Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-16-1990ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1990 ON ALL ABSTRACTS 7:30 P.M. AVAILABLE IN THE OLD POST OFFICE CLERK'S OFFICE. CHAPEL HILL, 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 MANAGERIB 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. IMEMS FOR DECISION -- CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) A. Budget Ordinance Amendment #4 B. Purchase of New Fire Trucks - -New Hope Volunteer Fire Department C. County Benefit Plan Inclusion VI. RESOLUTIONSIPROCLAMATION8 VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Housing Development Grant Application I %. REPORTS A. 1989 -90 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report B. Report -- Senate Bill 766 S. I'T'EMS FOR DECISION -- REGULAR AGENDA A. Street Name Change - -Old N.C. Highway 86 B. Assignment of House and Building Numbers C. Repatriation Program Grant Project D. 1991 -92 Budget Public Forum E. Solid Waste Litter During Transportation; Vehicle Safety; oiling of Public Roads F. Proposed Amendments to Orange County Subdivision Regulations and Private Road Standards G. Clarification of Charge and Composition of the Cable TV Citizen Advisory Committee %I. APPOINTMENTS %II. MINUTES X11I. EXECUTIVE SESSION -- Litigation gIV. ADJOURNMENT ( *) Indicates items that need immediate attention. a APPROVED 12 390 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1990 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session at 7:30 P.M. in the courtroom of the old Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners John Hartwell, Stephen Halkiotis, Shirley E. Marshall and Don Willhoit. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Albert Kittrell, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Extension Director Fletcher Barber, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Finance Director Ken Chavious, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Housing Services Director Tara Fikes, Accountant Howard Fitts, Administrative Officer I Richard Poole, and Social Services Director Marti Pryor -Cook I. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Hal referred to the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan and asked the Clerk to obtain additional information on the officially adopted map and the new map that is proposed by Hillsborough. II. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT John Link introduced the new Personnel Director Elaine Holmes. He announced that Orange County employees raised $13,700 for United Way. Also, last evening at the Orange County Board of Education meeting, the modified plan for the Efland Cheeks Community Center and Park was well received. It is expected to be approved at their next meeting. John Link announced that Tara Fikes has been appointed to the Board of Directors of the North Carolina Low Income Housing Coalition. Tomorrow the Transportation Advisory Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m. to address the Thoroughfare Plan. To again reaffirm the Board's position, a motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to restate the Board's position of opposing the Durham - Chapel Hill- Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan and in particular the Outer Loop. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Discussion ensued on the watershed standards approved by Durham County. III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA A resolution for Economic Development Funding by the General Assembly was added to the agenda as 6 -A. IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS o. A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Who Chairman to Carey ann��unced that an item on the printed anyone would like to speak agenda will be recognized at the appropriate time. B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA - NONE PUBLIC CHARGE Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. read the public charge. V. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as stated below: A. BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT f4 To approve the amendments listed below to the 1990 -91 Budget ordinance and the 4 -H Program Grant Project Ordinance as stated below: GENERAL FUND $ 8,814 Source - Intergovernmental $ 8,814 Appropriation - Human Services 4 -H SCIENCE PROJECT PROGRAM GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE Be it ordain t r y159 the Board the that North pursuant t 13.2 of Chap Carolina section following grant project is hereby adopted. Section 1. The project authorized is the 4 -H Science Project program as awarded to the Agriculture Extension Service of Orange County by the North Carolina Department of Human Resources. Section 2. The officers of the County are hereby directed to proceed with the grant project within the grant document, the rules and regulations of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources and the budget contained herein. Section 3. The following revenues are anticipated to be available to complete this project: Intergovernmental - 4 -H Science Project $ 10,000 Section 4. The following amounts are appropriated for this project: Human Services - 4 -H Science Project $ 10,000 Section S. The finance officer is hereby directed to maintain within the r• 97 Grant Project Fund sufficient specific detailed accounting to the grantor agency required by the grant agreement and federal and state regulations. Section 6. Funds may be advanced from the General Fund for the purpose of making payments due. Reimbursement requests should be made to the grantor agency in an orderly and timely manner. Section 7. Copies of this grant project ordinance shall be made available to the finance officer for direction in carrying out this project. 8. pURCHASE OF NEW FIRE TRUCKS FOR NEW HOPE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT. To approve the resolution stated below which approves the lease and option agreement between New Hope Volunteer Fire Department and Emergency One, Inc. EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, NORTH CAROLINA The Board of Commissioners of the County of Orange, North Carolina (the "Board "), met in regular session in the Courtroom of the Chapel Hill Post office, East Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, the regular place of meeting at 7:30 p.m. on October 16, 1990 with Moses Carey, Jr. Chairman presiding. The following Commissioners were: PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell, Shirley Marshall, and Don Willhoit. ABSENT: None. Action agenda item abstract number V-B and its attachments were presented to the Board for its consideration. The following resolution was then presented for consideration by the Board: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LEASE AND OPTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN NEW HOPE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC. AND EMERGENCY ONE, INC. WHEREAS, the New Hope Volunteer Fire Department has represented to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that it needs two new pumper tanker fire trucks more specifically described in action agenda item abstract number V -B; and WHEREAS, New Hope Volunteer Fire Department is not able to pay for these fire trucks entirely with funds on hand; and WHEREAS, New Hope Volunteer Fire Department is able to borrow funds to complete the purchase of these trucks at a favorable interest rate if the loan is approved by the unit of local government with which the fire department contracts to provide fire protection; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to approve a lease and option agreement between New Hope Volunteer Fire Department and Emergency One, Inc.; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County i I 4 Commissioners of the County of Orange that the lease and option agreement between New Hope Volunteer Fire Department and Emergency One, Inc. is approved. Commissioner Hartwell moved the passage of the foregoing resolution and Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded the motion, and the resolution was passed by a unanimous vote. C. COIINTY BENEFIT PLAN INCLUSION To approve the addition of one staff member of Orange Community Housing Corporation to the County's benefit plan for at least one year beginning November 1, 1990 by contract as approved by the County Attorney. VOTE: UNANIMOUS VI. RESOLUTIONS PROCLAMATIONS ADDED ITEM A. RESOLUTION - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FIINDING BY TSE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve a resolution as stated below for the release of funds that were appropriated to councils of governments to be used to pursue economic and community development opportunities. RESOLUTION BY ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, in North Carolina the Lead Regional organizations, as voluntary organizations serving municipal and county governments, have established productive working relationships with the cities and counties across the state: and WHEREAS, many counties and cities continue to need assistance, in pursuing economic and community development opportunities, but federal assistance in the form of intergovernmental revenues has been severely curtailed in recent years; and WHEREAS, the 1990 General Assembly recognized this need through the appropriation of $960,300 to help the Lead Regional Organizations assist local governments with grant applications, economic development, community development, and to support local industrial development activities and other activities as deemed appropriate by their local governments; and WHEREAS, these funds are not intended to be used for payment of members' dues or assessments to Lead Regional organization or to supplant funds appropriated by the member governments; and WHEREAS, in the event that a request is not made by a unit of government for release of these funds to our Regional Council, the 5 available funds will revert to the State's General Funds; and WHEREAS, in Region J funds in the amount of $53,350 will be used to carry out the economic development plan approved by the COG Board of Delegates and especially to improve the economy of the counties and towns of the Region by strengthening ties to and consequently benefits of the Research Triangle Park. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners request the release of its $7,130.29 share of these funds to the Triangle J Council of Governments at the earliest possible time in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1066, Senate Bill 1426, Section 42 of the 1990 Session Laws. VOTE: UNANIMOUS VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - NONE VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT GRANT APPLICATION A proposed 1990 Housing Development Grant Application was presented to receive comments from the public. The application is a request for funds to assist Habitat for Humanity with their road paving efforts in Chestnut Oaks. John Eckblad and Dave Nichols spoke in support of this proposal. There were no further comments. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the submission of the Housing Development Grant Application and authorize the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS IX. REPORTS A. 1989 -90 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT Ken Chavious made comments and gave an overview of the financial report. As of June 30, the undesignated fund balance was 4.1 million of general fund expenditures. There was a 29% increase in investment earnings during FY 1989 -90. Rex Price from Deloitte and Touche commended the County for their accounting practices. B. REPORT - SENATE BILL 766 Marvin Collins explained its ordinances to reflect this nev defining in a specific way what is plan and a phased development plan impacts upon the County as a whole. bill and the current practice is th that the county would need to amend legislation. This would include meant by site specific development Actually, the bill has no great The major difference between this a time frame involved. The present 6 Ordinance sets the time limit for a preliminary plat at one year. The The bill allows a person to have a two year vested right period. ordinance Review Committee will bring forth in May, 1991 proposed amendments to conform to this Bill. The effective date is October 1, 1991. X. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA A. STREET NAME CHANGE - OLD N.C. HIGHWAY $6 Following a discussion on the naming of the section of Old 86 which extends from Interstate 85 to New Hopartwell church seconded Road/Arthur Minnis Road, motion was made by Commissioner , by Commissioner Willhoit to change the name of Old N.C. Highway 86 to Old Chapel Hill- Hillsborough Road. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8. ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE AND BUILDING NUMBERS Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the proposed house and building numbers for all residents of Hillsborough routes 7 and 3, followed by notification of the Hillsborough Postmaster, and the N.C. Department of Transportation, as required by G.S. 153A -240. Commissioner Hartwell noted that this action would confirm other road names in the area and asked Don Powell of the Planning Department if the name of the road near Grady Brown School had been settled. Mr. Powell replied that the neighborhood had reached agreement and that it was named "New Grady Brown School Road" on both sides of its intersection with Orange Grove Road. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. REPATRIATION PROGRAM GRANT PROJECT Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adopt the grant project ordinance as stated below: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES REPATRIATION PROGRAM GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE 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 following grant project is hereby adopted. Section 1. The project authorized is the Repatriation Program to be implemented by the Orange County Department of Social Services under the provisions of Section 1113 of the Social Security Act. Section 2. The officers of the County are hereby directed to proceed with the grant project in accordance with the grant documents, the rules and regulations of the US Department of iFA Health and Human Services and the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, and the budget contained herein. Section 3. The following revenues are anticipated to be available to complete this project: Intergovernmental - Repatriation Program Reimbursements $ 25,000 Section 4. The following amounts are appropriated for this project: Human Services - Repatriation Program $ 25,000 Section S. The finance officer is hereby directed to maintain within the Grant Project Fund sufficient specific detailed accounting records to provide the accounting to the grantor agency required by the grant agreement and federal and state regulations. Section 6. Funds may be advanced from the General Fund for the purpose of making payments due. Reimbursement requests should be made to the grantor agency in an orderly and timely manner. Section 7. Copies of this grant project ordinance shall be made available to the finance officer for direction in carrying out this project. Section a. This ordinance shall be in effect from October 16, 1990 through June 30, 1991. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. 1991 -92 BUDGET PUBLIC FORUM Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve setting a public hearing for November 20, 1990 at a meeting scheduled for 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom in Chapel Hill. VOTE: UNANIMOUS E. SOLID WASTE LITTER DURING TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE SAFETY OILING OF PUBLIC ROADS With regard to the solid waste litter during transportation and vehicle safety, the Board gave their endorsement and support of the Sheriff and his deputies in their enforcement activities. A letter will be sent to the orange County Division of the North Carolina Highway Patrol and the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles for encouragement of their continued assistance and help in ensuring that only safe vehicles travel the roads of Orange County. With regard to the oiling of public roads, motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adopt • Y 8 the following policy (policy 1450 in the Commissioners' Policy Manual): POLICY• RESPONSE OF ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TO OILING OF ROADS LOCATED WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF ORANGE COUNTY All inquiries of and complaints made to county government regarding road oiling shall be referred to the county engineer, including inquiries from the general public, the press or other employees and agencies of Orange County government. The Sheriff and his deputies, if road oiling is observed or if they observe that roads have been oiled, will also notify the county engineer. The county engineer, in consultation with the environmental Health Division of the orange County Health Department will gather as much data on the road oiling incident as is available and immediately thereafter notify the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, of the incident. The North Carolina Department of Transportation will also be notified in all instances where the road oiling has occurred or is occurring on state - maintained roads. It is the intention of this policy for Orange County to provide the appropriate State agencies with the basis for conducting investigations and enforcement actions concerning road oiling in the unincorporated areas of Orange County if appropriate and notifying federal authorities if appropriate. The information reported by the county engineer is intended to aid that investigation and enforcement process. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. F. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS Proposed amendments to Sections IV and V of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations and to the Orange County Private Road Standards are intended to clarify situations where private roads are appropriate and to emphasize that County involvement with a private road ends once it is constructed and certified to meet County standards. All amendments will be incorporated into the Subdivision Ordinance. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the proposed amendments per the Planning Board recommendation, with the addition of clarifying language to Section IV- B- 3- d -1.1.a as recommended and to make the effective date of the proposed amendments December 3, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS G. CLARIFICATION OF CHARGE AND COMPOSITION OF THE CABLE 7!V W" 3 L7 CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to direct staff to reactivate the Cable TV Citizen Advisory Committee and to develop with the committee a comprehensive charge /mission statement to bring back to the Board for approval. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XI. APPOINTMENTS The following appointment was approved by the Board: CARRBORO PLANNING BOARD - Judith Williams SIT. MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the minutes for the January 18, 1990 Rural Character Work Session as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the minutes for the April 10 work Session on Senate Bill 2. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the minutes for September 18, 1990 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the minutes for October 1, 1990 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion was made Commissioner Halkiotis to litigation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made Commissioner Hartwell to go VOTE: UNANIMOUS by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by go into Executive Session to discuss by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by back into regular session for adjournment. XIV. ADJOURNMENT With no further items for discussion, Chair Moses Carey, Jr. adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on November 5, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the Old County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. 1 Moses Carey, Jr., Chair 2 Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk f I r ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 16, 1990 SUBJECT: Budget Ordinance Amendment #4 DEPARTMENT Budget ATTACHMENT(S) Proposed Budget Ordinance Amendments Department of Social Services Funding Authorization 4 -H Science Project Program Grant Project Ordinance mAnnrandum of Understanding 1 Action Agenda Item No PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X INFORMATION CONTACT Budget Office, Extension 2450 TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To approve proposed grant project ordinance and budget ordinance amendments. BACKGROUND: (1) The Orange County Department of Social Services has been awarded an $8,814 grant to fund the Independent Living Program for fiscal year 1990 -91. No County match is required for this grant. A copy of the award letter is included in this package. (2) The Agriculture Extension Service of Orange County has been awarded a state grant to fund a 4 -H Science Project. This program will provide day care and after - school programs for 5 to 13 year olds and handicapped youths. In order to provide this program, it will be necessary to hire a temporary 4 -H Science Coordinator to organize materials, train volunteers and teachers, and publicize and evaluate the program. This $10,000 grant has been awarded by the Department of Human Resources, and requires a $2,500 cash and /or in -kind match from the Extension Service. This amount is already budgeted in the 1990 -91 fiscal year budget; therefore, no additional funds are required. A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding and the grant project ordinance are attached to this abstract. y N RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve attached amendments to the 1990 -91 Budget Ordinance, and approve attached 4 -H Program Grant Project Ordinance. �3 ORANGE COUNTY 199091 BUDGET AMENDMENTS The 1990 -91 Orange County Budget Ordinance, as amended, is hereby amended as follows: GENERAL FUND (1) Source: intergovernmental Appropriation: Human Services BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 4 BEFORE AMENDMENT $6,276,460 10,560,394 AMENDMENT $ 8,814 8,814 AFTER AMENDMENT $6,285,274 10,569,208 4 4 -H SCIENCE PROJECT PROGRAM GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE 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 following grant project is hereby adopted. Section I. The project authorized is the 4 -H Science Project program as awarded to the Agriculture Extension Service of Orange County by the North Carolina Department of Human Resources. Section 2. The officers of the County are hereby directed to proceed with the grant project within the grant document, the rules and regulations of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources and the budget contained herein. Section 3. Section 4. The following revenues are anticipated to be available to complete this project: Intergovernmental - 4 -H Science Project $ 10,000 The following amounts are appropriated for this project: Human Services - 4 -H Science Project $ 10,000 Section 5. The finance officer is hereby directed to maintain within the Grant Project Fund sufficient specific detailed accounting records to provide the accounting to the grantor agency required by the grant agreement and federal and state regulations. Section 6. Funds may be advanced from the General Fund for the purpose of making payments due. Reimbursement requests should be made to the grantor agency in an orderly and timely manner. Section 7. Copies of this grant project ordinance shall be made available to the finance officer for direction in carrying out this project. Adopted this 16th day of 'October, 1990. coo FV MEMORAMIJM OF UNDERSTANDING between THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF 11UMAN and AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE OF ORANGE COUNTY Regarding Dependent Care Grant #5082 I. Intent: This Memorandum of Understanding establishes the basic A responsibilities of and the relationship between the Department of Human Resources (Department) and Agricultural Extension Service of Orange County (Grantee) related to the FFY 1990--91 Dependent Care Planning and Development Grant award made in accordance with the Reauthorization Act of 1984, Subchapter D, Grants to States for Planning and Development of Dependent Care Programs and for Other Purposes (P.L. 98--588, Section D). II. Authority: The authority for administration of this grant lies with the Child Day Care Section, Division of Facility Services in the Department of Human Resources which agrees to be responsible to the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services for the disbursement and expenditure of the funds and reporting what was accomplished with the grant. III.} General Provisions: A. The grant is effective from October 1, 1990 through September 30, 1991. B. At least twenty -five percent of the approved budget is cash and /or inkind contributions eligible to match the grant. C. The Grantee is an "independent contractor" as that term is used in N.C.G.S. 143- 300.2(2) and the Department shall not be liable for any negligence or omissions of the Grantee or of its agents, employees, assignees, or subcontractors. III ON ji o D. The services developed under this agreement shall serve families of all income levels. E. The place of this agreement, controlling its status and form, shall be Wake County, North Carolina, and all matters relating to the validity, construction, interpretation, and enforcement of this agreement shall be determined in the courts of Wake County. Any suit in federal district court relating to this agreement shall be brought in the United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, Raleigh Division. IV. Responsibilities Under the Memorandum of Understanding: A._ The Department of Human Resources shall: 1. subject to the availability of Federal funds, disburse a single check in the amount of $10,000 to the Grantee when this Memorandum of Understanding has been signed by all parties. 2. monitor the Grantee's compliance with the terms of this agreement. B. The Grantee shall: 1, plan, develop, establish, expand or improve school -age child care services for dependent persons as defined in the law and according to Attachment I to this agreement. 2. spend grant funds in accordance with the approved budget. 3. return any grant monies not spent during the grant period to the Child Day Care Section. 4. provide the Child Day Care Section fiscal and grant activity reports for the period October 1, 1990 through March 30, 1991 and for the period April 1 through September 30, 1991. These reports are due April 25, 1989 and October 25, 1991, respectively. 5. maintain program and fiscal records for this grant for three years after the termination of the grant or until any audits in progress C I COOPr-) ly at that time are completed. 6. make available all records, papers, vouchers, books, correspondence or other documentation or evidence at all reasonable times for review, inspection, or audit by duly authorized officials of the Department, or State or Federal auditors. 7. to forward to the Purchaser documentation of compliance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 (P.L. 98 -502) for the SFY 1990 -91 contract Period within 120 days after receipt of the final payment under this agreement. This documentation must be in accordance with CIRCULAR NO. A -128 dated April 12, 1984, from the Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. V_ COPYRIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALS: The Grantee may copyright materials originated in the performance of this agreement. The copyright not withstanding, the Department may use, disclose, duplicate and distribute all materials delivered under this agreement. The Grantee hereby grants to the Department a royalty -free, nonexclusive and irrevocable license to publish, translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, dispose of, and to authorize others to do so, all data, reports, publications, studies, curricula or other materials originated in the performance of this agreement. Such license shall be only to the extent that the Grantee has the right to grant such license. The Grantee may not market the products of this contract for profit. t COO 0 This agreement su er P supersedes all %7 Prior written or whereof oral statements. In witness the Grantee and the Department have execute originals, one of which is retained b d this agreement in duplicate Y each of the Parties, Jahn M. Syria, Director Division of Facility Services Department of "umAn Resources DATE Susan H. Creech Child Da Deputy Chief Y Care .Section Division of Facility ,Services DATE. SIGNATURE Agricultural Extension Servic e of Orange County TITLE DATE r z A GRANT APPLICATION TO CHILD DAY CARE SECTION Coo r,— %7 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ` J� V Type of Grant Requested: Resource and Referral X School -Age Child Care 1. Name of Applicant Agency: Agricultural Extension-Service Address: 386 Mad !i±1Qbu-uwgh9N6 Telephone: qlg - Contact Person:' Mary Fannin Type of Agency: X Public Private Non - Profit Federal Tax ID #: 56 -6000 -756 2. Project Name: 4 -H Science Project Location: 306 Revere Road, Hillsborough. NQ 27278 Telephone: 919 732 -8181 Ext. 2057 Project Director: Mary Fannina 3. Grant Amount Requested: S 10,000 4. Grant Purpose: Development or establishment of a new service X Improvement or expansion of existing services 5. Service Area: Orange Count 6. Target Population: Day r and 5rhool system-after-school oroarams 5 to.13 years old and handicapped youth ORA k- - Co.40" 4-44 As* 'laxr4 +4Dvisoey -coo,,o � /�, 695�_� � - %, S r ilk §'T • Signature of Person Authorized to Apply mes ►u1-o'r IT TD. C_+ +R — Title • fj5% o Date DFS 0415 Rev. 5/89 iv NARRATIVE OUTLINE The 4 -H School Science Coordinator would introduce 4 -H Science Curriculum to day care and after school program teachers. The available curriculum includes the study of forrests, wildlife, insects, weather, animals, gardening, electricity and water quality. Training and support materials could provide unlimited hands -on science activities for young people in after school programs. Volunteer with science expertise will be recruited. The primary goals of the Science Education program are: To promote an ecological awareness To provide practical knowledge and skills in science To provide hands -on activites that are age - appropriate To promote mental, physical and emotional development The following curricula would be included in the program: embryology electricity entomology horticulture veterinary science meteorology, recycling environmental education Time Frame: October /November- Meet with interested principels,after school teachers, day care teachers and volunteers December /August- Conduct educational programs for teachers and community Volunteers September- Program evaluation Personnel required: A 4 -H Science Coordinator would work throughout the year organizing materials training volunteers and teachers, publicizing the project, and evaluating . Interagency Coordination: A cooperative relationship exists between the school system, day cares and 4 -H. In addition, there are a number of environmental agencies and the University of North Carolina that have a number of science resource people that could serve as volunteers or program teachers. - Target Audience: Boys and girls ages 5 -13 will be tara C 0 Pco BOYS be main _eted for � streamed into the program, this Project. Disabled youth Evaluation: After - school teachers, principals, day care teachers and volunteer s given written evaluations. Students lead teachers who will report their experiences to be will compile their comments. Project Continuation: A permanent position is being requested in next years budget. Grant funds are also being requested through the national 4-H office. PROPOSED BUDGET A. 4-H SCIENCE COORDINATOR B• Equipment: Incubators $50 each Magnifying glass $10.00 each SALARY: $15,000 TRAVEL: $1,500 Other equipment will be identified for each project C. Supplies Curriculum: There may be a per person cost for each project m i' .� anuel Other supplies will be identified for each project D. Printing Copses of materials are made for each workshop participant E. In -kind Contributions: The Agricultural Extension Agent Their time i will supervize the science coordina`ox. s estimated at about 55,000 for the length of the Office space and telephones are contributed the by y Orange County Government M -Z (Dar"-� Budget Instructions: ' 1. Please fill in whole dollar amounts in budget categories that are appropriate to the activities of your project. Total program cost must equal sum of the matching share - -cash and /or inkind- -plus the Child Day Care Section funds. Name of Project: 4 -H Science Project BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures INCOME _ n„rtopr_ Total CDCS Matchinrz Share Category Program Cost Funds Ca h Inkind Salaries 13,000 8,000 5,000 Fringe Benefits 2,000 2,000 Travel - 1,500 1,500 Cost of S ace 500 500 E ui ment 1,000 1,000 Supplies :1,000 11000 Advertising 500 500 Telephone Printiniz 500: 500 500 I 500 Other: 20,500 101.040 4,500 6,000 Total 2. Provide a separate listing of: a. Personnel by position and salary. b. Equipment to be purchased c. Inkind contributions which are given a dollar value, including a description and source. DFS 0415 11/88 / 1 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COt'l2ZISSIONERS Action Agenda Item too. U�B ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: _October 16, 1990 S:;BJECT: PURCHASE OF NEW FIRE TRUCKS- -NEW HOPE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT _ _ ______________..______-_-__------ ----- -- RURALrFIRE PUBLIC HEARING YES. 110: X ,,- _,kRTMENT: NEW HOPE ___--.---..--------------- DEPARTMENT___.._____ ----------- . A - ACHMENT (S) : RESOLUTION T1141FORMA ^1 TO;1 CONTACT: LEASE PURCHASE COMMITMENT COUNTY ATTORNEY 732 -2196 LETTER TELEPHONE NL74BER- INFORMATION CONCERNING PUBLIC Hillsborough - 732 -8181 HEARING REQUIREMENTS Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Mebane - 227 -2031 MUNICIPAL LEASE AND OPTION AGREEMENT Durham - 688 -7331 PAYMENT SCHEDULE __ ______________ -__ eeNTRAeT- EXTRke___ ______ _____ ___-------------------------------------- __ __ ______�_ PTURPOSE : To approve a lease and option agreement between New Hope Volunteer Fire Department and Emergency One, Inc., to enable New Hope to purchase two fire trucks (Emergency One Model Protector XLT Pumper /Tanker Fire Apparatuses mounted on two Ford C8000 chassis). BACKGROUND: The New Hope Volunteer Fire Department has contracted for the purchase of two new fire trucks. The trucks will cost $317,987.20, $125,000 of which will be paid in cash at delivery. The balance will be financed by New Hope. New Hope is eligible for a loan at a lower interest rate (8.95% vs. 13.25 %, saving $6,000 per year for 10 years in interest expense).if the financing qualifies as a tax exempt financing under the Internal Revenue Code. To so qualify, Orange County, with whom New Hope contracts to provide fire protection services within the New Hope Fire District, must approve the financing and conduct a public hearing or direct that one be conducted. The public hearing was con- ducted on behalf of'Orange County by the New Hope Volunteer Fire Depart- ment. Each person who spoke at the public hearing spoke.in favor of the acquisition of the fire trucks and.the lease and option agreement. The Clerk to the Board has received no written comments concerning this matter. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve the.Resolution. attached which Resolution approves the lease and option agreement between New Hope Volunteer Fire Department and Emergency One, Inc. EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, NORTH CAROLINA The Board of Commissioners of the County of Orange, North Carolina (the "Board "), met in regular session in the Courtroom of the Chapel Hill Post Office, East Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, the regular place of meeting at 7:30 p.m. on October 16, 1990 with Chairman presiding. The following Commissioners were: PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Action agenda item abstract number and its attachments were presented to the Board for its consideration. The following resolution was then presented for consideration by the Board: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LEASE AND OPTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN NEW HOPE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC. AND EMERGENCY ONE, INC. WHEREAS, the New Hope Volunteer Fire Department has represented to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that z 7 M1 N, I Mr. . Mike Bordeaux New Hope VFD, Inc. 4700 NC66 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 August 9, 1990 Re: Lease /Purchase of Two Emergency One Model Pro XLT Pumper /Tankers Dear Mr. Bordeaux: 4 Emergency One, Inc. is pleased to provide the New Hope volunteer Fire Department with financing assistance for its purchase of two new E -One pumper /tankers. Federal Signal Leasing, like Emergency One, Inc., is a wholly -owned subsidiary of Federal Signal Corporation and was established in 1983 to handle all of the administrative aspects of our financing programs. Volunteer departments, in order to qualify for tax - exempt financing, must meet certain conditions under the federal tax code, including the requirement for a public hearing. A summary of our interpretation of these "Public Hearing Requirements" is enclosed to assist you. Exhibit B -1 of our contract requires the signature of an authorized party to verify that the above requirements have, in fact, been met. Please review it promptly (perhaps with your attorney) to determine if immediate action is needed on your part. Enclosed is our standard lease /purchase agreement. The document has been marked with red "x "s where signatures of authorized personnel are required. These include: 1. Municipal Lease & option Agreement (Carbonized Form, Pages 1 -3). Please sign and date in the lower right -hand corner of the form. 2. Acceptance Certificate (Carbonized Form, Page 4). See instructions on next page. 3. Insurance Coveraae Reauirements and Essential pselSource of Funds Letter (Carbonized Form, Page 5). This form should be completed with requested information, signed and dated. 4. Pa nt Schedule (Attachment). Please sign acknowledge- ment and acceptance of payment terms. 5. Exhibit "B -1" (Attachment) is your certification to us that your department qualifies within the meaning of Section 150(e) of the Internal Revenue Code. Please review and sign where indicated. 6. IRS Form 8038 -G (Attachment). Please complete with required information and sign where indicated. (Contd.) REGENCY TOWERS, 1416 W. 22nd STREET • OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521 • PHONE (708) 954-2000 • FAX (708) 854 -2030 it needs two new pumper tanker fire trucks more specifically described in action agenda item abstract number ; and WHEREAS, New Hope Volunteer Fire Department is not able to Pay for these fire trucks entirely with funds on hand; and WHEREAS, New Hope Volunteer Fire Department is able to borrow funds to complete the purchase of these trucks at a favorable interest rate if the loan is approved by the unit of local government with which the fire department contracts to provide fire protection; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to approve a lease and option agreement between New Hope Volunteer Fire Department and Emergency One, Inc.; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Orange that the lease and option agreement between New Hope Volunteer Fire Department and Emergency One, Inc. is approved. Commissioner resolution and Commissioner 3 moved the passage of the foregoing seconded the motion, and the resolution was passed by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: K, New Hope VFD, Inc . August 91 1990 Page Two 5 page Four of the lease the Acce tance Certificate, can be retained by our de rtmen u t 1 t e re trucks are delivered. Upon delivery, the department 11 should sign, date and surrender this agreement to Emergency One, Inc. or its authorized dealer. P1 to that the trucks will pgt be released to the de ammo t wit bout this C if'cate and ur 125 00.0 (Bayable to rcLengr One. The date on the Acceptance Certificate is the commencement date of the lease. Finally, please have your attorney provide an opinion letter of substan- tially the same form as the attached sample "Opinion of Lessee's Counsel." This opinion must be on your attorney's letterhead. Please return these completed forms to me as soon as possible. After we receive the documents, properly completed, we can authorize delivery of the trucks. You will be furnished a fully- executed copy of the lease and attach- ments for your records. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to give me a call. encls. Sincerely, Joanne M. Delegan Leasing Administrator 708/954 -2014 no I Fog Your Information 6 PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS BY THE 'TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS BILL (HR4333) PASSED BY CONGRESS IN OCTOBER, 19ft In order for the interest on an obligation (such as a lease /purcl contract) of a qualified volunteer fire department to be exempt from fedo income tax, public hearing requirements must be met as follows: I. The obligation must be approved (prior to execution) by the governmental unit with whom the VFD has a written agreement to provide firefighting services: This approval can be given by: a) the applicable elected representative of the governmental unit (such as a mayor, county board president, etc.); b) the legislative body of the governmental unit; or, C) any other elected official designated by the chief elected official. 2. Pri*9-10-ARRrovai, a public hearing must be held. The applicable elected representative or the legislative body of the governmental unit may appoint aLng Rerson, to conduct the public hearing. It is not fteceaAary for the legislative body or the elected representative of the governmental unit to conduct the public hearing or to be present, and it is not necessary for a report to be submitted to the legislative body. A vote need not be taken and approval of the public or attendees is not required. 3. Prigr to the c hearing (to give residents of the cc®nnity an opportunity to express their views) notice must be given. This would generally involve publishing the notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the locality of the governmental unit at least 14 days prior to the hearing. The notice would generally describe the time and place of the hearing, along with a description of the issue (i.e., consideration of a lease /purchase contract to acquire an Emergency One fire truck). 1 This summary represents our interpretation of the law and is not intended to be relied upon by volunteer fire departments or others. Such persons eho ld consult their own tax and legal advisor$. R nlLlim .affilci aOwfflr4mn a 1990 Nr,�ON�THF teASE AND PURCHASE OF TWO NEW FIRE TRUCKS By THE p4pW HOPE VOLUNTEER In DEPARTMENT. I ne�� Volunteer gpmenlec. has do- that it needs pre t is Iment t i Vas in and r* gWns"itios to provide fin a tlon in the New Hope District of Orange County, The Fire Department intents to enter into a Loose 'arid Option Agreeent with Ernergtsncy One, m Inc. for the purchase of the two fire tnrcks. This agreement pro- vides for the payment of 5313,807.20 in total for the trucks, $125,000 upon deliv- ery and $188,807.20 to be firtonced by Emergency One. Inc. over a period Of ten meets to be made b lease he pure pepartment are $29,355.21. The interest rate on the fi- nancing is to be 8.95 %. Un- der the terms of the intended agreement between rho Fire Department and Emergency Ons, Inc., upon the payme by the.Fire Depertment of the pW Q2 lass at the ten �24,33b.21 ortswd poymen>3, the I.aui wig tsrt+ehghate atd the fTte win own tla fire Ao notice "tot As � at Orange County WW held o c hearing as the New Volunteer Fire Dmpen- hrtant Ave" {� 477111 Mo. kmrWenhi and Chapaf North 'Car-Il - an O= 6, 1 7:30 pjL. d ;" pubSe heati to o person Nei proposed end Option Agreemem►. The public hoorin will be con- ducted by the Now faP+ Volunteer Fire Inc. a• authorim by the illia.d of County oo mtaiss i �a all C aera of hwof 0 r� County Intarl ro awtwe and take action on a psqppa by the Fire Deparhnent q approve the Lease and Op- Won Agreement. Any person wishing to Comment in writing an the proposed Lease and Clpsion Agreement should dw eo within fourteen f 141 days af- ter the date of publication of this notice, to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, c/o Clerk of County Board of Commissioners, Post Office box 8181, Hifis- borough, North Carolina 27278. Beverly Blythe Clerk, Board of Commumonen County Orange Carolling Her - 9 /23/9Ad 0 ESSOR 2mergency_One. _1nc___ _ .1415 W. 22Ud Suite 11 Oa Brook. IL _ESSEE: vane: New Hope Volunteer Fire Dept.. Inc. 4ddress: 4700 NC86. P.O. Box 16484 ;sty Chapel HillCounty State NC Zip 27514 :omact and rue- Cliff Carroll, Chief relepnone No. 919/968 -6715 Vol, FOR COMPLETION BY LESSOR Always Refer to Lease No M- 00999 Rental Commencement Date- VENDOR Name: Address: City State Zip - Contact and Title: Telephone No.' ITEM QUANTITY EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION (Include Make, Model, Serial No. and all Attachments) 1 2 Two (2) Emergency One Model Protector XLT Pumper /Tanker Fire Apparatuses Mounted on Two Ford C8000 Chassis OCATION OF EQUIPMENT IF OTHER THAN ABOVE ADDRESS OF LESSEE. >ddress: City County State LEASE TERM TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST RENT DUE (Period) NO. /AMOUNT OF RENTAL PAYMENT4 Teri (10) Years lCwp= S 313, 807.20 ❑ Months (J Annuals y y ❑ Quanerly ERIn Arrears See payment schedule attached hereto and made a pan hereof ( "Payment Schedule "). �. MUNICIPAL LEASE AND_ OPTION AGREEMENT Lessor hereby leases to Lessee the Equipment for the purposes and upon the following terms and conditions: ARTICLE 1: COVENANTS OF LESSEE. Lessee represents, covenants and warrants, for the benefit of Lessor as follows: A Lessee is a not-for-profit Corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the Stale as set forth above ( "Slate ") and will do or cause to be done all things necessary to preserve and keep in full lorce and effect its existence as a corporation. B. Lessee has been duly authorized to execute, deliver and perform this Agreement under the laws of the State and under the terms and provisions of the resolulion of Its governing body, or by other appropriate official approval. Lessee further represents. Covenants and warrants that all requirements have been met, and procedures have oCCurred in order to ensure the enforceability of this Agreement. Lessee shall cause to be executed an opinion Of its Counsel in form acceptable to Lessor and, in the event Lessee Is a volunteer fire department. Lessee shall execute the representation set forth is Exhibit 9. C- During the term of this Agreement, the Equipment will be used by Lessee Only for 'he purpose of performing one or more governmental or proprietary functions of Lessee consistent with the permissible scope of Lessee's authority and will not be used in a trade or business of any person or entity other than the Lessee. 3. During the period this Agreement is in force, Lessee will annually provide Lessor vnh current financial statements, budgets, proof of appropriation for the ensuing lls- .al year and such other financial information relating to the ability of Lessee to bon - :anue tens Agreemenl es may be reasonably requested by Lessor. The Egwpmenl is, and shall remain during the period this Agreement is In force, personal property and when subject to use by Lessee under this Agreement, will not x or become fixtures. ARTICLE It: DEFINITIONS. The following terms will have the meanings indicated 7elow unless the context clearly requires otherwise! 'Lease Term' means toe Original Term defined In Article III hereof. 'Leaeor means the entity designated on the face of this Agreement as Lessor here - ��der 'Purchaw Price' means the amount which Lessee may, at its option, pay to Lessor in order to purchase the Equipment, as set forth in the Payment Schedule ausened to 'hie Agreement, subject to the terms of Article IX. 'Vendor means the manufacturer of the Equipment as well as the agents or dealers It the manufacturer. ARTICLE 111: LEASE TERM. iScllon 3.01 The term of this Agreement shall Commence on the date the Equipment s accepted by Lessee as indicated on t1a Certificate of ACCeplanee ('Commencement )ate') and shall lermelateonert—,rhr�u}�rn�dprrgd120 ) months thereafter on the enni- )ersary of the CDmmencementQ , alrblact to the provisions DI Section 3.02 hereof Section 3.02 TSrminatlon of Lease Term. The Lease Term will terminate upon to earliest of any of the following events: (a) The exercise by Lessee of the option to purchase the Equipment granted and the provisions of Article IX of this Agreement; (b) A default by Lessee and Lessor's election to terminate this Agreement uno. Article XI; or (c) The payment by Lessee of all Rental Payments authorized or required to be pa by Lessee hereunder. ARTICLE IV: INSPECTION. Lessor shall have the right at all reasonable times duns business hours to enter into and upon the property of Lessee tot Me purpose of u specting the Equipment. ARTICLE V: RENT PAYMENTS. Section 5.01 Rant Payments to Constiluts a Curranl Eapenee of Lamm. Lessor at Lessee understand and intend that the obligation of Lessee to pay Rent Paymen hereunder shall constitute a current expense of Lessee and shall not In any way I construed to be a debt of Lessee in contravention of any applicable constitutional i statutory limitations or requirements Concerning the creation of indebtedness t Lessee, not shad anything contained herein constitute a pledge of the general ie revenues, funds or monies of Lessee. Section 5.02 Paynwltt of Rant Payments. Lessee shall Pay Rent Payments, exclusive - from legally available funds to Lessor in the amounts and on the dales set forth , the Payment Schedule attached to this Agreement. A portion of oath Rent Paymel is paid as, and represents payment of.. interest and principal, respectively. Balanco, not paid when due shall be subject to past due interest at the rate of 18% per onnur or the highest rate permitted by law, whichever is less. Notwithstanding any other pn vision of this agreement and under any and all Circumstances. Lessee is Obligate to pay interest to Lessor on the purchase price (remaining balance) at the per annw rate specified In this agreement for each day this agreement remains in effect. Ali suc unpaid interest snail be due immediately upon termination of this tease. Section 5.03 Rent Payments to be unconditional. The obligation of Lessee to mat payment of Rent Payments and other payments required under this Agreement she be absolute and unconditional in all events. Lessee shall =its all Such payment when due and shall not withhold any such payments as a result of any disputes ringin• among Lessee and Lessor, any Vaodw or any other person, nor Shall Le aSn asses any right of sot-a" or counterclaim against Its Obligation to make Such payments c be entitled to any abatement of such payments as a result of accident or unforesee. circumstances. Section 5.04 Sound 01 Rental PairmentIL Lessee Shall pay the Rental Payments pro vided for hereunder. Lessee represents that funds of an amount sufficient to mak• all Rental Payments during the Lease Term can be obtained. Lessee turther shad d• all things lawfully within its power to obtain funds from which the Rental Payment may be made, lc*d nt a on beet THIS AGREEMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS PRINTED ABOVE AND ON REVERSE SIDE WHICH ARE MADE A PART HEREOF ACCEPTED AT: By. e_ Emerl;encZ One, Inc. (Lessor) Date' X- .19 90 LESSEE ACRNOWLEOGES READING AND RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT ..New Hope Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. (1,412140 Nettie as Above) This underergMe anrrma Mai he Nis bean euy awllgrrl:ed to exeCum mm► Agreement on bMMff of IM atabae- nibram LaafM By: L-11 I C Lessee: NEE MOVE VF D, INC.. Number and frequency of payments: Teri (10) arirlUd l payments in arrears. Interest computed at 8.95% per annum. Lease Mo. M -00999 PayinErrt: aroount atjpl ied to Purchase pr ice (remaining balance) $317,987.20 317,987.20 192,987.20 1.80 , 254.42 1.66,382.06 1.51 ,266.12 134,801.49 115,861.09 97,315.03 76,019.60 52,818.22 27,540.32 0.00 " Balances not paid when due shall be subject to past due interest at the rate of 1.8 per year or the highest rate permitted by lam, whichever is lest;. Interest accrues daily, at the rate indicated above, on the outstanding principal balance (listed in "Purchase price" column). Emergency One, Inc. "Lessor" MEW HOPE YFO, IMC. "Lessee" T it le; _ Title: l7 ay merit ..,...._......_. __....__. amoi.int. lilt crpst Principal Total sales price Trade —in al lowed $0.00 $0.00 Down payment v!..''000.00 115, 000.00 Payment A. 30,003.1.:3 $11,2/2.:35 1.2,732.78 Payment 1 30,005.13 1.6, 132.77 13,872.36 Payment 3 : <O, 005. 1,3 14,891.1.9 15, 1.1:3.94 Payment 4 30,005.13 13,538.50 1.6, 466.63 Payment ri 30, 00s. o 1. 2, 064. 7:3 1.7, 940.40 Payment 6 30, OUS.11 10, 459.07 19, 546.06 Payment 7 30,005.11 8,709.70 ?1,295.43 Payment 8 30,005-1.3 6,803.75 ?3,201.38 Payment 9 30,005.13 4,717.13 15,277.90 Payment 1.0 30,005.13 1, 4(14.131 ?7,540.32 Totals $300,0!'11.30 $107,064.10 $192,987.20 Purchase pr ice (remaining balance) $317,987.20 317,987.20 192,987.20 1.80 , 254.42 1.66,382.06 1.51 ,266.12 134,801.49 115,861.09 97,315.03 76,019.60 52,818.22 27,540.32 0.00 " Balances not paid when due shall be subject to past due interest at the rate of 1.8 per year or the highest rate permitted by lam, whichever is lest;. Interest accrues daily, at the rate indicated above, on the outstanding principal balance (listed in "Purchase price" column). Emergency One, Inc. "Lessor" MEW HOPE YFO, IMC. "Lessee" T it le; _ Title: Se )teinber l °, 1990 New i_ooe Volunteer Fire Dernartment, Inc. 4700 N(_ 86 s. Q. 9295/2296 Attn: Chief Cliff Carroll 10 EMERGENCY APPARATUS, 5103 REVERE ROAD DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27713 QUANTIT_Y_:_ TWO MODEL: COMMERCIAL PROTECTOR XLT 1000 PUMPER /TANKER CONTRACT PRICE: $311,807.20 EXTRAS TO CONTRACT: - Backboard Storage -2 @ $100.00 each S200.00 - Manual Pump Shift Override -2 @ $509.00 each 1,018.00 - Master Emergency Circuit /Switch -2 @ $89.00 each 178.00 - Back -up Alarm --2 @ $110.00 each 220.00 -- Recess Siren -2 @ $55.00 each 110.00 -One Pair Cab Dome Lights -2 @ $110.00 per pair 220.00 - Additional Hose Bed Divider -2 @ $317.00 each 639.00 --2500 Gallon Drop Tank -1 @ $1,600.00 each 1,600.00 aasas�sa lip. gga !E Lim $2r000.00 `.._ ssaaaains RONWAnm ra K =M WMWILL �. asasssasa �^ , . ; • ... � ,.y.::, � - _ Ate:.: . w a iw 4 �� 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. V Co ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 16, 1990 SUBJECT: County Benefit Plan Inclusion DEPARTMENT: ^Housing/Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: x ------------------------------ ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 - r- PURPOSE: To approve the addition of one staff member of Orange Community Housing Corporation to the County's benefit plan for at least one year beginning November 1, 1990. BACKGROUND: Orange Community Housing Corporation (OCHC) was created by the key recommendation of the county's low and moderate income housing task force. OCHC is preparing to begin its first official year of operation. Office space has been secured and they are presently searching for an Executive Director. During this recruitment process, the need for the provision of benefits as surfaced. Their goal is to hire an executive director by October 31, 1990, leaving little time in the interim for study and Exploration of benefit packages. Therefore, to assist the corporation, OCHC is requesting to be included in the County's benefit plans for at least one year. This would allow OCHC time to explore other ways to provide these benefits while already having a director on board. OCHC would finance this benefit plan (equivalent to the County's contribution) therefore, there would be no direct cost to the County. RECOMMENDATION(5): Approve the addition of one staff member of Orange Community Housing Corporation to the County's benefit plan for at least one year beginning November 1, 1990 by contract as approved by the County Attorney. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 16, 1990 SUBJECT: Housing Development Grant Application DEPARTMENT: Housing /Community Dev. ATTACHMENT(S): Draft Application (Under Separate Cover) 1 Action Agenda Item No._Yff--A PUBLIC HEARING YES: x NO: INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To receive comments from public concerning the proposed FY 1990 Housing Development Grant Application and authorize submission of the application by October 19, 1990. BACKGROUND: The North Carolina Department of Economic and Community Development Department has announced the availability of funds under the Housing Development Grant Program. A public hearing was held on September 18, 1990 to receive citizen's comments prior to developing a grant application. As a result of this public hearing, County staff has worked with Orange County Habitat for Humanity to prepare an application for funds to assist them with their road paving efforts in their subdivision, Chestnut Oaks. Approximately, $200,000 in Community Development funds is being requested in this application. ECD requires applicants to conduct a second public hearing after the grant application has been prepared in order to receive additional comments prior to submission. Applications are due October 19, 1990. RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive citizen comments as additional information and authorize submission of the Housing Development Grant Application by October 19, 1990. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. II-A ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 16, 1990 SUBJECT: 1989 -90 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report DEPARTMENT: Finance PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO:X ATTACHMENT(S): Audit Report INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Chavious Ext. 2453 Submitted under separate cover TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough -732 -8181 Chapel Hill -968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To present the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1990. BACKGROUND: The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report covers all financial activity of the County for fiscal year 1989 -90. Presentation of this report is necessary in order to fulfill the requirements set forth in G.S. 159 -34 of the North Carolina General Statutes. Representatives of the County's certified public accountants, Deloitte and Touche, will be present to answer any questions. RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive as information. 4 1 O RANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 16,1990 Agenda Abstract Item # SUBJECT: REPORT - SENATE BILL 766 DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes—X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Senate Bill 766 Planning Director X2592 PHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 Chapel Hill 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive a report on Senate Bill 766 and its implications. BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 766 was enacted in the last session of the N.C. General Assembly and becomes effective October 1, 1991. Under the provisions of the bill, amendments or other changes in local zoning regulations are not applicable where: 1. Building permits have been issued prior to enactment of the zoning regulations, and the permits remain valid; or 2. A vested right has been established and remains valid. "Vested right" is defined as the right to undertake and complete a development and use of property, and is conferred on a landowner after notice, public hearing, and approval of one of the following: 1. Site specific development Dl an - A plan which describes with reasonable certainty the type and intensity of use for a specific parcel or parcels of property. Examples include a planned unit development plan, a subdivision plat, a preliminary or general development plan, a conditional or special use permit, a conditional or special use district zoning plan, or other land use approval designation. 2 ' 2. Phased development Plan - A plan for phased development which shows the type and intensity of use for a specific parcel with a lesser degree of certainty than a site specific development plan. A vested right shall remain in effect for a period of two years. However, a county may, in its discretion, provide that rights be vested for up to five years in certain circumstances. Once established, a vested right precludes any zoning action by the county which changes or prevents the use or development of the property, except: 1. With the written consent of the landowner; 2. Upon finding that natural or manmade hazards on the site threaten the public health, safety, and welfare; 3. Upon compensation of the landowner for all costs and expenses incurred after approval by the county; 4. Upon finding that the landowner provided wrong information to obtain approval by the county; or 5. Upon enactment of a State or Federal law which precludes development of the site. A complete copy of the Senate Bill 766 provisions is attached. RECOM1ENDATION: Receive as information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MAE- GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLU p _ SIMION 1989 SENATE BILL` 66 : - Judiciary III Committee Substitute Adopted 5/4/89 . Third Edition Engrossed 5/11/89 House Committee Substitute Favorable 7/17/90 Short Title: Vesting Property Rights. Sponsors: Referred to: April 4, 1989 - A BILL TO BE ENTITLED a 4 (Public) AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT A VESTED RIGHT SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR TWO YEARS, WITH PROVISION FOR EXTENSION NOT TO EXCEED FIVE YEARS, UPON CITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL OF A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THAT A VESTED RIGHT SHALL BE ESTABLISHED NOT TO EXCEED FIVE YEARS UPON CITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL OF A PHASED DEVELOPMENT PLAN. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: Section 1. G.S. 160A- 385(b) reads as rewritten: "(b) Amendments, modifications, supplements, repeal or other changes in zoning regulations and restrictions and zone boundaries shall not be applicable or enforceable without consent of the owner with regard to hyk& buildings and uses for which eitbgr fD building permits have been issued pursuant to G.S. 16OA -417 prior to the enactment of the ordinance making the change or changes so long as the permits remain valid and unexpired pursuant to G.S. 16OA -418 and unrevoked pursuant to G.S. 16OA -422 or (ii) vegted right hAs_b_qgn_e=blished Rjarsuant to 160A- 85 and such voted ri ht rem ins v lid and unCZMired_2ujsuant to 1 A- .1." Sec. 2. Part 3 of Article 19 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read: " 1 A- -1- Vested rights. = = GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA : _ - SESSION 1989'-. - - - 1 (j)--Ihe Qmeral 6Asembly finftian.4'decjares h it is- necessaELand- desirable, 2 a matter f i g- RQliGy, Ig Rrovide for thr, establish gnt of certain vc9ed ri i 3 order to mable ccriainty-stability, „and faimels in the land .use planning 4 process. secure the rgasonable expect lions of landowners.,and _ foster cooperation 5 between the public and private sectors in the area of land; use plannin. 6 Furthemor_e. the General Assembly recognizes that „gity_a22roval of land -use 7 ¢evelopment_typicallyfollowl, significant i „andowner investment in site _evaluation, 8 planning, evel m nt gg-sta-c-onsultant ft1gand r l t d exposes. 9 .. The-ability of a landowner_Ig obtain ,a _vested right-after city- y al2proval of a site 10 apecifig develQj2mfnL_21an--or „ a phased_ deve men&, elan will preserve the 11 qj=ggatives and authority of local elected officials with respect jo land -use matters. 12 There will be ample on ortunities for publig_ =ici�ztion and the public interest will 13 lzS served. These 12rovisions will strike_,_ansRproadate balance between private 14 lions nd_the public interest, while, scrQ2ulously �r�r -0 cting the 2ublic health, 15 safety. And welfarg. 16 (b ) Definitions. -- 17 i1,� `Landowner' means any owner- -f _a legal oL er- uitable intere §t in r- 18. - _ -._. real prg2crty including t, a heirs. devisees. successors, assigns. and 19 personal representative of such owner. „ The landowner may_, allow 20 a_Persgn holding a, valid option to purchase to act As his agent or 21 representatives far pu -rRgsgs of submitting a proposed site specific 22 development plan or a phased develo meet 2lan }finder this 23 section. in the-manner, 1 wed_hv ordin,ence. 24 qty° rhahave the a meaning as set forth in G_ S 160A -1 (2). 25,--., _ Thaged development plan' means ' a 1p as which been 26 submitted to a city by a landowner fpr phased develol2ment which 27 shows the tYPe_ndinten5ity of use for a specific parcel or parcels 28 with a lesser degree of certainty__t,han the plan determined by the 29 ci , to be _a site specific develol2me -ut plan, 30 `PrQ 2rr-ty' means all real prQpgrtysubject to zoning, ,regulations 31 Lnrl restrictions and zone bglandaries by a ciM. s ecific 32 � ate p devel ment Qp 1 p aR' means a plan which has been 33 submitted to a city b y a landomMrr descrfl2jag with r onable 34 rcrMinty the _type _And intensi of ,}fie fora s ecific ,parcel or 35 . pareelsof Vroperty &ch plate 12e in the form of. but not be 36 limited to, any_of the f 11� owing_plans or, approvals: A planned unit 37 dgveloRm -en plan. „a subdivision plat. a- eliminary or general -38 dgvelop=t ,plan, a conditional ,,,,_Qr special use pSrrn a 39 conditional .or $$ecial use ,digbct zoning plan, or =ojher land - 40 use apRroval desi atign as may be utilized by_ a city. Unless 41 o-th_erwise expressly nr ded, by the city. agh a ,Flan shall include 42 the _approximate boundadga of the sitg: sigr►ificant topographical 43 and otes natural featurgs effecting development of the sitg: the 44 approximate location. „ gn_ the site„ of the „proposed buildings. Page 2 Senate Bill 766 r - .. .._... -�-. �GENERAL - SESSION 1989 ASSEMBL Y OF NORTH CAROLINA -- . .. -_- strugturss. and other iM2jQvtmz_nts*, the apprggimatr, dim 2__ — •n i h f thr, 2roRosed i t r gructu r 3 ..._: "= ....._.. xim t 1 f i s _;� =.: A. = -- jnfraa ru ture on he te� �ncladin water. sewer. road, and 5- i n w lkw ifi v 1 m n 6 lap Under this seclion that w uld jrigggr a v t 1 7 _:: -_ ll determined t a ordinance-- n h g dgcumgnt that trigggs vesting shall be IQ identified at the 9 1im of its approval. _Hgwever. at a m nimum. the ordinance to be 10 adgRted by the i h ll v sting. i rli r than the 11 issuance of a building hermit. A variance shall not constitute a sil§ 12 specific dev lloopment Rl n. and approval of a , site apeci#io 13 development _plan with the condition that a _variance be obtained 14 shall, not confer a vested right unless nd until _the necessM 15 variance is obtained. Neither a skstch ._pin nor__ any other 16 document which fail§ to describe with reasonable certainty thr. type 17 and intensity f use f r a sl2ccified 12 rcfl or Rarcels of gIrgRerty 18 may constitute a site sRrcific development_ lan. 19 _Vested right' means the right to undertake and complete_ the 20 develol2mgnt and use f property under the term nd c nditi ns 21 of an aRiprgved site specific development plan or an approved 22 Rhaaed devElopmcnt Plan. 23. (c) Establishment gf vested right - 24 A v sted ri ht shall be deemed established with respert to any Rrol2erty upon the 25 valid approval, or conditional approval. of a site specific development Alan or a 26 Rhasgd development plan, -following notice n public hearing by the city with 27 jurisdiction over the propgM. Such vented right shall confer upon the landowner the 28 ht to Undertake and com lete the develg2ment and use gf said-RropeM and r the 29 teXMs and condifigns of condition the ite s ecific develgpment lap r the Rhased develo m n 30 plan including any ilmendments thereto. A gily approve a site jpecLfic 31 develg2meng plan--or phased development-plan Upon such terms and c n iti ns as 32 may rgasonably be nege5saKy to 12rolgct the public health, safety. and welfArr,. Such 33 conditional gpproy4l hal! rgslilt in a vested nght. althougLfailum to abidr, by such 34 terms and cgnditions will re It in f rfei ur f v rights. A ci • sh ll not 35 Leguire a land wn r to w ive his vested rights c nditi n of dey-gIgpmental 36 approval, A site Wecific develoRment plan or a Rh= doveloRment plan shall be 37 deemed a2proved uQon the effective date _ of the city's action or ordinance rela�inE 38 4. 39 (d) Duration and termination of vested right, 40 A right which has been vested r i for in this section sha 1 41 main v sted for a-Reriod gf two This vesting shall not be 42 evended by any m nd dificati n to ite s ifi 43 development plan unless expressly provided by the city. Senate Bill 766 Page 3 ASSEMLY OF NORTH CAROLINA - - GENERAL - = - SESSION 1959 Page 4 Senate Bill 766 NTotwithganding__t_he -Of subsectiQn (d)(1)_ a_ci y av 2 -:V ~' ~s _ ' provide that rights shill be vested i d r Rgliod exceeding two ygars -_ .. ry" but not exceedin five years wh er�„warran in light of all g y -_- 4 - -� relevant circµms:nces. inclndin but not limited to the size and 5 �.' F asing _of development. the level Qiinvestment the need for the 6 development. economic rvcles. and market conditions These_ determinations shall be in the sounddiacr iQn of the city. 8.. (,i Notwithstanding the provisions of (d)(1) and (d)(2),, the city may 9 , -_ : _ �_:... _:... prov_idg by ordinance tha approval by a city of . a phased 10 : _ _ - developmen clan_ shall vest ,,the_ zoning. ,classification or classifications so approved for a peaiQd not to exceed fiveyears. 12 Tile document -that triggers such vetting shall be so identified at 13 thg dime of its_approv„al The city still m thge landowngr 14 to-submit a site specific development plan, for approval by the -city 15 with respect to each „R se or „_,,phases _in order_to obtain fing, 16 approv-aL to_develop within the rgstrictiQns of the vested zoning 17 classification or clagifications; Nothing in this jection shall be 18 construed to rrguire -a--city jo adopt an ordinance providing for 14 vesting of nights upon approval of a phased development „plan. 20 Following approval_ or conditional approval of a site specific 21..- development plan - or a „phased development plan, nothing in this 22 es ction shall exempt such a plan, from subsequent reviews and 23 apprrgyals by -the city to ensure compliance with the terms and 24 conditions of -the originAl approval._ provided that such reviews and 25 approvals are not inconsistent with _ isa d original approval. Nothing 26 in—this- section shall prohibit the city from _revoking the original 27 approval for failure to coMI21v_- with applicable terms And 28 conditiQns-of the ap, rc val gr the zoning grdinancg. 29 i Tp2nissuance of a „building Rermit, the provisions of G.S. 160A- 30 4_1.&-and_G.S. 10A:422-shall apply, except that a permit shall not 31 expire or_be revoked because of the running of time while a vested 32 LLght under this_ section is 33 ( 4- right which has_begn vested AS 12so3dded in this secti Q n shall 34 terminate at the end of the applicabig vesting_pSriod with respect 35 to b4ildings and uses fQr which_ no valid building_, permit 36 applications -have been „filed. 37 teen h r hibit ' • emcptions, -38 Avested right. n a li hed vided f r in this section' 39 precludes any zoning actiQnn y a citywh gh would change. alter. 4 0- seven -”- iminish. or otherwise_dglay the developm ent or 41 us_eof the property_ as set forth , in an approved, site specific 42 development :plan or an apprgved_ghased development plan, 43 xe capt: 44 a. With the written consent of the affected landowner: Page 4 Senate Bill 766 GOAL OUNA - SESSION 989 ASSEMBLY of NORTH c� 1 -_ n findings, r in n gr, after noticg and li _ a brarin that natural gr Man-mlde hazA r h -- 3- immediate viginity--of the if un m ffecifd. would 4 >Z ^`e a serious threat to the health. safe y. and welfare 5 if the project were to proceed W contemplatgd- in the site 6 sl2ecific development 1 r the phiksed vl mnt ln• 7 To the extfnt that thr, affected 1 d wn r receive, $ compensation f r All--costs. ggpen and olher Igsses 9 incurred by the landowner indudingy, but not_ limited to. ll 10 fees Raid in consideration of financing. and all architectural 11 plInninsr. marketing, legal. and other consu taut'& fees- 12 incurred after aRl2roval by thg -city. together with interest 13 thereon at the legal rate until paid. Compensation shall not 14 include any diminution in the value of the r rt whi h is 15 cap es d by such aelionn; 16 d. lilpon findings. by ordinance after notice and hearing,thatt 17 the landowner r his re rgsentative intgntionally supplied 18 inaccurate inf rmation or made malgrial misreRresentati ns 19 which made a difference in t !; approval by the city of _the 20 site s2ecific development plan or the hp ase_d development 21 lap, nor 22 -e= . on thr, enactment- r _12ramulzation of a Statg or federal 23 law OT regulation which r clud develgl2menj as 24 contemplated in the sit specific development plan or thg 25 phased development plan in which cage the city may 26 modify, the affected provisigns. uRon a finding thilt the 27 change in State or federal law hays a fundamental effect on 28 th lap ordinance fter n ice and a h rip 29 The establishment of a vested right shall ngt preclude the 30 aR21ication of overlay zoning which im es --additional 31 re uirements but does n t affect the allowable =e gr intgosity o f 32 use, r ordinancrs or relMlations which ar ene 1 in mat re and 33 are licable to all prgilerty subject to land- use rggulation by-A- 34 cily. including. not limitrd to. building. fie . plumbin 35 electrical. and mechanical c2des. Qtherwise a2plimble new 36 lati ns shall become effective with re.Wect to ro which is 37 subject to _a site specific development p.1-an- or g . phased 38 de-yeloRmgnt RlAn -u2on the tin termination f the 39 vesting n_ ghts period provided for in this srgtion• 40 Notwithltanding an r vis on of thia section. establishment of 41 a v ted right shilil not 2reclude. change or impair he authority pf 42 ci I to adgl2t and enforce zoninLordinLn ce ro ns moverniat 43 ngnconformine situations or uses. 44 W Miscellaneous ro 'ins. Senate Sill 766 Page 5 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA ' °a`` SESSION IM _77 1 LU A vested right gbt in and r_t se , ' n -is-not a personal right, 2 but shall attach to and run with the app1icablg�perty 3 IR12 vel roval of a site Micific deopment ,,plaan or g_phased 4 dgvelopment plan, all successor to the cZriginal, landowner shall be 5 entitled to- exersis such rights. 6 ( Nothing in thin section shall rp_eclµde „judicial determination. based 7 on common law principles or other statutgrv_2rovisiong, that a 8 vested right exists in_a particular case or that a compgnsable taking 9 has occurred. Except as expressly nr� ovidedin This section. nothing 10 in this section shall be construed to alter the existing common law. 11 In the every a city. Jails to adopt an ,ordinance setting forth what 12 constitutgs a site sW&_ific development plan triggering vested 13 right. a _landowneT_may establish a vG5ted right , with respect to 14 p operty upQrth� approval of a_zonirg_2ermit. or otherwise may” .15 seek appropriate relief from theL Superior Court _Division of the 16 General Court_ of Justice." 17 Sec. 3. G.S. 160A -31 is amended by adding a new subsection (h) to read: 18 "(h) A city council which receives a Refition for annexation under this section 19 may by ordinance require that the ,pgtitig►e_ rs file a_.signed statement declaring 20 whether or nog vest d nghts with rrj2gGt to t e ro erti u ject Lg-Lh-e-pgtition have 21 been established under G.S. 160A- 355,1,QrSi,S._ 153A- 3441. If the statement declares 22 that such rights have been _ established, the ci , may_rgauire etitiongrs to provide 23 proof of such rights. A tc, atement which declares that--no-vested rights have been 24 established under G.S. 160A -385.1 -or G.S. 153A444.1 shall be- binding on the 25 landowner and any such vested right shall be terminated." 26 Sec. 4. G.S. 160A -58.1 is amended by adding a new subsection (d) to 27 read: 28 "(d) _A city council_ which-receives a _petition „for annexation under this section 29 may by ordinance require that the 24titioners file a signed statement decladne 30 whether or not_v_ested rights with gIpSct to the properties subject tQ the petition_have 31 been established under G.S. 160A -385.1 or 9$; 153A-3W4-1.-If the statfment declares 32 that such rights _have beenestablished the pity„ may Mppire petitioners , toprovide 33 proof of such rights. A_ statement which ftlares that no vested„ rights have been 34 established under G.S -160A- 385.1, Qr G.S. 153A -344.1 shall be binding on the 35 1aandowner ansl any_ such _vested right,shAll be terminated." 36 Sec:. S. G.S. 153A- 344(b) reads as rewritten: 37 "(b) Amendments, modifications; supplements, repeal or otherr changes in zoning 38 regulations and restrictions and zone boundaries shall not be applicable or 39 enforceable without consent of the owner with regard to Ie#& buildings and uses for 40 which filhrr i building permits have. been issued pursuant to G.S. 153A -357 prior to 41 the enactment of the ordinance making the change or changes so long as the permits 42 remain valid and unexpired pursuant to G.S. 153A -358 and unrevoked pursuant to 43 G.S. 153A -362 or (ii) a vested right has been established pursuant to _9.5. 153A -344.1 44 and such vested right remains-valid and unexpired pursuantto G.S_15aA- 344.1." Page 6 Senate Bill 766 GENERAL ASSFNBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA _ _ - �' -�=w_ LION 19 9 Senate Bill 766 Page 7 Sec. 6. Part 3. of Article 18 of Chapter 153A of the General Statutes is - --• 2-amended by'adding a new section to read: - -•- -, _ _- _ - ' -- ` 3,.;F 153L-MU. yqgbg rights. 4 (a) m find n 1 necessary it 1 5 a, mat public Roomy,. g Rrovid forte establishment of certain vested_E ghjs in - 6 order toe sure reasonable certaility stability, and fairness in the land -use planning 7 prgcess. Iccure t as na 1 t i n r o f r rati n $ 6etween the li n d private sectors An—the of 1 1 nnin . 9 rth r e- 1he Qencral Agembly rgcognizes that county A212roval of land -us 10 development typically follows significant land caner investmen in site evaluation, , 11 planning. development costs consultant fees. and related related gx2gnses, 12 The ability of a landowner to obtain a vestgd right-after county approval gf a site 13 n lan will preserve the 14 grerogatives and authority, of local elected offixials with_ resRect to land -gse matter$, 15 TheT§ will bj am le gp2ortunities for Rublic participati and the lic jnjrrcst will 16 br, Igryed. These grovisigns will strikC an apRrgVriate balance between 2rivate 17 e2Wectationk and the gublig interest while scruj2ulgusj.y prgtectingy the publig health. 18 f t and w lfare. 19 (b) Definitions. 20 `Landowner' means any owner of a legal or equitable interest _in 21 real Rrouerty, including the heirs. devisees. successors. assigns, and ,.22 - gersonal rSprese tative of such owner. The landowner may allow 23 a gerson hglding, a v lid joRtign to Rjarchase act as hi agent r 24 represent&tive for Rurposes gf submitting a gjrgposed kite speci fic 25 develop.Lngnt 121an gr a 2hased develol2ment 121an nder t' 26 seggion. in the manner allow rd by ordinance. 27 �2,� `Cgunt,' shall have the same meaning as set forth in C.S. 153A- 28 1l 29 `Phased development plan' means a flan which _ _ has been 30 submitted to a county by a _landowner for phased development 31 which ghows th_We and intensity of use for a specific parcel or 32 parcrls with a lesser degree f certainty than the 121an determined 33 by the county to be a site specific deveiggmen_ plan. 34 `Pr mrans all 1 props= subject zoning regulations 35 and r st ' tions z ne boundaries by a counIL 38 a ific dev 1 met an' meanj a -plan which has e 37 submitted to a co] my by a landowner desc ibing_ with re�sszna 1P 38 certaingy the type and intlnsity f r a =cific 1 or 39 parc� els of progeny. Such plan may be in the form of, but not be- 40 mited to any of the ollowin plans or approvals: A plannedu 41 development gla . a subdivision plat, a prelimin&ry Qr general _ 42 development lg an. a conditional or special u 43 Conditional or special use district zonins! mian_or any other land- 44 usf, approval designation aS may be utiligrd by a county -Unless Senate Bill 766 Page 7 GENERAL ASSnMLY of NORTH CAROLINA ) . I - -- SESSION 1 ,,: _` V :.T_..� r otherwise eXj2res,Fl_y pLQrided by the -county .such a plan shall 2 =' include the— Oproximate boundaries of _the site: significant 3 1,opggr_Aphical and other natural features effecting development of 4 the site: the approximate location gn the sitg of the pr-Qposed 5 _.._ building$. structures and other r improvemrnts: the approximate 6 _: dimensions including hgiighi= of the Rr000sed buildin "d other 7 structures: and the- location f ll exis in d $ Rosrd infr t t n h i in 1 w r wer rgads. 9 _ and - pedestrian wAlkweys. What_ constitutes a anew= ific 10 develumol plan and tin that would trigger a vested 11 right shall br, finally determined by the, county ourjuant to an 12 ordinance. and the dgcM ngnt That triggers such vgging shall be so 13 identified at the time gf its aorov_ai, However- at a minmum. the 14 ordinance tQ ts adoRted- the cglanty shall, designAtr, a vesting 15 point earlier than .he i lMangg of a building permit. A variance 16 shall not cgn5titute a site specific d v ment 21an. and al2l2roval 17 of a site cific development 1 n with the nditi n at a 18 varianc-e--be gbtained shall nol confSr a vested right unlglg and 19 until the_ necessaryyariancg is gbtaine Neither a sketch plan nor 20. any other document hich –fails---to _ describe with reasonalle 21 certainty the type and--intensity—of use for a specified parcel or 22 'i._.. parcels or Drone may constitute a site specific development plans, 23.. ".. U 'Vested right' mean th ht to undertakc an c m lete the 24 development and use- of _ property under the terms and conditions 25 of an --agRwved Site specific develQpment plan or an -approved 26 phased development Rlan. 27 (c) Establishment of vested right. 28 A vested rright shall be deemed_esta-bli &hgd with resjae�oamy_nroperty upon the 29 yalid approval or conditional annroval.ofa -Site- -specific dev_elo m�plan or a 30 a d develo m nt la f llowin notice- n u tic hearing the count with 31 jun-sdigtion over th r . Such v ted right shall c of r upgn thg lmd-owner the 32 right to undertake and com2lgtC lhe develoment and use of said prgpelly jander the 33 terms and conditions of the site specific dCygll RMent 21an or thc.*ased_ development 34 21 an in lu "n n th A un r v i c' fic 35 v 1 m n 1 v r ,lopment plan u2on jMch trrms and n"' s as 36 May reasonably le necessary to orotect the public _health, safety- and welfargs Such 37 eondition.al, —Mr result in a_ vested _right. although failure to abide by such 38 i i n 'll i rf i ure gf y ted rights. A cQunty shall, 39 Lqguire a landowner to waive his vested rights as a condition of dgvelo m�ent_al 40 approval. -- A site mecific development Klan or a_nhased development„planshall be 41 deemed annr^„� ovd upon the effective_ date of the county's action Qr ordinance relating 42 thereto, 43 (d) Duration and termination of vested right,, Page 8 Senate Bill 766 10 Senate Bill 766 Page 9 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA -SESSION 1989 1 A right which has vested as l2rovided f r in thil sectign shall 2" ::'""`'.' rgmain vggled tar a 2griod of two years. Mis vesting h 1 t �-_3 �___.__.�w�- . �__._'. nd d n a n m nt r ifi i site ifi 4 .: development plan unless expressly provided by the county,, 5 .. Yy..,_ . W. `..: Notwithstanding the provision$ Qf subsection- (d)(1). a gounty My 6 . ----- Rrovide that rights shall be _vested for aRfrigd exceeding 7- 6ut not exceeding five year where warranted in light_ of $ __ lelgvant circumstances__ ncludin¢, but not limited t4 iz n 9 phasing_ of develop ent._the level of investment. the need for the 10 d gel pment economic cycles. and market, conditions.-- These 11 detClminations shall be in the sound discretion of the !;6un_tys 12 Notwithstanding the Qrovisions of (d)(11a1 and (d)(2). the county_ 13 may r vi e by rdin e that a r y l by a gounty of a phased 14 v 1 ment plan -shall vest _the__zoni!_j& Classification or 15 classifications so a r v d -for a Rerigd n t to exceed five r 16 The d cum nt that triggers such- vesting hall be so-jdfntified al 17 the time of its aRI21gval. The un ill may re uire th 18 landowner to submit-a silr, specific development plan for approval 19 by the county with re=ct to gach Rhaw r Rhasgs in order to 20 obt gin final al2proval to devel-o2 within e r stri tin of he 21 vested zoning classification or _ classifications. Nothing in this 22 _ z -.ion shall be—construed to r gunty to adopt-- an 23 ordinangg providing. for vgting of jights u2gn a2l2roval of —a- 24 phased development plan. 25 Following approval or conditiorial approval of a site specific 26 development plan or a phased development 21gn, nothing in this 27 section shall exempt such a plan from subsequent _reviews and 28 approvals_ by the county to ensure compliance with the terms_ and 29 conditions of the original approval, provided that such reviews 4nd 30 approvals are not inconsistent with said original approval Nothing 31 in this section shall prohibit the county from revoking the original 32 ARRroval for _f&jlure to comply li 1 t rms and 33 conditions of the approval or—the—zoning _or_dij2anc4_ 34 W 1U611 issuance of_a building permit, the provisions of G.S._ 15_3A- 35 358 and G.S. 153A-362 shall apply. except_that_ _permit shall not 36 expire or be revoked because of thg running of time while a vgLed 37 right under this §gction is outstanding. 38 A ri ht which en vested as V12v_i:drd in this Icatign sha. 11 39 Terminate at the end of the a_pZlicable ogling periQd with respect 40 to buildings and uses for which no villid_ bpilding permit 41 a22lications have_beemfiled. 42 Subsequent changes prohibited: _exceptign &. 43 f_l� A_vested right. once established as Rrovidedjor_in this section 44 precludes any.--zoning action by a county which would Change, Senate Bill 766 Page 9 - - .;.._�_ GENERAL ASSENMLY OF NORTH CAROLINA, - - - . -- . -... _ - - 1989 i imin ' h r otherwise -delay 2 v nt r r t forth n v - 3:- - =cific v l m 1 n or an approved ph-ased dtv o m t 4 -:._ _ .- - Klan, except• . 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 .3S 39 40 41 42 43 44 ... Page 10 L - With the written cgnsent gf the affected landowner; ]Z U2on findings, ordinance r noticg and a u lic hqarinr. thaj na u o man-made a ds o r in Ihe immediate v_icir�y._ of _ thn prrQQerty -if _ uncorrected. would WSe -a Sen ' U -LUrrgL L3j &Lie 12UUIIG health . safety. and w 1 re if the o were -Lo-grogeed n lated in ftm site specific develo2mgntplan or the phAjCd development plana To the extent that the affected landowner receives ompensation for all and other-josses incurre� the 1 d wner in h din u not limited-to, all _ fees paid in consideraLig of_financing. and all architectural. planning. marketing, Iegal. and _other consultant's feCE incurred after approval by th_ecounty. together with_ interest thereon at the legal rate until paid-Compensation-shall not icludg any diminution_i"he value of the property_which_is caused by such action- d Upon_findin&5. by ordinance after notice and a hearing, that the landowner or his representative intentionally suRRhied inaccurate information or made material misrepresentations which made a difference _in the a22rQval by the county., of the site specific development plan_ or the phased development plan: or L. URon the enactment or promulgation of a State or federal law or regulation which precludes development as cgntgmplated in the site specific development plan or the 2haaed development Klan. in which case the county may modify, the affected provisions upon_ a fin-ding that the change in State or federal law gas a fundaMe_nt4,l _effect__ort the plan. by Qrdinance gftgr n.Qtice and a hearing_ ? The establishment of a vest d right shall_ _ not preclude-- the &pjgicAdon of overlay zoni g which imposes additional Lqgutrements but does not- affect the allg-wable We or intensi1y of us r r ces r ulati s which r n ral in nature and are-aMILcable--to all 2rQRg= land-use regulation by a r,ouflV,jn,cludinff. but not-limited to. building, fire Rlumbing. le trical nd mechanical c d rwi al2plicablf, new regulatigns 5hall becgme effect've with r t tg grgRem which is subject to a site specific development plan or a phased developm_ entplan upon the expiration or terminaQn Qf the vgting ri hts gCrigd Rri23ided for in jbj§-vection. Senate Bill 766 12- . C GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION LM - 13 1 Nowithstanding any r vi i n of this section. the hm n 2 a vested ri ht shall not, gredwd-e. h air the authqdix 3 a county to adopt and gnfgTce zoning ordinance rovis ons 4 g vo erning nonconforming situations or uses. 5 L i cgllangous provisions. 6 A vested right obtained under this section is ngt a Rersonal _right. 7 but shall attach to and _ run with the applicable prQRerty __After 8 approval of a _ site specific development __Rlan -or _ a hn ased 9 development plan, all successors to the original_ landowner shall. be 10 gntitled to exercise such right 11 Nothing in this section shat preclude judicial determinatign. based 12 on common law principles_ or other, statutory provisions. that _a 13 y s ed right exists in a particular case orthata.!ompgnsable taking 14 has occurred. Except as expcessly provided in this section. nothing 15 in this section shall be construed to alter the existing common law. 16 In the event a county fails_so_ adopt_ an_ ordinance setting, forth what 17 constitutes -a _-site specific development_)lan triggering a vc1ted 18 right, a landowner may establish _a_ vested right with_ respect to 19 proerty uggn, the approval of a zoning permit, or otherwise may 20 seek appropriate relief from the 5u2erigr Coart Division of the 21 General Court of Justice." 22 = Sec. 7. This act shall become wffective on October 1, 1991, and shall 23 apply only to site specific development plans or phased development plans approved 24 on or after that date. Senate Bill 766 Page 11 1 O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 16, 1990 Action Agenda item # X -A_ SUBJECT: STREET NAME CHANGE - OLD N.C. HIGHWAY 86 DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X_No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 5/29/90 Public Hearing Minutes Planning Director - Extension 2592 Road Name Change Petitions G.S. 153A -240 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: PAS Report Excerpt Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Convissor 7/15/90 Letter Durham - 688 -7331 8/6/79 Commissioners Minutes Mebane - 227 -2031 4/8/80 Commissioners Minutes Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 8/30/90 Public Hearing Minutes 8/30/90 Johnson Letter 8/23/90 Rigsbee Letter 8/31/90 Haas Letter 9/3/90 Collins Letter 9/6/90 Cavalleto Letter PURPOSE: To consider changing the name of Old N.C. Highway 86 to Old Chapel Hill Drive. The portion of highway affected by such a change extends from Interstate 85 to New Hope Church Road /Arthur Minnis Road. BACKGROUND: On May 29, 1990, a public hearing was held on the assignment of house and building numbers for Rural Route 7- Hillsborough. Mr. Bob Haas, a resident of the Old-N.C. Highway 86 area, spoke in opposition to the road name, indicating that the road was called Old Chapel Hill Road when he moved to the area years ago. The Board of Commissioners agreed to delay action on the assignment of house numbers, pending receipt of a petition from area residents to re -name the road. Subsequent to the hearing, Mr. Haas presented petitions from 42 of 66 property owners (66 %) requesting that Old N.C. Highway 86 be re -named to Old Chapel Hill Way or Drive from I -85 to the New Hope Church Road /Arthur Minnis Road intersection. G.S. 153A -240 permits a county to re -name any public road not in a city provided: K 1. The N.C. Board of Transportation agrees with the proposed name change; 2. The proposed name change does not affect the number assigned to the road by the N.C. Board of Transportation; or 3. The proposed name is not deceptively similar to the name of any other public road in the vicinity. At its August 6, 1990 meeting, the Board of Commissioners approved the addition of the proposed road name change to the August 30, 1990 public hearing agenda. "Old Chapel Hill Drive" was advertised instead of "Old Chapel Hill Way ". A "way" generally refers to a dead -end street under 1,000 feet, whereas a "drive" is a winding, curvilinear street longer than 1,000 feet that connect with or continues through to other streets. The petitioners for the name change indicated that either designation would be satisfactory. At the August 30, 1990 public hearing, three persons spoke in favor of the proposed name change, while one spoke against the request. Petitions were received from 66 percent of the property owners along the road indicating support for the change. Two letters were also presented from the Town of Hillsborough, with one indicating the support of the Board of Commissioners and another expressing the opposition of the Planning Staff. A letter of opposition was also received from the Cross County Homeowners Association. Since the hearing, additional correspondence has been received, expressing support for and opposition to the request. The principal reason for the opposition to the proposed name change is the existence of two other roads in or adjacent to Orange County which were named Old Chapel Hill Road. The proposed name, Old Chapel Hill Drive, is similar enough to cause concern about adequate response from emergency services and law enforcement personnel. Commissioner Hartwell suggested dropping the "Old" from Old Chapel Hill Drive to address the concern. RECOIENDATION: The Administration recommends that Old N.C. Highway 86 be renamed to Chapel Hill Drive rather than Old Chapel Hill Drive. The reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1. The name is similar to that requested by the residents along Old N.C. 86. 2. Chapel Hill Drive does not conflict with the names of existing road names. If Chapel Hill Drive is not acceptable, the Administration recommends that the name Old N.C. 85 be retained until a suitable alternative is identified. c.rr26r6 Ma 0' N rrt4 v ME I 6RAD1 RROMN y SCHOOL R . ��� GOADA 11' tE _`` 1 a �1 lE DRIVE � Z211 40 J 9111 MOCK ea ...J �: tnatsbba Cy,� 1129 I*EE FARM RD r 1199 1 %' - -•- ! I�j r; 1 sw 1 s j ! 1723 '� •\ � � 1 R0. 1113 J = 1 lo - 41 / MINNIS N, -tr / 1 'yssna,j, Irj� i }'•ri.a';�,•,� ✓,, ai:,: i 1 � r � iiUFSi is ' ii'.'rii'. .y�j�7� • j+ :: 7 �DW%011s r. 1 ' 9�` AI.BE�iT , •�?r !t' /' '� 1 1175 1 / v 1 NOE I DAI Y1 FARM RD. ' Rai 1 / „ 7:� 1171 = Jo MAC ,po 1 l 4a �ly�� "o"� `� 4 KPSF•y r I �F 156j ! �° e1 REF OY RD. 4. rtim BEN JOHNS 1µ'• :.' .. :., •' ., M161 LLl ' y.,..... 1647 ' H `` 1706 OIL 1 S DI MML+� f 1w gi' 1 1 c.rr26r6 Ma 0' N rrt4 v ME I 6RAD1 RROMN y SCHOOL R . ��� GOADA 11' tE _`` 1 a �1 lE DRIVE � Z211 40 J 9111 MOCK ea ...J �: tnatsbba Cy,� 1129 I*EE FARM RD r 1199 1 %' - -•- ! I�j r; 1 sw 1 s j ! 1723 '� •\ � � 1 R0. 1113 J = 1 lo - 41 / MINNIS N, -tr / 1 'yssna,j, Irj� i }'•ri.a';�,•,� ✓,, ai:,: i 1 � r � iiUFSi is ' ii'.'rii'. .y�j�7� • j+ :: 7 �DW%011s r. 1 ' 9�` AI.BE�iT , •�?r !t' /' '� 1 1175 1 / v 1 NOE I DAI Y1 FARM RD. ' Rai 1 / „ 7:� 1171 = Jo MAC ,po 1 l 4a �ly�� "o"� `� 4 KPSF•y r I �F 156j ! �° e1 I R 9 Sr. DR. I 61t r 1 CVAFLM R 171 do r Blackwood Son � n DRxM�7t REF OY RD. 1836 1710 1647 ' H I R 9 Sr. DR. I 61t r 1 CVAFLM R 171 do r Blackwood Son � n DRxM�7t REF OY RD. 1836 1647 ' H S : I 4 3 1 Mr. Norman Patterson, of Patterson Road, indicated that his road has been named but 2 a street sign has not been erected. He asked if the county would put up a road name 3 sign. Mr. Collins indicated that because this is a private road the residents are 4 responsible for erecting the sign and the county will then maintain it. 5 6 Mr. Joe Taylor indicated that in March of 1989 he was given a permanent address of 7 2511 Old NC 86 South. He asked for clarification as to why his number was being 8 changed again. He was advised that this was a human error which is now being 9 corrected. 10 11 Mr. E. C. Brooks, a resident of Scarlett Mountain Road, indicated that Scarlett 12 Mountain Road is a public road which does not have a road sign. He asked that 13 consideration be given to the proper placement of this sign when it is erected. 14 15 Commissioner Willhoit asked for clarification on the present road signs on Old 86. 16 He was advised that it is called Greensboro St, and then Old 86. 17 18 Commissioner Halkiotis pointed out that strong support has already been received 19 from the residents of the Calavander area to name this road NC Old 86 and their wishes 20 need to be considered when a final decision is made. 21 22 Commissioner Hartwell indicated he was in agreement with naming at least a portion 23 of this road Old Chapel Hill Road. He indicated that New Hope Church Road could be 24 the dividing line. He suggested delaying a decision on this until the wishes of the 25 community can be heard. He also spoke in support of not renumbering the houses in 26 Cornwallis Hills. 27 28 Commissioner Marshall suggested that before this item is brought back to the Board 29 of Commissioners, Mr. Haas circulate a petition to the residents of this road to see 30 how much interest there is in this renaming issue. These petitions should be received 31 in the Clerks's office before July 15th. 32 33 It was the consensus of the Board to delay action for 60 days on Orange County Rural 34 Route 7 until a Public Hearing on the name is held. This may be scheduled for August 35 27th during the regularly scheduled Quarterly Public Hearing. 36 37 A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to 38 approve the proposed house and building numbers for Rural Routes 1 and 7 (partial) 39 followed by notification of the Hillsborough Postmaster, the Durham Postmaster and the 40 N.C. Department of Transportation, as required by G. S. 153A.240. 41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 42 43 E.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE 44 45 1. Environmental Im act Ordinance 46 47 2. Related Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 48 a. Article 8.8 Special Uses 49 b. Article 14 Site Plan Approval 50 51 3. Related Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments 52 a. Section III -C Approval Procedure -Minor Subdivision 6 Excerpt from 5/29/go Public Hearing Minutes 2 error in the Zoning Atlas by shifting the EC -5 district west to its proper location and out of the right -of -way; and 2) extend the district three (3) feet to the north so that the structure and a proposed addition will meet required setbacks. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, to approve the proposed rezoning from AR to EC -5 as per the Planning Board's recommendation. NOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE & BUILDING NUMBERS 1. Rural Route 7 - Hillsborough 2. Rural Routes 1 & 7 - Durham_ This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to Orange County Rural Route 7 served by the Hillsborough Post Office and Rural Routes 1 and 7 (partial) served by the Durham Post Office. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE'BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Hartwell indicated that he has received inquires about road names. Collins informed the Board that if a road was previously named, a Public Hearing wo ld be needed to change the name. For a road without a name, the wishes of citizens wh live on that road would be taken into account. Chris Best stated that he felt the Emergency Management employees would greatly benefit from a one -time training class which would explain the new Enhanced 911 system. They need to have a thorough understanding of the grid system in each district so that they can continue to serve the public in the shortest amount of tine possible. Chairman Carey indicated that he had received several letters from citizens who were scheduled for address changes. These people do not feel confident that this will be the last time their addresses will change. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS C Mr. Bob Haas indicated that when he first moved to this area the road he lived on was called Old Chapel Hill Road. Over the years the road has gradually come to be known as Old 86. He spoke in opposition to this road being officially named Old 86. He stated that he believed it was confusing to have two roads with such similar names. Mr. Mark Johnson, a Chapel Hill resident and a member of .the Cornwallis Hills Property Owners Association, spoke in opposition to the renumbering in their development. He suggested that the numbers not be changed in that portion of Cornwallis Hills which is developed. A letter from the Cornwallis Hills Property Owners Association outlining their opposition to this renumbering is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Mr. Don Powell, Information Services Supervisor Orange County Planning Department 106- -F Revere goad Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Don: I EcEUU�E D iD Route # 7, Box 121 Hillsborough, NC 27278 July 12, 1990 W I nclo5ed you will find Petitions from forty -two (42) of sixty -six (66) landowners along the Old Chapel Hill Road from 1 -85 to New Hope /Arthur Minnis Road requesting that our road be re -named 07. d Clbrapel Hill Way or, if this is not going to be possible, Old QaaQ Hill Drive. A good number of our landowners would prefer "Way" rather than "Drive ", but all would accept either. These citizens have expressed feelings that their desires be recognized and honored and want your people to understand that very few on these petitions have bothered you on other matters ever. We would appreciate fair and considerate action in this matter of dealing with our property and our having to live a lifetime with your decisions. Of the eighty --two (62) names on the list that you sent me, numbers 14, 18, 22, 28, 31, 34, 44, 49, 57, 61, 69, and 76 are repeated one or more times (a total of sixteen repeats), leaving sixty -six (66) names total. Our petitions represent forty -two or 64' /. -of the total landowners involved in the request, and we are still receiving one or two mail returns daily Your in the last two days). I do wish to speak to our petition as may others. Please keep us informed as to what progresses. Thank you for your consideration. S' erel y, Bob and June Haas Petition Workers Nr D 8 PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned residents o-f Orange County, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapei Hi 11 OLD CHAPEL HILL �& rathp c than Old N. C. G6. We -Further - peti. t.i. on that numbered addresses be listed a.s <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL -Rgk&. &JAS A/ �,�,�,►e A y NAME ADDRESS x-(",`41• _. -_1> 114wvw or r 7,70771 ". KAM �1w .t ! `I 0 ', DD PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersign°_= re= i.ient -s of Orange County, rier=by petition to permanently name trice s1d road frc^ Hi•1 1 sboroagh toward Lr=pe1 Hill OLD CHAPEL - KILL'ROAD rather than Old N. C. 66. tom= furt`,er petition tha-t fit '_,Fred addresses be listed a.5 <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD. V NAME ADDRESS. yL(. 2, &� 292 & - ----------------- ------------------------------------- _ -----_____-_._-._------_-_-.____.._____- ____- .____.---------- __..______ PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ws, th-e "nder-signed res.1-dents o4 Oran-ge, County, hereby petition yr--u to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Cl-spel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD rather than Old N. C. 86. We furti-,er petition that FlUrpbwred Pddresses be listed as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD. NAME ADDRESS 'ILL IQ a. ------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- ------------------ ----------------------- -------------------------------- ---------- ---------------- W-W, j j oAil /)(L-i HWOD - PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 11 We, the under=signed residents of Orange County, hereby petition yo' to perman -ently name the old road from Hillsborough toward 4h pei Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL RfM rather than Old N. C. 06. We petition that numbered addre5sgs be listed as {NUMBER} OLD CHAPEL HILL RakD. J NAME ADDRESS . c .�,Lty. g_Z PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 12 We, the un er'Si CVIE'd proper -ty owner s al once the 01 d Chapel Hi'- 1 1'tiQs?.[:j ti hies E ?Ly pf,2t i t l or,, you to permanently name thr,.-+ old riJ=kG -F r. z)(I) 1 s':)or-nct.jl'7 toward Chapel Fli l l OLD CHAPEL HILL 44@4d7 t —ather t'i .t numbered . ddre ses be 1 i st.e-d a < NUh1EtER? CL D CHAPEL HILL QQAB ` NAME ADDRESS Au- ;-ft - 4- - 01. VA -�lf PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners along the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road -From Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL then than Old N. C. 86. We further petition that numbered addresses be listed as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD. NAME ADDRESS - - - - - -= - - - - - -- - -- ----- - - ............. 'l.'r PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners alongg' the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL -REM rather - than Old N. C. 86. We further petition that numbered addresses be 1 i steci as <NUMBEf�> OLD CHAPEL HILL f Rff. (� �. `Duple, NAME ADDRESS _2 - -� �'' e -G ___------------- - - ---- �. a ifsr PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, thF -undersigned property owners along¢ the Old Chapel Hill • Road, �:,=reby petition you to permanently name the old road from iii l l sborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL -R6AV rather, than Old N. C. 86. (.[/ 4fZ A-L. D�b� We petition that numbered addresses be listed as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL fib'. 46*f Pl-'_ Trustees' of First Baptist Church, of Hillsborough HME ADDRESS -- �'• Q'- ---------- - - - =__ ��� ------------_--.--------------- �l� ��L.: 2c.� ��2✓ - ------------------_-_- ---- C��.2 PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners alongo the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL f=M rather than Old N. C. 86. OPI &' - •Z4.4-e We further petition that numbered addressejj be listed as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL .BOAS. NAME ADDRESS ww-___- _--------- __-- _----- -_ -__- ------- _ ___ 1-___________ __ ------------ ._. F: PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners along4 the Old ghapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the o d road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL RgA& rather ' than Old N. C. 86. CttL� &V '.L' We further petition that numbered addressep.be listed as < NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL DI tj#y &V jhcAl -e NAME ADDRESS - - -- _ - ------ ---- -._ --- % ^- -- - -- -- - - - -.. - PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners alongd the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL rather �L than Old N. C. 86. Y We further petition that numbered addresses be listed as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL �t NAME ADDR SS - ----- - fi 2 ___ _- ___--- _____ _ _T_ ____ -_ -_ __ __ .__ 3� PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners alongo the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hi 11 OLD CHAPEL HILL =QAR rather � than Old N. C. 86. C/ &Ij ZAAOZ We further petition that numbered addresses be listed as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD e WA-7 p, Dt,� It NAME ADDRESS ----------------- 15 PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT a We, the undersi gne(d property owner -s along the Old Chapel Hill `:o-;J, ht.reby petition yoLl 'to Permanently name the old rORd fl-Ofn Hi' 1 sbr- ,! -ough towar d Chapel Hi 11 OLD CHAPEL HILL WR- .�thr� t.:h�.n Old N. C. #;6 . Wle that numbered addresses bs? listed io.s <NUMEIER> OLD CHAPEL HILL . ` WR� 0- Zg4,rz NAME ADDRESS PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned Road, hereby petit- Hillsborough toward than Old N. C. 86. We further petition <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL �3b property owners alonggf the Old Chapel Hill 3n you to permanently name the old roar! from Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL RPPID rath� that numbered addresses be listed as HILL ltfM. (may, �� . NAME ADDRESS _ZBLlS. =MFA,UY-R0&DF_SAYWNALL-k -jlk� ' 10- AAW -t BY: ---------- - - - - -� --�-- Irust Offices __.____-- ____- _.___..- ' - .... w__.__,__--- . -____- -- ..""'! ,\- _ -_ 16 PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners alongo the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL athe � than Old N. C. 86. We further petition that numbered addresses be listed as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL bilt 0, r�!' `` 4't AME ADDRESS _ -------- _ - -- __�40 _ ___ �. PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned Road, hereby petitic Hillsborough toward than Old N. C. 86. We further petition <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL property owners along the Old Chapel Hill :in you to permanently name the old road from Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL fekb rrathen that numbered addresses be listed as HILL ROAD +r car U Du zk1.pz NAME ADDRESS i _____ _________ _____ _________.__ _ _ � -_ -- -- -- -------------------------------- .________ z_? -- -- �a PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners alongp the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition YOU to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward CI-;a.pF:l Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL rather than Old N. C. 86. �_Plu We further petition that numb_r�,d addressees be listed as { NUMBER > OLD CHAPEL HILL NAME ADDRESS ____ _______ __ ____ _____ _ 3,7 PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners alongo the Old Chapel Hill \ Road,, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL rather e- � than Old N. C. Sb. � OV Z44,10- I. We further petition that numbered addresse�be listed as { NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL-ROAD r I'll pi a _ NAME ADDRESS - - S _- _-- _____ -- t_._3 _- ----------- ---------------- .144115. E 1 0 PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners alongo the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road -from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL ath r 4 than Old N. C. 86. - 1� r � %'"e We - Further petition that numbered addresses be listed as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL READ " U &A, D1*4 -P NAME A6-� ADDRESS _ ____- ._..__ -.- -------------------------------------- __- ________ _ r f PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners along$ the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL rather � than Old N. C. 86. W&T fY�r'"�e We further petition that numbered addresse& be listed as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL Q . ADDRESS NAME / i / ,i W .- a PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the Undersigned property owners along the Old ChapC-°1 Hill R04,d, h-�r &by Pe:titi:3n YOU.t,o permanently name the aid ro�.d from H:i l l siL) )r-ough tc,ward Chapel Hill. OLD CHAPEL HILL 440C ro.th -r d than Old N. C. # icy6. ZA44 -e tllj,t numbered be listed a:s <NUMDER> OLD CHAPEL HILL -r-Qv. ra NAME ADDRESS PETITION TO-THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Wet, they Undersigned property owners al ongA the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road d f r•c�m h -li. l l �;boruuyh tc1wc -mr-d C"h,��.pc:-1 Hi 11, OLD CHAPEL HILL +7.a � r - i'_hr-tn 07 d N. C. 86. f ur t;-,er petition that numbered ''addresses IZe listed '-As <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL ' D': W Sli ., `�I:I L L- � - -/� -, - S -Lxz c toy, ; r�- ADDRESS Ed N PETITION . -TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned Road, hereby petitic Hillsborough toward than Old N. C. *cab. We further petition <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL property owners along the Old Chapel Hill an you to permanently name the old road from Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL -ROAD rather that numbere addresses be listed as HILL ROAR: dAll ZAA�4 NAME ADDRESS _YsD -- -_ -_. � __- ___------- - - - - -- 3 -- -- --------------------------------- PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned Road, hereby petitit Hillsborough toward than Old N. C. #86.. we further petition <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL NAME property owners along the Old Chapel Hill an you to permanently name the old road from Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL -aQfe rather - l.t/ 6., Z->vk'JN-e that :-cumbered addresses be listed as (H,cI�LL, ROAR ADDRESS 051k QQQ__jj6E �Ls J # �j3 PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners along the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel' Hi11 OLD CHAPEL HILL rather -- than Old N. C. #86. L-Lbt� &%. ZVk414- We fUrther petition that numbered addresses be listed as NUMEIER? OLD CHAPEL HILL -RGAD, NAME ADDRESS zaz PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT �s We, the undersigned property owners ,along the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hi 11 sbor-ough toward Chapel Hi 11 OLD CHAPEL HILL -PA;45 rather than Old N. C. V:B6. UJ&r &11, 2Vk4.'-e We further petition that numbered - resses 1's _d as <NUMEIER? OLD CHAPEL HILL R9A . Lvkt aV . NAME AnnRFGR PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned Road, hereby petiti( Hillsborough toward than Old N. C. #86. We further petition <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL property owners along the Old Chapel Hill in you to permanently name the old road from Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL -ReArather - c.�,+ . $A, that numbered addresses be listed as HILL -ROADS &,Ei� AVl- oZ4e j e NAME ADDRESS jz_c,j x - �Z 23 s PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the, undersigned property owners al ont,1/d the Old hapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to per;ganen�tly name ±he old ro.ikd from Hj.11sborough toward Chapel Hi 11 OLD CHAPEL HILL rather - than Old N. C. 86. J) g)., Z-'L We further petition that numbered addresses be listed as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL P099. ` W lht dti L'�+ -G-�' NAME ADDRESS __W__ LLKLo-k__ ___� -&A X C U µ -------------------------------- PETITION - TO.THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Sys. We, the undersigned property owners along the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hi l l'sbor-ough toward Chapel. Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL 44AAD rather than. Old IV . C. #a6. UIX�' ai,, `D'"t-t We �urther petition that numbered addre =es be listed as < NUMBER? OLD CHAPEL HILL �' / ANA ADDRESS Gail C. Gi-^ -� -- Rt. 3, Box 975,Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT we, the undersign &Hd Road. hereby petitit Hi l l sbor-ough toward t -ar old !W. C. "r36. We - c-urt;Ier petition { NUMEiER > OLD CHAPEL NAME prbperty owners along the Old Chapel Hill In you to permanently name the ofd road from Chapel Oi l l OLD CHAPEL HILL rathier�� B�- that nUmberpq addresses be listed as HILL 4*3*5: G a►. ADDRESS __- � 3 ----- Q.�9.Z�__- ___-_- � CI PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners al once the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hi 11sborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL r9 rathe than Old N. C. 86. G,.q We further petition that numbered addresses _be listed as < NUMBER? OLD CHAPEL HILL - N ADDRESS ____ -_____ _ - — - _ ____ ___ _______ __ _ ___ _ ----------- r ------------- ----------------------- ------------ i-�a& -------------- -------------------- ------------------------------- -_ - - -- ----------_ ----'--^---- .- ..------- ..._-- _--- .._- - -- - -_ r � s9 PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned Road, hereby petitii Hillsborough toward than Old N. C. 86, We further petition < NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL property owners al ongA the Old Chapel Hill 2n you to permanently name the old road from Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL rather that numbered addresses be listed as HILL QGAB G' 6. ZAA� NAME ADDRESS �"T ---------- _-------------------------------------------- PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners along the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL rather - than Old N. C. #a6. � By ZVt,4$ We f «rther petition that numbered addres 'es be listed as NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL tc*tr Q/1. tV44 . , NAME ADDRESS Al C- F49 ��zs r�Prsr ✓ c PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners alongo the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL rattler t than Old N. C. $b. We +Urther petition that numbered addresses Pe listed as < NUMBER > OLD CHAPEL HILL H: GZkLT Pv --DhZ*-P, ' Trustees' of First Baptist Church, of Hillsborough = --A AME ADDRESS ----- - - - -__ --------------------------- _----- _---- _-- _-__--__- (t beAt*r _-A C 1/ , 25 PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 27 We, the undersigned Road, hereby petitii Hillsborough toward than Old N. C. #B6. We fUrther petition <NUMBER? OLD CHAPEL property owners along the Old Chapel Hill 3n you to permanently name the old road from Chapel. Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL ft0jTP rather ov zv-"Voe that numbered adze -sesc� listed as HILL %R8ftV'. C"�It TD �s= 'h &; D1 PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the Undersigned residents o-f Orange County, heraby petition You to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward - -h:�7el Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL �r�aJthe�than Did N. C. 36. L46- further petition tlle.t numbs red addr-- c'— big 1istE_d aY <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL H L61�V2, ' NAME ADDRESS 27 s 7_�.c ------------ - �.- - ______ --------------------- ___.------------- I A mcLE 12. Roads and Bridges. Loeal Modifiratiga ! Brunswick: 1979. 2nd seas., a 1319; Cabsmis:1981, e. 568, amending 1979. - 2nd Sew. e. 1319; Avert 1983, C. 98; Brunswick: 1983, F 98; Cabarrus: 1983, o. 98; New Hanover. 1969, c. 98; Stokes: 1983, c. 299; Sorry: 1983, c. 299. § 153A•240. Naming roads and assign- ing street numbers in unin- corporated areas. A county mayy by ordinance name or --rename,any public•road within the county and not within a- city, and may assign or reassign street numbers for use on such a road. In naming or renaming a public road, a county may not (1) Change the name, if any, given to the road by the Board of Trans - ppoortation, unless the Board of Transportation agrees; (2) Change the number assigned to the road by the Board of Trans- portation, but may give the road a name in addition to its number; or (3) Give the road a name that is deceptively similar to the name of any other public road in the vicin- ity. A county shall not name or rename a road or assign or reassign street numbers on a road until it has held a public hearing on the matter. At least 10 days before the day of the hearing, the board of commis- sioners shall cause notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the hearing to be prominently posted at the county court- house, in at least two public places in the township or townships where the road is located, and shall publish a notice of such hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation published in the county. After naming or renaming a public road, or assigning or reassigning street numbers on a public road, a county shall cause notice of its action to be given to the local postmaster with jurisdiction over the road, to the Board of Transportation; and to any city within five miles of the road. This section does not repeal or modify Chapter 945 of the Session Laws of 1953, which pertains to naming streets in Kannapolis. (1957, c. 1068;1973, c. 507, s. 5; a 822, s. 1; 1981, cc. 112, 518.) f 153A -239. Public road defined. In this Article 'Public road" or "road" means any road, street, highway, thor- oughfare, or other way of passage that has been irrevocably dedicated to the public or in which the public has acquired rights by prescription, without regard to whether it 1s open for travel. (1973, c. 822, s. 1.) Loeal Modifieatioa. — Brunswick: 1979, 2nd Seat,. a 1319; Caharrus:1981. G 568, amending 1979. 2nd Sm.. e. 1319; Forsytis: 1981, e. 558; Guilford: 1979, a 283; Avery. 1983, e. 98; Brunswick: 1983, c. 98; Cabamis 1983, e. 98; New Hanover. 1983, a 98; stokes: 1983, e- 299; Surm 1993. e. 299. Editor's Note. — Pursuant to Session Laws 1973, c- 507, s. 5, "Board of Transporsation" has been substituted for -State Highway Cotomiaaion" and for 180 Z9 F-xcerpt from PAS report - "Street Naming geographical prefixes or suffixes to indicate direction; in that system, directional suffixes follow a street name (e.g., 120 Place, N.E.) and indicate a north -south road, while di. rectional preftxes indicate an east -west road (e.g.. N.E. 200 Place). In order for this to be helpful, rather than con- fusing to citizens, this distinction would have to be widely publicized. In other systems, such prefixes and suffixes are used to denote quadrants of a geographical area and not direction of a street in relation to a base line. Postal service officials differ as to preferences for suf- fixes or prefixes: one representative of the Postal Service in Washington contended that suffixes are much more likely to be dropped than prefixes and that prefixes should be preferred. An article in American City,, how- ever, suggests that directional suffixes —which allow streets to be filed alphabetically —are to be preferred over directional prefixes. The typical method of assuring uni- form assignment of thoroughfare designations is through a check in the subdivision review process, but, in at least one community, suffixes are assigned by the Police De- partment to achieve this objective. If property numbers radiate from the base intersecting streets and there are a lot of through streets, it is easier to locate streets having directional suffixes. STREET NAMES AS LOCATIONAL DEVICES There are a number of ways of naming streets systema- tically to facilitate locating a particular street in a com- munity. The use of names based on existing physical or political features is the simplest example of this mecha- nism. The methods to be discussed in this chapter are: thoroughfare designations, theme names, alphabetical se- quencing, the quadrant system; and the coordinate or Lyman system. THOROUGHFARE DESIGNATIONS The use of thoroughfare designations as a locational de- vice is probably the simplest method of street naming. In such a system. thoroughfares with specific physical char- acteristics are defined and certain street -name suffixes are consistently applied. The most common designations are those of "street" and "avenue." Historically, "streets" has been used for east -west thoroughfares and "avenues" for north -south thoroughfares. Such a system can be applied regardless of whether names or numbers treated as names are used. Just this differentiation be- tween north -south and east -west streets can cut the search for a location by one -half. A systematic thoroughfare designation for all types of roads is a logical extension of the street and avenue sys- tem used by some communities. (See Figure 2) A standar- dized list of thoroughfare designations can define the direc- tion, width, and function of streets. This review of the literature indicates that there is only some similarity in the definitions of thoroughfare designations used by different municipalities. The following is a list of definitions that have been used in some communities. Lack of standardization between municipalities is rela- tively unimportant as long as a uniform designation of 6. Moots, J. Brewer, and Trant, Bruce S.. "Street Renaming Is No Cinch." American City, August 1962, pp. 82 -84. & ProiDert y Nh &, ering Systems streets of different types is followed within the same y risdiction. Nevertheless, it would greatly increase the us fulness of the designations if they were standardize throughout the country. Definitions of Thoroughfare Designations Used by Various Jurisdictions Boulevard A street with a median reflecting the boulevard character implied in the name. (Same definition applies to parkways) A major thoroughfare running in a diagonal direc- tion, rather than east -west or north - south. It must connect at least two sections and act as a collector. Unusually wide thoroughfares in residential sections with shade trees or shrubbery in the center plat, and the name can even be used with numbered thoroughfares. (Same definition for parkways) A street divided by a landscaped center island and generally designated by. a name, not a number used as a name. Courts Permanently closed streets such as cul-de -sacs. Dead end rights -of -way under 1,000 feet in length which run east and west. A minor street less than 500 feet in length, ending in a turnaround. Horseshoe- shaped streets generally designated by one name throughout their entire length. Places or courts are all cul-de -sacs or permanent dead -end roads. East -west streets less than 1,000 feet in length. All dead -end streets. Drives Winding thoroughfares. Curving streets. longer than 1,000 feet. Diagonal, curvilinear, or other types of roads not previously mentioned. Roads that meander about and continue through to other rights -of -way. Secondary facilities that connect with each other. A curvilinear street of more than 1,000 feet in length, generally designated by a name. Highways Designated state or federal highways. This term could be used even when a road generally runs north -south or east -west. U.S. routes are designated as highways. Interstate Roads of the highest order, characterized by limited access, wide right -of -way, prohibited adjacent to de- velopment, and with through- traffic preference. Lanes Indicate the direction and to some extent the loca- tion of minor dead -end streets lying between num- bered thoroughfares. Reduced rights -of -way branching from courts, places, or ways. Curving streets of less than 1,000 feet. An unin- terrupted street ending in a cul-de -sac and generally designated by,a name. Secondary roads connecting with each other. Loops and Circles Circles could be short streets that return to them- selves. Loops could be short drives that begin and end in the same street (as shown in Figure 3) Circular or semicircular roads. A circle is a secondary road that begins and circles back to terminate on the same road. Circles —loop streets. A street forming a closed loop, generally designated by a name. Parkway (See also boulevard) A special scenic route or park drive, generally designated by a name. Paths A minor local street running in a diagonal direction, usually between a north -south "avenue" and an east -west street; a path may also be a diagonal con - nector between offset portions of a north -south or east -west collector thoroughfare. Pike State primary- numbered roads. Place A cul-de -sac or permanent dead -end road. FIGURES. EXAMPLES OF STREETS THAT MIGHT HAVE LOOP OR CIRCLE DESIGNATIONS CIRC4F Of V3 Loop s rezwr Dead -end rights-of -way under LOW feet in length 31 running north and south. North -south streets less than 1,000 feet in length. Permanently closed dead -end streets. Short streets parallel to the grid pattern or in be- tween the regular grid streets. A short curvilinear or diagonal street generally designated by a name. Indicates the direction and to some extent the loca- tion of minor or dead -end streets lying between numbered thoroughfares. Roads Limited thoroughfares that are frequently used, have heavy traffic volume, and run in any direction. Thoroughfares running at oblique angles to the grid pattern. Secondary facilities connecting with a U.S. or state primary highway. Diagonals longer than 1.000 feet and designated by a name. Diagonal streets. Streets and Avenues' Streets run north and south and avenues run east and west, but this may be reversed. Streets are roads that generally run in an east -west direction, avenues are roads that basically have a north -south orientation. Avenue —a thoroughfare running principally in a north -south direction and usually terminating at an east -west street. Street —a thoroughfare running principally in an east -west direction and usually terminating at a north -south avenue. Avenues run east and west; roads run north and south. Street and avenue designations are reversed for use in incorporated places with a grid pattern. Streets are north -south roads longer than 1,000 feet-, avenues are east -west roads longer than 1,000 feet. Trails A diagonal local street serving as a collector for one or more local thoroughfares. All curvilinear streets. Ways Pdtvr, r _ ,._..-Dead-end xights -of -way under 1,000 feet running at - oblique angles to the four points of the compass. `- A minor street that changes direction or begins and ends on the-same thoroughfare-" Diagonal streets less than 1,000 feet in length. 7. According to "The science of Street Names" leditoriaL American City, November 1960, p. 7.L the unwritten rule when using the grid system was that streets ran east and west, avenues north and south. A basic principle is that streets and avenues run in different directions. DISTRIBUTED �we�� Don Willhoit July 15 , 1990 Orange County Board of Commissioners Hillsborough, N.C. Dear Don, This letter is in regard to the proposed renaming of Old 86. As president of the Cross- County Communities Association, I represent members who reside on or near the existing Old Chapel Hill Road located in the southeastern part of the county. We as a group unilaterally oppose the renaming of Old 86 to Old Chapel Hill Road. Our opposition to renaming Old 86 is based on our concerns for health and safety. We feel that confusion may occur in emergency situations that call for fire and /or rescue responses. Especially in situations where the person calling 911 has time only to yell the address into the telephone before evacuating his home or giving first aid. Our neighborhood currently splits fire and rescue protection between Parkwood and East Chapel Hill. We already have to go through a list of questions for the dispatcher to determine which department will respond to our location. We don't feel that we can afford to play 20 questions when our house is on fire. Renaming Old 86 to Old Chapel Hill Road would certainly add to the confusion. There are other reasons for our opposition to renaming Old 86,' Old Chapel Hill Road. However these reasons pale in comparison to those mentioned above. When this issue is brought up again in August, at the Orange County Board of Commissioners, I hope you will make our concerns public. We certainly respect and appreciate the attempt to give historical recognition to old and important areas of the county. Unfortunately, in this instance, health and safety concerns outweigh any historical benefits that those persons would gain. Thank You, c�y t/V JC.J a�' d'U Linda Convissor Gross- County Communities Association P.O. Box 3031 Chapel Hill 27515 Durham/ Chapel Hill 27707 i� Fxcerpt- frcm Ckmnissicners 8/6/7Q Minutes. COn3nis5iDrler Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to reappoint Mrs. Ruth Long to serve on the Jury Commission. Vote: ayes, 5; noes, 0. Agenda Item 5C: Vacancies on Coun6� Doard It was the consensus of the Board to postpone making appointments to the County ABC Board until the first meeting in September in order to give Board members an opportunity to in persons who had sho: -,n an interest in serving on the ABC Board: r oa amin Advisor _ Committees ne a econ e ' ommiss one�.Gustayeson, a s oa ltiamtng sn omm' teand�to� endorse the le; and prourubmitted-'forOrange_County Road: .arsniig and~HouserP:umbe� n Pro r" am"�""= �"'" ""r`'S�' -"' p ~� �c"teayes, , noes, For copy of these policies and procedures, see page 629 of this book. Commissioner Barnes moved; seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, that all persons who submitted resumes and have expressed interest in serving on the Road Naming Advisory Committee, including Mr, Bobby Eaker, Communications Director for the County, be appointed to the Road Naming Advisory Corn:ittee; and, further, the Committee is granted the power of naming to the Road ir'aming Advisory Cow-9ittee persons who represent special areas of expertise who have not yet submitted resume forms. Vote: ayes, 5; noes, 0. - The following persons were thereby appointed to the Road gaming Advisory Conrrittee: David Erwin Hughes, John Deriuod Y.ennedy, Lloyd M. Senter, Jim Carter, Charles Blake, David M. Shanklin, Lois R. Efland, Frank Perry, Louise R. Clayton, Gordon Liner, Charles W. Snipes, Cecil W. Riley, Chris Nutter, Randy Baker, John W. Forrest, Douglas Keith Efland, William Breeze and Bobby Baker. Agenda Item 5E: Voting Delegate to Stale Association of Cou,t1 Cus�issi,;r�_rs �+nnua1 Conference COMissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner 'Hil Moit, to designate Chairman ;Jhitted as voting delegate to the UCACC Annual Conference to be held in M sigh August 16 - 19. Vote: ayes, 5; noes, 0. VI House Numbering 1. Actors - Two actors wril "I be involved in the House (lumbering Procedure. They are the P,rograr- Coordinator and the Board of Commissioners. Their roles are outlined A. Board of Commissioners - adopts a house numbering ordinance - has oversight over the program - holds a minimum of 3 Public Hearings - approves additional Public Information Meetings - adopts o-Fficial house numbers B. Program Coordinator - assigns house nubers - coordinates with eight 'local Post offices -nfjti f ics property owmers - pres::nts house nunhers at Local InFormr�tion fiec�ings - prepares and circulates list of news addresses to Tax ucparznlent, Utility Co.'s etc. 3 -7- 4$ B. There shall be no duplication of road names among governmental jurisdictions„ C. Road na:.:cs %.hick are similar in sound shall he avoided. U. Efforts shall be made to preserve existing road names, E. In cases where duplication of road naines exists: a. Priority shall be given to the Towns (i.e. in cases wiirere a road name is .duplicated among jurisdictions, tl.e County shall adopt.a new official namel. . b. Priority shall be given to historic road names. c. Priority shall be given to road names that also name intitut•ions. d. Priority 'shall be given to names of roads serving the greatest number of dwelling units, businesses and •in- stitutions. e. Priority shall be given to nanies.of those roads serving the greatest number of users. f. Priority shall be given to those roads longest in distance, F. The following standard thoroughfare designations shall be used: a. Circle shall be the suffix for short roads that return to themsel—e_.. b. Court or place shall be the suffix for cul -de -sacs, permanent dead -end roads. c,. Highway shall be the suffix for state, federal or interstate h i gh,.aays . d. Loop shall be the suffix for roads that circle back to terminate on the same road. e. Road shall be the suffix for all other thoroughfares. G. A continuous public road, running primarily in one direction, should have only one name. H . if a road jogs sharply for a substantial distance, the portion running in a di- fferent direction may be given another name provided that: a. The road jogs at an angle of at least 60 degrees. b. The portion of the road which jogs is at least 500 feet in length" ` VI House Numbering 1. Actors - Two actors wril "I be involved in the House (lumbering Procedure. They are the P,rograr- Coordinator and the Board of Commissioners. Their roles are outlined A. Board of Commissioners - adopts a house numbering ordinance - has oversight over the program - holds a minimum of 3 Public Hearings - approves additional Public Information Meetings - adopts o-Fficial house numbers B. Program Coordinator - assigns house nubers - coordinates with eight 'local Post offices -nfjti f ics property owmers - pres::nts house nunhers at Local InFormr�tion fiec�ings - prepares and circulates list of news addresses to Tax ucparznlent, Utility Co.'s etc. 3 e t - 5 i MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS APRIL 8, 1980 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 8, 1980, at 10:00 a.m., in the Commissioners Room, Orange County Courthouse, in Hillsborough, North Carolina. Commissioners present: Commissioner Richard Whitted, Chairman, and Commissioners Anne Barnes, Norman Walker, Norman Gustaveson and _ Don Willhoit. The following items were added to the agenda: Agenda Item 20: Requested Space for Day Care Facilities Agenda Item 18B: Announcement re Brigadoon Drive Mr. Stuart Barbour requested the Eno River Group be given an opportunity to address the Board for approximately two hours at its next evening meeting. The Chairman said he would let Mr. Barbour know of the next evening meeting in which the Board would be able to hear his request. Agenda Item 3: Minutes Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to approve the minutes of March 24, 1980, as corrected. Vote: ayes, 5; noes, 0. Agenda Item 4: Road Naming Recommendations Commissioner -Gustaveson requested a letter concerning the naming of Road ' 1353 be submitted to the Road Naming Advisory Committee. Commissioner Barnes moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to approve those names submitted by the Road Naming Advisory Committee for New Hope Fire District, Orange Rural Fire District and South Orange Fire District. Vote: ayes, 5; noes, 0. For copy of these names, see page 385 of this book. Agenda Item 5: Tax Release Request of Mr. Jeffrey A. Hoffman The Tax Supervisor read to the Board Mr. Jeffrey Allan Hoffman's request for release of 1979 taxes. 35 r:. NEW HOPE SR # Recommended Name Description 1203 Hideaway Drive NC 86 South - Dead Ends 1717 Kerley Rd. 1q1L, -Du 0i AA{ GMd 1718 Mt. Sinai Rd. NC 86 South - Durham Co. 1723 New Hope Church Rd. 1 o09- 1910 1725 Mill House Rd. 1727 -NC 86 1726 Clyde Rd. 1725 - NC 86 1727 Eubanks Rd. 1009 - PM 9• 9 1729 Rogers Rd. .1727 -- 1777 7733 Turkey Farm Rd: 1731 - 1718 1731 Whitfield Rd. RWY.8�-- 1734 1733 -35 Weaver Dairy Rd. NC 86 - 793;1 1734 Pickett Rd. 1734 - Durham Co. 1303 1737 Erwin Rd. (Includes a portion of 1734) ' (Durham Co.) 4 15 -50 1777_ Homestead Rd. NC 86 _- IP09 1789 -90 Camp Circle - NC 86 South-$& 1791 Mt. Moriah Rd. 1734 - Durham Co. 1 '3 1794 Timberly Drive 1734 - Dead Ends 1803 -23 -24 Wilkens Drive 1718 - 1718 1839 Alexander Drive NC 86 South - Dead Ends 1842 Rusch Rd. 1729 - Dead Ends 1865 Northwood Drive NC 86 - 1727 1866 Pebble Court 1865 - Dead Ends 1867 Groomsbridge Court 1865 - Dead Ends 1868 Hunter Hill Rd. 1865 - Dead Ends •1869 Mosswood Court 1868 - Dead Ends 1870 Autumn Lane 1865 - 1868 1871 Walden Place 1870 - Dead Ends' 1872 Ivy Court 1865 -- Dead Ends 11730 WMffFIELO aaaD pwy. V,_ 1734 OR A NL GE RtJV 4L v; SP. Recor=snded Nane Description 1002 -St. Mary's Rd. 3538 - Durham 3.006 �.J� Orange Grove 'Rd. 1009 - Hi 54 1009 I > Old N.C. 86 1006 - 1104 1129 `-1/ Davis Rd. 1006 - 1009 1144 Vlest Ten Rd. liwy. 70 - 11E 3.144 Ben John &n Rd. livy. 70 - 11f j 3 1328 F•aucette Mill Rd. ltwy_ 70 -- 1379 i t 8/30/90 Public Hearing Minutes 37 1 zoning is I -1 (Light Industrial). The I -1 zone allows a limited range j 2 of uses. The area is designated as Twenty Year Transition and 3 Commercial /Industrial Node in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant 4 has submitted a minor subdivision for the proposed lot with a request 5 for a private road along the south side of the property. 6 7 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING 8 BOARD 9 10 In response to a question from Commissioner Willhoit, Kirk 11 indicated that crematoriums were a permitted use under I -1. 12 13 Commissioner Willhoit asked for an explanation of the difference 14 between a crematorium and a pathological incinerator. Kirk will find 15 out and forward this information to the Board of Commissioners. 16 17 Ms. Dorothy Bane, owner of this property, spoke in favor of this 18 rezoning request. 19 20 Mr. Will Ward spoke in favor of this rezoning request. His 21 prepared statement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's 22 office. In response to a question about the cost of cremation, he 23 stated the cost is $700.00. He indicated that the State checks these 24 facilities on a regular basis. He indicated that there is not a 25 difference between a pathological incinerator and a crematorium in 26 terms of pollutants going into the air. There is a difference in )27 reference to certain types of pollutants and materials which are being 28 disposed of. 29 30 Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by 31 Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Orange County 32 Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of 33 County Commissioners no sooner than October 1. 34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 35 36 2. STREET NAME CHANGE 37 a. Old N.C. Highway 86 from I -85 to New Hope Church Road /Arthur 38 Minnis Road - Change to Old Chapel Hill Drive 39 This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary 40 this item was presented to consider changing the name of Old N.C. 41 Highway 86 to Old Chapel Hill Drive. The portion of highway affected 42 by such a change extends from Interstate 85 to New Hope Church 43 Road /Arthur Minnis Road. on May 29, 1990 a public hearing was held on 44 the assignment of house and building numbers for Rural Route 7-- 45 Hillsborough and Mr. Bob Haas spoke in opposition to the road name, 46 indicating that the road was called Old Chapel Hill Road when he moved 47 to the area years ago. Subsequent to this hearing Mr. Haas presented 48 petitions from 42 of 66 property owners (66%.) requesting that Old N.C. 49 Highway 86 be renamed to Old Chapel Hill Way or Drive from I -85 to the 50 New Hope Church Road /Arthur Minnis Road intersection. 51 52 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 53 54 Commissioner Halkiotis mentioned that from Eubanks Road to Arthur 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 )27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 M M I ff V 3a Minnis there are several different road name signs posted. He asked who was responsible for these green signs. Collins indicated that they were the responsibility of the Public Works Department. If there are inconsistencies they will correct them. In response to a question from Commissioner Halkiotis, Mr. Haas indicated that this road was known as Old Chapel Hill Road when he moved onto it. It also mentioned that the Department of Transportation's address, in the phone book, is Old Chapel Hill Road. Chairman Carey entered a letter into the record from Janet Rigsbee, Hillsborough Planning Director, indicating opposition to t e renaming of this road. Mr. Haas stated that he was in receipt of a letter from Horace Johnson, Mayor of Hillsborough, to the orange County Board of Commissioner indicating that the Hillsborough Town Board voted unanimously to recommend that the road be named Old Chapel Hill Dri Goff Coe, Planning Assistant for the Town of Hillsborough, indicated that the Planning Staff and the Town Commissioners held different views on this issue. Commissioner Willhoit asked if the name Old Chapel Hill /86 had been considered? Mr. Joe Tyler, a resident of Old Highway 86, spoke in favor of renaming of the renaming of Old Highway 86. Mr. Don Collins, a resident of Old Highway 86, spoke in opposition to the renaming of Old Highway 86. Ms. Sharon Tyler, a resident of Old Highway 86, spoke in favor renaming of Old Highway 86. Commissioner Hartwell suggested dropping the word "Old" from tr name and calling it Chapel Hill Drive /Hillsborough. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to table this matter to receive further information from the staff and for clarification of Hillsborough's position on this renaming. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. ASSIGNMENT OF SOUSE SVILDING NUMBERS a. Rural Route 7 - Hillsborough b. Rural Route 3 - Hillsborough C* Rural Route 1 - Cedar Grove This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to Orange County Rural Routes 7 and Hillsborough and Route 1 Cedar Grove. Per an agreement reached between Orange County and the US Postal Services, all rural box numbers are being converted to street addresses within the county. of 0j uwit ufMillshnrnugli IIILLSIIOROUGII. NORTIi CAI10LINA August 30, 1990 Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County Offices P 0 Box 8181, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Renaming of Old Highway 86 South Dear Sirs: _ 101 E. Orange Street p.O. Box 429 9 (919) 732 -21043 The Hillsborough Town Board has not been asked to speak to the renaming of Old Highway 86 South which will be discussed at tonight's meeting, however, in official session on Wednesday, the Board voted unanimously to recommend the road be named Old Chapel Hill Drive. The Town Board appreciates your consideration of this recommendation. . Sincerely, W Horace H. Joh son, Mayor 1N�UKMAI IUN SER�C6 of lIiilshnrnug4 August 2 3,, 1990 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA Chairman Moses Carey Orange County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, Nd 27278 101 E. Orange Sr t P.O. Box 429 (919) 732 -2104- " 40 a E41 no I a 9WIMA EMU 1 7@1 Dear Commissioner Carey: An item on the August 30, 1990 Public Hearing concerns me and as Planning Director for the Town of Hillsborough I would like to go on record as being opposed to the renaming of'Old Hwy. 86 to Old Chapel Hill Drive. Although the name Old Chapel Hill Drive is very colorful, I believe' it will create needless confusion and possible danger. The reasons for my opposition to renaming Old Hwy. 86 at this time are: 1. The name Old Hwy. 86 is very traditional and even if it is renamed people will probably refer to it as "Old 86 "; 2. Although there is no Old Chapel Hill Dr. in Orange County there is a well -known Old Chapel Hill Rd. parallel to Hwy 15 -501 and a lesser known Old 'Chapel Hill Rd. near the Orange County /Alamance County line. This duplication will create confusion and danger when citizens are using the the Emergency 911 system; 3. According to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations Section IV- B- 3-c -11, "Extensions of existing and named streets shall bear the name of such existing streets and if renamed, Old Hwy. 86 will not follow this adopted law; 4. There will be additional expense in signs and map editing 5.' It is not logical as Old Hwy. 86 links with Carrboro not with Chapel Hill and as the term "Drive" is seldom used to describe a major road. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If possible, I or a representative for me will attend the Public Hearing and read the above statement. Bes regards,. Ltnu� J et V. Rig ee Planning Director cc: Orange County Commissioners Don Powell, Planner h - - 41 Route s# -1, 130x 121 Hi 1 1sboraush. NIC 2:272+ ""gust 21. :990 ft orange ro:Jrrty P. C. Box 9151 Hillsborc-agh, Board of Commis_'ioner= 1•dor th Caro 1 i na 27270 Dear Sirs and Madam: Thank veu fer the opportunity to participate in what I thought would be a fair hearing of the desires of the lundownFr= alrnr� our road held last night. After the hearing on Play 29, 1990, I felt real good about the manner in which you handled our request and 7roceeded to move on the petition that you asked us to secL:r e . Our honest effort on the petition seems to have fallen cn deaf ears. We would have hoped that sixty -five (65!> percent of the landowners on our road favoring a name change to Old Chapel Hill Drive would have received more respect. These citizens and landowners deserve the right to the pride which comes with living on a street or road named according to their choosing. The climate of the meeting last night was that you are willing to ignore, not only the petitioners, but those who spoke in favor of the renaning because only ONIE landowner s:-oke against it- In the hearing you allowed the presentation of evidence of "some- eighty names- of people who are not even landowners along cur` road: you a -lso allowed one person to 5ugg95t that he co+ald get - seventy or eighty names of people against the Change from Hillsborough to Carrborc. No one informed the person that v,P arc_ not dealing with - the entire road, but just from I -E5 to P -!ew Hope /Arthur Minnis Road. (•then we first started working our petition, vie tN_re told � t _ P la nn i n Department that :h -- would only Cr;rrcider names of aCtUal landowners aloe orar road. I cervainly appears that the planning people are now using dirty, uncerhanded tri =k5 in order to gain ;,heir desires. I would "lope th:a- the Comm;- s5ioner5 v,ould .gat allow this. Regarding the letter from Ms. R.igsbee of the Town of Hillsboroug`I zlannina Board. I have learned that her letter (cn Town sta : i Dnery) ::as not author i zed by the Town Board!. and I w:z s t .:I 1 d b z ^e Ni ? . s5_�ough author i t�/ that ! Pr �C :ion .ra_ i of 1uet.c.ed r1 :1:- :.1 t ti�� r� i•:r:o ) 5 (= �11riR? =yLd t•11 th c': �•O= �CS?rr c,`�C'i+t. -�r'.y t, 2r have spn�:c:-, t I'Ir. '_i tt^�4:rt v:ho 141d *.hat he d_fl '%fit oppL,sP the Old Chapel r-!i l l name- and that h;_ L— i 7'c A 1 (.lttC'r- to this PffP. Doe,.; t.h .C-; ree- f t �,rr:►5� n f' F N - -- 4.. - _rape= -,:1 or Old Chapel Hill Road and that it has been Cld NC f,�r 5.v: ^ty, eighty, or ninety tie.3r "ir. hlichaEl Hi ?] a -cspa-�r.G1- :vith the North Carolina Department of Archives •,nd _istory has provided me with the following chronology of oul• -oad according to listed maps of the period: There were only two roads running south out of Hill borough: one to the large farm and .property of one T. Lloyd; the ogler to Patterson's farm. i,�o official road names, l ? - Roads sou *.h out of Hillsborough mulch the same as 1770. NO off i c i a 1 road n6me= . i5-33 - Roads south out of Hillsborough mulch the same as in 1770. No officio.! road names. 1691 - Our road first appears as OLD rHAPCL HILL ROAD. N Chapel Hi '_I' Road (presentI New 86 which WZ39 built betwe�n 1870 and 1880) first appears on maps of the Brea. 1421 - State of North Carolina assumed management of North Carolina roads as the N. C. Highway Commission. s4c3 - First official map of North Carolina roads was printed by N. C. Highway Commission. This map shows our road as N. C. 14 and designates it as a topsoil and clay road. 19=? - Our road was upgraded to an oil- treated road. Our roe.d (sti I 1 N. C. 14 ) •4.aas first paved -and - remained N. C. 14 until 1944. '94,4 - New Chapel Hi]1 road became State IJighway 86, and N. C. 14 (our road) became State Road 1000 .`(,•OT 21=D 86) . ': =•t un�41 eight years aao (1 782) did the Department of Trans - cortGnion start officially designating our road as "Old 86". su ^ :nari?E, our road's official designations are: 32 Ve6rs• - Old Chapel Hill PO ad 1 23 -!?44, 21 years -- P. C. :4 2a Yes. S atatE� F!o4'�['I D:JU yc - ' �-� `' '1•. �i �, .• ,•c: :J e •�. }. , •_,,•. •1 ''1 '. �;�. !'iii ;i,± .. -.- : -•; �� -`�� , �..- -fir•. .. rl� Q� (�fJi•t,' =h L,.Y .. ��:Y �'.1 -- C y 44 Route # 3, Box. 969 Hillsborough, MC 27876 September 3, ITC0 Orange County Board of Commissioners P. p. Box 6181 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27279 Gen- Iemen: A"1.- -,ough I spoke against naming Old Highway E6 Old Chapel Hill Road at the August roadhandafeeg,thatoIi no have longernw��hmore oppose the history of o its renaming. I am aware that many of my friends and neighbors support -and feel strongly about renaming our road, and I am willing to support the- in their efforts. nc rely, Don Ca 1 1 i ns _ 43 -_ ty? o: +ewer, our r7aci was first named e,:actly what We want -p to named now nLD = -'uQEL. HTL? RO'D. This is all Ghat 65: /. of c.me lan, owners alc:icc our road vNant you to do ...... give us dace .:hat :as ours; originally, n:ir name. % T„ Ink you !�if /` Bob Haas, Spokesperson and Petition Circulator for Re:1am i ng Old NC 66 to Old Chapel Hi 1 1 RLI :d 'Collet, 1 -770 C - rr Mother 18t5 ; - LYac Pae -Br _.tier ; 1833 George W. Tate, 1591 kc v y�' ... 4 a 1 ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 16, 1990 SUBJECT: ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE AND BUILDING NUMBERS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): G.S. 153A -240 Location Map Notification Letter Legal Notice Brochure 8/30/90 Public Hearing Minutes 1 Action Agenda Item #X- S PUBLIC HEARING Yes _X —No INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Powell TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider the assignment of proposed house and building numbers to Orange County Rural Routes 7 and 3, Hillsborough. BACKGROUND: Per an agreement reached between Orange County and the US Postal Service, all rural box numbers are being converted to street addresses within the County. The conversion is a continuation of the project begun in 1987 to change all County addresses to permanently assigned house numbers. To date twenty three (23) routes have been changed (Chapel Hill routes 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,13 and 15; Hillsborough routes 1,2,4,5 and 8; Durham routes 1,2 and 7; Rougemont routes 2 and 3; Cedar Grove route 1; and Hurdle Mills route 1). Route 7 Hillsborough was postponed at the request of the Board of Commissioners at the May 29 Public Hearing and again at the August 30 Public Hearing. Route 3 Hillsborough was also postponed at the August 30 Public Hearing. The Commissioners deferred action on the assignment of house and building numbers to allow time to resolve the issue of renaming Old NC 86 between I -85 and New Hope Church Road to Old Chapel Hill Drive. The road naming issue is being considered as a separate agenda item at this meeting. Only 39 residents of both routes would be directly affected by the road name change if occurs. Approximately 7 900 other residents of the combined routes have been notified of the proposed new street addresses and are anxiously awaiting confirmation of the conversion so they can make the necessary changes. Route 7 Hillsborough encompasses an area from Wildwood Subdivision on NC 86, southward to include Stagecoach Run Subdivision, Wood's Edge Mobile Home Park and Acres of New Hope Subdivision at Cheyenne Drive; then crossing westward to Old NC 86 beginning at the DOT Maintenance Complex and extending southward to include Oakdale Drive, and ending at Davis Road. Route 3 Hillsborough begins at Davis Road and moves south on Old NC 86 to New Hope Church Road; then west on Arthur Minnis Road,- south on Union Grove Church Road Road, west on Albert and Dairyland Roads to Orange Grove Road; then south to include Teer Road, returning northward along Orange Grove Road and eastward along Davis Road to the beginning point. Other roads included in part or in their entirety include: Ode Turner Road, Tree Farm Road, Kimbro Road, Borland Road, Rocky Ridge Road, Buckhorn Road, and Dodson's Crossroads North and South. General Statute 153A -240 requires that a public hearing be held on the proposed house and building numbers to be assigned. In preparation for the prior hearings for routes 7 and 3, notices have been sent to all affected residents and posted in two other public places within each proposed area. The required public hearings were held on May 29 (route 7) and August 30 (routes 7 and 3). A Planning Board recommendation is not required on the proposed house and building numbers, and the Commissioners may approve the assigned numbers. RECOIG ENDA- TION: Because of the road name issue, the Administration offers two alternatives for the Board's consideration: 1. If a decision is made on renaming Old NC 86, approval of the proposed house and building numbers for all residents of Hillsborough routes 7 and 3, followed by notification of the Hillsborough Postmaster, and the N.C. Department of. Transportation, as required by G.S. 153A -240. 2. If a decision on the renaming of Old NC 86 is deferred again, approval of the proposed house and building numbers for all residents of Hillsborough routes 7 and 3, except for those residents located directly on Old NC 86. 1 i 1 1 i i i i 1 ARTICLE 12. Roads and Bridges. ...mow I.a_a Modification. ! B,,,widG 1979. lad sa Se., a 1319; Cabart+u:1981, C. 568. am ;wUng 1979, tad Se"_ a 1319; Ave+7 Z 1983. 96; Bran�k 1983, c. 9e; Cabsrrux 1983' c- 8; N 1953. c. 98; Sw a S km 1983. 299: urrr. 153A•240.1Naming g Namineet numbers in unin- corporated areas. A county ublic ro d ordinance name or within the county rename any p assign or and not within a' city, and may reassign street numbers for use on such a road. In naming or renaming a public r road, a county may not iven to (1) Change the name, if any, g the road by the Board o Trans. pportation, unless the Board of 'iYansportation a ees; (2) Change the number assigned to the road by the Board of Trans- portation, but may give the road a name in addition to its number; or (3) Give the road a name that is deceptively similar to the name of any other public road in the vicin- ity. A county. shall not name or rename a road or assign or reassign street numbers on a road until It has held a public hearing 1 on the matter. At least 1D days before the day of the hearing, the board of commis - sd subject meatter of the hearing tv t� prominently posted at the county court- house, in at least two public places In the township or town hi s where the road is located, and shall publish a notice of such hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation published in the county. After naming or renaming a public road, or assigning or reassigning street numbers on a public road, a county shall cause notice of its action to be given to the local postmaster with jurisdiction over the road, to the Board of Transportation, and to any city within five miles of the road. This sectaon does not repeal or modify Chapter 945 of the Session Laws of 1 53, which pertains to naming in 5�g22os.1;1981, cc. 112. 518) c. 507, s. I 153A -239. Public road defined. Ia this Article 'public road" or "road" means any road, street, highway, oughfare, or other way Of , that has been irrevocably dedicate, dd to the public or in which the public has acquired rights by prescription, without regard to s l ether it 2s open I.oeal Modifiritica B —swieh &79`1979, 5ess , 1319: Cabarr+u:1981. a 568. a 5se n8 2nd 5as.. r- 1319: Forsyth 1981, c 558: Guilford. 1979. r- 283: Avers: 1963, a 98: Brunswick_ 19$3, a 98: CabLrr= 1983. r- 98; New' ilanover. 1983' c. 98: Swkt=1983. a 299; Surtr:1983,- 299. F.ditor's Note- ^ Pursuaa't to Session Lo a'6 1973, a 507, s. 5. Board of 1Yansa°rtacion' has been substituted for —sum kligbway CAULMissice and for 180 I a 1• .1. -t L=' vo � a •ur�� V y 0 r.. Av '- ORANGE COUN'T'Y PLANNING DEPARTMENT s 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27278 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF HILLSBOROUGH HOUSE NUMBERS ROUTES 7 Pursuant to the requirements of the General Stat that of public Chapter 153A, Section 240, notice is hereby given Hearing will be held at Phillips Junior High School in Chapel Hill at 7:30 P.M. on Thursday, August 30, 1990 for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against. the assignment of house numbers on Routes 7 and 3, Hillsborough. ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS Hillsborough Rural Routes 7 and 3 are proposed for assigned h__0, existing rural box numbers to a system of p numbers. Route 7 Hillsborough includes toa�ncarea Stagecoach Run at Wildwood Subdivision on NC 86, southward Subdivision, Wood's Edge mobile VHome crossing d Acres of o 0?d NC 86 Subdivision at Cheyenne Drive; then beginning at the DOT Maintenance Complex and extending southward to include Oakdale Drive and ending at Davis Drive. Route 3 Hillsborough Begins at Davis Road and move �e �n s4 Road, sou--h 86 to New Hope Church Road; then west an P.rth. -w - - on Union Grove Church Road, west on Albert an eeDai�o�G nd`Roads ,�5 Orange Grove Road; then sough to include - northward on orange Grove Road and eastward along Davis Road =o -hie beginning poin... Other rozlds included in part or 4n t - "•e == e='-ti -e "y are: Ode Turner Road, ogre Road, arddDodsca � ' s Crossroads Borland roads Nc_ -hoa: and Rocky Ridge Road, Buckn South. All interested citizens are invited to attend the is gi and ce heard. Public comment must be received during ?" .-,-Iect debate, Changes may be made in theaadvertised proposal which re objections and discussion Questions regarding the proposatrsmena b The P Fnai g Depa- ��Wen� is the orange County Planning De_ located in the Ag t icultu.ral-Environmental Center, 306 -F Revere .Road in Hillsborough. Office hours are from 8 :00 a -ra- to 5:•00 p -. -�� Monday through Friday. The Planning Department telep oae ":: ►..:tee_ n Hillsborough is 732 -8181, Extension 2579• Marvin E. Collins Planning Director ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD 6 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 V` Dear Resident: In April, 1987, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a House Numbering Ordinance which authorizes the conversion of rural routes and box numbers for all Orange County addresses. To date twenty two (22) postal routes have been converted to street addresses. Additionally, all new homes and businesses on single lots and all new subdivisions have been assigned street addresses adhering to the county -wide system. All addresses are computer- maintained and are now being used to support the vital functions (voter, registration, tax records, 911 emergency) as well as mail delivery by the appointed postal service areas. Within the year, all of Orange County will have street addresses and rural 'routes and box numbers will be a thing of the past. Hillsborough Rural Routes 7 and 3 are now being proposed for conversion to house numbers. On Thursday, August 30, 1990, a Public Hearing will be held before the Orange County Board of Commissioners to consider the proposed assignment of house numbers to residences and buildings on Rural Routes 7 and 3 served by the Hillsborough Post Office. The hearing will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the auditorium of Phillips Junior High School in Chapel Hill. If approved, the house numbers will replace the old system of rural routes and box numbers. This change will improve mail delivery and allow 911 emergency calls faster access to addresses. Residents will be required to display their new number on their mailbox with numerals at least one (1) inch high. The proposed T7Ew ADDRESS which reflects the phvsic_al location of your residence at tax Wrap reference is as follows: COLD ADDRESS NEW ADDRESS If you wish to speak in regard to this proposal, please attend the Public Hearing. We ask, however, that you confine your comments to specific concerns regarding the assigned house number or street address. If you require additional information about the general process of route conversion or assigned house numbers, please contact one of the Planning Department staff members below. Miriam Coleman (Extension 2576) or Beth McFarland (Extension 2578) Orange County Plzz=.iu Department 306 -F Revere Road Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Phone: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Mebane 227 -2031 Chapel Hill 967 -9251 Durham 688 -7331 Sincerely, Marvin E. Collins Planning Director L/) 1 mmommm cn C u d z r w� ti 'I 7 t& c rt v �u "•C C cxn U x ca 0 a 0 q 4J 1 W J Q { W Wr } w W a 7 ti O 1a O CI 7� 3 O m C 01 O •-1 O •-d la Li :,�7. Sa 3 G tt U 0> d m .0 0 t± rJ -Z •-y p rn cz en ew U .i G 0 ? C 0 0 H Ln n"0 z� 7, �t 0 C y d ss. •-1 ;� 95 :� -d d w tU - C H > O O n N 0 C 0 t► N r0-� cn k -4 m S 10 �-4 V � j+ a r3 O ta ca p5 O ..� «� H�� -• 1 1 1 i � _ �t.,. p : ��� -• a 0-Z a �+ C W ra '- L w 1 1 1 1 -�?� Cz W 3 3 0 O -4 m. 6 C CM -mot = N E O 2 to O in * = L 0 1 - � G 7 C D U .0 :.+ iti H G z t• 1 1 1 `�t �, 1-- 0 :r C CV L 1 1 1 1 1 r.r.ti' ^ w t a+ 0 C t; L t%1 -j .0 --1 Y. +� Si a ••i d 0 r— -M N 4 ❑ w aC :�,' E•+ .�( ••1 0 -4 U C1 j t W m ca -' •0 0 0 3 d 3 rJ o x ti= C 3 m on t t^. a m a r. -j •d o a1 �" m j O° 0 `? :y 1 0 1 LS l -°o G «.. Hsu_ -yvt wa000�°E_o "tom ° 'O Q ° 1 .. p 0 0 O -CC ? {q 0 .A G ^I 0 r3 +� O -O U -J 7 -4 S: O '- � >; -� O v �! �-, u V 3 � N H to E -4 Ja d �. sr -4 m -0 r� U D 7 a a. .4 •O m [• 0 y 7 ti O 1a O CI 7� 3 O m C 01 O •-1 O •-d la Li :,�7. Sa 3 G tt iJ 0> d m .0 0 t± -Z •-y ew U .i G 0 ? C 0 0 H s� y z� 7, �t 0 C y d ss. •-1 ;� 95 :� -d d w tU - C C w G > O C O C 0 C 0 C O r0-� cn k -4 m S 10 �-4 V � j+ a r3 O ta ca O 0-Z a �+ C W ra '- ++ � E v, w_ W 3 3 0 O -4 m. 6 C CM -mot = N E �+ O C `-i to O in 0 .1.) 'J "� � G 7 ^ �q N a+ 0 C t; L t%1 -j .0 --1 Y. +� Si a ••i ..� ❑ w aC :�,' E•+ .�( ••1 0 -4 U C1 j t a 13 -' •0 0 0 3 d 3 rJ o x ti= C 3 m on t t^. a m a r. -j •d o a1 �" m j O° Oa -°o G Hsu_ -yvt wa000�°E_o ° 'O .. O 0.0 0 ? {q 0 .A G ^I 0 r3 +� O -O U -J 7 -4 S: O '- � >; -� O v �! �-, u V 3 � N H to E -4 Ja d �. sr -4 m -0 E U D 7 a a. .4 •O m y z 3• >� >r e« Lt �.t aC m .63 d 10 G O W O. 4 U ai .x o -+ ❑ ti •y Lw b O m m 0 0 d 1 ti 2: E t 1r .•�1 ••i G G of Qt C n. sa 3 >: ate+ �•r. a c'4 p a x b o W C q) CX 4 e, 0 G >,C U 0 .0 r3 o 0 O U x o .. O s1 sr 0 a H Ot d a g, a, 01 3 4 M r U U G. it . 4) C'D 4) '0 4J -4 'o m 4J O 07 9'0 0 C O 07 m C-- i41w(1)CC0 o 04.) C o E ---c --4 w m m to E w O m 0 •-•I O CO Q to Ct1��J 0 4J 4J m41.0 mw w .� 4J Sam m= 44 �c m040cc O m m 1-4 ,i m -^I C PH � -a ° m U .� 44 sJ 93 "O O t0 .4 •m iJ 0 mlmrm1JO701 fm+C O r4 OJ to ••0 C N m O T C >toEm C O •-4 JJ a 4J --4 C m HUmm+iv7.Of•+G+Oto QI 41 N Qa W + 7, C 41 .0 m 'O .0 -4 O C r4 C w .0 O .0 J= � � m Jr d --a O U -..t � •,-I ai •U ar E» 4 �J +t � U W a = E E to t0 '� w E C ,-•n O 4.) O 3 m w O m7 +J w y Od 44 4) O m C 41 U 4J U w rn A w U C AJ U k GC, Q'OO+N m mm..4c0. -im �omw � =uado° � a, 13 z to 41 m m m a m a m go m � w eN � a ° a+0 w ° a�r � Ud E-4 C • •mU3am m m O m> C 0 o�J oGmmo,°0 ' 4 r -0 C w a. o. rn O 4,J F 'O O -d C C w O O �•� m w4� O Oa 0 v •0'm U 3 41 mao 0 41 >m.ic4) I --I 4J v v -63 4J 44 4J w .4 •.•I m w -.-I 3 m •—I x m 4J C iJ 4J O= C I t I ?+ 4J .G --i to w r-t U C 1 O C. • m >.I E O) 44 --i TJ C 4J 1J 1J 9 W 43 -4 -4 O O C m -,i w m -4 o. m C w 10 H C CO .0 1J m Qr d a Q Q .� .3 3 'a a,, O w --i .--I ECLW`• - - 4Jmm0 Ummu ad 44 o ..� "-4 o w a 4-J C: --q ,� Cd aJ m to S-4 to O> U3 H - O m b •U 07 -W a� U30 go aim a.a�kw C 4J mr m>, mCm �. 47 •� D Q. •� m U 0 ,�-t H •-1 I A J� C H E 4J 0 U f0 4 C 4-1 .,1 . 4 41 C I m m E U �-0 m O �-3•m ° mX 03 m oro`°c�J(a a � a.0 mop' 3 U °w --+ as = OCn m a --+ a 41 0 0= m = t>a .0 0 0 0 H ..i E O= E '44. _ 4 U r ••-I 3 0 J, U 41 m U -d m 41 E-q -•-1 O a, w w rn V] V E LL to H A r•1 47 m 44 JJ O O W m 0 a 1J La 'a x+ E m W a4 01 O O C w O -•-I :_ = C O C U 41 O O O •- I C O O m -W aJ CO 44 CO O of L+ C -..,I 44 N U --+ O 44 —i B w •� I to CO C3 44 �+ --I Q a E >;.� .0 = 0 10 x m u7 = 0 W y t0 47 0) 41 C p, U 4-) cc C 44 m U `O J~ 3 A a o m � J, y, +s �]' ...ImE���'dC 4J0 w .-. $ E 4 + k $4 -4 -I .0 m (t) 'C W N c0 m --4 44 4J m C 4J --.I E -rl O U H U C E w 4) k Co cG m b C -� E w. U= E m4) -,P4 0OU �' ymtCn m.O CZ �J z m� 4J c 01.0vGm�mv���m ta a ­4toCE ..NCO mw •-i °O m Lc -- 'n •-I C m 1J V On to w a) as m to m 0i W 0) C .--I -, 4 4.3 O 'p C oQ � to GY 41 -..I O O •-I U 7 --+ —4 to to of L; 41 E U W Os3wwCOOOm—ImtoO =C z.0 F H 4.J E 4-0--f E 04.A ro 'O .a —4 4a O O 4 J. a,J 4J M GV a t"+r•7 t� CV p .- r o old 86 I e� o A U(311 t-�^5 0 o r� QI 41 N Qa W + 7, C 41 .0 m 'O .0 -4 O C r4 C w .0 O .0 J= � � m Jr d --a O U -..t � •,-I ai •U ar E» 4 �J +t � U W a = E E to t0 '� w E C ,-•n O 4.) O 3 m w O m7 +J w y Od 44 4) O m C 41 U 4J U w rn A w U C AJ U k GC, Q'OO+N m mm..4c0. -im �omw � =uado° � a, 13 z to 41 m m m a m a m go m � w eN � a ° a+0 w ° a�r � Ud E-4 C • •mU3am m m O m> C 0 o�J oGmmo,°0 ' 4 r -0 C w a. o. rn O 4,J F 'O O -d C C w O O �•� m w4� O Oa 0 v •0'm U 3 41 mao 0 41 >m.ic4) I --I 4J v v -63 4J 44 4J w .4 •.•I m w -.-I 3 m •—I x m 4J C iJ 4J O= C I t I ?+ 4J .G --i to w r-t U C 1 O C. • m >.I E O) 44 --i TJ C 4J 1J 1J 9 W 43 -4 -4 O O C m -,i w m -4 o. m C w 10 H C CO .0 1J m Qr d a Q Q .� .3 3 'a a,, O w --i .--I ECLW`• - - 4Jmm0 Ummu ad 44 o ..� "-4 o w a 4-J C: --q ,� Cd aJ m to S-4 to O> U3 H - O m b •U 07 -W a� U30 go aim a.a�kw C 4J mr m>, mCm �. 47 •� D Q. •� m U 0 ,�-t H •-1 I A J� C H E 4J 0 U f0 4 C 4-1 .,1 . 4 41 C I m m E U �-0 m O �-3•m ° mX 03 m oro`°c�J(a a � a.0 mop' 3 U °w --+ as = OCn m a --+ a 41 0 0= m = t>a .0 0 0 0 H ..i E O= E '44. _ 4 U r ••-I 3 0 J, U 41 m U -d m 41 E-q -•-1 O a, w w rn V] V E LL to H A r•1 47 m 44 JJ O O W m 0 a 1J La 'a x+ E m W a4 01 O O C w O -•-I :_ = C O C U 41 O O O •- I C O O m -W aJ CO 44 CO O of L+ C -..,I 44 N U --+ O 44 —i B w •� I to CO C3 44 �+ --I Q a E >;.� .0 = 0 10 x m u7 = 0 W y t0 47 0) 41 C p, U 4-) cc C 44 m U `O J~ 3 A a o m � J, y, +s �]' ...ImE���'dC 4J0 w .-. $ E 4 + k $4 -4 -I .0 m (t) 'C W N c0 m --4 44 4J m C 4J --.I E -rl O U H U C E w 4) k Co cG m b C -� E w. U= E m4) -,P4 0OU �' ymtCn m.O CZ �J z m� 4J c 01.0vGm�mv���m ta a ­4toCE ..NCO mw •-i °O m Lc -- 'n •-I C m 1J V On to w a) as m to m 0i W 0) C .--I -, 4 4.3 O 'p C oQ � to GY 41 -..I O O •-I U 7 --+ —4 to to of L; 41 E U W Os3wwCOOOm—ImtoO =C z.0 F H 4.J E 4-0--f E 04.A ro 'O .a —4 4a O O 4 J. a,J 4J M r o old 86 I .0 m 'O .0 -4 O C r4 C w .0 O .0 J= � � m Jr d --a O U -..t � •,-I ai •U ar E» 4 �J +t � U W a = E E to t0 '� w E C ,-•n O 4.) O 3 m w O m7 +J w y Od 44 4) O m C 41 U 4J U w rn A w U C AJ U k GC, Q'OO+N m mm..4c0. -im �omw � =uado° � a, 13 z to 41 m m m a m a m go m � w eN � a ° a+0 w ° a�r � Ud E-4 C • •mU3am m m O m> C 0 o�J oGmmo,°0 ' 4 r -0 C w a. o. rn O 4,J F 'O O -d C C w O O �•� m w4� O Oa 0 v •0'm U 3 41 mao 0 41 >m.ic4) I --I 4J v v -63 4J 44 4J w .4 •.•I m w -.-I 3 m •—I x m 4J C iJ 4J O= C I t I ?+ 4J .G --i to w r-t U C 1 O C. • m >.I E O) 44 --i TJ C 4J 1J 1J 9 W 43 -4 -4 O O C m -,i w m -4 o. m C w 10 H C CO .0 1J m Qr d a Q Q .� .3 3 'a a,, O w --i .--I ECLW`• - - 4Jmm0 Ummu ad 44 o ..� "-4 o w a 4-J C: --q ,� Cd aJ m to S-4 to O> U3 H - O m b •U 07 -W a� U30 go aim a.a�kw C 4J mr m>, mCm �. 47 •� D Q. •� m U 0 ,�-t H •-1 I A J� C H E 4J 0 U f0 4 C 4-1 .,1 . 4 41 C I m m E U �-0 m O �-3•m ° mX 03 m oro`°c�J(a a � a.0 mop' 3 U °w --+ as = OCn m a --+ a 41 0 0= m = t>a .0 0 0 0 H ..i E O= E '44. _ 4 U r ••-I 3 0 J, U 41 m U -d m 41 E-q -•-1 O a, w w rn V] V E LL to H A r•1 47 m 44 JJ O O W m 0 a 1J La 'a x+ E m W a4 01 O O C w O -•-I :_ = C O C U 41 O O O •- I C O O m -W aJ CO 44 CO O of L+ C -..,I 44 N U --+ O 44 —i B w •� I to CO C3 44 �+ --I Q a E >;.� .0 = 0 10 x m u7 = 0 W y t0 47 0) 41 C p, U 4-) cc C 44 m U `O J~ 3 A a o m � J, y, +s �]' ...ImE���'dC 4J0 w .-. $ E 4 + k $4 -4 -I .0 m (t) 'C W N c0 m --4 44 4J m C 4J --.I E -rl O U H U C E w 4) k Co cG m b C -� E w. U= E m4) -,P4 0OU �' ymtCn m.O CZ �J z m� 4J c 01.0vGm�mv���m ta a ­4toCE ..NCO mw •-i °O m Lc -- 'n •-I C m 1J V On to w a) as m to m 0i W 0) C .--I -, 4 4.3 O 'p C oQ � to GY 41 -..I O O •-I U 7 --+ —4 to to of L; 41 E U W Os3wwCOOOm—ImtoO =C z.0 F H 4.J E 4-0--f E 04.A ro 'O .a —4 4a O O 4 J. a,J 4J M 8/30/90 Public Hearing Minutes © 9 1 Minnis there are several different road name signs posted. He asked t 2 who was responsible for these green signs. Collins indicated that 3 they were the responsibility of the Public Works Department. If there 4 are inconsistencies they will correct them. 5 6 In response to a question from Commissioner Halkiotis, Mr. Haas 7 indicated that this road was known as Old Chapel Hill Road when he 8 moved onto it. It also mentioned that the Department of 9 Transportation's address, in the phone book, is Old Chapel Hill Road. 10 11 Chairman Carey entered a letter into the record from Janet 12 Rigsbee, Hillsborough Planning Director, indicating opposition to the 13 renaming of this road. 14 15 Mr. Haas stated that he was in receipt of a letter from Horace 16 Johnson, Mayor of Hillsborough, to the Orange County Board of 17 Commissioner indicating that the Hillsborough Town Board voted 18 unanimously to _recommend that the road be named Old Chapel Hill Drive. 19 20 Goff Coe, Planning Assistant for the Town of Hillsborough, 21 indicated that the Planning Staff and the Town Commissioners held 22 different views on this issue. 23 24 Commissioner Willhoit asked if the name Old Chapel Hill /86 had 25 been considered? 26 X27 Mr. Joe Tyler, a resident of Old Highway 86, spoke in favor of renaming of the renaming of Old Highway 86. 29 30 Mr. Don Collins, a resident of Old Highway 86, spoke in 31 opposition to the renaming of Old Highway 86. 32 33 Ms. Sharon Tyler, a resident of Old Highway 86, spoke in favor of 34 renaming of Old Highway 86. 35 36 Commissioner Hartwell suggested dropping the word "Old" from the 37 name and calling it Chapel Hill Drive /Hillsborough. 38 39 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by 40 Commissioner Willhoit, to table this matter to receive further 41 ,information from the staff and for clarification of Hillsborough's 42 position on this renaming. 43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 44 45 3. ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE BUILDING NUMBERS 46 a. Rural Route 7 - Hillsborough 47 b. Rural Route 3 .. Hillsborough 48 a. Rural Route 1 - Cedar Grove 49 This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this 50 item was presented to receive citizen comment on proposed house and 51 building numbers to be assigned to orange County Rural Routes 7 and 3 52 Hillsborough and Route 1 Cedar Grove. Per an agreement reached 53 between Orange County and the US Postal Services, all rural box 54 numbers are being converted to street addresses within the County. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X27 X28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 '53 54 MM a ff 7 Route 7 Hillsborough encompasses an area from Wildwood Subdivision NC 86, southward to include Stagecoach Run Subdivision, Wood's Edg Mobile Home Park and Acres of New Hope Subdivision at.Cheyenne Dri then crossing westward to Old NC 86 beginning at the DOT Maintenan Complex and extending southward to include Oakdale Drive, and endi at Davis Road. Route 3 Hillsborough begins at Davis'Road and move south on Old NC 86 to New Hope Church Road; then west on Arthur Mi Road, south on Union Grove Church Road, west on Albert and Dairyla Roads to Orange Grove Road; then south to include Teer Road, retur northward along Orange Grove Road and eastward along Davis Road to beginning point. Other roads included in part or in their entiret include: Ode Turner Road, Tree Farm Road, Kimbro Road, Borland Ro Rocky Ridge Road, Buckhorn Road, and Dodson's Crossroads North and South. Route 1 Cedar Grove encompasses an area north along Wilker Road from NC 57 to Person County, including portions of Sawmill Rc East and West, Hawkins Road East and West, Ormond Road, and Olin R then southwest along Hurdle Mills Road, across NC 86 North to McDa store Road, and south along Efland- -Cedar Grove Road to Highland Fa Road; then west from Cedar Grove Community along Carr Store Road t Carr Community and eastward along NC 49 to Caswell County. Roads included in their entirety or portions thereof are: Wheeler's Chc Road, Caviness Jordan Road, Art Road, Bama Road, Hensley Road, A13 Road, Burton Road, NC 86 North, Tom Pope Loop, McCullough Road, Oa Road, Lee's Chapel Road, Governor Scott Road, Mill Creek Road, Lonesome Road, Lib Road, Penecost Road, Allie Mae Road,Doc Corbett Road, Made Loop and Wade's Dead End. EN is ing the on d ad; e rch ison kley QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANN17C BOARD Commissioner Halkiotis mentioned that the initiative to chani these house and building numbers comes from the United States Pos' Service. Collins indicated that assigning permanent house number; will eliminate the problem of having to reassign house numbers whenever the rural postal routes need to be redistributed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to defer action on Route 3 and 7 in Hillsborough and to approve the assigning of building and house numbers for rural route 1 in Cedar Grove. VOTE: UNANIMOUS �a 1 4. zONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Article 22 Definitions (Arts & Crafts Studios) b. Article 4.3 Table of Permitted Uses (Arts & Crafts Studios) This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to include arts and crafts studios as a permitted use in commercial zoning districts. An arts and crafts studio may qualify as a hone occupation, but there is no category in the Table of Permitted Uses which addresses a studio as a freestanding use. The proposed amendment defines arts and crafts studios as the working area for artists or craftsmen and gives examples of typical studio uses. Studios would be permitted by right in the commercial zoning At i ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 16, 1990 SUBJECT: Repatriation Program Grant Project DEPARTMENT Budget ATTACHMENT(S) Proposed Grant Project Ordinance Section 1113 of the Social Security Act HHS Regional Administrator's Memo Action Agenda Item No x- C. PUBLIC HEARING YES NO x INFORMATION CONTACT Rod Visser, ext 2450 Marty Pryor -Cook, ext 2803 TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To adopt a grant project ordinance authorizing expenditures for the federally funded Repatriation Program to be administered by the Department of Social Services. BACKGROUND: On Wednesday, October 10, 1990, the Orange County Department of Social Services was notified by the North Carolina Department of Human Resources that it had been designated to participate in the federally mandated Repatriation Program. This program involves temporary assistance to United States citizens fleeing the threat of war in the Persian Gulf, and their dependents. To date, several plane loads of eligible individuals have arrived at Raleigh- Durham International Airport. Another was scheduled to arrive on October 11. The US government has determined that many of the families involved are to be resettled in the Research Triangle area. Families are eligible as long as at least one family member (in many cases a child born in the US while parents were enrolled in a university) is an American citizen. The program serves the families for ninety days and requires that participants fully repay the US government for the temporary resettlement assistance provided them. The County expects to serve 4 or 5 families at an estimated cost of $5,000 each, although the exact number of participants and program cost is uncertain due to the fluid nature of the situation. The County will provide casework to these families with existing staff resources, and has been informed that it will be fully reimbursed by the federal government for program payments made on behalf of eligible individuals and for direct and indirect A t a minis rative costs incurred in implementing the program. The attached grant project ordinance would authorize the program and reimbursable County expenditures of up to $25,000 for the program. RECOMMENDATION(S): Adopt the proposed grant project ordinance. 4 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES REPATRIATION PROGRAM GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE 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 following grant project is hereby adopted. section I. The project authorized is the Repatriation Program to be implemented by the Orange County Department of social Services under the provisions of Section 1113 of the Social Security Act. Section 2. The officers of the County are hereby directed to proceed with the grant project in accordance with.the grant documents, the rules and regulations of the US Department of Health and Human Services and the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, and the budget contained herein. section 3. The following revenues are anticipated to be available to complete this project: Intergovernmental - Repatriation Program Reimbursements $ 25,000 Section 4. The following amounts are appropriated for this project: Human Services - Repatriation Program $ 25,000 Section S. The finance officer is hereby directed to maintain within the Grant Project Fund sufficient specific detailed accounting records to provide the accounting to the grantor agency required by the grant agreement and federal and state regulations. Section 6. Funds may be advanced from the General Fund for the purpose of making payments due. Reimbursement requests should be made to the grantor agency in an orderly and timely manner. Section 7. Copies of this grant project ordinance shall be made available to the finance officer for direction in carrying out this project. section S. This ordinance shall be in effect from date of adoption through June 30, 1991. Adopted this 16th day of October, 1990. t Attachment A 313 Sec-1113(a) Public Assistance Payments to Legal Representatives See. 1111. For purposes of t.itles I, X, XIV, and XVI, and Part A of title IV, Pafrrents on behalf of art individual, uyade to another Person who lies been judicially uppoil;led, iutder the lair of the State in which such irtdividunl resides, its legal rcj? resent- ;;tire of such in di. vidua] for the purpose of receiving and manpry (z- ltethcr or not he is such inc)iviilual's legal t epresenLati�le lfor oilier 10111g Sl:cj.jyrrert Purposes), shill be rE4arded as money payments to such individual. hfed:cai Care Guides and Reports for Public Assistance and Medical Assistance Sec. 1112. In Order to nssist the States to extend-the scbpc and content, .111(1 imprure the quality, of medical care and meji�aj serv- ices for 1rhich Payntel;ts are made to or on belialf of irecuy and low- Public individuals wider this Act and in ordei to ptotnot.c better public understanding about medical care and Iii r dl assistance ter needy and low- income individuals, the Secretary shall dcvilop acrd revise from time to time guides or i•ecor,�sittcnded standards as to the level, content, And qunlity of medical care and medical services for lire use of fire States in evn)u:tting and imp in their public assist. ance medical care Probrarn,s and their.proorams of medical assisthitce; shall secure jreriodic reports from the States on items included in, and life quantity of, nredic:il care and medical services for w]riclt ex- rcrlditiires under such programs are made; and ,shall from time to time t,ublish data secured from thew. reliorts and otltcr information necessary to carry out the purposes of this see' don. pia) i1) cretAry is authorized to provide ternpo. airy assistance to citizens of tote LTnitcd 'States gird to dcpertdeuts of citizens of the United States, if the partment of State as having returned, or peen 1 identified by the ]�e- country to the United States because of the Jestituti n of the uultizegn Of t)te United States or the illness of suc]i citizen or any of his depend- )$a or because of war, threat of 1rar, invasion, or simihrr crisis, And iB) Mre A ithout ar-ailulrle resources. (2) lrxcePt in such cases or e]sisscs of eases as are set forth in regu- latiosts of tiro Secretary, provision s!;all be nmelo for reimburscrZ to the Lnited States by the recipients of the temporary Assist,lrtce to cover the cost thereof. (3) The secretary may provide assistance under paragraph 1 directly or tltrouelt utilization of t)te services and facilities of apprQ pt'iate public or private agencies and organizations, in arcurdance Sec. 1113(a) 314 with argeements providing for payment, in nd� ance or by nay of reimbursement, as may be detern]intA by the Secretary, of the cost thereof. Such cost shall be determined by slich statistical, sampling, or other method as may be provided in the agreement. (b) The Secretary is authorized to develop plans and make ar- rangements for provision of temporary rssistance within the United States. to individuals specified in subsection (a) (1). Such plans shall be developed and such arrangements shall be made after consultation With the Secretary of State, the Attorney Gcneral, and the Secretary of Defense. To the extent feasible, assistance prodded under sub- section (a) shall be provided in accordance witil the plans developed pursuant to this subsection, as modified frotn time to time by the Secretary. (c) For purposes of this section, the term " temporary assistance" means motley payments, medical care, temporary billeting, transporta- tio n , -and other goods and services nece zory for the health or welfare of individuals (including gttidancP, counseling, and other welfare 'services) hirnished to -them within the United States upon their ar- rival in the United States and for such period after their arrival, not exceeding ninety days, as may be provided in regulations of the Secre- tary; except that assistance under this section may be furnished beyond such ninety -day period in the case of any citizen or dependent upon a finding by the Secretary that the circumstances involved necessitate or justify the furnishing of assistance beyond such period in that par- ticular case. (d) The total amount of temporary assistance provided under this section shall not exceed (1) $8,000,000 during the fiscal years ending June 30, 19751 and June 30, •1976, and the succeeding calendar quarter, or s (2) $3001000 during. any fiscal year beginning on or after October 1, 1976.; Appointment of Advisory \Council and Other Advisory Groups Sec. 1114. (a) The Secretary shall, during 1064, appoint an Ad- %-isory Council on Public Welfare for the purpose of reviewing the adrbinistration of the public ns6stance and child welfare services pro- grams for which funds are npproprinted pursuant to this Act and malting recommendations for improvement of such administration, and reviewing the status of lied making recommendations with respect to the public assistance programs for wl.40i funds areso ,ppropriated, cspeoinlly in relnlion to (lie old -age, survivors, and disability insur- ance program, with respcct to the fiscni capacities of the States and the Federal Governrnent, and with respect to any other matters bear seetloa 1113 was ameo4a4 bir Puhlle L.-W 94 -44. W D DEPARTM M OF SER CES . _ PAM d3f SUPPORT ADMDnSTRATIO Refer to MD 4B (0 GC 5735) Regicia'iy: ! Suite 811 101 Warietua Tower September 25, 1990 Atlanta, GA 30323 y_ To: Administrators of State Welfare Agencies From: Regional Administrator Family Support Administration Subject: Limits on Allowable Resettlement Costs for Families Under the Repatriation Program The following guidelines should be used in establishing reasonable limits on allowable resettlement costs for families under the repatriation program. For the first month the payment should be limited to $560 per person. Therefore, a family of four would be allowed $2240 ($560 x 4- = $2240) . This allowance should cover the first month's rent, security deposit, clothing and miscellaneous needs. This amount also includes the amount of the AFDC standard for the first month. The second and third month the family is limited to the AFDC need standard. Remember that individuals will be required to repay the cost of such assistance and services once their own resources become accessible to them. With the recent influx of large numbers of repatriates there may have been special situations in which a State allowed a family more than the $560 per person limit. In the event you have cases in which the assistance provided exceeded these limits,..please carefully document the reasons for the expenditures when submitting the claim for reimbursement. If you have questions regarding this memorandum,. please call your Family Support Program Specialist. .iii A Suanne Brooks • . DISPOSITION: RETAIN UNTIL SUPERCEDED i r ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No Meeting Date: October 16, 1990 SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Priorities for 1991 -92 Budget ---------------------- DEPARTMENT Board of Commissioners --------- County Manager PUBLIC HEARING YES NO x ATTACHMENTS) INFORMATION CONTACT Moses Carey None Rod Visser TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To set a public hearing for the purpose of receiving comments from Orange County citizens and representatives of non- governmental agencies on the priorities for funding in the 1991 -92 Orange County Budget. BACKGROUND: In October, 1989, the Board of Commissioners held a public hearing to give citizens and non - governmental agencies a preliminary opportunity to comment on the 1990 -91 budget process. This public hearing was designed to provide the Board with information that was reviewed at the Commissioners retreat in January, 1990 and used by the Manager in formulating his recommended budget. Again this year, it is the wish of the Board to continue this process. Advertisements in local newspapers will provide basic information concerning the 1990 -91 budget and solicit written comments from citizens as well as publicize the hearing. RECOMMENDATION(8): To approve setting a public hearing for November 20, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom in Chapel Hill. 6 I ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: OCTOBER 16, 1990 Action Agenda Item # X_ F. SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE LITTER DURING TRANSPORTATION; VEHICLE SAFETY; OILING OF PUBLIC ROADS DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER, PUBLIC HEARING: Yes —7I —No ATTORNEY AND SHERIFF ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, EXTENSION 2300 GEOFFREY GLEDHILL (732 -2196) TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To respond to concerns expressed by members of the Board of Commissioners with regard to the following: 1. Litter and debris flying or falling from trucks transporting solid waste to the County landfill; 2. The unsafe condition of trucks transporting materials to and from the landfill; 3. Oiling of public roads located within the unincorporated areas of Orange County. BACKGROUND: See attached report from County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill. RECOMMENDATION: See attached report from County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill. 1 COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 129 E. TRYON STREET P.O. DRAWER 1529 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 919- 732 -2196 919 - 942 -8000 FAX 919 - 732 -7997 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SUITE 300, THE CENTER 1506 E. FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514 919- 929 -7151 FAX 919- 929 -3892 ALONZO B. COLEMAN, JR STEVEN A. BERNHOLZ ROGER B. BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL DOUGLAS HARGRAVE G. NICHOLAS HERMAN KIM K. STEFFAN JOE L. WEBSTER TERRY G. HARN JANET B. DUTTON October 10, 1990 Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman Stephen Halkiotis John Hartwell Shirley E. Marshall Don Willhoit Orange County Board Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, North of Commissioners Carolina 27278 Of Counsel BONNER D. SAWYER Re: Solid Waste Litter During Transportation; (1902 -1972) Vehicle Safety; Oiling of Public Roads Dear Board Members: This letter is to report to you the outcome of a meeting held on September 28, 1990 attended by John Link, Sheriff Pendergrass, Major Truelove and myself. This meeting was prompted by concerns expressed by members of the Board of Commissioners and by Orange County staff about: 1. litter and debris flying or falling from trucks transporting solid waste to the County landfill; 2. the unsafe condition of trucks transporting materials to and from the landfill; 3. oiling of public roads located within the unincorporated areas of Orange County. During the September 28, 1990 meeting Sheriff Pendergrass and Major Truelove outlined the work presently being done by the Sheriff's Department about the areas of concern. With respect to solid waste problems caused by littering and debris flying from vehicles transporting solid waste to the landfill, the Sheriff is now and has been involved in enforcement activities. The Sheriff and his deputies respond to complaints of violations and routinely cite violators seen during patrol. 3 F Q ?- LU z w LLI Q a 0 x i 0 U 0 x z W4 m N O x z a W m z a i ry 0 U Orange County Board of Commissioners 3 Page 2 October 10, 1990 Enclosed is a copy of a sample warning citation together with internal memoranda detailing this activity. In addition, repeat offenders are treated more harshly, particularly private solid waste haulers. The Sheriff has, on occasion, had repeat - offender problems with private haulers. In those cases he has met with the owners of the company whose trucks are repeatedly at fault in what can best be described as a meeting in the "woodshed." The Sheriff reports that these meetings have been productive and problems with these haulers have ceased. Also, the Sheriff and his deputies regularly check all greenbox sites in Orange County for violations and violators. There are still problems. But, enforcement activities are ongoing. In that regard it is recommended that the Board endorse and support enforcement activities by the Sheriff and his deputies and that an overture be made to the Orange County Division of the North Carolina Highway Patrol for the support and help of the officers of the Highway Patrol in this enforcement effort. With respect to vehicle safety violations, the Sheriff and his deputies routinely cite violators during routine patrol. The Sheriff will also respond to complaints concerning vehicle safety violations. Again, it is recommended that the Board endorse and support the efforts of the Sheriff and his deputies in enforcing vehicle safety regulations. It is further recommended that contact be made with the Orange County Division of the North Carolina Highway Patrol and the North Carolina Division of Motor vehicles for encouragement of their continued assistance and help in ensuring that only safe vehicles travel the roads of Orange County. With respect to oiling of public roads, enforcement responsibility is not as clear. This is so because the problem may differ depending on the substance used in the road oiling, the location of the road oiling and other factors. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has responsibility for all public roads in Orange County outside the corporate limits of the municipalities within the County. Responsibility for enforcement of the various State solid waste laws in North Carolina impacted by road oiling is generally vested in the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Further, the Sheriff reports that his office has never received a complaint concerning road oiling and has never been requested to do anything about road oiling. For these reasons and others it is the recommendation of the Sheriff, the Manager and myself that the County adopt the following policy with respect to road oiling: 3 a F LU z a 0 F F Q w Q a a a s a m N 0 m N J 0 z z a w m z w a O U Orange County Board of Commissioners Page 3 October 10, 1990 4 1. All inquiries of and complaints made to County government regarding road oiling shall be referred to the County engineer, including inquiries from the general public, the press or other employees and agencies.of Orange County government. The Sheriff and his deputies, if road oiling is observed or if they observe that roads have been oiled, will also notify the County engineer. 2. The County engineer will get as much data on the incident as is available and immediately thereafter notify the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, of the incident. The North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles will also be notified in all instances where the road oiling has occurred or is occurring on State maintained roads. The information reported'by the County engineer will provide the appropriate State agencies with the basis for conducting investigations and enforcement actions if appropriate and notifying federal authorities if appropriate. In conclusion, the environmental and safety problems that have been identified here are in part being addressed and in part need more work. On the County level, enforcement activities will continue. This should be encouraged and supported. Help from State agencies where State agency activities and enforcement efforts overlap should be encouraged. Further cooperation should be solicited. With respect to those matters for which only state oversight and enforcement is appropriate, the County, through its engineer, can provide a reporting service to aid state efforts. GEGllsg Enclosures xc: Marvin Collins John M. Link, Sheriff Lindy Very truly yours, Jr. Pendergrass Gledhill a WARNING CITATION FOR LITTERING FROM OCSD STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA VS: DEFENDANT CURRANT ADDRESS 5 THE UNDERSIGNED OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT ON OR ABOUT AM PM, THE DAY OF , 199 IN ORANGE.COUNTY, THE NAMED DEFENDANT DID UNLAWFULLY AND WILLFULLY OPERATE_, A VEHICLE ON A STREET OR HIGHWAY IN VIOLATION OF 130 -294. .0105 COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION OF SOLID \WASTE . (a) The solid waste collector shall be responsible for the satisfactory collection and transportation of ❑ all solid waste to a permitted disposal site or facility. (b) .The solid waste collector shall transport to a site or facility only those solid wastes, which the site ❑ or facility is Permitted to receive. (c) Vehicles or containers used for the collection and transportation by whatever means, including but not limited to, highway, rail, and navigable water -way, of garbage, or refuse containing garbage, shall ❑be covered, leakproof, durable, and of easily cleanable construction. These shall be cleaned as often as necessary to prevent a nuisance or insect breeding and shall be maintained in good repair. (d) Vehicles or containers used for the collection and transportation of any solid Haste shall be loaded and moved in such a manner that the contents will not fall, leak, or spill . and shall be covered when necessary to keep contents dry and to prevent blowing of material. If spillage should occur, the material shall be picked up immediately by the solid waste collector and returned to the vehicle or container and the area shall be properly cleaned. History ,Fate: Statutory Aurhoriry G.S. 130A -194; Ejf. April 1, 1981; Amended Ejf February 1, 1988. Officer No. Zone/Troop ID ist. O N.C. Patrol ❑ Area Wea. Via. Traffic Accident Wit. Chemical Analyst In vicinity /City of AVNear Intersection J` On Highway No. /Street Drivers License No. State Type Race Sex Date of Birth Vehicle License No. State Make Type Year Speed LINDY PENDERGRASS Sheriff of Orange County To: AU Patnot Pe7c..6onnee From: SheA.ibb PendehgAa;6Z dp Re: L-i ttaing On Roadwayz 14-399 FaiZune To Secure Load, 20- 116(g) Date: June 14, 1989 6 Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27178 Office Phone: Hillsborough 732 -2431 Chapel Hill 942 -6300 Residence Phone: 929 -5535 A.6 per Uepax mentat Poticy and p4eviouz memo',, a.L.t Obb.iceu witt, when they w.ctnaz on have pAobab.te cau,e through inv"ti.gati.on to be,ti.eve that anyone .c.6 ne6pon6.ibte bon Z tte&i.ng, either oveAtty on by baieune to property coven any Zoad, newt i.ng in debA.i.6 being t itteAed along the Roadway, ob OAange County, wiU noti.by thew Supenvi4m then the 'Deputy and SupenvisoA w.i.P_.e. take app4op.iate action. Th.i6 action .6hm& .inctu.de ei theA vehbaQ: on wAitten, wanningb and critati.om boo 14 -399 (Litte/i.ng) o4 FaituAe,To`Secure. Load 20- 116(g). A.P.2. inci.dent,6 6houZd be documented by an OCSD .incident )Lepo),t. Specia.t attention 6houZd be p.ea.ced on comt)Lucti.on (dump)' tnuclz6 along Smith Levee Road, Mt. Carmee Church Road; Iona Fenny Road and GAeen.6boao Highway. UTA.ctten waming:6 and citation, 6haU be bonweAded to Major TAueeove bon hi,6 appnovat. LP /n6 r I rLINDY PENDERGRASS Sheriff of Orange County 7 Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 Office Phone: Hillsborough 732 -2431 Chapel Hill 942 -6300 Residence Phone: 929 -5535 To: AU Patcot Deputies Fnom: Maio& Tnue2ove Re: Warning Citations Fan LittvL ng That Is C.iviZ Cxim nae Changes Fon Littm ng Date: Ju4 5, 1990 You may use a wann.ing citvti.on when you obs enve ticucks who cute tittekung by not secu&ing .thew toad ptopehty. This 6onm should onQy be a WARNING CITATION. You may change someone with the C.iviZ Linea ng v.iotation but you need to see a CteAk on Mag.cstita to to maize that change. You may atzo change under G.S. 14 -399 which iz under cniminaC .Paw. DRT /n6 ORANGE C O U N T Y r BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 16 1990 Action Agenda Item # 2(. f__ SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND ORANGE COUNTY PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): - Proposed Amendments (Revised) - 5 -16 -90 Public Hearing Minutes - 6 -6 -90 TAS Minutes - 7 -10 -90 Planning Board Minutes - 8 -1 -90 Planning Board Minutes - 8 -15 -90 TAS Minutes - 9 -17 -90 Planning Board Minutes PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No INFORMATION CONTACT: Planning Director - Extension 2592 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations and Orange County Private Road Standards. The proposed amendments were presented at public hearing on May 16, 1990. BACKGROUND: Major features of the proposed revisions to the Subdivision Regulations and Private Road Standards presented at public hearing were: 1. Coordination of private roads with the public road system; 2. clarification as to where public roads will be required; 3. clarification as to where private roads are appropriate; 4. additional certification on final plats regarding access, future development, and disclosure to prospective purchasers; 5. a cap on the number of lots /dwellings that can be served by a Class A private road; 6. transfer of inspection and certification responsibility from the County to professional engineers and /or registered land surveyors; and 7. a reduction in the maximum grade allowed on a private road. In Orange County, the preference has been and is to serve subdivisions with State - maintained (NCDOT) public streets or municipal streets. The County recognized, however, that private roads were beneficial in some cases. Where the developer provided 2.1 r benefits such as enhancing entrances or streetscapes off an adjoining public road, saving trees, providing large lots, reducing disturbance, and "fitting" lots better into their natural surroundings, the County Staff, Planning Board and Commissioners have permitted the use of private roads. The County has also been concerned about the logical and safe extension of public roads throughout the County, noting that private roads cannot be served by school buses and sometimes not by rescue squads and fire trucks. Private roads are also affordable to Orange County citizens - $50 /linear foot for a public road versus $15 /linear foot for a private road. Thus, efforts were made to find ways of continuing to allow private roads where the "benefits" outweigh the negative aspects. The Planning Board first considered these items on July 10. The Planning Director raised concerns about requirements that private.roads must adjoin public roads and that a professional engineer or surveyor be required to inspect and certify private roads. He stressed the potential for creating unintended hardships, and the issue was tabled until further discussions were held by the Planning Board and TAS. On August 1, a joint meeting of the Planning Board and TAS was held. The Planning Director reviewed his concerns, but no action was taken. The concerns were forwarded to the TAS for recommendation. On August 15, the TAS considered a memorandum from the Planning Director identifying specific concerns and offering recommendations for addressing them. The TAS recommended approval of the changes proposed by the Planning Director with minor revisions. One provision involving the extension of roads to serve adjoining property was eliminated from consideration pending further discussion by the TAS and Ordinance Review Committee. The TAS also discussed a proposed Private .Roads Preamble and recommended approval subject to the minor wording changes. At its September 17 meeting, the Planning Board considered the recommendations of the TAS and recommended approval of the proposed amendments with minor changes. The proposed amendments as presented at the May 16 public hearing are attached, including revisions as recommended by the TAS and Planning Board. RRCOMIENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations and Private Road Standards as per the Planning Board recommendation, but with the addition 2.2 of clarifying language to Section IV- B- 3- d- 1.1.a. That section appears on page 7 of the abstract, and the recommended wording is as follows: 1. The location and design of the subdivision is such that it clearly preserves the rural character of the County through: a. The provision of lot sizes and building setback lines significantly greater than required by ordinance provisions. Compliance with this standard is assured in University Lake watershed where a subdivision is required to provide a minimum required lot size of five acres. Where the minimum required lot size is less than five acres, compliance is assured when each lot in the subdivision contains at least twice the minimum required lot size. For example, if the minimum required lot size is two acres, and each lot contains at least four acres, compliance is assured; and /or The proposed wording clarification is shown in italics and is provided as explanation that larger lot sizes P five acres) are not required in University Lake watershed where the minimum required lot size is already high. The Administration further recommends that the effective date of the proposed amendments be set for December 3, 1990. This would permit the Planning & Inspections Department to conduct a workshop for surveyors and engineers on the administration of the new certification and inspection standards. L� PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND ORANGE COUNTY PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS Listed on the attached sheets are proposed amendments to Sections IV and V of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations and to the Orange County Private Road Standards. The amendments are intended to clarify situations where private roads are appropriate and to emphasize that County involvement with a private road ends once it is constructed and certified to meet County standards. The amendments reflect the recommendations of the Transportation Advisory Subcommittee (TAS) and the Planning Board. Where existing text was initially proposed to be removed, it has been eliminated. Proposed new text has been retained and is underlined. Where revisions to the proposed text have been recommended by the TAS and Planning Board, they are shown in bold type. Explanatory comments, as appropriate, are shown in (italics). 3 r 4 IV- B -3 -b. All subdivisions shall have a coordinated street system via a public or private -street and access to a public, state, or municipal street. All subdivisions containing private streets shall have at least one street which intersects with or joins an extension__of _a public, state, or municipal street, or another private road. (The proposed amendment regarding a coordinated particular, requires sui private streets to have which connects directly another private road. is more explicit street system and, in divisions having at .least one street to a public road or The principal change as recommended by the TAS and Planning Board was the addition of "another private road ". If such wording was not included, all private roads in new subdivisions would have to have direct access to an existing public road.) underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PH revision 51 IV- B- 3 -d -1. Roads - Public roads are generally required in all subdivisions and will be required where it is found that: 1. The subdivision roads would be accepted by the State for maintenance if: a. They are built in a manner which satisfies the minimum State design and construction criteria for subdivision roads; and b. They would satisfy other requirements for addition to the State maintenance system, including, but not limited to, the general density standard of at least two occupied residences for each one -tenth of a mile of subdivision road. If, upon review of a subdivision plat, it is determined that the general density standard is met, but a design standard is not, a re- design will be required where possible. For example, if the number of lots proposed along a subdivision road would clearly satisfy the density standard, but the road design was such that the centerline radius did not meet the minimum standard of 230 feet for level land, a new road design would be required. Another example is a situation where a landscaped island or entrance median prevents acceptance of the road for maintenance. The above criteria and standards are identified in a publication, Subdivision Roads - Minimum Construction Standards, prepared by and available from the N.C. Department of Transportation; or (The proposed amendment is intended to preclude a subdivider from intentionally designing a road system he knows the State will not accept for maintenance to justify private roads for his subdivision. The wording has been expanded to clarify when the re- design of a subdivision would be required.) 2. The subdivision roads extend existing underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PB revision P roads which are public; or 3. The subdivision roads are part of a development which is located in an area designated as Urban or Transition on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; or 4. A proposed road is designated as an arterial or collector on an approved Thoroughfare Plan for a municipality or in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; or (The word "connector" was deleted, since there is no comparable term in the road classification system.) S. The subdivision roads are part of a non- residential development consisting of office, retail, industrial, and similar businesses, each located on a separate lot. This provision shall only apply to that portion of a subdivision being developed for non - residential purposes. (This provision was added to assure that subdivision roads serving non - residential development would be public. It was added to eliminate a provision which required restrictive covenants to limit uses to residential, agricultural, and open space. The previously proposed #5 was eliminated and referred to the TAS for further consideration. It required public roads where the extension of such roads was needed to serve adjoining parcels or to provide for the orderly extension of a developing road.) However, private roads may be allowed in a subdivision where, in the judgment of the Planning Board and with the approval of the Board of County Commissioners, it is found that the nature and location of the subdivision with respect to other development and the Comprehensive Plan are such that a private road is justified. In determining whether to permit private roads in subdivisions, the following design features will be considered: underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PB revision 1. The location and design of the subdivision is such that it clearly preserves the rural character of the County through: a. The provision of lot sizes and building setback lines significantly greater than required by ordinance provisions. Compliance with this standard is assured when a subdivision is required to provide minimum lot sizes of five acres or greater. where the minimum required lot size is less than five acres, compliance is assured when each lot in the subdivision contains at least twice the minimum required lot size. For example, if the minimum required lot size is two acres, and each lot contains at least four acres, compliance is assured; and /or (The proposed amendment is intended to clarify what is meant by "significantly greater" as it relates to lot size). b. The retention and /or provision of landscaping and use of clustering of dwelling units to screen the view of the subdivision from public roads, maintain a wooded or forested character, maintain scenic views or preserve wildlife botanical historic archaeological and/or recreation sites. (The proposed amendment streamlines the text by consolidating wording from several sections into one.) 2. The number, location and /or size of lots to be located in the subdivision are such that, even if constructed to State standards, the streets would not be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or other State requirements. 3. Recreation and /or open space areas, including lands containing significant botanical, wildlife, historic and /or archaeological sites, are to be dedicated and /or preserved through restrictive covenants in amounts sianificantly underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PB revision 0 greater than required by standards for recreation /open space dedication. 4. Sianifica=ly larger than required stream buffers and lot sizes, and /or other design features are proposed as part of a subdivision to be located in a Protected Watershed as designated on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to reduce the amount of impervious surface and cause infiltration of storm water runoff to prevent the pollution of water supply reservoirs. 5. TODoaraDhic and environmental features such . as . streams, steepp s loges , or watersheds that would be adversely affected by the use of roads constructed to state standards because of factors such as significant amounts of earthwork (cut and fill) that would contribute to increased run -off of stormwater and siltation. (The proposed amendment identifies a situation where private roads may be preferable to public roads because of reduced impact on sensitive environmental features). Restrictive covenants which prevent further subdivision of the property shall be made a condition of approval of a private road. (The proposed amendment is taken from prior wording eliminated through consolidation of other sections above. A provision requiring restrictive covenants to limit uses to residential, agricultural, or open space was eliminated.) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant for subdivision approval to supply a written statement justifying the reasons for private roads in the proposed subdivision. Compliance with one or more of the above standards does not insure approval of either a public or private road within a proposed subdivision. (The revision eliminates the need to comply with all five of the above standards.) IV- B- 3 -d -2. A private road shall be required to meet underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PB revision E standards set by Orange County, as descr ibed in Appendix A of the Subdivision Regulations. Satisfactory proof that the standards are met will be required by the County Manager or his appointed agents. If a subdivision is to contain private roads, the subdivider shall have an instrument recorded contem oraneousl with the final plat su]?stantially in the for of the County's Standard Road Maintenance A ree ent entitled "DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND PROVISIONS FOR PRIVATE ROAD MAINTENANCE", guarantee (a) a right of access to any private road in the subdivision by all lots served by the road and by law enforcement and emerggncy emergency vehicles b right of access for the-proposed 1priyate road to a State a-r- munickpally maintained road by way of direct access or other rivate roads (c) perpetual maintenance of any private road serving the subdivision at the standards set for approval, and d provide record notice of the probability that future develpippent de endent on the riv to roads for access wi 1 re au' e uoarad,ing of the road to North Carolina De artment of Trans ortation standards. See Section V -D -6 -b 2 for additional reguirements. (The proposed amendments require the subdivider to record a copy of the Road Maintenance Agreement with the final plat, expand right of access to include public safety vehicles, clarify that each lot must have access from a public or private road, and puts property owners on notice that future development dependent on private roads for access will require upgrading to a higher private road standard or dedication and upgrading to State standards.) underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PS revision 10 V- D- 6 -b(2) Where a final plat shows a private road, an instrument substantially in the form of the County's Standard-Road Maintenance Agreement entitled, "DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND PROVISIONS FOR PRIVATE ROAD MAINTENANCE", shall be recorded contemporaneously with the recordation of the approved Final Plat which guarantees (a) right of access to any private road in the subdivision by all lots served by the road and by law enforcement and emergency vehicles b ri ht of access for the proposed rivate road to a State or municipally maintained road by way of direct access or other private roads, (c) perpetual maintenance for any private road serving the subdivision at the standards set for approval, and d provide recgrd notice of the Rrobability that future develo ment de endent on the-private roads for access will require u radin of the roads to a higher Rrivate road standard or public dedication and upg-r-adina of the road to North Carolina De artment of Transportation standards. This instrument shall also note acceptance by the owner of all liability related to the use of the road and a reement to hold both the-County and State harmless from such liability, and acknowled a that some ublic services may not be Rrovided due to the private nature of the road. The guarantees of right of access and maintenance of the subdivision roads shall run with the land, and shall be disclosed to any 2rosRective purchaser of land_ in the _subdivision as provided in North Carolina General Statutes Chanter 136 - 102.6. Upon recordation, the Deed Book and Page Number of the recorded document shall be referenced on the Final Plat. Owner: Date: (The proposed amendments require the subdivider to record a copy of the Road Maintenance Agreement with the final plat, expand right of access to include public safety vehicles, clarify that each lot must have access from a public or private road, provide for perpetual maintenance, put property owners on notice that future development dependent on private roads for access will require upgrading to a higher private road standard or dedication and upgrading to State standards, hold the County and State harmless for liability issues underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PS revision 11 arising out of the private road, and disclose to prospective purchasers the fact that the property is served by private roads). underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PS revision 12 ORANGE COUNTY PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS Purpose In orange County, the preference is to serve subdivisions with State - maintained (NCDOT) public streets or municipal streets. The County recognizes, however, that private roads may be beneficial in some cases where the developer provides significantly larger lots, and where a private road graded to a narrower cross - section saves valuable vistas, trees, or natural resources, and reduces cut - and -fill and overall land disturbance. Where the developer clearly provides benefits such as enhancing entrances or streetscapes off an adjoining public road, saving trees, providing large lots, reducing disturbance, and "fitting" lots better into their natural surroundings, the County Staff, Planning Board and Commissioners may permit the use of private roads. The County is concerned about the logical and safe extension of public roads throughout the County and also notes that private roads cannot be served by school buses and sometimes not by rescue squads and fire trucks. Therefore, the County will only approve private roads where the "benefits" outweigh the negative aspects. Private roads will never be approved simply to save money. Private roads are a privilege, and not a right, and must be justified by the particular lot arrangement and benefits provided by each development. It is hoped that the following regulations and standards convey the sense that private roads can be used, but only where they clearly meet the spirit as well as the letter of the criteria contained herein. (The addition of a preamble is intended to give a clear sense of Orange County's position relative to the approval, construction, and maintenance of private roads.) General Requirements Private Roads serve lots within subdivisions that do not have access to State - maintained roads. Furthermore, Private Roads insure that all lots have documented legal right -of --way and provide adequate access for residents and emergency vehicles. Private Roads may be allowed in a subdivision where, in the judgment of the Planning Board and with the approval of the Board of Commissioners, it is found that the nature and location of the subdivision are such that a private road is justified. In determining whether to permit Private Roads in subdivisions, the design features contained in Article IV -B- 3-d of the Subdivision Regulations will be considered. Note that it is the responsibility of the applicant for underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PB revision 13 subdivision approval to supply a written statement justifying the reasons for Private Roads in the proposed subdivision. Compliance with one or more of the standards contained in Article IV -B -3 -d does not assure approval of a Private Road within a proposed subdivision. After approval of and initial construction of the Private Road, maintenance must be provided by the property owners that use the road. A Road Maintenance Agreement or Declaration between the lot owners is required to insure that the needed repairs are made. Since Private Roads are not constructed to North Carolina Department of Transportation standards, they will not be added to the Secondary Road System and will not be maintained by the State or Orange County. The standards and specifications for Private Roads apply to subdivisions in Orange County and the class of road required depends on the number of lots served by the road. A Class C road serves 1 to 3 lots or dwelling units, a Class B road serves 4 to 9 lots or dwelling units, and a Class A road serves 10 to 25 lots or dwelling units. Private Roads servina more than 25 lots or dwel in units-may be ermitted only if constructed to NCDOT public road standards. All classes of Private Roads in a major (five or more lots) subdivision require the approval of the Board of Commissioners. Furthermore, Class A Private Roads in a minor subdivision (four or less lots) require the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Before the final plat of the subdivision can be recorded, the Private Road must be built and approved, or the applicant must post a security instrument with the County in an amount that would cover the cost of constructing the road. Class C Private Roads intended to serve 2 lots or dwelling units are not required to be constructed to Orange County Standards or to be inspected before recordation of the final plat. However, Orange County recommends that these Class C roads be built to these standards in order to provide adequate access, especially for emergency vehicles which require the clearances and turn areas shown on the specifications. (The proposed amendment puts a cap of 25'1ots or dwelling units as the maximum that can be served by a Class A private road; there is not currently a maximum. it also states that private roads serving more than 25 lots or dwellings may be permitted, but only if constructed to DOT standards). Private road construction must be inspected and the construction certified in_writng to the Orange Count Planning Department by a North Carolina Professional En ineer or a North Carolina Registered Land Surveyor. Also, the location of the travelway within the right -of -way must be certified to be withi the platted Rrivate road right-of-way. The road must be inspected during construction so that any underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PS revision 14 changes or improvements necessary to insure approval can be made before the stone is placed and the shoulders and ditches are seeded and mulched. In order for this to happen, the subdivider or representative must inform the professional making the certification prior to the start of construction and at intervals during construction when inspections are needed so that they can be scheduled. (The proposed amendment makes it possible for a professional engineer or registered land surveyor to inspect and certify in writing that private road construction is in accordance with County standards and relieves the County of approval authority. if a property owner experienced problems later with a private road.that were a result of faulty construction or substandard materials the certifying engineer or surveyor would be accountable as opposed to the County). Inspections by the Planning Department are made only to insure that the road is built to the required dimensions; that the stone travelway is provided to the required width; adequate drainage is provided; any disturbed areas are seeded and mulched to establish permanent vegetation; and to see that the road sign is in place. The subdivider is responsible for supervising construction and for quality control inspections for clearing and grubbing of the right -of -way, compaction of fill, construction materials, and so forth. The subdivider or representative should employ a qualified grading contractor (and supervisor if necessary) to insure that the road is in the correct location and that acceptable methods and materials are used. Bonds or letters of credit cannot be released or reduced until completion of the road is certified. Arrangements for payment between the subdivider and contractor are not the responsibility of the Planning Department staff. NOTE: Private road construction must also conform to the requirements of the Orange County erosion control ordinance. The ordinance requires that reasonable measures be taken to keep sediment on the site of a land disturbance regardless of the amount-of area uncovered. When the amount of disturbance exceeds 20,000 square feet, the property owner or agent is required to submit an erosion control plan and obtain a grading permit before starting any timbering, clearing, or grading. Generally, permits are required when a private road is more than 650 feet long, assuming the width of disturbance averages 30 feet. Contact the Erosion Control Supervisor in the Planning Department for assistance. underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PB revision F16y GENERAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND PRIVATE ROAD CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 1. Submit request for subdivision with a private road to Current Planning Division. Check proposed road name with Planning Department list to avoid duplication. 2. Submit erosion control plan for review if road construction will involve more than 20,000 square feet. 3. If necessary, apply for and obtain an NCDOT Dri_v_eway Permit. 4. Receive preliminary subdivision approval from the Planning Board. 5 . Inform person_ inspecting and certifying construction that construction is to begin. 6. Schedule pre- construction conference if disturbance involves more than 20,000 square feet. 7. Construct road to private road standards, or post security bond for construction of the road. 8. Schedule inspections [with Planning Department staff] as construction progresses. 9. Have a Qrofessional enginger_or registered land surveyor certify that construction meets the required standards and that travelway is within the right -of- way in writing to the Planning and Inspections Department. 10. Record final subdivision plat with Register of Deeds. (The proposed amendments are in concert with the amendments proposed above making it possible for a professional engineer or registered land surveyor to inspect and certify private road construction). GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE Remove all trees, stumps, roots, and other vegetation from the width of right -of -way necessary.to construct the road to the required dimensions.. Fill and compact all depressions created by clearing. Build roadbed to required dimensions, aZgdea, cutting, filling, and com acted to 90% relative dry den it Standard Proctor Method) as determined by oroofrol.l_ino observed by-the underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PB revision FU: certifvinv professional or by actual soil compaction tests if required ty-the-certifyina professional or the County—. (The proposed amendment proposes more stringent standards for roadbed construction). Install culverts to provide cross drainage. Construct side ditches and crown travelway. Place and compact 4 inches of surface material. Seed and mulch disturbed areas in order to stabilize. Install standard road name sign. Have final inspection and written certification by certifying professional._ STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE ROADS The standards described herein are the minimum set forth by the County. Orange County has not determined and is not responsible for determining that these standards are adequate or appr02riate for all uses by land owners. The standards also may not me-et-NCDOT--criteria. No road will be accented for maintenance by NCDOT unless or until NCDOT standards are met. Certification of Construction rofessional engineer or registered land surveyor must certify in writin to the Planning De artment that a Private Road either existing, u2craded, or newly constructed meets the standards of the re uired class for the subdivision. The following must be inspected and certified: 1. the tgavelway is within the latted ri ht -of -wa 2, the Rroper material as been used in the trave wa and it is built to he rgquired width and thicknes 3. the ,jhgplders are the correct width and &he typical cross section is in place; 4. the road is on the Rroper aradei 5. ditches are in Rlace where necessary to provide adequate drainage: 6. needed storm i es of pro er size materials and construction are in--place and ener gy dissi ato s installed; 7. all disturbed areas are pro erl y stabilized• 8. the re uired road si n is in lace• underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PB revision 17 9. an ade uate turn -arou d is in place at the end of the road; 10. a wired vertical and horizontal clearance is rov'ded• and 11. 12roRgg sight distance and construction at the intersection with a public road. (Proposed amendments include a disclaimer in the first paragraph which states that the private road standards are minimum standards and may not be appropriate for all uses. The remaining amendments are concerned with private road inspection and certification by a professional engineer or registered land surveyor and enumerate items that must be addressed). Travelway The travelway must be surfaced and compacted with a material acceptable to Orange County to the required width of the particular class of road. A crown should be built into the travelway so that water will drain from the road surface into the side ditch. The crown should not be so great as to cause vehicles to slide off the travelway when ice or snow is on the road. Generally the road and shoulder should be crowned as shown in the specifications sheet so that runoff will drain to the ditches on both sides of the road. However, in some situations it may be desirable not to crown the road but to have the travelway sloped to a single ditch as shown below. This is applicable in three situations: (1) where it is necessary to cut down on the length of a ditch in order to reduce the erosion potential by decreasing the volume of runoff, u where it is difficult to construct ditches due to rock, or (3) to „provide far sunerelevation [or_j_ in curves. Such a sin le slo a show d always drain toward the inside of a curve. The -crow slo a of the road and shoulder should be anAroximately 1 /2,-Lo 1 inch Derfoot . (The proposed amendment proposes additional design standards for situations where it is not desirable to crown a road). Pr .0 rr , 7«: Y -WE7 underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PB revision 18 Surface Materials Private roads may be paved, Rrovided that pavement design materials and thickness meets NCDOT subdivision street standards. (The proposed amendment specifies that paving for private roads must meet NCDOT standards). Acceptable material for surfacing the travelway is Aggregate Base Course (commonly called "crusher run "). Soil type base materials (commonly called "Chapel Hill Gravel" or "Chapel Hill Grit ") will be accepted under the following conditions: The material originates from a quarry approved by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The grade of the road is less than 8 percent. Where the grade is greater than 8 percent a layer of crusher run stone will be placed over the Chapel Hill Gravel before compaction. Sources of surface material shall be verified with the certif in rofessional before placement* Fill Material Where filling is necessary to raise the roadbed, cross watercourses or fill stumpholes, it shall be done with suitable material that is free of roots or other organic matter. The fill should be firmly compacted to reduce settlement that will cause ruts or holes in the finished road. Two --Way Traffic Private Roads shall provide for two -way traffic in order to prevent conflict of vehicles meeting head -on. Two -way traffic for Class B and Class C roads can be accomplished by widening the travelway at prescribed locations to at least 16 feet to allow vehicles to pass or to pull over and stop while another vehicle passes. Plans showing road and right -of -way location, ditches and culverts, extent of clearing, and existing and finish contour lines shall be approved by the Erosion Control Officer. Medians may be permitted between travel lanes when it is underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PB revision 19 demonstrated that such design is desirable for the preservation of natural resources, or that excessive cut and fill would be required to construct a roadway to the standard width. Medians may be permitted only in accordance with the following: 1. Each lane shall contain a minimum of 14 feet of vertical and horizontal clearance. 2. Each lane shall contain a minimum travelway of 8 feet, or one -half of the required width for the applicable road class, whichever is greater. 3. No lots shall access directly onto any divided portion of the road unless there is adequate cross - access provided through the median, or some other acceptable means of access and turnaround for emergency vehicles. 4. Both lanes shall be contained within a single easement. 5. A standard travelway of required width for the road class shall be constructed where the private road intersects with another private or public road. 6. Signs indicating "One Way" shall be provided where the lanes diverge. Grade The grade of the road should not exceed 12 percent because of the difficulty of operating vehicles on such a steep road and the high potential for erosion of the travelway and ditches. Where possible, the road should be constructed along the contour of the land to avoid steep grades. In_ _exceptional circumstances a variance may be..gr_anted far-A. grade greater than 12 p_ercent, as may be agproved_ by tILe Erosion Control Officer prior to construction. u stances where va is ce will be considered are: there g no other reasonable access or location of the road relocating -the road would create other, more serious problems with drainage, stabilization, or environmental impact. and /or the length he se ent with grade grgater than 12 a ent is n r h n 100 feet. (The proposed amendment proposes a reduction in maximum grade on a private road and lists the conditions under which a variance for a steeper grade may be granted). Intersection with Public Road The intersection of the Private Road with the existing public road shall permit a safe entrance and exit. Adequate underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PB revision sight distances along the public road shall be provided by choosing a good location for the right -of -way and clearing sight triangles when building the road. The intersection of a Private Road with a public road must provide an adequate place for cars to stop before entering o the public road. See the diagram below. RCS` PUBLIC R: `•� pop . uraZ^CEr 7xs`c �N ,ERSEC 10N FU-=!JC RC ID 20 �� �Or' tC�rPT1�� 1 NTFR S c C710 N The Private Road must flare at the public road in'order to permit a vehicle to enter the Private Road when another vehicle is waiting on the Private Road. The dimensions of the required flare are shown on the specifications sheet for each class of road. Drainage Ditches shall be constructed to provide drainage from the road and adjacent areas. The ditches shall be built with sufficient depth and width to carry the expected volume of water. The side slopes shall be graded so that they can be stabilized and to prevent vehicles from becoming stuck if they slide into the ditch. Where the road crosses streams or minor watercourses, culverts shall be installed to prevent ponding and washouts of the road for the five-year design storm. On streams where it is not economical to install a large culvert of the required size, the Erosion Control Officer may allow the installation of a smaller culvert if engineering a uivalent provisions are made to protect the road surface and fill slopes from erosion when runoff tops the road. Turn- Arounds vehicle turn - around areas shall be provided at the end of all dead end roads. This can be accomplished by ending the road in a cul -de -sac or a "T ". Cul -de -sacs shall have a minimum diameter of 70 feet. A "T" turn - around must conform to the dimensions in the diagram below. The "T" type turn- around is preferred. The location of the turn- around will depend on the arrangement of the lots in the subdivision. If underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PS revision 2: the Private Road serves only one lot the turn - around should be located near the building site. In a subdivision with several lots the turn - around should be at the end of the road and the necessary right -of -way provided. � I i 12' iravelway ' 1 4p, I R.;.; r---- Pf'WaY 1 � r l� I, Road Dame and Sign The road name shall be verified with the Orange County Planning Department to insure that the proposed name does not duplicate and existing name. The road sign must have one blade showing the name of the Private Road and another showing the name of the existing State maintained road. Class C roads of any length are required to be named and to have a road sign posted. Right -of -Way .The right -of --way shall be 50' wide and indicated on the final plat. Requests for rights -of -way less than 50' wide, but at least 25' wide, must be approved by the Board of Commissioners. Bends in the right -of -way must be at angles that will'. 'P ermit construction of curves with a 125' minimum centerline radius. See "Minimum Curve Radius." Permanent Vegetation All areas disturbed by the construction of the road, including -the shoulders, ditch banks, cut and fill slopes and any borrow areas, shall be seeded in permanent vegetation to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion. Seeding should be done immediately after grading is completed and before the final inspection by the Planning Department. underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PB revision 22 This disturbed areas shall be smoothed and lightly harrowed to break up the soil and prepare a good seedbed. The following materials are recommended per 1,000 square feet. Other types of permanent vegetation may be substituted as long as they provide adequate cover to prevent erosion. 1.4 lbs. 0.4 lbs. 90 lbs. 23 lbs. 2 40 lb. Maintenance Fescue grass seed German or Browntop millet temporary cover until the established) lime 10 -10 -10 Fertilizer Bales of straw for mulch 75% of the ground) (to provide grass becomes (use enough to cover Maintenance of the Private Road must be provided by the lot owners that are served by the road. The Road Maintenance Agreement between the lot owners is required to insure that the cost is shared equally and a mechanism for maintenance is set up. This responsibility for maintenance is the property owners and neither the State nor Orange County will maintain the road. Regular attention shall be given to the following items in order to assure that the road will remain in good condition: 1. Vegetation: The vegetation should be mowed, limed and fertilized as needed. Areas that erode or where seeding is unsuccessful should be reseeded. 2. Drainage: Culverts shall be kept clear of trash and other obstructions that could prevent or reduce the culverts function. If culverts are not kept clear it will cause runoff to flow over the road and may cause flooding upstream. Ditch banks and bottoms shall be protected from erosion by maintaining good vegetation. 3. Travelway: The travelway shall be maintained by grading the surface material to fill any potholes that develop and to evenly spread the surface material where the soil has been uncovered because of erosion. 4. Road Name Sign: The sign shall be kept visible and legible so that visitors and emergency personnel can easily locate the road. Vertical Clearance A minimum of 14' vertical clearance must be provided underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PB revision k3 above the travelway to permit the passage of large vehicles under power lines and tree limbs. N. C. Department of Transportation Driveway Permit The property owner is responsible for obtaining the required permit for access to the state maintained road. This permit can be obtained from the DOT in Hillsborough. Permits are normally granted on request. Minimum Curve Radius Curves shall be constructed with a minimum centerline radius of 1251. The right -of -way must be designed with bends that will provide sufficient width to construct the road to this minimum radius. For example, a 90 bend in a 50' right - of -way will not provide enough area to construct a road 18' wide. The right -of -way must include sufficient width for the travelway and the necessary shoulders, ditches and slopes. The drawing below illustrates how a curve with a 125' centerline radius cannot be contained in a 90 bend of a 50' right -of -way. The other drawings illustrate alternative bends that will contain a curve of the minimum centerline radius. underline = proposed text retained bold = TAS /PB revision H t Cc "0 A 0 0 2- LO + kL\xz I —0 to tr) r1i 24 cr -�N I— .m U) V) d J U —0 LO f_ Q J 0 r 25 a 0 _ U J m a Onn LJ z *a p u i — U W U) ' W !- z I- ' a d I LL 0 w w a CL 'a U) n U -`C4 W y sin W Ir i-' a = L) IA CJ � �d • a 9.. J 0 r 25 a 0 _ U J m a Onn LJ z *a p u i — U W U) ' W !- z I- ' a d I LL 0 w w a CL 'a U) n U -`C4 a[ Ir J in �+ M a LL, 3 _ 'to o- ,m W- _U -UJ ,N a U • z # W y J LL L1 R 0 1r_ I LI cr- I— �L ,U __—o Y U') W a -N e W uu a �` ui O � N U, d -. o t p -V LL O —*to lt1 . > t7 m d e W uu a �` ui O � N U, d -. o i i J I Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissic 2 Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommenc 3 to come back to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August E 4 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5 6 7 3. PRIVATE ROADS 8 a. Section IV and V Orange County Subdivision Regulations 9 b. Orange county Private Rgad Standards 10 These proposed amendments to the Orange Count y Subdivision 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 ... 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Regulations and the Orange County Private Road Standards relate tc private roads policy and standards. Major features of the proposE revisions to the Subdivision Regulations and Private Road Standarc include: 1) coordination of private roads with the public road system; 2) clarification as to where public roads will be required; 3) clarification as to where private roads are appropriate; 4) additional certification on final plats regarding access, development, and disclosure to prospective purchasers; 5) a cap on the number of lots /dwellings that can be served b Class A private road; 6) transfer of inspection and certification responsibility fr County to professional engineers and /or registered land surveyors; and 7) a reduction in the maximum grade allowed on a private road 7 page ation the i uturE a m the ALICE GORDON referred to the implication of "existing road" in the ordinance and in particular. as this would apply to a person who has a -- two acre lot and wants to divide it into two.One acre lots. She feels this would be a burden on that landowner to upgrade the road. a. ZARAGOZA referred to the 12t grade and sees this as excess restrictive. He referred to the road maintenance agreement and s that while it is possible to get twenty -five people to agree to something it is another thing to get them to do what they have ag do. Mr., Meisner stated that the purpose was to look at the new pri roads as well as the existing ones to be sure there is not a smal private road that is twelve feet wide where additional developmen create more traffic. The assumption would be that the road would improved to at least the minimum standard that would be required number of units. vely ated eed ate COL'. be w thi William Waddell asked about the existing roads that do not meet thi. criteria and asked if another road would need to be built if addi icnz. development takes place. Mr. Meisner stated this will be taken into account when considering the final recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Co=nissi ner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recomnen atio 28 page. 1C 1 to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 6, 2 1990. VOTE: UN2.NIMOUS 3 4 RDJOLTRNMENT 5 With no further items to consider, Chairman Carey adjourned the 6 meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on May 29, 7 1990 in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. 8 9 Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk MINUTES OF TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE (TAS) MEETING HE ON JUNE 6, 1990 ATTENDANCE TAS Members: Chris Best, Chair Jean Hamilton Betty Eidenier Wendy Olson Barry Jacobs Dick Swank Press: Tim Craig, News of Orange Others: Rolland Wrenn and two unidentified Davis Road Residents Staff: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Officer Gene Bell, Planner III 1. CALL TO ORDER - Best called the meeting to order at approximately 7:10 pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 4, 1990 minutes approved. 3. CHAIR COMMENTS - None. 4. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - Best opened the discussion with the suggestion that the TAS consider private roads first. Hamilton stated that the draft private roads preamble handed out at the public hearing needed some corrections. Best stated that the preamble had been written by Phil Post at his.(Best's) request and that it was intendec to serve as the starting point for what might eventually be inserted into the Private Road Standards as suggested by the County Attorney. Eidenier stated that she had edited the proposed preamble (primarily from the standpoint of grammar and punctuation) as follows: In Orange County, the strong preference is to serve subdivisions with State - maintained (NCDOT) public streets or municipal streets. The County recognizes, however, that private roads may be beneficial in some cases where the developer provides much larger than average -size lots, and where a.private road graded to a narrower cross- section saves valuable vistas, trees, or natural resources, and reduces cut - and -fill and overall land disturbance. Where the developer clearly shows that such a subdivision is intent on qualifying for private roads by clearly providing benefits such as an enhanced entrance or enhanced streetscape o =f an adjoining public road, saving trees, providing large lots, reducing disturbance and "fitting" lots better into their natural surroundings, the County Sta= , 3o- The County is concerned about the logical and safe extension of public roads throughout the County and also notes that private roads cannot be served by school buses and sometimes not by rescue squads and fire trucks. Therefore, the County will only approve private roads where the "benefits" outweigh the negative aspects. Private roads will never be approved simply to save money. Private roads are a privilege, and not a right, and must be justified by the particular lot arrangement and benefits provided by each development. It is hoped that the following regulations and standards convey the sense that private roads can be used, but only where they clearly meet the spirit as well as the letter of the following criteria: Regarding other suggested revisions in the Private Road Standards, Best mentioned the proposal to relieve the County of inspection authority for private roads and require that it be done by a professional engineer or registered land surveyor: He stated he would like to see the option left in that would allow the developer the choice of having the County or engineer /surveyor do the private road inspection; the County would not charge a fee unless they did the inspection. He said he was trying to take into account small family subdivisions of only a few lots. Faircloth stated that if there were such a choice, then no one would want to hire a professional and the County would be back to doing all the inspections. Faircloth said he thought more time should be put into the design and inspection of private roads and that this was one of the main reasons for the proposed revisions. Best asked about situations where a person is just trying to do a small road to serve a few lots. Fairclot -h said this was something to consider, but not a clear -cut thing. He said he didn't want to put an undue burden on people cutting off a few lots for = arnily members, but it is often difficult to determine who is family and who is subdividing to sell. Bell cautioned that it wouldn't really matter if the subdivider was cutting off lots for family or to sell, citing previous comments by the County Attorney regarding concerns about equal protection of the law. Faircloth said you probably couldn't differentiate between a person subdividing for family and for profit, but you could differentiate between classes of road, e.g., A, B, or C. Best asked Faircloth why he thought subdividers would fall back on the County to do private road inspections. He (Best) stated that if the person was going to need a surveyor in the first place, would it end un casting that much more. cie further stated that everything we hear from developers 9 3 indicates that they want to have as little to do with the County as possible. One of the reasons we all agreed to goin to engineers and surveyors was to remove one bureaucratic notch out of the process. Faircloth stated that he wasn't sure that reducing the bureaucracy was one of the main goals. He stated that the surveyor would be involved up front and inspection and certification of the private road would be one of the series of steps leading to recordation of a final plat He stated that one reason surveyors were included along with engineers was because, in most cases, a surveyor would probably be less expensive than an engineer. They would also be able to spend more time on-site than the County and could provide supervision of the road construction process if needed. Best asked if cost concerns could be addressed by saying that for Class C roads, the County would inspect and engineers and surveyors would be required for Class A and B roads. Olson stated that the exception for Class C roads on page 88 could probably be factored into Best's proposal. Best stated that a question had been raised about the proposa to lower from three to two the number of lots served by a Class C road less than 500 feet long and not requiring inspection. He asked Bell to give some background on the proposal. Bell stated that currently a Class C private road (which can serve up to three lots) less than 500 feet in length is not required to be inspected. The proposal which went to public hearing called for reducing this to two lots. This was the suggestion of the County Attorney and his rationale was to treat situations like this as a joint driveway. Bell stated that if the TAS recommended going with this proposal, it would reduce even more, the flexibility the small developer /family subdivider currently has. Best said that he felt we needed to maintain flexibility at the lc end of the scale and asked for comments. Eidenier asked Faircloth what was workable from his perspective. Faircloth stated that his division had time to do a minimal amount of inspection, basically measuring the width of the travelway; depth of the stone, making sure the road is properly drained, and the turnarounds ana signs are a required. Ideally, he would like to have an inspector there during construction to make sure pipes are installed correctl and that good fill is.put.in properly, but this could recuire being on -site for perhaps days at a time during construction. Best stated that a potential problem with both the County anc an engineer and /or surveyor inspecting private roads is that requirements for both would have to be the same. Eidenier asked if it could be worded.such that a private road has to r inspected by an engineer or surveyor, which could include the County and include a list of roads the County does and does not do. She asked if, perhaps, workload could dete=ine how involved the County would become. Faircloth felt this was tc subjective and would rather see the County inspecting (or no; inspecting) roads.based on class. Best suggested leaving in 3 32 the language on engineers and surveyors and changing the proposed two lot limitation on Class C private roads back to three lots for Class C roads 500 feet or less in length. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding whether or not the lot /dwelling unit parameters which determine the class of a private road (bottom of page 87) were hard -and -fast or if there was room for some flexibility in interpretation. Best stated that while the lot /dwelling unit ranges usually controlled the class of a private road, this was not always the case. To help clarify this situation it was suggested that the first two sentences of paragraph four on page 87 be rewritten as follows: The standards and specifications for Private Roads apply to subdivisions in Orange County. The class of road required usually depends on the number of lots served by the road. For example, a Class C road generally serves 1 to 3 lots or dwelling units, a Class B road generally serves 4 to 9 lots or dwelling units, and a Class A road generally serves 10 to 25 lots or dwelling units. Discussion then shifted to the Comprehensive /Thoroughfare Plan items presented at public hearing. Best stated that no comments were received at the hearing on the County Specific Road Classification System and that unless the TAS had comments, he would recommend sending it forward with a positive recommendation. There were no additional comments. Best then referred to the Draft Orang, Plan (May 1990 from NCDOT) and stated comments received on it at the public him to distinguish between it and the Classification System. There were no comments. County Thoroughfare that there were no hearing. Olson asked Orange County Road additional cuestions or Discussion then shifted to the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan. Best mentioned the comments by Barry Jacobs and Commissioner Halkiotis at the public hearing concerning the need to look at ff traic reduction methods before building outer loops around Hillsborouch. He also mentioned an article n the June 6 edition of the Chapel Hi11.Herald which.stated that Chapel Hill would put off adoption of the DCHC Thoroughfare Plan (this was presented at a public hearing in Chapel Hill on June 4, 1990) until traffic reduction strategies could be discussed at a series of meetings to be scheduled by the Planning Department. Best then referred to page 43 of the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan, Municipal Service Dwstr -cts, and said this was an idea that mich, help the flown in ter -ms of alleviating downtown traffic. He said he thought at,:�endance of Planning Staff and TP.S members a:. the traffic reduction strategy meetings) in Chapel Hill might be useful to see if such an approach (regarding the Hillsborough Plan) coul d have 4 7„10 - -00 Planninq Board Minutes 3 Meisner expressed agreement with the majority o the responses as prepared and presented by Collins. MOTION: Cantrell moved approval with the changes as follows: 1) To delete the AM and PM peak hours; 2) To change the trip generation chart to reflect the actual trips generated; and 3) To maintain the general exemption under Section 13.3 of the existing ordinance; and 4) Underline the word may in 13.5.c.2. Seconded by Eddleman. Cantrell expressed concern that the Planning Board be perceived as being friendly to Economi Development. VOTE: 5 in favor. 2 opposed (Reid - noted he did not fully understand why the cans were placed where they are; Waddell - felt the caps are too low and ha not specifically described ground where TIS wou be required and felt it was not conducive to economic development. c. private Roads (1) Sections !V /V - Subdivision Regulations (2) Private Road Standards Presentation by Gene Bell. Proposed amendments to Private Road Standards were proposed as an outcrowth of a meeting involving the County Attorney and the ?lann_r.g Board several years ago. He indicated ..hat revisions to private roads policy and standards clarifying appropriateness and maintenance responsibility were needed. ?'he T X S spent considerable time discussing the subject ana working with the consultant on it. Major features of the vroposed revisions to the Subdivision Regulations and Private Road Standards include: 1) Coordination of private roads with the pubi road system; 2) Clarification as to where public roads wi' be rect:.red; 3) C1Gr..f.ication as to where pr -vale roads ar£ app- opr is 7.e; 34 4) Additional certification on final plats regarding access, future development, and disclosure to prospective purchasers; 5) A cap on the number of lots /dwellings that can be served by a Class A private road; 6) Transfer of inspection and certification responsibility from the County to professional engineers and /or registered land surveyors; and 7) A reduction in the maximum grade allowed on a private road. The TAS considered the item on June 6, 1990 and recommended approval of the proposed amendments with the following changes: 1) Deletion of the proposed two lot limitation on private roads 500 feet or less in length; and 2) Inclusion of revised tent concerning the number of lots /dwelling served by a private road. The TAS also requested Planning Board discussion of the proposed private roads preamble on pages 1 and 2 of the draft TAS minutes (copy an attachment to these minutes on pages ) with consideration for possible inclusion in the recommendation to the County Commissioners. The Planning Staff recommends approval or the �r proposed amendments consistent with the -rS recommendation, including a layman's definition o= the term ,nroofrolling" included under the General Construction Sequence heading in the. Orange County Private Road Standards- Marvin Collins read from Iv -B -3 -b All subdivisions containing private streets shall have at least one street which in:.ersects wit:: or joins an extension of a nub!; c, state, or municipal maintained street. He noted concern that all the private streets are being forced close to public roads, creating undeveloped areas further away. The advantage is _f undeveloped land is ever built up, _t v:ill -' have to be developed through the .:pCra -d_nq c- One Of the u=lvate roads to t::Dl1c status . QWBVer, the proposal apnea=s to run counter to the recommendations of the ?,-.;r al Character Study. Best responded that a new subdivision w -ll overload the pri va :e road _n the e.:.st.inc subdivision. He asked who will be responsible for the upgrading. Collins responded that the developer of the new subdivision would be responsible for the upgrading of the private ro in the existing subdivision. Best noted that this statement was included upon the recommendation direction of the County Attorney Collins also expressed concern about the requirement that a citizen hire an engineer or surveyor to inspect a private road under construction and certify that it meets County standards. He noted that no one has provided a cost data on hiring such a person to provide the inspections. He felt this information was needed prior to placing such a requirement into effect. He continued that he felt the items needed to be addressed and reviewed by the County Attorney and Planning Director before implementation is consdered. Best responded that the TAS had been reviewing and studying this issue for over a year, and h would not like to see this item tabled U ter�t public hearing. He would like for the item to voted upon. Collins responded that members of the Planning Board, because of individual concerns, had brought months of Staff work to a halt. Collins indicated he did not wish to see amendments approved which might create unintended hardships and limit implementation of other strategie (e.g., Rural Character). H indicated he would review the issues with the County Attorney before the TAP and Planning Board considered them again. M07ION: Lewis moved to table the issue as requested by Collins. Seconded by Waddell. VOTE: 6 in favor. opposed (Best). AGENDA ITEM 06: PLF.NNING BOARD ITEMS a. Historic Preservation Proposal Presentation by Beth McIver. This agenda item is to consider a proposal for the establishment of a Historic Preservation Commission for Orange County. At the April 16 Planning Board Meeting, Kest_ y 8 -1 -90 Planninq Board Minutes 36' e. Transportation Advisory Committee The report will be presented later in the meeting. f. New Hope Creek Corridor Study Committee Eidenier stated that she was unable to attend the meeting. She had, however, submitted a statement to Emily Crudup to be distributed at the meeting. Hamilton indicated she provide the information regarding the next meeting and bring it back to the Planning Board. AGENDA ITEM #8: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (5/16/90) Phil Post, Wendy Olson, and Dick Swank of the Transportation Advisory Subcommittee met with the Planning Board for consideration of the items listed below. a. Private Roads (1) Section IV /V - Subdivision Regulations (2) Private Road Standards Marvin Collins reviewed his concerns about the ,oronosed amendments to the Private Road Standards and Subdivision Regulations. (:iis memo is an attachment to these minutes on paces .) Collins stated that he is not philosophically opposed to the aroaosed amendments. He stated that the proposed standards legitimize, through ordinance amen=ents, development patterns already occurring. Such a concern is More of a des i cn consider at .on . Collins noted, thouch, that a create= concern is _he citizens of the County :,.ay not be aware of the imtlications of these provisions. A Planning Department coal and nd mandate fra,. the tm County Co=,issiorers, is to improve the deoartme.t's public image.- It is very. important that esforts to achieve that goal not e dis -Lilted by enacting rern:lations which are not t:nderstood by everyone. Collins continued, reviewing the memorandum in detail. Considerable discussion followed recard,nc the concerns expressed in the memaranaal -M. Best stated that the intent is not to take. away tae abi1_ty for private roads. He noted .-hat -e wording could be changed to address the cancer=s 3 of the Planning Director. He continued that his concern is to provide for the orderly upgrading of roads in the future. Best noted some of the concerns are a matter of interpretation. There was considerable discussion regarding the extension of private roads and road maintenance agreements. Collins stated he would like clear standards easy to interpret and administer. Best explained that the intent was not to eliminate the ability to create a private road. The standards gave the Planning Staff the option of requiring a public road when needed. MOTION: Best moved to send these concerns ,back to the TAS .- for recommendation to the Planning Board at the regular September meeting. Seconded by Lewis. - VOTE: Unanimous. 'AGENDA ITEM #9: SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS a. Concept Plans (11 Lots) (1) Windy Hill Meadow (11 Lots - Little River Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. The property is located in Little River Townshi on the north side of Schley Road (SR 1548). Schley Road is a paved State - maintained road an considered a collector in the Comprehensive Play. The tract is 11.50 acres in size with eleven ( -1) lots proposed. Lot sizes range from 0.92 to 1.00 acres. Although the property is unzoned, it is designated Agricultural Residential and water Supply Watershed in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. A public road (Brodog Terrace) is proposed. The road would extend 390 feet north from Schley Road. All lots except 1, 2, 3,, and 11 would receive access from the subdivision road. A 191 traffic count on Schley Road (SR 1548) indicatec 400 trips per day. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Concept Plan for Windy Hill Meadow with two conditions: �j 0 38 - MINUTES OF TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE (TAS) MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 15, 1990 ATTENDANCE TAS Members: Chris Best, Chair Jean Hamilton Betty Eidenier Wendy Olson Ann Joyner Dick Swank Staff: Marvin Collins, Planning Director Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Officer Gene Bell, Planner III 1. CALL TO ORDER - Best called the meeting to order at approximately 7:05 pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No comment on June 6 minutes. 3. CHAIR COMMENTS - Best had two brief items: a. Meeting Time - In response to a request from Bell, Best asked members if they would be amenable to an earlier meeting time of 5:30 for future meetings. Everyone expressed approval of the idea. b. Membership - Best mentioned that the TAS would begin working on Phase II of the Transportation Plan in the near future and asked Bell to send a letter to all TAS members apprising them of this. He also asked that all members be queried as to their desire to continue serving on the TAS during Phase II. 4. DISCUSSION OF PRIVATE ROAD CONCERNS - Best stated that he would like to keep the discussion focused on the points addressed by Collins in his August 10 memo (attached) to the TAS. Section IV -B -3 -b of the Subdivision Regulations - Hamilton stated that listing all possible access routes seemed to be a case of overkill and questioned if it was necessary to be so detailed. Joyner said the advantage was that there should be no question in anyone's mind as what was or was not covered. Olson expressed concerns about new developments relying on existing private roads for access and the potential for more than 25 lots or dwellings to be served by the road. She said she thought the road should be paved in such a case. Joyner said that the regulations stated that once a road served more than 25 lots /dwellings it was incumbent upon the developer to pave it and bring it up to public road standards. 1 Best suggested the following hypothetical situation and aske Collins what the staff position would be on the new road and the existing one Joyner is the developer of an existing 14 lot subdivision served by a private road with a road maintenance agreement (RMA). She has extended the road and added an additional 12 lots. Collins stated that the roads in the new subdivision would have to be paved and the existing Class A private road would have to be upgraded to public road standards. He stated it would be the responsibility of the developer to pay the cost of upgrading the existing private road. In response to a question from Olson, he stated that an existing Class B private road used to access a new development could be required to upgrade to Class A status because of the additional lots being served, i.e., it was possible to move from one private road class to another just as it was possibl to move from private road to public road status. Collins sai that the only responsibility existing residents would have in the case of a private road being upgraded by a developer woul be to maintain the road at the standards set for the private road class to which it was upgraded. The situation of what would happen in the case of development taking place at the end of a private road which existed befor private road standards and RMAs were in place was posed. The consensus was that the new development would be responsible for any required upgrading of the existing road and also maintenance unless existing property owners could be persuade to share in the maintenance responsibilities. Eidenier asked what would happen if the existing right -of'-way was not the required width. Collins stated the developer could apply for a partial width right -of -way which would require County Commissioner approval. Best asked if there were any more questions or comments on IV- B -3 -b. There ensued a short discussion on the grammatical correctness of adverbs in the text. The TAS finally agreed t drop the word "maintained." The following wording for IV -B -3 -b was finally agreed to by the TAS: All subdivisions shall have a coordinated street system via a public or private street and access to a public,.state or municipal street. All subdivisions containing private streets shall have at least one street which intersects with or joins an extension of a public, state, or municipal street, or another private road. K 46 Section IV- S- 3 -d -1.1 of the Subdivision Regulations - Best said this section referred to the definition of roads and where public roads will be required. He further stated that this was one of the first criteria for public roads. The existing ordinance provision reads as follows: 1. The subdivision roads, if constructed to State standards, would be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or other State requirement. The following text was proposed as an addition to the above text and was presented at the May 16 public hearing: If the State standard not met is a design standard rather than a density standard (generally two units per one -tenth mile), a redesign should be required and will be required where possible; In his memo, Collins stated that a citizen reading the above text would probably not know what a design standard is and suggested the following alternate wording: IV- B -3 -d -1 1. The subdivision roads would be accepted for State maintenance if: a. They are to built in a manner which satisfies the minimum State design and construction criteria for sub- division roads; and b. They would satisfy other requirements for addition to the State maintenance system, including, but not limited to, the general density standard of at least two occupied residences for each one -tenth of a mile of subdivision road. If, upon review of a subdivision plat, it is determined that the general density standard is met, but a design standard is not, a re- design will be required where possible. For example, if the number of lots proposed along a subdivision road would clearly satisfy the density standard, but the road design was such that the centerline radius did not meet the minimum standard of 230 feet for level land, a new road design would be required. Another example is the situation where a landscaped island or entrance median prevents acceptance of the road for maintenance. 3 4 The above criteria and standards are identified in a publication, Subdivision Roads - Minimum Construction Standards, prepared by and available from the N.C. Department of Transportation. The proposed re- wording met with unanimous TAS approval. Section IV- B- 3 -d -1.4 of the Subdivision Regulations - Best stated that the proposed revision here was deletion of the term "connector" since there is no road classification of tha name in the proposed County - specific road classification system. He asked Collins to elaborate on his comment regarding the need "to review all street definitions in the Zoning /Sub- division Regulations..." Collins referred to a previous conversation with Bell regarding the need to take to public hearing the required ordinances /amendments needed to implement the Transportation Plan. The outcome of that conversation was to get approval of the plan designations and then come to a subsequent hearing to present implementing ordinances /ordinance changes. Section IV-B- 3 -d -1.5 of the Subdivision Regulations - Best stated that no alternatives to this section had been formulated. Collins stated that he had some questions about this section based upon what had been discussed at the Planning Board meeting. He said he wasn't entirely sure of the Board's intent, especially regarding super blocks, and wi reluctant to put something down for fear it would be far astray of the Board's discussion. Best referred to comments by Kimley -Horn concerning the purpose of the proposed amendment being, "to provide access to landlocked parcels an( large undeveloped tracts without access to a public road." regard to superblocks, Best said he hoped this could be addressed after discussion on IV- B- 3 -d -1.5 unless the TAS thought it necessary to discuss the two items together. He asked if staff could provide some kind of direction as to wh kind of specificity was needed for implementation of the collector /subcollector system (assuming it is passed by the County Commissioners), e.g., this development is in this superblock and'we would require a road. In other words, do need to have something on a map, and if so, that's how numbe 5 would tie into it. Collins stated this was one possible way. The other was if you looked at the Kimley -Horn collector /subcollector system and their discussion of the idea, they had implementation guidelines and their wording i "if more than an additional 100 dwelling units are anticipat within one of the superblocks described above or in any area with greater than two miles between arterial, collector, or major local roads consideration should be given to construction of new public roads or the extension of existin major local roads to further divide the block." Collins stat there was an inconsistency here because if you have a subdivision of 100 lots or more you are going to be looking 4 42 public streets irregardless. Collins posed the question of what happens if you put a collector road on a map and a person comes in and he is amenable to providing a 100 foot right -of- way, but only wants to do eight lots initially and doesn't want to pave it at this time. Collins said his thoughts on the matter were take what you can get (the 100 foot right -of- way), let him do a private road initially with the realization that if it develops more in the future, that is the point where you require an upgrading from private to public. Joyner stated that if all the planned connectors were put on a map and substantial up -front analysis were not done then it would be difficult to know best where the proposed roads should be from the standpoint of topography and soils. She emphasized that such analysis would require considerable effort and expense, probably more than could /would be done by staff or the TAS anytime soon. In the absence of such an analysis, she felt the appropriate place and timing for proposed connections across superblocks should be addressed on a development -by- development basis using topo and other data submitted by the developer as input to the decision. Best said he felt this was the way the TAS had originally looked at it, i.e., when the development came in, it was in the right spot and then you look at the number of units and the topography, etc., then maybe that's where the road should go through. However, after meeting with Collins Best said he had the impression that maybe you are not allowed to just wait until the development comes in, but need to have it designated on a map beforehand. Collins said this was one of the County Attorney's concerns and that he (Collins) shared it. Olson questioned the legal standing of a written policy on where new public roads should be built over requiring that they be depicted on a map. Joyner stated that there needed to be clarification between public roads and thoroughfares, i.e., a public road could be a cul -de -sac and what we are discussing are roads that cross a substantial area of undeveloped land to connect existing roads. Collins said he understood Olson's position on policy versus map, but that the County Attorney had a concern because state statutes governing thoroughfare planning refer to official highway corridor maps so it was not a matter of-a property owner /developer having to guess if the policy applied to him if he wanted to develop his property. Olson asked if a proposed road on a map could depict a corridor and not the exact location. Collins said that this was basically the case, that a line on a map was a general representation. Joyner questioned how detailed a map (tax map versus Land Use Plan Map) you put the proposed road on. Collins stated that regardless of the scale, more detailed studies of soils and topo as referenced earlier by Joyner would be required. Joyner agreed, but stated that when a developer saw a a map with a proposed road crossing his property, the expense of constructing a paved public road to serve a development of 8 to 25 lots would result in the 43 development, and road, not being built. She stated this proposed revision to the ordinance had a lot of implications and questioned the wisdom of including it. She felt it shou be removed from consideration and dealt with in more detail Phase II. Collins stated that he concurred with Joyner in removing the proposed amendment from further consideration. He stated that the current wording of was too encompassing i terms of how it could be applied. Best asked Collins if he (Collins) thought access to landlocked parcels was adequately addressed in existing ordinance provisions. Collins said he thought this was the case. He also indicated that in his discussions with the County Attorney, the attorney said the County shouldn't be concerned with landlocked parcels and require stubouts for that purpose, but rather should be concerned with the order13 extension of the road network. Collins stated that in the past the staff had looked at proposed roads from the standpoint of providing access to landlocked parcels, but the in keeping with the County Attorney's comments, this was no longer done. Collins stated that landlocked parcels and the orderly extension of the road network could not automaticall; be tied together. Best asked Collins if it would still be possible to address the problem of upgrading an existing private road to a higher private class or public status if t] proposed amendment were dropped. Collins stated that one of the first private road revision drafts prepared by the TAS hi wording to this effect included and that it was removed due comments by the County Attorney. Collins said he thought rewording to the effect that upgrading of a private road wou, be required if it were extended would be appropriate. Best asked for suggestions on the rewording. Swank said he thoug'. these points were already addressed. For example, if a persi wanted to extend a private road to serve more than 25 lots, the standards were explicit in that it would have to be a public road and that it would have to be paved. Discussion shifted to the issue of requiring stubouts and thi consensus seemed to be that if stubouts were required, then , public road should be required in the front -end since a stubout implied future extension of the road. Best gave an example stating that if. a proposed development utilizing a private road abutted a 150 acre landlocked tract and the Planning Department required a stubout, the wording in proposed amendment 5 would require that the road be paved. Joyner expressed the opinion that the proposed wording was n needed if the County already had the right to require stubouts. Collins referred to a general statement in the Subdivision Regulations which refers to a logical coordinate street pattern and the Planning Department has exercised tha very general "right" if it looks like it's going to be a logical coordinated street pattern by extending that road to require a stubout. He stated that there was no specific provision anywhere that addressed this. Joyner asked if thi N. 14 e d 0 d n 44 would be a good place to put such a provision and if Collins felt there was a need for it. Collins said such a provision might be a good idea, but didn't think this was the place for it. Joyner suggested dropping the idea at this time and working on it more seriously later. Collins read the following section from an earlier draft of the proposed amendments: Any new subdivision not meeting the standards for private roads must have public access to a public road; i.e., it cannot have access through an exist- ing private road unless that road is upgraded and dedicated as a public (state - maintained) road. If it is determined that an existing private road requires improvement to public road standards, the cost of the improvement, and including right -of -way acquisition, shall be borne by the development that causes the need for improvement. He stated that the above wording was starting to get at the types of issues being discussed by the TAS. Best suggested that proposed amendment 5 be dropped altogether at this time and that the TAS or Ordinance Review Committee look into possible ordinance revisions regarding the question of stubouts, i.e., more specificity about when the County can say a stubout is needed. He said this would not have any bearing on whether the road was private or public, but when to require a stubout. In addition to stubout provisions, Best also suggested consideration of Superblock road extensions in Phase II. The TAS concurred with his recommendation. Section W- B- 3- d -1.1a of the Subdivision Regulations - Best briefly discussed the portion of the ordinance this section falls under. Joyner explained the reason for the TAS recommendation of five acres as being the University Lake lot size standard. She stated that no -one had any problem with the five acre lot size, but thought that twice this figure was excessive-. Best stated that he thought her concerns were addressed in the last sentence of Collins' proposed revision which reads: Compliance with this standard is assured when the minimum required lot size is five acres or greater. Joyner said she understood this, but would feel more comfortable if some explanatory language were included. Discussion ensued as to whether "twice the minimum lot size" was an adequate measure of significance. Consensus was that a quantifiable standard was needed and twice the minimum lot size (and up to five acres for watershed lots) was deemed appropriate. In response to a question from .Collins, Joyner stated she would still like to see some explanatory text in the ordinance regarding watershed lots. She also stated that "And /or" should be placed between #la and #lb as 7 E . suggested by Collins. In closing, Best added that the goal was to keep the ordinance as flexible as possible. Joyner stated that the ordinance still implied that all five conditions had to be satisfied to justify a private road. Best suggested (as in Collins' memo) a period after each standard and leaving the last sentence as currently worded to address this concern. This met with TAS approval. Section IV- B -3 -d -1 of the Subdivision Regulations (Restrictive Covenants) - Joyner stated that the TAS did not intend for the last sentence in IV- B -3 -d -1 to limit the first sentence. She said it was meant to help explain, "...what is residential, what is agricultural, what is open space..." From the concerns expressed by Collins, she assumed the intent was not clear and that the choice of wording was poor. Joyner asked if #6 as proposed by Collins were added as a reason for having a public road, would that mean that private roads would not be allowed in residential development surrounding the non - residential development? Collins stated that this was not the intent and cited the Latta -Woody subdivision between I -85 and US 70 near the Durham County line as an example of the type of development that #6 was proposed to address. In residential areas, he stated he was interpreting the restrictive covenants to mean restricted to residential, agricultural, or open space only. If you wanted to allow more than that such as home occupations, churches, recreation centers, etc. then there had to be some amendment to the proposed wording to more accurately reflect that. Best said he saw the home occupation question as being more of an issue than churches and recreation centers. Bell said he recalled previous discussion of home occupations when the County Attorney met with the TAS and the suggestion then being to specify in the Road Maintenance Agreement if (and what type) home occupations were to be allowed on the private road. A fairly lengthy discussion on restrictive covenants and the conditions under which a developer could /might change them ensued. Collins stated that the Planning Department should be reviewing applications for building permits to ensure there aren't restrictive covenants which would be violated if a permit were issued. Joyner said she didn't think covenants were an area in which the.Planning Department should be involved. Collins stated that the department should be involved if the restrictive covenants were required by a county ordinance. Likewise, he said if covenants were required and a developer went back and changed them the next day, the developer would be in violation of ordinance requirements. Joyner stated that there were ways to deal with violators of covenant provisions and that the County should stay out of it. She further stated that she didn't think covenants prohibiting further subdivision of lots were appropriate. Collins said they were legitimate since a private road was being granted because of the large lot, low density nature of the subdivision and such covenants were a 8 C,V means of ensuring the conditions under which the private road was approved. Collins said the point he was trying to make was that the original statement only addressed no further subdivision and what was introduced here was limitation(s) on the use of the property. Upon first reading he thought it was a good idea. However, upon further analysis he felt it was too cut - and -dried to limit it only to residential, agricultural, and open space. No latitude was allowed for any other use that may be permitted in a residential district. Best asked if it might be more appropriate to put Collins' proposed #6 into the provisions for a public road. Joyner stated she still had problems with the proposed #6 citing the example of a development that might have a mixture of residential and non - residential land uses. It was her concern that all of the roads in such a situation might have to be public. Collins suggested adding another sentence which dealt with mixed -use developments: This provision shall only apply to that portion of a subdivision being developed for non - residential purposes. Olson asked where these proposed changes were to be in the subdivision regulations. Best stated that they would be #6 under the list of public road requirements. Olson expressed concern about the potential impacts of home occupations which may be allowed on private roads. Collins stated that for the zoned townships, such concerns needed to be addressed in the context of amendments to the home occupation provisions of the zoning ordinance. In unzoned townships, he stated another method would have to be devised to avoid charges of indirectly putting in zoning through the subdivision regulations. Best asked Collins if the concerns expressed in his memo had been addressed by the TAS. Collins responded affirmatively and Best stated that the matters would be referred to the Planning Board. Proposed Private Roads Preamble -- Joyner asked Collins his opinion -of the preamble.. He stated he liked it; he thought it conveyed the intent of Orange County, that being private roads are a privilege and not a right. Joyner stated she had problems with the basic assumption that all roads should be public roads. She said she didn't mind a developer having to justify private roads in his /her subdivision, but felt the County was off -base stating that the strong preference was that all subdivision roads be public. Best asked if there were any other comments. Olson and Eidenier stated they had no problem deleting the word "strong." Collins suggested that "...where the developer provides much larger than average size lots..." be changed to "...the developer provides significantly larger lots..." Joyner suggested replacing E 47 "intent" with "such as" where it says "...the developer clearly shows that the subdivision is intent on..." There were no further comments and it was the consensus of the TAS to recommend approval of the preamble to the Planning Board. S. NEXT MEETING - No date set. 6. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:55 pm. DR10:8- 15MIN.DOC 10 48 MEMORANDUM TO: TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE FROM: MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: AUGUST 10, 1990 SUBJECT: PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS COPIES: JOHN LINK, COUNTY MANAGER GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, COUNTY ATTORNEY BETTY EIDENER, PLANNING BOARD CHAIR BARRY JACOBS, PLANNING BOARD VICE -CHAIR GENE BELL, PLANNER III At the July 10, 1990 meeting of the Planning Board, I expressed concerns about proposed amendments to the Private Road Standards and Subdivision Regulations. On the same date, I met with the County Attorney to discuss those concerns. On August 1, 1990, I provided a list of specific concerns regarding the provisions to the Planning Board. Listed below is a summary of the provisions /concerns. If the proposed changes are not evident, alternate wording is provided in italics after the discussion of each concern. I believe the new wording more accurately conveys the intent of the TAS as expressed at the August 1 Planning Board meeting. IV- B -3 -b. All subdivisions containing private streets shall have at least one street which intersects with or joins an extension of a public, state, or municipal maintained street. The provision was added to restrict subdivisions containing new private roads from obtaining access to an existing private road. Problems have resulted because of the increased number of lots to be served by an existing private road. The road class may be upgraded from private to public, from Class B Private to Class A Private,-or from Class C Private to Class C Private, depending upon the total number of new and existing lots to be served. In upgrading a road from one private class to another, there may be no problem other than the ability to secure /provide a road maintenance agreement for the existing private road. In some cases, however, a subdivider may have to incur considerable expense to upgrade the road or homeowners must assume responsibility for maintenance of the existing road as well as new roads in the development. A real financial problem may result when the road must be upgraded from private to public. The cost must be borne by the subdivider rather than distributed among all users, existing and future. The dilemma is whether to approve the upgrading to public status and assign the added expense to the subdivider, allow the private road to stay as is, or require the road to be upgraded to a higher private road class. The proposed amendment seeks to address the above problem(s) by requiring new private roads to access existing public roads. The result, however, is a development pattern where small subdivisions are developed with private dead -end roads adjacent to public transportation corridors, leaving large amounts of undeveloped land behind. While this may be reflective of the current development pattern in the county, it raises the question as to whether or not we want to legitimize such a pattern through an ordinance amendment. Another concern is related.to the goal of achieving a coordinated street pattern. Even though a subdivision accesses an existing private road, it may make more design sense to allow access if it results (long -term) in a more coordinated pattern. Finally, what happens when a parcel fronting on an existing private road is proposed for subdivision, and the existing private road (on which it fronts)- does not connect to a public road but another private road? Likewise, what happens when mom and dad wish to convey lots to brother and sister, the property is located on an existing private road, and the only means of providing access to the new lots is with a new private road? My reading of the provision is that both developments would not be possible. The alternate wording provided below is based on a proposed amendment -to be presented at the August 30, 1990 public hearing. IV- B -3 -b. All subdivisions containing private streets shall have at least one street which intersects with or joins an extension of a public, state, or municipally- maintained street, or other private road. Iv- B -3 -d -1 1. If the State standard not met is a design standard rather than a density standard, a redesign should be required and will be required where possible. A citizen reading this provision will probably not know what a State "design standard" is. It would help if some examples were provided, such as the curve radius of a road, an entrance or cul-de-sac median, inadequate right -of -way width, etc. Alternate wording may be as follows :: IV- B -3 -d -1 1. The subdivision roads would be accepted for State maintenance if: _ a. They are to be built in a manner which satisifies the minimum State design and construction criteria for subdivision roads; and b. They would satisfy other requirements for addition to the State maintenance system, including, but not limited to, the general density standard of at least two occupied residences for each one -tenth of a mile of subdivision road. If, upon review of a subdivision plat, it is determined that the general density standard,is met, but a design standard is not, a re- design will be required where possible. For example, if the number of lots proposed along a subdivision road would clearly satisfy the density standard, but the road design was such that the centerline radius did not meet the minimum standard of 230 feet for level land, a new road design would be required. Another example is the situation where a landscaped island or- entrance median prevents acceptance of the road for maintenance. The above criteria and standards are identified in a publication, Subdivision Roads - Minimum Construction Standards, prepared by and available from the N.C. Department of Transportation. Iv- B -3 -d -1 4. Delete the words "or connector" since there is no definition of a "connector" in the proposed road classification system. The definition of a "collector street" SO . 5 in the Subdivision Regulations - already refers to such a street as a "connector" or "feeder" street. Related to this is the need to review _a_U street definitions in the Zoning /Subdivision Regulations and revise them as necessary to be consistent with the new Zoad classi is tons system. _• IV- B -3 -d -1 5. The road will foreseeably be extended to provide access'to other parcels or to provide the orderly extension of a developing road. This provision would allow private roads in subdivisions only if a cul -de -sac were provided. If a stub -out were required to allow for the future extension of the street, a public street would be required. This provision is related to IV -B -3 -b above in that it also seeks to address the problem of upgrading a private road when adjoining lands develop. If a private road, including stub - out., exists, and the property beyond develops, the subdivider of the new development must upgrade the pre -- existing private road as well. The same issues of public vs. private road and what class private road enter into the decision. The provision eliminates the problem by requiring a public road where future extension is warranted. 'Related to the extension issue is the lack of an official map which delineates future road corridors. In the absence of such a map, whether an.extension was warranted would be based on a site -by -site analysis. Some recent court decisions give reason to believe that such extensions must be based on an overall plan rather than a case -by -case evaluation. Some additional discussion is needed regarding the intent of this provision, particularly as related to the "super block" strategy proposed as part of the Thoroughfare P1an._Alternate wording may then be developed. IV- B- 3 -d -1, Ia. The provision of lot sixes and building setbacks significantly greater than required by ordinance provisions (five -acre average lot size would be presumed to meet the intent of this section). "Significantly greater" is defined here in terms of the five - acre standard. Why weren't similar standards provided on the following pages for 43 (open space /recreation) and #4 (stream buffers, etc.)? Why not setback lines? Why a five -acre average lot size? Why not simply a situation where all lots are at least twice the minimum lot size required by the ordinance? A reduction in the permitted density of half seems ,r to be fairly "significant ". If standards for defining "significantly greater" are not going to be- provided for all, why provide any? Alternate wording may be as follows: IV- B- 3-d -1 Ia. The provision of lot sizes and building setbacks significantly greater than required by ordinance. The provision of lot sizes which are at least twice the minimum dimension required by ordinance would meet the intent of this section. Compliance with this standard is assured when the minimum required lot size is five acres or greater. "And /or" should be placed between #la and #Ib. XV- B -3 -d -1 1 -5. The five criteria for determining if private roads are to be allowed are constructed as 111, 2, 3, 4, and 5 ". This requires a subdivider to meet all five criteria to gain approval of a private road. This position is reinforced by the statement in the last sentence, last paragraph of Section IV- B -3 -d -1 - "Compliance with .1 through 5 of the above standards does no insure approval of either a public or private road... ". Two problems exist with the wording /structure. First, the reference to public road in the last sentence is not needed. The referenced standards are those for private roads not public. The reference to -a "public" road should be deleted. Second, requiring a subdivider to comply with all five standards is a significant change. A subdivider could provide five -acre lots (5x minimum required lot size) and still be turned down for a private road. The preferred structure is to have a period (.) after each standard (1 -5) and leave the last sentence as currently worded - "Compliance with one or more of the above standards... ". IV- B -3 -d -1 Restrictive covenants which prevent further subdivision of the property and limit uses to residential, agricultural or open space shall be made a condition of approval. Uses are as defined in the County Zoning ordinance. There is no concern about restricting further subdivision of the property. However, there is a contradiction in the last part. Uses cannot be limited to residential, etc. in one breath, and, in the next, opened to residential, retail, office, industrial, etc. by reference to the permitted use table of the Zoning Ordinance. 52 - One means of addressing the contradiction is to delete the last sentence. To address home occupations, the wording could be changed to - "...limited to residential, including home occupations, agricultural or open space... ". This begs the question - What about churches, recreation centers, etc. which might be normally associated with residential areas? The intent of use limitations was to insure that non- residential subdivisions have public streets. Another means of dealing with such an issue is to add a new #6 in the opening paragraph which might read as follows: 6. The subdivision roads are part of a non- residential development consisting of office, retail, industrial, and simil -ar businesses, each to be located on a separate lot. Conclusion Why I am not philosophically opposed to the proposed amendments and see that some real problems can be resolved through their approval, my real concerns are more related to design issues and citizen awareness. In an attempt to deal with problems, ordinances are drafted and approved which result in or perpetuate undesirable development patterns. In fact, the problems may be better solved through administrative, financial, and /or legal mechanisms than 'design standards. of greater concern, though, is whether or not the citizens are aware of the implications of these proposals. If the Transportation Advisory committee, the Planning Board, and the Board of Commissioners understand the proposals and their impact, and wish to approve them, the Planning Staff wish to seek to insure their implementation. I simply do not see another °mobile home park" situation occur where standards are adopted, then rescinded. In a period when the Planning & Inspections Department is attempting to improve public relations, such a situation would do little to help. 531 s _ .. .. 54 - M E M O R A N D U M TO: Marvin Collins, Planning Director FROM: Gene Bell,-Planner-11I C e RE: Cost Estimates of PE Private Road Inspection DATE: July 27, 1990 I called the engineering firms listed below to try and determine a "ballpark" figure for private engineer inspection of a private road. Basic assumptions are a class B private road 800" 1000 feet long and serving 7 -8 lots. None of the - engineers wanted to get too specific in terms of cost citing site- specific variables that-could affect overall cost. With two ex (see Post and Fritz Brunssen comments), we are looking'-at a. general range of about $125 - $500 for private engineer in and certification of the - "average " - private road: -- Listed -below. are, summary com-nen:.s from each.-person.-.1-spoke with: ph; l i n 'DOst and Associates, I:c . , Phil Post - Inspection and certification fees should be about $0.80 - $0.90 per foot of road, thus fees for a 1000 foot road would range from $800 - $900. B- unssen Enai neeri no Se---Vice -i tz Brunsse - Fritz called-on July 26 and said inspection fees on a 1000' Class B road would range from 5500 - $1500 depending on the quality.of construction of the road. ThonnSo-:- Sir,[mons ?rc. GP-=v SiMMOns _ - dourly fee for private road inspection is $30. - A road requiring 4 or 5 inspections (initial grading, pipes, ditches, final, etc.) could cost $150 - $250. P v:.... Tnr_. . Da- i Their firm doesn't generally do private roads; they occasionally do one for valued /long -time clients. inspector is $30 -$35. - Hourly fee for cons..ruction ns o stone, Estimated cost for inspections of sub and final inspection WithasstSe private rroad cwould be � approximately 1000, of class around $500. ; the sub grade and _ Average road would involve inspecting g- proof- rolling to check for weandPletter n oPecting the placement and depth of stoner certification if everything is OK $125 - $300 _ ,,Average" fee is going to.ruired (his fee structure depending upon services req rovidin varies depending upon the service h on Por clerical). 'i,e., engineering, dra`ing:.inspect �on, DR10 : LNG E:. S -Do Planning Board 9/17/90 Minutes 56 letter indicating its concerns with the report format. AGENDA ITEM #8: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (5/16/90) a. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (1) Section IV - Required Minimum Design Standards (2) Section V - Specifications for Plat Drawings b. Private Road Standards (A copy of the abstract and Planning Staff recommendations an attachment to these minutes on pages ,) Best stated that he felt some of the changes and amendments were confusing. He noted that some of the recommendations of the TAS were a part of the TAS minutes which were an attachment to the abstract but that they were not included in the text. Best continued explaining the change regarding the reference to private roads intending to serve two lots or two dwelling units. Best noted that the recommendation that private roads be inspected and certified by a private engineer or contractor was made at the suggestion of Erosion Control Officer Warren Faircloth. It was felt that the inspection could be done more quickly by a private surveyor who would be on the project site anyway. Faircloth stated that he felt a good job of inspecting a private road required day -to -day inspections at the site as the property is developed. This would involve checking compaction and other problems as the road is constructed. Best noted that this would alleviate the responsibility of the County toward private road maintenance and Road Maintenance Agreements. Waddell emphasized the point that, in the future, presentation of written recommendations should be made in a clear, concise manner. The Planning Board had difficulty in ascertaining TAS recommendations from the minutes. After more discussion the following motion was made: MOTION: Best moved that the proposed amendments be approved with clarifying comments recommended by Waddell and per the Planning Staff recommendation, including the .t 57 approval of proposed amendments concerning private road inspection and certification requirements. Seconded by Jacobs. The unresolved issue of "stub- outs" to adjoining property will be added to the Ordinance Review Committee schedule. If requirements are approved by the Board of Commissioners, revision to the fee schedule is also needed. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (8/30/90) a. Zoning Atlas Amendment (1) Z -4 -90 Dorothy C. Bane ..Presentation by Eddie Kirk. The property in question is.located on.the south side of US 70 approximately 750 feet west of Mount Herman Church Road (SR 1713). It is known as part of Lot 35, Tax Map 26 of Eno Township. The total tract contains approximately 2 acres and fronts on US 70 for a length of approximatel3 25 feet. Access is proposed to be provided by a private road that extends along the south side of the property. The current zoning on the propert; is R -1 (Rural Residential). The proposed zoning is I -1 (Light Industrial). The I -1 zone allows < limited range of uses. The area is designated as Twenty Year Transition and Commercial /Industrial Node in the Comprehensive Plan. Letters have been submitted from the Orange County Sheriff's Department and Orange County Er for rescue.and fire response. The letters indicate that services can be provided. Agency comments have been received from the Health Department and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The Orange County Health Department has indicated the soil is suitable for a septic system. This system woul only be approved for bathroom waste. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has indicated that a driveway permit would have to submitted and appropriate fees paid. 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. X - ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 16, 1990 SUBJECT: Clarification of Charge and Composition of the Cable TV Citizen Advisory Committee DEPARTMENT: County Manager ATTACHMENT(S): 1979- Charge of Cable TV Citizens Advisory Committee (Excerpt from 12 -3 -79 Minutes) 1986 - Charge of Cable TV Citizen Advisory Committee Cable TV Citizens Advisory Committee Members PURPOSE: BACKGROUND: PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X INFORMATION CONTACT: Manager's Office Ext. 2300 TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227 --2031 Durham - 688 -7331 To clarify the composition and charge of the Cable TV Citizen Advisory Committee. The Cable TV Citizen Advisory Committee was established in 1979 to review Cable TV Franchise Proposals. In 1986 the committee was reactivated and reappointed to review Alert Cable TV Franchise Expansion Proposal. Currently the committee is inactive. The Manager's Office receives a moderate amount of cable TV calls inquiring about extension policies, service complaints, programming and other cable issues. Regular Cable TV Advisory Committee meetings with citizens, cable companies' general-managers and committee members engaging in dialogue would serve as a better method of responding to inquiries and complaints. Additionally, the committee could monitor Cable TV activities, request and review periodic reports from cable companies and.make recommendations to the Board on Cable TV issues. The current membership has a mixture of technical and lay members, however, the technical members' backgrounds are not specifically in the area of cable TV or communications. Most of the existing members would like to continue serving on the committee. Two of the seven members do not desire to serve. New members with technical backgrounds related to Cable TV would enhance the function of the committee. 2 Based on the number of calls received regarding cable TV, County staff suggests quarterly and special meetings rather than monthly meetings. RECOMMENDATION(S): Direct staff to reactivate the Cable TV Citizen Advisory Committee and develop with committee a mor comprehensive charge /mission statement. 3 1979 Charge of Cable TV Citigens Advisory Committee (Excerpt from 12 -3 -79 minutes) Commissioner Barnes moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to adopt the charge of the Cable TV citizens Advisory Committee as follows: Purpose: Develop recommendations on criteria to be used in granting cable TV franchise(s). 1) Identify the various areas in the County to be served - density criteria. 2) Recommend priorities for selection of programs and service options normally considered in granting of franchises. 3) Review Ordinance and propose amendments where Committee deems advisable. 4) Develop items to be addressed in the franchise agreement, including, but not limited to, interconnections with other systems, treatment of areas subject to annexation, in-town/out- of-town service agreement, variations and the line extension policy. 5) Explore any other aspects of a nature which the committee deems germane. 4 1986 Charge of the Cable TV Advisory Committee STATEMENT OF PURPOSE Orange County has cable TV franchise agreements with Prime Venture z (formerly Village Cable) and Alert Cable. The original Village Cable franchise agreement covered most of the county, while the agreement with Alert confined its district to the number of homes connected to its system in November, 1980. on June 17, 1986, Alert presented to the Board of Commissioners a request to amend its existing franchise agreement to permit a greater opportunity to serve more county residents. The Board of County Commissioners reactivated the Cable Television Citizen Advisory Committee to assist in evaluating Alert's expansion request. Therefore, the charge to the Committee is as follows: 1.'. Request from Alert Cable TV an expansion proposal outlining specific areas to be served and other infor- mation deemed necessary by the Committee. 2. Review Alert Cable TV expansion proposal. In reviewing this proposal, the Committee should consider criteria used in reviewing cable TV franchise proposals in 1979. 3. Recommend /draft standards by which an expansion request (amendment) to a cable TV franchise may be considered by the Board of Commissioners. The charge is written broadly to encourage Committee members to exercise flexibility in developing a recommendation. The Committee will receive guidance and staff support from the County Manager's office Alert Cable has requested an expeditious response from the Board of County Commissioners. Some Committee members have inquired about the length of this special project. There- fore, a reporting deadline of November 18, 1986 has been recommended. 9 Cable TV Citizens Advisory Committee NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE Robert J. Gwyn Route 1, Box 201- -E 933 -2311 Durham, NC Amy Elizabeth Hardee P. O. Box 1066 732 -9822 Hillsborough, NC Clair Millar Route 3, Box 535 929 -8800 Hillsborough, NC Edwin Riley Orange High Road 644 -6000 Hillsborough, NC Marvin Silver 305 Briarbridge Valley 962 -5002 Chapel Hill, NC Norman Vogel g 829 Kenmore Road 254 -2555 Chapel Hill, NC Lawson P. Wynne 1504 Arboretum Drive 967 -7928 Chapel Hill, NC 9 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: October 16, 1990 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENT: Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S): Under Separate Cover INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Blythe Ext. 2130 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: CARRBORO PLANNING BOARD: Accept the resolution submitted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen requesting the appointment of Judith Williams to fill an unexpired term as an extraterritorial representative on this board. The term will expire in February, 1992 and she will be eligible to serve again. RECOMMENDATION(S): As the Board decides. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No._) Meeting Date: October 16, 1990 SUBJECT: MINUTES ----------------------- DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ------------------------- - - - - -- ----------------------------------- ATTACHMENT(S): UNDER SEPARATE COVER INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 --------------------------------------------------- PURPOSE: To correct and /or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: January 18, 1990 - Rural Character Work Session April 10, 1990 - Senate Bill 2 September 18, 1990 - Regular Meeting October 1, 1990 - Regular Meeting BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A -42 of the General Statutes, the governing Board has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's proceedings. RECOMMENDATION(S): As the Board decides. F., - art uro 0 .. / %All ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.W---A ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 16, 1990 SUBJECT: TJCOG RESOLUTION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDING DEPARTMENT: COMMISSIONERS ATTACHMENT(S): RESOLUTION ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR 1989/90 WORK PLAN FOR 1990/91 PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X INFORMATION CONTACT: MOSES CAREY, JR. TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 --2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To consider taking action to authorize the release of funds that were appropriated to councils of government by the General Assembly. BACKGROUND: A sum of $53,350 was appropriated to each COG to assist local governments in their economic development activities. Of the amount $7,130.29 is due the COG based on Orange County's population. Attached to this abstract is a seven point work plan proposed by the Triangle J Council of Governments which can be carried out through the funding. It is open to comment and suggestions from member counties and cities before being activated. Orange County's Economic Development Commission will discuss the plan at the next regular meeting in order to identify specific ways in which the COG can increase and strengthen support for Economic Development activities in Orange County. The EDC recommendations will be submitted to the- Board of Commissioners for their approval and then forwarded to the COG. The EDC Director will coordinate implementation of agreed areas of work with the COG staff. Board action is needed on the attached resolution to facilitate the release of the monies to the COG. Failure to act would cause the monies to revert to the State's General Fund. RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the attached resolution and authorize the Chair to sign. RESOLUTION BY ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, in North Carolina the Lead Regional organizations, as voluntary organizations serving municipal and county governments, have established productive working relationships with the cities and counties across the state: and WHEREAS, many counties and cities continue to need assistance, in pursuing economic and community development opportunities, but federal assistance in the form of intergovernmental revenues has been severely curtailed in recent years; and WHEREAS, the 1990 General Assembly recognized this need through the appropriation of $960,300 to help the Lead Regional Organizations assist local governments with grant applications, economic development, community development, and to support local industrial development activities and other activities as deemed appropriate by their local governments; and WHEREAS, these funds are not intended to be used for payment of members' dues or assessments to Lead Regional organization or to supplant funds appropriated by the member governments; and WHEREAS, in the event that a request is not made by a unit of government for release of these funds to our Regional Council, the available funds will revert to the State's General Funds; and WHEREAS, in Region J funds in the amount of $53,350 will be used to carry out the economic development plan approved by the COG Board of Delegates and especially to improve the economy of the counties and towns of the Region by strengthening ties to and consequently benefits of the Research Triangle Park. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, —that the Orange County Board of Commissioners request the release of its $7,130.29 share of these funds to the Triangle J Council of Governments at the earliest possible time in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1066, Senate Bill 1426, section 42 of the 1990 Session Laws. Adopted this 16th day of October, 1990. Attest; Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Moses Carey, Jr., Cha S E A L � I � T TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS iX Pir , Drive. P G. ;ox 12276 Research Tiiang ;e Park. NC 277119 019! 59.0551 (919) 549.9390 Fax 1989/90 Project Activities Accomplishments 1. Regional cooperation and coordination has been enhanced Avox via the Economic strategies Committee, It meets bi- B` "`° monthly and provides a valuable forum for area leaders. caonv After years of urging by the TJCOG and others, the area ca" chambers of commerce are taking a step toward coordination by entering into a cooperative arrangement �80r J(i4c for marketing the Triangle as a Region. Another F mechanism for promoting regional coordination is the 47" Regional Marketing Group which meets quarterly. Ho`v 2. Despite concerted of forts by the Telephone Task Force •:- :_ -,�<< and months of work by the public staff of the NCUC, we have not yet been able to convince either the Utilities Commission or the phone companies to give us the metro area toll -free telephone service we have been requesting for four years. Judical and Legislative remedies will be explored in the next year. -z -` =Iv 3. The development, creation and grand. opening (Nov. 89) :.z•� =� �;: of the Research Triangle World Trade Center ( RTWTC ) was the culmination of two years of staff work by TJCOG and other organizations. Since the opening, staff has been working to recruit members, provide services, develop administrative, procedures and recruit staff for the Center. Outreach to the entire region is the chief goal for 90/91. 4. In 1989 & 90, Downtown Quarterly Exchange meetings were held in Raleigh, _ - Apex., _.-._.Cary, .- Fuquay- varina, Hills- borough, Sanford and Chapel Hill- Carrboro. Programs are varied and have featured botY -local and outside experts in the use of the arts, festivals, historic properties, adaptive reuse of retail buildings and many other mechanisms and promotional ideas for our downtowns. 5. COG staff revised the 1987 version of the Metro Map. This map has been a very valuable asset for the COG and the region. It is used extensively by real estate professionals and many other groups involved in corporate siting and relocation of large numbers of people to the area. 6. The operations of the data center have been' vigorously upgraded over the past few years. We are currently assessing further potential for the data center. A WORLD CLASS REGION Chatharn • p,Jrham • JohnShon 0 Lee 0 orance WaK.e RECEIVED FROM 919 929 $695 10.15.1990 09:21 P. 1 7. Technical assistance is provided to individuals and for groups as requested and time permitting. Areas of assistance have ranged from identification of experts and speakers, to programs to help local governments decide on alternatives for economic expansion. Pamela Davison October, 1990 ANNUAL WORK PLAN FOR 1990/91 $53,350 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEM13LY 1. Increase or strengthen support to each individual county Economic Development office. 2. Provide support to specific cities and towns requesting assistance on high priority development issues. 3. Provide assistance to companies in the Region to begin or increase international trade and promote the successful operation of the Research Triangle world Trade Center and the Foreign Trade Zone #93 in the Triangle 4.. Seek to connect the Region with metropolitan toll -free telephone service. 59 Continue and improve the COG's program of helping the towns of the Region to revitalize their downtown areas. .6. Continue to promote the Raleigh- Durham International Airport-; plan and promote -- world class sports events, and enhance regional marketing efforts by the chambers of commerce as vehicles for economic development in the Region. 7.. Strengthen the ties and consequently the benefits of the Research Triangle Park to the entire Region via the development of a Strategic Economic Plan. RECEIVED FROM 919 929 8695 18.15,1990 69:22 P. 3 ;. .1 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT GRANT FUNDS PLOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, that an application for Housing Development Grant funds from the N.C. Department of Economic and Community Development Department is hereby authorized. This the ___ 16th -------- day of October , 1990 r MosesW E. Care C air Orange County and of Commissioners ATTEST: Bever41�1" the , Jerk Orange County Board of Commissioners I MOSES CAREY, JR. STEPHEN H. HALKIOTIS JOHN HARTWELL SHIRLEY E_ MARSHALL DON WILLHOIT ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGApm LAME HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 October 16, 1990 Robert Chandler, Director Division of Community Assistance N.C. Department of Economic and Community Development 1307 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 250 Raleiah, North Carolina 27605 RE: FY 90 Housing Development Application Dear Mr. Chandler: Orange County is pleased to submit its Fiscal Year 1990 Housing Development Grant Application for review and consideration by your staff. Funds would be used to increase the housing options available for low and moderate income residents of Orange County. This request for funding has the full support of the Orange County Board of Commissioners and represents a continuing, longstanding commitment on behalf of the Board to secure funds to improve the living conditions of low and moderate income citizens. Should you have.questions regarding this application, do not hesitate to contact Tara L. Fikes, Housing and Community Development Director at (919) 732 --8181 Extension 2490. MC/ ww� ely, ` Moses Carey, Chairman Jr. ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CAREY, Jk, STEPHEN H. HALKIOTIS JOHN HARTWELL SHIRLEY E. MARSHALL DON WILLHOIT October 16, 1990 Mr. John Eckbiad. President Habitat for Humanity of Orange Co.. Inc. Post Office Box 3673 Chapel Hill, N.C. 27515 Dear Mr. Eckblad: On June 4, 1990, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved an amended phasing plan for Chestnut Oaks subdivision. On this date, the Board of Commissioners also made a commitment of $25,000 in the Fiscal Year 1990 - 91 Countv Budget to assist with the paving of Gemena Road to meet State DOT standards. we also offered our staff resources to assist in locating other funding as well. Please be assured that the Board of Countv Commissioners remain strongly. supportive of Habitat for Humanity and your efforts to provide affordable housing options to our citizens of limited income. si c rely, Moses Carey, Chairman Jr. APPLICATION SUMMARY 1. APPLICAN i 2. DATE a. Name: Orange County ..4..Origirw, d&wd: October 19, 1990 b. Street/P. O. Box: P.O. Box 8181 .Amendment, dawd: c. City: Hillsborough 3. TYPE OF APPLICANT d. Zip Code: 27.278 City e. County: Orange county f. Contact Person: Tara L. Fikes L Tetq*mm No.: ( 919) 732 -8181 ext . 2490 h• Prepar+er of Application: Tara L. Fikes, Housin and Community Development Director 4. PROGRAM CATEGORY S. PROJECT 6. PRQJECT NAME 7. CDBG FUNDS CODE NUMBER REQUESTED HD 1 Chestnut Oaks $240,000 }: }::•• •:;:•:; :;: &I LOCAL OPTION :: }:•::::•••:•:� •:• }::::::•::•:;:;::; ;:•:• }.•:.;.;:;:•::•:•:.:• }::• :::.:• }:::::::: ;.• ::::::::.:.:.:•.y :: }; • •� .•..ti.... .. r. ACTIVITIES r ?•' . r.•. :• } :•r, }. ;:ti; :•:ti•: :;L:ti•. .;r:titir• }'• :ti ::• }� :. :•} :ti}} Y:::: ••• ti'• : ✓.•• .•�: %:ti :• r: jti :ti} % %v% ••'v,:• }}:•i'.•.. tip; •••ra : } : ..... ^.•::.Y : : :: ti•: ! Y. •:ti•: 'r'r:titi .ti y . Y Sti •r.. ..� . ..'•.ti :•.•.. •.ti . y'ti :•:• ::•:• : :• :•:•: :•:• :• : :. •.ti�f .S ...•:�•�•�•�•... TOTAL . , 9 .•,• • 240 000 .. ...... .. . . r. r 10. CERTIFICATION b. Typed Name and Title of Chief Elected Official To the best of m Moses Carey, Jr., Chair L T y knawkdRe and belief, data in this applic dw b true and correct, the applicant has Orange County Board of Commissioners prodded opportunides for citizen putktpation and c. Siputare acesas to information eoncOMIn3 the proposed at:tivitks, the document has been duly aaathorlzed by ft 1110MI n6 body of the applicant and the applicant w 1l comply wrath the attached =reifications H the d. Date aatsktsrtae Is approved. 10/19/90 FOR DCA USE ONLY 11. DATE RECEIVED 13. ACTION TAKEN 14. IM OLWT R1MM a. Car+ nwnity Rrvk Bsabm .r` Funded c. D�lowme 17. APPLICATION NUMBER �w dtdrawn a � Co 1. Housing Development = ` Tad CDBG B6.1 Rev 2/90 RESOLUTION BY ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, in North Carolina the Lead Regional organizations, as voluntary organizations serving municipal and county governments, have established productive working relationships with the cities and counties across the state: and WHEREAS, many counties and cities continue to need assistance, in pursuing economic and community development opportunities, but federal assistance in the form of intergovernmental revenues has been severely curtailed in recent years; and WHEREAS, the 1990 General Assembly recognized this need through the appropriation of $960,300 to help the Lead Regional Organizations assist local governments with grant applications, economic development, community development, and to support local industrial development activities and other activities as deemed appropriate by their local governments; and WHEREAS, these funds are not intended to be used for payment of members' dues or assessments to Lead Regional organization or to supplant funds appropriated by the member governments; and WHEREAS, in the event that a request is not made by a unit of government for release of these funds to our Regional Council, the available funds will revert to the State's General Funds; and WHEREAS, in Region J funds in the amount of $53,350 will be used to carry out the economic development plan approved by the COG Board of Delegates and especially to improve the economy of the counties and towns of the Region by strengthening ties to and consequently benefits of the Research Triangle Park. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners request the release of its $7,130.29 share of these funds to the Triangle J Council of Governments at the earliest possible time in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1066, Senate Bill 1426, section 42 of the 1990 Session Laws. Adopted this 16th day of October, 1990. Moses Carey, Jr., Attest- Beverly A.�glythe, C1 - =S E � L ,� j v ITEMS FtR PQLLCNWUP BOARD MEETING DATE:- ES: J k