NM4O W PmT1o^' N I 4O W N W M0.-IMM4Y7 W r '000+ 0^INMan Wi∎MMO^,
...... ..w NNNNNNNNNNMMMMMMMMMMdad •7 .74SdaaQnN
MW 03..4S. W I
,-,m JQ
j I
ID i it tt It 1,t K tt X X it at c. X it X it X X %it it X It tt It 1t X it X It 7t I X K tt.at it It 7t X X tt K it it it X X
000004.00n0. 10 W M0AMmN001rmnaMW-1 .0M0lmmrr W MIM0 '144 .?MMMM
+0• UO 0 000w0c01∎0 W nn -r0• M(IMMMNNNNNNNNNN
> 0 001 tpYjY•j04044-44aa4aaa a 741-14- 4-44a4440 •74444d •? .t4444.44 .7a
6.4- 14 $. S. I I } I.�` I
01 L A a , I 1
a0 61a i �-
E M a j
M
Z I M I N d W m 0 N O W m 0 N 4 m m 0 N a W m O N d W m 0 M 4 W m 0 N 4 m m 0 N W m O N 4 m m 0 a
3 0 010 �+MONMO" WM4WNMMONMOOW MMO•-4MWNMO •.NM4 W nm010NM4 •
Z I . O G .. 40,1011.0M0n4 -• 01W mOr-0.mY•1P 70n4 . mnN0r4 ••+ mnN01n4wm0N01WM•••mnN
•.. 16 +) 00'IN W n 4N.0 mr W nN1N.01mnmaMN001mrn4M '+OIIInW 41 40.1 .Omnmalfacu 1
❑ 1 .1.»14- u.S. MM•Sn�Or - .'"."r " . ..n i.W..r m.NNNNNNNNNNNMMMMMMMMMMMM•4aa•4
j r at1 N I .. .. j
W I 1 , � I
A i1 •
N N d m m 0 N a W m O N d W m 0 N a m m O N 4 W m O N 4 m m O N 4 W m 0 N a m m O N 4 m m O N
a0 M 01 i _ . NMa mrmQIONMdnmm010•+ N4•n W nm0-�NMdmnm010NM•7117mm010-+Nan
I- 010 G n4•+mIf1N01m4 . 0117N01WM.MO WMW MOMOWM W MOr4N01mmOra . 01aMQr
❑ L > 16X u. mr.NM4N W Wr001G.NMMaY7 W rc00 00.0.1MdMMI∎ rscOm0..NMM4nWrm0�0
I- DILL ,4 a j N N N M M M M M 4
0: > 0 N e1 N j _ + i N.i N N
•N N NNN MM MI
• U. I I ; I j 1 :• I • 1-..• .•W 00000000000 00000000000 00000 00000000000 0000
0 I O O 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 - 00000000000000000000000
�+
" C . U L 1A ++ mm 4N Q2W4•NQm W 4 NQmmat "IOmmdN0mm4N0mm•7NOmm4NOmW2NOm
•
W 0 Ga+ LL nnM • 01maNOmIf1M01rdNOmW M01l.IflNOmm4 •+01nV1MOmm4N01 rnM►+m
L.. a 0 G Mnr mON40r- m. M4mm0NMnnTON4•WcOM.MO W W 0 W 4MNM. N4 W c00.
D a 1 ..1 (.0 W OMMOP+1nn01�• MmmONdn01 •MnrON4mm0Mmr.M.4mmON4n01 +•MnmO
Cu rip" MM cirri. nnDl7mm mmrrr mmmmm01Enus O
I I tt
V n j .' , .' j � -
U I - I m I ••NM4nmrmdlO �• NM4O7m
k .+ Nf7dmm� �o+o �+ dp7mrmO10C•NM nm1Um0+
NNNNNNNNNNI�IP7MMr�1Mtl7MP'lfl'74d Cd S
. I _.
❑ EO Q O
I .._ I I • . I I•
i
to = I mo .. . : 1 j•
•. 1 z n ; a 1 1
O1 0 N N N N N a N N N N N a N N N N N N N N Cu N N N N fl!N N N a N N N N N a N N N N N FU N N N N
., m Z 0 01 01 m M a1 01 Ot M M 01 01 m n 01 01 to 01 01 M 01 d1 m Q1 Q1 IA O1 M 01 m M OI m a1 01 M m m 01 Q1 01 01 m a+01 01 01 01
MO u 44,74444a444aa44a4 44444•444 444 • 44'44444444-0444t44ad
a 16.4181(4b 0000.0000000000000-000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W (.. > 14-Nu. MMMMMMI!7f+111P7MM1:]MMNIMMMMMMMM MMMMMMI'71`7MMMMMMMf+1M MMMMM
w > a01 I Ilf I I•
u. .- ; I 1 ,
0 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Z 0 • 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 G 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
❑ 10 5- 0++ m m W m m m W m m m W 1 m m 0 m m W W m m W m m m m m W m W m W W m m m W W m W m W W W m W W
. 0 £ U43LL nnnnn nnoonnl171(Jlfinnnnnnnnn nnI171i onnomnonommtonnnnnnno
r 1. 00 a M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
a a I J01 4}4dQ4444.41'44.74•S 4044' 4+7444444444.74444d1 .ta44'da4••
0 N M0006I
u;:,, 0 L N 3 I - I 1..• -- - O I - 1 - I --
O a ..
N a I. j 1
... t -- I
I-..- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000c. 0
1 0101 +) m 4 N 0 m m a N O m m 4 N O m W a 11J O m m 4 N O m m d N O m m 4 N 0 m W 4 N 0 m m d N O m W 4
1 - 0 NU. 011.01W 4NOmn1' . mrdNOmmM.TnnNOmmQ . QIrnMOmW4N0+rnM.mmd
L.• 0' MnnmO N4mrOI••+ Ma W mOMMnrMON 4mm0'1 Mnm mONd• nr0»N4mm0 -1Mn
I nmm 4mmOMONM.M W 00Wanm.MnnON 4 WM0MMr- m .•+ amm0Ndr01.. Mnm0Na
N N N N m M M M m 4•7 a 4 n n n 117 n m W W m O r n r-r m m m m m M m 01 01 0 0 0 CO
f j _ j ��..
• •• ; I Z
:,.:- -:. �...: .
1 } I 010 0 n v 0 O n O n O n 0 n 0 n O n 0 n 0 n O n b n O n 0 n 0 n O n O n O n O O n 0 n O n 0 -I
1 • .• w w -+NNMM44 W W W mnrmm010100-.-•NN1!7M-TOMM WNNMm010100.. 0.1NMM4 1--Ip
NNN NN N
I 0 W 0 I � 1 r101
0. _. ..., •, s..., Lp i ...• -•I I. -::: •160] a I I N i I N OW
a .. I I ! I .
I I I I I f I I I I 1 ,
L1 _._ _1��..�.�-,1�..---���Y...._.:_��_�::.r�ti:t�.�y.Lam.-_c_._�..-;mac��...._�..:�_-..=_rte...._..•. ._��-__._ _.._�,-._
AMMEMMEMOMMEMMEN
, I .
I ' i • , ' 1 6
1 I
• i I
. • I - ,
I I '
, .
I I I
; •
,
I rr
I r ,
,
r L • r , I
i I
I i.■ I • ! I r • r . , r 1 ,
r
,
En ELI Z ' ', • .
W ;A It It IA le It I't.It It 'te le' x ;4 It It X vt It ze It 14 it le x -14 14-te.it 14 14 it ,
cc CI .4 2L' ! 0 k0 cn k-U UI C) ck CI u3 03 C. a:u8 ul 41 u) r- ca .4 rl r-.. NO '4 r,02 Cs 1212 u2 Ul CI ,
•
C3 2> L) 2E el C3 CI .
h- CC CE Ul_J 2!LU LA
W . !A !...-
. 1
I . -
'1: Z: E7 2C III Cr>c '
: , , i I : I
• I- ,--. 01 I-0 E w , i ; 1 , . -:
; • I . I ! ':
: ; ! : ! • ,
• ,• -•r . ,
I: , ■ 1 1 i I .. r - • ; I ,
, •
• .. ,
, . , 'm 41 41 rn La to sr 41 in rri ur La Ur w al in 14 w ol al ul ul ill ul ut Ur W In Le ul ut . : , .
, ' ai 111 01 01 0.1 01 Q1 W 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0.1 re 01 0i al 01 0J 01 ar W 01 0.1 W 01 0J 0.1 i
. '
' ' : I- . iuLtuuouuucJuuuuuuuclucluuuououuclui5c1 ,
. i
1 : o .ro m m.m re el .M la l0 n1 el n) re re 4 'Ili nl n1 re re re 411 ID r0 Al re re ni 1 re el ,
. '
I; • I ' W -J :
i I i I • 6 .4 OU M.f lii u3 i"-03 Ch CD "4 el.'M..t 411 U3 r‘. 63 cn c) .7-1 OJ r•1 4 112 Id r-CI M Ci
. i
I 1 : I-LII:CO
CD '-. OJ CU cu pr OJ OU OU OJ 01 VII Pi rq PI is,In el el r•1 el el 4t 41*,t cr.,.rr-4,4r Nt st 4 1.0 I .
,
- .
I 1
i Ec CC W i 1 , i ,
I • !
• I -
,
I
,
I 1
1 ,
I > I-I , I . .
' '
i • ' - 3 Cr U1 I :
H ,
1 , i
I 1 I
'F .
I' , . i
1 I ' 1 •
I , -
', I ! ! , .
F , . 1
I , '•
{ ', . I
1 I , i .
,
,
, I
, I
I ■
I ' .
1 I r
! i
■ . , , ; ,
• I ! i
r • - ,
' , ( 1 1 • 1 ,
•
, ( ,
. 1 ;
1 ,
, •
i•
.
i r
I . i r
, . . i ; ; - i 1 ,,
. I 1 ! I I
I . I (
1 , .
1 , ; - ; • 1 r ! ;
1 I • 1
L
I
I •'
I ;
, ,
I 1 1 ! i 1 ..
•i , , - • J ( I _ f I .
. 1
. r
1
1 i I I I . I i 1 ; . i r ■
1 ( 1 . I
1 I
r.
. 1 • 1 I I I 1 I
! ! ( 1
; .
• j
I I • 1 .,.
, , 1 - I ( i • • • ,
• I ' 1 1
, I
I I i .• , ,
I' . • i
I ,
I. -
1 ,
' I
• I I I . 1 1 .
' i • I I I I I ' I . I I ,
, , •
I I
„ 411
, •
,
. ,
;
; I • ;
I ,
, , • 1 1 ii
; .... 1 • 1
I I.
1
• 1 ,, ,
,
I l
,
, ; ••• • • , •
1 1
E E
E , . , , •
E. , . 0 , , E
, 1 • ; E
. _ . , 1 1
; ...
i; ,
,
E ..” , ,
, E
; E
1 ....,•_.1. , , . , i ,
, , • , . E ;
, 1 ;
1 I
, ....., • I , ,
, , E ;
, uE,, • , •••_ , , E E . ,
, • , ,
. E ; E . , p.4 E _
I
, . 1
; ,
,,,,, ,
. , „
I: c..0„1- E ,E• , 1 E
, , 1
E . E vi N 1 i
I ,
! • , .. •• . , _ ,
1 Z ci. •I
, .
, . • ... : : i i I 1 I
1 .
I -a- I • , : , . , . . ,
1 1 .
, I
,
. 1 , , , 1 1 . i , •
: ,
I . •
. • .
5 , ,
1 1, 1
(..9 , .
,
. .
,
I , : _0 , , I .
I I I.
! ,
,
1 , , ( • 1 ' '1 ,
i ! , 1
I Ct• , I , ; ,
,.., r , • I ! : I
, , .. ( . (
I, ,
1 ,
! I ,
. I
, ,
r • ! ,
• i I
I , ,
• 1 I ' 1 .:
I , j
, • •, , .
' , 1
, 1 1
!
r ,
. , .
. r. IS ..41
I i
' el '
: I I
, ■ !I - • ' , • ,
, -
, ■
I 1
, , ,-, • ,
,
•-•"12( , ,
' .
, U) •. ,
, •
. ,
or 1
I I 1 I 1 -T- T- T I I 1 ei ,
Z :
' . 1
•1-1
' Q 011 let •/". el Q el le! "Ir. el Q co 0 ,r. ri q
: I,' l0 0 0 0 45 til 4.1 ul tn •ul 1' .I' ,t ,e le ' . 1-1 0
, H 0-1 • 1 •
, ; •
, , 0."•-•• E
, ;
,
33YAkins SnOle,tild111 Ai , , ' c_)c) . !
. .
. , • CV ;
. ;, , , , . ,.---....... •
I : ,
, 1. •
I ;
•
•
. .
• , . ; .,....______,__,..,_,
. . :_.. • .... _..... . , .., .. .. ... _ __. . .. . .... . . . .. .
, „ ..,,. ... _ : .-• • -• -• .- •- •
17
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE.
TO IMPLEMENT THE UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION STRATEGIES
Listed below are proposed amendments to the Orange County zoning
Ordinance. If adopted, the amendments would implement the strategies
for watershed protection identified in the Final Report - University.
Lake Watershed Study dated March, 1989, and the basic strategies
identified in the proposed 13-point agreement prepared by the Joint
Watershed Work Group and dated October, 1989.
Two options are presented for consideration. Option I.1_ is based on the
land use control strategy recommended by Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM) ,
the consultants who prepared the university Lake Watershed Study, and
the Joint Watershed Work Group. The most basic provisions of Option ionmu .
include a minimum lot size requirement of five (5) acres and
density of one (1) unit per five (5) acres for any development.
Cluster subdivisions with lot sizes of not less than one (1) acre are
also allowed as well as the creation of a limited number (5) of two-
acre lots. As an alternative to the latter provision, the number of new
two-acre lots which can be created may be limited to two (2) in order
to maintain higher water quality levels. Development standards for
impervious surface coverage; stream buffers; placement of streets,
driveways, and buildings; and water supply/sewage disposal facilities
are also proposed.
The CDM study recommends a four percent (4%) impervious surface
limitation for five-acre lots, while the proposed 13-point agreement of
the watershed Work Group included a four percent (4%) limit for five-
acre lots, six percent (5%) for two to five-acre lots, and twelve
percent (12%) for lots smaller than two acres. In addition to the Work
Group proposal, a more workable six percent (6%) ratio has been
proposed b the Orange County Planning Department for five-acre lots.
To account for lots larger than five acres, existing lots of less than
five acres, and the limited number of two-acre lots which may be
created, a sliding scale of impervious surface ratios is proposed,
ranging from four percent (4%) for six-acre lots to fifteen percent
(15%) for half-acre lots.
Option #2 is based on the structural best management practice approach
recommended by CDM. The provisions of Option #2 are similar to Option
#1 except that a minimum lot size of two (2) acres and a maximum
density of one (1) unit per two (2) acres is allowed. A twelve percent
(12%) impervious surface limitation has been proposed by the Orange
County Planning Department for two-acre lots in lieu of the six percent
(6%) limit recommended by CDM. In the case of the Orange County
Planning Department proposal, the same sliding scale for lots larger
than or smaller than two acres as proposed above would be applicable.
Rather than providing for regional stormwater detention ponds as
recommended by CDM, Option #2 would require the provision of on-site
facilities to trap pollutants.
Both Option #1 and Option #2 are being presented at a special public
- _ hearing on February 28, 1990. The proposals involve amendments to
Orange County's Zoning Ordinance and require only the approval of the
4
20
a. University Lake Watershed
p
1 . Area Affected - These standards shall apply to the
University Lake Watershed.
2 . Nature and Duration of Standards - The following interim
development standards shall apply:
a) Community alternative treatment and disposal
systems will not be permitted in the University
Lake watershed until April 30, 1991 . During this
period, a pilot program for monitoring and
inspecting such systems as operated by the Orange
County Health Department will be evaluated to
determine the advisability of permitting such
systems in the watershed.
b) Public water service will not be permitted in the
University Lake watershed until April 30, 1991 .
During this period, a study will be conducted to
determine the advisability of making public water
services available within the watershed.
c-1) [Alternative #1] Public sewer service will not be
permitted in the University Lake watershed except
to address a public health emergency as determined
by the Orange County Health Department.
c-2 ) (Alternative #2] Public sewer service will not be
permitted in the University Lake watershed until
April 30, 1991, except to address a public health
emergency as determined by the Orange County Health
Department. During this period, a study will be
conducted to determine the advisability of making
public sewer services available within the
watershed.
[The proposed amendments incorporate temporary restrictions on the
use of community alternative wastewater treatment systems and the
extension of public water in the watershed until certain askseaare
accomplished. Two alternatives are provided regarding public
extensions. Alternative #1 is an out-right restriction on such
extensions except to serve a public health hazard. Alternative #
is a temporary restriction until it is determined (via a study)
that such extensions can be permitted without encouraging higher
densities and threatening the goal of minimizing water quality
deterioration. ]
F. Amend Article 6 .25 Extra Requirements for the Qr Trans.ortatio ,
Corridor (MTC1_ District by renumbering
(The proposed amendment provides space lfor aenewthrticle
establishing development standards applicable ti
21
University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. ]
IDG. Amend Article 6 by adding a new Article 6 .25 Development Standards
for the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District to read as
follows:
OPTION. 11
FIVE-ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZES
6 .25 Development Standards for the University Lake Watershed
(ULWZ District
Within the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District,
significant water quality deterioration may be prevented
by land use controls which reduce the pollution from
future development. For this reason, the new use of any
land or any new structure within the ULW district shall
comply with the following development standards :
6.25. 1 Minimum Lot Size Regulated
The minimum required lot size for any use in the
University Lake Watershed (ULW) District shall be five
(5) acres except as may be permitted in Article 6 .25.2
or Article 6 .25 . 3 . In addition, no residential
development shall exceed a density of one ( 1) dwelling
unit per five (5) acres except as may be permitted in
Article 6 .25 .2 .
6 . 25 .2 Existing Lots of Record
a. Existing lots of record as of October 2, 1989 can
be subdivided to create up to five (5) lots of not
less than two (2) acres in size; provided, however,
the remaining land shall be developed with a
minimum lot size of at least five (5) acres for
each lot and at a density not to exceed one ( 1)
dwelling unit per five (5) acres of land area.
[OR]
a. Existing lots of record as of October 2, 1989 can
be subdivided to create up to two (2) lots of not
less than two (2 ) acres in size; provided, however,
the remaining land shall be developed with a
minimum lot size of at least five (5) acres for
each lot and at a density not to exceed one ( 1)
dwelling unit per five (5) acres of land area.
b. Existing lots of record as of October 2, 1989 that
are less than five (5) acres in size and which
cannot be further subdivided can be developed by
the owner at the current lot size.
22
6.25. 3 Cluster Alternative
Cluster developments are permitted, provided the minimum •
lot size for each lot in the development is not less
than one ( 1) acre, and the overall density of the
development, including the land area saved by lot size
reductions, does not exceed one ( 1) dwelling unit per
five (5) acres.
All land area saved by lot size reductions shall be
reserved as permanent open space. If cluster open space
is not dedicated for public use, it shall be subject to
approved arrangements sufficient to assure its
maintenance and preservation. Such arrangements may
include, but not be limited to, the conveyance of the
open space to a local or regional land conservancy or a
homeowners association, provided the subdivider shall
record a declaration of covenants and restrictions which
prohibits further subdivision of the open space as well
as its use for development purposes.
If needed to control pollution loadings resulting from
the runoff from impervious surfaces in a cluster
development, on-site wet detention basins or ponds may
be required. Where required, the design of such
facilities shall be based on the criteria set forth in
the Final Report = University Lake Water Study dated
March, 1989 . Provision shall also be made for the public
inspection and maintenance of such facilities .
6.25.4 Impervious Surface Regulated
An impervious surface is a surface composed of any
material which impedes or prevents the natural
infiltration of water into the soil. Impervious surfaces
shall include both paved and unpaved surfaces,
including, but not limited to, streets and parking
areas, driveways, sidewalks, patios, and structures
which cover the land.
In order to promote the infiltration of stormwater
runoff into the soil and to minimize direct and
immediate runoff into streams and University Lake
reservoir, impervious surface ratios shall be required
as provided in the Table of Impervious Surface Ratios
for University Lake Watershed - Section 6.25.4.
Impervious surface calculations for an individual
lot shall be cumulative, including the original
construction and any subsequent additions thereto.
The calculation of impervious surface coverage for .
an individual lot shall also include one-half of the
street surface on which the lot fronts or abuts;
provided, however, the impervious surface calculation
23
will not include the surface of any street existing
a
on April 2, 1990 unless the street is upgradednto width
greater width. In such cases, only
shall be included in calculating the impervious surface
coverage.
It is the intent of this section that the impervious
limitations specified herein shall apply
entire tract to be developed. Therefore, if the
subdivision involves the creation of any street or other
impervious en outside the so
created, then
may be determined as follows :
a. The total area of permissible impervious surface
for the entire subdivision shall be calculated,
applying the percentage limitations set forth in
Table 6 .25.4.
b. From the total area calculated pursuant to a.
above, there shall be subtracted the impervious
surface area within streets and other areas outside
of the individual lot boundaries.
c. Following the calculation set forth in b. above,
the remaining permissible impervious surface shall .
be allocated equally to each lot by the subdivider
or as may be approved by the Zoning Officer. The
allocation shall be indicated on a separate
document recorded together with the final
subdivision plat.
For conventional subdivisions to be developed in
accordance with the provisions of Article 6.25 . 1 and
cluster subdivisions to be developed in accordance erwith
the provisions of Article 6 .25 .3, an impervious
limitation of four percent (4%) for six percent (6%) ]
shall apply to the entire tract to be developed. For an
existing lot of record to be developed in accordance
with the provisions of Article 6 .25.2b. , the full range
of impervious surface ratios specified in Table 6 .25.4
is applicable.
6 .25.5 Stream Buffers fers Required
The effective use of buffer zones along streams can
increase the overall factor of safety associated with a
watershed protection plan. By preventing development
from encroaching on streams, buffer zones can help
minimize stream channel erosion downstream of
development. If properly situated and kept in
undisturbed natural vegetation, buffer zones will
receive sheetflow runoff; i.e. , runoff which flows
slowly in a spread out pattern rather than being
1
ORANGE C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 2, 1990
Action Agenda
Item # Y 116F
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments - Orange County Subdivision Regulations
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X_No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Amendments Planning Director - Extension 346
Draft 3/2/90 Planning Board
Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
NOTE: PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES Durham - 688-7331
AND EVIDENCE RECEIVED AFTER Mebane - 227-2031
THE HEARING ARE INCLUDED AS A Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
SEPARATE ENCLOSURE.
PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to the Orange County
Subdivision Regulations . The proposed amendments are
being made to implement, in part, recommended
strategies for the protection of University Lake
Watershed.
The proposals were presented at public hearing on
February 28, 1990 .
BACKGROUND: In 1988, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority
commissioned a study to develop a range of options for
protecting the University Lake watershed. The
consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) ,
nationally recognized experts in watershed evaluation,
completed the study in March, 1989 .
Following the release of the Final Report, the
governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and
Carrboro adopted resolutions, requesting that the Joint
Chatham-Orange Work Group review the study and provide
recommended strategies for its implementation.
In October, 1989, the Work Group completed a proposed
13-point agreement on University Lake watershed
protection.
To implement the recommended strategies for watershed
protection, the Work Group directed staff to identify
needed changes to existing development regulations.
The following amendments are recommended:
2
1 . Cross reference development standards of the Zoning
Ordinance which are applicable to cluster
subdivisions in the University Lake Watershed (ULW)
District.
2 . Allow cluster developments in the University Lake
Watershed (ULW) District to comply with the
development standards (one-acre minimum lot size)
set forth the Orange County Zoning Ordinance rather
than require compliance with the permitted
reduction of fifty percent to 2 .5-acre minimum lot
sizes (based on five-acre zoning) specified in the
Subdivision Regulations .
3 . Incorporate temporary restrictions on the use of
community alternative wastewater treatment systems
and the extension of public water in the watershed
until feasibility studies are completed. Two
alternatives are provided regarding public sewer
extensions . Alternative #1 is an out-right
restriction on such extensions except to serve a
public health hazard. Alternative #2 is a
temporary restriction until it is determined (via a
study) that such extensions can be permitted
without encouraging higher densities and
threatening the goal of minimizing water quality
deterioration.
4 . Require that impervious surface data, stream
buffers, and stormwater detention and/or retention
sites as required by the University Lake Watershed
(ULW) District be shown on a preliminary
subdivision plat.
5. Require that impervious surface data, stream
buffers, and stormwater detention and/or retention
sites as required by the University Lake Watershed
(ULW) District be shown on a final subdivision plat
or on a separate document recorded with the final
plat.
A full description of the proposed changes is included
in the attached information.
At a special meeting on March 28, 1990, the Planning
Board, by a vote of 9 to 2, recommended approval of
the proposed amendments, including an option for
dealing with restrictions on the use of alternative
systems and the extension of public water and sewer
lines .
In conjunction with the above, the following revision
to the proposed ordinance wording is recommended:
3
1 . Cross reference development standards of the Zoning
Ordinance which are applicable to cluster
subdivisions in the University Lake Watershed (ULW)
District.
2 . Allow cluster developments in the University Lake
Watershed (ULW) District to comply with the
development standards (one-acre minimum lot size)
set forth the Orange County Zoning Ordinance rather
than require compliance with the permitted
reduction of fifty percent to 2 .5-acre minimum lot
sizes (based on five-acre zoning) specified in the
Subdivision Regulations .
3. Incorporate temporary restrictions on the use of
community alternative wastewater treatment systems
and the extension of public water in the watershed
until feasibility studies are completed. Two
alternatives are provided regarding public sewer
extensions . Alternative #1 is an out-right
restriction on such extensions except to serve a
public health hazard. Alternative #2 is a
temporary restriction until it is determined (via a
study) that such extensions can be permitted
without encouraging higher densities and
threatening the goal of minimizing water quality
deterioration.
4 . Require that impervious surface data, stream
buffers, and stormwater detention and/or retention
sites as required by the University Lake Watershed
(ULW) District be shown on a preliminary
subdivision plat.
5 . Require that impervious surface data, stream
buffers, and stormwater detention and/or retention
sites as required by the University Lake Watershed
(ULW) District be shown on a final subdivision plat
or on a separate document recorded with the final
plat.
A full description of the proposed changes is included
in the attached information.
At a special meeting on March 28, 1990, the Planning
Board, by a vote of 9 to 2, recommended approval of
the proposed amendments, including an option for
dealing with restrictions on the use of alternative
systems and the extension of public water and sewer
lines.
In conjunction with the above, the following revision
to the proposed ordinance wording is recommended:
4 r
1 . Amend the proposed Section IV-C to read as
follows:
a. University Lake Watershed
1 . Area Affected - These standards shall
apply to the University Lake Watershed.
2 . Nature and Duration of Standards - The
following interim development standards
shall apply:
a) Community alternative treatment and
disposal systems as well as public
water and sewer service will not be
permitted in the University Lake
watershed except to address a public
health emergency as determined by
the Orange County Health Department.
b) By April 30, 1991, studies will be
conducted to determine the
advisability of making public water
and sewer services available within
the watershed. In addition, a pilot
program for monitoring and
inspecting alternative treatment and
disposal systems as operated by the
Orange County Health Department will
be evaluated to determine the
advisability of permitting such
systems in the watershed.
c) Following receipt and review of the
above mentioned studies, a decision
will be made regarding the use of
alternative treatment and disposal
systems and the availability of
public water and sewer services in
the watershed.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed
amendments per the Planning Board recommendation.
5
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
TO IMPLEMENT THE UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION STRATEGIES
Listed below are proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations. If adopted, the amendments would supplement proposed
Zoning Ordinance amendments to implement strategies for watershed
protection identified in the Final Report -University Lake Watershed
Study dated March, 1989, and the basic strategies identified in the
proposed 13-point agreement prepared by the Joint Watershed Work Group
and dated October, 1989. For a complete understanding of the proposals,
reference should also be made to the proposed amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance.
The proposed amendments are being presented at a special public hearing
on February 28, 1990. The proposals involve amendments to Orange
County's Subdivision Regulations and require only the approval of the
Board of Commissioners. Upon completion of the public hearing, and
following receipt of the Planning Board's recommendation, the Board of
Commissioners may adopt Option #1, Option #2 or some combination of the
two.
The specific wording proposed for various sections of the Subdivision
Regulations is listed below. Explanatory comments appear after the
ordinance proposals in [italics] .
1 . Amend Section IV-B-10 Cluster Developments by adding a new
subsection g) to Section IV-B-10-b to read as follows :
g) Cluster developments in the University Lake Watershed (ULW)
District shall comply with the development standards as set
forth in Article 6 .25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
[The proposed amendment cross references the development standards
applicable to cluster subdivisions in the University Lake
Watershed (ULW) District. ]
2 . Amend Section IV-B-10 Cluster Developments by rewriting the
introductory paragraph of Section IV-B-10-c to read as follows:
For lots created as part of a cluster development, minimum lot
area, lot width, and setback requirements as specified in Article
4 . 1 .2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance may be reduced as
set forth below. For lots created as part of a cluster development
in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District, the minimum lot
size may be reduced as specified in Article 6.25 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
[The proposed amendment would allow cluster developments in the
University Lake Watershed (ULW) District to comply with the
development standards (one-acre minimum lot size) set forth in
Article 6.25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance rather than
require compliance with the permitted reduction of fifty percent
to 2.5-acre minimum lot sizes specified in Section IV-B-10-c. ]
6
3. Amend Section IV-C Interim Development Standards by
rewriting subsection IV-C-2 .a. to read as follows :
a. University Lake Watershed
1 . Area Affected - These standards shall apply to the
University Lake Watershed.
2 . Nature and Duration of Standards - The following interim
development standards shall apply:
a) Community alternative treatment and, disposal
systems will not be permitted in the University
Lake watershed until April 30, 1991 . During this
period, a pilot program for monitoring and
inspecting such systems as operated by the Orange
County Health Department will be evaluated to
determine the advisability of permitting such
systems in the watershed.
b) Public water service will not be permitted in the
University Lake watershed until April 30, 1991 .
During this period, a study will be conducted to
determine the advisability of making public water
services available within the watershed.
c-1) [Alternative #1] Public sewer service will not be
permitted in the University Lake watershed except
to address a public health emergency as determined
by the Orange County Health Department.
c-2) [Alternative #2] Public sewer service will not be
permitted in the University Lake watershed until
April 30, 1991, except to address a public health
emergency. During this period, a study will be
conducted to determine the advisability of making
public sewer services available within the
watershed.
[The proposed amendments incorporate temporary restrictions on the
use of community alternative wastewater treatment systems and the
extension of public water in the watershed until certain tasks are
accomplished. Two alternatives are provided regarding public sewer
extensions. Alternative #1 is an out-right restriction on such
extensions except to serve a public health hazard. Alternative #2
is a temporary restriction until it is determined (via a study)
that such extensions can be permitted without encouraging higher
densities and threatening the goal of minimizing water quality
deterioration. ]
4 . Amend Section V-C Preliminary Plat by rewriting subsection V-C-6
as follows :
V-C-6 Floodway and Watershed Data
7
The boundaries for both the floodway and floodway fringe
areas shall be designated and labeled on the plat as
required by the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance.
For subdivisions located within a water supply watershed
of regional and/or local importance, the following
information shall be designated and labeled on the plat:
(a) Impervious surface data as required by Articles
6.23, 6.24, and/or 6.25 of the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance;
(b) Stream buffers as required by Section IV-B-9-b of
this Ordinance or Articles 6.23, 6. 24, and/or 6 .25
of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance; and
(c) Stormwater detention and/or retention sites and
undisturbed areas for infiltration purposes as
required by Section IV-B-9-c of this Ordinance, the
Orange County Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Ordinance or Articles 6 .23, 6.24, and/or 6.25 of
the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
[The proposed amendment requires that impervious surface data,
stream buffers, and stormwater detention and/or retention sites as
required by Article 6.25 - University Lake Watershed (ULW)
District - of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance be shown on a
preliminary subdivision olat. ]
5 . Amend Section V-D Final Plat by rewriting subsection V-D-5-d
as follows :
V-D-5-d Floodway and Watershed Data
The boundaries for both the floodway and floodway fringe
areas shall be designated and labeled on the plat as
required by the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance.
For subdivisions located within a water supply watershed
of regional and/or local importance, the following
information shall be designated or referenced on the
Final Plat:
(a) Impervious surface data as required by Article
6.23, 6 .24 and/or 6 .25 of the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance shall be provided in a separate document
to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
The Deed Book and Page reference of the document
shall be noted on the Final Plat.
(b) Stream buffers as required by Section IV-B--9-b of
8
this Ordinance or Articles 6. 23, 6 .24, and/or 6.25
of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance shall be
noted on the Final Plat. Development restrictions
within the buffer shall be specified in a separate
document to be recorded concurrently with the Final
Plat. The Deed Book and Page reference shall be
noted on the Final Plat.
(c) Stormwater detention and/or retention sites and
undisturbed areas for infiltration purposes as
required by Section IV-B-9-c of this Ordinance
and/or Articles 6 .23, 6 .24, and/or 6 . 25 of the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance shall be labeled on
the Final Plat. Any restrictions or requirements
associated with the detention/retention sites shall
be specified in a separate document to be recorded
concurrently with the Final Plat. The Deed Book and
Page reference shall be noted on the Final Plat.
[The proposed amendment requires that impervious surface data,
stream buffers, and stormwater detention and/or retention sites as
required by Article 6.25 - University Lake Watershed (ULW)
District- of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance be shown on a
final subdivision plat or on a separate document recorded with the
final plat. ]
•
r
3
@MAUI'
r
a
Eidenier noted that the motion covered Agenda Item
4e. Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
Waddell asked for a brief synopsis of Agenda Item
4e.
Collins made the following presentation:
This section takes the University Lake Watershed out
of the Protected Watershed District and removes it
from the Water Quality Critical Area. It creates a
new overlay zoning district entitled University Lake
Watershed District. It sets development standards
for minimum lot size, recognizes existing lots of
record, cluster development. It revises the Interim
Development Standards to prohibit the extension of
public water and sewer in the University Lake Water
System except to address an emergency situation.
That prohibition will be in effect at least until
1991 when the results of the study are presented.
It also establishes impervious surface standards,
establishes buffer zones along intermittent streams,
the width of the buffers would be calculated using
the recommended procedure contained in the CDM
report. It contains general guidelines for the
placement of streets, driveways and buildings within
developments specifically restricting them from
stream buffers, floodplains, wetlands, lands with
slopes greater than 15% and natural areas as defined
in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife
Habitats of Orange County, N.C.
It requires that single-family detached dwellings
and duplexes and accessory structures located in the
watershed be subject to site plan approval
procedures.
AMENDED MOTION: Jacobs moved to amend section B 1 of Commissioner
Willhoit's recommendation to read as follows :
Commit to public acquisition of land and/or
development rights to reduce future pollutant
loading potential.
The amendment was accepted by the Best and Cantrell.
VOTE: 8 in favor.
3 opposed (Lewis, Reid, Waddell) .
I> AGENDA ITEM #4f. Orange County Subdivision Regulations
MOTION: Jacobs moved approval of the Planning Staff's
DMA0
recommendation with Alternative #2 (attachment to
these minutes) . Seconded by Best.
Collins asked if the Board preferred Alternative #2
as presented at public hearing to the revised
version on page 49 of the agenda.
Jacobs asked if the revision reflected a longer time
frame than April 1991 .
Collins responded it did, since the studies of the
advisability of extending public water and sewer,
and permitting the use of alternative systems would
be completed by April 1991 . Following the receipt
of the studies, the three jurisdictions must have
time to review the proposals and make a decision.
Any prohibition of such services/systems would not
be lifted until a decision by all three
jurisdictions to do so.
Jacobs asked if Collins preferred the revision on
page 49 . Collins responded yes, and Jacobs indicated
he would amend his motion to accept the revision.
Accepted by Best.
VOTE: 9 in favor.
2 opposed (Lewis, Waddell) .
AGENDA ITEM #4c. Orange County Comprehensive Plan
#4d. Orange County Zoning Atlas
MOTION: Jacobs moved approval of the Planning Staff ' s
recommendation. Seconded by Best.
Best asked if Eidenier still had concerns about the
deletion of the "Critical Area" . Eidenier responded
that if some land is going to be bought which is
more critical than other, there should be a way to
defining it.
Best continued, asking the reason for deleting the
word "Critical" . Collins responded that the CDM
report indicated the watershed as a whole should be
considered as a critical area, so one zoning
district was proposed with a higher level of
protection.
VOTE: Unanimous .
AGENDA ITEM #4a. Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Text
#4b. Joint Planning Agreement
MOTION: Jacobs moved to recommend to the Board of County
T
1
ORANGE C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: APRIL 2, 1990
Action Agenda
Item # X-$(17
SUBJECT: SCRAP TIRE DISPOSAL FEE
DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
INFORMATION RESOLUTION MANAGER'S OFFICE, EXTENSION 501
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
PURPOSE: To adopt a resolution which would authorize the Orange
Regional Landfill to establish a scrap tire disposal
fee at $1 per tire.
BACKGROUND: The impetus for this action is to comply with the
N. C. Scrap Tire Disposal Act of Senate Bill 111 which
allows the imposition of fees not to exceed the costs
of disposal of scrap tires. The charging of a scrap
tire tipping fee is an equitable method of recovering
the costs of the Orange Regional Landfill being
designated as the Orange County scrap tire collection
center per Senate Bill 111.
The proposed fee is based on cost received via
informal bid with an estimated overhead for
administrative/maintenance functions. The current fee
received for tire disposal ($17 per ton) does not
recover the additional costs resulting from landfill
compliance with the new North Carolina Scrap Tire
Disposal Act. The basis for the $1 per tire fee is a
bid price of $.79 per tire to load and haul the tires
and estimated $.21 per tire to cover construction of a
tire loading dock, administrative costs, and to pay
for tires that enter the landfill in mixed loads
(dumpsters, etc. ) that can not be identified at the
scales and for which fees are not received.
A per capita distribution to the County from a newly
imposed one percent fee on all motor vehicle tires
sold in the state will partially off-set our cost for
2
this program, however, this money will not be
disbursed to the Orange Regional Landfill in time for
our initial fee setting. The landfill is required to
reassess the tire disposal fee after one year and to
make adjustments to the fee reflecting the per capita
disbursement mentioned above. At that time the fee
will be raised or lowered to assure that only actual
costs to operate the tire disposal program are
recovered.
RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends the adoption of the attached
resolution.
z
3
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SCRAP TIRE DISPOSAL FEE
A Resolution authorizing the Landfill Owners Group
through the Chapel Hill Town Manager to assess a scrap tire
disposal fee of $1 per tire that allows the Orange Regional
Landfill to fully comply with the provisions of the North
Carolina Scrap Tire Disposal Act.
WHEREAS, the County of Orange supports the provisions of
the North Carolina Scrap Tire Disposal Act; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Landfill Owners Group
to collect and dispose of scrap tires in an environmentally
sound fashion;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County
Board of Commissioners that the Landfill Owners Group through
the Chapel Hill Town Manager is authorized to implement the
scrap tire disposal fee of $1 per tire and to begin
collection of fees upon proper notice to the citizens of
Orange County.
This is the day of , 1990.
Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. XI
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 2, 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 recommendation is presented for the Board's
consideration:
HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION: Appoint Forest E. Walton to
fill a vacancy on this commission. This "At Large" vacancy is reserved
for a representative of the private business sector who has experience in
public transportation. The appointment has no specific expiration date.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides.
V
AGENDA ABSTRACT COVER SHEET
Abstract Title: �cepp� M. ��,,1G �,1„�
Attachments: p`°. ,,�� Meeting Date: �o
Department d- -F- Agenda Deadline: _ .� /9/40
Head Signature:
Today's Date.. d
Comment: Date In:
Purchasing
Director Date Out:
Review Requested
d
Copy Signature
Attorney Action:
Sent to Attorney:
OK as is
Date OK with attached changes
Attorney -�-
-- Hold for more work
Review Requested
d
�gna ue
ra e
Comment: 4S 5ra N
ir£ry ?uc_r_ED Date In:hen 3/d� '90En04- ---B/64,TD_____Date Out: .� /� !"10
Finance 9 / /
Directo C:ce.
Review Requested �4:7 /
Comment:
Date In:
Asst Manager Date Out:
Signature
Courtesy Copies To: kV--a 671 c , ,��,� - m�+,,, a/cpr„a•-11--
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE: -
1) This form must accompany ALL angenda abstracts and should be properly completed BEFORE the
agenda deadline. Consult agenda schedule for agenda deadline date.
2) Attach the originals of your agenda abstract to this form. If Attorney review needed, forward
copy of abstract and this cover sheet to attorney.
MANAGERS OFFICE REVIEW
1ST REVIEW
Abstract Approved on 1st Review
Revision Required
Attorney Response Required
Comments:
Revision Received
Create copies for 2nd review
2ND REVIEW
i i Approved
Revision Required
Comments:
0 Review complete; ready for duplication
IMEM
P--64 )(- 1-)
)-4=(A-4- `e-`6- 0,12,frk
A GEN A ABSTRACT COVER SHEET V-73
Abstract Ti tle I A1-A�--- ' Meeting Date: % � O
Attachments:
Department Agenda Deadline:
Head Signature: --
Today's Date:
Comment:
Purchasing Date In:
Director Date out:
Review Requested
Copy Signature
Attorney Action:
Sent to Attorney: L—fjfl OK as is
Date OK with attached changes
Attorney
Revie!7.5gested
Hold for more work
igna ure a e
Comment: Date In: 3 /9a
Finance(i.,Dr Date Out:
c
Directo
Revi ew Requested
Comment: Date In: 2242-^-e„xe-
Asst Manager Date Out: 22G_
na ure
Courtesy Copies To:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE:
1) This form must accompany ALL angenda abstracts and should be properly completed BEFORE the
agenda deadline. Consult agenda schedule for agenda deadline date.
2) Attach the originals of your agenda abstract to this form. If Attorney review needed, forward
copy of abstract and this cover sheet to attorney.
MANAGERS OFFICE REVIEW
1ST REVIEW
Abstract Approved on 1st Review
Revision Required
Attorney Response Required
Comments:
Revision Received
Create copies for 2nd review
2ND REVIEW
Approved
- Revision Required
Comments:
Review complete; ready for duplication
NINE
' ,
4-4244146"67.14.,
/Of G he. A. .G�. l � = - r.
V-
am"Z2 ;,e .
A GENDA ABSTRACT CO CO V R SHEET
Abstract Title: ' ' - ` —
,► Meeting Date: 9D
Attachments: ' = � Agenda Deadlin-. - /9:- °
Department
Head Signature: Today's Date: .. -,77/-
Comment: Date In:
Purchasing Date Out:
Director
Review Requested NIA IA _
Q
Signature
Copy Attorney Action:
Sent to Attorney : OK as is
Date OK with attached changes
Attorney Hold for more work
Review Requested
Signature/Date •
•
Comment: Date In: 11.28-790
-
Date Out: /go
Finance/ an � /
Director -- 7
Review equested i?_ 4 - i-e-e
Signature
Comment: Date In: 22 k'c,.,, I--
Date Out: 22 /^.p--4 -
Ass't Manager
k i:' _
b1gnature
Courtesy Copies To:
•
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE:
1) This form must accompany ALL angenda abstracts and should be properly completed BEFORE the
agenda deadline.
2) Attach the originals of your agenda abstract to this form. If Attorney review needed, forward
copy of abstract and this cover sheet to attorney.
MANAGERS OFFICE REVIEW
1ST REVIEW
Abstract Approved on let Review
Revision Required
o Attorney Response Required
Comments:
o Revision Received
Create copies for 2nd review
2ND REVIEW
Q Approved
- Revision Required
Comments:
Review complete; ready for duplication
AGENDA ABSTRA I Co VER SHEET
Abstract Title: l - 5eeting Date: f � 6 vt_Attachments:
Agenda Deadline: a
Department
Head Signature: a e I r,r,Qv J/���� d
Today's Date:
Comment: Date In: -
Purchasing
Director Date out:
Review Requested
Signature
Copy Attorney Action:
Sent to Attorney: OK as is
Date OK with attached changes
Attorney �-
Hold for more work
Review Requested _
Signature/Date •
Comment: t.
� c � ,...... r4-1-` ;' Date In: 3 9.43/i0
•
Date Out: ,75/=.1grfrO
Review Requested -
��••��II Signature
Comment:
Date In:
Asst Manager Date out:
Signature
Courtesy Copies To:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE: -
1) This form must accompany ALL angenda abstracts and should be properly completed BEFORE the
agenda deadline. Consult agenda schedule for agenda deadline date.
2) Attach the originals of your agenda abstract to this form. If Attorney review needed, forward
copy of abstract and this cover sheet to attorney.
•
MANAGERS OFFICE REVIEW
1ST REVIEW
Abstract Approved on 1st Review
Revision Required
Attorney Response Required
Comments:
C� Revision Received
Create copies for 2nd review
2ND REVIEW
Approved
Revision Required
Comments:
Review complete; ready for duplication
IMMMME
6)-PAIA /
NY a
(/4 OA- V— LI-
F AGENDA ABSTRACT COVER SHEET
Abstract Title: ` ! 4 Meeting Date: 41/z/ a
Attachments: 70 /D
Department n Agenda Deadline: /z2
Head Signature: - I (...0A clAA,t- C 11') Date: 3 94 s Today's 2i
y / /
Comment: Date In:
Purchasing
Director Date out:
Review Requested
Signature
Copy Attorney Action:
Sent to Attorney: 2 -a�_ 9 0 OK as is
Date OK with attached changes
Attorney
Hold for more work
Review Requested
Signature'Date •
Comment: Date In:
Finance Date Out:
Director
Review Requested •
Signatur4
Comment:
Date In:
Asst Manager Date out:
Signature
Courtesy Copies To:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE:
1) This form must accompany ALL angenda abstracts and should be properly completed BEFORE the
agenda deadline. Consult agenda schedule for agenda deadline date.
2) Attach the originals of your agenda abstract to this form. If Attorney review needed, forward
copy of abstract and this cover sheet to attorney.
MANAGERS OFFICE REVIEW
1ST REVIEW
Abstract Approved on 1st Review
Revision Required
Attorney Response Required
Comments:
Revision Received.
Create copies for 2nd review
2ND REVIEW
II Approved
EMI Revision Required
Comments:
Review complete; ready,for duplication
AGENDA ABSTRACT Co i/ R SHEET
Abstract Title: = \ — _ '� 7.2/9
Attachments: ' ' ' 9 Meeting Date:
Department
�• Agenda Deadline: > 3J/9/9 o
Head Signature; O( °his - Today's Date: d
Comment: Date In:
Purchasing
Director Date out:
Review Requested
I
Signature
Copy Attorney Action:
Sent to Attorney: OK as is
Date OK with attached changes
Attorney
Hold for more work
Review Requested
Signature/Date •
Comment: Date In: -ems/ i
Finance%,��� Date put: , / 6
Director j'��y
Review Requested
d l/
Comment:
Date In
Asst Manager Date out:
signature
Courtesy Copies To:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE:
1) This form must accompany ALL angenda abstracts and should be properly completed BEFORE the
agenda deadline. Consult agenda schedule for agenda deadline date.
2) Attach the originals of your agenda abstract to this form. If Attorney review needed, forward
copy of abstract and this cover sheet to attorney.
MANAGERS OFFICE REVIEW
1ST REVIEW
Abstract Approved on lot Review
Revision Required
Attorney Response Required
Comments:
F .
Revision Received
Create copies for 2nd review
2ND REVIEW
[� Approved
Revision Required
Comments:
Review complete; ready for duplication
AGENDA ABSTRACT COVER SHEET
Abstract Title: County Gwrnment Week 4/2/90
Meeting Date:
Attachments: Agenda Deadline -_ __3
D epartment '
Head Signature: Today's Date:� �1 � Toda 3/21/90
Comment: Date In:
Purchasing Date Out:
Director
Review Requested
Signature
Copy Attorney Action:
Sent to Attorney: OK as is
Date OK with attached changes
Attorney
Hold for more work
Review Requested
Signature/Date .
Comment: Date In:
Date Out:
Finance -
Director
Review Requested
Signaturp
Comment: Date In:
Date Out:
Asst Manager
•
signature
Courtesy Copies To:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE: -
1) This form must accompany ALL angenda abstracts and should be properly completed BEFORE the
agenda deadline. Consult agenda schedule for agenda deadline date.
2) Attach the originals of your agenda abstract to this form. If Attorney review needed, forward
copy of abstract and this cover sheet to attorney
MANAGER'S OFFICE REVIEW
1ST REVIEW
Abstract Approved on 1st Review
NNE Revision Required
Attorney Response Required
Comments:
Revision Received
Create copies for 2nd review
2ND REVIEW
Approved
Revision Required
•
Comments:
=1 Review complete; ready for duplication
r
\T Tt
AGENDA ABSTRACT COVER SHEET
Abstract Title: Proclamation for Senior Games April 2, -: 1990
Attachments: Proclamation
Meeting Date:
Agenda Deadline. March.-.19, 1990 '
Department Head Signature: Today's Date: March 21, 1990
Comment: Date In:
Purchasing Date out:
Director
N/A
Review Requested
Signature
Copy Attorney Action:
Sent to Attorney: OK as is
Date OK with attached changes
Attorney
N/A Hold for more work
Review Requested
Signature/Date •
Comment: Date In:
•
Date Out:
Finance
Director N/A
Review Requested
• Signatyre
Comment: Date In:
Date Out:
Asst Manager
Signature
Courtesy Copies To:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE:
1) This form must accompany ALL angenda abstracts and should be properly completed BEFORE the
agenda deadline. Consult agenda schedule for agenda deadline date.
2) Attach the originals of your agenda abstract to this form. If Attorney review needed, forward
copy of abstract and this cover sheet to attorney.
MANAGERS OFFICE REVIEW
1ST REVIEW
ism Abstract Approved on 1st Review
Revision Required
r--1 Attorney Response Required
Comments:
Revision Received
Create copies for 2nd review
2ND REVIEW
Approved
- Revision Required
Comments:
r---1 Review complete; ready.for duplication
f.11 x 3 1990
AGENDA ABSTRACT Co V R SHEET
Public Hearing Date - Transportation
Abstract Title: Thoroughfare Plans a-2--90
Meeting Date:
Attachments: Agenda Deadline: 3-21-9°
Department
Head Signature: Today's Date: 20-90
Comment: Date In:
Purchasing Date Out:
Director
Review Requested
Signature
Copy Attorney Action:
Sent to Attorney: OK as is
1-7n—pan
Date OK with attached changes
Attorney
Hold for more work
Review Requested
tgnature a e
Comment: Date In:
Date Out:
Finance
Director
Review Requested
SigniturP
Comment: Date In:
Date Out:
Asst Manager
•
• atgnature
Courtesy Copies To: County Engineer
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE:
1) This form must accompany ALL angenda abstracts and should be properly completed BEFORE the
agenda deadline.
2) Attach the originals of your agenda abstract to this form. If Attorney review needed, forward
copy of abstract and this cover sheet to attorney.
MANA GAR 'S OFFICE REWEW
1ST REVIEW
Abstract Approved on 1st Review
Revision Required
0 Attorney Response Required
Comments:
Revision Received
Create copies for 2nd review
2ND REVIEW
j'""'71 Approved
Revision Required
Comments:
Review complete; ready for duplication
AGENDA ABSTRACT COVER SHEET
F hPostr Q.M Es4r5 J"PA '•-"=5 r.�5: 2-&
Abstract Title:
Attachments: y�5
Meeting Date: /x�` °
Department Agenda Deadline: ? L9 p_
Head Signature:'
Today's Date: 3d a
Comment:
Purchasing Date In:
Director Date Out:
Review Requested
Signature
Copy Attorney Action:
Sent to Attorney: a/30/9a --
OKasis
Date OK with attached changes
Attorney
-- Hold for more work
Review Requested
f:1
igna ure a e
Comment
Date In:
Finance Date Out:
Director
Review Requested
Comment:
Date In:
Asst Manager Date Out:
Signature
Courtesy Copies To:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE:
1) This form must accompany ALL angenda abstracts and should be properly completed BEFORE the
agenda deadline. Consult agenda schedule for agenda deadline date.
2) Attach the originals of your agenda-abstract to this form. If Attorney review needed, forward
copy of abstract and this cover sheet to attorney.
j114 NA GER S OFFICE REVIEW
1ST REVIEW
Abstract Approved on 1st Review
Revision Required
Attorney Response Required
Comments:
Revision Received
Create copies for 2nd review
2ND REVIEW
Approved
I1 Revision Required
Comments:
Review complete; ready.for duplication
A GRNDA ABSTRA CT CO V ER SHEET
PPP.., r �1.t�►-IC7�t�1J1" or 16e co. coMPrZE4.1EH61Q PL6r4
Abstract Title: `-'L11`1 1- 'tee e54t�,2 4/Z/9
Attachments: Meeting Date:
~ Agenda Deadline: 3/'9 /16
Department
Head Signature: t� -''� -ID
Toda 's Date: 3/ 4���
y
Comment: Date In:
Purchasing
Director Date out:
Review Requested
Signature
Copy Attorney Action:
Sent to Attorney: 5/3o/9 a OK as is
Date OK with attached changes
Attorney
Hold for more work
Review Requested
Signature/Date •
Comment: Date In:
Finance Date out:
Director
Review Requested
0
Signature
Comment: Date In:
Ass't Manager Date out:
signature
Courtesy Copies To:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE:
1) This form must accompany ALL angenda abstracts and should be properly completed BEFORE the
agenda deadline. Consult agenda schedule for agenda deadline date.
2) Attach the originals of your agenda-abstract to this form. If Attorney review needed, forward
copy of abstract and this cover sheet to attorney.
MANAGERS OFFICE REVIEW
1ST REVIEW
Abstract Approved on let Review
Revision Required
Attorney Response Required
Comments:
Revision Received
Create copies for 2nd review
2ND REVIEW
Approved
Revision Required
Comments:
Review complete; ready,for duplication
AGENDA A BSTRA CI CO VER SHEET
F'Ro pd S v,, k t7 M -r o rzdl.l 64" cca, Z c W 046 cat S
Abstract Title: C`'�°"' ' °'�'= `"'�r5 u�ro� 2`j9
Attachments: Yts Meeting Date:
Department Agenda Deadline: /i� ctd
Head Signature: W1-
Today's Date:
Comment: Date In:
Purchasing
Director Date out:
Review Requested
ED
Signature
Copy Attorney Action:
Sent to Attorney : 3/30/9 O OK as is
Date OK with attached changes
Attorney --
Hold for more work
Review Requested
Signature/Date •
Comment: Date In:
Finance Date Out:
Director
Review Requested
0
Signature
Comment: Date In:
Asst Manager Date Qut:
•
signature
Courtesy Copies To:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE:
1) This form must accompany ALL angenda abstracts and should be properly completed BEFORE the
agenda deadline. Consult agenda schedule for agenda deadline date.
2) Attach the originals of your agenda-abstract to this form. If Attorney review needed, forward
copy of abstract and this cover sheet to attorney.
MANAGERS OFFICE REWEW
1ST REVIEW
[=1 Abstract Approved on 1st Review
Revision Required
('_'1 Attorney Response Required
Comments:
C� Revision Received
Create copies for 2nd review
2ND REVIEW
Approved
Revision Required
Comments:
_ Review complete; ready,for duplication
AGENDA ABSTRACT COVER SHEET
Pr2,Qp.05 -0 �"^ �� N5 —at2pnl�C CO . 14 Uti , cn217,11.l�F,LC
Abstract Title: CUNI Lai weYi�rz5i.11SD�
,�C5 Meeting Date: 4/Z/90
Attachments: Agenda Deadline: 3Aq•I/90
Department iVL�� n ^ „�
Head Signature: l� Today's Date: 3/3OJ90
•
Comment: Date In:
Purchasing
Director Date out:
Review Requested
Q
Signature
Copy Attorney Action:
Sent to Attorney: 3/50/9 OK as is
Date OK with attached changes
Attorney Hold for more work
Review Requested
ETZZI
Signature/Date
Comment:
Date In:
Finance Date Out:
Director
Review Requested
0
Signature
Comment:
Date In
Asst Manager Date out:
Signature
Courtesy Copies To:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE:
1) This form must accompany ALL angenda abstracts and should be properly completed BEFORE the
agenda deadline. Consult agenda schedule for agenda deadline date.
2) Attach the originals of your agenda abstract to this form. If Attorney review needed, forward
copy of abstract and this cover sheet to attorney.
MANAGERS OFFICE REVIEW
1ST REVIEW
Abstract Approved on 1st Review
Revision Required
i Attorney Response Required
Comments:
Revision Received
Create copies for 2nd review
2ND REVIEW
Approved
Revision Required
Comments:
Review complete; ready.for duplication
F.
AGENDA ABSTRACT Co V R SHEET
°P°s r7 Qul!~R1173'4 bczaMGE Co, 50 es-pi RLL _.ATt06-is
Abstract Title: (" " ' w4" �a gm)
Meeting Date: °
Attachments:
Department Agenda Deadline: 3 3 LP
Head Signature: Today's Date: —La—L°
Comment:
Purchasing Date In:
Director Date out:
Review Requested
Copy Signature
Attorney Action:
Sent to Attorney: 3/so let
OK as is
Date OK with attached changes
Attorney
-- Hold for more work
Review Requested
igna ure a e
Comment:
Date In:
Finance Date out:
Director
Review Requested
Comment:
Date In:
Asst Manager Date out:
signature
Courtesy Copies To:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE:
I) This form must accompany ALL angenda abstracts and should be properly completed BEFORE the
agenda deadline. Consult agenda schedule for agenda deadline date.
2) Attach the originals of your agenda abstract to this form. If Attorney review needed, forward
copy of abstract and this cover sheet to attorney.
MANAGERS OFFICE REVIEW
1ST REVIEW
r,i Abstract Approved on 1st Review
[� Revision Required
Attorney Response Required
Comments:
C7 Revision Received
Create copies for 2nd review
2ND REVIEW
Approved
r'7 Revision Required
Comments:
Review complete; ready,for duplication
•
E
/\ -.
AGENDA ABSTRACT Co UDR SHEET
Abstract Title: Meeting Date: '! "2
Attachments: Agenda Deadline:
Department c" '
Head Signature: - Today's Date: ' 27/-1)
Comment: Date In:
Purchasing
Director Date Out:
Review Requested
Signature
Copy Attorney Action:
Sent to Attorney : OK as is
Date OK with attached changes
Attorney ---
-- Hold for more work
Review Requested
•
0 _
Signature/Date
Comment: Date In:
Finance
r r Date out: � /
Review Requested
_ d
Signature
Comment:
Date In:
Asst Manager Date Out:
a1gnature
Courtesy Copies To:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE:
1) This form must accompany ALL angenda abstracts and should be properly completed BEFORE the
agenda deadline. Consult agenda schedule for agenda deadline date.
2) Attach the originals of your agenda abstract to this form. If Attorney review needed,forward
copy of abstract and this cover sheet to attorney.
MANAGERS OFFICE REVIEW
1ST REVIEW
Abstract Approved on 1st Review
Revision Required
Attorney Response Required
Comments:
i
Revision Received
Create copies for 2nd review
2ND REVIEW
Approved
Revision Required
Comments:
Review complete; ready for duplication
- 70
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 5th day of March, 1990 .
MOSES CAREY
Chairman, Orange County Coif%s• loners
(COUNTY. SEAL)
4:414./:--,?-70
range County Commission for Women
m- Box 8181 • 110 North Churton Street • Hillsborough, NC 27278
.x
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
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.
41/(0A6 .
r
Moses Carey, Jr. , Ch- , an
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SCRAP TIRE DISPOSAL PEE
A Resolution authorizing the Landfill Owners Group
through the Chapel Hill Town Manager to assess a scrap tire
disposal fee of $1 per tire that allows the Orange Regional
Landfill to fully comply with the provisions of the North
Carolina Scrap Tire Disposal Act.
WHEREAS, the County of Orange supports the provisions of
the North Carolina Scrap Tire Disposal Act; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Landfill Owners Group
to collect and dispose of scrap tires in an environmentally
sound fashion;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County
Board of Commissioners that the Landfill Owners Group through
the Chapel Hill Town Manager is authorized to implement the
scrap tire disposal fee of $1 per tire and to begin
collection of fees upon proper notice to the citizens of
Orange County.
This is the 2/f o L day of / 1990.
11/ . 4
Ao,
os-s Carey, Jr. , Ch- ' -
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners and
the National Association of County Commissioners have urged
citizens across the state to learn more about county
government' s role in our lives and to be more involved as
county citizens ' and
WHEREAS, Orange County government has served the citizens of the
county since 1752 and we are responsible for a growing
number of services which have direct impact on local
citizens; and
WHEREAS, the elected and appointed officials in county government
take great pride in serving the citizens of the County and
in being directly involved in shaping the future; and
WHEREAS, in Orange County the volunteer spirit is still alive and
well and the volunteers serve as our partners in progress;
and
WHEREAS, through their volunteer involvement, citizens learn more
about community needs and resources and serve as
communications links to the entire community.
NOW, THEREFORE, we the Board of Commissioners do hereby proclaim the
week of April 23 through April 27, 1990, as Orange County
Government Week, and reaffirm our support and appreciation
of the valuable contributions of Volunteers in the County.
And, further urge all citizens to become more familiar with
county government.
This the 2nd day of April , 1990.
By:
I ' ' 1 p ,,/
Moses Carey, Jr. , Chai
Orange County Board o ' •.mmissioners
ORANGE COUNTY EARTH DAY 1990 RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Human activities are seriously compromising the earth 's
ability to sustain life as a result of environmental threats, such
as global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, increasing human and
pet populations, declining soil fertility, extinction of species,
air pollution, water pollution, and earth pollution; and
WHEREAS, Citizens and community leaders are now recognizing
environmental protection and resource conservation to be essential
prerequisites to sustained prosperity and environmental well-being
for all living things; and
WHEREAS, Cities and counties have many critical environmental
responsibilities, including land-use management, management of
transportation systems, solid and liquid waste management,
protection of water resources, and much more; and
WHEREAS, Almost twenty years ago, millions of Americans joined
together on Earth Day to express an unprecedented concern for the
environment, and their collective action resulted in the passage
of the first significant legislation to protect our air, our water,
and the lands around us; and
WHEREAS, Citizens and their governments must strongly commit
themselves to act to meet the global environmental challenges
without delay, and stand together in cities, counties, towns and
villages around the world for a week of collective action to
declare our shared resolve for the future;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
Endorses April 22 as Earth Day 1990, and declares that April 15-
22 , 1990 shall be designated and proclaimed as Earth Week, and that
the week shall be set aside for public activities promoting
preservation of the global environment.
..,14a146
Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair •'n
Beverly Blythe, Clerk
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306E REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
L•
i
v
,x.al
R'
MEMORANDUM
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JOHN LINK, COUNTY MANAGER
GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, COUNTY ATTORNEY
FROM: MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
DATE: MARCH 30, 1990
SUBJECT: EVIDENCE RECEIVED SINCE THE FEBRUARY 28, 1990 PUBLIC
HEARING
COPIES:
Attached is all evidence received since the February 28, 1990
public hearing, including written documents submitted by
citizens to the Planning Department Staff or to the Planning
Board.
As you are aware, only evidence presented in writing at or
prior to the March 28, 1990 Planning Board meeting may be
considered in making a decision . If the Board of
Commissioners wishes to consider additional (new)
information, the public hearing must be re-opened, and the
item re-advertised and/or referred back to the Planning Board
for recommendation. Article 20 . 7 of the Zoning Ordinance
contains the provisions which must be followed, and a copy is
provided for reference.
Because of the amount of information received, the additional
evidence is provided as a separate enclosure.
JU`QJUM;
Marvin Collins
Planning Director
- 20.5 The Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board
Shall Hold A Public Hearing
The Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board
shall hear applications for amendments to this ordinance in
a Public Hearing at the County Commissioners last regular
meeting in August, November, February and May.
20.6 Public Searing and Notice Thereof
20.6.1 A public hearing shall be held by the Board of County
Commissioners before adoption of any proposed amendment to
Amended this ordinance. Notice of the public hearing shall be
7/2/84 given by publishing said notice at least twice in a
newspaper of general circulation in the County, stating the
time and place of such hearing and the substance of the
proposed amendment. This notice shall appear in said
newspaper for two successive weeks with the first notice
appearing not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty-
five (25) days before the date set for the public hearing.
In computing the notice period, the day of publication is
not to be included, but the day of the hearing is to be
included.
20.6.2 The Zoning Officer in the case of amendments to the zoning
atlas shall post on the applicant's affected property a
notice of the public hearing at least ten days prior to the
date of said hearing.
20.6.3 In the case of amendments to the Zoning Atlas, written
notice shall be sent by certified mail to the affected
Amended property owner and all adjacent property owners not less
11/19/85 than fifteen days before the hearing date. Adjacent
property owners are those whose names and addresses are
currently listed in the Orange County tax records and whose
property lies within five hundred feet of the affected
property.
If amendments to the Zoning Atlas are proposed by the
County, notice shall be sent by first class mail to all
affected property owners and to all adjacent property
owners within 500 feet as provided above.
The Zoning Officer shall certify the mailing of all such
notices to the Board of County Commissioners.
E> 20.7 Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing
20.7.1 Following the date of the public hearing, all proposed
amendments shall be referred to the Planning Board for its
Amended consideration and recommendation. Evidence not presented
2/5/90 at the joint public hearing (hereinafter called "new
evidence" ) may be submitted in writing at or prior to the
Planning Board meeting at which the recommendation to the
Board of Commissioners is made. The Planning Board may
consider oral evidence only if it is for the purpose of
presenting information also submitted in writing.
20-3
The Planning Board shall within sixty days after the date
of the public hearing prepare and submit for the Board of
County Commissioners a recommendation concerning the
disposition of any application submitted by the public.
Said time limit may be extended upon request of the
applicant. Amendments initiated by Orange County shall not
be subject to time limitations other than those specified
by the Board of County Commissioners during the public
hearing process .
Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation
within the required time shall be considered a favorable
recommendation, without conditions.
20.7.2 The Board of County Commissioners shall not consider
enactment of the proposed amendment until sixty days after
Amended the first date of the public hearing or until the Planning
2/5/90 Board makes this recommendation, whichever comes first. In
making its decision, the Board of Commissioners shall
consider all relevant evidence presented at the joint
public hearing, and any new evidence which was considered
by the Planning Board in making its recommendation.
New evidence which was not presented in writing to the
Planning Board may not be considered by the Board of
Commissioners in making a decision unless the joint public
hearing is reopened to receive said evidence, and the item
is re-advertised and/or referred back to the Planning Board
for recommendation.
20.8 Withdrawal of Application
An applicant may withdraw his or her application at any
time by written notice to the County Manager. However, any
withdrawal of an application after the giving of the first
notice as required in 20 . 6 shall be considered, for the
purposes of Article 20, a denial of the petition.
20.9 Effect of Denial on Subsequent Petitions
When the Board of County Commissioners shall have denied an
application or the application shall have been withdrawn
after the first notice of the public hearing thereon, the
Board--of County Commissioners shall not receive another
application for the same or similar amendment, affecting
the same property or a portion of it, until the expiration
of a one year period, extending from the date of denial or
withdrawal, as appropriate.
20.10 Fees
Fees for filing application for amendments shall be set by
resolution of the Board of County Commissioners.
20-4
UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION
w_ECTIOti
At the March 8 , :990 meeting or the Chatham-Orange Work Croup,
,
the group tailed to achieve a consensus for modification of t.e
impervious surface provisions in the :3-point agreement . The
Orange County Planning Director , Marv:n Collins , has proposed
changing the impervious surface limit from 4% to 6) for 5-acre
lots and a sliding scale for lots smaller than 5 acres .
Ideas discussed at the March 8 meeting included:
1 . Reduction in the number of 2-acre lots permitted under point
number 5 .a.
2 . Public acquisition of land or development rights sufficient
to result in equivalent protection.
3 . Use of impervious coefficient somewhere between 0 and 1 . 0 to
recognize that gravel driveways are not as impervious as
roof tops or paved roads .
4 . Use 4% figure for new developments, 6% for existing lots .
THE DEBATE
Those in favor modifying the impervious surface limit argued
that, according to Mr . Collins ' calculations , the number of •non-
conforming lots would be unacceptably high (approx. 40%) . Those
opposed to modification argued that the CDM recommendations were
aimed at minimizing further po 2utant loading of the Lake and
that the 13-point agreement already included compromises that
were less stringent that recommended by CDM.
CDM SHORT-COMINGS
The CDM report recommended that impervious surfaces be limited to
4% if the non-structural approached were utilized. They failed
to take into account difficulties this approached would encounter
in dealing with that portion of the watershed in Chatham County
and with existing roads and lots smaller than 5 acres.
RECONCILIATION
The d__ ference between the 23-po:_ti+ `agreement and he Orange
4
County staff proposals is not as s:gn:f:cant as has been thought
if a distinction is made between average imperviousness and the
maximum permitted for individual lots . Mr . Collins ' calculations
indicate that , for an assortment of 5-acre lots, approximately
98% compliance can be achieved by use of an _mperv:ous surface
maximum of 6% ter lot and that the average for the assortment
would be about 4%. Thus, if the intent of the 13-point agreement
was to li...it impervious surface to an average of 4% , the two
proposals are ecuivalent .
•
The difference for 2-acre lots is greater, but not by much. Mr.
Collins ' calculations indicate that the impervious surface for an
assortment of 2-acre lots would be approximately 7% if a maximum
of 12% was applied to individual lots . The 13-point agreement
called far 6%. Again it the 6% in the 13-point agreement is to
be interpreted as an average, it is close to that computed to
result from the application of a 12% ma=ximum for individual lots .
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. For April 2 , 1990
1 . Consider that the basic recommendations of the 13-point
agreement and the Orange County planning staff are equiv-
alent in that the 13-point figures refer to averages and the
staff recommendations refer to individual lots .
2 . Modify the formula for the number of 2-acre lots that
can be created to one that specifies the number of lots and
permits averaging. For example, from a 20-acre tract, allow
creation of 7 2 . 86-acre lots as an alternative to 2 5-acre
lots plus 5 2-acre lots.
3 . Adopt a sliding scale of average and ma:.imu= impervious
surface requirements for lots smaller than 5 acres (averages
only to apply to new subdivisions) .
B. Beyond April 2 , 1990
1 . Commit to public accufsition cf land to reduce future
pollutant loading potential
2. Provide tax, incentives for "environmental easements "
patterned after agricultural use-value assessments.
3 . Determine location of majority of 2-acre and smaller
lots and use structural BMPs in subbas_ns serving existing
• small lot subdivisions , e.g. , East Price ' s Creek (:heritage
:ills) and West Price 's Creek (Chatham County) .
4 . Proceed with review and implementation of 13-point
agreement.
Don Will=o - - -
3/26/90
I.-..d 26'
-
I.
I
. I
I
1 .
-
I -
ml -. 00 WMM oonornowN/.- 0mNnm ONd co I ONMnohR9m- cumm.r IP1� rNomm0-,
I I I m m 000..mo W nmm00. -. malNMMMaaa4- a00000 l 00w W W W W W W W W W W Wnn
L 15
N L N
al al M4- a ¢aa.1.1
7 .11 d aCaaa .Tada Jj I N M .4!
I> CnQ
Q i I 1
i 1 L 170ncpm Or+ NMtntpl►4101 0-+ NM.Tncol+ mplO-+NMSn4DnNm O-+ NManuAt• mm0•.+
W m 13 I N N N N N (tI N N N N M M M M M M M M M M a t a a a a a t a t n n
. . I 4... - 4) D I I ! I I
0E00 -4 � I
1.- D J••
z Q I I I i
al xx %Oexxxaexiexx,e,c% %14% ot ot %ot % % y.14 xiexyc1t% % wt% %%xxKxxxxxxx
i v I 000000nr000comoonm(UOmnw0aMN.+ -.0mmNNnn ww000aa4MMMM
Z I O - 0 0 7 N O m n W W n n a t 4-m m m m N N N N N NNNNNN AI 6 .>. l u3 in innatdaQaaQ .7aaaa 4- Qaaaataaaum aCa .Taa .7ta a4aQSt aa
.7 u L I R4Q 1 I ' 1 I 1 ' l � ' .. S. N .
Etna I
m N41 -W00 (04 -W m O N a W m
N a W m O N d W m O N t W m 0 N 4-W m O N a
W ' z m mo -•4140 WnmO•. NM•7WN0MONMan W Wm0«Na00N0O•• NMa W N0MONMa -
E -• G U -• a(11m W M On•? -+mWMOna-+NnMOna -. 0nNOna -+ m 10Nmn .7w40nNm W Mwp7nN
4 z ... .154, OmnWn4- 0.1•• 0mn W omN.•mmnW rmNOmmnnaM •• 0MNW naN •. Omn W MMN••
0 .1.. ). 4i- U.. Mr7ali7 W nmmOO-, 41 ,1 .- 1(1001,000 N MM4-00NOM 00-,NManonn mmO-. NM
W • F L Iii 5. N I -+.••■ •.I ....... N N N N.N N N N N N N M M r7 M M f7 M M M M M M 4-4-a a
Ln I
j 1
H. •
J 16 O N 4-W m O N C W m 0 N 4- W m O N 4-W m O N a W m O N a W m 0 N a W m O N 4-W m O N d W m O N
m O m •• NMa W nmmONm.r0o0m0«NtnoNo0..NMa�onmmONMalf w000•• NaU1
r DO U -. na••mnNM04.• mnNMWM..mn Nm0MOMONM W M0n 4-Nm W MOna••04.0MOn
D 6.. mle++ ConWa MNbmmn nom-omm W cm .rru • 0mn Wnmw -. 0mn W aMN•.mmnU7aMN0
I- U > wtlL ••NMa W W NW M0 -.NMManW nmm00••NMan W nnmmO•• NMM4- n W nmm0
> m y N N N M a
a
i M _ :.
oc000 ooaoo ' o0000000000 m00000 0000a 000aa o0 0
.:;:„; Q m .. 000.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
a L c+> m W t N O m W•1-N O m W t N O m W a N O m W a N 0 m W a N 0 W W a N 0 m W.7 N o m W 4-N O m
.,,.e�:. W m C u.m. Nom•• m W tNOmnm-imnv NON4om-. mnnNocowIr . 0NIMM00 WCNmnnM••m
..::R;`; 0 1..*CE D G ••M117nCO0N4-W 410 MaWMONM0P-MON4-Wmm•• PIO WCOONannm•. NO WmO•• -
.....:.!c W - ._..-:r: - •-n w co o m n n m..7 W m`^O N a n m..m n o 0 -
r;��i � Q•- �JLO NttOmOMIgnG+•+M�mON•'tnm••r'7nnONaW
...:. Q m m +!N1.7n I n^� � W W ro Wnnn Ntota W W m x I ..
• NN NM MM a7t.7nn
tx ..
;.X.: 00 •• rim-nWnaimo� NM nWP•mm ••NMan nmmO,•ejMa117W
a _ - j NNNNNNNNNNMP4T9MMMMMMMaa Cr7t•r -
7 EDQ D� , ^f:.::
to s -.
•... z . n
Q
!71 =
1
. D i til .y NNNNNNOJ.NNNNNNNV^NNNNNNNNNNNN tUNNNWN'NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
m5m ± mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.mmmmmmmmmB..mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
IU u I .. 4-4-44..C.ram.Caaaaaaaaac ad caaaaaaa .r�aataa•aa.rraaaaaaa •
N - 10+• 16=-+ 0000.0000000000000.000000000000000000000000000000
W . L >4-Nw MMMMMM!hnrIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMrOMmmmm 1MMMMMMMM ' • .. MMM
E GNeN ." - - I ::j I - -. i I •
JJ
E 1 I I
!L .. I :_ J - , •
D .
I
f
. . .
I 1
000000000000 00000000Oa000000DQ0000000OD00000Oo
m - .. 0 O O a 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0
:: D 6 u m .,.. W W W W W W W W W W W W W-W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
►+ •m C
mo nnm o omNnn nnnnnomomm f n nnnnn nnn nnnnnn1A7omoonnno P- L••.Q G c MMMMMMMMrMM MMMMMMMMMMMMM ]MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM STQ a 1 J N a4- aaa a ¢d.7aSTR7• . • a . 7ia Q Qaaat7aaatta4-a7 4- CI
-_.I . T, 77 00it)0u,ID 00 1(30ton17nJ]nnnnnnlnnnlnnpnn I nnnnn I 01 Ul
I
J� '
T. - - __ - .. I
- =] is T - I
.-.::-' Z N a -..:...- - -
oQ � 1 _ _ . - .
.. 0 0 0 Q 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 -O O 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I.. -
I
-F ocaaoa0000aooao0cooaoa
- T_i. ^" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- Ci V. WaNOW 0441 0 00aNOmWaNONoaNOmWa NO W W CNOCO W aNOW4DaNa m W a U r'IL. MM"MW 4-410 W nM •.mnaNOM0M•.mnnN00 W4- -• MNOPOOW WtNON0Mw W W a
- . - LL.0 1 4-omOMNnW.n-•m••Ma000cu 1ll7nmpNaWmm•+Mn W L90N4- nnm ••Na W cno .m0
C4 0 CO MWm0N4-nm••Mnn0NaWCOOMnnm••4-WmONtnm•+Mn40N4r
w_m?.. " . I.:'. NNNNMMMMM4-4-.dtn117nnn W W W W W nnnnt00 W mmmmmm000
_ .
7. _ i In
�. l u..N.... """NNMrnj44rY7 tl�]U)Wr-P.CDCDDO+ mCDCD-4wNNr071n'1va10fJn�
-- n
-_-r -. I`. �n O 1f1 0 1f7 0117 0 L7 0 n 0 117 O •rl
i.: n m
Q' O r-i
�..: .:.-..- o
N N N
i , I I N PJ N N(U ,--I 171
.. 16tH i 1 - I ' . - I .. I _ I 0`
1 Y I ��
... :,'•a ,
w _j N
M �.
\.,.-i ,rrr I. _ - ..-.ti..-�L�rt..A..s�ir L.i�;•w�4-_LTA-:.-.::F_"::;:t. --Ji•Ti-f-�- _-w„_. „ - - _ 'r ti,-... �J-.f
---
:• i . . . ,
.. ; . •
I
-
. ,
' 1 .
I .
. I ,
I
I .
„ .
I
. . -
,
, .
• (1) LLI Z ■
W 1 '$.It le ie.14 /c 14 )4 14 e.14 )t 14 )4 14 )4 It it 'it it it t It it sit-y j.14 1.rt 14 It v4 .
cz C3 b. E 1 C3 LO CP CU Ill C3 r C3 03 el C. 130 03 LO il tO P.- Ca ..PI P.v.u3 ... r,el 0 1:3 LO ID C> :
•
- r- .... w 1.-CL r- C3 P.-Ill"It CU .. Ch 03 40 ill.4t,01 v.C)DI co r. to to u) (4) • . •
0 > LIZ000 :• . •'• • • •• . • '• . . '. . . '. • • .• • • • • . '• • •.. • • :• . '
I.- CC CC I,U_J :C LI
LLI LL • W LI ,- . I
, ...
W W> 7-U
1•
, .
. 1. i -
-
, I 1 . - I
I • I I 1 I
I . - .
- 4 . .
;
. _ . :
. .
-in to ol in in In 'at to la 'in in to la ta ta :In ol in al oi La .to to to in ar to al La in ;to -
• :Ca ilt 03 01 Ell la 0 0 al Ili 01 Ili IL 01 01 a, tu al a, a, as -9, 01 01 6 01 01 01 01 01 al ..
;S. L S- L S. S. 5...S- S. L. S. S. S- S. S. L S. S. S. 5_ 5- - S. 5_ S. S. S. S. S. s.. 5- .
(.1 (.1 0 U 0 U U LI 0 IJ 0 .
• i 1
i 0 !*1) 41 10 11 4) to rtn at al „In 16 (0 10 10 IL !it in oi ,rti 41 IS;la II 10 ;la cO ea,n) ,a Iii ,to •
. LU -J , - •
• I ''. (3 .. 0J PI■P Ul u3 P,cr3 Ccl 0 .. 01 In...v III 4.0 <:„. .OJ P3 gt Ul 40 r,al) Gn 0 ,
, I-LLI (.11 ,• . • :• . • :• • • •• • • • • • •• • . • •;• • • •• • .:. • • r• .
I (.5 1-1 0J OU 0.1 CU 01 CU 0.1 0.1 CU I
CUM Mel Mel el ri.r.)r)ri 4r%I.4r 4r 4,-4,-4r,,r st 4r U) I • I
I. I
I I ' to !
I cr cr to . I — i 1 I I' _ 1 ,. I . , ; , i 1
I , ,J
WW
I
' i 1 I i
'
I I • ,„ •
i I •
= a En I
I 1 I . j
1 , ; ! , I
I
; I
, I ;
I i
, ,
' j
1 i I
-
I !
1 1
il 1 - .
, ;• , ,
, i i I
, . -1
, _.1
I , 1
1 ,
1 - I I •
I I • I
I
, 1 I • 1
• I
j I
I I
I I
• 1 I
• . i - ' I • •
1 .
, _I
. • • - . ii • .
. .
. .
•
-
- -
.. I ' ' • I .
,.
I' I I - •
- ,
. .
_ .
' I .
. ' .-
_. . .
. . ,
. .
'.,...... ....
. .
......-,
. . ...
.. , . : ... . ... .
- . .... -.. -
. , . .
- . .
. . .
- - -
_ .. .. . . .
- . .
..
. . . . . .
- . ...
•
_ -
I . .
•
:,. • . .
_
I :
. . .
- 0 I
- • .
I ' .
_ . .
I I .
•
•• • , .
11 : I. –q I •
II -
I ■ - . .
_11, 1 • 1 1 - 1 I - • 1 .
<1 I _ 1
_ . . .
I .
• 1 - . ,e ;
C.,"t - I i ' ' '' -
I. -:!4
,
,
zra., , _..
, , I
• i,, : 1.1. .44 . .
I - 1
5 2
1 .
-
- 1
•
1 -11,
. 1
- I 1 i 0
1 - I • .
tri.
1 ,
. ,
i
i '.i • - • T
; 1 i
i I 1 I I
1
ol, , ! ' . • ; ; ; 1
I I
_ . .
I I i
• •
- , , • 1 ; . ,
.
,
• .
,..
I ,
, . . . .
• . I •
1 1
I . :
• I •
. .
. :
.•
- . _4!
et
. .
1 :
: I
I
, . _ i 1
- , I . .
, : . ,
. :
I I I i
. -
- . : : . i .
i I - :
- . 1
. .
. .
. -
. • • 1
,
1, • • o, ' '
. . ;
,
' 11TflITI111 .111- CY , i g ,
. I
, r it X it it it it it X ASX XXX , X : - i 1 i -i-I -
. ; CI 03 IA v. PI Q .:14 K! v: el Q ta t? -r. ri a - . - 1
1 j
, 1 1, IP ICi lii AP L. In oa al al 01 .
-
. 1.
. .
:
. . . . :
.
. I I
0"-,, 1
.- . : : - ; ' . .,
.
, . 30%.`J..111-IS talL3Vrt13d111 ng . .
. -
.
1
: . . -
. :. .
: . ; -, . , , ! ;
1 ,
.
.
Ii ..,--..„, .
: I .
:
• • . ;
- .. . - .
,
. i I Er) ; .
:
. . .
. .
1 ,
• - i !1 .
I. • 1
, . 1 .
:
: : . .
,
.
: -
- i
, .
_ . .. . . .
. .. .
• - •- • - • • •• - • .
-- -
@ E's jr
MAR 1 5 1990
Michele Dubow
124 West Stinson Street
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
919-942-6434
March 13, 1990
Moses Carey, Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell,
Shirley Marshall, Don Wilhoit
Orange County Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Board Members:
I am writing to express my concerns about protecting University
Lake watershed. I am a graduate student at UNC in Environmental
Management and Protection, currently working on my masters thesis,
which has to do with preventing nonpoint source water pollution. I
am also the Water Quality Conservation Co—Chair for the Research
Triangle Group of the Sierra Club (Orange and Chatham Counties). I
have been living in the Chapel Hill—Carrboro area for three years and
plan to remain here when I graduate.
I strongly support protecting the watershed by adopting non-
structural controls. My views are closely in line with those
expressed by Dr. Daniel Okun at the February 28th hearing; it is
ludicrous and bad public policy to degrade our high—quality drinking
water to the level of that consumed by some unfortunate communities,
and treatment technology is not a substitute for protection of the
source. In the long run, treating the water will prove to be much
less reliable and much more expensive, just like structural controls
such as retention basins.
Furthermore, we have a legal obligation under North Carolina
HB156 (passed June 23, 1989) to adopt strict controls if we want to
maintain the high classification status of University Lake watershed.
Minimum statewide watershed protection standards are now under
development, and any changes made now in our zoning ordinances
and/or requirements for structural controls may have to be amended
later if they do not conform to the requirements of HB156, (I
suspect that the proposed alternative strategies now under
consideration are mostly compatible with what the Environmental
Management Commission will promulgate by January 1, 1991, the deadline
for the new water supply watershed classification system and
statewide management regulations.) This important point was barely
mentioned at the hearing and I believe it deserves much more
emphasis in your deliberations.
Similarly, Dr. Okun made the point that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency is rapidly stepping—up development of new,
nationwide "maximum contaminant levels" (standards) for chemicals
potentially found in drinking water supplies. These will require
expensive monitoring and treatment if water supplies are not protected
from degrading sources. This is a valid justification for the North
Carolina legislature's action, above, and it is equally valid for the
action you need to take.
I was deeply moved by the pleas of landowners in the counties
for consideration of the potential value of their property. Perhaps it
is not unreasonable to expect OWASA customers to pay for purchasing
some of the land in the watershed through increases in our water
bills or a bond referendum. This strikes me as a fair compromise;
those who benefit should pay at least part of the cost, up front. It
also strikes me as a much more valuable way to spend a chunk of
money than on a study to evaluate extending water and sewer service
into the area.
Alternatively, or perhaps in addition, it seems prudent for the
Board to educate itself about the court cases cited by Dr. Okun. He
stated at the hearing that these establish legal precedent for a
jurisdiction to "take" land without compensation to protect its
drinking water; and they provide evidence to show that land values
in the watershed do not decrease in the long run. It seems wise for
the Board to "arm" itself with this information to justify a decision
unpopular with the landowners, whatever else is done on their behalf.
Finally, Greg Gangi of the Sierra Club suggested that some of
the inequity might be handled through the tax system. I am not
knowledgeable in this area, but I feel strongly that something tangible
should be done to address the legitimate concerns of the landowners.
We do not have to be completely unfair or arrogant to protect our
water supply. It is not too late to address their concerns; however,
I entreat you not to be swayed by either/or positions. There are
creative compromises waiting to be explored.
To recap, I strongly support a strict, non—structural approach
to protecting the watershed. This is the safest and least expensive
way to go, and it is consistent with upcoming federal and state
regulations. If a retention system is required, it should be a
regional one maintained by OWASA. I support retention of a critical
area designation in the watershed (it will probably be required
anyway by the state), and not extending water and sewer service. I
recommend that a formal cost—benefit analysis be part of any future
studies. Finally. I believe a proactive stance now will make it easier
to deal with these issues again when they come up with Cane Creek.
Thank you for considering my opinions.
Sincerely,
Michele Dubow
RECEIVED MAR 13 9930
March 11, 1990
- Mr. Marvin Collins
Orange County Planning Department
106 East Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, N. C. 27278
Dear Mr. Collins,
Please let me congratulate you for your presentation on the Watershed.
It clearly explained the "Work Group's" recommend.-=+.tions and your added
sliding scale impervious surface specifications. As a landowner in
Bingham Township an3 as one of the heirs and the responsible party for
an estate's property in the Chapel Hill. Township, I feel that the pro-
- petty owners in- the watershed have been imposed on unfairly.. I have
been advised by some real estate people that the refusal to approve
developments and the change in density requirements have devalued pro-
perty by atleast thirty percent in_the last four years (not taking into
accountfor atleast another fifteen percenti4044 )
I feel that there are some ways to protect the water quality and not
penalize the property owners as much. Please consider the following.
# 1 - Establish a reasonable setback from any tributary going to
University Lake.
# 2 - Have this setback em planted in trees which gives the
greatest protection from run off. contamination.
# 3 - Extend water and sewer service into the watershed so as to
eliminate this source of contamination.
# 4 - Build detention ponds that take care of a7,1 run off from
the impervious surfaces. This would elir a.'l phis source of
contamination. There seems to be great concern as to how
these would be maintained. If OWASA extends the water and
sewer into the arealthen I think the property owners through
a special tax that goes into a trust fund for- upkeep would
be fair. If OWASA doesn't extend its service, I think OWASA
should assume this cost.
# 5 -If the above is followed two acre lots could be developed in
the watershed with no-r deterioration to the quality of the -
water.
All I want is to be treated fairly and I feel OWASA with the support of
Chapel Hill is restticting the use of our property in excess of what is
reasonable and necessary and have refused to look at ways to reduce the
impact of the proposed limitations.
Please give this your consideration and make the points known to the
commissioners as coming from a concerned property owner
R�atSincerel joye„
Y
Strowd
Route # 2 Box 197 H
Davidson, N. C. 28036
- To: • Carrboro Aldermen & -
__- Orange County Commissioner
From: Ernie Patterson RECEIVED MAR 1 6 mp
Date: March 15, 1990
CIfc.s,�
Subject: Land use zoning for Orange County Watersheds
and other Rural land
After reviewing the different watershed zoning proposals, I
would like to suggest the following zoning proposal for all of
Orange County land not part of a municipalities zoning district.
1. The development density of all Orange County land be
set at a maximum of 10% impervious surface covering the
land. This would include all land not part of a
municipalities zoning district.
2. Land in any designated watershed be limited to an
actual developed density of no more than 5% impervious
surface coverage and the owner be allowed to sell the
other 5% impervious surface coverage to land owners in
Orange County who do not live in a designated
watershed. These land owners could use this purchased
impervious surface coverage allocation to increase the
density of their development in non watershed areas.
if the municipalities would also co-operate the bonus
could be used anywhere in the county and would allow
land to be developed to some designated maximum limit
based on location and available public infrastructure.
3. Gravel driveways would not be counted at 100%
impervious surface coverage but some lesser amount such
as 50%. This means the total square footage of gravel
driveway and parking areas would be multiplied by . 5 to
determine the amount that would be counted towards the
impervious surface limits.
4. Owners of property could sell up to 100% of their
density allocation provided they take the proper
actions to insure their land would remain open forever.
This would allow farming, dairying, or other uses that
would involve no impervious surface coverage.
5. All lots not on a public sewer system provided by OWASA
a municipality must have two approved sewage disposal
systems available. In the case of septic tanks this
would require two separate drain fields being available
and designated.
If this proposal is implemented it would allow for
reasonable development of Orange County land while at the same
time protecting our watersheds. The value of the density would
be set by market action and property owners in the watersheds
would be able to recover some of the income the lose by stricter
density requirements.
is
To: Orange County y (Comments on Watershed Zoning)
From: Ernie Patterson
Date: March 15, 1990
Subject: Analysis of land use patterns under the proposed
watershed zoning requirements.
In looking at the proposed watershed zoning requirements I
decided to not only look the typical lot sized as referenced in
Mr. Collins' memo of February 1, 1990 but also look at an actual
five (5) acre subdivision that is in the process of being built.
Attachments C, D, and E use the typical lot sizes as addressed in
Mr. Collins' memo and show that for five (5) acre lots as long as
the road is along the narrower dimension of the lot and the house
is built somewhere before the center of the lot the 6% impervious
coverage limit works fairly well. The two (2) acre lots all fall
under the 12% limit as long as the same conditions apply. The
problems occur when the width of a lot with road frontage exceeds
the length of a lot then the additional impervious ground
coverage caused by the extra road frontage will increase the
percentage covered to exceed 6% for 5 acre lots and 12% for two
acre lots. This effect seems to be constant with different
building sizes.
Attachment A looks at the Holly Creek Subdivision as built,
with the limitation that the road frontages are taken from the
subdivision plat, the driveways and parking areas that are
actually built were measured by pacing the driveway and
multiplying by 3 feet , and the house sizes were from a
combination of what the owners said their house covered and
pacing around them and calculating. This summary shows 3 of the
9 lots or 33% would exceed the 6% impervious coverage and if one
averages the lot road frontage and applies the average equally 6
of the 9 lots or 66% would exceed 6% coverage. The major reason
for this is that by counting the driveway as 100% impervious
coverage and the fact that most of the home owners have chosen to
build their houses as far back from the road as possible they all
have long driveways and a large portion of their total impervious
surface coverage is taken up by gravel driveways and parking
_ - - areas. What I would suggest- is that the county determine a
- "impervious coverage factor" for gravel driveways that reduces
their effective impervious coverage to less that 100% or exempt
driveways from the formula and reduce the total allowable
coverage to some lesser percent. If you are interested in the
effect of either of these suggestion I will be happy to rerun the
model using the options you specify.
If you need fully accurate measurements, Z am willing with
some help to go out with a tape measure and remeasure the lots.
1
•
Attachment-B- is-a-summary-- of-- the- effect--on the original
owners of. Holly_ Creek. Farm Subdivision if they had chosen to
subdivide the land into 2 acre lots instead of 5 acre lots. The
number of 2 acre lots was based on the number of potential perk
sites on the land, and the additional costs are from estimates by
contractors involved in providing the services. The net effect
is that the owners could have realized an additional 59, 400
dollars of profit over what they can expect to realize by
subdividing the land into 5 acre lots. In addition the real
estate agents in the community have lost $21 , 000 dollars in
commissions, the paving contractors have lost $125,000 dollars in
revenues and the surveyors have lost $14 , 600 dollars. Also the
builders of our community and their employees have lost the
chance to build 11 additional houses with a unknown loss of
potential income. All this is to show that as the minimum size
of a lot is increased not only do the owners of the land lose
potential income but many of the other people in our community
loose and ultimately because these people have less money to
spend in our county the county looses potential taxes. Because
of theses losses a possible compensation could be that OWASA
could issue bonds to at least pay the property owners for their
losses and both the county and the towns could work on providing
additional building opportunities so the total number of building
sites in the area is not reduced.
2
•
L
•0 w x N .O A Q 0. v .T .T 0.
13 41 a o N P M M v W N P
O 0 ti In •C u1 in. N It' d .0 IA
cc L U C
a a a x 10 �. v In M o b ox+ v
m a 1n IA IA P M v o
z o1 ti 0 .r I) .r `o •o 1.-:
r. C
w a
. O O — •o 0. P P O. co •0 P co o.
O L a A A A A M MOI/I
H W O CO I .O .QT v .NT 1Nn . •0 IA IA
ii
m O O a1 '
.0 7 o m
. . 0 •O
C =
-C g d1 CO
N M C C O 0 U a a > 0. O N 0. 0. C
6 C In v +1 ai n } +1 +1 . i y
u 0
z .. .0 a .. —
U 0 E
<
x x x C O N In N M •o .t a
A O P CO v .0 .o 03 0 0
- P •O In NI IA •O IA v v In .0
0 OI
7 0 a .
7 a A 0 v Al o A A . n Q .p aI
' �L1 L. M Al P .q O A N .p N .0
5 (y N N a CO a a N r 0 w N -p
E N C
W H 0
> a
u
qO� N CO O o o •0 P In 0 0. -. 4
w .MO 0.
N o in
C v �' d u
C
A r 5
C C O O O o O O O C M IA
S N .0 .0 o.
.0 A a0 e0 C
0 co 7 A N v PA PI M v in v .7
c a `-
al H
y a a
aJ
a7 L
C 01 01 a
a al 03 C 0 N V1 u1 V• v O N O
E C L 0 N N Al Al .p V7 N CO C
al C 7 Se .- C •0 •O .0 CO N •O '
7 O IO u
C a L1 o a
O.
0) 01 a N v O o O O N o Cr •O
a r NI N N A0 o
A
0 a IA AI
u a — L NI e•A v In M In N In M M C a1
. a Q E
w
O. O W
in'N 7
N 0 N
4a a ` uu CC an N 0 C 0 0 In ymy
a 4 6 1n IA 0
A u9 N N IA •o E
L a1• 0
Q 2 a al + 0 � Om 0
L a M C .O N O O P• b
CO PI 43 a A O a . W a A
IS M v M 5 N N Al N N Al N N N
O 4•
0 a 0 O tat C O O C Q p .o
J a N IA o O Q 0 C C p 0 U
II > v .0 v v PA In In v v v T 3 co
K O N L
0 L
O 3 C
N L 0 N al
d o 0 P o o O .0 Al IA A in C E
J O 01 N n O. N 0. -.4 v o v In
0 0
N
M m P In A CO In PA A V C ] .n^
• 6 V C 6 0 C a a E u C Q a 4 01 Al o q 0. o o O C A C O ua 7 0 a Cr) C In N 0 4 0 0 NI O a
N u o 7. 0. U 1n In a 0 A It. In In In .0 N a1
6 I0 r a, 4
6 a o a a C C P O C o O O o O o
-- p 4 v M v M y4 d 0 ? C Cr) C In 00 0
•
0 ul Y .0 d
o a < aa re d a .0
L 0 CO 61
a/ a0 P r •o o a o o e in o eo a o NAP ° NAN N a
a - i i + r Cl) N S i 1n t M. 7 0.
O o
.01 r s . c • t 0 t
w
4
g CO 3 t .ac
. .. - E .-
G u .— N M rt N .0 A e0 0. a I. m
u L , a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `a 1 c0.
a U IA J J .4 J J `J J J J 7
. ++ m ^
K. P i •• - •• x N
. I •t X i 0
•
Attachment B.
Holly Creek Farm Subdivision
Analysis of development options for Holly Creek Farms and
the effect on the owners return on their investment.
5 Acre Lots 2 Acre Lots
Number of Lots 9 20
Selling Price $510, 000 $720, 000
Expenses
RealEstate Comm. $51,000 $72, 000
Gravel Road (Base) $90, 000 $90, 000
Paving $115,000
Surveying $5,400 $20, 000
Total $146,400 $297, 000
Owner's Profit $363, 600 $423, 000
Selling the land in 2 acre lots would generate an additional
$59 , 400 to the owners . This represents a reduced income
potenital of $990 per acre based on a 60 acre subdivision. It
also represents a loss of $21, 000 to the marketing agents of the
community. The lot sales price for 5 acre lots is baised on the
acutall selling price for the lots already sold and the estimated
selling price of the 2 remaining lots. The cost of the 2 acre
lots is based on the cost of similar lots in the watershed and
was estimated to be $36 , 000 dollars per lot. Using these
estimates if the watershed' s 19171 acres were fully developed
there would be a potential income loss to the owners of watershed
property of $18,979,290 .
In in to In
•I• 4 d 11
F C-
4 1.1 u u
Q 4 4 Z
C F C C
v -, n ti
•.4 .44 •
3' IX X 7• 4M
m F. 04 G m in C-OH.
3 -.y ❑ L. 0 u - 3 ••. 0 u a u
4 3 IQ m a 3 . m ;4
> in -a... rr Q. > o".0 1I- rd 4.
4 • F ... F M 4 F ...
F 0: 3 7 F = 3 3
v 4' n N•0007 w0 nin ... C, 00 II •4 n Cllr ON O n '4'-+••CI ❑ H II
as 0 n n.0 .0Os, -. 0 n-,C'h-• •00 N • 0 n W-4 Olt n 0 .+vl` - .0 H
�+ J 0 NCIan vn 0....-a II n J 3 0 ...
3 q. 4... N ..Ey II 0 r.:644 1(1 0 �-. �•Ctij N
O m > HI> 11 3 .1.1 4. -.4 II
4 F N F H 0 41 F N F N
N m £ 4 Z m II rd 4 Z 4 Z m 4
.. 14 n 0. 4
..
•.4 0 0 0 E 11 II • o f 0 E: II
a EII ++ ., 4..3-.. II -o 01 N-., 44•..
II
X G 7+X74 X iT 7+ X74`X 74 iti H C XITXX X X74 XX >4 4
o in CIO' Nrd 0 Inm43N 0' a II m 0 -• RIO -. n@hr• P 4
❑ CS CI in 4 00 03Rr N1•. n0 H CICd nr1 40 CperNn in II
in
H m T I CU m Cln ri h I7 d -ODON O'rd Q'-466 0 -CDOC 0
4 F in
441 4.4 ... 4 F- a -1 -. N
m 7 1• II in 7 41
II 0 u 11 4 u 11
II a 0 m nnnn El a) -0.0-•m Inv H en -.l m nnnn m 41r'. n .- n
0X 0 > •. 0- •ONO N4) -OmvN nn 11 a >4. laCdDI Rr m •OCO CICI In H
Nt •• F F,4 n n O n 0. 0 O•Cl Or.. C7 eP H ... C- C.-r et H] 0 n C) 0•Cl E' -. Cl 4
in in m7m 4)0• Nn Or1 113ND 4 410 4 in 000 0(02 iv .4 v 0)r.13-. CO II
F. o.m 4., .-. 4" -. « -. .4 4 in F n CJ)43 CJ 4 .. .. ., 11
1110433 e 0 II +a 7 0 0 II
0_J 44 44 1.1 I- II o4+ ., ti 4
u 4 0 m N J 41 4
¢ UFi 4 m I H H
0 e 41 7 I C 0000 n OM1erN rI 4 0 7 I m 0000 0 Om01 C) H
•0 F 0' I er 0 40 O N 40 40 0 7 0 in 4 4 Cr' 1 ea i N 0 40 Cl .O 0 er 0 n 4
CO F a 1 a 16 O.0• •O 0, m n n n 0 -• 4 00 1 1 3 1 4 m O` 40 0' Cl r n n 0 -• H
0 • I m4>' .4 CI NIN in 4ESICIn CI II O, I o C inP, 41rs a) .-.NCIn CI II
U N 1 a a .
Y Z N F Z
X Z 4 U. IL ' N 4+ 1I_
II
. m H 0 en 7• n n n n m 0 0•r.•0 N I 4 7+ n n n n a) n 0' n P. CU M.04 m O'm o •+❑ NCO n 0r,O'N O 4 CM em er
.,ONm n OrtO'N 0 II
0 o f 0) 3 0 •O.O q l) 0 v CO C7-. N 4 J r- 00 3 0 •0 40 v n 0 tt CO VI N 4
•O J m 4."0- -.N C] Kr Cl .,-+N C") N H m •.. -.NCI er (I - -•NCI CO 4
F ea m > in N tw CR 41 > 4
.. O w Or. 4. II
4+ ... 0 .c m F m II
PI F
4. a 4+ F 0O. II 4-4.3 F0a. II
•.I F. ., m 4
II 4+ 3
m +' 3 > en 0000 0 0000 0 N C 0 01 0000 0 0000 0 I
0a mw tJ .1 0000 00 00000 0 II 4)11-1- to c 000000 0 0000 0 I
0 7 4 EJ -. CI rI N rI C) El C']Cl C') Cl II .4 Cl C) CI II C7 CI CI CI CI CI I
0 N e. .. II 0 er .Y
N a •1
co 2-4 C n •• 1
3
in ++ 1
rn a4J 41 0 O N a o O
C E 0 m 0
•-. mJ 7El
in nnnn n NN [MN N N o(OI rn n III nn n NCtlNN N
-a in 0 41 4 4 I m m
.-. 4 X +1 41 4 4 47 4 F
-.4 m F C 1. u 4 0 4 u
3 u Qd in 0 It •P... 4Q
CO F Q +e F a er. 4 o r..
.rwnJ .0 0000 0 u 0000 O F 4 Jy
...1 0 m++ 0000 OH NNNN 41 41 N 1- 0 44140 0000 0 001nN VNI 0
4C a0 43 Li. mmmm m > -.«.+-. -. > 4 00 el U. 00 CO0Oa 1 CO «-- 0-. -'O 11 014 F r•M1CtiR N o r ' 'N N 0 4 C. I- • hN .r. 41 NN N 41 Y Q 0' w . w w N u m 03 m m CQ u 4 .0 Q er 4.. .y -. .1 1-m 03 02
eru Ne eR U) NNNN N 4 •P e1 CA CYNNN N
c .44. 410 74 74 II cn 0
•.t > Fa., r OOrO WO OM1na' 410 4 C-•+ - 00h0 '4 0I%n0' 03
a .. 7.. .4 4• N•O .O C7 0. O N..EI'0 a0 N 41w a+
.. 1,KO 2 .1 4a ea CI 47 4' C) .O •O Q C FII Cl N J-• +a ea CNI 4 Rr r) G. 40 V'N C04 Cl
•.. a
in o C -. .0 N 4 • 0 C
7 7 in of 3 ..I m -. II 0.3 J 0 .r
01 0) 300 0 J 0 0 J
H 10., .r m r m
040 > 4: 01 40 HONG n 00-nN C! Q a n01'. O n 00.nl. CI
m m c. in 4a .0 CI -0 •O 0 CI 0 0--• •0 m 41 47 el 43 4a F m a F. •o .4 CI et 40 a 0 -+N N. N C a F 42 -- Cl l•.43 ' -'N N I' N
4 a•+ Ism 41 0 0 m m w
> 0 E o > 3 0 > 3
..QJm. ftQ v a CC
4i
C. 4 0
G in IA
C
43 C w a3.-1a a ++
41 30 a - 53-1 41 413.441
as 4+ F 044 F 41
E? e. u r. u a v 41 E u F u Ia a • E -P u F u m a • u F u i a in
d I. 4 3 41 7 Q F+• 7 -, e11 Q L-.. 3., can
u t. 1 0 n er 3 m E al A n 3 3 I41 e C. 1 44 0.er 3 in I m a.er 3 in
NI 4 in Z 7•En C... rd Z in En F 44 U n Z a.07 C. N Z 7•co r-
44 0 H mx I- mx 0 H m F 41
+. 41 > >
eE 0 QE QE 0 4 a
O 0
a a
I-
u u
C C
v ••
3. aX X
m A. 0a 0a -
3 ,. 0 .+ 3 .4
CU 3 . m . 10
> v43 w N 4.
-1 a f-
f. Cr 3 3
o +' w WO• ' n N mmKP •-. •• 0 0
m 0 w 0.O Is V Cl In 43 CI N 43 in Cl 01
. _.1 a 645.4r: N 06666.•I r Cl I'
3 ea..W •. 43•M
0 m > m > m
3'• as F Ci f- 01
•• N aEam Ea 4
a -. r a a F-
O «. O E O E a
G
Eno ... �X X X X X X X X X X 0
w X X
43 ID OC1 Cr- v' v 01 CJ C10 N U 0 0
o C1 0 0 P W O N C1 .0 0 m X > 10 O
-14 061107 W .6476 in 3 E In 6
F f-• w .. .... .. -. .. 0 ►. .■
m m 3 0
o
C_ rn -,.. 11 If00.O0 C1 n.. n O. co F m N
O C >w C1CN•0 In 00• Ill N a V C]
U ••
A. A. •• V V•O v N O Cl V •0 -. lo... N .0
C GI 3 4 Cd N It 0• 0• C N N C1 Cl E m > Cl n
... r- a N 4.' CV•-■w..i w r.,-1 « «1 « r. 43 a V -,
0 Y w 0. 'C7
EI-1-1
a E
10- C. M
x
O 3 I a 0 0 .4 0 n O N O N .0 ¢ W
i.. 12, I OI N)O) 0• 0.403 .4 ('0 Z 3
a w l o g moN W •' 43n0n P
43 • 1444 N.-1.1 .-1 Cl PNl'. N I 0 CI
CO I O C ^I -•
a CC O -•
m E
U 4.i IL O 0
cal U. O-"
.. . . nnnn m no• nl' N - II-
4 0110! .-10Nm in ON P N 0
a s Co 3 C •0-0 7 in 0 7 In -' N U
w m a . - N1C Cl •.-. 07 N P 9
O 10 a > x 43 •00 Q
O oIw F O m m K
T4+ f- 00. .. CI 3
m
o 3 >o a 0 000 0 0000 0 0 0 •4 0• 0 u us Cc
Ll
J44 U C 0000 0 0000 0 •0 In V V' N mW U
If. +• 0000 0 0000 0 �
4. .. C1 C1 C1 C1 C7 Cl Cl Cl (1 C1 a 6 •0 Cl In 0 m W
O 6. •. a 3zQ U.
w 3 CI a +1 is ILL D
.0 0 3 4 'C 0 I w 41' 01
a• n w nnnn n NNNN N > f('7 OX• -• P ac CO n
J m a 0 > CO 40 W n u um 0
P a F 0 U X O. 11 3 ..
a C F u E U ❑ In T 10• G O 3-
c . CC in in '-4 -. F I-. CC
4f. a 3 3w> W
.0 4> 0000 0 OCInh1 m U , .. . 0• -. C1 w 4W E
4.10 40 0000 0 On Nn 0 d > m > 0 I •0 V mop_ 1-lo
0 O a W 07 W CO CO m •+•.I O -• -• F • a. V N CO •0 3 11 E a
+. IL F N N I- N N M1 ft N h N C a 4 E N P -• 0 13S.-. E
.,.... .. .. 0111 m 07 CO O aH•r NN .n. N w I-I W £-0
3 oI � In 0 N N N N tl 1Ei m F W E
= C 3 s'! c OONO V ON nO• m .. or- N 40 v a11Q x111
O .+ 43 N•O.Of 0. K-•0. 0 0• > 04.. a. a ECW <0
a .• 43 en Cl•0 •t fl •0 .0 a N N C1 .. moo
a O C -• v 4 J F F'•• •>
e1 3 "J a 3 &. 0 '0.0 C N
0 A J CO > 43 OI ..
.. 11 Q F 0.4 F w
43C 01 c nOh0 n OPnr. Cl o w m P V N 0 3 3 •• 3
C 4 43 43041 -0 0 MOO-4 40 0143 w N -• Cl 0 w 0 0
O 1:14 u -. Cl 't•0 V .-1 N N V CU 0. F 0 3 .4 V m 0 '0 m
ulpm E •. J0 > a a
O > 3 m ill m F F .0 0 f-.0
-MC W DOM n.> 30> 3
U
C SOS... of
++ 0
M l/ u
C .. m 3.. m 0 3.4 a 4 0 .0 1 4 d
a 43 1 0 4 F m F 010 1 11
E 0. u f. u 0 a m u F u el a m 0 a u m
.0 .. Q f.„• 3.1 01 < I--..43 ...1 Ol a m m • 1 11 4 F 0
u F I 10 aa3 4 14 aer3 m I- A. f. C. 0 4A 4a
4 u nZ =•Ill C. 111Z3•.A F u v v u +. n
43 m i- a i- 11 a a ¢ a 43ac aC
43 a > > I I I I 4o4c c4
Q 0 d Q n 111 In CU CM u,. 1.- u
N 61 m m
m m a m
F F F
u u u u
- Q Q 4
C C C C
no ro ■N
7' 0T"� C ~ 71 mX X•�
m F 0 q 00 m F 0 m 00
3 ....0u 0 .. - 3 . ..0u �. ...
0 a m to m , m m
> a'.0w N.w > er•04.
N'+.
-+ m C- -• F m F •. F
F Z a S F = 7 a
32 La _ u
+' 'W Nn 00 mkr.. ..('1 00 •V m ?0'NC'1 N mnN (1) 4'
m a m «NCUn CO 0 m-oaf--+ -no • a a kr ta NO -. 4R'NnO- 'U
•• J 0 NCI¢n CIn 0-,- .yni -'('U -., 0 Itd' 4 in 0O•(.-'w w
3 4♦+- 0. 3 4++.. 44...
a m r 0 > 00 > m > -
0f. U, . m F m 1-
N O r o Ems Cd q E q EM
r. 1.4 4 d -I 14 C. C.
•-• 00 ° E •.+ CE 0
m m44-4 ++•.. a CO+'++ ++-..
X C 7TXX74 X7. XXXX XX C XXXX X XXXX L- R
0 m n C1.0 .0 -3 0 0 CO-0 n Cr 0 m rl n .0 et in 0 CI N N et I
0 nO' O.O on C) OCNn in C) CAIN W -• NC7.. -0 .4' 1
a a X I N00 •0 .a •300(1 cr.: Wu7Givh -O nl'O'-• m
- F In -- .4 i. 111 w 1
m 2 q m 7 m
R ° N A N v 01 n nn n Cm -a.0- W tom 01 • n n n n CO nnn .. n n
c X c >
4. m-3 N a N 43 -O m m•N 0 n c >" on N N 7 CO 43 0 CI C'I in
m .• C. C.•• 0nO0 0' 0 Cr(I (A-• 17kr +. F F.• tl•nOY] C7 0'N0' . ('I
W C w o o 0W-• V' Cr C] nn0•• m0 C O M M 0-CJ •.0 (7 kr•ONO n
a•' F a COY .... .. w .. m F 0.CA+• .-1.. . •• ..1
001112 E 0 +> > E ° ..
RI J +4 +1 1-1 p. O 4 •-4 E.
u m J m J
as
II F F R
LS 0a aai a 1 m 0000 n Q1. vN 17 11 F > 1 m 0000 0 0W Okr C7 II
43 C Q I cn W 40 0 Cu -a 43 0 kr 0 0 R c. c.' 1 cm 7 rd O .0 CI 'CI 0 sr O in R
01 ‘ 14 11:141 G0-.CICr. CO 0 nn0 .+ 1 014 14:110 W0 .00• C7 nUnnO .' R
a I m+• ...Cj0r. d• +4 N0 0 CI 1 U, 1m4.6 unnnr m ..N(70 CI 11
UN 1 ° - I °N I ¢ o ^1 1I
O F
11
Z +• II_ I Z m 0 IL II
O n1 1. = nnnn m n0•n.0 N 4. e1 s nn nn W n0' 01'. N II
+'+v-O4a m 0'm CI -.ONCO R1 0N0'Ca O o m am a1 +.0N W n 01.0' C11 0 II
a c O F m 3 c 404)a u> O tl'm C7.1 N J F (A 3 c •O'3 q• n 0 Cm(7 .• N n
43_4 m m.. «Nma (7 -...n1(1 N m 0.+ .-.Nr a• CI -•-•Nr N 11
CC a m >: 4. 01 II >.w 11
in 0 '>_ a1•• F ° at•.1 F u
•.. ° .0 m F m A m F m II
00 y FQa F+' (-00,
0 . F .. q 0. m 11
N ••• + 3 a 01 0000 0 0000 0 C 3 a CI 0000 0 0000 0 1
v C4) U C 0000 0 0000 0 1 q+• U C 0000 0 0000 0 II
0 ma. .• 0000 0 0000 0 1 U'r^ •.• 0000 O 0000 0 II
a1= R CJ •• NNCIICd CU 0('1(7(7 C'7 1 •-1 NN Cm rd N NCJNN N R
C W cr .. 1 C C ••
X C W m I 4.1 m q II
-0 m •r1
.-s ..a W 0 3 1 m0 0 II
••• n++ m0 II W 0 R
m E ° W O
L7 m.J BC'I m 0000 n NNNN N II 0C0'I m 0000 in NNNN N II
m m
.. m 2++ e F N
.-• m F C F u R
Q as rn rn I f Qa
FQ++F o n
a• m. ` 0000 O F 0000 O F 11 .a +a+ 0000 O OC7n0 m II
1. ° m+; 0000 00 NNN(11 N q R R. a m++ 0000 0 OUNn 0 n
.. C •-w- ° m(I, W Wmm CO > -+••-•-. -. > u ° ° q1L al 03 m CO CO -'•'0 --• •.
•W a q 0 u. 1. r.I N N N O N N N f. N ° II
LL F nn.n -. ItPtiM1h n n
.. u a � -1-.-.-. 1+ mmmW M u n x 1 a a .-. .+ . -.
a1• roJ~ rn ((I NNNN NX X u ao 1 W NNNN N WmWW W II
C ..'F++ c
•.. > f. .. c 00n0 70 0nn0' 00 u c++ .0 OONO kr 0nn0• 03 p
N-0.007 Cr C) n.•O'O Cr C) n m-. ++ N'O 'n(7 0' (-. ..0' O P n
•• v03.4 44 = 04Okr CI -3 . -O kr NN C7 J -07 - • C n•.. a q a C -. N II m o C »
n
a m P C O J J -• u 013 J m R
° ° II CO a J U
O
cm r¢ m1 r nano n 0a'nt• CI a a 1n01tio n 0alnn Cl u
m m F m +1 -43M-0-0 0 000.. -0 to ++ '0 CI .0 •0 0 N 0 0• •■ -O n
F q F 12 *-1 C7.7 '0 17 C .4 N N 7 N C 4 F '0 .0464 7 .. N N 7 N R il II
• m tXa' II
> 000> 3 12 I II
C W m
C
C .1 03. 0 A • 3•. • a .°. • 3 1•• q m 3 .1 m
m ++ F ° 0F0 F ° mf0
E a u (. am- o uCU0. m a u4Uma m of U 'Fav •
4 ‘. 0. a 7 a F•.1 7•.1 mm ... 4f.44044 e1 4r-44244 v1
u F 1 m x0'3 W E I m m03 me F I m a°'3 m I m atr3 m
0 u nZ am F+• (112 am 4.•.. u 1(5Z am F (11Z am f.
j0 • ~ > m ~ r s1 W > I- >
a 0 CE 4E 0 a a
a a
a. m
U f-
u u
Q Q
C C
a .. •r
7, • X X
N F 0 m 0 •
3 •" o u •i u
.L. m . N . .y
> er.4 4 Cj 4L
m I. ., (�
• Cc ] o
a w in
m a en NCIC'30 P asoEIC7 .0 n (1 Cd
v r > >
•• O 0.4•ON .0 0 NC11NN ni C7 N
3 a. +A•+ +s..,
0 m > m > at
-• N aE m E m m
C .-1 n o. 0.
0 •.4 o f 0 E w
a 03 +3 .. {a•. >
0) C X.G X X r+ 74 7ti td 7• 0 7: .t
++ N QKCICD CO COC71C') n K U 0 0
a RaO-a v C') ON C) •0 0 > n O
r 0)(0 14 c11 P I<K I m -0 a' � ri tli m T E 0.
ai Cd
F 0. in v.... .. w w 0 '-. r,
m N , •
C a u
r. al N N n .0 in (1 n.. n O• m 1. CO N
O C > 0. CICON•0 In 0P1.-.C') Cd • tit C1
U +a F. F. .. d`R -0tt C1 0C') d• .d n-. K .0
C m 3 N -'.0,0O] ID '7NNCI CI E N > C7 C7
a I. 0.10 +3 N-,-• •• r, ..w .. w .. I.40 a
0 40 I. 1- j r~C ]
m I
4. F. M
a N x
O I m 00 •+0 n OC)I0N .0 Q W
F. rr I or 0103001 IT 0-• Cn•. N I >
m In 1 a N COmNm •. .0n 0 0) 0• 0
4.0 • f N Y I. C') 0-f•- 1,- 1.- K 01 at
C n I n C •. ..
m CJ IC 0 w Q
U + Ii 0 0
C w ti. O 0
M Gil a nnnn 0) 00 0)1' CV U.
N a.111 el .•0010) Cn Oruro 0 U.
F N 3 C •0•O n O C CO C7 -. N
N N m .. ••NC7d• C7 •••. NCI N N > CCD
3 en m > ad ++a❑ At
I N4N 'O• t 0 CO CC
-6 W
+' F A CL m 7
m
Ca o▪ 3 > e. 0000 0 0000 0 0 n .1 u uccc
..J 43 U C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -O N -• N C' N U. W
n.+- . -, NN NN 0 C01CCIC')) C01 C07 ur C') -O CI ICi O 0)W <44 0
0 a -.
• m m • 4a 4a a U.
a U. o
r
CO 0 m +F+ N N
0) 11 N nnnn n DI DINRI N > .T-. CI In rd
0.0 0 J (e m > d N Cl 0 u u co i. m F e U 2 n N a0 >a C F u 0 ei P G. @ O C « C Q
In m hi 0.e F a O 3 In> W
0. F 0 • N Co O.
s +' • 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI n CI CO u •.,•. •
40 m N V 0000 0 0nNIn 0 ¢ > N > 0 N •O (1 N ma ►£. 0
a 0 m U. CL CO CO CO CO •.-. 0 .-, I F.+0 a. et CU CO 40 3 m Z m
44 3 F. KKKK K KKKK N C m o E K O u7 • fi,•A Z fi
3 e. Q to NNNN CU
!DOOM m 0 0.1-►. tl 0 L7 Cl ,.„
C 1 .. Cu .. 01 a >. w z
d F 0 ..
+4 *. a OOKO d• oKnO' co •.. • F N •0 u .0 C XC1
0 .. 40 N4O .00I CO. N•• 0' O P > a++ a aa0.x Q0)
a .. +a a. F]-0 P CI •0 -0 7 N N CI •• to O C E m E -*0 C •.. a NJ F Fw s
01 3 J In
.0 F 0 3 r,d: en N
C 0 J 3 m 0 U N r
01 ,C
CO > M +
.. m C N
++Q en c 0 0 K 0 In 0 0.)K CI 4 4 0) .FO O• d• CU 0 3 3 •., O
C N 40 -0(1 .0 .0 0 CI0P.. 41 •. a+'.-. N w C') O 01 N m
oa 4. rJ .4 CI740 .11- ..NN Cr N c C o a
..a N 3 v
N u N m E ••.J a > m m o > 3 N o m
um u a d 1 Cl) O *CC a m 4N A
{� C Eoe ' 4.. as
C
• u V
C .-1 m3..■1m m3•+ a In4 •
01 40 F 0 N 1. m F m N F. d 4 N N F N 4
E n u F u N.a m u F. u N a • O r Y ti
.0 .• ( 1. 3.4 a Q F+. 3 w a m M m d F 4 N F. 4
u F I N aa'3 N I N o.1333
u w NA 10.0 u InZFO1 m CUZCO 4. u u n u � m
4' a a> > I I I I 0' I C • `N
Q It) Cd n N at- u,e N u
In 0 0 In
a, m m a.
h F
U U u
u
-C Q < Z
C C C C
a m 74 X a m
41 F O HI 0 • • 1-O HI p •
3 -. 0 u O u - 3 •-I 0 u
m 7 • . • m 7 C •
> 01.. 4- Cde- 7 7.0w No-
h L-
.. F • F w h
h 0: 7 7 f- CC 7 7
b in In 0 0 In In N
4? -0 Cr N -. ❑ v-+-+f7 0 0 N +a 4p-+ er H) et 40 r) r) n N 0
m 0 0 I�WU- Rr 0 W-*Cf--4 400 N m o 6 Ogm43 N 6 re.0r) M1 N N
a J 7 7 . U EI J 7 7 U i N
.. 0 -•01[76 C7 f) o.... .-(y ..N N ++ o hYf7P') 00w- -I ..
H
3 a.y.... .43-4 N 3 04 40-.4 .p..4 N
o m > HI > N o •> HI > N
• F • I- N • HI F Inc.. N
N HI E m r 6 N N 6 r 6 3 HI N
•• 11 a 4 N •+ n c 11
.+ 0 0 0 E N •.I 0 E 0 E II
.0 CO 43-4. +44 N v W 4?•-I .IA•.+ N
74 C >4 74 74 X 74 A' 74 74 74 X X 74 N C )4 74 74 74 74 34 74 74>4 74 N
O m -•fti00 00 U)W .01`• fro N m P-Cr 0 C Cr n031.w 1 Cr N
0 ^•H4ON ••0 WCCdr, n0 N et Cti4Or3 -0 nwChtr N II
N m X nisi .0 ci.0 •00)0[11 O`C'd u a O]Id ti d' U a'-0N0 I'. n
-. F e1 ..--I -. N F 0 -. N
0 7 HI U HI 2 HI H
H o u N C u N
-0 ay .4 m nnnn CI CO 40.0.•CO In.- N 01 .. • nnnn 03 U11Nn •. N) II
CK C > •. Cr4ON0 011.0 43CarN nn N C >4. nCNNRI- 03 •0 CO C3 C) n N
HI •+ F F.41 n RI O n Er O 04 C7 Pr 44 C7 et N .'. F F-. tr ill 0 f) C3 O.C) O. -. C7 0
WI C HI 7 HI •d'NOCI MCI nNa•+ co O N C HI 7 HI 03-. 00• N C7n400- 40 N
+• F a m as .... .. w .. N m F a Cn .1 -.-. -. « N
O 0 IP 7 E
0 N .P 7 E 0 II
m J ++ 42 I. I- H 0 4a I. f°- N
1. 0 N J N
u m J m N HI N
1E F F N F F II
u F HI I HI RI
OQ m 3 I m 000❑ n OI.trCd C3 N C 7 I m 0000 O 0030tt C7 n
40 C 0. I en CO.0 O N -0 40 0 et O Ln N F er I ea et N 0 -O C3 44 0 et 0 n N
N 0. 0 l a HI 4r0•-00• W nin RO N owl 1 b 4 03 0• •00- m nnn0 •• N
o • 1 m42 -•CInl' er -.NC7n C') N U. I m++ U)Nnr3 W ..CV PI C3 N
U n I O C II n I o C w
N C 0 1 1301 C 0 p
n 1. N Z F N
•- 74 Z • LL U.. N . HI IL n
0 ea a nnnn co no•r•-0 01 N 4a a a nnnn CO NPnr• N N
++v-0 ++ HI erleen .40rd133 n ONO•N 0 O o e'HIa -4 0Nm n 01.0. 01 0 N
m. 0 . 04- m a c 40-O a n ❑ H CO C1-• N N J f- CO 3 C 40-0 eh H) 0 er m r) -• N N
•0 J HI m-.I ..rd C7 et C) -•.4 N C3 N N HI m--I -.N C) 0 C7 -... N C7 CU N
IS C OA m > x O /F an 6 >4v N
IA 0 9- 131.. F P 0 01•. F N
-.I 0 .0 • F • N .0 10 F HI N
0 -I h •• HI p m44 mCaa II
O .4 +f co 3 0 at 0000 0 0 0 00 0 u C 3 > en 0 00 0 0000 0 n
-a C -ia U C 0000 ❑ 0000 0 II m.+ U • 0000 0 0000 0 N
ma as I. -. 0 000 0 0000 0 N U •1. --I 0000 0 0000 0 N
en 3 C C11 N U . I-I ti..-.-. .. C'3 C3 C3 C7 C7 N -. r.1 .. -. .. -.-. .-e 44 r II
C N C 0. .. II
i` C to m -« to HI
II
xi..-4.4. 41� 0 3 HID 3 n
0 e`o 010° 0°0 n
00 HIJ 7C1 m UUInn to NNNN Cd 0 P 0 nnnn n NC11NN N N
10 0 • HI I 10 II
.-. HI 14- • f- .N • F N
-• HI f- C F U C F u
Q U -. .1t CE m HI da.. << n
- F C-P h 01 a 0 I. 0
m•iln.J4. 0000 O F ❑00❑ O F J` ❑000 ❑ OC3nr1 m n
I. C 4+` 0000 O HI NNN0 CO HI V- o HIY 0000 0 0 if)_ Nn 0 N
•w C ..� 13 m11. mmmCO CO > -+-•-••• .4 > 0 0 HILL 7:1030303 CO 0 -. -. H
.A 0 m 0 LL F • R M1 N N N O F.r.M1 M1 N o IL F h h N N r• r-P.P. r• r• P
.. u Q W. ........ -. u 07 CD W W 03 u 0 der ...4 .. .4 w
a 0 HI.0 a m N 0 0 N N + en W NNNN rd m m W W m n
-4 > Fv+C. .0 00r•O �O OI,UO• 03 4 C.• .0 001 0 Rr OIhnO• CO U
-0+1 7-• •4 .+ N 40-O r7 Cr 0 R-•0.O Cr 0 m.. 'P 0-0 .0 C3 Cr r--.O.O CT N
•-•am3-• Jo era C7.Oet C7 40 •0[0101 C') • J-.' -0 a C3.0et 40 41 .[1010101 C7 N
•.•.0 m O C -. .0 N m o C -.
7 7 6 x 3 J m .. a 3 J m
nm Q CQ J CU). J
0-0... .-1 • I .4 m
aC > Q a I 01 Oh0 n 00•Inh CI et a 4= n0hQ U) 00- nr. C3
HI HI h HI I ++ 4)C3 4)40 O el 0 Cr•• -0 7 +a 40 C7 40 40 0 C3 O 0• •. -0
1. m m 143 -.C'Iet 43 C -.NNa' (31 C a F .0 ..C) ? .0 Rr -.NNR CII
IO HI ..
--CJ44CCC I a 0 Ca 3
C 10 N •
4a 0 m m 0
C •wo HI 3.•• 6 a HI 3-• HI a .. HI 3-. m HI 3•41 m •
HI +2 F o as F HI F 0 HI F HI + F o HI F HI F o HI F HI
E 0. u F u HI a HI E u F u •v HI E n u I. u HI 7 m U F U HI a m
r. w a F w 7.. 01 7 < F-.. 0 •• a 7 w et F.. J.. en C F.6 m-. 01
u F 1 • 0.et 3 AI E I a d 013 a E F I 00.03 re 1 U O.er a HI
10 u InZ 0103 F+• NZ 0103 F•• U IAZ 7'03 F NZ ?f3 F
+` F h 0 I- 0 M H HI -' HI
+4 HI > 11 > HI •
et O et et E 0 C C et
In In
In Y
u u
d
a a
le .4 4.
a m X X
m F 0 a 0 at
3 •A .3 ..I 0 �.
In 3 . 0 . N
> to-434- C446
w m F .4p
F 3 a 3
v In In n
43 NNCO m 0 (ONCr .I w II 0 0
In a In CO 0..0..-0 -.0 w .0 C7 (7 •O in a 0 N _
la-.4 J 0 NInn.O '0 ONNNN N a N N
3 41. 43 .-u 43 44
a m > a > II to en
at.4 �u m E o N F
C .. N C. C. n el OA 034ai .E4 y0 n 1. a
m F X X X X X N2424 :4 X a 0 X X
3 m 03-+ NN N 0 r C] n N II U 0 0
v C'1-'•�0 C0 0 NC7 .0 O > u7 0
J In T Cr:(ti It C0 N .o ri ui 3 E Iri N
F F at ...y «I .4 .41 0 f4 w
O 0 3 m
FF. rn '.ai b Inn '0n C7 n., n0- (O F. 00 N
a C > ' C'1 co N 43 u7 O Q N ('1 N In q• C]
U C 0 a m O Ion I N N of 01 CU M 0 E m > ('3'1 ('3
F C.01 +' N•,,-•-. - .... .. ..r .. r 43 Q. Cr
43 a 0 a a 0 .. CI
a i+ t•r I- E I`H
J
a 3
t.- F
x
a 3 I In 00wQ n ONON -0 a W
I- ce I co CV CO O CO 0' 0-' CO -1 N E >
o m 1 la I/ CO(pNI .0nOn 0• p .
C
al N 1 as a -1�4.w4 .4.4 .N-I 0 h 1ti K N C 'C NO
U i. m 0
r
C ' ]Li 1L 7
m
e
I .j1 a+ nnnn 03 nTnt'. N Q'
•.
'1 'm o I -'ON0 In OI'-O•N 0 -
m h 033C -0-0040 0 of C7 .4 N
m to M .o.' wNC'70 (7 w-' NC7 N 'a j 0
3 on a > m ++ 70 a
a a1.A F
IA ;4C:13. Ill ha W
++ m
a 9
3 n u� U o a 0000 0 0000 0 Q C .0 q N u
J ++ U C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0• 03 0• 0 to IL W
'4 •I 0000 0 0000 0 m
v- ..I w.. .1 .w ., N Iri N ICi o 41 L41 a
a 0Y H
In 3c' IL
n In HI F +> V U. 7
43 0 0 0 a W 7
on 0 h ... m D U7
aFI f0'1 to n n n n n a' X X X LO 01
NNNry N >a > O. I'- 0- or u u(0 0
J 4' a F a U X a
C +" a U E rt 0• m: CD µ E0 >
• • r
'a F m uI> W
s 40 0000 0 0(76 f 0 u ..v.. w m mUi d
a s a U. 0000 0 OnNn O a > m ): 0 N .0 ' m m0.0
In
••I Y. C- • NNNN r% M1NM1N N C as a E 0 N N 0 a EFy 7: E
3 a Q W N ry N N N 107 C IA CO .0 a I-M (1 n N N .w .s
E w N -0 N o 74sl E43
.0 = op. 0 Iti
o .-' 4' N-O0 -CC') (�(N0 a 7 sy ohi N 0 u m0Q xN
110.0M E a(0
SI .+ C C N`() q•(7 �q'NN [0 .r IW a C 4 ��W E +�
In o C " A m J
013 .J0 a �.ia =IN
A 0 P. 0
C C7 J 3 a1CU m= a
o Cl) > 43 co .I
++a at c 6 o (. 0 n 00-fr. C'1 m a o m 0- 0 N 0 23 a lo
c AI v -0 C] 40.a 0 PI 0 0• .• .n .+ 40143., N w 01 a a M m
u ra F A •'C] 0 .0 0 -'NNR N 0. C o a •wa m a a 'n
a > 3 E -.4 J a > m In
a m In In
W U1 3 i M a m u y m u
G a> 3 0 > 3
+, 0 E0E.+ 00
.46.; u
a .+ m 3.+ m 03.46 IN * re
ID 4a F a 1a F. m F q At A. to 4 II m F 4140
E 0. up- 1.144.0 In u F U IN v a
a F-•. 3 .' el 0 m 0 m a 4 U C.S
u F II II a.or 3 m I Al n o 3 a F a R F r
o • nZm(A m N3 a.40 r a U a U M � a alA
n
Q • Q Q U7 (y • I (y ms ® F I- u• I>±r u.+ r u
To: Marvin Collins
From: Ernie Patterson
Date: March 15, 1990
Subject: Rual zoning and apartments in a house
As part of your considerations of the new watershed zoning,
I am requesting you consider a modification to the requirements
that the separate "efficiency or other residential unit" that is
allowed to be included as part of a house under the present
zoning be modified to allow that unit to be detached from the
primary residence if it meets some stricter criteria. The
present zoning states that the unit may not exceed 25% of the
size of the house and in the case of some of the houses being
build could be as much as 1500 square feet. What I would like to
propose is that for lots of 5 acres or more to insure the "other
unit" be truly an apartment the limit be reduced to 20% with a
total living area size not to exceed 800 square feet if it is
build as a separate structure. This would allow some one living
a track of land to build a unit that could serve as guest house,
residential unit for aging parents, as light rental unit as
allowed under the present zoning without changing the
present zoning but allowing some flexibility in their r u of se the
their land.
•
1
g.-; - 9d
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: ORANGE COUNTY B ARD OF COMMISSIONERS
FROM: MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
DATE: APRIL 2, 1990
SUBJECT: PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS -
UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED
COPIES: JOHN •LINK, COUNTY MANAGER
GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, COUNTY ATTORNEY / .
As part of the Administration' s recommeridat ion on proposed
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (Action Agenda Item #K-E) ,
a modification to the Planning Director' s sliding scale of
impervious surface ratios was proposed.
The Planning Board' s rationale for recommending the
modification was to establish more incentive for the creation
of larger=than-5-acre lots. The same basic limits of 6% for
5-acre lots and 12% for 2-acre lots would still apply.
However, a change would result for lots larger than 5 acres.
Instead of a 4% cap at 6 acres, the 4% cap would occur when
lot sizes reached 7 acres in size.
Initially, the modification was viewed by the Administration
as an enhancement of the scale. The benefits to be derived,
however, are only for lots between 6. 1 and 7. 0 acres in size.
Once 7. 0 acres exceeded, the amount of impervious surface
permitted is the same, not only for the Planning Board and
Planning Director' s proposal, but for the 13--point agreement
as well (see attached chart and graph) .
- '14hi, Ie the proposal by. the Planning Board may have merit, the
- -"' AthainiBtration feels that adherence to the basic strategy as
= Y'. i e%o fort 2-acre lots it with' sliding cscale) y is c,t 5-acre lots
desirable
.c ;::▪ approach. The modification as proposed by the Planning Board
• ",. C Old be evaluated further as part of the 13-point agreement.
133PAR1SON OF PACED JIVER/10E SIRiFia LIMITS
A5 NOM BY taDITYpIailIIE BOARD' AS PROPOSED BY CCUITY PUBEIIN6 STAFF --_ IIS PRCPOSED IN 133-POINT A6REEPINT TIE TOTAL EIJIVALENT TIE TOTAL EOUIVALDTT TIE TOTAL EEVIIIFL.ENT
11PERVICCE--AREA-1N 1IPERVI0115-EEE11 IN---- _ -1MpERVIOIl5- AREA IN
• IIEE TIE 91RFACE PRY SOME 1iERE TIE SLOFACE MY SOIIARE *ERE TIE SilFACE MAY SAIIRAE
-"- LOT SIZE IS: NUT EXCEED: fEET LOT SIZE IS: NIT ECM: fEET LOT SIZE IS: NOT EICEED fEET
7.0 acres or above 4.04 12197 7.0 are or above 4.0% 11:197 7.0 acres or above 4.0% 12197
` -4;%---12323--6.1'acres 4:OF-- 12023 -6 9 acres 4.0f 12023
L E acres 4.25 12441 6.8 acres 4.0% 11848 6.8 acres 4.0% 11848
- 6.7 acres
6.7 acres 4.3% L2550 6.7 acres 4.01 11674 6.7 acres 4.0% 11674
▪-"6-acres---__---4:4%____f_._12650--6.6 acres)` -4:0% 11500 LI acres "`- - -;•0%---11500----
- 6.5 acres 4.5% 12741 6.5 acres 4.0% 11326 • 6.5 acres 4.0% 11326
E.4 acres 4.6% 12824 L4 acres 4.0% 11151 6.4 acres 4.0% 11151
J -6-3-acres 4.7s i2>cm"-"X._3 acres 4:0%---109776.3 acres--4.0%"'10977--____
6.2 acres 4.0 12963 6.2 acres 4.01 10803 6.2 acres
4.0% 10803
- 6.1 acres ' 4.9% 13020 LI acres • 4.0% 10629 6.1 acres 4.0% 10629
fi.'0-'acres• 3.0% 73068 acres 4.o% 10454 6.0 acres-_ ___ ---4:0% 10454'
5.9 acres 5.1% 13107 5.9 acres 4.25 10794 5.9 acres 4.0% 10280
5.8 acres 5.2% 13138 5.8 acres 4.4% 11117 5.8 acres 4.0% 10106
`. eres 5.-3% 13159 5.7 acres 4.6E 11421---5.7-acres 4.0s 993c
~ 5.6 acres 5.4% 13173 5.6 acres 4.8% 11709 5.6 acres -ti, 4.0% 9757
1 5.5% 13177. 5.5 acres - 5.01 _ 11979 5.5 acres •
- 5.5 acres.:. 4 0% • 9583
.-4-acres x.65-"��31 r1 5.4 acres �.�% 71232 a 4 acres 4
a 5.3 acres 5.7% 13159 5.3 acres 5.4% 12467 • 5.3 acres 4.0% 9235
- 5.2 arms 5.8% 13138 5.2 acres 5.6% 12685 5.2 acres 4.0% 9060
5.: acre !s :31Ur 5.1"acres 5.80 12885 a ---4:13%-- 8886-'-
5.0 acres 6.01 13068 5.0 acres - 6.0% 13068 • 5.0 acres 4.0% 8712
r '4.9 acres. 6.25 13234 4.9 acres. LL..-- 6.2% 13234 4.9 acres - 4.0% 8538
4.d acres -6.4% 13382 ��tre5 6 4 acres :0% S64
a 6.6% 13512 4.7 acres 6.6% 13512 4.7 apes 4.0% 8189
E 4.7 acres
• 4.6 acres 6.8% 13626 4.6 acres 6.8% 13626 4.6 acres 4.0% 8015
acres r.vs. 1x31: 4.5 acres .
>.:_-.. 7.2%::.:...::.:. 13800.7:." 7.2% 13800 4.4 acres
a
mss::.:; ';::;r:'4.4 acres.:: 4.4 acres. :.. : 4.0% - 7667.:
4.2 acTLYrj.; 7.i 1590442-acres 4.0%. alb _.
_' '!:,,- 7.4X' 13861 4.3 acres;: 7 4% 13861 4.3 acres 4.0% 7492':_ 1•.
,_ 4.2 acres ''.,. _ . 7.es , lea.* 4.t acres
. 4,1 acres - 7.8% 13930 4.1 acres . 7.8% 13930 4.1 acres 4.0% 7144
=_ = .`': 4.0 acres 8.0% 13939 4.0 acres 8.0% 13939 4.0 acres 4.0% 6970
r .
„yam: .,�.�.,..�.�,».�, B.4% _.-,.- ,. 3gp4.. 3.8 acres- _ 8.4 _ 13904� � -- •
El.. .... ,. .r.ter. -+'n:',".''
d ,; -,:.,. .w., w-:�-' u 1:�i::.:. 7 acres 4.0x... . .- 6447
T. ..yyam�.. :. �....�'.�-.
7-,"i','.....'::3.7.acres:.-::44-' ..:�� :-:"&6% _._ a.:.13B61r: _;..:3.7 xTes-� _-
8.6% 13861 3.
ems:..'• •
;...... .. ....... G
.1.6 acres .. .... . El.as ....... 13tlUD 4.6 acres � • 1380u 3.6 atrts 4.05 ht73
3.5 acres' :` - `-'- 9.0% -: --:: 13721 :.:... 3.5 acres • 9.0% 13721 3.5 acres 4.0% 6098
-t •
3.4 acres -- --- 9.2% 13626` : 3.4 acres ., 9.2% 13626 34 acres 4.0% 5924
_ .. ..
,9.6% _ 4.0% 5576'
;=` : -e--., __9.6X-s t•e-- 133'82.
�'1 ,.33 acres m --4-m�* _ . _ -. - : 5401 . .. ..
.I. ..fir...T,,...�.�..s;_ - -
- 13234 3.1 acres�'�
��«,,:.: .:•.: 3382 acres
� .3..1 aem W.^.::.,:., . acres. .. .- 13234.: 3.1, r amps L 2.9 acres 10.2% 12885 2.9 acres 10.2% 12885 2.9 acres 4.0% 5063 4.0% 4879
-"� - LB acres 10.4% 12685 2.8 acres 10.4% 12685 2.8 acres
�.,�.. 50.8%-:-.__..__ 12232 �u.bs 1e�67 e.7 acres 4.0s 41u
... - 2.6 acres•-_ 10.8% 12232 - 2.6 acres ..... .:,.._..,..._ ..._: 4.0% ::....:. 4530 ... _:...
--1 ... _ A.0% 4356
2.5 acres : " 11.0% 11979 2.5 acres 1:.01 11979 2.5 acres
acres i1.es 1Ti.r 2.-4 acres 4.0% 4ia
.-2.3 acres 11.4% 11421 2.3 acres 11.4% 11421 2.3 acres 4.0% 4038
2.2 acres 11.6% 11117 2.2 acres _ 11.6% 11117 • 2.2 acres 4.0% 3833
2.1 acres 118% 10794 2.1 acres 11.8% 10794 2.1 acres (..] 4.0% 3659
2.0 acres 12.0% 10454 2.0 acres 12.0% 10454 2.0 acres 6.0% 5227
_ 1.9 acres ' 12.2% 10097 - - 1.9 acres 12.2% -10097 1.9 acres - 6.0% 4966
--_ 1.8 acres • 12.4% 9723 1.8 acres 12.4% 9723 1.8 acres 6.0% 4704
1.7 acres • 12.6% - 9331 1.7 acres - _ 12.6% 9331 i_7 acres : 6.0% 4443
- _. 1.6 acres 12.8% 8921 1.6 acres 12.8% 8921 1.6 acres _ 6.0%. 41E2
- 1.`a acres _ 13.0s_"^8494�175-acres __.. 33.% T_ 8494_' 5-acres 6+0%_.._ .. 3a24.1 ___
1.4 acres :_;_........._..:.:. .....132x :___ 8050.:_._..L4 acres .: __ .. .. -- 8050::-:. 1.4 acres .::.._.._:::.....--:.___. 6.01 _ :. 3659
=1.3 acres .-- _ -_- _13.4%_=.--,-_-_ 7598:-.-=_.1.3 acres_::__- 13 4%_:==___ .7588_, 1.3 acres .. _ _. f�.0%- :..' __ -__,
.._. 14.0%�-•'7109-12 acres FAO% 3136----
1 172 acres ._ . ... lbw 09-T�a _= 13 8% 6612 _ 1.1 acres. -
1.1 acres_.. 13.8% ."__--
- 1.0 acres 14.0% 6098 1.0 acres - 12.0% 5227
... :. _ - 12.x"-'-"470 '
.... _ ..-_.. 4.4% _::_ .501x-`.::-. 0.8 acres_ 1 - -
r.---.. T. -"-----":_- 1
14.6%:-':':,-: •.4452 0.7 acres :_:' .....`. 12.0%._.'..: 3659 ..._..... ..
less 15.0% - 3267 0 5 acres or less
=4:-'� ::.=�:".: _..
--- I4:8% :6`acr45 14.8%
.5868 0.�acres 12.00 5135
0.5 acres or 15.0% 3267 ' 0.5 antis or less 12.0% 2614
:7
.
i
I !I ! . ; �i: I� ..•
. I f • I
{
} 7
1 i. .
I _ 1 ;
I
!....
1 1 1 :. - f ,. • ..
1• .., _ {.
I • 1 I 1 f ! '
j
! E
1 1
., _ •
I 1
{ i ! .. .- -t
1 I
J
M_
1 jj • I• - •� f
• •. i I .
, ; •
I ! 1 1 I
I f f
!' t f
I 1 1
M I L i II I•
1
•+ f I H_ i
I 1 •
! _, _.� I i j I q
I i .. 1 . I: 1 ,
i Ji [ I j
I j i '
�� [ I .•
••
: (173 .
rn! 1' I i li I i I
•I 1 i i l i i I i
I I I I•
I . •.. CI 1 j :
•
•
N 77
7 .
•
•
_ * i 1. I I
�� •
s'` j
—
;11;11 '0 I •
•
!'
. n I i i I
L. •
•
0 : : o
1 .. 11 I 1 1 1 i I 1 • h i
Y. k! K Y K Y. Y. Y. Y. Y. X }S
1 ' '
•
•
' obtrl anop�i.aduU gc ,••
•
•
I
• . . i 1
i
•
April 4, 1990
Ms. Verla Insko, Chair
OWASA Board of Directors
P.O. Box 336
Carrboro, NC 27510
Dear Verla:
At the Orange County Board of Commissioners Meeting on
Monday, April 2, the Commissioners adopted a motion that
requests the Orange Water and Sewer Authority to include
funding in their 1990-91 budget and subsequent budgets for
acquisition of land. The purpose of this acquisition of land
would be to reduce future pollutant loading potential within
the University Lake Watershed.
In addition, the Board of Commissioners adopted a motion
that calls for OWASA to include funding in their 1990-91
budget sufficient to authorize a study to determine the
extent of watershed protection needed for the Cane Creek
Watershed.
On behalf of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, I
would appreciate the OWASA Board of Directors consideration
of these requests.
Sincerely,
Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair
Board of Commissioners
cc: Board of Commissioners
Everett Billingsley
John Link
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SCRAP TIRE DISPOSAL FEE
A Resolution authorizing the Landfill Owners Group
through the Chapel Hill Town Manager to assess a scrap tire
disposal fee of $1 per tire that allows the Orange Regional
Landfill to fully comply with the provisions of the North
Carolina Scrap Tire Disposal Act.
WHEREAS, the County of Orange supports the provisions of
the North Carolina Scrap Tire Disposal Act; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Landfill Owners Group
to collect and dispose of scrap tires in an environmentally
sound fashion;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County
Board of Commissioners that the Landfill Owners Group through
the Chapel Hill Town Manager is authorized to implement the
scrap tire disposal fee of $1 per tire and to begin
collection of fees upon proper notice to the citizens of
Orange County.
This is the cv..,1,7,i day of ®'/ / , 1990.
AiA(
i�
Moses Carey, Jr. , Co(' r
•
54/7///474/ # /S;;//1
g-- 02 '7 °
PERMANENT
PROTECTION FOR UNIVERSITY LAKE
WATERSHED AND WILDLIFE
4
RECOMMENDED PROPOSAL
Permanent open land needed in critical areas and
building density in watersheds .
Purchase open land in watershed area with surcharge
from water quantity used from watershed .
Development density in watershed area to be in
accordance with rural buffer or rural boundary district
development density
Protection from degrading water quality , affordable
housing , wildlife , land use business and rural character .
These issues are connected in various aspects and need
to be jointly considered .
Facts about University Lake watershed land.
Total watershed area 19 ,000 acres
Total UNC land 619 acres
Lake area 205 acres
Surrounding lake area 369 acres
Damascus Church Road 45 acres
Total Impervious surface
Used to date 3 . 6%
Not to exceed 7 . 8%
OWASA Average Monthly
Water Output
' 180, 000, 000 gallons
Added surchage Additional Cost per Monthly Propert
per 1, 000 gallons Family of 10, 000 Purchase Fund
gallons monthly average - Accumulation
$ •10 $1.00 $18 , 000 . 00
1/1
LAND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
1. Commissioners to appoint 7 committee members
A. Committee responsibilities
(1) Look for property in watershed for purchase,
critical areas top priority.
(2) Buy land with commissioners approval at
fair market value. •
(3) Set guidelines for property purchased ,
to be undisturbed, with impervious surface
at 0% for maximum water protection.
(4) Insure that funds are kept in account
set aside for purchasing of watershed
land and property taxes .
(5) Insure transferral of surcharge from OWASA
to Watershed Fund account.
(6) To contact private conservation organizations
to help protect these areas .
2. Commissioners to set 2 acre average density with 14%
maximum impervious surface.
•
//e
Resource Protection
- 1. The Study committee finds that inventorying large
natural areas in watershed will protect our
natural resources and wildlife permanently.
2. This proposal provides greater protection of water
quality, affordable lots, wildlife preservation,
and rural character than state or county recommendations .
These issues are connected in various aspects and
need to be jointly considered .
Information provided for proposal by:
OWASA
Elected officials
Orange County Planning Department
Citizens of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and County
Members of Orange County Landowners Association
4/(-',W50
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pete Richardson
FROM: Beverly A. Blythe
DATE: April 4, 1990
RE: UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED ITEMS ON 4/2/90 AGENDA
B. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS - JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE
PLAN AND JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT
Approved the Administration's Recommendation
C. PROPOSED AMENDMENT - ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
Approved as recommended on the agenda abstract
with an amendment to add the University Lake
Watershed as an Orange County land use plan
category and to include a one sentence definition
to say "Land that drains into the University Lake
Reservoir. (page 4 of the abstract) The category
for Water Quality Critical Area was tabled (page
6) .
D. Z-1-90 UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED (ULW) DISTRICT
Approved the Administration's Recommendation
E. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS - ORGE COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE /��A1'T
Approved as esented in the agenda abstract
except they the water quality critical
area and protected watershed districts and they
went back to the original staff recommendation on
impervious surface ratios with 6% for 5 acre lots
and 12% for 2 acres and a sliding scale as
presented at public hearing. (A & B on page 18)
F. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS - ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION
% W-
PROCLAMATION
Whereas, According to recent population figures, there are almost 14,000
persons over 55 years of age in Orange County; and,
Whereas, Orange County is concerned about the health, fitness, and social
well-being of its older adult population; and,
Whereas, Orange County Senior Games provides a special opportunity for older
adults to grow positively in the areas of health, fitness, and social
well-being; and ,
Whereas, Orange County would like to encourage local business and resident
support and participation from county residents age 55 and older;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the Orange County Board of
Commissioners declares April 23-28, 1990, as Orange County Senior
Games Events Days and encourages citizens age 55 and over to
participate.
Moses Carey, Chair
Da# rX i J /,,®
•